OCD = STS

Re: Any takes on how to deal with OCD ?

Hi angi

fwiw I read last night (in Live Right for Your Type by Peter J. D'Adamo) that OCD may well be related to a melatonin imbalance (opposed to a serotonin imbalance). I'm not sure if the imbalance is the cause or effect however. It may be worth researching perhaps :)
 
Re: Any takes on how to deal with OCD ?

Hi RedFox, thank you for pointing that out, but I do not think it's the issue for me, I take at least 3mg of melatonin daily, as well as garlic (natural supplier of melatonin) is a frequent figure in food intake. I did notice though, that with an increased level of melatonin, I seem to be little bit more relaxed.

Note: I apologize, but I was not able to locate a reference of garlic as a natural melatonin supplier. Thus, my reference might be dis-informative. :-[

I did notice it's related to some kind of chemical imbalance, because when I do not stick to the proper diet, anxiety levels dramatically increase along with OCD behaviors.

And I do think it has something to do with "OCD being an aspect of STS polarity" as 3D Student put it, but I would rather describe it as hyperdimensional aspect (borrowed from recent C's session). From personal observation OCD seemed to be rooted or goes further than just compulsive behaviors & obsessive thoughts.

After I read link Nomad posted suggested by Namaste, I have started exercising right away. What struck me the most is complete absence of factual basis for OCD behaviors, not living current moment, not being in focus, mistrust to myself, rationalization & protection of such behaviors/thoughts/programs as if it's dear part of me that I am afraid to loose for some reason or afraid not
identify with.

It's like having multiple hyperactive dogs on leashes. As soon as trigger event/thought happens (like dog wanting to chase a cat), one of the dogs rushes to it pulling me alongside and I let them control the direction without understanding what is going on.

Well, I have learned that if I am the owner of these dogs, I am the one who decides where to go or whether to allow dogs to chase what they wish. Of course, I feel the pull initially, but the decision whether to commit an action is mine!

Same dynamics seem to apply to programs other then compulsive behavior. It is becoming quite clear & obvious how one can get pulled by such. It revealed part of who I am, and whether I want to identify with such "pulls" caused by programs or not.

For me it's has been a major breakthrough so far, it seems finally I have some sort of hands on work, where before it was mainly a dream of doing work. And after even one day of working with it, I feel much less drained, more motivated, more in focus and more energetic. Of course I did not succeed on every single occurrence, or that I have noticed all of the occurrences, but seem like one heck of kickstart.

Looks like after many years I finally gained a perspective on how to handle thought loops as well.

Discussed at:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=8998.0
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9001.0

Thank you all so much for all the input & help provided. It really helps !!


P.S. Also, I thought I would mention, after practicing for a day, I saw 3 different dreams on the similar topic. I am not going to go in much detail, in case someone is eating & reading this. It's little bit gross and if not really appropriate please remove the part. I just think it relates to experience quite accurately.


I saw a dream khmmm.. about waste that body produces.

In first one, I was cleaning after dog in public, but had no means to do it but with my own hands.

Second one, cleaning myself from own waste in front of the apartment.

And third, I saw my long gone deceased boxer I had, that was eating grass (that's how some animals cleanse themselves). So when dog had to get rid of it (inside apartment), waste got stuck, so I gave him a hand. After that he looked very happy & calm.

PS. Thank you for moving the topic to where it belongs
 
Re: Any takes on how to deal with OCD ?

OCD has been/is being discussed here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=12424.0

This thread will be joined with that one.
 
RedFox said:
fwiw I read last night (in Live Right for Your Type by Peter J. D'Adamo) that OCD may well be related to a melatonin imbalance (opposed to a serotonin imbalance).
Hmm maybe I'll have a look at some of the melatonin threads then. I enjoy garlic as well :P.

agni said:
What struck me the most is complete absence of factual basis for OCD behaviors, not living current moment, not being in focus, mistrust to myself, rationalization & protection of such behaviors/thoughts/programs as if it's dear part of me that I am afraid to loose for some reason or afraid not identify with.
agni said:
It's like having multiple hyperactive dogs on leashes. As soon as trigger event/thought happens (like dog wanting to chase a cat), one of the dogs rushes to it pulling me alongside and I let them control the direction without understanding what is going on.
That's a good description of OCD. The dogs analogy sounds like many i's battling for control.
 
