Brains On Purpose™

"Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: A neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction"

Abstract:

Neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behaviour generally posits that brain mechanisms will ultimately suffice to explain all psychologically described phenomena. This assumption stems from the idea that the brain is made up entirely of material particles and fields, and that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience can therefore be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements. Thus, terms having intrinsic mentalistic and/or experiential content (e.g. ‘feeling’, ‘knowing’ and ‘effort’) are not included as primary causal factors. This theoretical restriction is motivated primarily by ideas about the natural world that have been known to be fundamentally incorrect for more than three-quarters of a century. Contemporary basic physical theory differs profoundly from classic physics on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical phenomena. The new principles contradict the older idea that local mechanical processes alone can account for the structure of all observed empirical data. Contemporary physical theory brings directly and irreducibly into the overall causal structure certain psychologically described choices made by human agents about how they will act. This key development in basic physical theory is applicable to neuroscience, and it provides neuroscientists and psychologists with an alternative conceptual framework for describing neural processes. Indeed, owing to certain structural features of ion channels critical to synaptic function, contemporary physical theory must in principle be used when analysing human brain dynamics. The new framework, unlike its classic-physics-based predecessor, is erected directly upon, and is compatible with, the prevailing principles of physics. It is able to represent more adequately than classic concepts the neuroplastic mechanisms relevant to the growing number of empirical studies of the capacity of directed attention and mental effort to systematically alter brain function.

Click to read the rest of "Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology" (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B) or here.

Dopamine related to motivation?

After reading books such as Psychology's Ghosts: The Crisis in the Profession and the Way Back, I am even more likely to see most research studies as, at best, clues, and clues only only in the material world. That's how I view this study written about below, but I post the news release here because I can never be reminded too often that we are each different; this study is another reminder that one size does not fit all.

News release from Society for Neuroscience:

DIFFERENCES IN DOPAMINE MAY DETERMINE HOW HARD PEOPLE WORK

Washington, DC — Whether someone is a “go-getter” or a “slacker” may depend on individual differences in the brain chemical dopamine, according to new research in the May 2 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience. The findings suggest that dopamine affects cost-benefit analyses.

The study found that people who chose to put in more effort — even in the face of long odds — showed greater dopamine response in the striatum and ventromedial prefrontal cortex, areas of the brain important in reward and motivation. In contrast, those who were least likely to expend effort showed increased dopamine response in the insula, a brain region involved in perception, social behavior, and self-awareness.

Researchers led by Michael Treadway, a graduate student working with David Zald, PhD, at Vanderbilt University, asked participants to rapidly press a button in order to earn varying amounts of money. Participants got to decide how hard they were willing to work depending on the odds of a

Neuroscience and social conflict: A new interdisciplinary initiative

The first meeting of the Project on Justice in Times of Transition occurred earlier this year. Matt Armstrong, one of the attendees, blogged about it at his Mountain Runner. Excerpt:

What if you put neuroscientists, social scientists, conflict resolution experts, and diplomats together in a room? Is there something to the “human dimension” of conflict that the science of the brain can inform the art of conflict resolution and mitigation? The Project on Justice in Times of Transition, in partnership with the SaxeLab at MIT, launched the initiative “Neuroscience and Social Conflict: Identifying New Approaches for the 21st Century” to find out.

The first meeting was February 9-11, 2012, at MIT in Boston. PJTT and SaxeLab brought together a high-level group of experienced leaders from the Middle East, South Africa, Northern Ireland, and Central America with conflict conflict resolution experts, social psychologists, and leading neuroscientists to survey the latest findings in neuroscience and brain research to brainstorm and exchange ideas for addressing conflict.

I attended the February meeting and it was an eye-opening few days that started early and continued over dinner into the night. The presentations were honest, devoid of grandiose assertions of magic bullets, and each were followed by collegial discussions fueled by fresh questions and ideas.

Rebecca Saxe, the Director of SaxeLab, highlighted some of the general assumptions most scientists looking at conflict and conflict resolution share:

• People respond to conflict as human beings and there is some generalized experience that can be captured
• Behaviors can reflect emotions, associations, norms, and narratives that are not accessible through cognition or introspection
• People resist changing their minds and simple persuasion is almost never sufficient to make them change

The science presentations shared research on how particular parts of the brain were involved with specific behavior and emotions, such as fear. ...

Click to read the rest of "Neuroscience and Social Conflict: Identifying New Approaches for the 21st Century."

Click to read a past post mentioning the work of Dr. Rebecca Saxe.

Brain wars caused by book of the same title

The battles of the materialists, the reductionists, against those who believe that we are more than our brains go on and on. And on. Just this week, I see in the Guardian "The brain… it makes you think. Doesn't it?"

