4

Throughout the centuries, the most powerful intellects have attempted to comprehend the mysteries of their own functioning. Long ago Socrates, leading his disciples through the colonnades of Athens, propounded eternal questions which have been repeated throughout history in endless variety: What is life? What is soul? What is mind? The essence of man evolves from the existence of mental functions which permit him to think and remember, to love and hate, to believe in myths and in science, to create and destroy civilizations. It is remarkable that after hundreds of years of philosophical inquiry, and despite the impressive intellectual advances of our present era, the concept of the mind remains elusive, controversial, and impossible to confine within linguistic limits. It is also surprising that in spite of the importance of the mind for individual survival and for the preservation of civilization, our generation is mainly interested in atoms, cells, and stars, and directs so little effort toward the exploration of the inner space of the psyche.

Before entering into a discussion of mental activities, it is important to clarify the meaning of certain words. Investigators often choose to avoid a definition of terms, utilizing operational descriptions instead. This procedure may be reasonable in some experimental work, but at other times it is inadequate because a particular function—for example, emotion—may be explored by different methods which lead to a diversity of operational definitions of the same term. The same holds true for metaphysical

23

24 PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE MIND

physical concepts, and the scientist cannot completely ignore them.

In spite of the difficulty involved, it is convenient to distinguish among the brain, mind, psyche, spirit, and soul, if only to avoid ambiguities. Unless each term is defined, the reader's conception may differ from the writer's. Classifications and definitions are only human agreements which try to capture the essence of a person, place, or event by describing several of its elements. They are like sketches, which may omit or distort details. Naturally, if there is no agreement on the subject under discussion, the meaning of related words and sketches will be useless. Definitions should be considered as working tools to guide us on confusing ideological battlefields. For example, the conventional distinction between static and dynamic processes used in this book may be understood as an artifact reflecting both our mental inability to capture the continuous flow of multiple events and our need to concentrate our attention on a selected moment. This procedure should not introduce excessive intellectual distortion provided we realize its existence and limitations. Theories, experimental tools, and descriptive language are all very different, depending on whether we are dealing with chemistry, action potentials, social relations, or ghosts. When the entity under consideration is very complex, as the mind is, it is necessary to employ different methods to analyze the various properties, and it may be difficult to integrate results obtained in a variety of ways which reveal diverse aspects of truth.

Few definitions are satisfactory; the multiplicity and variety of those describing the mind are evidence of the complexity of this subject as well as the lack of agreement among acknowledged experts. Dictionaries list words as they are popularly conceived, but current usage sometimes lacks scientific accuracy. Specialists employ terminology which often has a doctrinal bias. Conservative authors agree that the mind is indefinable at present and offer "raw material," "essays," "views," and "thoughts" leading toward a possible definition. This confusion has a venerable

WHAT IS THE MIND? 25

history. The concept of mind in the Western world was introduced into philosophy by Anaxagoras in the fifth century b.c. He called it nous, a substance which was infinite, self-ruled, mixed with nothing, forming part of all living things, being the source of motion, and having similar properties in animals and humans. The nous was considered an impersonal intellect regulating the movements of the cosmos. Aristotle and Plato noted that Anaxagoras himself found little use for this concept which was later elaborated by other philosophers. In De anima, Aristotle considered the mind different from and superior to the soul, saying, "We have no evidence as yet about the mind or the power to think; it seems to be a widely different kind of soul, differentiating what is eternal from what is perishable; it alone is capable of existence in isolation from all other psychical powers." Aristotle proposed that the fetus was endowed first with a vegetative soul which was exchanged later for a sensitive soul and finally replaced before birth, by God's donation, by a rational soul, which implied to Aristotle that he must once have possessed the other elemental functions, namely, the sensitive and the vegetative, which were both shared by animals.

Aristotelian thought has permeated most Occidental philosophical systems until modern times, and the classification of man's functions as vegetative, sensitive, and rational is still useful. In present popular usage, soul and mind are not clearly differentiated and some people, more or less consciously, still feel that the soul, and perhaps the mind, may enter or leave the body as independent entities. Several attempts to define the mind follow:

1. "... an organized group of events in neural tissue occurring immediately in response to antecedent intrapsychic or extrapsychic events which it perceives, classifies, transforms, and coordinates prior to initiating action whose consequences are foreseeable to the extent of available information. The aspect of a biological organism that is not organic in nature ... (in man it is experienced as emotions, imagination, or will)" (283).

26 PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE MIND

2. The mind has been identified with "the faculty of memory," "thought," "purpose or intention," "the seat of consciousness, thoughts, volitions and feelings," "desire or wish," "the incorporeal subject of the psychical faculties," "the soul as distinct from the will and emotions" (169).

3. "The organized totality of psychical structures and processes, conscious, unconscious, and endopsychic" (67).

