- Extending thoughts beyond the Bible
- Reductionism, what can we learn from OCD, Buddhism and Mindfulness
A fortnight ago, I concluded my note on Cartesian Dualism by writing that Descartes could not conceive of his existing without conscious awareness. Secondly there is the existence of the external world given to Descartes by God. This external world is observed by the thinking me.
This leads on then to the view of the world as split between subjects which are pure thought and objects which occupy space – in other words the division of nature between mind and matter. We have at last arrived, at Cartesian Dualism which is a good point from which to continue the subject this week.
Let me now recap on the development of the argument. At a point of extreme doubt, Descartes can conceive of an external world including his own physical body that does not exist. At this stage the only thing left is the fact that as he is able to think then his consciousness exists.
He then acknowledges the existence of God which restores the external world including his own body. As Descartes saw it he himself consisted of two things – an immaterial purely mental, mind or soul (which he also believed to be immortal) and an external physical body.
Since I am writing today to Christians or theologians, I’m sure that you will have spotted the weakness in Descartes argument – it is, of course, its dependence on the proof of the existence of God. Secondly, the argument could be said to be circular: God validated his belief in argument generally and God validated his beliefs about the external world. This is known as the Cartesian Circle, which highlights the difficulty that a philosophy has in positing its own existence, its own validity and its own discovery. There are then some obvious defects in Descartes argument, but it should be remembered that he was a fore-runner in even considering many aspects of mankind’s existence and he must be given the credit for establishing the fundamental questions of modern philosophy who am I, what can I know? These questions were the starting point for philosophers over the next 250 years and have come to the fore again at the transition into the 21st century.
There have of course been many discussions of Cartesian Dualism over the intervening years – David Hume comes particularly to mind (causality), but I think it is the psychologists and medical people who have perhaps provided the greatest challenge to Descartes’ ideas.
One of those psychologists who particularly stands out is William James, brother of the more famous author Henry. William James, born 1842, into a strongly religious family and who himself suffered from many psychological problems is perhaps most famous for developing the idea of stream of consciousness and, so far as philosophy is concerned, is most associated with pragmatism – the idea that beliefs do not work because they are true but are true because they work. He had strong views on causality – to quote: “The conclusion that consciousness is useful is quite justifiable. But if it is useful, it must be so through its causal efficaciousness.” I would also mention his work on the emotions and on hypochondria.
But perhaps the work of William James which we may find of the most interest is his Varieties of Religious Experience – the Gifford Lectures written in 1902. In the concluding lecture he writes “…..since one of the duties of the science of religions is to keep religion in connection with the rest of science, we shall do well to seek first a way of describing the “more” which psychologists may also recognise as real. The sub-conscious self is nowadays a well accredited psychological entity.” He then quotes Frederick Myers “Each of us is in reality an abiding psychical entity far more extensive than he knows – an individuality which can never express itself completely through any corporeal manifestation.”
In other words …the Self manifests through the organism; but there is always some part of the Self unmanifested.
I must admit that I have not myself read much of William James – but I am encouraged to try to find time to read more of his work. Perhaps to encourage us all to read some of his works I will end my reference to him by illustrating his rather dry sense of humour. In writing of the diversity of religious experience that may be encountered by people of many different types and beliefs he says: “The first thing to bear in mind (especially if we ourselves belong to the clerico-academic-scientific type, “the deadly respectable” type, for which to ignore others is a besetting temptation) is that nothing can be more stupid than to bar out phenomena from our notice, merely because we are incapable of taking part in anything like them ourselves.” So that’s my brief reference to William James – I felt that I couldn’t prepare an essay on mind and brain without drawing attention to his work.
But it is to the modern approach to Cartesian Dualism that I would now like to devote the remainder of this reflection.