In Salon, we can follow an ongoing "discussion" between PZ Myers and neuroscientist Mario Beauregard about the latter's new book Brain Wars: The Scientific Battle Over the Existence of the Mind and the Proof That Will Change the Way We Live Our Lives. Salon ran an excerpt from Brain Wars titled "Near death, explained." Myers followed with "Near-death, distorted." This weekend we will see a response from Beauregard which I will link to here when it is posted. Later added: Click to read Beauregard's response. Added April 30, 2012: Myers's response to Beuaregard, also at Salon as of May 1.

If you want to read a well-written book about the non-materialist position, Brain Wars is excellent. In addition to drawing on his professional experience, Dr. Beauregard has researched his topic well. He persuasively makes the point that our lives are not determined by our brains and its chemicals. This message gives one more hope than provided by the determinism of the reductionists—and reminds us of our responsibility to make good decisions. Read the book.

Note: Mentioned in both Myers's and Beauregard's pieces is the story of Kimberly Clark and Maria. Before you decide what you think happened, I recommend you read "Who Will Watch the Watchers?" (Michael Prescott).

Posts about the brain and also about mindfulness/meditation often on my other blog

Once in a while, I run into someone who follows this blog but does not know that I also blog at idealawg. At that other blog, I often post about the brain or about mindfulness/meditation. Those posts are typically more general and, unlike most posts here, not specifically related to conflict resolution. Click for idealawg posts about the brain and posts about mindfulness/meditation.

NEW KINDS OF SMART: Free resource on brain science and learning

Click to read New Kinds of Smart: How the Science of Learnable Intelligence is Changing Education online and at no charge. Although the book is written for educators, it has much that is informative to conflict professionals, too. As I have often said, moving towards the resolution of a dispute must involve learning, by both mediator and parties.

Excerpt from the book:

The book works like this. It has eight core chapters, each of which follows a similar format:

A specific piece of research which illustrates the theme of the chapter.

Getting to grips with. An overview of scientific and educational research relevant to the chapter.

Starting out. Examples of what schools that are just beginning to work with the ideas in the chapter are doing.

Going deeper. More advanced examples of the ways in which schools are working with the ideas in the chapter.

Ideas into practice. Questions to prompt thinking, reflection,discussion, action and further reading.

At an appropriate moment in each chapter we have also included auseful tool to enable you immediately to see how you could  move from thinking into action.

Read more about the book here at Amazon. Or quickly scan through New Kinds of Smart here, reading just the sidebars to see if the book is a fit with your interests.

Interview of authors of new book EMOTIONAL LIFE OF YOUR BRAIN

Click to watch Charlie Rose conduct a short interview of Richie Davidson and Sharon Begley about their book Emotional Life of Your Brain. In reading the book, I particularly appreciated that it reminds the reader of two things:

• We each are unique and thus one size does not fit all
• We can change our brains (and thus behavior) if we want to.

Note (added March 15, 2012): Click for an interview  of the authors by Diane Rehm of NPR.

What DON'T we know about the brain? Vast amounts, whole oceans and skies worth

Every so often something comes in one of my Google alerts about how much we do not know about the brain. Those articles and posts make me smile as they are excellent reminders to stay away from brain statements, schemes, and stories that are overreaching or even fantasy extrapolations.

No matter how many of these pieces appear that describe our paucity of knowledge, we still see many more articles purporting to tell us how our brains behave and often how to use that information to change other people or ourselves.

Of course, what we know so far about the brain can be very helpful in changing and creating habits, and in communicating with others. But we don't know as much as many would have you believe. I remind myself frequently to be discerning when reading and hearing about the brain, investigate the sources, follow and appreciate experts I trust.

Why? I don't think I would be exaggerating to say more than half of what is in the popular media is partially, if not completely, inaccurate. The brain is trendy right now, a hot topic, and neuro-anything seems to attract people. Ultimately the reason I grow more skeptical over the years is an issue of integrity; don't we all need to be responsible about what we tell others—on any topic?

Here's an except from a "Clear up this fuzzy thinking on brain scans" (Nature), a Google-alert treat that arrived in my inbox today.

Hardly a week goes by without the media showcasing beautiful three-dimensional images of the brain in action, which supposedly explain how and why humans do the things we do. Most recently, people have pretended that they can use neuroimaging alone to identify paedophiles or prove that we fall in love with mobile phones.

The limits of the technology, together with our incomplete picture of how the brain functions, make it hard to take these claims seriously. But, regardless of the doubts expressed by many neuroscientists, the appeal of brain images, and the illusion they offer of understanding and explaining our daily behaviour, continues to grow.

Click to read the rest. A related post: Virtuous Tweeting: Do you really, really, really want to send that "science" Tweet?