I apologize, but I was not able to locate a reference of garlic as a natural melatonin supplier.
Thus, my reference might be dis-informative. :-[
 
agni said:
I apologize, but I was not able to locate a reference of garlic as a natural melatonin supplier.
Thus, my reference might be dis-informative. :-[

I read this last night, you where pretty close. I never realised garlic provided these :)

_http://www.iconmag.co.uk/page.php?n=525

Garlic also contains good levels of tryptophan, which is the precursor of seratonin, which in turn is theprecursor of melatonin. Melatonin is produced in the pineal gland in the brain about one hour after falling asleep. It is an excellent and very powerful neutraliser of free radicals. However, its production declines with age from a maximum at puberty to virtually nil at age 70, which in part explains why more cancers occur later in life. However, precursors are known to stimulate its production, even in people of advancing years.
 
I have some OCD traits too, and it goes even further - this irrational belief thing - no matter how many arguments I have, something inside me just throws 'em all out and wants to believe in things that are not true and i don't know how to fix this.. So I have deeply rooted irrational beliefs that make me go around in cycles and endless counterproductive thought loops, like an Yezidi who cannot get out of a circle and meanwhile am forgetting about reality itself. How do you people get rid of stubborn sacred cows? What can I do to stop going in circles and stop parts of my self from strong belief in things that are silly?
 
ivan said:
What can I do to stop going in circles and stop parts of my self from strong belief in things that are silly?

Hi,

I think it would help to have an aim of some kind. Doesn't have to be a massive thing, probably better even that's its some some small thing or other you wish to change or be able to do. Make it your aim to work on it. This can give a sense of direction so you can better see which actions lead towards or away from this aim. Having an aim can help you steer a proper course rather than go in circles. With an aim you know roughly what direction you want to go in, you don't know know exactly how to get there or even where 'there' is, but you know if you keep going in that same direction then things can change, you will be somewhere different.

Just keep going in the same direction. ;)
 
Alada said:
ivan said:
What can I do to stop going in circles and stop parts of my self from strong belief in things that are silly?

Hi,

I think it would help to have an aim of some kind. Doesn't have to be a massive thing, probably better even that's its some some small thing or other you wish to change or be able to do. Make it your aim to work on it. This can give a sense of direction so you can better see which actions lead towards or away from this aim. Having an aim can help you steer a proper course rather than go in circles. With an aim you know roughly what direction you want to go in, you don't know know exactly how to get there or even where 'there' is, but you know if you keep going in that same direction then things can change, you will be somewhere different.

Just keep going in the same direction. ;)

Thnaks Alada, I also figured out that i have been thinking with the wrong center and dunno which one it is but it allows a lot of identifing with each idea and i found myself actually believing some of that stuff which gave em more and more power :-[
Edit: Indeed it's hard to remember, figure out things and solve mathematics problems with the help of the emotional center (or at least i think it's this one that is causing the whole mess) lol
 
Hi Ivan, I know it might seem like an odd answer, but the breathing and meditation will really help with this. Not only does it facilitate emotional cleansing, but the meditation focuses your mind. During the meditation, we even ask to clear our eyes so we can see, when our eyes our clear, we no longer fall into illusion, or false beliefs as it were. In short, the whole program packs a potent punch when combined with constant effort to increase knowledge. So, if you're doing the program already, keep it up, and if you haven't tried it yet, try it! :)
 
3D Student said:
If anyone has comments or suggestions, they are welcome to share of course. I just felt it was a good idea to share this in case anyone can relate and hasn't figured out that OCD is dangerous, especially in relation to the esoteric sense of becoming an STO candidate. If I got something wrong here, I'm open to discussion, as this is not a rigid conclusion, and is only based on personal experience in relation to the ideas here. I look forward to any replies. Thank you.

