Does the mind exist? The ‘Eliminativists’ suggest that the various modes or theories of psychology are nothing more than modern myths, which are in essence secular versions of theistic religion. The myth follows the schematic that a) the mind exists, b) the mind can be observed, categorised, controlled and manipulated and c) the mind creates or generates the material world. These assumptions mirror the theology of the Judeo-Christian tradition, within which it is a priori accepted that ‘spirit’ creates or generates the ‘material’ world. In the modern sense, the agency of ‘mind’ takes the place of ‘spirit’ or ‘god’, but the inverted interpretation of reality is retained – i.e. mind creates or generates the material world. Psychology is generally opposed by Psychiatry which interprets conscious existence as a combination of chemical reactions in the material (biological) structures that comprise the human brain (although to be far, ‘consciousness’ as a distinct or separate entity cannot be discerned as existing simply by examining the physical structures of the brain). Consciousness is assumed to exist because its presence appears to function through physical behaviour and interaction with the environment. This is why consciousness appears to be the product of human interaction with a material environment. Theistic religion assumes that a ‘spirit’ pre-exists an individual human existence, and that it is ‘imported’ into a being at conception. Upon the physical death of that being, this ‘spirit’ leaves the individual and transitions to other realms of existence. Although it is true that not all forms of psychology accept the pre- and post-existence of consciousness, it is also true that many people easily combine modern notions of ‘mind’ with old notions of ‘spirit’. When the individual mind is equated with spirit, then it is just a matter of simple theological association to generate ideas of ‘out of the body experiences’, and ‘travelling to other realms’ during times of severe physical injury or duress. Although within popular literature it is assumed that people having these experiences are ‘dead’, this is generally medically untrue. People maybe gravely ill or suffering from terrible trauma and injury, but nevertheless they are still alive. This means their ‘living’ brain is continuing to function in less than conducive circumstances, and may well be trying to inwardly compensate for the outer devastation being experienced. Of course, these experiences are random and happen to people with no particular training or ability to discern history, religion or psychology. Many use these experiences as a means to return to religious thinking (i.e. ‘mind generates matter’) within a modern world, and even attempt to co-opt modern science into justifying this inverted viewpoint. It is interesting to note that the people who have these experiences are not even ‘conscious’ in the conventional sense, (that is they are not ‘awake’ and ‘interacting’ with the physical environment). This being the case, why are such experiences assumed to be the product of an independent ‘consciousness’? Why not associate such experiences with the mind’s agency of ‘imagination’? Imagination is limitless and has the ability to generate any number of comforting scenarios in difficult situations. This is particularly true when a person is ‘unconscious’ (i.e. ‘lacking conscious awareness’), when the agency of imagination is momentarily ‘detached’ from external reality (and the limitations) of material existence (and manifesting as ‘dreaming’). What is dreamt in such circumstances might well appear 100% ‘real’ to the experiencer, but this experience does not necessarily suggest that what is apparently seen and heard is real in any objective sense. Believing something is ‘real’ does not equate with that something being ‘real’ within scientific scrutiny, but within theistic religion, having ‘faith’ in something is viewed as making that something ‘real’ – this attitude and approach to interpreting reality is not science and should not be mistaken as such. In the following documentary, whilst everyone involved embraces the religious mind-set, no one questions the socio-economic system within wich they live. The answer to external inequality is to inwardly ‘accept’ this injustice and blame each other individual for not doing this. This selfish (and bourgeois) attitude allows the political and commercial injustices to continue in the face of a compliant population that collaborate with tyranny whilst mistaking this collaboration on the physical plane, for being a manifestation of ‘inner’ freedom on the spiritual plane. This self-imposed ‘stupor’ is nothing less than the abjuration of all social responsibility practised by an economic and religious elite. Finally, many people who advocate these types of theories invariably state that happiness does not come from owning a house, having a family, possessing a job or receiving a good income, and yet it is exactly these attributes that all these people possess. As they are economically secure, and are free of the worries and uncertainties that define most people’s lives, they are ‘free’ to indulge their imaginations to otherwise extraordinary degrees, and make illogical or inconsistent conclusions as a consequence.