“How can you take or recommend a view or approach that will NEVER have any direct evidence?”

No any problems. That is, for example, well known case – the special and general relativity theories, which are based on the postulate that real Matter’s spacetime is transformed by “reference frames”, masses, etc.

when any direct evidence of such transformations is fundamentally impossible by at least two reasons: (i) – for anybody, who understands what the absolutely fundamental notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time” are and what is concrete [fundamental for Matter] realization “Matter’s” spacetime, which is only some [5]4D Euclidian empty container where Matter exists and constantly evolves, it is evident also that any material object cannot transform this emptiness principally; and (ii) – [though that follows from (i), since any measurement is some interaction, when any interactions of material objects with the emptiness are fundamentally impossible] any transformations of the spacetime principally cannot be observed.

Though that above isn’t some unique case, from the SR/GR directly and unambiguously any number of evidently senseless consequences follow, which, of course, never can be observed since are senseless…

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko

Thanks for your sincere feedback; it helps me explicate my views.

You misunderstand my view. To put it simply: I only posit that there MUST BE some directly observable overt behavior patterns (and environmental aspects) that clearly, in an explainable way (using known principles and processes), are sensibly and reasonably "CONNECTED TO" any phenomenon of interest. To put it another way: all noteworthy phenomena of interest have their origin and grounding (often their inception) IN some directly observable overt behavior patterns that did occur (previously). And also, at least often/usually: the the key aspects of development which come with/from stage shifts (all involving testable hypotheses) continue to be ASPECTS of major behaviors; BUT there is more, and much without the sort of DIRECT evidence, I just described. Representing all this is the phrase in my original Question: "... (OR any direct evidence even clearly related to it) "

In short, I do NOT require that all phenomenon of interest themselves correspond -- in a testable (verifiable) manner -- with a particular directly observable overt behavior patterns; BUT KEY MAJOR shifts, change-in-object(s)-or-'direction', DO require such a clear direct association with exactly that (--> THEY ARE THAT

Brad, I have some familiarity with embodied cognition. Not an expert by any means, though, so I was wondering if you could spell out the assumptions of its ideas? Would love to discuss just want to make sure that we start on the same page : )

Dear Andrew Silletti

I am vehemently opposed to the unique central/new conceptualizations (and the untestable 'hypotheses') of "embodiment" 'theories' (aka enactivism). My position has NOTHING to do with that, other than recognizing such sorts of things in Piaget's Sensori-motor Period (infancy). Things are largely very different after that Period and my theory has nothing to do with extending BY-BASELESS-ANALOGY such sensor-motor happenings (which is precisely what "embodiment" 'theory' does). My theory is a theory of representation and the great developments there, having their inception with "perceptual shifts" (the bases of the starts of new cognitive-developmental stages/levels).

The basic "new" views and approaches of "embodiment" 'theory' neither can or do think about such things NOR do they "allow" things like I hypothesize (though my hypotheses are all clear testable, verifiable hypotheses, also clearly ultimately founded on, or grounded by, some observable overt behavior pattern change(s) -- something 'they' have nothing like); otherwise, from my perspective, seeing change in behavior patterns just through the characteristics (properties and processes) of the Memories, and associative learning (

Researcher the semi-optics is great to explain so do not forget to see the common denominators between Pierce and Sausurre will find the answer. Scientist Eduardo

Scientist see a little of my explanation basics. is already exposed here on the site so we can jump to neuroscience and physics want to talk?

Dear Eduardo Cerqueira

In case you are addressing me: I know close to nothing about modern physics (I understand and know only Newton, but am happy).

I am a behavior scientist in the classic sense, where psychology is a science of behavior [patterns] (major, significant ones initially overt at least to some extent at their main inception, but then overt and covert) _and_ the clear, major environmental aspects involved in a given such significant species-typical (or species-specific) behavioral response.

About Neuroscience: It cannot only be argued that neuroscience is NOT any sort of direct evidence _and_ is NOT much-meaningful evidence bearing on this psychology, but also what you can learn is quite (or very) unclear; still neuroscience may be helpful (helpful hints) given the miserable state (STILL) of PSYCHOLOGY. If good psychology was done, this would diminish the helpfulness for anyone turning to neuroscience for any clues about THE behavior (which is actually in a real way: BIOLOGY of behavior; when behavior is rightly conceptualized: behavior ITSELF is patterned and is biological functioning AND _THAT_ itself can be discovered [even just] using the classical definition (above) (I have 600 pages of writing here on RG to show you and/or others the "way").

