Reply to comment

I agree that Descartes’ interpretation of the mind and brain as two separate entities does lend itself to more interpretations. However, I question towards what end this conclusion may lead. More specifically, if Descartes’ theory is the most commonly held idea or summary of observations, what new observations or implications can one expect that will either support or weaken this idea? Is it possible to create a solid base of observations when the central concern is one as abstract as the idea of an intangible mind?

In other words, how does the establishment of a “physical (brain) and abstract (behavior) portion” help us to better understand the psyche? Is it that professionals in various non-science disciplines (i.e. philosophy, English, fine and applied arts) may be more inclined to discuss this concept, thus making it more open to interpretation and intelligible (to use your word)? Furthermore, to what extent do these interpretations affect personal summaries of observation, and how does this progress towards better understanding?

Conversely, Dickinson’s idea, in conjunction with neurobiological information, may lead to a narrower, but more thorough exploration and understanding of the relationship between mind and brain. If we accept neurons and neurotransmitters as the basic mechanisms responsible for brain function, can we use these well-supported observations as building blocks to eventually comprehend the mind-brain relationship? Whether or not this route will contribute any evidence to the larger question is unclear, but it at least provides one avenue of methodical reasoning in which to explore the issue. In addition, this biological approach of mind and body as one unit seems to better fit the “conservative scientific claim” mold you discuss at the end of your response.

The answer to the question in your subject line, “Is better science just better understood science?”, may be best responded to based on what “understanding” entails for an individual. If an artist feels that he or she understands the mind through a conceptual and spiritual interpretation better than a scientific and concrete rationalization based on personal experience and observations, it is perhaps more appropriate for him or her to accept the artistic interpretation over one that did not match their personal set of observations.