The mind of man is a source of endless interest, studied by philosophers, theologians, people in the humanities, linguistic scholars, psychologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, and the man in the street. Current advances in neuroscience and computers have involved many other disciplines in these areas. This special section of TAP focuses on current work in neuroscience and computers as it affects psychoanalysis and on psychoanalysis as it may affect work in those fields.
Descartian dualism is in decline, though doubt remains whether the gap between mind and brain can ever be bridged. Some declare that there is no problem; others say that mind is simply an epiphenomenon of brain and need not be considered at all.
Freud, a neurologist by trade, attempted early on to bridge the gap between mind and brain in his Project for a Scientific Psychology. He abandoned it, though he never lost hope that such a project would one day be possible. He purged his next major theoretical work, The Interpretation of Dreams, of direct neurological references, though what he said there derived heavily from the ill-fated Project.
For a large part of its history, psychoanalysis attempted to provide — indeed, it saw itself as — a general theory of mind. In the 1960s, after a long hiatus, psychoanalytic biological research began a comeback. At the same time, interest in psycholinguistics re-entered psychoanalysis and hermeneutic approaches became more common. A danger facing us today is that our own field will be split between those who look to biology and those who look to the humanities. Such a split would be a great loss, given the long history during which we have (however uncomfortably) straddled this divide. We are a broad-based field, and that is our strength.
These days, many neuroscientists have more data than they have usable theories with which to understand them. Many of them lack sophisticated psychoanalytic theories to inform further research. Psychoanalysis can suggest arenas for study by phrasing our own theories in ways that can be studied. Neuroscience may offer analysis a way of testing and revising our theories.
Interest in the neurosciences is burgeoning among analysts. There are a number of analyst-neuroscientists and others writing on the interface of psychoanalysis and neuroscience. Articles by some of them appear in this section. Study groups on this interface are springing up at many societies. Conferences on psychoanalysis and neuroscience have recently been held, and others are scheduled (see page 32.) Some institutes are including courses on neuroscience in their curricula, and others are considering doing so.
We are conducting a survey of all our institutes to find out just what is happening where, and getting their reading lists. An issue of JAPA on neuroscience has recently appeared, followed by a very successful “Netcast” (http://www.psychoanalysis.net/JapaG.html#past). A series of articles on psychoanalysis and neuroscience has been appearing for some time in the International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, and a new journal on the topic is in the works at the NYPI (see page 34).