Dr. Philip Cushman: Psychology on the Edge

[@gabriellem2805]

Fantastic.

[@jhoigaar]

You all seem to be ignorant of the fact that the "S" of STEM includes the Physical, Natural, AND Social Sciences. This is per the National Science Foundation. One can go a long way to appreciate the human condition by use of Social Psychology, Anthropology, Linguistics, etc. which are all Social Sciences that are supposed to be part of STEM. What do you think???

[@billd6069]

I'm fascinated by Depth Psychology, and avidly read popular accounts of Jungian concepts. However, I do not see why science and psychology have to balkanized. Why can't they both function? Can they work as separate spheres of knowledge?

[@dondriggers1850]

Phil, it is fascinating to se se you 50 years later. DonD

[@coasje]

I believe it’s essential to tie neurological and psychiatric pharmacology, biology, psychology chemistry as well as physics together in order for us to have a better understanding of how the fact that we evolved to reproduce and eat affected the matter that constitutes consciousness itself in a way that makes our observations of our physical environment different from what we predict is happening through physics. In a way, I guess you could say in order for a consciousness to observe and fully understand from a scientific and unbiased point of view another consciousness. Helping us understand weird questions such as what is time and how can taking drugs, alternating atoms in the brain can modify a sense of wholeness in a way to make it feel like time goes by twice as slow and what does that mean for that consciousness. Can they actually live twice as long from their point of view? And how does the change we created interfere with our ability to interact with the outside world in a way that we can perform twice as many changes to the universe and are there differences in schrödinger’s problem from the subject’s point of view and ours? And if so did we create a time traveller? Or someone that can play with dimensions and physics better than we can understand them? I feel like there are whole fields of science unexplored because we keep every sphere of knowledge as its own protected sphere and not working forwards towards the common goal of understanding the world we live in. It gets real whacky but understanding how little we understand is what keeps science interesting

[@coasje]

I’m also drunk

[@coasje]

Why do we consider physical awards like a particular golden trophy to be the same value as a particular social reward? Social interactions affect the way we feel and are more than an object, yet if the object is something only a few people can get their hands on then the same object affects the being more than if it were on a shelf at Walmart’s? That abstract scenario can affect the being and the way we see the world around us, so what is the world around us if something not physical has the same “currency” in one’s consciousness as an object. Can we quantify feelings and thoughts in that way?

[@pleasedontdestroythiseither]

45