Professor Charles Xavier is the fictitious leader of the group of mutants, the X-Men, whose sole purpose is to protect mankind; even those that misjudge and loathe the mutant race for simply being different. Those who are familiar with this popularized Marvel Comics character may initially find it stunning that such a man is considered the leader of one of the most powerful groups of superhuman beings ever assembled. Without any apparent aggrandizement in strength or speed, what mutant power does this Professor possibly possess that would allow all mutants alike to respect this middle-aged individual constrained to a wheelchair? Why, his could be considered one of the greatest of all powers: the power to read and control the minds of both humans and mutants alike.
In today’s day and age, the use of the word mind seems to be generally accepted, representing a supposed place in every individual alike who shows potential signs of thinking, acting, and in general exhibits acts according to their free will. Yet when Professor Charles Xavier is reading the mind of an individual, from what and where exactly is he reading? Our society has come to terms with the idea that the mind seems to be situated in our heads, where another crucial organ resides: the brain. However, what has not been unanimously agreed upon by the majority of individuals is the interplay between this supposed mind and the brain. This “mind,” which the good professor can manipulate seems to connote meanings far more complex then meets the eye. For instance, can we assume that the professor is theoretically controlling the mode of electrical impulses delivered to an individual’s somatosensory complex in the parietal lobes, followed by further impulses to the individual’s primary motor complex in their frontal lobes by manipulating the surrounding electrical and magnetic fields, thus equating a successful formula for controlling the actions of another individual? Or, is he able to work through the more deeply, more metaphysically-rooted concept of his phenomenal psychic powers which are able to pervade an actual yet physically-missing entity known as “the mind.” Of course, the comic book creator, Stan Lee, had no need to go into the mechanism through which the professor exercised his powers; he simply needed to attract the interests of individuals interested in such fantasy worlds for his capitalistic profit! Yet to those who can recognize the complexity in this act, such is a feat truly wondrous but frightening to imagine.
Jumping back into the threads of reality, this concept of the mind-body dualism (the mind being recognized as a separate entity from the body) seems to be one of the most important dichotomies that we human beings have come to formulate. In addition to providing one of the many fuels to the entertainment sector as described above, the concept of the existence of the mind has had obvious consequences, for better or for worse, in dynamically modifying methods of practicing medicine. Therefore, the following paper shall address several key issues concerning the concept of the mind and its eventual existence as an entity separate from the body it supposedly inhabits. For instance, why is such a dualism, apart from its necessity to point out, important in the evolving field of medicine? Secondly, what have been the different types of evidence substantiating both a metaphysical and biological basis for the existence of the mind? Finally, a hypothetical scenario regarding a world withoutt the concept of the mind shall be mused (Due to the hypothetical nature of this specific section of the paper, there is no guarantee that the mentioned scenario would occur exactly as stated. Nonetheless, I find that the ability to leave such scenarios open to the mind of intelligent thought truly a marvelous adaptation with which we human beings have been gifted. I fully encourage you as the reader to take the information provided in the first two sections, and construct your own hypothetical world devoid of the philosophical concept of the mind – only you can be the ultimate judge in determining whether you think the benefits of the mind are worth the intellectual consequences civilization has to endure).
(I) Historical Evidence Showing Roots from Which Concept of Mind May Have Developed
In a collection of medical essays titled Health, Disease, and Illness: Concepts in Medicine compiled by the editors Arthur Caplan, James McCartney, and Dominic Sisti, their objective was to address a great number of medical concepts which appear to have a large number of dilemmas associated with them even in today’s society. In doing so, these editors chronologically organized the historical discussions of the “evolution” of medicine in an approximate chronological order, thereby allowing the reader to garner a sense of appreciation (or disdain) towards its recorded trajectory. Thus, through an analysis of four essays written by distinct historical figures that have strongly impacted the ever evolving views of medicine, we can gather an understanding of when, why, and how such a complex philosophical concept as the mind was incorporated into the field of medicine.
