The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

After some research on the internet I decided to do what William James and Abraham Maslow did and "act as if" I had free will, and see if I got the same extraordinary results they did (both had been depressed determinists and were "cured" once they gave free will an active try). I still wanted intellectual confirmation though, and I came across this book at the bookstore and bought it on a hunch.

This book has blown my mind. Schwartz' cognitive-therapy work with obsessive-compulsive patients leads us to ask the question, "How is it that a strictly mental process can result in measurable brain changes as shown on PET scans?" Is it caused by another part of the brain? Even if it is, that just postpones the question, because what caused that part of the brain to be any different this time? He makes the case that conscious experience isn't reduceable to anything more fundamental -- try having a colorblind researcher truly understand the color "red" by tracing physical and chemical changes in the brain. Combine that with the fact in quantum mechanics that observation affects which reality it is that shows up, and he proposes a kind of fundamental "mental force" and does a much better job of explaining it than I've done here.

One problem is that in the middle of the book there is a lot of scientific history of particular studies that would support his theory, but they aren't really necessary because they don't say much more than what he's already said, and there's lots of detail that isn't necessary for making his point. It can get dry and uninteresting in those parts, and it seems more like he's just trying to give these unsung scientists their due.

That can't negate, however, how great the rest of the book is. It has a very powerful argument against strict materialism, especially for this atheist/materialist who didn't believe in free will last week. (I can't *believe* how many things this book explains with regard to spiritual claims.) So, don't get discouraged by the scientific history if you get bored by it, and see the book through. And have fun.

He then goes on to discuss the topic of neuroplasticity citing the case of the Silver Springs monkeys. You get a nice history lesson in addition to a summary of some hard won facts about the brain. He also gives plenty of examples of neuroplasticity in humans. He uses this as the physical basis of his own stylized treatment for OCD. His treatment is based on the concept of a mental force (a nebulous concept if there ever was one) that is able to change the brain through the principles of quantum mechanics. He devotes the rest of his book to discussing the quantum mind as well as some implications of the theory as it applies to consciousness.

It is the last third of the book that attempts to explain the concept of a mental force that interacts with the physical substance of the brain (through quantum mechanics) to ultimately produce behavior. The problem as I see it, is that Schwartz believes that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, in that it is more than the sum of its mere physical parts. He seems to be unable to accept the idea that our mental lives are reducible entirely to physical processes. Many of Schwartz's conclusions in this book are based on his a priori assumption that the mind is more than the brain. He interprets the results of a variety of experiments as proof that the mind is not reducible. Granted, many of the experiments he alludes to are fascinating--neuroscience is fascinating by definition, of course--but that does not mean they HAVE to be the product of something greater than the brain. A good example of this is his discussion of Libet's experiments that revealed a readiness potential as proof of free will (and thus a rejection of the "philistine reductionist" viewpoint that all human behavior is caused because as we all know a lack of volition would just be the absolute-ruin-of-the-world-as-we-know-it GAG!). I also found Libet's experiments intruguing; however, I see them as simply raising more questions, not providing a death-blow to materialism.

Finally, Schwartz has a habit of quoting all over the place. He is especially fond of William James, and why not? James was ahead of his time. His contribution to our understanding of the mind is known by every student of psychology. However, Schwartz is using James's insights as an appeal to authority. He also quotes Roger Sperry among others as if to say, "well, these great thinkers think the mind is more than the brain so it must be so!"

Then there is the whole quantum mechanical (QM) brain theory. I'm not a physicist so I will refrain from commenting too much on it. To Schwartz and his physicist buddy Stapp, QM is the mechanism by which the immaterial affects the material. There is a lot of hype in the section of the book and some interesting proposals as well. However, it simply doesn't deliver in the end.

In the end, it is Schwartz's mixture of hard neurobiological facts with immaterial hocus-pocus conclusions that CAUSES me to give it an average evaluation. It's hard to believe that a scientist would be so quick to credit certain discoveries as irrefutable evidence of his own biased opinion. Contrariwise, these perplexing phenomenon are merely the beginnings of further lines of investigation. A scientist must assume he or she is working to uncover some material process. How would one go about trying to prove a physical process is the result of something immaterial?

If you have OCD, you will enjoy the first third of the book. If you are a student of the neurosciences you will enjoy the first two-thirds of the book. And if you're a dualist you will probably enjoy all three.