Throughout much of the 20th Century many scientists adopted a reductionist approach to their profession. There were a number of shades of reductionist approach varying from those like Frances Crick who brutally disparages the dualist by saying: To those of you who may be vitalists, I make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks believe tomorrow”, to a much more considered approach of those who support the Mind-brain Identity Theory. This theory, which has been superbly analysed by Revd Professor Paul Badham in his book Christian Beliefs about life after Death, goes some way along the path of the dualist. It agrees with the idea that a mental state can bring about dependent effects (in other words – mental states are causally effective), and with the principle that it is by the mind that an individual may be identified. However, whereas the dualist, as I mentioned way back at the beginning of the essay, identifies the mind with the soul – a spiritual reality the location of which has not and maybe cannot be located, the supporter of the identity theory regards the mind as located within or as part of the brain. There is little point in my repeating Paul’s analysis, which was completed in the mid 1970’s, suffice to say that the evidence for telepathy alone calls into question the Mind-Brain identity theory.
What I would now like to do is to come completely up to date by describing the spectrum of reductionism as it exists today, look at the experiments to produce solutions for the psychological disorder known as OCD and the implications for a much better understanding of the neuroplasticity of the brain. I will endeavour to compare the treatment for OCD with the mind training that has been the tradition of Buddhism, to look very briefly at the research into Near Death Experienes, Rupert Sheldrakes Fields and finally just to touch on the possibility that quantum theory may offer us a way of finding a connection between mind and brain.
First, then, let us look at reductionism. No longer is it possible to just have a reductionist and non-reductionist approach. Nowadays to list just a few categories we have:
Mentalistic Materialism or Functionalism, neutral monism, logical behaviourism, token and type physicalisms, token and type epiphenomenalisms, emergent and eliminative materialisms, process philosophy and dualistic interactionism. These are in addition to the identity theory that we have already talked about. I’m not even going to try to get to grips with all these subtleties – you have to study an American Psychology book to do that – but I will briefly have a look at the more familiar of these approaches.
Perhaps I should begin with the view ascribed to the Australian Philosopher, David Chambers that there is “Don’t have a clue materialism” which is the view of those who have no idea about the origin of the mind but “it must be physical because materialism must be true”.
The functionalists would argue that the mind is a mere by product of the brain’s physical activity.
Epiphenomalism whilst acknowledging that the mind and brain are two separate things it insists that physical events can only have physical causes. This means that the epiphenomalist believes that the mind cannot cause anything to happen that the brain has not already dealt with. In other words the brain is the cause of all mental effects in the mind. It is therefore more reductionist than the mind-brain identity theory, but not quite as extreme as the functionalists or pure materialists.
Emergent materialism recognises that the mind arises from the brain but in such a way that cannot be predicted or reduced to brain activity. Probably the greatest exponent of this viewpoint, Sperry (neuroscientist, Nobel prize winner) who after studying split brain patients for half a century accepted that some mental states have the power to change or bring into being other mental states as well as to act back on brain activity. I understand that just before his death, Sperry hinted that mental forces could causally shape the electrochemical activity of neurons. Needless to add, Sperry was strongly attacked by his more reductionist colleagues for this approach – apparently it was said of him that “he’s gone religious like so many old folks”.
The next school of thought that is relevant on our path towards dualism is process philosophy which holds that mind and brain are manifestations of a single reality. According to Jeffrey Schwartz, this view is “compatible with classical Buddhist philosophy, which views clear and penetrating awareness of change and impermanence as the essence of insight.”
And then we come to Dualistic Interactionism in which consciousness and other aspects of mind can occur independently of brain. As Karl Popper put it “The essential feature of dualist interactionism is that the mind and brain are independent entities and that they interact by quantum physics.” There is therefore this important distinction from the Cartesian Dualism that quantum theory provides the link between mind and brain – a link which is of course absent from the Cartesian position.