4. "The sum total of those activities of an organism, by means of which it responds as an integrated, dynamic system to external forces (usually) in some relation to its own past and future. The organized totality of conscious experience" (235).

5. ". . . restricted to 'conscious mind' in all its general operation field of perceiving, feeling, thinking, remembering, and willing. As such, mental phenomena are facts of experience . . ." (71).

6. "A highly developed neurological apparatus with which an animal interprets his inner and outer environmental stimuli. Attaining consciousness, mind initiates and carries through action or the delayed type of action called thought" (181).

7. "The group of events connected with the given event by memory-chains, backwards and forwards." "A mind and a piece of matter are, each of them, a group of events." "Some events may be neither mental nor material, and other events may be both" (193).

8. "Mind is thus synonymous with consciousness." "Consciousness can thus be defined as an orderly manifold of sensations and percepts. In an abbreviated enumeration, we may distinguish optic, tactile (in the wider sense), acoustic, olfactory, and gustatory percepts. In addition there are internal memory images, abstractions and thoughts, emotions and vague feelings" (134).

Despite variations in wording and in meaning, most concepts of the mind share several qualities which may be summarized and interpreted as follows:

1. The definitions express what the mind does, but not what it is or when or how it is formed.

2. Mental functions are described as active processes, not as passive objects.

WHAT IS THE MIND? 27

3. The principal functions of the mind are interpretation, storage, and retrieval of both inner and outer stimuli through processes of thinking, remembering, feeling, willing, and other phenomena which are not well identified.

In order to be more precise in our consideration of these phenomena, we may ask (1) if there is any mental function unrelated to inner or outer stimuli, (2) if there is any way the mind can manifest itself other than in behavior, and (3) if the mind could exist without a functioning brain. If these three questions have negative answers, then we may conclude that the mind is necessarily linked to stimuli, to behavior, and to the brain. In my opinion, without stimuli (or without the brain), the mind cannot exist; without behavior, the mind cannot be recognized. Because of its essential dependence on sensory inputs, both at birth and throughout adult life, the mind may be defined as the intracerebral elaboration of extracerebral information. The problem is then focused on the origins, reception, dynamics, storage, retrieval, and consequences of this information. The basis of the mind is cultural, not individual.

The term "psyche" constitutes the etymological root for the disciplines of psychology, psychiatry, and psychosomatic medicine. The words "mind" and "psyche" are usually considered interchangeable, and will be used here as such. But before we proceed with an analysis of the concept of the mind or psyche, we should clarify the metaphysical meanings that are often ascribed to these terms.

The personal beliefs of scientists concerning the ultimate destiny of man are not usually related to their investigations. The study of carbohydrate metabolism, microwaves, or celestial bodies may not influence personal conceptions of immortality, free will, or God. Scientists are generally reluctant to combine experimental work with philosophy and usually reject consideration of possible theological implications of their studies

28 PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE MIND

even more vigorously. The domains of philosophy and science were clearly delimited by Bertrand Russell (192) who wrote: "Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge, belongs to theology."

The possibility of a relationship between man and supernatural life is traditionally implied in the ordinary use of the words "soul," "anima," and "spirit." The Oxford Dictionary defines "soul" as "the principle of life; the principle of thought; the seat of emotions, feelings and sentiments"; and "the spiritual part of man considered in its moral aspect in relation to God"

(169).

The first three descriptions, especially the third, could easily be attributed to the mind—which shows how confusing terminology is. In my opinion, it is preferable to consider the mind as a functional entity devoid of metaphysical or religious implications per se and related only to the existence of a brain and to the reception of sensory inputs. The words "soul" or "anima" will be used when reference is made to man's relationship with supernatural forces, life after death, or the existence of God.

The term "spirit" is sometimes equated with "soul," and it is disconcerting to realize that it is commonly applied to a wide range of disparate objects from an alcoholic beverage to a disembodied soul, as well as including the third person of the Christian Trinity. Another complication is that "Holy Ghost" is Saint Spirit in French and Espiritu Santo in Spanish, rendering the words "ghost" and "spirit" synonymous. Because the meanings of "spirit" are so varied, it seems wiser to use this term infrequently.

The soul is a metaphysical concept; it is incorporeal, immortal, and has possibilities for salvation or damnation. Acceptance

WHAT IS THE MIND? 29

or rejection of the existence of the soul depends on religious conviction, on faith, and on theological considerations which cannot be proved or disproved by present experimental methods. Science has conquered the mind as a subject of experimental investigation, but the soul remains outside the realm of scientific inquiry. The scientist may regard the soul as a myth created by psychological needs; he may consider the soul as a religious interpretation of the mind, carrying responsibility for a future life; or he may accept its existence as a religious truth. In any case, the soul exists in the human mind as a concept which should not be ignored. While the intellectual polemic over its existence and the definition of its qualities and manifestations belong to theologians and philosophers, the emotional and rational elements leading to acceptance or rejection of the concept of the soul are manifestations of the mind. As such they are dependent on cerebral physiology and thus become part of the scientist's domain subject to experimental research. Here we find a good example of philosophical and religious questions which may face neurophysiologists in the future.

