In this commentary paper I try to make complementarily more discussion on two question. First, the target paper (Zagaria, Andò, & Zennaro, 2020) points out the lack of continuity in the concepts used in psychology. The authors aim for a rigorous definition which is necessary to rebuild mud figures of psychology, but is that the only direction? Second, the evolutionary psychology seems to allow for a diversity of methodologies, but is there any limitations and possibilities of approaching the origin of the mind from biologically based methods? To answer this question, I went back and examined Freud’s earlier studies and Vygotsky’s theoretical considerations from the history of psychology. As a result, it was pointed out that the shift from the biological world to the psychological world had a fundamental problem of conversion from quantity to quality. As a clue to its elucidation, I considered on the semiotic mediation, the psychological causality, and the work of apperception.

在这篇评论文章中，我试图对两个问题进行补充性的更多讨论。首先，目标论文（Zagaria、Andò 和 Zennaro，2020）指出心理学中使用的概念缺乏连续性。作者的目标是建立一个严格的定义，这是重建心理学泥图所必需的，但这是唯一的方向吗？其次，进化心理学似乎允许多种方法论，但是从基于生物学的方法接近心灵的起源是否有任何限制和可能性？为了回答这个问题，我回顾了弗洛伊德的早期研究和维果茨基从心理学史上的理论思考。由此，有人指出，从生物世界到心理世界的转变，有一个从量到质的转换的根本问题。作为阐明它的线索，我考虑了符号学中介、心理因果关系和统觉的作用。