Mind and Brain: NOT the same…

The Wall Street Journal has a great article today in its Marketplace section “How Thinking Can Change the Brain.”  (Click here to see the beginning, but you can access the full article only if you are a subscriber.  In the print version, it is on page B1.)

It describes a dialog that transpired between some neuroscientists and the Dalai Lama (head of Tibetan Buddhism whose beliefs I do not here endorse).  The neuroscientists — committed as they are to the faith of naturalism — see the human mind as simply the product of chemical and electrical activity in the brain.  That is, all mental processes are simply effects physically generated by the organ, and that what we call the human “mind” is simply the result of physical changes in the brain.  The mental is purely the result of the physical.  Chemicals and electricity are the cause and “mind” is the effect.  This makes influence a one way street: the chemicals and electrical activity can affect (indeed, completely cause) the state of what we call the “mind,” but there is no going in reverse, in which mind affects the brain.  In fact, the idea of going in reverse — according to the neuroscientists — is not even supposed to be conceivable, since “mind” is simply the word we use to describe the result of these physical processes and therefore has no independent existence apart from them.

The article’s comments on the scientists’ reactions to the Dalai Lama’s query — whether or not the influence can be reversed, or whether or not the mind can change the brain, instead of the other way around — is worth reading “as is”:

One brain surgeon hardly paused.  Physical states give rise to mental states, he asserted; “downward” causation from the mental to the physical is not possible.

I like the “hardly paused” comment.  But the surgeon would have done better to give greater pause.  As the article (which is apparently adapted from a new book, Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain, by Sharon Begley) goes on to discuss, there is growing evidence that the mind can influence the physical characteristics of the brain — the brain can change in reaction to the mind, and the causation is not always “one way.”  Experiments on humans (some of the Buddhist monks under the Dalai Lama’s direction) seem to demonstrate that the physical organ of the brain can be shaped and transofrmed by choices made by the mind.

Now, on a less spectacular level, a weaker version of this idea has been known for some time.  For instance, one can choose to use addictive drugs, which shape the brain in ways that cause you to want more of the drug — not just to “mentally” want more, but to “physically” want more.  This is a no-brainer (I don’t think that qualifies as a pun, by the way), and isn’t really what we are talking about.  On a step up, the article mentions discoveries in neuroplasticity — the ability of the brain to change in response to one’s environment or experience — that have been capitalized on in improving the lives of many suffering from dyslexia and stroke patients, using the physical environment and intense activities to repair or change the brain in beneficial ways.

Still, what the article focuses on is something entirely different: when thinking alone changes the structure and function of the physical brain.  Emeril Lagasse might say that this kicks things up a notch.  (Or so I hear, since I do not watch cooking shows.  Except the occasional Good Eats, but that doesn’t count…)  Why is this so different?  Because there is (theoretically) no external stimulus, no repetitive motion or programmed sound — simply thought directed by will.  And the studies referenced in the article are among those that are showing this to be possible.

I’m sure that these studies are progressing and that good naturalism adherents are finding holes in the idea, and that’s OK.  That’s how science works — at least, it’s how it is supposed to work.  And given the idea under consideration — that an essentially immaterial mind could be causing, by itself, changes in the material brain which is supposed to generate it — we can expect naturalism fundamentalists to resist such a conclusion with the fullest devotion of their hearts and, well, minds.  We can’t have the supposed illusion affecting the designated reality!  If true, it would at least show the neat and clean “cause and effect” hypothesis that many neuroscientists have crafted for themselves concerning brain and mind to be not quite so “neat and clean.”  It would mean some revisions of models and perhaps the creation of some new naturalism fundamentalist fairy tales.

Don’t get me wrong.  I do not believe in an immortal soul, and the Bible does not describe one.  But the Bible does describe an immaterial part of man’s nature — his spirit — and that immaterial part is intimately connected with his mind and his intelligence (1 Corinthians 2:11).  It is this spiritual part of man, the record of all he has been, that God reclaims at our deaths (Ecc. 12:7) for use in our resurrection.  How that spirit, which makes man so unique in this physical creation, might be “wetwired” to our brain is a question fun to ponder (at least, fun for me).  I look forward to the day when we will really know and I do enjoy the insights that can be provided by neuroscientists concerning the interaction between mind and brain — naturalism bias or no.

Until then, I will continue to be amazed at stories like those told by Roger Lewin way back in the December 12, 1980, issue of Science.  In an article titled, “Is Your Brain Really Necessary?” there is a fascinating tale (on p. 1232, emphasis mine):

“There’s a young student at this university,” says Lorber, “who has an IQ of 126, has gained a first-class honors degree in mathematics, and is socially completely normal. And yet the boy has virtually no brain.”  The student’s physician at the university noticed that the youth had a slightly larger than normal head, and so referred him to Lorber, simply out of interest.  “When we did a brain scan on him,” Lorber recalls, “we saw that instead of the normal 4.5-centimeter thickness of brain tissue between the ventricles and the cortical surface, there was just a thin layer of mantle measuring a millimeter or so. His cranium is filled mainly with cerebrospinal fluid.”

The tale is so much more fascinating in that it is not unique.  Not that such a condition would not normally constitute a horrible detriment to the life of the one suffering from it.  It normally does.  But, it doesn’t always.  Sometimes, in fact, it is as if there is no problem at all.  Brain does not equal mind.

So, if any critic out there decides to call you “brainless,” don’t let it get to you.  “Mindless,” on the other hand…

6 thoughts on “Mind and Brain: NOT the same…

  1. So what you’re saying is the neuroscientist’s thoughts are changing their brain matter to not be able to recognize that their thoughts CAN change their brain matter??? Fascinating… 🙂

  2. Very cool! I remember to a Protestant who ran a ministry dedicated to evidence supporting God’s existence — he said his own son is microcephalic and has a lower IQ than some apes, yet he is an artist, and no ape has ever been that.

    Of course, if brain is the cause of mind, then it’s hard to explain why some whales and dolphins, elephants and Neanderthal Man, who all have bigger brains than modern man on average, don’t have modern man’s mind. Some see the key in the fact that Homo sapiens has language and the others don’t. This is partly true. But this opens a whole new can of worms in that human language can describe things like infinite regress and even demonstrate (through mathematics) the existence of a meta-language — God’s language — that can express concepts that no human language can express, yet can be translated into concepts that human languages can express. How can mere chemicals do all that? There’s no conceivable pressure from natural selection that would enable man to understand the Universe and what lies behind it as well as he does, let alone make him able to argue about whether God created it or not.

  3. Pingback: Hardwired for Morality? « Thoughts En Route

  4. Pingback: Unexpected benefit of this blog (for me, at least!) « Thoughts En Route

  5. Pingback: Debunking the Brain/Computer Connection « Thoughts En Route

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.