Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To share an article on social media…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

If you find an article or content on PEP-Web interesting, you can share it with others using the Social Media Button at the bottom of every page.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Brakel, L.A. (1997). Commentaries. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 45:714-720.

(1997). Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 45:714-720


Linda A.W. Brakel

It is important for the future of our discipline to relate psychoanalysis to the cognitive/neurosciences and the contemporary philosophy of mind. Mark Solms's target article, however, while manifestly championing these goals suggests a program that if implemented would drive us further into isolation from the scientific/academic world. He states that the question asked by neuroscientists, “‘How exactly do neurobiological processes in the brain cause consciousness?’ embodies a fundamentally flawed conception of the nature of consciousness.” And since this conception, flawed in Solms's view, underlies much of current cognitive and brain research, he implies that psychoanalysts need not be concerned that “our discipline is very much out of step with contemporary research.” I disagree strongly. I will show why, by identifying his failed arguments and the erroneous conclusions to which they lead.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.