I was reminded of a story I read in Reader's Digest (I think it was). A wife came into the living room where she expressed her frustration at obsessing about something that was upsetting her at the moment. The husband was sitting in a chair, reading a newspaper. When she finished talking, the husband said something like: "aww honey, you just care a lot."

Just a simple statement really, but she stopped to think about it and realized it was true in some way. To make a longer story short, she wrote the story to tell the readers how her new perspective of her own reactions helped her learn to cope in some way. In other words, the positive spin changed the way she was looking at the problem.


Then, in another thread, I ran into the idea again:

Laura said:
...
Neuroses are generally related to "caring too much."
...

Then, in this very thread:

Laura said:
It seems to me that OCD is a survival mechanism that "grows" in a chaotic world where the individual doesn't feel that they have any control over the chaos and it frightens them.


Then, I was thinking back to the mid-nineties when I was looking into Dianetics/Scientology. I found a book at the local library called "The Volunteer Ministers Handbook". In it, there was some concept about 'chaos and the stable datum'. It had to do with situations when people get upset and/or sense themselves emotionally out of control for some reason. It was said they had temporarily lost connection with something which served as the data around which everything else (in a given context, or generally) was balanced. At those times, the suggested 'help' was to organize or tidy up something in the person's environment so that they could see that there was, in fact, something in order (organized correctly) during the time when they really needed to see that, especially while you're directing their attention to things around them to help 'exteriorize' their attention.

I kinda introduced this idea about 'caring too much' to my wife less than a month ago. She had some emotionally traumatic experiences growing up and claims to be OCD, but I have seen only a few manifestations of it. So I waited patiently, and the next time she mentioned something about being OCD over an issue, I said something like "Maybe you just care too much about...".

She didn't comment on that, but she became thoughtful, so maybe a useful seed was planted.

On a final note:
I have got a lot of usefulness from Adam Beck's writings concerning his work with people using CBT. For what it's worth, here's what is said about obsessions/compulsions specifically:

[quote author=Beck]
OBSESSIONS AND COMPULSIONS
The content of obsessions is generally concerned with some remote risk or danger expressed in the form of a doubt or warning. The person may continually doubt whether he has performed an act necessary to ensure his safety (for example, turning off a gas oven), or he may doubt whether he will be able to perform adequately. The thoughts differ from those of the anxiety-neurotic in that they are concerned with an action the patient believes he should have taken or an action he should not have taken. As an example of the latter, a patient repeatedly had the thought that he might have contracted leukemia because he touched the garment of a leukemic victim.
Compulsions consist of attempts to allay excessive doubts or obsessions through action. A hand-washing compulsion, for instance, is based on the patient's notion that he has not removed all the dirt or contaminants from parts of his body. He regards the dirt as a source of danger, either as a cause of physical disease or as a source of offensive odors. We often see the triad of phobia-obsession-compulsion. A patient, for example, was afraid of being harmed by radiation. His phobia was manifested by avoiding contact with objects that might emit radiation (e.g., clocks, because of radioactive dials; or television sets). After an unavoidable contact with such an object, he ruminated about the possibility of contamination (obsession). This led him to taking frequent, prolonged baths to remove the presumed radioactive material (compulsion).
PHOBIA
In phobias, the anticipation of physical or psychological harm is confined to definable situations. If the patient can avoid these situations, then he does not feel threatened and may be tranquil. If he enters into these situations because of necessity or because of his own desire to overcome his problem, he experiences the typical subjective and physiological symptoms of the anxiety-neurotic.
As in the psychiatric disturbances described previously, the patient's cognitive response to the stimulus situation may be expressed in purely verbal form or in the form of imagery. A woman with a fear of heights, who ventured to the twentieth floor of a building, promptly had a visual image of the floor tilting, of sliding toward the window, and of falling out. She experienced intense anxiety, as though the image were an actual external event.
Fears of particular situations are based on the patient's exaggerated conception of specific harmful attributes of these situations. A person with a tunnel phobia will experience fears that the tunnel will collapse on him, that he will suffocate, or that he will have an acute, life-threatening illness and be unable to get help in time to save him. The acrophobic similarly reacts to high places with fears that he might fall off, that the structure might collapse, or that he might jump off impulsively.[/quote]

