Brains On Purpose™

Interviews of several psychology and neuroscience bloggers: Who are they and why do they blog?

Reading through these interviews can be time-consuming, and worth the time. For example, each of the interviewees recommends his or her favorite blogs and books; these recommendations can send you off on several exploratory link-paths. They also talk about such topics as why they got into science blogging and how blogging affects their "day jobs."

From The bloggers behind the blogs (Research Digest blog):

Blogging has emerged as a powerful medium in recent years and nowhere is this more evident than in psychology and neuroscience. But who are the people behind these increasingly influential blogs? What are their motives and what advice do they have for aspiring bloggers? The Research Digest caught up with a handful of the world's leading psych bloggers to find out:

• Jacy Young of Advances in the History of Psychology.
• Jesse Bering of Bering in Mind.
• Anthony Risser of BrainBlog.
• David DiSalvo of Brainspin & Neuronarrative.
• Petra Boynton of Dr Petra.
• Vaughan Bell of Mind Hacks.
• Mo Costandi of Neurophilosphy.
• David Dobbs of Neuron Culture.
• Neuroskeptic of Neuroskeptic.
• Hesitant Iconoclast of Neurowhoa!
• Scarlett de Courcier of Ramblings of an Academic Petrolhead, Paracademia and 28 others.
• Dave Munger of Research Blogging and Cognitive Daily.
• Wray Herbert of We're Only Human & Full Frontal Psychology.

Click to the post to follow links to all the interviews. You may find a new blog or two to add to your RSS feed.

More from two of the leading critics of neurolaw

Michael Pardo and Dennis Patterson have responded to comments on an earlier article they wrote titled "Minds, Brains, and Norms" (download from SSRN). Their newest discussion of neuroscience and law is "More on the Conceptual and the Empirical: Misunderstandings, Clarifications, and Replies" (download from SSRN). Abstract of the new article:

At the invitation of the Editors of Neuroethics, we wrote an article (entitled, “Minds, Brains, and Norms”) detailing our views on a variety of claims by those arguing for the explanatory power of neuroscience in matters of law and ethics. The Editors invited comments on our article from four distinguished academics (Walter Glannon, Carl Craver, Sarah Robins, and Thomas Nadelhoffer) and invited our reply to their critique of our views. In this reply to our commentators, we correct some potential misunderstandings of our views and further clarify our positions with discussions of the conceptual-empirical distinction, rule-following, explanations at the personal and subpersonal levels, memory, and lie detection. Although we acknowledge many of the criticisms advanced by our distinguished colleagues, we conclude that, in several important respects, their criticisms confirm the points made in our original article.

My prior posts on Pardo and Patterson:

• Some hard questions about neurolaw: If you are interested in law and neuroscience, read this article
• Another article looking at neurolaw with a critical eye
• A critical eye on neurolaw: Two of the leading critics of neurolaw have signed up for a reading group at The Law and Neuroscience Blog

H/T: Legal Theory Blog.

Conference - "Our Changing Brain: The Impact of Neuroplasticity on the Understanding and Practice of Psychiatry”

Jeffrey Schwartz, MD, recently gave a keynote presentation at McMaster University entitled “The Quantum Brain and Self-Directed Neuroplasticity. Click for the conference program [pdf].The abstract [pdf] of Jeff's talk:

Neurobiological research generally assumes that brain mechanisms alone will ultimately suffice to explain all psychologically described phenomena. This assumption stems from the idea that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience can be formulated solely in terms of the principles of classic Newtonian physics. Thus, terms having intrinsic experiential content (e.g. ‘feeling’, ‘observing’ and ‘effort’) are not included as primary causal factors.    This theoretical perspective is dictated by ideas about the natural world that have been known to be fundamentally incorrect for more than three-quarters of a century. Contemporary physical theory differs profoundly from classic Newtonian physics on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the causal dynamics of empirical phenomena. The new quantum principles contradict

We think with more than just our minds: Conflict reaches clear down to our toes

A negotiation is so much more than minds and brains interacting with each other. Our bodies are an integral part of any conflict resolution, and not just to hold up our heads that house our brains. Whole people are in the room, and the conflict goes from head to toe. Our cognition is embodied.

