Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
119 of 160 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Read it first, then judge, September 5, 2007
A rash of best selling books that attempt to use science to prove that materialism, such as Richard Dawkins' new book, have appeared on the market in the past few years. The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul was written by a well qualified PhD level neuroscientist at the University of Montreal who attempts by use of laboratory experimental research to evaluate the claims of the nonmaterialist account of the living world. The coauthor is a journalist, insuring that the book is readable and assessable to the general public. The team was very successful in this work, to say the least. This book is a welcome response, based on scientific research, to the claims of materialists, the theory that life and the universe contains only matter and motion and nothing more. The idea commonly espoused by materialists that no soul, no mind, and no free will exists is effectively challenged by the peer reviewed empirical research reviewed in this book. The authors document that the nonmaterialists approach to the human mind has a long and fruitful tradition and much evidence behind it even today. The authors conclude that this worldview accounts for the evidence much better than the relatively new, and currently largely stagnate, materialist worldview. The materialist tradition not only attempts to explain everything by appealing to the motion of matter only, but has now moved far beyond this, discouraging researchers from even considering the possibility that matter and the four forces explains everything, and thereby limiting research by their straight jacket which stifles science. Science must research every area that may be fruitful, as well as some areas that may not at first appear fruitful. A major conclusion of the materialists argument is that humans have no free will but, if one could understand the position and movement of the brain molecules, one could always predict the behavior of the person. Cornell professor William Provine has articulated this position very well, as has many of his students. As Oxford University Professor Richard Dawkins explains, free will is just an illusion created by the electrical charges in the neurons in our brains, nothing more. These and other highly respected scientists even question the wisdom of punishing criminals because, if there is no mind and no free will, then criminals are victims of their mechanical material brain. Does the evidence support this view? Read this book and judge for yourself. No matter which view you hold you need to at least be aware of the other side. It was my conclusion that most readers will agree that materialist blinders interfere with the freedom to follow the evidence no matter where it leads.
|
|
|
61 of 87 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Pretentious, flawed, self-contradictory, and downright peculiar, March 3, 2008
Should you happen to pick up "The Spiritual Brain," I suggest you begin by reading the last three pages. There Mario Beauregard describes the experiences and convictions that motivate his book, convictions that are not grounded in neuroscience at all. This passage begins on page 293:
"In this last section of this final chapter, I want to present, very briefly, key elements of a nonmaterialist view of mind, consciousness, self, and RSMEs [religious, spiritual, and mystical experiences]. This personal view...is based not only on the findings of various scientific disciplines (some of which are presented in his book), but also on a series of mystical experiences that I have had since my childhood....
"One of these experiences occurred twenty years ago when I was lying in bed. I was very weak at the time because I was suffering from a particularly severe form of what is now called chronic fatigue syndrome. The experience began with a sensation of heat and tingling in the spine and the chest areas. Suddenly, I merged with the infinitely loving Cosmic Intelligence (or Ultimate Reality) and became united with everything in the cosmos. This unitary state of being, which transcends the subject/object duality, was timeless and accompanied by intense bliss and ecstasy. In this state, I experienced the basic interconnectedness of all things in the cosmos, this infinite ocean of life. I also realized that everything arises from and is part of this cosmic intelligence."
Beauregard concluded, "Individual minds and selves arise from and are linked together by a divine Ground of Being (or primordial matrix). That is the spaceless, timeless, and infinite Spirit, which is the ever-present source of cosmic order, the matrix of the whole universe, including both physis (material nature) and psyche (spiritual nature). Mind and consciousness represent a fundamental and irreducible property of the Ground of Being. Not only does the subjective experience of the phenomenal world exist within mind and consciousness, but mind, consciousness, and self profoundly affect the physical world...it is this fundamental unity and interconnectedness that allows the human mind to causally affect physical reality and permits psi interaction between humans and with physical or biological systems. With regard to this issue, it is interesting to note that quantum physicists increasingly recognize the mental nature of the universe."
In reading "The Spiritual Brain" I made my own discovery: Contact with The Matrix does not, apparently, confer the ability to organize a book-length argument, or even write coherently with any consistency. This is a pretentious, flawed, often self-contradictory, and sometimes downright peculiar work.