In addition, most of the patients he has helped with various disorders seem to follow a general formula to get back on track:

[quote author=Beck]
The formulation of the progress of this patient can now be fitted into the therapeutic model: (1) self-observations that led directly to the ideation preceding the anxiety; (2) establishing the relation between the thoughts and anxiety attack; (3) learning to regard thoughts as hypotheses rather than facts; (4) testing the hypotheses; (5) piecing together the assumptions that underlay and generated these hypotheses; (6) demonstrating that these rules composing her belief system were incorrect. Her belief system consisted of equations regarding probable mental and physical illness, loss of control, and involuntarily hurting somebody.[/quote]
Source: Cognitive Therapy and The Emotional Disorders, Aaron T. Beck, Meridian, 1979

I don't know if this formulation would be useful to someone with OCD, but I thought I'd post it just in case.


--Edit: included the phobia element of the O/C triad in the Beck quote
 
Since we've touched a little into the phobia aspect of OCD I'd like to share my experiences from today. I want to keep it short though, as it could be a potential post for "The Swamp", but I think I'm over it now.

Well, it wasn't a good day from the start. Last night I had binged on a bunch of cashews, not a good thing to do for candida, I know. It was simply mindless over-consumption and I knew that I wouldn't take too well to it because I had done it the other night before with similar albeit less severe results.

Basically I got a bad stomach ache and started getting abdominal pains. I thought I might have appendicitis and the pain was quite severe in the early dawn hours. I got really afraid thinking this was life threatening and worried a lot throughout the day. This hypochondriac aspect of my OCD happens whenever I feel pain, because I know that something is wrong when there's pain. I'm quite stubborn and food/consumption seems to be one of my weak points, but I at least tried to feel this fear and self observe during the intense pains. To make a long story short, I went to the doctor this afternoon and he said my abdomen was fine and it was likely cramps or stomach ache. But I had worked myself up so much over this thinking it was life threatening, when it wasn't even the right diagnosis. Honestly I had felt fear of a sort and intensity I haven't felt in a long time, that of losing your life.

I learned some things from this, even before I had received the news from the doctor. I felt so disappointed in myself for doing something that I knew would harm me. But I thought, how can you blame a machine for being machine-like, which is how I carried out my actions. I'm currently on vacation and knew I would be vulnerable during this time, I should have expected attack at some point. I learned some other things that I can't remember, it seems I always forget those nice insights after they are realized. I think they are still valid even after realizing that my whole situation was based on something I subjectively thought was so, it made for a learning experience either way.

So I guess that's my example of how being subjective and not seeing can get your OCD riled up and you paranoid. I think OCD and the predator's mind are closely related, if not the same thing. Maybe people with OCD just give in and think it's a part of them more so than others. To answer your question directly ivan, I think you have to hit that rock bottom point to wake yourself up from irrational beliefs and then decide to change your actions. I hope this was helpful and not too long.
 
Just bumping this thread because I found something potentially useful. I was looking at the Rabbit Hole website books and found one that mentions OCD and rewiring the brain. It can be found here. It sounds like it has a 4th Way aspect to it too.
 
The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force is an exploration of the latest research in neuroscience and psychiatry pointing to the power of attention to rewire the brain by reprogramming the mind. It is a clarification of the "how and why" of practical methods of changing obsessive behaviors, habits, addictions, etc. I spoke to a young woman this evening who is involved in neuroscience research at USC and she said re-pruning the old neural pathways by willful refusal to engage in the old habits and mylination(graphics) of new neural pathways by repetition of the new behavior requires at least twenty-one days of sustained effort.