Having briefly touched on the various approaches that are being adopted towards the relationship between mind and brain, I would now like to pick up on the research being done by Schwartz which gives new insights into the working of brain when an endeavour is made to control it by the mind.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder or OCD can be a very distressing neuropsychiatric disease characterised by unwanted thoughts that require one to carry out ritualistic behaviours. To give an example, I expect we have all been just about to drive away from home when we have thought to ourself: “Did I lock the door when I left the house?” We perhaps check that we had, and then drive away thinking no more about it. A person suffering from OCD may well have that thought, go back and check the door but still not be able to drive away – they may have to check that door 5,6,7,8 times or even more before, under great stress driving away. Another common manifestation of the illness is a compulsive desire constantly to wash one hands. This is a very appropriate disorder to use as a vehicle for studying the mind-brain interaction because a characteristic of the disorder is that one part of oneself (the mind) recognises that one’s hands are perfectly clean whilst the other part of oneself (the brain) insists on the urge to wash one’s hands again. The advent of PET scans (positron emission tomography) in the 1980’s enabled neuroscientists to compare the activity of those with this disorder with those without it. The result showed an elevated metabolism in the orbital frontal cortex and the striatum, the latter being located deep in the brain. Schwartz described the performance of the striatum in OCD patients as rather like a motor car stuck in a lower gear and unable to progress. Anyway, to cut a long story short OCD has been traced to a problem in the brain – in the brain circuitry if you like and the solution is likely therefore to require the rewiring of that part of the brain circuitry.
Up to 1966 OCD had been regarded as untreatable (it did not respond to psychoanalysis) and during the next twenty years only limited success had been achieved with behavioural treatment which in itself caused intense stress in the patient. This led Schwartz to try an entirely new method. Influenced by his experience as a practitioner of Buddhist meditation, he began by emphasising to his patients that it was an imbalance in their brains that caused their obsessive thoughts – he then persuaded them to exteriorise their obsessive thoughts, emphasising that they were more than their brains. His method of treatment was then developed by first of all persuading the patient to identify the approaching onset of an obsessional thought – and then counselling them to use mindfulness to enhance the fact that their hands may not be dirty, or the door had not been left unlocked. In other words, the patient had to think to realise that the obsessive thought was not an urge to wash but that it was an obsessive, troublesome thought and an anxious, unpleasant feeling caused by a problem in the brain. This recognition that the obsessive thoughts were misleading and needed to be relabelled gradually led the patient through the first stage of a cure for the disease. The next and a very important stage in the process was for the patient to reattribute the OCD feelings by emphasising to him or herself that these feelings were generated by a brain problem and were not part of the true self. The third and key stage was for the patient to Refocus where the false message of the brain is resisted and the patient gets on with some other activity. Obviously this resistance could be very stressful and the intention was to try to make the other activity one which was both absorbing and pleasant. This refocusing was intended to get the brain out of “being stuck in gear”. The final stage was to revalue, which picks up on the concept of Wise in Buddhist philosophy which means seeing things as they really are. In terms of OCD this meant recognising the disturbing thoughts as false, as not worth acting upon.
This four stage method of treatment (Relabel, Reattribute, Refocus and Revalue) actually worked for many patients and the subsequent PET scans showed significant reduction of metabolic activity in the parts of the brain where before treatment the activity had been excessive. In other words by this system of cognitive behavioural therapy, by the use of the mind patients can alter their brain chemistry.
For the first time, probably, it had been shown scientifically by the measurement in the PET scans that the conscious mind differs from the brain and cannot be explained by the material substance of the brain. These experiments or treatments had also demonstrated that the brain is capable of significant changes at any age – previously it had been thought that the wiring of the brain became fixed during its early development. The idea of neuroplasticity in adults had been born.
