Like I said before, I'm enjoying the series of mini-debates between Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow in "War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality." Now that I'm more than halfway through the book, it's more obvious than ever that Mlodinow is kicking Chopra's intellectual/philosophical butt.
Here's a non-verbal depiction of my reaction to Deepak Chopra's New Age'y, mostly fact-free arguments on some Big Questions of Life. This photo is of the second page in Chopra's eight page answer to "Does the Brain Dictate Behavior?"
Those are nine -- count them, nine -- marginal question marks that I highlighted in on a single page of Chopra's attempt to convince readers that the human mind is the non-physical hidden controller of the physical brain.
On the previous page, I penned in three words that summarize both my overall take on the mind/brain connection, and that of modern neuroscience: We are us. I wrote that in a mental-pressure relieving attempt to keep my head from exploding after reading this bit of Chopra inanity:
Spirituality is about widening your choices. Science can aid in this project or hold it back. It aids by giving us control over mechanical switches, whether they are in the brain or in our genes. It holds back the project when it insists that our brains or genes control us. No issue is more critical because ultimately there is only one master, either you or the mechanisms built into your body.
Wow.
About three hundred and fifty years have passed since Descartes posited a strict mind-body dualism, and Chopra is still spouting the "spirit is separate from matter" party line. Of course, the Indian philosophy that forms the foundation of Chopra's worldview is much older than that -- and equally discredited by science.
Understand: not long ago I also was a true believer in mind (or soul)/ body (or brain) dualism.
So when I question Deepak Chopra's perspective on the cosmos I'm also questioning the "me" who I used to be. I guess this gives me an edge in critiquing Chopra's arguments, because I know them from the inside out, so to speak.
Again, the core issue is what I said above: We are us.
There simply is no evidence that I am something different from the body/brain which others see when they look at me. Sure, I (like you) can feel that my consciousness springs from some supernatural realm, that my true nature is ethereal soul or spirit, that no matter what happens to my brain my eternal essence will live on unchanged.
The problem is, feelings are a lousy guide to reality.
Feelings are fine when it comes to love, art, walks on the beach, laughing at a TV show -- really, the entire subjective side of human life. Science, though, is our most effective means of understanding the objective aspect of reality, truths which are true not just for me or you, but for everybody.
And one of these truths is that the mind is what the brain does. Interestingly, oneness is the philosophical core of neuroscience, whereas Deepak Chopra's spirituality is thoroughly dualistic. Neuroscience doesn't make a distinction between mind and body, as Chopra does.
Here's how physicist Leonard Mlodinow convincingly demolishes Chopra in his own take on the question, "Does the Brain Dictate Behavior?"
Deepak compares the neurons in our brain to a piano, and our conscious mind to the music it plays. In this view, consciousness is expressed by our physical brain just as musical notes are brought to life by a physical piano. Deepak says, "You can't play 'Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star' on a piano without a piano... But if someone told you that the piano composed 'Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star,' the statement would make no sense."
That is true. But if somebody told you that "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" was composed in an immaterial realm of universal consciousness, that would also sound illogical -- and that, if you follow Deepak's analogy, is the alternative he offers.
Let's not be misled by analogies. While both viewpoints -- that consciousness comes from an outside realm, and that it arises within the brain itself -- are admittedly challenging, the way to make progress in elucidating the connection between mind and brain is to examine the brain, and see how much of what we do and feel can be accounted for by its actions.
...But when one looks at the brain, one does find that there is plenty of evidence to indicate that the brain is the source of consciousness... We cannot transcend the workings of the physical brain.
I wish we could. I wish my consciousness could sail out of my body when I die and live on in some spiritual plane of existence. I wish superpowers could be mine, unfettered by bodily limitations.
Yet I also wish... for reality. For truth. For facing life honestly. So I have to part company with Deepak Chopra, who says, in a wishing sort of way:
The human brain, like the universe itself, delivers whatever you expect it to, in accordance with your deepest beliefs. So why not believe that your brain can deliver mastery?
Why not?
Because beliefs aren't reality. Imagination isn't the same as the way things are. What we want isn't identical with what we get. New Age platitudes crumble beneath the weight of observation, experience, and experiment.
That's why.
I finally get the difference between the new age brain and the scientific brain. Thanks.
Posted by: Laura | October 19, 2011 at 05:44 PM
To Brian: Deepak Chopra is just another one of those self-help guru's who has accumulated great wealth in erm...helping himself...very clever how he has created a cocktail consisting of Vedic literature, hints of SantMat and then added quantum physics and choas theory to support his message....a message which is rather vague if you ask me....
Posted by: the specialist | October 20, 2011 at 05:39 PM
Brian,
Not directly related to this post, but have you read a book called "Journey of souls" by Michael Newton ?
I came across it in a comment on another post here.