This seems consistent with Jeffrey Schwartz’s method of treating OCD, which he calls relabeling, reattribution, refocusing, and revaluing. It is also consistent with my understanding and experience of Twelve Step recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction briefly outlined in this post. Laura has some new material on the amygdala hijack thread and in her very interesting Christmas Essay which add context to a neuroscience understanding of the "how and why" so few people are capable or willing to see and engage objective reality.

I think the latest research in neuroscience makes possible the demystification of spiritual growth and the possibility of human psychological evolution. This avenue of exploration offers further reconciliation of the spiritual and the material perspectives which have been on divergent and destructive paths for the last five centuries. The reconciliation of the findings of science with the values of religion or a spiritual life has been a primary aim of Fourth Way Work.

The review below has a brief sketch of Jeffery Schwartz and Sharon Begley’s book. Perhaps someone who has read The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force could also comment on their impression. I bolded the two paragraphs which appear to be on point as to the how of human transformation. The power of mental force seem to be aspects of the Will which are Attention, Understanding, and Choice. We can escape the prison of an automatic life and direct our own evolution in the image of god.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Schwartz_Review.htm said:
Challenging Materialism's "Chokehold" on Neuroscience

By William A. Dembski

Review of The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. By Jeffrey Schwartz and Sharon Begley. HarperCollins. 432 pp. $27.50.

In the epilogue to The Mind and the Brain, we read: "Finally, after a generation or more in which biological materialism has had neuroscience -- indeed, all the life sciences -- in a chokehold, we may at last be breaking free.... Biological materialism did and does have real-world consequences. We feel its reach every time a pharmaceutical company tells us that, to cure shyness (or "social phobia"), we need only reach for a little pill.... Biological materialism is nothing if not appealing. We need not address the emotional or spiritual causes of our sadness to have the cloud of depression lift; we need not question the way we teach our children before we can rid them of attention deficit disorder."

Jeffrey Schwartz, a research professor in psychiatry at UCLA and the principal author of this book, is convinced that the life sciences as a whole and neuroscience in particular have been subverted by materialist philosophy. This book is his attempt to unseat that philosophy and substitute a dualist conception of mind (i.e., that mind and brain are ontologically distinct). Anyone at all familiar with current discussions of neuroscience, consciousness studies, and the mind-body problem will realize just how fiercely materialistic and nondualist these fields are. Schwartz's explicit anti-materialism and embrace of dualism therefore places him at odds with the scientific and philosophical mainstream.

Schwartz provides a nonmaterialist interpretation of neuroscience and argues that this interpretation is more compelling than the standard materialist interpretation. Schwartz arrived at this position as a psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). OCD is, as Schwartz describes it, an "ego-dystonic disorder." That is to say, OCD sufferers recognize obsessive-compulsive thoughts and urges as separate from their intrinsic selves. For instance, after a few washings, the compulsive hand-washer realizes that his hands are clean and yet feels driven to keep washing. It's this difference between the obvious truth (the hands are clean) and the irrational doubts (they might still be dirty) that provided Schwartz his entrée into reassessing the philosophical underpinnings of neuroscience.

From brain scans, Schwartz found that certain regions in the brain of OCD patients (the caudate nucleus in particular) exhibited abnormal patterns of activity. By itself this finding is consistent with a materialist view of mind (if, as materialism requires, brain enables mind, then abnormal patterns of brain activity are likely to be correlated with dysfunctional mental states). Nonetheless, having found abnormal patterns of brain activity, Schwartz then had OCD patients engage in intensive mental effort through what he called relabeling, reattributing, refocusing, and revaluing (the 4 Rs). In the case of compulsive hand-washing, this would involve a patient acknowledging that the hands are in fact clean (relabeling); attributing anxieties and doubts about the hands being dirty to a misfunctioning brain (reattributing); directing thoughts and actions away from handwashing and toward productive ends (refocusing); and, lastly, understanding at a deep level the senselessness of OCD messages (revaluing).

