Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Songs of Summer Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Review

109 of 161 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Pretentious, flawed, self-contradictory, and downright peculiar, March 3, 2008
This review is from: The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul (Hardcover)
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 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 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.


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 background, which established that "mystical experiences are rare, even for mystics," we are to believe that Beauregard placed 15 Carmelite nuns into his fMRI and all attained mystical experiences that became grist for his scanner. "The fifteen nuns were scanned while they recalled and relived their most significant mystical experience (mystical condition) as well as their most intense state of union with another human (control condition) ever felt as members of the Carmelite order" (p. 268). Beauregard expressed confidence that the nuns had indeed attained mystical union by means of this procedure. "During the qualitative interviews at the end of the experiment, the nuns said that they had felt the presence of God and his unconditional and infinite love as well as plenitude and peace." During a subsequent study entailing EEG rather than fMRI, "several nuns mentioned that during the mystical condition they felt the presence of God, his unconditional and infinite love, and plenitude and peace. The also felt a surrendering to God." He concluded, with confidence that seems unwarranted given the above observations regarding the scarcity of true mystical union, "In other words we had succeeded in measuring brain activity of the nuns while they went on to an actual mystical state."

If Mother Teresa were still here, she'd be upset.

Own Goals

Most damaging to the aims of this book are the "own goals" that Beauregard and O'Leary inadvertently score. Indeed, they repeatedly score "own goals" with respect to the central, dualistic thesis of the book: that mind and brain differ, and that mind controls and modifies brain. Beauregard and O'Leary cite the example of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). "My friend an colleague Jeffrey Schwartz, a nonmaterialist UCLA neuropsychiatrist, started working with OCD sufferers in the 1980s because he sensed that OCD was a clear case of an intact mind troubled by a malfunctioning brain." Schwartz determined by means of scans the cortical and subcortical brain circuitry that appears to underlie OCD, and devised a "mindfulness" treatment protocol that draws upon cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy to treat the disorder. When treatment succeeded, "he was not simply getting patients to change their opinions, but rather to actually change their brains. He wanted them to substitute a useful neural circuit for a useless this therapy, the patient is entirely in control. Both the existence and the role of the mind as independent of the brain are accepted; indeed, that is the basis of the therapy's success" (p. 130). Further neuroimaging disclosed areas of patients' brains that displayed modified activity following treatment.

The problem with all this is that the imaging in fact disclosed something quite other than minds operating independently of brains. By means of imaging, "Schwartz noted that the most recent (and thus most sophisticated) prefrontal parts of the human brain, in evolutionary terms, are almost entirely unaffected by OCD. That is why patients perceive compulsions as alien. They are alien to the most characteristically human parts of the brain. To the extend that the patient's reasoning power and sense of identity remain largely intact, they can actively cooperate with their therapy" (p. 128).

There you have it. Reasoning power and sense of identity are hosted by recently evolved prefrontal areas of the human brain, those areas that render us most characteristically human. We know that the human brain is organized hierarchically, with loops of regulation culminating in highly abstract frontal modeling and monitoring of self relative to one's physical and social environment and related goals, and we know that prefrontal areas of the brain are crucial to these high level representational and planning activities. Schwartz's imaging again confirms this view. The upshot of this research is not that a mind independent of brain monitors and modifies that brain; rather, this imaging confirms once again that the brain regulates and modifies itself by means of these neurally instantiated high level representations of self. Own goal. Similar own goals are evident in Beauregard's description of his scans of subjects asked to "down regulate" emotions, sexual arousal, etc., all of which demonstrate the marshaling of highly specific frontal areas to accomplish the tasks that Beauregard insists upon interpreting as mind acting upon brain. And, because we note that the cortical areas that host these crucially human functions are recently evolved, *some version of evolutionary psychology must in fact be correct*, Beauregard and O'Leary's repeated dismissals of this new discipline notwithstanding.

Indeed, the same may be said about the scans of Carmelite nuns who claimed mystical union while within Beauregard's fMRI scanner. Beauregard is eager to refute the hypothesis that RSMEs are explained by seizure-like activity in the temporal lobes of the mystics. Rather, "The results of the two studies, taken together...dispose of the notion that there is a God spot in the temporal lobes of the brain that can somehow 'explain' RSMEs. The results of our fMRI and QEEG studies suggest that RSMEs are neurologically instantiated by different brain regions involve in a variety of functions, such as self-consciousness, emotion, body representation, visual and motor imagery, and spiritual perception. This conclusion correlates well with subjects' descriptions of RSMEs as complex and multidimensional (p. 274).

It is not entirely clear to me why a highly unique pattern of activation of many brain components is more appealing to Beauregard than a single "God spot." But never mind. Were I to assert that mystical states of consciousness were grounded in brain states, because I believe that all forms of phenomenal, experiential, and representational consciousness are somehow ultimately instantiated in brain tissue, Beauregard's images are exactly the result I would expect. Indeed, ALL of the results of ALL of these studies demonstrate nothing less than the thoroughly neurobiological bases of these experiences. It doesn't follow from that conclusion that there are no "selves," no "you" enabled by these exquisitely organized tissues. But what does follow is that that "we are spirits made of bodies," and that our bodies and brains display sophistication and subtlety sufficient to host even our most complex and ineffable experiences.

