Gary Greenberg and Charles Lambdin's review (in the summer 2007 issue) does an excellent job of summarizing the contents of Uttal's book "Neural Theories of Mind: Why the Mind-Brain Problem May Never Be Solved" (hereafter NTM). These authors make several insightful comments about the issues raised in NTM. In this response, the author disagrees, however, with two aspects of Greenberg and Lambdin's review: one a matter of opinion, the other of fact. First, the author is surprised at Greenberg and Lambdin's generally positive assessment of NTM, because they (and the author) disagree with Uttal's fundamental notion that minds exist and that the brain is the source of behavior. Second, the author takes issue with some of Greenberg and Lambdin's interpretations of neuroscience research, which they use, rightly, to argue that psychology is not a biological science. The author disagrees that NTM is worthwhile reading for behaviorists (or psychologists in general), because Uttal's basic assumption--that the mind exists and that psychology can be reduced to neurophysiology--is flawed. The author disagrees more strongly with Greenberg and Lambdin's uncritical citations of obscure and dated neuroscience research. This flaw is unfortunate, because Greenberg and Lambdin are correct on the substantive issue: psychology is a behavioral science, not a biological one. (Contains 1 figure.)