I have posted about embodied cognition before, but it is good to remember often that we are more than what is above our neck. A new article was a good reminder for me today of the whole-body person that we each are. I am passing it along as a reminder for you. From "The Body of Knowledge: Understanding Embodied Cognition" (Association for Psychological Science's Observer):

The cold shoulder. A heavy topic. A heroic white knight. We regularly use concrete, sensory-rich metaphors like these to express abstract ideas and complicated emotions. But a growing body of research is suggesting that these metaphors are more than just colorful literary devices — there may be an underlying neural basis that literally embodies these metaphors. Psychological scientists are giving us more insight into embodied cognition — the notion that the brain circuits responsible for abstract thinking are closely tied to those circuits that analyze and process sensory experiences— and its role in how we think and feel about our world.

[Author] APS Fellow and Charter Member Art Glenberg (Arizona State University) says embodiment “provides a counterweight to the prevailing view that cognition is something in the head that is pretty much separate from behavior. ...

(He goes on to say we are animals and that all of our cognition is directed towards survival and reproduction. I don't happen to agree that those are our only goals but that opinion of his does not detract from the article.)

The authors take a look at several research studies on various effects of embodied cognition. The studies are not in the least boring. I invite you to read the article, and bet many of you will find the studies intriguing.

Watch a video: "The mind is not what the brain does"

In this video, Doctors Jeffrey Schwartz and Henry Stapp discuss the difference between the mind and the brain. Jeff, of course, is an expert in neuroplasticity and Dr. Stapp is a quantum physicist. Click for the video "The mind is not what the brain does."

Here is a review of the talk.

Not guilty! I'm only a neuro-person and my brain made me do it

Not too long ago, I heard a presentation on the the brain and conflict resolution in which the speaker said dysfunctional brains are the cause of evil and crime. As regular readers know, I certainly do not agree with this reductionist view of human beings. So I was delighted to read a new paper by Professor Steven K, Erickson titled "Blaming the Brain." (Download here.) Excerpt:

People are more than their brains. Legal and social traditions have long held people accountable for their behavior under the presumption that most behavior is intentional and the product of conscious decision making. ...

Yet emerging conceptions of personhood generated by cognitive neuroscience suggests something very different than this entrenched view. Instead of people, cognitive neuroscience posits brains as the exclusive agents of behavior and suggests brains are incapable of blame because of their mechanical and determined nature. Minds and brains are held synonymous – thoughts, desires, and behaviors are regarded as no more than the yield of fixed neuronal tissue. ...

...

But there are problems with the neuro-person model. Despite the claim by neuroscientists that the mind is accessible, measurable, and predictable, there are good reasons for skepticism on all of these fronts. Cognitive neuroscience, like all fields of science, utilizes assumptions to generate its conclusions. Chief among these is that the complexity of the mind can be understood by examining localized areas of the brain which are presumed indicative of how people think.

Note: My recent post about locationism.

If you are interested in the mind and the brain, what makes people do what they do, and self-responsibility, I urge you to read the whole paper. Although Erickson is looking particularly at neurolaw within the criminal justice system, this paper is an excellent read for all of us.

Here are two posts from idealawg about neurolaw:

• Neurolaw another branch of neuromythology? Free will? Free won't?
• Neurolaw: Leaving out a big piece of the puzzle

Download the articles from the 2009 Mind & Life Research Institute here

Click here to read the various articles assigned by this year's Mind & Life Research Institute faculty. The event was held this week and ends tomorrow.

