The false
dichotomy of the mind and brain:
Romeo: Peace, Peace, Mercutio, peace!
Thou talk’st of nothing.
Mercutio: True, I talk of dreams,
Which are
the children of an idle brain,
Begot of
nothing but vain fantasy.
Lines 95 – 99, Act 1, Scene 4, Romeo and Juliet.
Many of us who are philosophically minded have met ardent
dogmatists. Although they are entertaining, due to the spittle dripping from their
chins, their insight into the human condition is limited by its very nature. As
philosophers, it is our role to think a little deeper than most, to aim that
beautiful light of truth into the murky depths of ignorance and be prudent
about the claims we can make. In all honesty, I see a true philosopher as
someone who considers and analyses, deduces and induces, reverses and inverts,
asks questions and argues, not from ego, but due to that ache that resides in
us to discover and uncover. Thus, my brethren, I can only reiterate that we
should be prudent about claiming what
we can know.
Firstly, we should start with defining our terms – Ellese
Elliott, my intellectual sparring partner, assures me that this methodology is
the most respected academic method. Who would I be, as humble as I am, to
flaunt what the academics hold in such a sacred regard? I will use a common dictionary to
define the key terms. The mind is defined as:
“(in a human or other
conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks,
feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind.”
I believe this definition, is, however, too narrow to define
the word “mind”. After all, there
is that unoriginal Hollywood homage to mental illness in the shape of the film A Beautiful Mind. What is being referred
to in this film title is the protagonist’s intellectual capacity; thus, the
word “mind” is clearly utilised in different contexts. Do you think it is any
coincidence that we use the word “mind” as a noun and a verb? If you live in
London, you know to “mind the gap” – this is because of the word’s etymology,
which I will expound upon later.
Thus, when juxtaposing the prior definitions with the
definition of “brain”, we will come to the sticking place. The word brain is defined as:
“Anatomy, Zoology .
the part of the central nervous system enclosed in the cranium of humans and
other vertebrates, consisting of a soft, convoluted mass of grey and white
matter and serving to control and coordinate the mental and physical actions.”
However, when we dig a little deeper, we find another
definition – the word “brain” is a direct synonym of mind! Here’s the
definition: “the brain as the centre of
thought, understanding, etc.; mind; intellect.”
The mind can only ever be part of the brain, after all the
word’s etymology is from the Old English gemynd,
meaning memory. And what is memory, if not part of the brain? The “mind” is
a mere word, outdated in its use, a construct, a mere fiction with a
fantastical history. There is no credible proof that it exists: none,
whatsoever. Any atheist, who attests there is a mind, is contradicting their
arguments on a lack of a deity. No
true empiricist (a philosopher who believes that knowledge is mainly gained
through experience) will ever make such a lowly assertion that the mind exists
outside or independent of the body.
Philosophy, a noble tool of thought, critical to critical
thinking skills, is in danger of becoming regarded by scientists as a dead
subject. When notable and intelligent philosophers contradict what can be
proven to be true, we sully the name of philosophy. When we jump down the
rabbit hole of the supernatural, we may as well gift our scientific critics
goldfish in a barrel to shoot at.
Science and philosophy shouldn’t be antagonists but natural
bedfellows: Dawkins and Singer epitomise this. The fact that science was born
from philosophy, and now has returned to its mother with the gift of knowledge,
is beautiful. We should celebrate the fact the prodigal son has returned, with
such noble presents to boot.
We know now, due to advancements in
the field of biology that a thought is a physical process. A neuron (also known
as a neurone or nerve cell) is an excitable cell in the nervous system that
processes and transmits information by electrochemical signalling – that is
what a thought is. Now, my friends, should we disregard this information? No! We should embrace it. This
definition, although narrow, doesn’t capture the poetic beauty of imagination,
but it does convey that a thought is a distinct physical process; one which is
observable.
There is, of course, much more to thought than the biology
of it. Nevertheless, such an earthy materialistic, purely biological view of
the mind isn’t cold; it doesn’t lack romance. In fact, I would say that that
those who look forward with truth in their hearts are the most genuine in their
outlook regarding humanity, as well as its place in the vast cosmos in which we
reside. This is far more preferable than looking back to the 17th
century with rose tinted intellectual glasses.
I know what I’m saying is controversial, even abhorrent to
some philosophers. Please understand me, as I must clarify my position. I’m not
saying ancient philosophy has no value; that would be foolish. However, where
ancient philosophy contradicts modern science, should we really stand idly by
and argue the inarguable? Although it is a good mental exercise to do so and it
is important to have such debates, can we really invoke the fallacy exposed by
Russell’s teapot* in good conscience?
I started with a quote, thus I shall end with a quote from
the great Christopher Hitchens, which illustrates the facile pomposity of
ignoring empiricism, albeit ironically:
“My own view is that
this planet is used as a penal colony, lunatic asylum and dumping ground by a
superior civilization, to get rid of the undesirable and unfit. I can't prove
it, but you can't disprove it either.”
By Samuel Mack-Poole
* If Bertrand Russell claimed that a teapot was orbiting
Jupiter, and we had no scientific way of proving that there was no such teapot,
it would be ludicrous to believe that it existed! What he is saying is that the
burden of proof in philosophy lies with the person making the claims, and not
on the other person to disprove it - Ed.
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Mind & Body' Issue 35
