Analysis
of Mind is a set of series of lectures delivered by Russell in China in the
1920s. According to some biography I checked he began working on them while in
prison. With them he sets forth to show how mind can be reducible to images and
sensations alone. In the first lecture he gives an overview of what is to
follow on the rest of the lectures. He starts philosophically by retaking the
opposing views of Materialists and Idealists which is reminiscent to what one
finds in his Problems, and it appears
that he is going to keep at it, but then channels the subject matter into a
purely psychological groove. Psychology
at that time was being swept by the ascendant of Watson's behaviorism and
Russell explicitly agrees that the only things that can be learnt of the mind
are from external observation. However, he doesn't takes all of Watson's assertions at face
value, calling him on here and there. When appropriate, Russell also weaves in
the viewpoints of other psychologists such as, Wundt, Thorndike, James among
others.
On
lecture III, Russell takes what now
appears as a conceptual dead-end, which is that of Richard Semon's engrams and
mnemics as model. He believes that experiences might change the brain, but says
he has no proof (we have now).
Something
that I didn't catch on the first try, struck me this time around. In the the
fifth lecture Russell roundly denies causality. He had already intimated this
before, but now he was going full-steam ahead, which makes for an
odd/uncomfortable way of looking at science.
On the positive side it makes me look into this quandary further.
Lectures
IX - XIII (memory, words & meaning, general ideas, belief, Truth) appear to
me the most true to Russell's style from Problems.
By time
of lecture XII however I had come to the realization that I was not
getting something tangible out of the book.
Lecture XIII was interesting in itself as it expanded some of his
already covered ground from Problems.
Then again this lecture was more about philosophy than on actual psychology.
The
second to last lecture, on the emotions, where he takes a look to the
James-Lange theory, and the will, appears as if its going to get exciting and
then abruptly ends making it the
shortest in the series.
The final
lecture wraps up all the pieces from the previous ones in a unified whole, and
thus 'proves' his thesis. My assessment is
that the structures he puts forth seem workable, but you have to buy
into them by temporally forgetting what you know
about current theories and in light of them Russell's feel a bit forced or
unnatural. What's more it now makes me suspect his philosophical approach
proper. Maybe he's got that wrong too!
After
having finished the book I'm sad to say that after all I didn't get much new or
revealing insights from Russell's analysis. He tries his best, sure, but the
material that he works from is still primitive and much have been superseded or
revised in the intervening century. One wishes that Russell could have had what
we have now. Then, he could've made something remarkable to our current
eyes. The only reason I'd recommend it
is for the mental challenge of trying to get to grips with it all; otherwise,
not worth the trouble. If you still want
to check it out, start by the last lecture where he gives his uninterrupted
argument and then decide which lectures you want to read if any.