Schwartz documents not only that patients who undertook this therapy experienced considerable relief from OCD symptoms but also that their brain scans indicated a lasting realignment of brain-activity patterns. Thus, without any intervention directly affecting their brains, OCD patients were able to reorganize their brains by intentionally modifying their thoughts and behaviors. The important point for Schwartz here is not simply that modified thoughts and behaviors permanently altered patterns of brain activity, but that such modifications resulted from, as he calls it, "mindful attention" -- conscious and purposive thoughts or actions in which the agent adopts the stance of a detached observe
r.

After reviewing his own research on OCD in the early part of the book, Schwartz devotes the middle half of the book to summarizing the last twenty years' research on neuroplasticity. This research is very exciting, and Schwartz and Begley's description of it is worth the cover price of the book. There is a long tradition in neuroscience that sees neural circuits as laid down early in life, after which they become entrenched and any subsequent disruption leads to irrevocable deficits. Reviewing research over the last twenty years, Schwartz shows that this view is false and that the brain remains plastic throughout life. A key implication is that conditions previously thought to be untreatable are in fact treatable. Thus Schwartz describes how neuroplasticity offers real hope to everyone from stroke victims to dyslexics.

For instance, 600,000 people in the United States suffer a stroke each year. Of these, a quarter die immediately and half are left seriously disabled. On the assumption that neural circuitry is hardwired early in life and thereafter fixed, there is no reason to think that stroke victims experiencing serious disabilities should see any marked improvement. Like a shattered piece of china whose beauty cannot be recovered, there's no way to recover brain function that's lost. But Schwartz shows that this view is false. Granted, damaged portions of the brain may never recover. But undamaged portions may be "rezoned," and functions previously assigned to the damaged portions may be "reallocated" to the rezoned portions.

This view of the brain has radical implications for treatment. If the brain as a matter of course loses plasticity early in life, then the proper counsel for seriously disabled stroke victims is resignation. But if the brain retains its plasticity throughout life, then the proper counsel is a therapy that will help rezone and reallocate portions of the brain. One such therapy that Schwartz describes as having remarkable success with stroke victims is constraint-induced movement therapy (CI therapy). Here a stroke victim with impaired mobility in a limb is forced to make use of that limb by constraining other limbs that might compensate for the disabled limb. Schwartz documents how even two weeks of intensive CI therapy can lead to remarkable improvements in motor skills as well as lasting reallocations of cortical space.

What does all this have to do with materialism? If materialism is correct, then the mind and mentation is the product of brain processes (much as digestion is the product of stomach processes, to use an analogy of John Searle). But this means that even though brain can readily affect mind, there's no sense in which mind can affect brain except by way of brain. Top-down causation of mind affecting brain invariably presupposes bottom-up causation of brain first affecting mind. And yet with mindful attention, a conceptual act with no clear physiological underpinnings (for example, the conscious decision by an OCD sufferer to implement Schwartz's 4-R therapy) dramatically and lastingly alters patterns of brain activity. Here top-down causation seems to operate without prior bottom-up causation adequately compensating for it.

Is this a good argument for mind being fundamentally distinct from brain? It depends what you are looking for. If you want a knock-down argument against materialism and materialist accounts of mind, this won't do it. But if you are looking for consilience, in which multiple lines of independent evidence converge on the same target, then Schwartz's argument is a good one to have in your arsenal. Schwartz's argument fits nicely with biological arguments for intelligent design (cf. Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box), recent philosophical work on mental causation (cf. Robert Koons's Realism Regained), cosmological fine-tuning (cf. John Barrow and Frank Tipler's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle), and consciousness studies (cf. Dean Radin's The Conscious Universe).

