Psychology is an academic and applied field that studies what goes on in the mind. The mind does a lot more stuff than this narrow field of study. My mind helped me have breakfast this morning but psychology did not.
…and you might want to be careful not to ask either. 
Is the question: Is mind more than the brain?
No, and the brain is a biological (especially a neurological) part.
Yes.
with love,
sanjay
Zinnat, Jr Wells is asking whether it is the question; he is not asking whether mind is more than the brain; he is just asking whether it is the question (whether mind is more than the brain) - not more. And the question in this thread is my question whether you agree that mind is more than psychology:
My question is not: Is mind more than the brain? The brain is a part of the a biology:
So my question is also not: Is mind more than biology?
My question is merely: Is mind more than psychology?
And (b.t.w.) you and I have already answered with YES.
Then the answer is still yes.
Hertofore we have only “yes”-answers. … I like that.
it is through psychology and it’s psychological processes that mind is discovered, and not through the various definitions of mind, that psychology is discovered.
Psychology is a study of the mind just like geology is a study of earth and how it changes. You could ask: is the earth more than geology? The answer is yes… as geology is a very narrow field that has specific concerns.
Jr, sure, in a sequential latency of time succession of events yes. However, this sequence is analyzed pro an inductive method, the mind of here and now, is analyzed through this developed mind, not through as originally posited. This is the difference of the analysis ‘in terms of’. so we are really both: right and wrong.
Agreed. A meaningless question on its own.
In that case, i misunderstood him and sorry for that too.
with love,
sanjay
Yes, the answer is still the same; yes.
with love,
sanjay
Jr and Orb,
I do not think that both questions are the same, or at least not perceived the same.
Most of the modern philosophers/intellectuals consider mind not as a real entity, but only a hypothetical one. They say that it is only the brain, which has actual existence. It is capable of manifesting thoughts and emotions, thus creates and maintains a particular set of congestion of such ideas that remains roughly the same all the time. This is what they all mind, and psychology is the behavior caused by it.
In the words of Serle, Brain causes minds.
But, i am not saying this. I am taking mind as an real entity, and only thoughts/psychology as a hypothetical one. To me, it is not the brain that produces thoughts, but the mind. The job of the brain is only to convey those thoughts to the body to act upon. Brain is nothing but a mediator between the mind and the body. It is merely a messenger, not an originator.
with love,
sanjay
Zinnat, The difference between mind as an ‘entity’ and it’s function qua psychological process is, by logical extension minimal, if any. The brain, is an entity, inasmuch it is a physiological mass. The same thing can not be said of the mind. The mind consists of the brain’s functions, which are manifested by the psychological processes, without which the difference could not be made in the first place. Seeing a duality between brain and mind, brings in the epistemological duality, which has been denied by materialists. So, the question only resolves within an axiomatic of establishing an inductive proof, versus one of defining what implicates the definition. That’s all there is. it can go either way depending on either versions.
No. Just the reverse is true.
You can know something about psychology because - and only because - of your mind, spirit, or ghost (or however you want to call it in English), but never because of your psyche, soul, or even psychology.
Obe (Orb), you should say to Zinnat that you are an Occidental (thus: Faustian) materialist. But being a materialist doesen’t automatically mean being right, being intelligent, being wise, being a God, … but does probably mean being a Godwannabe.
Arminius: definitions do not mean anything, including the various isms, except by virtue of their application. I think the spirit may originally posited as some entity, and even psychology can be shown to be something apart from a material , it, intelligence does not necessarily dictate, it’s consistency, except perhaps some measure of it. In this way, mind can be defined as the psychology which further down the line postscripted it, before that, mind could be arguably consist of an all inclusive brain. The soul in the machine, is the prior idea of a predefenitional duality, only to be ascribed to variously differing definitions. neither material or immaterial way of approaching it is right, or wrong, so the argument rests on both :a definitive difference, or, an approximated analogy.
It leans heavily on philosophy of mind, whereby You Yourself explicate various meanings, like soul, etc.
Another way of putting it is this: The concept of ‘mind’ preceeded the study of psychology. Psychology could be seen as inclusive within mind, but only since the time psychology became what it is now, the study of the functions of the brain. originally philosophy it’s self included what we call science today, therefore the same can be said of philosophy containing all the other studies dealing with mind. but, we can only see this retrospectively , wherein lies the catch. differentiations of functions determine how we define and prioritize function. Mind denoted no such psychology, that could be said to be prioritized, since such would be based on a presupposition not existing at that time. if so it becomes a revers , after the fact hypothetical, begging a sequential time dependent argument, which could not be pre-supposed. but this not deter from arguing this way, to show an inclusivity of psychology within mind, as a presupposition. Nothing wrong with this type of thinking, but it becomes a conditional pre-supposition
The fact that my vote is in the minority position should not deter me, as was Yours a minority position within the question of whether machines will eliminate all human beings. my vote was then, within the majority opinion,the argument here, being, is that a minority or majority opinion has no bearing on the truth or falsity obased on a search for probable outcome.