Summary of “The Science of Mind, not Brain”

A summary of each paragraph linked through the first few words of the paragraph.

Paragraph Summary
I’m going to The three branches of science (natural, social and formal) have practical and metaphysical limitations that impede a more complete understanding of the mind. We need to develop a unified and expanded scientific framework that can cleanly address both mental and physical phenomena.
The scientific method The scientific method uses hypothesis and testing, which are purely mental and purely physical respectively, and yet while scientists use their minds they don’t understand how the mind works or what it is doing. We must find a way to make minds into objects of study themselves.
The social sciences The social sciences acknowledge minds but study them indirectly by looking at patterns in our behavior to explain what we are and help us manage our lives better. The hard and soft sciences are built on different paradigms and standards of proof that opens up a gap between them that currently can’t be bridged.
Natural science Natural science expects that natural phenomena can be modeled by simple hypotheses and tested in a reproducible way, but that won’t reveal the reasons for the mind’s design.
Of course The brain is a general-purpose information management platform. What matters more than how it physically works is how it manages information.
How many programmers Programs and minds are defined functionally by what they do, which is to perform actions to accomplish desired tasks. We need to expand the scope of science to embrace functionality and the complexity that comes with it.
Having broadly Our knowledge of the mind comes from introspection and investigation, aka personal and scientific sources.
Nearly all We know how to use minds but don’t understand how they work. The mind’s structure derives primarily from its function, which is to animate our bodies. The mental has a better and prior claim to existence because our only direct knowledge of existence comes from the mind — I think therefore I am.
Knowing that Trying to explain the mind using the our language of mental terminology is circular and subjective instead of explanatory. Science has the potential to describe it objectively, but as it is currently framed the subject is out of scope.
While science Many scientific fields touch on the study the mind, e.g. neurobiology, anthropology, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, computer science, and cognitive science.
This brings me Philosophy studies the theoretical basis of branches of knowledge, but has been short on objectivity.
As fields of study August Comte proposed that science proceeds through theological, metaphysical, and positive stages, with the final stage saying theory is guided by observed facts to an absolute knowledge of the world.
In short Despite positivism’s continuing appeal, it isn’t right, because any number of laws could explain the same evidence and we have no objective way of distinguishing scientific theories from social constructions.
The philosophy of mind Within the philosophy of mind, I endorse non-reductive physicalism, functionalism, consciousness as a brain subprocess, and the idea that thoughts, concepts and meaning are information management techniques.