During his lifetime in the city of Pergamum (modern day Bergama, Turkey), the medical practitioner Galen was considered to be one of the most influential individuals who aided in the propagation of medicine in a manner which dominated European medicine for over a thousand years from his lifetime (129 – 200 AD). In his essay “From on the Natural Faculties, II, VIII,” the key facet to focus on for our purposes stems from his primary focus on the physiological disturbances within an individual’s body, and how an imbalance of the infamous “bodily humours” could explain any adverse affliction people at the time may have endured. Specifically, his research at the time led him to the conclusion that the appropriate balance of the typical body’s four humours (yellow bile, black bile, blood, and phlegm) were critically affected by the environment with which we human beings so desperately try to interact (dry, cold, hot, and wet conditions respectively). Disregarding the scientific accuracy concerning the truth of his information, what are most admirable from his essay are two important inferences which seem to be an indication of the general medical train of thought at the time. For one, the use of emphatic statements such as “absolute” and “how could it be otherwise” show the degree of confidence through which he made causal relationships between his observation of physiological conditions being direct indicators of any individual’s total health. Furthermore, through such a large-scale general approach in analyzing physiological symptoms and “treating” accordingly, he didn’t appear to seem interested in looking into the small scale mechanisms that has our current society engrossed.
One can only wonder whether or not the patients of Galen’s time may have been more satisfied with the practice of medicine than today’s disgruntled society, who craves more advancement to optimize their quality of living. One crucial observation, if you may have noticed, is the lack of mentioning the mind as an active element in the health of the individual. While the definite acknowledgement of the mind’s existence is a separate issue, the incorporation of the mind into health science may have been one of the most important concepts in the evolution of medicine: its mode of practice would never again be as definitive as Galen made it out to be (Galen 5-6).
Skipping forward roughly one millennium, the Jewish physician Mainonides appeared to carry forward a positive social appeal for the practice of medicine at the time. An eminent man, Mainonides was documented as being appointed to crucial public figures, including the Vizier Alfadhil and Sultan Saladin, during his time in Egypt. While his titles were most impressive, his contributions to the eventual integration of metaphysical elements into medicine were most excellently revealed in his essay “Diseases of the Soul.” Similar in theory to the need for functional balance noted by Galen, Maimonides appeared to apply these physiologically restricted concepts of balance and correlating symptoms with illness to the metaphysical level, most probably to explain maladies which couldn’t be diagnosed physiologically during his given time period.
Throughout his essay, Maimonides appeared to delineate more medical trends that have lasted through the tests of time and are most readily apparent even in today’s practice of medicine. For example, he explained in great detail the significance of the majority in defining the “good” parameters which people should maintain in order to be considered “healthy.” Furthermore, he explained a rather innovative idea concerning a metaphorical trend line representing a person’s health, and that to shift an individual from physical or emotional extremes of illness, an opposite yet equalizing amount of extreme treatment would allow the individual to once again reach the popularly acclaimed middle ground for balanced health. The significance of using such metaphors to scientifically explain treatments of maladies of an individual’s soul show two striking trends which further became entrenched into the conglomerate of ideas embodying today’s practice of medicine. For one, as mentioned previously, the fact that an entity as metaphysical as the soul had become a fully reasonable area within an individual to treat despite its lack of any physical form seemed to be leveling the playing field of medical thoughts for the ammunition used in the eventual separation of the mind from the body for both philosophical contemplation and medical practice. Furthermore, the trend for utilizing metaphorical concepts to explain seemingly unexplainable medical phenomena based on the mode of scientific explanation being incorporated at the time had, has, and will most likely continue to be the mechanism we human beings will forever use to attribute some sort of explanation to things we potentially do not understand. It would be “unnatural” for beings such as us to go about our daily lives without an explanation for everything (Maimonides 7-10)!
And then it happened. The concept of the mind eventually became fully integrated into the approved theories of medicine, further aggrandized by the division in mental treatment between the professions of psychology, psychiatry, and the remaining specialties focusing on physically viable organs. To repeat myself, it is not my place to judge such a critical division in approach as being right or wrong in affecting the betterment of an individual’s whole health. I do feel, however, that it is important to view the resulting conflicts and debates ongoing even now in order to qualitatively judge if the distinction has been for better or for worse. Prior to diving into written arguments concerning such an issue, it is equally crucial to understand the two platforms on which both sides of the mind-body dualism debate seem to simultaneously rest. One of them, reductionism, is a theory which states that the mechanisms of seemingly complex things can be reduced to more fundamental ideas, thus allowing for the deduction of a more recognizable explanation for several questions concerning how, and maybe why, a given thing operates (“Reductionism”). In contrast, the theory of holism embodies the antithesis of reductionism, as this theory states that the properties of a given system cannot be explained by the sum components alone, as there exists some innate properties within the whole system that are crucial in their proper operation; properties which cannot be reduced into simpler elements (“Holism”). Since the apparent clash of ideals is most readily apparent in these two platforms itself, one could only begin to fathom the complexities concerning how the mind-body dualism is viewed on either side of the fence.
