Stumble ThisPhysicist, monk, psychologist, and neuroscientist B. Alan Wallace explains why the first real revolution in the mind sciences hasn't occurred yet.
B. Alan Wallace, Ph.D. has been a scholar and practitioner of Buddhism since 1970. He is currently seeking ways to integrate Buddhist contemplative practices and Western science to advance the study of the mind. He is the founder and president of the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies ( http://sbinstitute.com ).
B. Alan Wallace, Ph.D. has been a scholar and practitioner of Buddhism since 1970. He is currently seeking ways to integrate Buddhist contemplative practices and Western science to advance the study of the mind. He is the founder and president of the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies ( http://sbinstitute.com ).
He talks a lot about one of my peeves in the way psychological research/study operates. That being a strict adherence to behavioral observation as the only means of scientific observation into the realm of psychology. I often feel psychologist get so wrapped up in trying to prove they're a legitimate science they forget how deeply rooted it is in philosophy. That doesn't mean the scientific method has no place in psychology, it's an extremely important part of it, without which there would be no psychology, just a bunch of clerics. But at the same time, as Dr. Wallace mentioned, they ignore the very tool they use to create their theories and setup and run their experiments, thought.
I'll pick on the behaviorists because I think they are the most flagrant abusers. In "strict" behaviorism thought is merely an illusion, all behavior boils down to genetics and experience/learning (some will only say experience). Everything you say and do is because somewhere you learned that's the best way to react in that situation. For predicting human behavior this means if you can know a person's experiences, you can take any situation/stimulus and predict their reaction perfectly. Great sound theory, but the problem comes in that you can't know. Any time behaviorists fail to predict a reaction its not because their theory is wrong, it's because they've not found the proper stimulus to elicit the desired response. In essence its impossible to process behaviorism wrong, and I feel this is a major violation of the same scientific process they wear like a suit of armor. Dr. Wallace used the word dogmatic, a few times and I'm inclined to agree whole heartedly. The only way I can think of that could be used to disprove strict behaviorism would require (ironically) omnipotence. Now don't get me wrong, I think behaviorism is a very valuable area of psychology, and has produced some extremely important enlightening information towards the essence of being human, but I do dislike the almost religious fanaticism a large portion of psychologists seem to devote to it.
EDIT: Also, great sift, hopefully enough people over look the hour plus play time to sift it. Though I've only been a member for a short time, stuff like this seems to be what the sift is for. Pulling diamonds from among the dregs of other video sites.
I was left wanting more background after listening to Wallace, so I looked for sources to fill in the gaps in my understanding. This talk by John Searle helped a great deal:
http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Searle-Beyond-dualism
His categorization of the qualities of consciousness rings true, and having listened to him I'll definitely look for some of his writing.
About the thesis of the talk, there really does seem to be a convergence happening in the mind sciences right now. It's an incredibly exciting field to follow.
Here's a Salon article on Wallace, called "Buddha on the brain".
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/11/27/wallace/
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/banaji_greenwald08/banaji_greenwald08_index.html
There are so many new tools that can be used to explore the mind, and (as an outsider) I see empirical methods as widening the field immensely, not stifling progress as some have argued.