Pretensions and Flaws
"The Spiritual Brain" announces its grandiose pretensions in its title: "A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul." We are advised on page 3 that "thousands of books" published in dozens of disciplines that advance naturalistic accounts of human origins and functioning are plain wrong. Daniel Dennett is appointed proxy for these "materialist" views. "This book will show that Professor Dennett and the many neuroscientists who agree with him are mistaken...It will show you why he is mistaken." The peculiarities of this work are quickly evident as well. Although this is to be "A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul," the word "soul" appears just once in the direct (unquoted) text of the book and remains undefined and unaddressed. And while Daniel Dennett is early appointed villain, his work is itself never addressed.
Nevertheless, in asserting the above Beauregard and O'Leary assume some responsibility to at least attempt to approximate the level of scholarship employed by their primary targets. They fail miserably in this respect. Beauregard and O'Leary frequently draw uncritically upon secondary and tertiary sources. Weirdly, although Dennett is early designated proxy for the evils of "materialism," and the text mentions in passing titles such as "The Minds Eye," "Brainchildren: Essays on Designing Minds," "Kinds of Minds," "Freedom Evolves" and "Breaking the Spell," Beauregard and O'Leary never really describe or engage Dennett's work, and only "Kinds of Minds" appears in the bibliography. And, to a degree that quickly becomes maddening, they repeatedly declaim pretentious assertions that are entirely unsupported and uncited. On page 33 we learn, "experiments have shown that, because your brain is a quantum system, if you focus on a given idea, you hold its pattern of connecting neurons in place." Srsly?
Ignorance or omission of other primary literatures is rampant throughout. Astoundingly, while Robert Trivers is cited in passing (on pages 9-10) during a discussion of the origins of altruism, Beauregard and O'Leary fail to mention his classic and seminal work on reciprocal altruism, game theory, and the prisoner's dilemma which he first described in 1971 (The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 46, No. 1, Mar., 1971, pp. 35-57). Similarly, in an exceptionally weak passage intended to deny the significance of research into the social-cognitive resources of other great apes to an understanding of human cognition (p.17), Beauregard and O'Leary indirectly report, without identification or citation, the work of Brian Hare and others at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology regarding the relative sensitivity of chimpanzees and dogs to human gestures (such as pointing). Worse than relying upon tertiary sources neglecting citations, this passage omits mention of the extensive and often astonishing research findings regarding primate social cognition that this team has reported in recent years (much of which was documented in a recent, quite excellent, broadcast of NOVA earlier this month). In all, the scholarship informing "The Spiritual Brain" is poor, and Beauregard, at least, should know better. One can only conclude, as one meanders across this dismally incomplete landscape, that Beauregard and O'Leary can't be trusted as guides.
Although less important to the thesis presented in this book, irritating stylistic quirks disrupt any semblance of sustained argument. Blocks of quoted material appear on at least half the pages of this book, as though Beauregard and O'Leary can't quite marshall the resources to make arguments for themselves. Oftentimes, such quotes, when supportive of their position, are offered as though a few sympathetic words settle the matter at hand. Sprinkled throughout the text are sidebars with titles such as "The View From Neuroscience" (isn't that what the entire book purports to be?) and "The Mind Brain Problem" (isn't that what the entire book purports to address?) - as well as other topics that beg for integration into the main text. Also rather odd is the voice of the book, which vacillates from that of "this book" to, sometimes startlingly, the first person singular, although we are left to guess which of the two authors is addressing us.
Contradictions
But these are quibbles, and there are bigger problems afoot. Several arguments presented in "The Spiritual Brain" flatly contradict one another. On page 5 we are asked, "If materialism is true, why don't most people believe it?" This is followed by a recitation of statistics regarding the widespread religiosity of Americans. On page 7 Beauregard and O'Leary continue, "By contrast, most humans have never believed in atheism or materialism. Indeed, religion may well have been around as long as humans." All well and good. But on pages 40-41 we find the following passage, which remarks upon a 2005 display at the London Zoo that presented human beings in animal pens. One participant commented, "A lot of people think humans are above other animals. When they see humans as animals, here, it kind of reminds us that we're not that special..." Beauregard and O'Leary remark, "Yes, we are physically members of the animal kingdom and participate in all its risks and opportunities. But the participant's comment...shows how entrenched philosophical materialism has become in our society. Faced with obvious differences between humans and the typical zoo denizens, many assume that they have actually seen similarities." Which is it? When Beauregard and O'Leary wish to deny that "materialism" has ever had attraction for many people, they say that. When they wish to portray "materialism" and atheism as threatening movements within our culture, materialism is "entrenched in our society" and governs our every day experience. I don't see that either author has detected this ridiculous contradiction. Perhaps neither has read the other's contributions to the book.