First and foremost, I am grateful to the man of science, and so neuropsychology would be an obsolete science, which is not the case, the neuron (brain) responds with signs, which behavioral psychology commonly observes otherwise, we can to mention "Castoriardis social imaginary" and the signs we receive and form, I do not see indissolution in the case of scientific probity, on the contrary I see answers that only with physics (neural electro-frequency) can be answered or tested. When you see a color in fact your brain sees a frequency this can be thought more of neural architecture controlled by the hypothalamus, which is well proven of the existing (nano) electromagnetism of the neuron. sometimes we will have to join sciences to get answers. A unique science (researcher) will not give me the answers I seek. Cordially, Eduardo Cerqueira. Once again grateful for your attention.

Responding to their question with cordiality, the great discoveries were first grounded in the imagination afterwards to the evidence. Cordially Eduardo Cerqueira

Dear Eduardo Cerqueira

[ I will speak in terms of the most truly empirically grounded science -- don't worry about THAT. Behavioral science, turning so much to neuroscience, is more out of desperation BECAUSE OF their poor approaches to studying behavior, than due to necessity, in reality. ]

I do have an extremely well-grounded pure psychology approach (to be reminded of "psychology's" general nature, see my Answer, above). It provides directly testable (verifiable) hypotheses involving at least some directly observable overt behavior as proximate causes AT KEY POINTS (along with pertinent aspects of the environment -- the other proximate causes -- for ALL you need for empirically grounding cognitive psychology !). You do have to read my stuff to learn about it; it is new (new perspective and approach and new hypotheses). Your brain studies are fine and good for something, but I believe more clear results will come from behavioral studies such as I first outline and then justify and then specify in some detail (with rather clear statements of specific hypotheses) in the paper and essays, referred to, below (and I also explain how the approach is better than current ones and how current approaches are incorrect). And, for one thing good: the perspective sees behavioral patterns (all behavior) as BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING, obeying the principles of biology and showing progressive biological patterning.

The fact the we can learn how to get a specific neuron (or even several specific neurons) to fire in response to something simple (and little else firing) does not impress me; significant behavior is associated with MUCH wider brain response, which is not interpretable (even if somewhat distinguishable). You have to see my perspective and approach to see what I see as a better approach: Look for the longest paper and the BOOK under my profile: Brad Jesness (see links below).

I actually am of the view that you must start with some directly observable behavioral foundation, BEFORE you do much imagining (applying ONLY correct assumptions and necessarily applicable biological principles, BEFORE imagining and LOOKING FOR the key OBSERVABLE (replicable) circumstances and applying your hypotheses IN/ABOUT the behavior, and environment). AGAIN, you will have seen nothing like this until you see my works (classic ethogram pager, 160 pages (new again, because hypotheses are NOW -- with new eye-tracking technology, etc --TESTABLE), and see RECENT explications COLLECTED ESSAYS, in a 328 page BOOK (the perspective and hypotheses are new; I am "parroting" no one):

Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...

and

Book NOW the nearly complete collection of essays (RIGHT HERE) _B...

I do not know why the lack of knowledge in physics, grateful for the intellectual praise, especially when dealing with areas that have no problem in overcoming them scientist, opens doors in exact-biological that soon the scientific world will overturn unique standards of technicalism , read my little work I will send more and know that neuroscience as well as psychology and physics can respond many behavioral things beyond the construction of knowledge. I have 40 years of observation duly noted. Honestly what I say scientist is not by the law of chance. With much respect. Eduardo Cerqueira

Dear Eduardo Cerqueira

As it is the case that psychology has most certainly yet to make a proper connection to Biology, I can state with certainty that (at this point) NO "help" from either physics or mathematics is needed and neither are those sorts of help even possible (see first phrase of this sentence).

Put another way: If you have not identified something (here the biology of behavior) AND THAT is/must be the main and central "case", then IT must be established first. Species-specific and species-typical behavior -- important AND central, general behavior (act. all these are behavior patterns) -- ARE all, in every major regard, A MAJOR PART OF a clear sort BIOLOGICAL functioning; and that is what MUST be first specified. You cannot reasonably, much less validly, put it in terms of another science until and unless you DO THAT FIRST (this the case, anyway, UNLESS you want to start Psychology anew -- but THAT is my "job", and yet MY approach is BIOLOGICAL, essential as described). If you wish to start Psychology over, you must do it correctly.

Thanks for your efforts and responses, in any case.

Take my new perspective and approach to psychology, actualize it, verify hypotheses, establish it and THEN you maybe can (EVENTUALLY) look for important applications of physics or math -- not impossible in some long run.

What would you tell me about neural electrogenesis?

