Irreducible Mind by Kelly et al.: An Honest Review

🕑 16 min read

What This Book Is

Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century was published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2007. It has six authors: Edward F. Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly, Adam Crabtree, Alan Gauld, Michael Grosso and Bruce Greyson. Several of them are associated with the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia, the research unit founded by Ian Stevenson. It runs to 832 pages.

The argument has two parts. The first is that a set of well-documented human phenomena are handled badly or not at all by the standard assumption that conscious experience is produced by brain activity. The second is that an older theory, in which the brain transmits or filters a consciousness that is not identical with it, handles them better and deserves to be taken up again.

The book is not a popular treatment. It is an academic monograph with the apparatus of one, and it makes no concessions to a reader who wants the conclusion without the evidence. That is a strength and it is also why very few people who cite it have read it.

The Man They Are Rehabilitating

Frederic W. H. Myers lived from 1843 to 1901. He was a classicist, a poet, a school inspector, and one of the founders of the Society for Psychical Research in 1882, an organisation whose early membership included several serious scientists and philosophers of the period. His major work, Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death, appeared in two volumes in 1903, two years after he died.

Myers proposed that the self we normally experience is a fraction of a larger whole. He called the everyday waking portion the supraliminal and the rest the subliminal, and he insisted that the subliminal contained more than repressed and discarded material. On his account it also held capacities that exceed ordinary functioning, and the boundary between the two was permeable in specific conditions: hypnosis, dissociation, creative inspiration, extreme illness, and states approaching death.

He is nearly absent from the modern psychology curriculum. Part of the reason is his association with psychical research. Part is that Freud's version of the unconscious, which is mostly a repository of what has been pushed out of awareness, won the institutional argument and defined the term. Myers's version, in which the larger part of the mind is broader rather than lower, was left behind.

The recovery of Myers is the book's most defensible contribution, and it stands independent of whether the filter theory is true. He was a careful, intelligent psychologist whose framework was dropped for reasons that were partly about evidence and substantially about professional respectability.

The Filter Theory

William James stated the alternative clearly in his Ingersoll Lecture at Harvard in 1898. He pointed out that the observed dependence of mental life on the brain is consistent with two very different theories. The brain might produce consciousness, as a kettle produces steam. Or it might transmit and shape a consciousness that exists independently, as a prism shapes light that it did not create, or as a radio receiver determines which broadcast you hear without generating the signal.

Every fact about brain damage altering personality, memory or perception fits both accounts equally. Damage a receiver and the output changes. This is the point on which the whole book turns, and as a piece of logic it is correct: the correlation between brain states and mental states does not by itself decide between production and transmission.

The difficulty is what follows. Filter theory has been available for over a century and has generated remarkably little in the way of specific, risky predictions that would distinguish it from the productive account. A theory that explains all the same data as its rival, plus some contested anomalies, and predicts nothing new, is in a weak position however elegant it is. The authors are aware of this and the book's concluding chapter is an attempt to make the theory more definite. It does not fully succeed.

When the Mind Marks the Body

The chapter on psychophysiological influence is the one to read first, and it is the strongest thing in the volume.

It assembles the evidence that mental states produce specific physical effects that current physiology does not adequately explain. Placebo and nocebo responses, which are large, reliable, dose-dependent and still poorly understood mechanistically. Hypnotic analgesia sufficient for surgery. Documented cases in which suggestion under hypnosis produced localised skin changes. The historical record of stigmata, which the authors treat as a real phenomenon requiring explanation rather than as fraud or as devotional legend.

What makes this chapter effective is that almost none of it is fringe. Placebo research is mainstream, well funded, and genuinely puzzling; the fact that an inert intervention can produce measurable physiological change through expectation alone is odd on any account of the mind-body relation. The authors are not smuggling in anomalies here. They are pointing at a well-lit part of the room that nobody has explained.

Whether this supports filter theory specifically is a separate matter, and it does not, particularly. It supports the weaker claim that the causal traffic between mind and body runs in both directions and that we do not understand the mechanism.