Thoughts and beliefs are necessarily dependent on neurophysiological activity of the brain. We cannot believe in eternal life or in any of the religious concepts if we do not have a functioning brain, if all cerebral excitability has been blocked by anesthesia, or if the thinking process has been inhibited by electrical stimulation of the septal area of the brain. Under these conditions, beliefs and desires disappear, but this fact cannot be interpreted operationally by saying that religious faith is a function of the septum or of any other part of the brain. A natural question would be whether or not the soul could be modified by experimentation, because thoughts, remorse, responsibility, vices, and virtues are revealed precisely through behavior, and behavior is determined by cerebral activity. Perhaps it is too soon to pursue these questions, but it is necessary for scientists to clarify the terms in which such problems are stated. Theologians, also, certainly need to redefine what they have settled upon as the characteristics or manifestations of the

30 PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE MIND

soul because, for example, the properties of the anima as stated by Catholic doctrine, namely memory, understanding, and will, are now known to be activities subject to experimental investigation and related to the chemistry of ribonucleic acids, electrical activity of the hippocampus, and anatomical integrity of the frontal lobes.

The dilemma of the soul is this: If we accept mental activities as manifestations of the soul, then the modifications of these functions by physical means, such as electrical stimulation of the brain, would signify the manipulation of the soul by electricity —which is illogical because the soul is incorporeal by definition. If, on the other hand, we deprive the soul of all mental functions which can be demonstrated to be dependent on brain physiology, then the soul is reduced to an abstraction, not only incorporeal, but also with a minor symbolic relation to reality.

The alternative would be to consider the mind and the soul as different aspects of the same reality, in much the same way as corpuscular and undulatory theories of light are complementary interpretations of reality with relatively independent sets of properties. This is a solution based neither on logic nor on experimental theory; it is a speculation which may serve as a working hypothesis to be proved or disproved.

In this book the soul, or anima, will be considered a theological concept beyond the limits of our discussions, while the mind will be understood as an entity, devoid of theological implications, which can be investigated experimentally regardless of positive or negative religious bias.

In contrast with the difficulties and controversial issues encountered in the attempt to characterize soul and mind, definition of the brain is relatively easy. The brain, or cerebrum, is a material entity located inside the skull which may be inspected, touched, weighed, and measured. It is composed of chemicals, enzymes, and humors which may be analyzed. Its

WHAT IS THE MIND? 31

structure is characterized by neurons, pathways, and synapses which may be examined directly when they are properly magnified.

To function, the brain must be alive, meaning that the neurons are consuming oxygen, exchanging chemicals through their limiting surfaces, and maintaining states of electrical polarization interrupted by brief periods of depolarization; but even when it is dead—meaning that chemical and electrical phenomena are absent—the brain can still be recognized, preserved in formaline, and dissected for examination of its anatomical structures. The brain is essentially a chemical and physical entity with many complex functions related to genetic and environmental influences. It functions as a part of the body, but it can survive independently for a limited period when appropriate circulation is provided.

Some of the brain's functions are recognized as mental activities, but other of its chemical, thermal, and electrical phenomena subserve physiological needs unrelated to the mind. One quality of the brain is that it may be considered in static and material terms, at least with respect to morphological, cytological, and chemical characteristics which are self-contained. In contrast, the mind is a functional entity which cannot be preserved in formaline or analyzed under the microscope. It is not autonomous but depends on the cerebral reception of a temporal sequence of phenomena and a continuous exchange of information with the environment in order to function properly, as will be discussed later. The term "mind" is an abbreviation for the ill-defined group of mental activities. The existence of mind depends on the existence of a functioning brain, and without brain there is no mind. The contrary, however, is not true, and in the absence of mental manifestations, for example during deep anesthesia, several brain functions, such as maintainance of respiration, may still continue at physiological levels. The common usage of the terms "brain" and "mind" as equivalent may be acceptable provided we are aware of the points of contact and divergence of their respective meanings.

32 PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE MIND

The dynamic concept of the mind as a group of functions rather than as an object introduces a linguistic and grammatical dilemma which has been recognized by several authors (195). In languages with European roots, nouns are generally used to designate things which have a passive character (book, chair, table). Actions, movements, and dynamic processes are usually expressed by verbs (reading, running, eating). The fact that mind is considered as a noun and that its functions are expressed by verbs (thinking, willing, feeling), indicates a conceptual dichotomy which distorts general understanding. The mind should not be identified with other nouns like brain or heart: functions depend on, but should not be classified as, organs.

