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 5 of 22)
61. GHB - doing alot of acid makes you think that way. it also fries you "mind". the acid you ingest(mind you) to you, you are just ingesting "thoughts" not an "actual" chemical compound that is eating your "brain". Try fasting for a while and live in the woods on your “consciousness”. The first time you get some food for thought in you realize you’re wrong.
youngturkssuck at 9:33PM on May 26th 2008
62. "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."
That is ludricous. The entire nervous system creates the mind, the stream of consciousness, which is simply put off balance with the confusion technique, waiting for an effect from the placebo.
Placebo effect is 'waiting for an expected 'good'', a lot like religion in a way.
not-pboyfloyd at 9:33PM on May 26th 2008
63. pboy-
I think you mean 'only' a child can understand that.
Robert at 9:34PM on May 26th 2008
64. "I mean, I know Robert is somewhat fishy,"
He's actually quite nutso. He wants us to believe that he and his "class" are "studying us." That we're under the microscope.
But yet, he still interjects crap now and then, just to stir the pot/cause confusion/cast aspersions/etc. Telling us he's betting on how many posts a given blog entry will generate, while knowing full well that ANYBODY can post, under a million assumed names, and get to that number of posts, etc. etc.
If it were really a study, "he" wouldn't "do that stuff."
And he showed up EXACTLY at the same time as the person(s) who post(s) with a bunch of \\\\\\\\\\ in their name.
Anyway...
Here was what Botts said about Robert a few days after he left. I don't think we'll see him here for a while, unfortunately.
"And right before I left, there was this dude Robert who came out of nowhere posting as if he'd been there before which tipped me off to the fact that he has been there before. I assumed Robert was Devon. "
brandon at 9:36PM on May 26th 2008
65. Brandon,
You're getting WARMER...CREEPY, HUH? LOL
Robert at 9:40PM on May 26th 2008
66. I suppose the basic point that "Legion" is trying to make is, it really doesn't matter who is posting.
But we make ourselves known by who we are here, by our names. Yes, that might color the message that we post to the readers, but it's like getting to know your neighbors - - if I have a new one every day, I will not know who they claim to be, and what they really are, and therefore, they become usless to talk with as a neighbor. As a transient, there could be a little value, I suppose, but not enough to really get to know them since they're gone tomorrow.
brandon at 9:41PM on May 26th 2008
67. "I think you mean 'only' a child can understand that."
No, Robert, I guess I meant that even some children(however old) will refuse to believe that.
Was there a particular part of it that you didn't think was right?
Swimming pools are not conscious, really, I can't stress that enough.
I know, I know, you're probably thinking that if swimming pools aren't conscious then your teddy-bear and your toys probably weren't either.
Well, little Bobby has to grow up sometime.(maybe not though.)
not-pboyfloyd at 9:42PM on May 26th 2008
68. And you see, GHB? He's doing that thing again, like he's all-knowing, all-seeing, god-like, etc. etc.
Just like a fucking looney.
brandon at 9:43PM on May 26th 2008
69. Went to church yesterday had a great time with all the other parishiners.Praying and singing are hearts out .Our minister said some athiests were complaining about us CHRISTIANS having so many holidays Christmas and Easter and then your trying to make one of memoral day, the ATHIEST said we dont have any we dont need them, The minister said OH ,YES YOU DO April 1st. ha ha thought of all you guys on this blog when he told it. APRIL FOOLS day incase you couldnt understand a funny !!! i dont need comeback about how sinister we are all (Chritians)maybe i will have to stop reading your blogs its making me tooooooo evil !!!! have a great night cutting us all down though. ha ha ha
gwen at 11:09PM on May 26th 2008
70. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQmFMXkhXPY
brandon at 9:45PM on May 26th 2008
71. "OH ,YES YOU DO April 1st. ha ha "
Ha. Ha.
Check out the "Well know pranks" about April 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fool's_Day
brandon at 9:55PM on May 26th 2008
72. Dear Brandon, GHB, etc.
Please read my posts C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y. Take your time, it's okay, and you can move your lips too. I say EXACTLY what I mean- period. If you and your buddies don't get it, that's okay too. It's expected, actually, because we have no trouble reading YOU at all.
P.S. School's out for the summer, so 'we' won't be watching. I however, will, albeit more and more infrequently, I have a project that has superceded yours.
Aloha!
Robert at 10:08PM on May 26th 2008
73. Yawn. Oh, shit, I just remembered that the RED WINGS are ON!!!
And my last passing thought...
"We are Robert of Borg...we wish to be assholes..."
brandon at 10:13PM on May 26th 2008
74. "The brain is the mechanism, the mind is 'what the brain does.
That is fairly obvious, even to a child."
Riiigghhht. Functionalism is obvious. Tell that to Searle. And to Chalmers. Or to the vast majority of philosophers of mind, most of whom are not functionalists.
Also, the swimming pool analogy illustrates an important, though often missed, distinction, i.e. the difference between a precondition and a cause. It has certainly been demonstrated that the presence of a brain is a precondition for the mental states and activities of human beings, but it has NOT been demonstrated that the brain is the cause of our mental states and activities. To demonstrate the existence of a cause, you need a lot more than a collection of correlations; alas, that's all we have so far. If this is confusing, here's another example: you need an orchestra if you're going to hear Schubert's Unfinished symphony, but the orchestra isn't the cause of the symphony -- Schubert was. Rather, it's a precondition of you're hearing the symphony (if you want to respond, 'But the orchestra is the cause of this particular performance of the symphony,' then you're on the wrong track: I'm talking about the symphony itself -- which exists independently of any particular performance of it in the form of information -- the existence of which is a precondition of the orchestra's -- or any orchestra's -- particular performance).
Renzo at 10:20PM on May 26th 2008
75. Kinda like turning on a light in a room full of cockroaches, isn't it? Again- METAPHOR!
Robert at 10:49PM on May 26th 2008