Since the origin of mankind, man has been fascinated by the nature
of his own being. He has pondered upon the mysteries of his emotions, of
this thought processes and has done deeper still as he puzzled over the
existence of his mind and the fate of his soul after his body had wasted
away. Generally, though, man made the assumption that his mind did indeed
exist because he found this to be a convenient explanation for phenomena
which he could not otherwise explain. The modern science of psychology
has risen from these modest foundations and has grown at a tremendous rate
during the preceding centuries. One major distinction between the science
of psychology and the beliefs of the ancients is simply this: psychology
does not assume the existence of mind as do the ancient beliefs. many amazing
discoveries have resulted from study in this field and, if we can infer
from partial evidence, we may be on the verge of one of the most amazing;
more and more evidence is pointing toward the concept that "mind" does
not actually exist.
Little is known of the beliefs of primitive men concerning this subject,
because they left few records of their ideas. In general, their beliefs
were basic and simple; when a man died, he left his earthbound body and
traversed the gap between earth and heaven to live with the gods. Religion,
of course, developed along these lines all over the world until it was
accepted by virtually everyone. The first views beyond this came from the
Greek philosophers. They believed that the mind was the organ which dealt
with thought. Plato wrote that the mind and body were entirely separate;
the mind handled thinking, and all other actions including sensations belonged
to the body. Aristotle modified this view somewhat, placing more emphasis
on the body and promoting the ideas that it was controlled by psychic powers.
Despite these seemingly advanced ideas, anatomical knowledge at that time
was grossly inadequate. It was current believe that man's "soul" resided
in his heart during his stay on earth and that the brain, virtually ignored
for ages, was merely a system of tubes designed to cool the blood by dispersing
heat in much the same way as the radiator of a car.
The advent of Christianity caused a new flourish in metaphysical thought
and caused many old ideas to be revived. The idea of a creation follows
almost inseparably from the idea of a god. Many of the religions which
were prevalent in the first few centuries A.D. taught the doctrine of creation
by a god. It was generally assumed, especially in the Islamic and Christian
religions, that a god had worked out all the details of creation
before it was executed; that he had preplanned all the mysteries of man
and the universe before man ever set foot on the earth.
Nevertheless, specific knowledge on this subject was scarce and most
of the common beliefs were no more than unfounded suppositions with little
or no logic behind them. The first great attempt to reconcile religion
with the rapidly advancing field of scientific logic was made by Rene Descartes
in the early seventeenth century. Descartes sought to reconcile a belief
in science and a belief in God. He sought to prove truths about mind by
logical reasoning. With his famous statement, "I think, therefore I am,"
he implied that mind is not merely a supposition, rather that its existence
is an observable fact. In addition, Descartes modified Plato's separation
of mind and body by stating that all of man's animating processes should
be attributed to the mind.
Descartes' attempts to retain belief in a god amid the raging torrents
of scientific fact is typical of the attempts of many men then as well
as now. This is logical; man has found it difficult to break with a belief
in god because he does not with to abandon the comforting thought of a
life after death for the bleak and fatalistic views of the mechanist, who
denies the existence of anything after death.
If we are to be logical about this matter, however, we must approach
it systematically. Coherence is the paragon standard of verification, so
it shall be the method we use to attack the problem of the existence of
mind. Coherence is defined as a systematic, consistent system of facts,
and considers truth to be that which is most coherent under prevailing
circumstances. This is indeed what we will attempt to set up in the answers
to our questions.
Contrary to the entirely suppositional nature of religion, only one
postulate shall be made in our brief discourse with psychology. This postulate
seems quite logical, however, and has been used by men ever since Descartes'
time; it is that the essence of mind, if it exists, is contained in the
brain. In this way, we can deal with the mind by dealing with the actions
of the brain.
Mechanism dictates that mind does not exist and that thought is merely
a series of chemical processes. One of the strongest objections to this
viewpoint arises from human behavior. "If thought is a chemical reaction,"
argues the vitalist, "why do people think and react differently under identical
circumstances?" In reply to this, let us abandon the mind momentarily and
scrutinize the body. As you know, the body is "programmed" before birth
to respond to the environment it will encounter upon being born. This is
essential for survival. When food enters the stomach, the body must digest
it in order to make use of it, so it secretes acids and enzymes to break
up the food into particles small enough to be absorbed into the blood.
If any poisons enter the blood, they are removed by the kidneys and consequently
excreted. If a cut appears on the skin, the blood automatically clots the
wound to prevent the child from bleeding to death, and the tissues around
the would instantly begins the process of repairing the lost skin in order
to prohibit further injury. A newborn child's body is a remarkable system,
prepared to cope with every facet of his environment.
Now let us consider a second type of being, as entirely removed from
the first as anything can be. It is not pre-programmed before birth to
cope with its world, rather it has the overwhelming task of organizing
all of the body functions into a workable system shortly after birth in
order to survive. It must develop a means of digesting food, it
must create a method of distributing this food to all parts of the
body and of ridding its body of poisons. It must produce a means
of repairing an injury to the body. It is obvious that this unfortunate
creature has a momentous job to accomplish in such a short time. It should
also be evident that the chances of any two of these beings creating identical
methods of response would be virtually nil.
The analogy should be clear; man's brain is not pre-programmed before
birth, but rather it is of the second nature. It must organize all its
functions in a short time in order to cope with its world. To ease this
task, we are born with several instincts which enable us to survive until
we can cope with the environment on our own. Examples of these instincts
include breathing, heart action and especially the nursing instinct. These
instincts maintain the body until the mind can develop. Most of these instincts
gradually subside, leaving the brain to fend for itself. In much the same
way as the being had to develop a means of digesting food, the brain must
develop a way to react to and process information which is received from
the senses. The more efficient this method is, the more intelligent the
child is. In order to use this information, it must create a method of
distributing the information when it is required. This takes in memory,
processing of information (reasoning), and thought. It must also be able
to cope with emotional and psychological damages in much the same way as
the body must cope with physical damage. Also, since the brain must develop
all these methods by itself, the chances of any two brains reacting exactly
alike under the same circumstances are extremely minute.
Despite the variations in all developed brains, certain similarities
can be drawn. When a person is faced with an emotional conflict, such as
the threat of being fired from his job, an anxiety state is caused. This
state remains until he has resolved the conflict, or the threat is removed.
Physical symptoms of an anxiety state are tenseness, loss of appetite,
insomnia and fatigue. If the conflict is not resolved, the state may worsen
into hypochondria. The hypochondriac seeks to resolve the conflict by avoiding
it. This is accomplished unconsciously by becoming ill whenever a renewed
conflict seems imminent. If the conflict is severe enough, a depression
state results. The victim is plagued by feelings of discouragement and
inferiority. Depression is a surrender to fear rather than an escape from
it.
The preceding examples illustrate the brain's response to emotional
injury. It is clear that the mind's defense to emotional injury is much
the same as the body's defense against physical injury. Just as the reactions
of the body in response to situations follow definite patterns with virtually
no deviation, the brain reacts to situations in a definite pattern that
is almost as unalterable. As was stated before, these responses vary between
individuals depending upon the way their brain has programmed itself to
respond. The further we delve into psychology, the more examples we find
which tend to explain the actions of the brain as systematic, unalterable
steps varying only because the brain must develop the pattern independently.
In light of these new discoveries it seems that mechanism, as fantastic
as its concept may appear, is indeed the systematic, consistent system
of facts which we have searched for. If it therefore logical to conclude
that mechanism is true; mind does not exist, rather it is a "state of mind."
