Bertrand Russell was frequently abused as a child by his parents and elders with the titling piece of snark to this blog entry. While not a particular Russell fan (though he was a spectacularly clear writer) I find myself of late returning to the above snottily dismissive piece of dogmatic anti-intelligence with singluar antipathy towards those who ennuciate it of late. You see, questions of mind and matter have been weighing heavily on my these last few months.

  • I have a front row seat to my father's delamination due to dementia, possibly early onset alzheimers.
  • His sister, my aunt, is evidently racing to catch up with him.
  • Which additionally suggests that I have a genetic predisposition to join them on the merry-go-round.

What is mind? Or, if you prefer, what is "the mind?" Watching it slowly disintegrate in the man who made it possible for me to achieve my earned Ph.D is not disturbing, it is enraging. How many synonyms for "powerless" do you know? (Do not imagine sharing them all with me here an now is a good idea.)

Again I ask, what is "the mind"? But now I ask, how is the previous question different from, say, Groucho Marx's classic, "are you still beating your wife?" The latter is a paradigm example of the fallacy of the Complex Question (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html); why don't we recognize the former as such as well?

Why, in particular, do we ask that question as though "the mind" were a noun, a substance, a "thing"? Why don't we frame the question in terms of behavior and process?

The Behaviorists (in psychology) who noted the above issue, responded to it tradtionally by pulling out the biggest honkin' pieces of artillery they could lay their hands on so that they could proudly blow both of the own feet off with a single shot. "Mind is not a 'thing,' therefore there is no mind!"

Uh-huh; who knew stupid came in such vivid colors?

Verbs, actions, processes are arguably MORE real than nouns, substances, "things."

What is "mind"? "It" is the forms and modalities of MINDING. It is not a "thing" supervening upon "matter," but a functional structure of materiality in action and process. Insofar, it is more real than the brute passivity it exploits to manifest the possibilities of its expression.

My father still readily knows who I am. On the other hand (at 81 and after over 16 years of retirement) he became deeply concerned that he should be at work at 3:00 PM this afternoon while I was visiting.

And yes, I do mind.

Old NID
56363

Donate

Please donate so science experts can write for the public.

At Science 2.0, scientists are the journalists, with no political bias or editorial control. We can't do it alone so please make a difference.

Donate with PayPal button 
We are a nonprofit science journalism group operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that's educated over 300 million people.

You can help with a tax-deductible donation today and 100 percent of your gift will go toward our programs, no salaries or offices.

Latest reads

Article teaser image
Donald Trump does not have the power to rescind either constitutional amendments or federal laws by mere executive order, no matter how strongly he might wish otherwise. No president of the United…
Article teaser image
The Biden administration recently issued a new report showing causal links between alcohol and cancer, and it's about time. The link has been long-known, but alcohol carcinogenic properties have been…
Article teaser image
In British Iron Age society, land was inherited through the female line and husbands moved to live with the wife’s community. Strong women like Margaret Thatcher resulted.That was inferred due to DNA…