One essay which truly exemplifies reductionism’s platform on this issue was written by Thomas S. Szasz during the 1960s titled “The Myth of Mental Illness.” In short, the purpose of his essay was to comment on the “fundamental error” of viewing mental illness as one which may be treated utilizing conventional types of medicinal arts normally incorporated in the treatment of the remaining organ systems of the body. Specifically, the notion of mental illness may represent the individual’s self defense mechanism from facing the harsh reality they may be trying to accommodate. Furthermore, while Szasz appeared to accept the existence of the social and psychological occurrences which seem to precipitate the resulting symptoms associated with an individual characteristically labeled as mentally ill, he believed that the treatment of such mood-disorders should not fall within the realm of reductionist medicine, but should stick within social and religious fields trying to decipher abstract concepts (i.e. fields toward which the reductionist principles cannot easily be applied, and are hence discredited by the dominant reductionist scientific community) (Szasz 43-50).
The flipside to this argument is well explained in an essay written by George L. Engel in 1977, titled “The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge for Biomedicine.” Engel’s thesis criticizes the inadequate capabilities of the currently upheld reductionist-biomedical model incorporated into the foundations of common medical practice, stating that diseases of the “mind” are medically related phenomena which shouldn’t be excluded from observation because of the mind’s abstract origins. As such, he proposed that the reductionism-rooted model founding the remainder of medical practice itself needs to be changed into a more encompassing Biopsychosocial Model, as such an underlying model to work on would allow for explanations dealing with the social, psychological, and behavioral dimensions of an illness along with the obvious physiological symptoms to be grouped and characterized in a reputable fashion. Such a holistic model would make more comprehensive, and less specialized, the frameworks for research, teaching, and modes of treatment in the real world. Such is the case, as the trend towards more fragmented modes of practicing medicine has left wide gaps for the dispersal of medical knowledge between practitioners of different specialties. Of course, while such a model would potentially end such confusion over the mind-body dualism (and hence leave me with no topic to further expand on!), Engel unfortunately left his readers hanging with only the desire to pursue such an obviously difficult task, due to his lack of providing an example of such a model the society could incorporate into its currently chaotic views on medicine (Engel 51-63). Therefore, with two equally reliable arguments proposed by two platforms with obviously conflicting views, one can only wonder how this issue will ultimately be resolved. In the meantime, however, we can look at some brave contemplative individuals in our current timeframe who view this topic not as a stalemate, but as a window of opportunity to take us one step closer to opening that apparently infinitely spaced door, behind which may explain the many mysteries with which we human beings seem to have come innately equipped!
(II) Metaphysical and Biological Basis for Existence of the Mind
While Szasz and Engel were able to notify their readers of the inherent confusion surrounding the concept of the mind and its problematic application in the field of medicine, they were vague in details concerning the relationship of the mind with the two platforms of reductionism and holism. Two of today’s medical writers, individuals who could be considered two of the most influential in the specific fields of medicine they address, Dr. M. Scott Peck and Dr. V.S. Ramachandran, step into this convoluted scheme of concepts and bravely attempt to explain in understandable ideas the relationship between the mind and the individual from a metaphysical and biological background respectively.
