Conventional wisdom holds that the human mind is nothing more than the human brain. This belief derives from materialism. By "materialism" I don't mean the mania to shop unceasingly at the mall. Rather, I mean the philosophy that material reality is all that there is. Immaterial or spiritual realities are, in this view, simply epiphenomena of the material world.
We find the materialist view ably expressed in Francis Crick's The Astonishing Hypothesis. What Crick finds astonishing is that our thoughts, emotions and feelings consist entirely in the physiological activity in the circuitry of the brain. Daniel Dennett argues that "mind" is simply a term for what the brain does. And how do we know that the brain and the mind are essentially the same? The best evidence is that when the brain is damaged, the injury affects the mind. Patients whose brains atrophy due to stroke, for instance, lose their ability to distinguish colors or to empathize with others.
But in his book The Spiritual Brain, neuroscientist Mario Beauregard shows why the Crick-Dennett position is based on a fallacy. Yes, the brain is the necessary locus or venue for the mind to operate. It does not follow that the two are the same. Beauregard gives a telling analogy. "Olympic swimming events require an Olympic class swimming pool. But the pool does not create the Olympic events; it makes them feasible at a given location." Far from being identical to the mind, Beauregard argues that the brain "is an organ suitable for connecting the mind to the rest of the universe."
A provocative idea. Beauregard produces several lines of evidence, but there I focus on just one: the placebo effect. The placebo or sugar-pill effect is one of the most widely-attested phenomena in medicine. One medicine journal notes that "the history of medicine is the history of the placebo effect." So powerful is the impact of the sugar pill that today the effectiveness of drugs is measured by the FDA in comparison to the placebo effect.
Yet as Beauregard points out, the placebo effect is an embarassment to the simple-minded conception of the mind as an ephiphenomenon of the brain. The reason is that this effect shows the mind shaping the brain. The mental expectation of being cured leads to an actual alteration in the physical workings of the brain, and the patient experiences a measurable physiological improvement. One doctor who cured a patient through the placebo effect was asked what he gave the patient that produced such an incredible result. His answer? "Hope."
Beauregard also writes about something I didn't know much about: the nocebo effect. "The nocebo effect is the harmful health effect created by a sick person's belief and expectation that a powerful source of harm has been contacted or administered." So if patients are strongly convinced that a particular pill will give them nausea, they frequently become nauseous, even when the pill they have taken is not the one they expected but only a sugar pill.
Materialism is based on the assumption that the only way to alter the mind is to alter the physical operations of the brain. But Beauregard uses the placebo and nocebo effect to show the reverse. The mind can also regulate the operations of the brain. Beauregard writes that he placebo and nocebo effects are not triggered by the sugar pill but rather are "triggered by the patient's mental state. In other words, they depend entirely on the patient's state of belief."
But if minds can control brains, them minds are not the same as brains. This leads to the unavoidable conclusion that there is an aspect of thought and feeling that lies outside the realm of the material. This is what Beauregard calls "the spiritual brain." Atheists too have one, even if they refuse to admit it.
Reader Comments ( Page 21 of 22)
301. "you act as if the only explanation of life comes by way of the big bank and evolution."
Evolution is a natural fact. Even the ID camp believes in evolution (microevolution at least). Catch up with the class. Hubble shifts are REAL. Cosmic background radiation is REAL. And what do you mean by me acting as if? I'm not sure you've ever read my multiple confessions of my beliefs. I think you're confusing me with the resident atheists, or the strawman atheists.
The "big bank"s are in Switzerland, or in Scrooge McDuck's frontyard.
Mokele Mbembe at 2:34PM on May 28th 2008
302. Evolution is a natural fact. Even the ID camp believes in evolution (microevolution at least). Catch up with the class. Hubble shifts are REAL. Cosmic background radiation is REAL.
Mokele Mbembe at 2:34PM on May 28th
--------------------------
Evolution is nothing more than change over time.
We call it growing old, like when a mans ears get larger or the nose gets bigger.
I don't recall seeing any new speices of mankind walking around or animals for that fact.
Dont you think it strange that after all the time that has passed according to atheist that there is no evidence of new speices. Not to mention the missing link.
Cosmic background radiation is REAL.
AND IT PROVES WHAT THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE, YEA SO...
Observant at 3:10PM on May 28th 2008
303. Observant - you missed my point by the mile of log in your eye.
If I can't trust science, what makes you think I can trust faith?
