Is the Mind Invisible?

This semester, I am teaching a graduate class in cognitive psychology, and we are beginning our journey with E. Bruce Goldstein’s The Mind: Consciousness, Prediction, and the Brain. The book is an accessible and engaging read, offering a solid introduction to the field. It effectively organizes cognitive psychology around the key principle of predictive processing and introduces students to the complex relationship between cognition and consciousness, which refers to the subjective experience of being in the world.

A central focus of my course is to closely examine key concepts such as the mind, cognition, and consciousness. When viewed through this lens, I find Goldstein’s approach somewhat lacking, particularly in how he conceptualizes “the mind.”

Goldstein describes the mind as the invisible force that processes information and produces both behavior and conscious experience. He explicitly defines it as follows:

The mind creates and controls functions such as perception, attention, memory, emotions, language, decision-making, thinking, and reasoning, as well as taking physical actions to achieve our goals.

In an episode of the Brain Science podcast, Goldstein uses the metaphor of a restaurant kitchen to explain the mind’s role. Just as the kitchen creates and controls the restaurant’s products while remaining hidden from the diners, the mind generates and regulates our experiences and actions while remaining unseen.

This metaphor illustrates the mind’s generative power and its invisibility to direct observation. Goldstein is not alone in this perspective. Consider my query to ChatGPT and its response:

My query: Is the mind directly observable?
ChatGPT’s response:

No, the mind is not directly observable. Unlike physical objects or behaviors, which can be seen, measured, and recorded, the mind consists of subjective experiences, thoughts, emotions, and consciousness, which are private to the individual. However, aspects of the mind can be inferred through indirect observation, such as:

• Behavior: Actions, speech, and body language reflect mental states.
• Neuroscientific Methods: Brain activity can be measured using techniques like fMRI or EEG, but these reveal neural correlates of mental states rather than direct access to thoughts.
• Introspection & Self-Reports: Individuals can describe their own mental experiences, though this is subjective.

While the effects of the mind are observable, the mind itself remains an inferred phenomenon rather than a directly perceivable entity.

Upon careful analysis, this response reveals an inconsistency. ChatGPT states that the mind is not directly observable, yet it also claims that the mind consists of subjective experiences, thoughts, emotions, and consciousness—things we can introspectively access. Goldstein similarly describes consciousness as the subjective inner life of the mind while also asserting its invisibility.

Let’s clarify this apparent contradiction. It is undeniable that we can introspect and observe aspects of our minds. Psychology itself emerged in part through introspection. If we can directly experience our own minds, how can they be considered invisible?

This paradox can be resolved through UTOK, the Unified Theory of Knowledge, which offers a new framework for understanding psychological science and the mind. As detailed in UTOK: The Unified Theory of Knowledge, the system helps us frame knowledge via three "vectors" of knowing, which are as follows:

1. The Vector of Scientific Knowing: Science relies on publicly observable phenomena that can be systematically studied and measured.
2. The Vector of Subjective Knowing: The first-person point of view that grounds each of us in our lifeworld.
3. The Vector of Cultural Knowing: Shared language and justification systems that shape collective understanding about what is true and good.

Seeing the world through these three vectors of knowing gives us a much better way of understanding both scientific psychology and what is meant by 'the mind'. This is because it helps us divide the domains of the mental into what is observable by the individual human subject (i.e., conscious experience), by the group or culture (i.e., shared beliefs and values), and by science (i.e., that which can be measured and intersubjectively verified).

UTOK maps the different domains of the mental into Mind1, Mind2, and Mind3. Subjective conscious experience is the domain of “Mind2,” and we share it with other conscious animals. The domain of language and human culture is Mind3, which is the domain of justification systems in UTOK. Science evolves out of human culture as a particular kind of justification system. Its methods work to try to control for the perspective and the biases of the individual subject and, to a lesser extent, the group. Mind1 is the domain of neurocognitive activity and behavior and science allows us to see it more clearly.

Cognition Essential Reads

Rigid Thinking Fuels Both Eating Disorders and PTSD

Slow Brains and Fast Tigers

UTOK’s Map of Mind helps us see how these domains fit together like pieces of a puzzle.

Source: Gregg Henriques

With this framework in place, we can revisit the question: Is the mind invisible?

The answer now becomes nuanced. Mind1a, the neurocognitive domain, is largely invisible and aligns with what Goldstein and ChatGPT describe. Mind2, however, is directly observable to the individual but remains inaccessible to scientific methods. Mind3, encompassing shared language and cultural justifications, is publicly observable.

Understanding these distinctions is crucial for a robust science of psychology. By questioning whether the mind is invisible, we can see how UTOK provides a more comprehensive and precise framework than traditional cognitive psychology.