In his novel Denial of the Soul, Dr. Peck does an admirable job in explaining the current debate in another critically important issue which has seemed to pervade our society now more than ever: euthanasia. Without diving into extensive details over this equally confusing topic, the idea of Dr. Peck’s book is initially to inform readers of his stance pertaining to moderately confusing terms such as physical pain, emotional pain, murder, suicide, and natural death. However, after this first part, he seems to make a critical full turn from the moderately tangible issues rooting from mostly biologically causes, and dives directly into abstract concepts of the soul and people’s belief in the existence of God, and how such concepts potentially play critical roles in avoiding any unnecessary ending of one’s own life (i.e. euthanasia). This ending may be due to means of not possessing anymore control over both the variable types of pain that one might be experiencing and over the phenomenally daunting concept of death. To explain this idea to his targeted audience, he describes two critically important abstract concepts which, as we shall see, probably play influential roles in shaping the mind of any individual. The first of such, the ego, is described as the innate need for human beings to be in control of his/her actions, thoughts, and surroundings; as such a control seems to confer upon any individual an apparent level of stability which may be equated with such emotions as happiness and satisfaction of one-self. The flipside of this apparently dominant concept is that of the soul, a concept which Dr. Peck unfortunately doesn’t further expand upon through means of a literary definition, since he believes the concept of the soul to represent a life-force, an entity if you will, that may or may not be rooted in any one individual, thus making the creation of a definition of such a concept for one who wishes to understand it almost an impossibility.
Nonetheless, this lack of a definition doesn’t appear to deter him from undervaluing the critical importance of the soul in any given person’s life-long journey through self-discovery and knowledge, as one of his critical stances against the practice of euthanasia is that such a quick acceptance for a pain-free death, while at times acceptable, ultimately denies any individual one of the greatest moments of a truly spiritual learning experience. Said experience is mediated through that person’s soul’s intervention for acceptance of the given malady after already having gone through the other difficult Kübler-Ross stages of Denial, Anger, Bargaining, and Depression. Therefore, similar to the malleability of the ego, Dr. Peck believes that the soul, while not as apparently visible in terms of its mode of activity, is just as developable as the ego and the act of euthanasia would be denying one’s soul the opportunity to enrich itself by an experience that defines what living life is all about (Peck 132 -189).
Now, after reading this novel, the first question that came to my mind was “Well, if one is going to die anyway, what is the point of undergoing such an integral learning experience, if the individual cannot apply the garnered knowledge for him/herself?” After posing such a question, however, I realized that it may have been my apparently dominant ego still wanting the power to control what happens in my life and how I wanted to use my newly gathered knowledge for my personal benefit that was asking the question. One factor in the purpose for gathering knowledge that I didn’t initially consider was that of the ability to share that knowledge with others. We human beings have the critical ability to disseminate knowledge to others in terms which allow for the ongoing existence of that knowledge for years to come. As such, could it be possible that the abstract soul Dr. Peck described as being developable be more socially rooted in society as opposed to within any individual self? That is, what if the soul were more of a culturally and socially dependent phenomenon which represented the sum total of the entire gradient of successful/failed attempts to achieve the desired amounts of knowledge for molding the living conditions we may find necessary for an optimally stable lifestyle, thereby making both ours and future generations as eventful and meaningful as our predecessors? If such were the case, the possibilities concerning the evolution of the concept of the mind may be more communal as opposed to being a separate presence for each individual.
Specifically, if the entity through which the concepts of ego and the soul are able to express themselves is that which we call the mind, it may indeed be necessary to consider the mind a serious factor in determining the quality of health for a given individual. In fact, apparent deviations from the actions of an overly expressed ego within the mind, while representing problems with the environmental settings surrounding that person (as described by Szasz), could also affect the workings of the tangible biological systems within that individual, since such socially passed on ideals can affect the resulting care and concern one has for his/her bodily form and its constituent parts. Thus, if the mind is viewed from this metaphysical platform as being an entity which coordinates the mode of activity for the publicly driven concepts of the ego and the soul, then its holistic involvement with the overall health of an individual seems to become quite apparent.
