New Scientist publishes non-materialist neuroscientists' letter

This is New Scientist's edit of the letter:

Non-materialist mind

by Mario Beauregard and Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Montreal, Canada, and Los Angeles, California, US

New Scientist, 29 November 2008, page 23.

Amanda Gefter's article on the "cultural war" over the brain significantly misrepresents non-materialist neuroscience (25 October, p 46) and does a disservice to your readers.

Most participants in the 11 September symposium "Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness" at the United Nations were medical doctors or neuroscientists who work with them. We do not question materialist models of the mind-brain complex merely for ideological or political reasons. We want to move beyond them because we have not found them adequate explanations of mind-brain interactions, nor do they point to useful treatment plans.

Your writer's attempt to smear scientists who are looking for new directions, while perhaps entertaining, is a poor substitute for thoughtful coverage of a growing area.

Indeed, the breezy explanation by Andy Clark that Gefter quotes: "There's nothing odd about minds changing brains if mental states are brain states: that's just brains changing brains", reveals a fundamental lack of knowledge of mind-brain interactions. In such interactions, the mind state often changes the brain state as a result of new information or a new choice of attention. Information and focus are not material entities.

Mario Beauregard

For the record, here is the letter that was sent to them:

Amanda Gefter’s Perspectives piece (New Scientist, October 22, 2008), “Creationists declare war over the brain,” is a disservice to your readers that significantly misrepresents non-materialist neuroscience. Only a few points are noted here:

First, human consciousness is acknowledged by everyone familiar with the field to be a hard problem in current science. Not surprisingly, new directions are welcomed at this point. You can be confident that the Nour Foundation, UN-DESA, and the Université de Montréal, which co-sponsored the recent symposium “Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness” at the UN (September 11, 2008) were not attempting to advance the agenda of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, as Gefter’s article implies.

Most panel participants were medical doctors or neuroscientists who work with medical doctors. We do not question materialist models of the mind-brain complex for merely ideological or political reasons. We want to move beyond them because we have not found that they provide adequate explanations of mind-brain interactions, nor do they point to useful treatment plans. Your writer’s attempt to smear scientists who are looking for new directions, while perhaps entertaining, is a poor substitute for thoughtful coverage of a growing area.

Indeed, Gefter’s breezy explanation, “There's nothing odd about minds changing brains if mental states are brain states: that’s just brains changing brains” reveals a fundamental lack of knowledge of mind-brain interactions. In such interactions, the mind state often changes the brain state as a result of new information or a new choice of attention. Information and focus are not material entities.

A popular science magazine should be eager to explore the critical implications of new findings in mind-brain interactions for medicine, rather than rehash materialist dogma and US “culture wars” politics.

A couple of points of information: Neither of us is a creationist or a Cartesian dualist. Mario Beauregard has no ties to the Discovery Institute, and the von Neumann interpretation of quantum physics (Henry Stapp’s preferred approach) is a standard one.

Jeffrey M. Schwartz

Mario Beauregard

(Just setting the record straight here. )

See also:

Selected moments from "Beyond the Mind-Body Problem Symposium - morning panel

Selected moments from "Beyond the Mind-Body Problem Symposium - afternoon panel

My response to the New Scientist bid to be the National Enquirer of pop science mags. (But, why?)

New Scientist - a philosophy prof responds

Podcast: Mind over Matter - Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and the Implications for Materialism

Still a materialist? Get your money back. Better yet, get your life back.

On this episode of ID the Future, UCLA psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz shares with Casey Luskin about his research on obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). What does neuroscience tell us about the relationship between the mind and the brain? Schwartz explains in his book, The Mind and the Brain, that patients treated for OCD actually had the power to change the neural pathways in their brains by the power of their minds. What does this mean for materialism in medicine?

Listen in and discover the real-world implications in this debate.

Autism: Beware grand theories

When dealing with complex and painful problems like autism, beware great theories. It is in that spirit that I introduce Amy O'Brian's article (Vancouver Sun, November 14, 2008) on the theory of Bernard Crespi, an evolutionary biologist at Canada's Simon Fraser University:

In what's being hailed as one of the most important contributions to psychiatry since those of Sigmund Freud, a researcher at Simon Fraser University has published a groundbreaking theory that could change the scientific thinking around mental illness.

And what is this theory?

Looking at the social behaviours of the two end-spectrum mental disorders, Crespi said they are solid opposites.

People with autism often have underdeveloped social behaviours, in that they often don't say much and avoid eye contact.

At the other end of the spectrum, people with schizophrenia are often hyper-developed in sociality, Crespi said.

Their sense of self can be hyper-developed into megalomania, language is hyper-developed into hearing voices, and rather than feeling isolated, people with schizophrenia often feel as if they're being watched or plotted against.

Well, we've noticed that. In fact, that's how these disorders came to be noticed as disorders. And so?

He suggests it makes sense to encourage behaviours that are found at the opposite end of the spectrum. So, in people with autism, it would make sense to nurture and strengthen their social behaviours. And the opposite might be true for people with schizophrenia.

Sure. And that is precisely what therapists have always tried to do. But with autism, it often doesn't work because the autist doesn't want to interact with other people; he is quite happy with his non-relationship activities.

Most people who are far down the autism spectrum are not at all dissatisfied with their way of life – quite the opposite, they become enraged when someone (accidentally) interrupts it.

Another theory solves nothing. There is no way out of autism unless the autist actually comes to want relationships.

See also: Deception in humans and animals

Theory of mind: Biology of imagination

Cognitive psychology: Simple test for diagnosing mild dementia

In "Three Little Words Diagnose Mild Dementia", Sylvia Booth Hubbard (NewsMax, November 21, 2008) explains:

The three little words are penny, apple, and table. A tester recites the three words and then has the patient recall them. Patients were also given a piece of paper with a blank circle and asked to draw a clock that read ten minutes after eleven. The questionnaire was filled out by family members. They rated the patients’ performance on daily activities in four categories ranging from “normal” to “dependent.”

Identifying old-age dementia when it first begins is critical because, at that point, the patient and family and friends may be readily motivated to use simple exercises slow down the problem.

According to Dr. Lah, screening for mild cognitive impairment is difficult and requires up to an hour of neuropsychological testing to achieve an accuracy rate of 80 percent. The new, three-minute test was 74 percent accurate in classifying people. “While this may not seem over impressive, it is quite remarkable for a three-minute test,” Lah said, adding that the test was “also extremely inexpensive, easy to administer and score, and requires no special training.”