[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Other
February 1952

ON THE NATURE AND LOCUS OF MIND

AMA Arch NeurPsych. 1952;67(2):172-177. doi:10.1001/archneurpsyc.1952.02320140040004
Abstract

IT IS NOT my purpose in this paper to aspire to anything new; rather, I wish to expose the sequence of thoughts by which I have somewhat clarified my own thinking about mind, in the hope that it will be of use to others. Some people might argue that it is not important to define mind, that it is a concept better taken loosely, left to the philosophers, and not to be belabored by neurologists. In an association of neurologists everyone is interested to find out how the brain works and what it does. Mind is part of what it does. I believe that mind is not an abstraction; it is a thing that we know about by individual experience. But we do not agree as to what the thing is to which we apply the term "mind."

The previous speakers in this symposium have given many anatomical and physiological

×