Of course, due to the majority of the previous paragraph being rooted in concepts which have no quantifiable form or function, the previously described holistic platform on the concept of the mind may not be taken for face value by the majority of people who have become fully assimilated with today’s dominating reductionist modes of observing any type of phenomena. As such, for those who find greater solace in the realm of tangible evidence to substantiate their doubts, the neurologist Dr. V.S. Ramachandran wrote a book titled Phantoms in the Brain in the year 1998, which documents several unique neurological cases to ultimately explain how various psychologically restricted phenomena could be explained through a biological vantage point. While a wide variety of the described topics are truly worthy of significant discussion, one derived idea in his book, I believe, deserves special attention, as I feel that this is the critical idea which could allow for finding a tangible bridge between the brain and the complexities of the human mind. In the last chapter of his book, “Do Martians See Red?”, Dr. Ramachandran finds the ability for us human beings to actually experience something while undergoing a given action or accomplishing an incredible trait that has ultimately allowed for the lives of various individual’s to actually mean something instead of wandering about performing evolutionary dictated strategies like mindless “zombies” (in the words of Dr. Ramachandran). While Dr. Ramachandran is as perplexed as anyone else why such experiences exist, he states in his book three logical criteria, his self-proclaimed “Three Laws of Qualia,” which allow anyone to determine whether or not any given action seems to be driven by a “conscious” motive, or is simply an immediate reaction programmed through our genetic/social behavior which human beings can perform without associating any unique experience to the action. The three criteria were stated as follows:
- Is the response to the initial stimulus irrevocable?
- Is the responsive action acting on some short-term memory representation from a previous effort?
- Could the output from a given stimulus have been more than one possibility?
The mind, as you may recall from the introduction of this paper, has been characterized as being located somewhere alongside the organ which coordinates homeostatic control for the proper functioning of the body – the brain. Also, the ability for the individual to be “consciously” aware of something is for that essential experience to have been perceived and felt accordingly in the mind of the individual, as the sensations of experience do not appear to be directly represented by the electrical impulses traveling between synapses of neuronal cells. Therefore, it seems that the head has been commonly accepted by society for being the stronghold for the “mind,” as some type of interplay must be occurring between the mechanically functioning brain and the experiencing mind that allows for mechanical stimuli felt and dispersed by our biological constituents to be translated into vivid experiences and abstract concepts such as our emotions, ideas, and the concept of our own identity. In fact, through my constant use of the pronoun I, I have declared to the being identified in this world known as Sri Hari Sundararajan an action that appears to have no blatant significance for this individual’s survival, yet I still hold this notion of my identity, as you most likely do, as a sacred gift bestowed upon me to be recognized as a unique individual rather than just another human being. Once again, I seem to be stuck at a point from which I can only marvel at the existence of an entity I am yet to understand, even though I am quite sure that there appears to be a link with biological phenomena I can one day hope to understand given its tangibility. However, one could hypothesize that this supposed link between the brain and the mind may be considered a locked door for which the key has yet to be found. It would follow then that one day, maybe the key will finally be discovered, and we as human beings would once again have succeeded in unraveling another mind-boggling mystery that would allow the practice of medicine to climb one step higher in its quest to achieve optimal health for all. But the question then arises: would that really be the case? What if one of the founding principles which allows the mind and for experiences to be so appreciated by human beings is its mysterious and baffling existence? Would mankind lose respect for emotions and ideas, as these previously complex phenomena could be chuckled upon and explained by a “scientifically sound” theory based on our understanding of the connection between the brain and this entity of experience? By unlocking the secrets of our existence, what if we were to lose our minds?
(III) A World without Minds
What a truly bizarre world to contemplate! How would I even start to imagine a situation without the mind if the rest of humanity themselves are unsure as to the reason for the existence of the mind and other abstract philosophical concepts? This could be answered by turning to the theories created by a group of individuals who have dismissed any teleological role for such abstract concepts in the upbringing of our humanity: evolutionary biologists. While I’m not criticizing those who believe in the theories and ideas propagated by evolutionary biologists, I am merely agreeing with the fact that the theories proposed by such individuals truly embody a mode of life, for organisms of any kind, devoid of the need for abstract concepts such as the mind, the soul, the ego, their emotions, and even their consciousness. However, instead of utilizing examples of animals and other third party organisms (a trend that evolutionary biologists peculiarly seem to follow for reasons that will become apparent shortly), I shall instead do the unthinkable and use our own species, Homo Sapiens, as examples for showing an evolutionary theory in action. Following this, I will then try to reason why neither a biologically-based nor metaphysically-based mind exists in these human beings, thus hopefully providing to you as the reader some insight on what role the mind does seem to play in any given person.