Dear Eduardo Cerqueira

If what you are attempting to do is insist on ME answering your last Response (Answer?), then I will heartily say: it does not matter one bit to me, AND never will. To understand this (my) response in a most-important context (and, thus, to help make it meaningful as you try to imagine): think of behavioral patterning and behavior pattern change in cognitive-developmental terms (with a notable "unfolding"/emergence of some new KEY, CENTRAL aspects during ontogeny). Now, let me define the science of Psychology (as it was defined in the beginning and as it is still defined by the best behavioral scientists now).

I use the classic definition of Psychology : (1) and (2), which follow:

It is the study of (1) behavior patterns -- in modern times reasonably understood ONLY as BOTH overt and covert (at least, any time after infancy), but the latter (the covert) is always notably and importantly founded at first in OVERT behavior patterns AT KEY POINTS in ontogeny, somehow elicited (and with some behavioral aspects significantly changed) in this inception of any qualitatively new and important behavioral patterning. And, that new behavioral patterning, is in the context of existing behavior patterns AND A VERY PART OF SOME behavior patterning IS the new "behavior", the 'new' is now literally IN some part of (is some part of) the some existing behavior patterns, in this inception of new major patterns (this IS _THE_ new and significant behavioral patterning; and, again, we are talking about a key and pivotal portion being directly observable). THAT and (2) the same-time-current aspects of the environment to which the behavior patterns are a response. One must, of course, -- for both (1) and (2) -- consider the huge amount of contextualization/understanding brought forward into the situation by our Memories -- the various types, working together, the final net-product to be affected by this and the other behavior patterning, i.e. ALL that's going on, IN/AS the contents of working memory. [ By the way: NONE OF cognitive-developmental ontogeny MAKES ANY SENSE WITHOUT POSITING THE EMERGENCE OF, AND GUIDANCE OF/from, INNATE ACTION PATTERNS (specifically, I believe, perceptual shifts suffice) at the "same time" as, _AND ACTUALLY_ _IN_ /part of, THE NEW BEHAVIOR PATTERNING ITSELF AT THE INCEPTION OF QUALITATIVELY NEW TYPE OF BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES; without this, there simply is no way to reasonably define qualitatively different levels (stages) of cognitive processing (NONE), new and emerging; without innate guidance (some in EACH qualitatively different stage of child development), there simply is NO FOUNDATION to the qualitative shifts -- seen as necessary by the vast majority of developmentalists and key as important foundations to Psychology by them, and by all other psychologists with any sense. ]

In short, reasonably contextualized (and, by that, defined) sets of at-some-time-all-current behavior patterns AND corresponding environmental aspects (i.e. (1)and (2)) ARE BY-THEMSELVES (at least in sufficiently longitudinal studies) sufficient for the content of a whole, separate (and fully sufficient-onto-itself) NATURAL science (in major ways, clearly aspects of biology, i.e. being a subset of biology: behavior patterns (aka "behaviors") ARE biological functioning, as all MUST admit) . THIS is a natural science that can continuously be refined and continuously progress (as happens with all good, real science -- and this, and replicability of circumstances and behavioral change and of sequences of results, IS PROOF OF GOOD, NATURAL SCIENCE).

When stage shifts are NOT going on, all is by associative learning.

I would like to make clear first that I did not want to be brash or insistent, Classical Psychology is a helper in the behavioral understanding, but it is not unique answer to the general theory of systems in the theory of the organizations of the human being. If I seemed insistent I'm sorry I only believe in the strength of several sciences together for an explanation of certain phenomena. It is my apologies if I have been inelegant or insistent. Cordially and with respect. Eduardo T. V. Cerqueira.

Dear Eduardo Cerqueira

You will never be qualified (given your apparent background, or actually: lack thereof) to tell ME what the definition of Classical Psychology IS, NOR to DECLARE IT only as something that can be (or is) a mere "helper". Those are just assertions (poorly defined and poorly stated, with no argument) (see an example of an argument in my last response). I could hardly care less what a basically regular average-in-this-area person thinks or imagines. You're not telling me anything. In fact, you are not saying anything fully or clearly enough for an argument or even for a decent statement of opinion (you are not even cogent, except for some dogmatic people, who you may immediately "please" with your mere 'opinion'), and I cannot entertain your declarations/pronouncements of the way it is.

Several sciences together are not needed for a science. Would you hold this position for any other natural science? (Such "broad-mindedness" is just ignorance, foolishness, and/or irrationality. I do not care what it takes to make you happy with what YOU imagine to be behavioral science. )

Although you pretend to wish not to upset me or insult me, you do. Find somebody else who knows their field and tell them what your 'opinion' is (spread your irritation around, if you must).

