Article contents
“The Status of Brain in the Concept of Mind”1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2009
Extract
It is with no feigned modesty that I acknowledge, as a limited and superficial student of philosophy, the honour you have done me by your invitation to deliver the Manson Lecture. But if the honour is undeserved, it is by fortuitous circumstance the more appreciated. Dr. Manson was a family doctor in Warrington, Lancs., with whom I was privileged to have close professional associations. He was a man of many parts who regarded the isolation of medicine from philosophy as an unintelligible and lamentable phenomenon of our time. He wished to see philosophy restored to its earlier and rightful basic rôle in medical education. He recognized that medicine and, indeed, the cognate basic sciences were occupying themselves almost exclusively with so rapidly accelerating an accumulation of facts, that little time remained for reflection and interpretation, and for pondering on the place of medicine in, and its contribution to, the general corpus of knowledge. And he was especially interested in the topic which I have chosen for this commemorative lecture, for he recognized, and translated into practice, the dictum that “No disease is wholly physical, and none wholly mental.” He saw in his patient the “whole” man, not a summation of such isolates as body, mind, environment, and family.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1952
References
page 197 note 1 For the development of this theme see Crawley, A. E.The Idea of the Soul, London, 1909Google Scholar; and Ellis, W.The Idea of the Soul In Western Philosophy and Science, London, 1940.Google Scholar
page 197 note 2 See Burnet, J. The Socratic Doctrine of the Soul, in Proceedings of the British Academy, 1916.
page 198 note 1 Ryle, G., The Concept of Mind, London, 1950, p. 9.Google Scholar
page 198 note 2 Dingle, H., The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1950, I, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 198 note 4 Walshe, F. M. R., Brain, 1951, 74, 249.
page 198 note 5 Eddington, A., The Philosophy of Physical Science, Cambridge, 1939.Google Scholar
page 199 note 1 The results can be learnt from Adrian, E. D., The Physical Background of Perception, Oxford, 1947, and his later papers.Google Scholar
page 199 note 2 Broad, C. D., The Mind and its Place in Nature, London, 1925, p. 609.Google Scholar
page 199 note 3 Brain, W. R., in The Physical Basis of Mind, Oxford, 1950, p. 47.Google Scholar
page 200 note 1 Eccles, J. C, Nature, 1951, 168, p. 53.
page 202 note 1 See Chapuis, A. and Gélis, E.Le Monde des Automates, Paris, 1927Google Scholar, and Chapuis, A. and Droz, E., Les Automates, figures artificielles d'shommes et d'sAnimaux, Neuchatel, 1949.Google Scholar
A popular article on “Robots which play games”, by Stanley, Byard appeared in Science News, 16 (Penguin), 1950.Google Scholar
page 202 note 2 Shannon, C. E., Philosophical Magazine, 1950, 7th Series, 41, 256.Google Scholar
page 203 note 1 Mackay, D. M., The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1951, 2, 105.
page 203 note 2 Ashby, W. R., in Perspectives in Neuropsychiatry (“The Cerebral Mechanisms of Intelligent Action”); London, 1950, p. 79.Google Scholar
page 204 note 1 McCulloch, W. S. and Pitts, W. (a) Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 1943. 5, 115. (b) Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 1947, 9, 127.
page 204 note 2 Craik, K. J. W., The Nature of Explanation, Cambridge, 1943.Google Scholar
page 204 note 3 It has been conjectured, without experimental support, that the rhythm of the electroencephalogram may be associated with this scansion mechanism.
page 204 note 4 Wiener, N.Cybernetics, New York, 1948.Google ScholarPubMed
page 204 note 5 Adrian, E. D., loc. cit.
page 204 note 6 Dawson, G. D. (a) Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 1947, 10 137. (b) British Medical Bulletin, 1950, 6, 326.
page 205 note 1 Lorente de, Nó R. in Fulton's, J. F.Physiology of the Nervous System, Oxford, 1943.Google Scholar
page 205 note 2 Young, J. Z. see Sanders, F. K. and Young, J. Z., Journal of Neurophysiology, 1940, 3, 501CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Doubt and Certainty in Science, Oxford, 1951.Google Scholar
page 205 note 3 Gray, J. and Sand, A., Journal of Experimental Biology, 1936, 13, pp. 200 and 210.Google Scholar
page 205 note 4 Bailey, P., Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine, 1942, 51, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 205 note 5 Lashley, K. S. in Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, No. IV, Physiological Mechanisms in Animal Behaviour; “In Search of the Engram,” Cambridge, 1950, p. 454Google Scholar
page 205 note 6 Walshe, F. M. R., The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1951, 2, 161.Google Scholar
page 206 note 1 Ewing, A. C, in Chambers’ Encyclopaedia (“Materialism”), London, 1950, 9, 150.Google Scholar
page 206 note 2 Jefferson, G., British Medical Journal, 1949, 1. I, 105.Google Scholar
page 206 note 3 Turing, A. M., Mind, 1950, 59, 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 207 note 1 Samuel, , Viscount, , Essay in Physics, Oxford, 1951, p. 133.Google Scholar
page 207 note 2 Ellis, W., loc. cit., p. 282.
page 208 note 1 Sherrington, S. C, in The Physical Basis of Mind, Oxford, 1950, p. 69.Google Scholar
page 209 note 1 Ayer, A. B., in The Physical Basis of Mind, Oxford, 1950, p. 74.Google Scholar
page 209 note 2 Ryle, G., loc. dt., p. 329.
page 209 note 3 Scientific Monthly, 1946, p. 62.
page 209 note 4 Butterfield, H., The Origins of Modern Science, London, 1951, p. 1.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by