But it gets a bit worse for Beauregard and his scanning nuns. Above I quote him denying the existence of a temporally based "God spot," and instead pointing to findings that demonstrate the number and complexity of the brain structures and interactions that accompany these (so-called) mystical experiences. Yet on the page 273, in a "The View from Neuroscience" sidebar, the areas seen to be active during mystical union are listed and their putative functions described. While other brain areas are thought to account for phenomenal experiences such as changes in the emotional state of the subjects, visual imagery, and the spatial perception of self, "We hypothesized that the right MTC [right middle temporal cortex] was related to the subjective impression of contacting a spiritual reality." Should this be filed under "contradictions," or "own goals?" Never mind.

Promissory Mentalism

Throughout "The Spiritual Brain" we hear complaints about what Karl Popper called "promissory materialism," reflecting the (still correct) assertion that many materialistic IOUs regarding the nature of things, including human consciousness, have yet to be cashed. But the mentalism advocated by Beauregard and O'Leary is worse: if materialism has yet to make good on promissory notes, the mentalism advocated by Beauregard is pure counterfeit currency, printed in his basement. The most egregious example of such a counterfeit explanation is his "Psychoneural Translation Hypothesis." This is presented on pages 150-151:

"I posit that the mind (the psychological world, the first-person perspective) and the brain (which is part of the so-called "material" world, the third-person perspective) represent two epistemologically different domains that can interact because they are complementary aspects of the same transcendental reality.

"The PTH recognizes that mental processes (e.g., volitions, goals, emotions, desires, beliefs) are neurally instantiated in the brain, but it argues that these mental processes cannot be reduced to and are not identical with neuroelectric and neurochemical processes. Indeed, mental processes - which cannot be localized in the brain - cannot be eliminated....according to the PTH, conscious and unconscious mental processes are automatically translated into neural processes at the various levels of brain organization (biophysical, molecular, chemical, neural networks). In turn, the resulting neural processes are further translated into processes and events in other physiological systems, such as the immune or endocrine system."

That's it. No posited mechanism, location, or other pathetic levels of detail are offered regarding this heretofore undiscovered, yet pervasive and metaphysically powerful mechanism. Indeed, one wonders if it is implemented in the mind, or in the brain. Nor does this astonishing, multilevel translation mechanism receive another mention in the book. The PTH remains completely empty. I looked around a bit; Beauregard's presentation of his PTH in the journal Progress in Neurobiology (Mind does really matter: Evidence from neuroimaging studies of emotional self-regulation, psychotherapy, and placebo effect, 2007, issue 81) is equally empty.

A Single Wise Moment

The wisest passage found in "The Spiritual Brain" is found within a sidebar presented on page 112:

"We must keep in mind that the whole human person, not merely a part of a brain, thinks, feels, or believes. Indeed, the human person cannot be redued to brain processes and events, and it is difficult to understand a whole human person without understanding the sociocultural context in which the person lives."

Indeed. Many of the phenomena that Beauregard and O'Leary assert demand the resuscitation of an unworkable dualism - a view of "minds" as wholly independent of brains - don't really call for such a drastic solution. Rather, they need to be seen as embedded in and dependent upon the biological and sociocultural contexts within which they arise. Had Beauregard and O'Leary heeded their own words in this respect, they might have written a better book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 3 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 18 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 30, 2008 3:30:39 PM PDT
Best review of the bunch! Learned, concise, thoughtful, thorough.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2008 12:16:38 AM PDT
J. Clemons says:
"Concise" "Learned"--the review is a jumble of sentences that once in awhile make sense. This detailed review was written because the reviewer dislikes religion and can't tolerate a point of view that links science and spirituality. Intolerant review. Typical of people who idolize Dawkins.

Posted on Oct 24, 2008 10:07:36 AM PDT
Horizon says:
An outstanding review; certainly of the order that would serve to frighten the likes of such as "J. Clemons"; specifically, those who, by way of fear and/or fundamental ignorance, cling in all desparation to the pabulum of religion. The review, significantly more than "a jumble of sentences that once in awhile [sic] make sense", offers well-derserved criticism for a book that serves as means to push a thinly-disguised agenda masquerading as science. The "typical of people who idolize Dawkins" comment shows, as is typically the case with religion-dominated persons, an ever-ready willingness to "cite the enemy" and respond to knowledge, facts, and evidence with illogic, anger, and vindictiveness. Those of us who are unafraid to embrace the material reality to which the preponderance of evidence currently points, and deem the existence of the "soul" and a "god" as insufficiently proven, are lumped en masse into the category of those "who idolize Dawkins" and summarily dismissed. Well, we "Darkins worshippers" have a message for you. This is will come as grevious shock, so take a deep breath and hold on: There is no Santa Claus; the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, and the Easter Bunny is isn't real. Had you the courage, and the mental maturity to question other things mommy and daddy taught you, you might just begin to question the existence of a big, winner-of-a-Zues-look-alike contest in the sky looking down at all times; a blessing in one hand, a lightning bolt in the other. You have come to confuse belief and knowledge; one suspects you are unaware of the difference. Yes, it may be a little scary to think that there may be no glorious, eternal, happy-ever-after to which to look forward, but part of what it means to be an adult necessitates the realisation that the universe may not necessarily have come into origin soley for our benefit. My compliments for a well thought-out and honest review -- one that obviously comes from the mind of a genuine adult.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2008 4:29:50 PM PDT
This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack that adds nothing to the discussion. Clemons should learn to address issues instead of saying things like, "If you're so smart, why is your tie so ugly?"

