When is it (right for)/that philosophy gives way to psychology and vice-versa?

[sidetrack]

An example that I can think of is how “Cognito ergo sum/I think therefore I am” and the solipistic lengths it can go to can (sorta ‘~’ ?) “take a hike” ever since modern neurosci has really amped up how the brain can be observed.Ask what consciousness is,the origins of language and (if you dare want to go their) the neurological basis for free will and psychology is a bit fuzzier,with philosophy unhesitating to be having a “stronger grip”.When it comes to logic though?,psych takes into account the cognitive factors that come to making a descion but philosophy is heavily responsible for the developmental roots of many forms of logic.

When is it that you recognize that it’s time to let one gives way to the other and the overlapping is no more?.

If meltzerboy could reply to this that would be very cool and appreciated

 

[4love2God]

I read your Post 3 times, but I do not know where you are going with it (or, what it means).
Could you explain what you are wanting to know?

 

[Ambien89]

Consciousness, free will and language are all immaterial things. To relate these concepts to observable phenomena would require some kind of a philosophy. Philosophy is outright prior to psychology or any science that simply involves the collection of data.

 

[sidetrack]

I read your Post 3 times, but I do not know where you are going with it (or, what it means).
Could you explain what you are wanting to know?

Ignoring the not too neccesary examples I gave earlier,what I would like to know is…

When is it that you can recognize that it’s time to philosophy one gives way to psychology and if their is no more overlapping continuing between them?.

 

[Rhubarb]

As science advances in any given discipline, the philosophers of said discipline change their questions.

Philosophers at one time struggled with what matter is. Now we have a good idea. So philosophers now ask what implications arise from that knowledge. Or if we can even rightly say we possess that knowledge. The philosophy of mind has changed a lot since psychology and neuroscience has taken off. But there will always be another question to ask about what we know and why.

 

[Ambien89]

As science advances in any given discipline, the philosophers of said discipline change their questions.

Philosophers at one time struggled with what matter is. Now we have a good idea. So philosophers now ask what implications arise from that knowledge. Or if we can even rightly say we possess that knowledge. The philosophy of mind has changed a lot since psychology and neuroscience has taken off. But there will always be another question to ask about what we know and why.

On the contrary, there is no clear idea of what matter is. Descartes had a clear idea of matter: it was simply extension. Newton did away with Cartesian matter in his physics and modern physics certainly has not given any ‘clear’ ideas. Newton envisioned physical Epicurean atoms which contained no parts and were formed into masses that could be mathematically described. A modern physicist is liable to tell you that matter is simply whatever it is that may be described mathematically.

Even atheists like Bertrand Russell and Noam Chomsky have been neutral monists simply because the concept of matter is very unclear.

 

[Rhubarb]

Well. We have SOME good ideas about what matter is. Regardless, what matter is wasn’t the thrust of what I was saying. The theories of matter change because science and philosophy work together to test ideas and implications of said theories.

 

[Ambien89]

‘What is matter?’ is the big question of physics. Since Newton, a concept called gravity has been introduced into the work of explaining matter. Now, this leads to a new question, ‘What is gravity?’

In any case, all of this is entirely a ‘matter’ of the conceptual-mathematical model. As far as reality in general and the metaphysical questions of ‘mind’ or ‘free will’ are concerned, there are entirely different accounts of things out there. For the mathematical models regarding ‘physical stuff’ have nothing to do with these concepts.

As far as empirical observations are concerned, those are just bare phenomena. Observations become facts when entered into a theoretical model. Facts come from theories and not the other way around as common people often think.