Why, because you said so, because a book says so, a book written by men. Are you telling me there is proof - evidence that men did NOT write or interpret and then write the bible? What is this proof, what is this evidence.
If I am not to consider the theory of evolution, what theory am I to consider?
TJ at 3:25PM on May 28th 2008
304. "I don't recall seeing any new speices of mankind walking around"
It's a GRADUAL process, meaning it will rarely be visible in our lifetimes. Plus, in humans natural selection is being replaced by social selection.
"or animals for that fact."
That's because you don't pay attention, and also it's a GRADUAL process, meaning it will rarely be visible in our lifetimes.
"Dont you think it strange that after all the time that has passed according to atheist that there is no evidence of new speices. Not to mention the missing link."
They find this shit all the damn time! Every missing link that is found replaces one evolutionary gap with two smaller gaps. Think about it. We can show you a thousand contiguous serial evolutionary samples, and your unremitting denial will drive the scientific community to chasing down a Zeno paradox of interpolated links. I am done talking with you. You don't even understand what you are talking about, even after all this time. You don't even CARE to understand. You just keep baiting and trolling. I am done talking with you.
Mokele Mbembe at 3:40PM on May 28th 2008
305. Yeah, Mokey
I click on the science tab on AOL and they have got new species discovered on there WITH PICS - how wonderful!!!
Why would observant ever concede to a scientific theory when it might question obvious faith in the supernatural? It ain't gonna happen.
TJ at 3:49PM on May 28th 2008
306. TJ,
He has no point to make, and he won't let mere facts stand in his way!
Mokele Mbembe at 3:56PM on May 28th 2008
307. If I can't trust science, what makes you think I can trust faith?
Why, because you said so, because a book says so, a book written by men. Are you telling me there is proof - evidence that men did NOT write or interpret and then write the bible? What is this proof, what is this evidence.
If I am not to consider the theory of evolution, what theory am I to consider?
TJ at 3:25PM on May 28th 2008
-------------------------------------
Who said anything about trusting faith.
You trust God by putting your faith in him.
Now if you dont have faith, that could be a huge problem.
Many people have made the mistake in thinking they could read the bible and become a true believer.
There could not be anything farther from the truth.
The bible says faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
When the gospel is preached in the spirit and power of God it becomes alive, and it is able to discern between the thoughts and intent of ones heart.
It is with the heart one believes unto the saving of the soul.
The soul is often referred to as the heart in the bible.
Not because I say so. I am nobody.
Yes, the bible was written by men.
But these men were chosen of God, and they wrote as the spirit of God moved them.
Yoyu want proof, evidence.
You can have it, God will reveal himself unto you, But not without faith.
Faith is the foundation of christianity.
It is easy to believe in God if he proves himself before hand. In fact that would no longer be faith.
Have you ever gave God a chance?
I know there are many churchs in the world today, and they all say we are the true church, and we have the truth. But the truth is God set up a church, the reason for all the different denomanations is mostly because man could not agree on what the bible teaches.
If you ever do take a notion to seek God. Do not stop until you seek him with all your heart, and he reveals himself unto you. You can know him for yourself.
Observant at 4:06PM on May 28th 2008
308. "Are you telling me there is proof - evidence that men did NOT write or interpret and then write the bible? What is this proof, what is this evidence."
If God wrote it, I think a perfect being would have done a much better job. Books? Lame! He should have made indestructible clear cubes (or spheres or 1:4:9 monoliths) that play out the Creation story as a 3D movie with surround sound.
Even his Commandment tablets broke on the day of purchase. I've seen better workmanship come out of sweatshop outsources (No offense, sweatshopworkers. Um... keep up the good work!)
[I'm not talking to Observant, I'm just baiting him for fun]
Mokele Mbembe at 4:18PM on May 28th 2008
309. I am done talking with you.
Mokele Mbembe at 3:40PM on May 28th 2008
-----------------------------------
That is fine with me, I find your comments very stupid anyway.lol
Observant at 4:19PM on May 28th 2008
310. You might as well admit the truth, there is no scientific proof to support man evolved from muck soup.
-----------------------------------
And what have YOU got, fuckwad? An old musty book written by old musty men. And it shows, sincerely. All indications are that we evolved, and NO indications for a deity. So, this makes you just a liar for god, like all the rest.
You are one of the DENSEST christians that I have ever had the displeasure to encounter.