Altruism, the practice of putting the welfare of others over oneself, can be thought of as being one of the most perplexing behaviors exhibited by our species. The motivations for such a noble art could stem anywhere from one’s beliefs, intuition, or even emotions that we as individuals may feel towards the significant other toward whom we are altruistic. However, because the above driving forces are considered metaphysical by nature, what could be the motivation for such a behavior to have precipitated if the existence of the mind is, in fact, a fallacy (“Altruism”)? The popular theory known as kin selection describes an evolutionary acceptable reason for why the behavior of cooperation even exists, as Natural Selection would seem to indicate that organisms would most probably conflict with one another for attaining optimal environmental niche space. Succinctly worded as Hamilton’s Rule, this rule states that “an altruistic trait can increase in frequency if the benefit (b) received by the donor’s relatives, weighted by their relationship (r) to the donor, exceeds the cost (c) of the trait to the donor’s fitness; mathematically represented as r*b > c” (Futuyama 372). In other words, the only way an altruistic trait could be passed on to future progeny is if the positive aspects of the behavior outweigh the sacrifice that one had to invest in initially carrying out this behavior.
The above theory appears to be beautifully observed in a wide variety of species outside of the human population, as seen in a case documented by Paul Sherman in 1977 concerning alarm calls used by several squirrel populations. Specifically, since female squirrels appear to live more closely among genetically related squirrels as opposed to male squirrels, it seems that the behavior to make an alarm cry to warn the squirrels of an incoming predator, while disadvantageous to the squirrel making the alarm cry, occurs more within female squirrel populations as opposed to male populations. While this predisposition to those more genetically related to another may be a root cause for such cooperative behavior, this theory doesn’t seem to incorporate any ideas concerning the possibility for these squirrels to have minds of their own through which they make mentally the decision for whether or not their altruistic behavior should be appropriately utilized. However, this argument for squirrels having a mind has been immediately dismissed by evolutionary biologists, as we human beings do not have any substantial proof characterizing the mental experience felt by a squirrel viewing an impending predator to take both its and others lives. While I would be inclined to tip my hat in favor to the evolutionary biologists when dealing with species with whom I cannot empathize with, what if I were to utilize this very theory on human beings? Since human beings are also another species that has been acted upon by evolutionary mechanisms, this theory of kin selection should accurately predict the seemingly altruistic behavior of human beings. So, let’s create a thought experiment similar to the squirrel analysis performed by Mr. Sherman, this time with human beings. In this case, if a particular human being witnesses a murderer coming towards himself and his remaining associates, his/her reaction would be a straightforward one if following kin-selection. For example, if the members were people whom the individual knew, one could hypothesize that he/she would indeed have a higher probability to scream a warning as opposed to if the associates were random individuals the individual may or may not have seen before. Of course, ideas such as family over friends, blood is thicker than water, and any other age-old adage concerning the closeness between genetically related individuals could indeed be used to show that kin selection seems to be upheld for any seemingly altruistic behavior.
But does that necessarily mean the above human really lacked a mind? In the previous scenario, it appeared that the only criteria being utilized by the individual to warn his/her fellow associates was his/her association with them. Therefore, to logically determine the presence of a mind or not, let us now apply the above response of the individual based on the murderer stimuli to the Three Laws of Qualia described earlier by Dr. V.S. Ramachandran. The response did seem to be irrevocable, as the alarming cry is an act which couldn’t have been revoked after it has been executed. Next, an alarming cry for warning others is one which most likely had been utilized in previous events when a similar situation may have occurred. The last criteria, however, the consequences of his/her cry for help, did not seem to allow for more than one possibility, as the criteria utilized by the individual in this example was only based on a single factor; relationship. As such, based on these Laws of Qualia, one could state that the resulting decision to cry for help based on his/her relationship with the others would not be a conscious act, yet either a genetically or customary act that had been passed down during the evolution of humans. As such, one could conclude utilizing these three criteria, which themselves were based on neurological backing, that the individual in this example didn’t have the conscious mind to allow a repertoire of actions to be taken to base his/her decision on more than one variable.
