Listening To You - Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy in North West London
  • Welcome
  • Listening
  • Psychoanalysis
  • The Therapist
  • Beginning therapy
  • Code Of Practice
  • Contact Details
  • Links
  • A Psychoanalyst's Blog

Thinking with one’s feet

1/2/2012

 
_I was reading something on the BBC today, regarding the “decoding” by science of people’s “internal voices”. The article was about a new technique, whereby researchers are said to be able to reconstruct words, based on the brain waves of patients thinking of those words. I was reminded of an anecdote about Lacan, one of the most important post-Freudian psychoanalysts.

In 1975, during a lecture tour in the United States, Jacques Lacan spoke at MIT before an audience of mathematicians, linguists, and philosophers. Noam Chomsky, the already famous by then American linguist philosopher and activist, attending the lecture, asked Lacan a question on thought.

Lacan's reply was possibly not what Chomsky expected:

“We think we think with our brains”, Lacan said. “Personally, I think with my feet. That's the only way I really come into contact with anything, solid. I do occasionally think with my forehead, when I bang into something. But I've seen enough electroencephalograms to know there's not the slightest trace of a thought in the brain.”
Picture
Where are you now?
_This incident is quoted by Lacan’s biographer, Elisabeth Roudinesco in her Jacques Lacan: An Outline of a Life and History of a System of Thought as evidence of Lacan’s eccentricity and desire to scandalize, rather than teach the Americans. Whether it did scandalize Chomsky, it’s hard to say. It must have had, but perhaps not in the playful way that Lacan might have intended. Chomsky was reportedly convinced, and perhaps still remains convinced, that this Lacan must be a madman.

Now, amusing as this story might be, a question remains. What did Lacan mean? Did he really speak metaphorically, as many of his friends accompanying him in America insisted? If not, then what?

Well, let me spell it out from the beginning. I do not think that Lacan spoke metaphorically. In my view he spoke literally, perhaps too literally, but definitely too elliptically as well.

I think the key in understanding Lacan’s response is the actual meaning of the words he used.

Take the word “thought”, for example. What is it, exactly? What do we mean when we speak about a thought? At the time of this writing (1/Feb/12) Wikipedia suggests that thought “refers to mental or intellectual activity involving an individual’s subjective consciousness”. So, let us accept this.

Let us now think a bit more carefully.

Let’s imagine that I am thinking of a cat, say a cat I had seen last year in Spain.

Where is this cat now? It’s not with me, here and now, that is for sure. Possibly it is still in Spain.

What do I have here with me then? I have the thought of a cat, we said that.

But what do we mean? Is this thought an entity? Is the thought of this cat in Spain an entity sitting somewhere alongside other, similar entities such as that cat in Portugal or that other cat in Edinburgh?

And is the thought of this first Spanish cat self-contained as an entity? Does this particular thought begin and end with the cat, or does it “extent” somehow to include details about the day I saw the cat, the circumstances of my being in Spain --for example the time of the day or the weather-- or even other circumstances of my life --such as the friends I was with, the reason I was in Spain, more details about my life etc.?

And where exactly is this thought located? Is it alone or grouped together with other thoughts?

Is it grouped together with other thoughts about that trip in Spain, or with thoughts of other cats? Or will it be found together with thoughts that share other similarities? Or does it perhaps belong to all these possible groups together? And if yes, does it exist in many locations simultaneously?

And really, where are all these things? Are they in my brain?

One might be tempted to answer “yes”. And yet, it is not so straightforward. What does it mean “to be in the brain”? How can it “be” in the brain, if we haven’t even established where it begins and where it ends?

Would it not be better to say that the thought is a product of the function of that organ that we call brain rather than an entity “inside” the brain? Would it not be even better to say that a thought, strictly speaking, is something that obtains its meaning in the collective interaction of human beings? Because how otherwise can we conceive of thoughts of abstract entities such as “Spain”? Or "Portugal"?

Starts being a bit confusing, isn’t it?

Indeed it is.

Now, let’s return to what Lacan said.

