Archive for brain

Skeptics and Believers – All in the Brain?

March 22, 2012 alan anti intellectualism, brain, brain science, closed minded, cognitive dissonance

Here’s an interesting idea …

The ‘process’ of critical thinking, of course, insists that the information presented is questioned.

What research, by whom, when, for what reason?

One of the problems facing those of us wanting to explore, for want of a better world, the paranormal is the fact that there is a wealth of information ‘out there’ about ideas which can help frame our debates. Sorting through the information presents a real problem.

Scientists following the scientific method publish their ideas and often ‘provisional’ research. A good scientific paper is self-critical and tentative in its findings. Of course some ‘scientists’, especially those outside of their field, get it wrong and in many way by-pass the scientific method presenting their ‘breakthroughs’ and ‘challenges to established theories’ in a grandiose manner.

The media like the grandiose claims because they make for ‘good copy’ and even when the claims in the original research paper are tentative they can be reported by those who don’t understand the limits of the research or simply ‘mine’ the paper for a sensational headline.

“Scientists are confounded by a new study which ….” is a much more attention grabbing headline than “Some provisional research seems to suggest…”

Of course that leaves the general public in a state of confusion. How many times have you heard someone in the popular media or indeed someone you know say something like …

“What are these scientists doing? They can’t seem to agree…. I mean last month they said red wine was good for you… this month they say its bad … it’s all a load of xxxxxxxx”

Actually the fact that tentative findings may be challenged and new hypotheses arise to be tested is part and parcel of good science. Of course science does eventually reach an informed, researched and firm consensus about what is ‘true’ up to a certain point in time. These are what ‘Theories’ are – ideas about the way something works which have withstood efforts to ‘prove them wrong’ and by their very nature make ‘predictions’ about what could be discovered next.

The Higgs Bosun, for example, isn’t a made-up particle that scientists are looking for, it is something that the current ‘standard model’ predicts will be there IF accepted theories are correct.

The popular press epithet, The God Particle, makes for a much better headline which itself breeds disinformation about science… leading to pseudo-scientific claims and beliefs.

I find it really interesting that the phrase ‘scientists have PROVED’ is more often used by folks promoting an idea which lies at the fringes of science than by the scientists themselves. Proof or Truth are concepts which drive the scientific process but are not generally considered as being statements of absolute certainty.

So when you hear something like ….

“Scientists have proven that energy flows in the body”

You need to be very careful especially when such a statement preceeds the announcement of a ‘new’ approach to health, wealth or well being.

The ‘scientists have proved’ brigade are not averse to cherry picking their science; their scientific findings or misappropriating ideas from one discipline to another. Quantum Theory being a case in point.

AND when they can’t find the science they’ll fall into the trap of saying  ”Well, its only a THEORY” …

So whilst the starting point of this diatribe was a report of some ‘interesting’ ideas about the brain chemistry of believers and skeptics (which may be part of an answer) it sparked in me the desire to question how we engage with reports of scientific discoveries especially in a time when anyone can publish, promote and define themselves as an expert.

Alan

 

 

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
No comments , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Brains Behind It…

July 6, 2010 alan brain, brain science, feelings, intuitions, mind, neuroscience, paranormal experiences, perception, questioning reality, reality, sensation, senses

On some recent Haunted Cornwall FM radio shows I have spoken with medium Angie Kruger about the possibility that many, if not all, of those experiences we call ‘paranormal’ are caused by errors in perception, errors in the way perceptual information is processed or internal brain functions (or dysfunctions).

So lets stop for a moment and reflect…
EVERY experience we experience is a result of the way the brain interprets what we see, hear, feel, taste, touch, smell and think. These processes give rise to an inner sense of ‘mind’. 
Often brian and mind are used interchangeably but in the strictest possible sense BRAIN is the biological structure inside our heads and MIND is the collection of processes it drives. Whilst some people like to think of ‘mind’ as being somehow separate and different to the brain, and therefore consciousness relating to something esoteric and distinct (the basis of spiritual thinking perhaps), most neurologists seem to accept that Mind and Consciousness is an emergent property of brain processes. This idea is not, however, what I wanted to talk about here…
Angie’s agreement with me that ‘brain chemistry’ has a lot to do with ‘psychic’ abilities and perception spurred me to do a little research about some very specific brain functions. It seems that as each month passes scientists who ask questions (and then investigate ways of challenging and answering them unlike some so called paranormal investigators who simply anomaly hunt) about the brain are make more and more sense of what is one of the most complex systems known.
We know that if the living brain is ‘stimulated’ with small electrical charges (electricity is the language of the brain) the person will experience some very real sensations. Such sensations can include 
a ‘feeling’ that there is some ‘higher self’, ‘god-like presence’, ‘otherworldly entity’ in contact with the individual….

a sense that the individuals own consciousness is outside of itself and looking down upon the ‘body’…
hearing sounds
seeing shapes, shadows, patterns, flashing lights, people
recalling memories and the associated feelings
All of these are REAL to the individuals concerned – they are genuine personal experiences.
Of course this research must have implications for any and all paranormal experiences.
I recently sent out a series of emails, Twitter posts and chat room calls for people to submit their ‘best evidence’ for ANY paranormal event. Now whilst I’ve only had a few dozen responses, it is no surprise that the ‘best’ evidence is ‘personal experience’ – and of course perhaps it should be. However powerful and personally relevant these experiences are for the individual (and this is where my mytsical/transpersonal psychology interests lie) the fact of the matter is that personal experience are the result of personal brain processing.
Now before I get too many comments saying what about ‘shared’ experiences, I have to say that the mechanisms for individuals sharing a ‘reality’ bring into play some other powerful social-psychological process that need to be explored before we can simply accept as ‘real’ any jointly witnessed paranormal event.
What are these possible social-psychological processes?
Well they could include confabulation, mass-hysteria, social compliance, mass hallucination, misperception, misrecognition, spiritual rapture, hypnotic effects (which could be all of the above) as well as environmental conditions that are conducive to any or all of the above – infrasound, weather conditions … and so on.
Back to the brain..
I thought it’d be interesting to give a generalised overview of what types of experience are generated within which part of the human brain.
The boxes in yellow show the kind of sensations that have been experimentally produced in people, under laboratory conditions, when those parts of the brain have been stimulated. In most, if not all cases, the sensation faded or stopped as soon as the external stimulation  ceased.
There are a number of questions that must come from these kind of studies..
1) Can the findings be generalised  across the whole human race?
2) Are there naturally occurring situations in which the same targeted stimulation of the brain could be achieved?
3) How do each of these independent sensations combine to produce a perceptual understanding of the ‘outside world’?
4) Is there any distinction between the world as it is ‘out there’ and the world we create ‘in the mind’
5) How do we really know what is real?
Ummm – more than enough questions for a Tuesday afternoon.
Alan
Useful reference for the research on this topic can be found HERE
One comment