On Tuesday, December 18, 2001 2:46 PM J. R. Molloy jr@shasta.com wrote:
> Here are Webster's dictionary definitions of "mind," along with some
editorial
> comments:
>
> 1 : RECOLLECTION, MEMORY <keep that in mind> <time out of mind>
> [can be replaced by <remember that> <time forgotten>]
> 2 a : the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels,
> perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons
> [should be replaced by <brain>]
> b : the mental events and capabilities in an organism
> [the term <cognitive behavior> covers this]
> c : the organized adaptive mental activity of an organism
> [the term <cognition> more accurately indicates this]
> 3 : INTENTION, DESIRE <I changed my mind>
> [more descriptive: <I changed my decision> <my desires have changed>]
> 4 : the normal or healthy condition of the mental faculties
> [the normal or healthy condition of the brain]
> 5 : OPINION, VIEW
> [If we mean "opinion" or "view" then we ought to say "opinion" or
"view"]
> 6 : DISPOSITION, MOOD
> [If we mean "disposition" or "mood" then we ought to say so.]
> 7 a : a person or group embodying mental qualities <the public mind>
> [Persons or groups do not embody mental qualities, but they may share
similar
> opinions.]
> b : intellectual ability
> [Cerebral capability, intellectual ability, IQ, etc., refer to brain
> functions.]
> 8 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
> [This is a good example of why we need to jettison the word "mind."]
> 9 : a conscious substratum or factor in the universe
> [More hocus-pocus mystical nonsense.]
The problem here is that this might lead to a confusion of words with
concepts. Concepts and words do not exactly match up. Another way of
putting this: a concept should only admit of one definition or of
definitions that are consistent, but words can admit of many since one
word can signify more than one concept. For instance, "red" can mean
the color (as in "the red apple") or a political affiliation (as in "Joe
is a red and his brother is a pinko":). (Also, one concept can be
signified by more than one word -- as in "liberty" and "freedom" used in
the context of classical liberal thought. Both can defined as "the
absense of coercion" and truly stand for the same concept within that
limited framework.)
Even so, this doesn't nullify your rejection of the concept of mind.
Also, some of the above definitions just show metaphorical uses, such as
"the public mind" in definition 7a. I don't think one should go to the
barricades over such usages, especially since in the context they are
used they are generally not typically confusing. (If you bijectively
map extant words and concepts, then, yes, there will be problems with
understanding, but "mind" will hardly be the biggest problem here. In
fact, so many words correspond to more than one concept, that you'll
have to come up with a new dictionary and probably many neologisms,
since, I suspect, the number of concepts in use is much higher than that
of words in use at any given time.)
Why not instead, keep the word "mind" and clearly use it only in those
context where is does not promote a mystical/supernatural/idealist
worldview? After all, Objectivists, neoAristoteleans, and neoStoics (I
only know of Becker here) use it that way and they are not mystics,
don't buy into a supernatural realm, and certainly reject ontological
and epistemological idealism. (In other words, definitions 1, 2, and
all of 3 are not problematic for them -- as they really don't seem to be
for you. After all, if I came up with a new word for "mind" defintion
one -- let's call it "botango" -- you probably would not find that
problematic. Or would you?)
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:29 MDT