I've seen enough electroencephalograms to know there's not the slightest trace of a thought in the brain.

Does it not make more sense now? Lacan (who, incidentally, was a medically trained professional as well) stresses the fact that what you see in an electroencephalogram is evidence of brain activities; you don’t see thoughts.

And, even if you think you can see thoughts, or words, in the so-called “superior temporal gyrus” as reported by the BBC, the only thing what you can actually see with this new technique is a track of blood flow in association to certain sounds.

Our thoughts, as thoughts, are out there, in Spain that sunny day, with the cat, or in the letter I have just sent, or with everything else I might have been thinking about; they are not “in” the brain.

Granted, they are products of brain’s functioning, but they are not identical with this functioning, however well you might decide to monitor it.

Well, that’s slightly different, don’t you think?


David Smart link
4/2/2012 11:41:11 am

As Gomez reminds us, Kant already pointed out the scientistic fallacy (hear that how you will) that describing the mechanisms by which mental events occur somehow makes sense of them. Freud's concept of the psychic deals with what happens before a mind/body split.
Or to put it another way: a medically trained psychiatrist said she became a psychoanalyst because she was more interested in minds than brains.
So the cat is in your mind - and in mine, now, too.

Christos Tombras
5/2/2012 03:13:59 am

Kant's comment is very much to the point indeed. Thank you for reminding us.

Regarding what you write about the mind/body split, however, I would be a bit more sceptical. Is there really such a split? I would think there isn't --as such. To be sure this is the still prevailing, Cartesian, model, yet it is not one that I would subscribe to.

But let's leave this for a separate post.

Thanks again.

Niki
9/2/2012 12:04:25 pm

I do agree that an electroencephalogram and the brain waves can't decode our thoughts. Our thoughts are not palpable, we ourselves can't even describe them sometimes; let alone decode them. We lose them the moment we create them, or the moment they are created by themselves, obviously affected by our experiences etc. So yes, when we are talking about thoughts, we are talking about something extremely abstract.

Now, about Lacan's response, I think he did speak metaphorically. I can't even guess what the reason was - to be eccentric, to scandalize, or to be playful by talking seriously or not -and it doen't matter. I mean, if we assume he spoke literally, how did he know that there is not the slightest thought in the brain? Just because the electroencephalograms could not show them? I don't say that thoughts exist in the brain, but just because we can't decode through a specific process (an electroencephalogram), that doesn't mean that they don't exist in there. They do exist, even if they are abstract. They exist everywhere, and nowhere in particular, but that may include the brain as well.

If 'one thinks with his feet', why not one can't think with his brain?

Mind, brain, feet they are all one, part of our being.

Big questions cannot be answered by over simplifying the answers.


Comments are closed.

    About

    This is the blog of
    Christos Tombras
    a psychoanalyst practising
    in North West London.

    For more information,
    please click here.

    For a list of all posts,
    please click here.

    Archives

    January 2020
    May 2019
    March 2016
    October 2014
    April 2014
    May 2013
    October 2012
    February 2012
    July 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    September 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009


    RSS Feed


    Categories

    All
    Body Mind Dichotomy
    Books
    Brain Initiative
    Cfar
    Descartes
    Discourse Ontology
    Dsm
    Event
    Evidence
    Falsification Criterion
    Films
    Free Will
    Hard Sciences
    Health Professions Council
    History
    Immanuel Kant
    Jacques Lacan
    Jouissance
    Lanzmann
    Lecture
    Martin Heidegger
    Measuring Effectiveness
    Medical Model
    Mental Illness
    Nimh
    Oedipus Complex
    Phantasy
    Psychoanalysis
    Psychosis
    Randomized Control Trials
    Reality
    Regulation Of Psychotherapy
    Resistance
    Reviews
    Scientific Research
    Sexuality
    Shoah
    Sigmund Freud
    Signifier
    Stigma
    Symptoms
    Teaching
    Therapy
    The Unconscious
    Truth
    Ukcp


Listening To You • An Invitation to Talk • Lacanian Psychoanalysis • London     © 2009 - 2021