A more problematic contradiction has bearing upon the centerpiece neuroimaging studies that are presented within this book: that of Carmelite nuns. The object of those studies is "mystical experiences." On page 191 we are told, "Mystical experiences are rare even for mystics. One reason is that the desire for such an experience poses a barrier. As Sister Diane of the Carmelite convent in Montreal explains: 'You can't search for it. The harder your search, the longer you will wait.' Most mystics spend considerable time in prayer and contemplation; these practices reduce mental noise and pave the way for mystical consciousness, although they do not directly produced that consciousness." On page 190 we learn that mystical union is often difficult to attain, an experience that came to be designated the "dark night of the soul" by 16th century Carmelite John of the Cross. On page 200 we learn that Mother Teresa had four mystical experiences in 1946 and 1947 - and never again had such an experience, "which caused her personal sadness."
Against this...
Read more ›
|
|
|
58 of 83 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
I wish there was an option for zero stars..., February 19, 2008
The subtitle of this book is "The Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul." Alas, I read the whole book and did not find any evidence supporting this case.
But I did find (in just the first 35 pages!), lots of mendacity, such as:
unsupported statements of fact - p. 3 - "Indeed, many thinkers today see the primary purpose of science as providing evidence for materialist beliefs." if "many" is defined as 'a handful", this could be true. But no data are provided for this bald-faced assertion
quote mines - p. 2, quoting Daniel Dennett and saying that his "career focus has been to explain how "meaning, function and purpose can come to exist in a world that is intrinsically meaningless and functionless'". This is an unfair and incomplete characterization of Dennett's work.
outright falsehoods - p. 4, "neuroscientists have not discovered that there is no you in you; they start their work with that assumption." Pure baloney.
arguments from popularity - p. 5, "If materialism is true, why don't most people believe it?" In other words, if UFOs aren't real, why do most people believe in them? Or if prayer doesn't work, why do most people believe it does? In other words, the beliefs of "most people" are not a valid standard for science and scientific fact.
lots of wandering irrelevant blather - multiple pages (24-27) devoted to defenses of Guillermo Gonzalez, an astronomer and Richard Sternberg, a paleontologist, have no place in a book nominally devoted to neuroscience.
and hopeful arguments with no evidence in their favor - pp. 30-32, if quantum mechanics rules the brain, determinism cannot be true! Unfortunately for this argument, the evidence for quantum mechanical effects "ruling the brain" is completely non-existent.
So where is the evidence for the authors' subtitle; where is the evidence for the soul? Not in chapter 1, which is a hopeful and evidence-free traipse toward a "spiritual neuroscience". Not in chapters 2-4, which are basically rants against atheism (aka materialism in the new-speak of the born-again creationists at the Discovery Institute). Not in chapter 5, which circles hopelessly around the topic of "what is the mind?". Not in chapter 6, asserting that near-death experiences show that the "mind acts on the brain as a non-material cause" (evidence for non-material effectors is, again, unfortunately lacking here). Not in chapter 7, devoted to attacking the straw man that neuroscientists have not yet found a "God spot" in the brain (maybe it isn't there???). Not in chapter 8, entitled "Do religious, spiritual or mystical experiences change lives?", which may or may not be answered in the affirmative, but certainly is not new evidence for the existence of a non-material soul.
In chapter 9 one can be hopeful that evidence will finally be forthcoming, because it reviews Beauregard's fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) results from experiments on Carmelite nuns. But those hopes are dashed when we learn merely that the brain activity patterns of nuns having mystical experiences is simply unlike brain activity patterns seen in other conscious states. Unfortunately for the anti-materialist ambitions of the authors, these data merely show that materials (blood, oxygen, neurons, synapses etc.) are required for the mystical experience.
Novel brain activity patterns do not provide any evidence for a soul; they merely provide evidence for the truism that we don't know everything about the human brain and how it functions. Non-material causes of material effects are damnably difficult to detect and study, and these authors have not accomplished that. The final chapter (10) is devoted to more meandering arguments about god and the brain and spirituality and Gallup polls about belief in psychic phenomena etc. But none of it, absolutely none of it, is convincing evidence for a soul.
Furthermore, the writing, as is usual for mystical apologetics and woo-based books, is abysmal. The reader has to endure jargon, euphemisms, and misuse of scientific terminology throughout the book. Perhaps all of this is meant to drive the reader into a stupor so that he/she will not notice that the basic premise of the book is never supported by a single fact. But the actual effect is merely to make one wonder how stuff like this gets published, and how the authors convinced an editor that people would buy and read this drivel.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Brian C. Alston
by Andrew B. Newberg
by Barbara Bruce