Michael is an hypnotherapist and stumbled across this discovery of 'Life between lives'...essentially the spirit world and hence the existence of souls.
it is a fascinating read and seems to answer some of the questions about life after death. There is also a sequel to the book called "Destiny of souls"
maybe you could do a new blog on the book and comment on this in relation to RSSB. I think RSSB seems to suggest going higher then what is given in the book....but that could just be the author has not hypnotised anyone who follows RSSB.
link to the book on amazon... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Journey-Souls-Studies-Between-Lives/dp/1567184855/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319493532&sr=8-1
Posted by: Joro | October 24, 2011 at 03:05 PM
Joro, I hadn't heard of this book. I took a look at the Amazon listing. It appears interesting, but not all that different from other books purporting to prove reincarnation and life after death.
I hope such is true, but the only way for anybody to know is to die. I'm skeptical about hypnosis being used to get people in touch with past lives. The human brain is capable of much self-deception. So I'll probably pass on this book.
Posted by: Blogger Brian | October 27, 2011 at 10:03 PM
Over twenty-five years ago I heard a presentation by Sir John Eccles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_%28neurophysiologist%29) in which he described an experiment with a patient who had dye injected into the bloodstream for a brain surgery. With the patient's consent they arranged prior to the surgery to ask the patient to move a part of the body, and observe the activity of the brain by blood flow. Then they asked the patient not to move that part again, but to think about moving it. The blood flow remained the same, which led Eccles to hypothesize that the soul is playing the mind like that dang piano. SHUT UP ALREADY. Sorry, talking to the piano.
I would consider this to be a hypothesis, and it sounds like we are no closer today to a theory. In order to be scientific, a hypothesis has not only to be testable, but those tests must be capable of falsifying the hypothesis. If you conduct all the demonstrations of your hypothesis which supports it, but never allow a demonstration to disprove it, then what is going on is not scientific; it is merely persuasion.
I find that hypothesis intriguing, and am interested in the science. But I am not convinced of the piano-player hypothesis either.
Everything I think of as myself is so connected to my arbitrary history, my undoubtedly embellished and burnished stories about myself, and my will to survive in physical form -- not to mention my name. What am I without those things?
If there is anything eternal in mind, in consciousness, then it existed before my body and name, and will continue to exist after my body and name are forgotten. Nothing individually manifest physically can have any real, permanent existence. My opinion...of course...
Posted by: Scott | January 12, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Over twenty-five years ago I heard a presentation by Sir John Eccles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_%28neurophysiologist%29) in which he described an experiment with a patient who had dye injected into the bloodstream for a brain surgery. With the patient's consent they arranged prior to the surgery to ask the patient to move a part of the body, and observe the activity of the brain by blood flow. Then they asked the patient not to move that part again, but to think about moving it. The blood flow remained the same, which led Eccles to hypothesize that the soul is playing the mind like that dang piano. SHUT UP ALREADY. Sorry, talking to the piano.
I would consider this to be a hypothesis, and it sounds like we are no closer today to a theory. In order to be scientific, a hypothesis has not only to be testable, but those tests must be capable of falsifying the hypothesis. If you conduct all the demonstrations of your hypothesis which supports it, but never allow a demonstration to disprove it, then what is going on is not scientific; it is merely persuasion.
I find that hypothesis intriguing, and am interested in the science. But I am not convinced of the piano-player hypothesis either.
Everything I think of as myself is so connected to my arbitrary history, my undoubtedly embellished and burnished stories about myself, and my will to survive in physical form -- not to mention my name. What am I without those things?
If there is anything eternal in mind, in consciousness, then it existed before my body and name, and will continue to exist after my body and name are forgotten. Nothing individually manifest physically can have any real, permanent existence. My opinion...of course...
Posted by: Scott | January 12, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Scott, I totally don't get Eccles point of view. Yes, it's well known that thinking about moving my hand fires up the same part of the brain that makes my hand move. What is so astounding about that?
I've never heard a neuroscientist say there is anything soulful or other worldly about this. It just means that mental practice is almost as good as physical practice, when it comes to athletic/physical activity.
Posted by: Brian Hines | January 12, 2013 at 06:30 PM
I think Eccles may have been a bit boggled by the question of where that brain firing is "coming from" -- is it from that part of the brain? It comes down to the question of the nature of consciousness, and that was the topic of the talk. It was certainly not a scientific venue, and not a scientific talk per se -- the whole point of it was that he was a "Nobel Prize-winning neurophysicist talking about the nature of consciousness." It was well-marketed, and attendance was costly...need I say more? He saw an opening, or someone did.
I admit to being happily mystified by what is meant by "mental practice" or "physical practice" from a physiological point of view, or where in the brain consciousness may arise or be expressed. Everywhere?
As far as I can see, this is just a rewording of meditation instructions -- see the originless nature of your thoughts, and that they also are destinationless ... certainly true in this case! Return to the breath. heh
Posted by: Scott | January 12, 2013 at 07:31 PM