>>13992178>>13991823>>13991729>>13991733>>13991754Sorry for the "mass" reply (only like 3 people, I think), but the conversation is all over the place.
To me, this kind of argument is the best example of how a fundamental difference in physiology leads to widely different needs in terms of the method and tools used to develop the same kind of science.
People sensitive to the procession of ideas in the mind can come to the correct conclusions concerning psychological phenomena without having to look outside for the solution, except as an occasional second-hand testament. Thus their science focuses on developing the language and conceptual structure most useful for expressing what they can already intuitively grasp, and making arguments and proofs using these concepts.
Those who lack this sense invent all sorts of extremely complex physical tools to adapt and simplify the aforementioned problems to make them palatable to their blunt sensibilities, and develop neuroscience as a result.
When they clash, the former group simply looks down on the latter for flagrantly parading their deficiencies, while the latter thinks the former's lack of familiarity with their tools implies ipso facto ignorance of the subject. In my view, the problem that originates from physiology can only be solved by physiology. We must develop neuroscience to the point where we can augment ourselves and consistently produce minds sensitive and intelligent enough to understand and advance the old psychology.