Secondary Selves

Adam Crabtree's chapter covers automatism and multiple personality, and it draws on a body of nineteenth-century clinical material that most modern readers have never encountered.

The core phenomenon is that a human being can host organised, coherent, apparently purposeful mental activity outside the awareness of the person whose body it is. Automatic writing produces grammatical prose the writer does not compose. Dissociative conditions produce personalities with their own memories, preferences and sometimes physiological differences. Hypnotic subjects carry out complex instructions and construct plausible reasons for having done so.

Pierre Janet and the French clinical tradition studied this in detail before Freud reframed the field, and much of that work is now read by almost nobody. Crabtree's chapter is valuable as intellectual history whatever you make of the theory. The evidence that the unified self is an achievement rather than a given is strong and it has been strong for a hundred and forty years.

The Memory Problem

Edward Kelly's chapter on memory makes a narrower argument than the rest of the book and is worth attention for that reason.

The dominant working assumption in neuroscience is that memories are stored, in some form, in structural changes in neural tissue, and that retrieval is a matter of accessing that store. The chapter argues that decades of searching have not found the trace where the storage model predicts it should be, that memory behaves less like retrieval from a warehouse and more like reconstruction, and that the storage metaphor may be importing an engineering picture that does not fit the system.

Much of this is now less heterodox than it was in 2007. Reconstructive accounts of memory are mainstream, and reconsolidation research has complicated the simple storage picture considerably. The chapter's more radical suggestion, that memory may not be locally stored in the brain at all, remains a minority position and the chapter does not establish it.

The Chapter That Costs Them Most

Then there is the parapsychology chapter, and this review would be dishonest if it did not say plainly what that chapter does to the book.

The authors survey the experimental literature on telepathy, clairvoyance and related effects, with particular attention to the ganzfeld procedure and the meta-analyses that claim a small but consistent positive effect across many trials. They present it as a body of results that has met normal experimental standards and been rejected for reasons other than its quality.

The counter-case is substantial and has been made by competent people over decades. Ray Hyman's long exchange with Charles Honorton over the ganzfeld database is the classic instance, and the disagreements concern randomisation, sensory leakage, the file drawer problem, optional stopping, and the appropriateness of the meta-analytic methods used. Beyond the specific disputes there is the broader difficulty that these effects have not reliably replicated in the hands of researchers who do not expect them, which is the ordinary standard applied to any small effect.

The consequence for the book is structural. A reader who is unconvinced by this chapter is likely to discount the rest, and the authors have placed material of contested evidential quality alongside material, like the placebo literature, that nobody disputes. It would have been a stronger book with a firmer separation between the two.

Genius and Where Ideas Arrive From

Michael Grosso's chapter on creativity assembles first-person accounts from mathematicians, composers and writers describing solutions and compositions arriving whole, without conscious construction, often after a period of not working on the problem.

The material is genuinely striking and the accounts are numerous. Where the chapter is on firm ground is in insisting that these reports are data about how creative work actually happens and that they are largely absent from experimental psychology's models. Where it is weaker is in the inference. Incubation and unconscious processing are ordinary cognitive phenomena, well studied, and they account for a great deal of what these accounts describe without requiring anything more.

The chapter's better argument is about degree. Some of the reported cases involve solutions of a complexity that seems hard to attribute to unattended background processing. Whether that impression survives scrutiny is exactly the kind of question that would need careful work rather than an anthology of testimony.

Mystical and Near-Death Experience

Bruce Greyson wrote the near-death experience chapter and he is one of the field's principal researchers, author of the scale most commonly used to classify these accounts.

The chapter's argument rests on a specific claim: that some people report detailed and structured experience during periods when the brain was, by available measures, not in a state capable of supporting it, and that a minority of these accounts include perceptions of the physical environment that were subsequently verified. If that holds, it is a serious problem for the productive theory.

The counter-arguments are the ones you would expect and they are not weak. The timing of experience relative to unconsciousness is very difficult to establish. Memory formation and reporting happen afterwards, and reconstruction is a known feature of traumatic recall. Anoxia, anaesthetic agents and the physiology of cardiac arrest produce their own effects. The verified perception cases are individually striking and collectively few, and prospective studies designed to catch them under controlled conditions, of which several have now run, have not produced the clean result either side wanted.

