Future of the Mind 
DISCUSSION 
Young: There is much in these papers that I find stimulating 
and interesting, but I suspect that one of the main characteristics 
of the future is likely to be the disappearance of the very subject 
matter of this session on the future of the mind. In spite of 
much that Dr. Hoagland and Dr. Chisholm said, the whole 
terminology has not yet escaped from the dualism of thinking 
of the brain and the mind as two separate entities. One of our 
most deep-seated superstitions is that although we no longer 
regard the liver as occupied by a spirit we persist in talking 
about the brain as if it consisted of two separate things, one 
called “matter”? and one called “‘mind’’. I think that one of 
the most important advances in our thinking will come when 
we cease to trouble with this dualism. 
Two salient points about these papers need to be discussed: 
firstly the question of brain function, and secondly the position 
of the individual in relation to the community as reflected or 
controlled by his brain. 
On the brain function aspect I agree with much of what Dr. 
Hoagland said. Most of his presentation would have been 
generally acceptable to neurologists, but those who are not 
studying the brain should realize that a lot of the material about 
the chemistry of the brain, especially concerning learning and 
ribonucleic acid, is exceedingly speculative. The problem of 
memory is a very deep and important one. Dr. Hydén has 
done wonders with these cells, as Dr. Hoagland described, but 
I am doubtful whether he has yet said anything meaningful 
about the problem of memory. Dr. Hoagland spoke of the 
frequencies of nerve impulses modulating protein synthesis; 
I am doubtful, as a non-chemist, whether these frequencies, 
322 