The mind or psyche, however, has been regarded as an organ comparable to other organs or systems such as the liver or kidney. A psychiatric dictionary (110) states that "there is the organ called the psyche, which, like other organs, possesses its own form and function, its embryology, growth, and microscopic anatomy, physiology, and pathology. . . . The mind, like all other organs of the body, has its own local functions, and also those functions that are intimately associated with adjacent and distant organs. It is like the cardiovascular system in that it reaches all parts of the body." While most laymen as well as psychologists and philosophers would reject the concept that the mind is an organ, it is convenient to analyze the controversy briefly in order to clarify the ideas involved.

Organs such as the heart, the stomach, or the brain are tangible objects with a shape, structure, and chemical composition which can be identified even after the death of the host organism, when all normal functions have ceased. Mental functions do not form part of brain anatomy; they are related to cerebral physiology. The mind cannot be inspected visually; only its dynamic expression as behavioral performance is observable. The functions of organs such as the heart are genetically

WHAT IS THE MIND? 33

determined. They are ready to start at the moment of birth, do not depend on environmental stimuli, and do not require learning. Mental activities have exactly contrary characteristics, and the development of their functional substratum within the brain depends essentially on extragenetic factors. This will be discussed later.

In biology, the physiology of structures cannot be completely ascertained from examination of the anatomy. For example, the circulation of the blood should be differentiated from the supporting organs such as the heart, arteries, and other parts of the cardiovascular system because blood pressure, flow, and circulation are dynamic concepts related to spatial and temporal changes in the blood as it moves through the vessels. The blood itself can be analyzed in order to discover its chemical and morphological properties, and this information will facilitate the understanding of its possible functions. It will not, however, explain the dynamics of circulation, which depends on the summation of systolic volume, heart rate, arterial elasticity, vasomotility, blood volume, blood viscosity, and many other factors, none of which are synonymous with circulation. In like manner, the mind should not be considered identical with its supporting organ, the brain. Information about the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of neurons will facilitate the understanding of mental manifestations because these activities depend upon cerebral functions. This information, however, will not fully explain mental dynamics because the mind is related not only to the structure of neurons but also to their spatial-temporal relations and to important extracerebral factors.

On previous pages, the mind has been referred to as a single entity, and it is very common in layman's language as well as in philosophical and scientific discussions to find that the mind is considered as a unit. In reality, however, mental activities such as talking, understanding, or problem solving not only have

34 PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE MIND

different sensory inputs and behavioral manifestations but depend on different cerebral structures and mechanisms. Even within a particular mental function there may be considerable anatomical and physiological specificity, as demonstrated by disturbances in speech recognition which may affect the written or the spoken word exclusively.

One of the main difficulties in attempts to define the mind is that we try to supply a common denominator for all mental manifestations, insisting upon similarities among entities which are basically unlike. Cats, monkeys, and men are homogeneous as mammals but heterogeneous as species, and many of the morphological and functional characteristics present in one group cannot be attributed to the others. Man, for example, does not enjoy catching and eating mice, nor are monkeys able to play chess. Unfortunately, some discussions about the mind concern elements as dissimilar as cats, monkeys, and men. It is only natural that agreement will be difficult if authors think that they are referring to the same subject—the mind—when one is considering free will, another consciousness, and still another creative writing. When consulting the literature we should not assume that different phenomena are equivalent merely because authors use the same words to identify them. We should remember that mental functions include a variety of heterogeneous phenomena.

One additional problem involves the dynamic quality of the mind. The heart can be taken out of an organism and stopped in order to study its valves, the thickness of its walls, or the shape of its cells, but we cannot remove the brain to study the mind because it vanishes; we cannot preserve intelligence in formalin. The dynamic and temporal elements of mental activity are crucial and reflect the elusive and everchanging qualities of the phenomenon.

The mind is so complex and heterogeneous that it is difficult to answer the classical questions, "What is the mind?" and "Where is the mind?" In my opinion, these questions are incorrectly stated. Present knowledge requires us to approach the

WHAT IS THE MIND? 35

problems in a new way and to rephrase them if we wish to progress in understanding. We should seek neither general nor total answers, but information about specific problems or fractions of problems. Today we are in an intellectual and technical position to ask, for example, which parts of the brain do—or do not—play a role in memory, problem solving, or visual recognition. Experiments may be designed and performed to investigate these subjects.

In my discussion of the physical exploration of the mind, I propose to examine the problem not in general, but in some detail, asking questions and presenting experimental data about modifications of pleasure, sensations, behavioral responses, and other manifestations of mental activities obtained by direct manipulation of the brain.