Posted on Oct 27, 2008 4:36:58 PM PDT
Just as "mental processes cannot be localized in the brain," the higher function of any software cannot be localized in the computer. Once the process has been restricted to one of several processors, if it has, one finds that all circuits in that processor are busy doing things - the memory, the arithmetic units, the program counter, the branch decision circuits, the disk access logic, etc. That's why you can almost never deduce what the software is "trying to do" by putting an oscilloscope on a circuit point. That's analogous to trying to determine what a person is thinking by looking at the waveform on one neuron. Neither situation has anything to do with the "supernatural," whatever that is.

Posted on Oct 27, 2008 4:50:50 PM PDT
I forgot to point out that mystical experiences are available by eating magic mushrooms, for one thing. I did that once and had a mind-changing experience that put me in touch with what seemed like another world, one full of beauty and mystery. Do not discard this "report;" it was the most beautiful and best thing that ever happened to me. "God" was not involved, and I see no reason to invoke the supernatural.

Posted on Nov 2, 2008 3:46:52 PM PST
I was glad to find this review, so I knew it wasn't just me. I am having a hard time even finishing this book. It just seems to jump from one thing to another and sometimes I can't even figure out what point they are trying to make. I am on the seventh chapter out of ten and he has not given me a speck of the information I was seeking when I bought the book.

Posted on Nov 2, 2008 6:59:10 PM PST
fishe says:
Well done, great review. As a neuroscience student I'm consistently amazed at the things that come out of these two authors. I think I still want to read this book just to get more of a grip on the current non-materialists point of view. Although it seems to be the same philosophical or theosophical ideas as always.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2008 7:21:14 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Sep 6, 2010 7:54:12 AM PDT
W. Miller says:
I am the author of that review. For the sake of accuracy, although I admire Dawkins' accomplishments, I don't idolize him. In my opinion his view of evolution is overly panadaptionist (I'm more swayed by the late Stephen Jay Gould in that discussion). Because I don't "dislike religion" I found his argument in "The God Delusion" unhelpful and polarizing. Daniel Dennett's discussion in "Breaking the Spell" is much more compassionate and useful, in my opinion (although I despise the "Brights" designation).

W. Miller

Posted on Feb 23, 2009 6:26:48 AM PST
Sunyata says:
You write "we are to believe that Beauregard placed 15 Carmelite nuns into his fMRI and all attained mystical experiences that became grist for his scanner."

No, we are not to believe this, and if you had taken the time to actually read the book you are attacking, you would have read the following on page 266:

"But of course our real problem wasn't the various objections: it was how to capture the mystical experience. Originally, we had naively hoped that the nuns might have such an experience in the lab, but Sister Diane merely laughed when it was suggested. "God can't be summoned at will." she replied. Indeed, she warned, "You can't search for it. The harder you search, the longer you will wait." Of course, in hindsight, we began to understand what she meant: the very demand for the experience becomes mental noise that must be overcome. However, the human brain tends to use the same regions and pathways when people recall and relive an experience as when they first experienced it. Thus, when people are asked to recall a significant experience, we can find out which regions and pathways are most active."

So the answer to your big contradiction is found in the book. The nuns were asked to REMEMBER mystical experiences in the lab.

But that doesn't matter. Let's just be as negative as we can and throw anything at the book, no matter how illogical:

- "The book does not mention author X's work". And the relevant argument in that work is what, exactly?
- Attacking the author's motivation for writing the book, as if that has any relevance to the arguments presented.
- Confusing Western European culture with with "most people". Hint: there are more than six billion people on this planet, most of which are not materialists who think molecules in motion by some strange magic gives rise to subjective experience.
- Straw men. "If dualism is true, then experiences are not mediated by the brain". A position the authors do no hold. Rather, the argument is that if the self is immaterial, an experience can utilize many different areas of the brain at the same time, without any physical binding element. This is exactly what we find when looking at the brain. A process like vision involves at least 30 different areas in the brain with no physical binding factor that unites all into one single experience of seeing. The same seems to be true about mystical experiences.

The only argument of any substance you offer is that no explanation of how the immaterial interacts with the material is given. But then again, no materialist has been able to suggest a plausible mechanism of how matter in motion gives rise to consciousness.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›