The chapter on mystical experience covers similar ground with a longer historical reach and connects to the tradition James mapped in 1902. It is a good survey and it makes fewer claims than the near-death chapter, which is appropriate.

The Soul of the Gaps

One published review of the book carried the title "The soul of the gaps," and the phrase names the central objection well enough that it is worth stating properly rather than dismissing.

The book's method is to assemble phenomena that current neuroscience explains poorly and to argue that their accumulation supports a different theory of mind. But an unexplained phenomenon is, in the first instance, evidence only that something is unexplained. Nineteenth-century physics could not explain the spectrum of black body radiation; that did not license any theory a person happened to prefer, and the eventual answer came from within physics. Collecting anomalies establishes a research agenda. It does not select among the theories that might one day address them.

The structure of the argument also mirrors the god-of-the-gaps pattern that its authors would recognise and reject in other contexts. Wherever the current account is incomplete, the preferred alternative is inserted, and the alternative's own explanatory obligations, such as how a filter mechanism would work or what it filters, go comparatively unexamined.

The fair reply is that the authors do not merely gesture at gaps; they argue that the anomalies cluster in a pattern that filter theory predicts, namely that unusual capacity appears precisely where ordinary brain function is reduced or bypassed. That is a real argument and a better one than the gaps framing allows. Whether the pattern is as clean as claimed is where the disagreement should be, and both sides largely talk past it.

Which Physicalism Are They Arguing With

A second criticism worth making is about the target.

The book argues against what it calls classical physicalism, a position on which conscious experience is straightforwardly generated by and identical with neural activity. That view certainly exists. It is also not the only physicalism on the field, and the philosophy of mind has spent forty years on precisely the difficulty the book presses, under the name of the hard problem.

Thomas Nagel's argument that subjective character resists objective description predates the book by decades, and his later Mind and Cosmos pushes the same point from a position of avowed atheism. Panpsychist and neutral monist positions have been argued seriously within academic philosophy without recourse to parapsychology. A reader could accept every word of the book's critique of reductive materialism and land in any of several places, most of which do not require a filter.

This matters because the book presents a two-option choice, production or transmission, and the actual field of live positions is wider than that.

What Came Next

Beyond Physicalism appeared in 2015, an edited collection in which philosophers, physicists and scholars of religion attempt to sketch metaphysical frameworks that could accommodate the phenomena the first book assembled. Consciousness Unbound followed in 2021 in the same format.

Both are more speculative than Irreducible Mind and both are honest about being so. They range across idealism, panpsychism, cosmopsychism, and readings of quantum theory, and their quality varies by contributor as edited collections do. Readers who found the first book's empirical case interesting will find the sequels less disciplined, since the constraint of documented cases has been relaxed.

The Division of Perceptual Studies at Virginia continues to publish, and the group's work sits alongside a broader literature of scientifically framed argument for non-reductive views, including Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin, both of whom operate at a considerably lower evidential standard than Kelly and colleagues do.

Who Should Read It

Read it if you want the strongest available statement of the case against a purely productive theory of mind, made by people with academic credentials, full citations, and no interest in mystification. There is a great deal of loose writing on this subject and this is not an example of it.

Read the mind-body chapter regardless of your position, because the material in it is real and the questions it raises are open on anyone's account.

Read it if you are working through the transpersonal literature and want to know which claims in that field have serious empirical backing and which do not, because this book is careful about the distinction in a way that most of the field is not.

Do not read it as your first book on consciousness. Start with James, or with a mainstream survey, so that you have something to weigh it against. Do not read it as settled science, because it is a minority position that has not persuaded the field. Do not cite it as proof of anything, since almost nobody who cites it has been through the 832 pages. And be careful of the pull toward quantum explanations that the surrounding literature encourages, which the book itself is notably more restrained about than its admirers are.

Frequently Asked Questions