What is the mind? Don't study brain cells to understand it

International Journal on World Peace, June, 2008 by Tom Kando

It would be preposterous for me to say that the mind should not be studied, or that it should not be studied systematically. This article says precisely the opposite: In my opinion, few phenomena are more interesting and deserve more scrutiny than the human mind. I would be the last person on earth to wish to shut down Psychology. But my point is that at this time, most researchers of the mind use the wrong methods. The proper and rigorous methods must be phenomenological, as explained by by Edmund Husserl and Alfred Schutz. among others.

A FALSE SOLUTION: THE MIND DOES NOT EXIST

Another solution proposed by positivists is that the mind "does not exist." To quote Achenbach again, "we just imagine it," adding that "the human brain is a ... complex machine, but it doesn't ... have a driver" (a mind). He quotes the philosopher Daniel Dennett, author of Consciousness Explained and a spokesman for the view that "the notion of a "central executive" in the brain is an illusion." Extrapolating from this, Achenbach then quotes other philosophers who claim "that the self is illusory, ... that you are not really there."

All these erroneous statements are, again, the result of these people's positivistic biases. Consider their words: We are told that "the mind" and "the self" "do not exist," that they are "illusions," "we just imagine them." By this logic, mind, consciousness and self refer to the same category ofobjects as Santa Claus, Mickey Mouse and pink unicorns. True, these objects do not exist. But the same logic would also compel us to put mind, self and consciousness in the same category of concepts as patriotism, capitalism and racism. Do these concepts also refer to "illusions?" Do they only exist in our imagination, like Santa Claus?

Before answering this question, a brief note about the relationship between a concept and its referent: The extent to which a concept resembles--or is even identical to--its referent varies. For example, the word "water" refers to a transparent, liquid substance, but there is nothing liquid or transparent about the word "water." On the other hand, we sometimes use a picture of a skull as a sign of something deadly, such as poison or dangerous electric wiring. Here, the symbol/sign begins to resemble its referent.

But for us the issue is not the extent to which a concept and its referent resemble each other, but whether or not a concept's referent exists. For example, the referent of the word "water" exists. That of the word "unicorn" does not.

What, then, is the difference between Santa Claus and patriotism? Santa Claus owes his existence to children's belief in him. He is, indeed, a product of our imagination. The empirical referent of the idea "Santa Claus"--a fat, bearded old man who lives in the North Pole--does not exist. But this cannot be said of patriotism. The empirical referents of the concept of patriotism do exist. They include attitudes, beliefs, emotions and behavior, and they have major social, political and military consequences.