Godless Heathen Brian at 4:28PM on May 28th 2008
311. You are one of the DENSEST christians that I have ever had the displeasure to encounter.
Godless Heathen Brian at 4:28PM on May 28th 2008
---------------------------------------
And you are one of the most hateful rejects of human nature I have ever had the displeasure to encounter.
DO NOT bother me with your distorted views again, big brain, what a joke you are clown.
Observant at 4:36PM on May 28th 2008
312. The bible isn't any easier understood when some faith guru is interpreting it. It doesn't sound any better than it reads.
"God will reveal himself unto you, But not without faith."
Oh the circular logic. If I had faith, I wouldn't need fact. If he revealed himself to me the game would end. It's like hide-and-seek. If I could actually find him the game would be over - what fun is that?
"Not because I say so. I am nobody.
Yes, the bible was written by men.
But these men were chosen of God, and they wrote as the spirit of God moved them."
So says you, and supposedly them, mere men. I've prayed to your god, I say yours because he has not been proved to me. I asked, he never answered. And as a child, why wouldn't he? An innocent child asking why, asking for strength, for purpose, for courage, for love? No, he never revealed himself and therein lies the problem.
So you say to seek him, and seek him, and seek him until I find him or I die - which ever comes first I imagine. Death stalks me daily, but god does not.
If I don't find him it is my fault for not believing as I should. No, because if I believed, then I wouldn't have to seek, I would accept instead.
This is all well and good. I would find what I sought, only if I accepted that what I sought could never be revealed but only to me. Only if it never was revealed, then I never sought it as I should have and it is me that is at fault - I never truly believed. (said with a British accent - it just sounds smart that way).
You still haven't answered my question.
TJ at 5:44PM on May 28th 2008
313. Ramachandran has pointed out that in some split brain patients, they suddenly have two spheres of consciousness, independent of each other. And in many cases, the different consciousnesses will disagree over things of opinion. One patient even disagreed on belief in God. One side of his brain believed, and the other didn't.
If our minds are truly immaterial, how does D'souza account for the fact that cutting your brain in two makes two minds? Why would affecting a physical brain affect a non physical soul/mind?
And if minds are capable of truly effecting matter, whats the use of a brain? Why not just have our mind move our body? Think of all the energy our body would save if we didn't have brain, just an empty head with an immaterial mind floating around.
D'souza is mistaking correlation with causation. He seems to think "Ramachandran [or any scientist you like] denies the existence of an immaterial mind because he is an atheist." When in fact, I would bet that many of these scientists are agnostic (such as Ramachandran) because of the overwhelming evidence they have discovered, as well as the philosophical absurdities that D'souza doesn't even seem aware of.
zak at 7:38PM on May 28th 2008
314. "Would you rather believe that man was molded from a puddle of mudd, and that woman (in all her loveliness) was made by ripping a bone right out of his gut? So romantic..." - Mokele Mbembe
Ah yes, Mudd's women... oh, I digress... into fantasy... this is supposed to be about reality. Ahem...
I'd rather not believe either!!!
Simply put the best theory that fits the evidence of life's development is the theory of evolution.
Theories loose their power when believed. They gain their power when they stand the test of time for serious questions to pummel them over and over and over. There does come a time though when the answers keep coming up a match. That's usually a good hint about being accurate...
Remember belief itself is the enemy. Kill belief. Kill not belief. Ask for evidence. Ask for proof. Ask for reasonable explanations that don't require any Leaps of Faith. Ask for explanations that don't violate the Well Known and Well Tested Laws of Nature, unless said explanations are better more general explanations. (E.g. Newton's equations are a simpler subset of Einstein's).
May you gently kill belief and destroy Leaps of Faith where ever you go in the world. Provide the option of Objective Reality over delusional belief and leaps of faith into the whacked out worlds that waste people's precious life times dreaming of their nihilistic life after death utopias.
http://www.NoBeliefs.com
Peter at 11:10PM on May 28th 2008
315. (1) The Scientific Method: "Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?
(2) The Creationist, Dinesh D' Souza, Observant, Catholic, Jewish, Islamic, ... and Leap of Faith Delusional Belief Driven Method: "Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?"
So far Science (1) has beaten Religion (2) every time, hands down.
All wise human beings choose the scientific method for determining what is real and not real in objective reality. It just works, and we're getting better at it not to mention faster at an increasing rate.
What have you learned about objective reality today that can help benefit your life and the lives of the ones you love? Your community? Your planet?
Peter at 11:18PM on May 28th 2008