YOU DO have to establish yourself as versed in a field (through some extended study or discipline) to provide cogent or respectable answers. Please credibly provide your pertinent background now, if possible (something I regard as beyond very unlikely something you could do). Electro-whatever ... and your obviously unconventional "trumped-up" conceptualizations, I've now seen elsewhere (in other threads), just support my total skepticism of you and your opinions here (and there); do you even have a discipline?

Brad, thank for your explanation: "I know close to nothing about modern physics (I understand and know only Newton, but am happy)." It is like in psychology, if one was to understand only Skinner's and be happy about it. I would try to catch up.

Dear Pete Boltuc

No one has been able to SHOW that physics is relevant to psychology, or to much Biology, in general. Just because 2 things exist and are real does not mean they are sensibly relatable (with our 'seeing' and thinking). Even Kuhn recognized that connecting 2 apparently separate sciences requires (minimally) a "bridge"; you seem to have no appreciation for that .

I shall never learn any more physics. I know I do not need it.

All who have tried to connect physics to human behavior have seemed silly, irrational, or insane.

It's just one more question, Master Brad, maybe your rationality will help me: What would be the role of neuropsychologists with knowledge in the field of physics investigating neural architecture and its different electromagnetic frequencies (bridge: biology- neuroscience-psychology- electromagnetism-neural electrogenesis), in neural structures related to the psychology of cognition and human behavior, where the electromagnetic neural frequency could answer some questions of cognitive psychology or behavior. Were they insane, or without limitations, as to the appropriation of science?

Dear Eduardo Cerqueira

I do NOT think that the hodgepodge of combined specialties ("bridge: biology- neuroscience-psychology- electromagnetism-neural electrogenesis") will add anything noteworthy to Psychology knowledge (and very little to their own sub-fields). Multi-disciplinary stuff is not very prevalent in good science ("things" either become a clear part of the particular science itself OR they are very much by-and-large not part of the science). Seeking for studies to be more "multi-disciplinary" is largely obfuscation and misdirection and a cover-up by those "scientists" who simply cannot do the job. The idea of things that "can only be understood culturally" is another common "red herring". The unit of study and the point of all discrimination/integration and understanding is the individual human (all real Psychology units are OF this Subject -- of the individual -- and nothing beyond the level of the person is a real or legitimate "unit of analysis".). [ While one may certainly have a cultural understanding in a sense (and it is good for something), this has nothing to do with Psychology per se, which always seeks understanding of what is common ACROSS INDIVIDUALS -- species-typical aspects of individuals (each and all individuals -- of a certain age or stage/level of development (ontogeny)). ]

From this point of view, I would not know how any evolution in the study and research of the human being as a whole would be, if a computer scientist (computer-mathematics) linked to biology (multidisciplinary project) unravels the genetic code itself, which under look of great scientists is one of the discoveries, (or the greatest discovery) in the contemporary scientific field. Because of the micro-narrow regionalist look of the super-precision of a specialty (or intellectual limitation of the exchange of ideas), we may have been eating grass on this terrain (DNA), like the ideology of specialization. It has been helping Psychology in different aspects through information and behavioral characteristics, through behavioral studies and hereditary factors (Theories of heredity spread in fields of Psychology), included in this same (genetic) code. > Suggestion: You could take a look at this subject, adding a less partisan and broader look at science as a whole. No more questions. Best Regards Eduardo.

Dear Eduardo Cerqueira

One cannot speak of "behavioral studies and heredity factors" and in any major way see a separation between the two. Otherwise, one is just misinterpreting "hereditary factors" and thus no real knowledge is coming to be applied in any major or true way with respect to behavior [(by the way: "behavior" actually always being: behavior patterns -- something that should always be expressly clear and the problem that it is NOT is much related to what else I say here)]. The nature/nurture outlook conflicts are certainly at least very largely nonsense; if that nonsense is not overcome, by recognizing a new, likely, constructive, and more-empirical view (i.e. the perspective and approach I put forth) that correctly sees nurture and innately-guided "factors" (these too actually being distinct BEHAVIORAL ASPECTS) _AND_ sees BOTH those factors actually operating (in reality or in real effect) SIMULTANEOUSLY, then the nonsense of the nature/nurture debate will continue to overwhelm any useful interpretation of hereditary factors.

An approach that violates the P vs. NP problem for all Applied Quantum Mechanics that you can conceive of, as we have proved and experimentally tested in Mallick, Hamburger & Mallick (2016, 2017, 2018)), this is a mathematical proof using Physics String Matching Field Theory developed by us may we say. It also substantiates our D.Phil. degrees.

Soumitra K. Mallick(CA), Somak Raychaudhury, Sandipan Mallick

of RHMHM School,

USA, Japan, India