While showing that the lack of a mind within this human being through use of logical reasoning suggested that the crier didn’t have the ability to see more than one possible consequence after facing such an issue, this doesn’t imply that a lack of such versatility is “bad,” as it appears that the human beings associated with the screamer would have continued to propagate and continue the human race accordingly regardless of the screamers fate. Let us, however, look at the same scenario through the more abstract philosophical concepts aptly described by Dr. Peck. If the potential screamer in the scenario above did have a mind to contemplate the possible consequences, one could amusingly picture a comical dispute between that person’s soul collectively representing the familial and externally invested knowledge against the rather possessive ego representing the desire for control to maintain his/her optimum satisfaction. Specifically, one could assume the soul to “say” that helping in the preservation of life in others is one of life’s most rewarding experiences, while the ego may value the preservation of the self more than that of others. However, the beautiful part of the mind is that the person, regardless of the possibility of implementing either extreme action, is not inclined to choose either full on, as the ability to think about the scenario in advance and analyze the possible scenarios based on choosing a gradation from either extreme followed by executing the resulting action can be considered one of the greatest benefits in possessing a mind. Therefore, the screamer above could immediately be seen as not possessing a mind from a metaphysical perspective, as an immediate action despite the intensity of the situation should seem rather odd to anyone with a mind. Specifically, one would think that a person recognizing a murderer would first choke up and show some signs of hesitation during which he/she would consciously contemplate over the situation at hand, after which some decision may be made, as more and more decisions could be executed during the trial of previous ones. Thus, the best metaphysical indication of recognizing this individual being devoid of a mind would be to essentially feel that something was not quite right based on the screamer’s directed decision.
(IV) And the Verdict Is…
After discussing, in a rather large volume of text, the various benefits and consequences for possessing a mind, you as the reader would probably venture away from this reading with more questions and fewer answers. And if such is the case, I can safely say that I have done what I intended to do. As I stated in the beginning, the stage for the mind-body dualism eventually being incorporated into the field of medicine most likely began as far back as people themselves began recording their own history. Consequently, trying to decide if such a split was worth the given complexities appeared to be an impossible task, given the cyclical debate concerning the usefulness of characterizing mental phenomena under the field of medicine. However, after viewing a possible biological and metaphysical basis for the existence of the mind, it appeared that although the existence of the mind was a concept too complex for us to comprehend at our current state of understanding, this convoluted entity is necessary for us human beings to experience life as something more than a simple struggle for survival, as was the case in the hypothetical scenario depicting a world operating without any minds.
In conclusion, despite the ongoing problems with the very concept of the mind, I would nonetheless opt to still keep the concept of the mind, as this concept is too special and unique for us to throw away due to our lack of understanding. I write this fully aware that this concept will most likely continue to be a primary causal agent in the enlistment of more spurious and heated debates over the incorporation of considering the mind a viable entity in the practice of medicine. This may be one of the many issues whose successive inability to meet any resolve may be the necessary antidote in finally allowing our society to realize that the mind, while perhaps too complex to fully understand an optimal level of health, may simply be an entity through which we can scale society and its ongoing development, allowing for medicine’s practices to be modified accordingly through maintaining a balance in activity (as opposed to the concept’s immediate dismissal/full acceptance into medical practice). Only time will tell us for certain what the fate of the concept of mind will turn out to be…And even then, it still may or may not be correct…
"Altruism." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 08 Jun 2006
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism>.
Engel, George L, "The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge for Biomedicine." Health,
Disease, and Illness: Concepts in Medicine. Comp. Arthur Caplan, James McCartney, and Dominic Sisti. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004.
Futuyma, Douglas J. Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 2005.
Galen, "From On the Natural Faculties, II, VIII." Health, Disease, and Illness: Concepts in
Medicine. Comp. Arthur Caplan, James McCartney, and Dominic Sisti. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press, 2004.
"Holism." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 08 Jun 2006
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism>.
Maimonides, "Diseases of the Soul." Health, Disease, and Illness: Concepts in Medicine. Comp.
Arthur Caplan, James McCartney, and Dominic Sisti. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004.
Peck, Dr. M. Scott. Denial of the Soul. New York: Random House, Inc., 1997.
Ramachandran, Dr. V.S. Phantoms in the Brain. New York: William Morrow and Company,
Inc., 1998.
"Reductionism." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 08 Jun 2006
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism>.
Szasz, Thomas S, "The Myth of Mental Illness." Health, Disease, and Illness: Concepts in
Medicine. Comp. Arthur Caplan, James McCartney, and Dominic Sisti. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004.