Nautilus

This Man Says the Mind Has No Depths

A whole lot of books on the brain are published these days and you can read yourself into a coma trying to make sense of their various messages. So it was with my usual low-burn curiosity that I starting reading The Mind Is Flat by British behavioral scientist Nick Chater. At least the title is intriguing. But as I started reading it, I perked right up. Maybe that’s because it starts with a long riff on Anna Karenina and asks us to plumb the motivations of her suicide. Can we explain them? What if the great steam engine slammed on its brakes and Anna didn’t die? Would she be able to explain her own motivations to a psychologist while convalescing in a Swiss sanatorium?

Chater writes it makes no difference that Anna is a fictional character. We would go through the exact same mental peregrinations with a real person. In fact, the surviving real person, struggling to find clarity in the muddle of her feelings, would only be telling the psychologist a story about why she wanted to take her life. Chater’s point is a bold one: There is no deep truth about motivations to be found. “No amount of therapy, dream analysis, word association, experiment or brain-scanning can recover a person’s ‘true motives,’ not because they are difficult to find, but because there is nothing to find,” he writes. “The inner, mental world, and the beliefs, motives, and fears it is supposed to contain is, itself, a work of the imagination.”

SURFACE THOUGHTS: Freud’s iceberg/mind analogy couldn’t be more misleading, Chater writes: “There are no conscious thoughts and unconscious thoughts … There is just one type of thought, and each such thought has two aspects: a conscious read-out, and unconscious processes generating the read-out.”T and Z / Shutterstock

Well, then, I thought, if Chater keeps up this audacious tone, is going to be anything but flat. Indeed, as it makes its way through a modern landscape of cognitive research and experiments, it shoots one dart after another at treasured cultural notions about truths lurking in the tangles of is an exploration of the innermost workings of the mind, you say? “Quite the reverse,” Chater writes. Joyce and Virginia Woolf’s celebrated stream-of-consciousness styles are “outputs of successful cycles of thought.” (OK, that’s a little clunky.)

You're reading a preview, sign up to read more.

More from Nautilus

Nautilus9 min readScience
The Endless Storm Over Jupiter: Why the Great Red Spot refuses to die.
Philip Marcus, you might say, is obsessed with the solar system’s most famous storm. The computational physicist and professor in the mechanical engineering department at the University of California, Berkeley, has been probing Jupiter’s Great Red Sp
Nautilus9 min read
Through Fortitude or Stupidity, Lee Berger Is Rewriting Human History: The paleoanthropologist makes no apologies for going his own way.
In some sense, Lee Rogers Berger found himself and the drowning woman at the same time. The Georgia native had just returned home after dropping out of Vanderbilt University, where terrible grades in his pre-law major and straight As in his electives
Nautilus6 min read
Rock Solid Evidence for Other Earths: A breakthrough in understanding exoplanets.
Is our planet unique? The chances are slim. There are trillions of other galaxies, each of which has billions of suns. In a recent interview, Ed Young, a professor of geochemistry and cosmochemistry at the University of California, Los Angeles, tells