From the brochure [pdf]:

The purpose of the Mind and Life Summer Research Institute is to advance collaborative research among behavioral and clinical scientists, neuroscientists, and biomedical researchers based on a process of inquiry, dialogue and collaboration with Buddhist contemplative practitioners and scholars and those in other contemplative traditions. The long-term objective is to advance the training of a new generation of behavioral scientists, cognitive/affective neuroscientists, clinical researchers, and contemplative scholar/practitioners interested in exploring the potential influences of meditation and other contemplative practices on mind, behavior, brain function, and health. This includes examining the potential role of contemplative methods for characterizing human experience and consciousness from a neuroscience and clinical intervention perspective.

The 2009 Mind and Life Summer Research Institute (MLSRI) will be devoted to the theme of the self, its development in sociocultural and contemplative contexts, and its implications for human flourishing

What's the brain doing during conflict?

In a book I am reading Una Vida: A Fable of Music and the Mind (more about the book here), I found a quote that beautifully describes what our brain does, whether we are in conflict or not. I hope some of you appreciate this paragraph from Una Vida as much as I.

The human brain is a creative organ — it interprets events, nor just records them. It functions more like an abstract painter than a realist. Its view of what happens is more important than what actually happened. Pain, smell, taste, touch, and fear are the visionaries of what we see. There is no pure, unmediated seer; no objective reporter. Our images are shaped by the context in which we choose to live. We see what we want to see, hear what we want to hear — or what we need to in order to preserve the image of ourselves and others that provide us with a sense of purpose.

In contrast to the brain, the mind can be an "objective reporter" but we must train it through attention and awareness before it becomes that "unmediated seer." The training process is simple but not easy; it takes discipline and, just as important, strong commitment. It's easier to let the brain run our life — and that is what most of us do.

Separate videos of the Mind-Body Symposium at the UN: Includes Jeff Schwartz's presentation

Just a quick post  . . .  Someone has taken the time to make individual videos of the presentations given at the United Nations' Mind-Body Symposium. Now you need not watch the entirety of the panels if you are only interested in one or two of the speakers. All the videos are here. (They are shortened versions of the longer talks.) The presentations now available include:

• Dr. Jeffrey M. Schwartz
• Dr. Christina M. Puchalski
• Dr. Mario Beauregard
• Dr. Henry Stapp

The brain dancer: How about a little movement in your mediation? Just a little?

I watched a wonderful video. It is of a scientist dancing some information about the brain. Be sure to take a look at Scientists explain their work through the medium of dance (BPS Research Digest blog). Beautiful. So much conveyed with no words.

I have posted before about embodied cognition and about the brain's language of images. Relying only on words when resolving a dispute leaves out so much potential wisdom and creativity. Although not in a conflict process, I was reminded of the power of body expression in a recent Brains on Purpose™ class.

The students in groups were reviewing seven points about the brain by drawing images. One group included a professional dancer; they chose to choreograph for her a dance presenting the seven points. After watching the dance, the class was silent. I think we were all surprised that so much could be communicated through that medium. From the Scientists explain . . . post that I linked to above: "the human body is an excellent medium for communicating science--perhaps not as data-rich as a peer-reviewed article, but far more exciting."

Am I suggesting that disputants dance? Perhaps, in a minority of arenas where it would not be too far outside the mold of

Interviews of speakers at the NeuroLeadership Summit

I have been adding links to these interviews as they occur. Listen to the 2008 North American NeuroLeadership Summit interviews here. The first interview is of Jeff.

Access to many of the comments made by Jeffrey Schwartz and others at the UN's conference on the mind and the body

Denyse O'Leary is posting parts of the transcripts from the morning panel of last month's UN conference Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness. (My earlier post about Beyond the Mind-Body Problem.)

Here are the excerpts she has posted

• From Jeff Schwartz's comments
• From Esther Sternberg's comments
• From Henry Stapp's comments
• From Mario Beauregard's comments

I will add links here as she posts more excerpts. You may watch or listen to the whole of both the morning and afternoon panels here.