Interpersonal neurobiology: Great slate of speakers next month at UCLA

If I were going to be near southern California in March, I would definitely consider attending this conference. The lineup of speakers is excellent; it includes Dan Siegel, Iain McGilchrist, Marion Solomon, Diane Ackerman, and John Gottman.

From the brochure for "Toward a New Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships" to be held March 9-11, 2012:

Discover how relationships shape the brain... And how the brain shapes relationships.

The Annual Attachment / Interpersonal Neurobiology Conference explores clinical implications of recent interpersonal neurobiological models, including brain/mind/body systems, and newer body-based trauma models that focus on the enduring impact of stress on the central and autonomic nervous systems. The goal is to integrate neuroscience, attachment research, and developmental studies to expand empirical ways to cultivate health and healing in our lives. We will look at how this impacts communications in relationships, including patient-therapist and couples interactions.

Those attending will hear perspectives on new body-based trauma models. The discussion provides a framework for understanding the chronic nature of trauma-related behaviors and how they affect interpersonal communications.

A backlash against the brain?

Excerpt from "Neurons v Free Will" (The Economist):

There are now hopeful signs of what might be called a backlash against the brain. Hardly anybody doubts that the grey matter in our skulls underpins our thoughts and feelings, in the sense that a working brain is required for our mental life. This is not a new, or even a modern, idea: Hippocrates proclaimed as much in the fifth century BC. But there is a growing realisation among some neuroscientists that looking at flickers of activity inside our heads can be a misleading way to see how our minds work. This is because many of the distinctively human things that people do take place over time and outside their craniums. Perhaps the brain is the wrong place to look if you want to find free will. This is a theme of recent books by Michael Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and Raymond Tallis, a retired British doctor and neuroscientist. As Dr Tallis puts it in his “Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity”, trying to find human life in the brain is like trying to hear the rustle of a forest by listening to a seed.

Click to read the rest.

 

Virtuous Tweeting: Do you really, really, really want to send that "science" Tweet?

Why do people pass on items before scrutinizing them? Some members of my Tweeter gang regularly Tweet press releases from such sources as Science Daily as if they were news. Then these Tweets are reTweeted and the peeping and chirping and crowing of Tweety birds grows louder and louder.

In a post from Arstechnica, the practice of treating such aggregators as PhysOrg and Science Daily as news was criticized:

[I]n a large number of contexts, these two sites are treated as credible sources of scientific information. Items posted there make frequent appearances on social news sites, and a number of people I've talked to have been shocked to discover that the majority of the sites' content is nothing more than rebranded press releases.

Ultimately, the job of editing and of peer review is to help ensure that only scientifically valid data and ideas end up in the literature. The job of the press should be to ensure that the public only receives reports of equal quality (or better, since the press can act as an additional layer of filtering). Unfortunately, with the rise of the press release, and of aggregators that disguise press releases as news content, the public is not being well served in this regard.

I have not forgotten a Tweet from Todd Stark last month in which he responded to this problem and wrote:

Aggregator problem reinforces the need to understand and filter before passing on. A new virtue for the 21st century!

A new virtue. I like that suggestion. Wouldn't it be nice if people did some digging prior to Tweeting? Even chickens don't eat

Rescuing the amygdala from the swamp of pop culture

Coming on the heels of my blog post Clearing up confusion: The amygdala is not the same as the reptile brain & it's probably not reserved for fear is a news release from Association of Psychological Sciences with more information which I hope will continue the cleaning up of the amygdala's reputation in the media. And clear up its role in our day-to-day to lives.

The release:

The Amygdala And Fear Are Not The Same Thing

In a 2007 episode of the television show Boston Legal, a character claimed to have figured out that a cop was racist because his amygdala activated – displaying fear, when they showed him pictures of black people. This link between the amygdala and fear – especially a fear of others unlike us, has gone too far, not only in pop culture, but also in psychological science, say the authors of a new paper which will be published in the February issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

Indeed, many experiments have found that the amygdala is active when people are afraid. But it also activates at other times, for example in response to pleasant photographs and happy faces.

The misconception came from how scientists first approached studying the brain. A lot of people came to the amygdala from the study of fear, says Wil Cunningham of Ohio State University, who co wrote the new paper with Tobias Brosch of New York University. “It’s a great emotion to study because it’s very important, evolutionarily, and we know a lot about fear in animals,” Cunningham says. Almost every study of fear finds that the amygdala is active. But that doesn’t mean every spark of activity in the amygdala means the person is afraid.

Instead, the amygdala seems to be doing something more subtle: processing events that are related to what a person cares about at the moment. So if you’re in a scary situation or have an anxious personality, the amygdala might be activated by a frightening image. But hungry people have increased amygdala activity in response to pictures of food and people who are very empathetic have an amygdala response to seeing other people.

“When we’re studying emotion, people want to find specific brain parts that are associated with different