No one argues that the brain doesn't condition the mind (psychotropic drugs make this abundantly clear). The issue is whether the brain determines the mind without remainder. For conceptual acts like Schwartz's "mindful attention" to permanently alter patterns of brain activity that otherwise would remain stuck is therefore exactly what one would expect if the mind transcends the brain and yet is capable of physical effects. To be sure, the materialist has counterarguments here. A popular one these days is to treat conscious will as an illusion -- we think that we have acted deliberately toward some end, but in fact our brain acted on its own and then deceived us into thinking that we acted deliberately. There's even a recent book making just that claim in its title: The Illusion of Conscious Will by Harvard psychologist Daniel Wegner.

Schwartz effectively engages that literature, especially the experiments by Benjamin Libet, which usually get interpreted as supporting the materialist view that conscious will is an illusion. Schwartz shows how these experiments are in fact better interpreted as leaving room for conscious will -- and in fact a full libertarian free will. In this respect, Schwartz's discussion of free will as "free won't" (namely, the idea that free will consists in the ability to rule out possibilities) is deeply illuminating. It calls to mind the Judeo-Christian idea that creation does not add to God but rather subtracts from God: in the act of creation God rules out those worlds that are not actualized. This idea of ruling out possibilities is also the essence of the mathematical theory of information, in which information increases and possibilities get ruled out.

The Mind and the Brain is strongest where it reviews current neurological research and shows how it leaves the door open to a nonmaterialist interpretation of the mind. The book is somewhat weaker where it attempts to place that research and its nonmaterialist interpretation within a theoretical framework. Schwartz's Buddhism is not the problem. "Mindful attention," which Schwartz draws from the Buddhist tradition, is a spiritual discipline right in line with the practice of detachment employed by the Church's desert fathers. Spiritual disciplines work. Schwartz simply shows that they work in the therapeutic context. Schwartz doesn't force his nonmaterialist interpretation of neuroscience into the mold of Buddhist philosophy (Buddhist doctrines like emptiness, nirvana, and reincarnation are absent).

Nevertheless, Schwartz's theoretical framework is incomplete. For instance, Schwartz looks to quantum mechanics to allow an opening for "mental force," as he calls it, to interact with the material world (and thus brains in particular). Schwartz makes a good case for quantum mechanics being compatible with such a nonmaterialist view of mind. But then Schwartz wants to argue that the quantum measurement problem requires consciousness for its resolution -- which would certainly strengthen the case for his nonmaterialist interpretation of mind. In quantum mechanics, measurement disrupts the unitary evolution of the wave function, implying a discontinuous break and the need for a probabilistic analysis. Why the discontinuous break? And where exactly is the measurement made? In the apparatus? In the interactions between systems that produce definitive states? Or is it postponed to the point that it registers in consciousness? Even without quantum many-worlds, which Schwartz successfully rebuts, consciousness remains only one of several live options to explain the break (cf. the spontaneous collapse models of Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber).

When it comes to situating Schwartz's nonmaterialist view of mind within a theoretical framework, The Mind and the Brain is definitely a work in progress. Even so, I give Schwartz's project great hopes for ultimate success. In particular, I'm optimistic that Schwartz's concept of "mental force" can be given a solid metaphysical underpinning in terms of Rob Koons's work on mental causation (adverted to earlier in this review). And a useful synergy between Schwartz's work in neuroscience and intelligent design's work in the life sciences more generally is in the offing (Schwartz and I met recently and plan a collaboration).

On balance, I love this book. If anything, it is a refreshing antidote to the relentless materialism that drives the neuroscience industry.

Edit: Check out the incredible 3D graphic of the caudate nucleus, it looks like a ram's horns....
 
Thanks for the review go2. That does seem like a good book, with the stuff about changing your brain and about materialism. I think it would be a good read, but right now I'm reading some of the esoteric section. There are quite a few other good looking books on The Rabbit Hole site too.
 
Back
Top Bottom