Dr. Stephen Hicks

and one of the things that said they're both trying to do is to say well finally we can start to study the mind scientifically we can have a science of the mind but what they were reacting against was still in the 1800s was the idea that the mind somehow didn't fit into nature it was an extra natural thing it was a ghost in the machine and the the fitting of the ghost in the machine we don't have a theory that that works this out

And both of them were, of course, reflecting on Darwin and Darwin's more robustly naturalistic understanding of the human being, that we're going to see the mind not as a ghost that's in the wet wear or in the biological wear, but as a some sort of emergent phenomenon or a byproduct.

And both of them were, of course, reflecting on Darwin and Darwin's more robustly naturalistic understanding of the human being, that we're going to see the mind not as a ghost that's in the wet wear or in the biological wear, but as a some sort of emergent phenomenon or a byproduct.

And both of them were, of course, reflecting on Darwin and Darwin's more robustly naturalistic understanding of the human being, that we're going to see the mind not as a ghost that's in the wet wear or in the biological wear, but as a some sort of emergent phenomenon or a byproduct.

But it's only when we stop thinking about the human being as a ghost plus a machine, to use that metaphor, or a spirit plus a body as two different things, as much more of a naturalist integrative, then we start to think that we can do psychology scientifically. Now, the Freudians and the behaviorists, I think they were both disasters in various ways. And useful.

But it's only when we stop thinking about the human being as a ghost plus a machine, to use that metaphor, or a spirit plus a body as two different things, as much more of a naturalist integrative, then we start to think that we can do psychology scientifically. Now, the Freudians and the behaviorists, I think they were both disasters in various ways. And useful.

But it's only when we stop thinking about the human being as a ghost plus a machine, to use that metaphor, or a spirit plus a body as two different things, as much more of a naturalist integrative, then we start to think that we can do psychology scientifically. Now, the Freudians and the behaviorists, I think they were both disasters in various ways. And useful.

They were genius, but this is, again, the early steps of science. But what they are starting to do, though, is say, we're not going to study the human being. We are going to study the human being as part of the natural world. But notice that this is now into the 1900s, and psychology is a very new science.

They were genius, but this is, again, the early steps of science. But what they are starting to do, though, is say, we're not going to study the human being. We are going to study the human being as part of the natural world. But notice that this is now into the 1900s, and psychology is a very new science.

They were genius, but this is, again, the early steps of science. But what they are starting to do, though, is say, we're not going to study the human being. We are going to study the human being as part of the natural world. But notice that this is now into the 1900s, and psychology is a very new science.

And this is already 300 years after modern philosophy had been taken over, in a sense, by the epistemologists and had worked their way into a very skeptical form. So my hope is, if we're talking about where the future has to go, psychology has been online for a century now, a little more than a century now. extraordinarily complex stuff, as we all know, but we're making progress there.

And this is already 300 years after modern philosophy had been taken over, in a sense, by the epistemologists and had worked their way into a very skeptical form. So my hope is, if we're talking about where the future has to go, psychology has been online for a century now, a little more than a century now. extraordinarily complex stuff, as we all know, but we're making progress there.

And this is already 300 years after modern philosophy had been taken over, in a sense, by the epistemologists and had worked their way into a very skeptical form. So my hope is, if we're talking about where the future has to go, psychology has been online for a century now, a little more than a century now. extraordinarily complex stuff, as we all know, but we're making progress there.

But I think it's still early days, and what the psychologists work out has to be integrated with newer and better epistemology. It has to be an epistemology that integrates the best from the empiricist tradition, the best from the rationalist tradition, and so on. So, that's my summary story of how we ended up where we are, and why I'm not a thoroughgoing skeptic on any of these issues.

But I think it's still early days, and what the psychologists work out has to be integrated with newer and better epistemology. It has to be an epistemology that integrates the best from the empiricist tradition, the best from the rationalist tradition, and so on. So, that's my summary story of how we ended up where we are, and why I'm not a thoroughgoing skeptic on any of these issues.

But I think it's still early days, and what the psychologists work out has to be integrated with newer and better epistemology. It has to be an epistemology that integrates the best from the empiricist tradition, the best from the rationalist tradition, and so on. So, that's my summary story of how we ended up where we are, and why I'm not a thoroughgoing skeptic on any of these issues.

I see it as an ongoing scientific project.

I see it as an ongoing scientific project.

I see it as an ongoing scientific project.

Let me just interrupt. Are you talking about my experience of that or your experience of it? Because I came in with a pre-intention in that case. And yours was a different passive surprise response. Let's get to that. Exactly.