I have referred several times to Buddhist meditation – it was perhaps fortunate that Schwartz was a practitioner, because there are I believe parallels between the four stages involved in treating OCD patients and the mind training techniques in Buddhism. If you remember the four stages involved in getting rid of obsessional thoughts are Re-Labelling, Re-Attributing, Re-Focusing and Re-Valuing. It seems to me that there is a parallel between those four stages of OCD treatment and the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism. The first of these is Dukkha roughly translated as suffering or disease – one author describes this as a “deep seated internal condition brought about by our relationship with a world which cannot satisfy what we crave” (Erricker): this compares with the identification involved in Re-labelling. The Second Noble truth is samudaya – concerned with the origin of suffering, and, I think I am correct in saying that it embraces analysis of Self and consciousness: this compares well with the analysis involved in Re-attributing. The Third Noble Truth (Nirodha) is control of the craving or suffering, ideally achieving a cessation of dukkha leading to Nibbana, otherwise known as Nirvana. To quote Walpola Rahula “He who has realised the truth Nirvana is the happiest being in the world. He is free from all complexes and obsessions, the worries and the troubles that torment others”. This compares with the Re-focusing part of OCD treatment (interestingly Rahula refers to obsessions as one of the characteristics of Dukkha). The fourth Noble Truth being the Way or the Path to Nirvana compares with the Re-valuing part of the OCD treatment. As Schwartz says
“Like re-labelling, reattributing and refocusing, revaluing was intended to enhance patients’ use of mindful awareness, the foundation of Theravada Buddhist philosophy. I therefore began teaching revaluing by reference to what Buddhist philosophy call wise attention which means seeing matters as they really are. In the case of obsessions it means quickly recognising the disturbing thoughts as errant brain signals “not even worth the grey matter they rode in on, let alone worth acting on”.
It is interesting, therefore, that arising out of PET and MRI scans we have a very modern method of brain control involving the mind exerting that control (or causal effect) on the brain which has striking parallels with the philosophy of Buddhism – a philosophy which is some 2500 years old. Although I have talked with reference to Theravada Buddhism, those of you who are students of Zen Buddhism will still be able to pick out some similarities as within Zen the objective is to control selfish thoughts expressed as a selfish or sovereign I, a vulnerable Me and a possessive Mine.
I don’t want to get too involved in the detailed differences between the various Buddhist Traditions. It is probably true to say that characteristic of most forms of Buddhism is the cultivation of mindfulness (similar to the mental force of Schwartz) which involves gaining a control over our emotions eventually to reach a higher spiritual plane and thus determine future rebirth.
The possible exception here is Pure Land Buddhism where an important part of their tradition is the concept of a life beyond or immortality of the soul whic was denied by the Buddha.
Just before leaving Buddhism, I would like to refer to a small book Paul Badham wrote particularly concerned with Near Death Experiences and the Buddhist Tradition.
Referring to NDE’s he says “What seems to me important and striking in both the Pure Land and Tibetan Traditions are the two themes of Amida Buddha appearing as a Being of radiant light at the hour of death, and of the next world being a mind-dependent state of existence.”
I don’t want to say too much about NDE’s because that is really beyond the scope of this essay. But it does seem to me that from the evidence of these experiences, it is not possible to rule out the possibility of the independent existence of the mind or soul – an existence that may extend beyond this earthly life. From this one must surely be able to argue that mind or soul is a reality that is different from the brain.
Rupert Sheldrake is a maverick biologist who has devised a hypothesis concerned with what he calls morphic resonance. His hypothesis is constructed on the idea that we exist in a world of fields which by conventional physics are unmeasurable, fields which convey information from generation to generation, and from people to people. These fields or, if you prefer it out-of-body minds, could possibly lead to a scientific explanation of telepathy which has now been measured in so many different experiments that the materialist-reductionists are going to have great difficulty in maintaining their position. It is interesting that when I asked Dr. Peter Fenwick, a Neuroscientist who has made a major study of NDE’s, whether he considered morphic resonance could eventually explain some of the phenomena he had observed, he was very open minded about that possibility.
But before opening up a whole new area of research, let me now begin to draw this reflection to an end by coming back to the fundamental question of whether or not the mind is separate from the brain. We have seen that different scientists occupy different positions in the spectrum from reductionism to non-reductionism – even those who support brain control through meditation such as James Austin sometimes try to justify the position that the brain and the mind are one and the same. Others, such as Schwartz, are much more open-minded and whilst rejecting the Dualism of Descartes occupy the Dualist-Interactionist position, seeking a solution through the application of Quantum Theory.
Quantum Theory has some very interesting ideas to offer the mind/brain debate. It is a very large topic and one which I cannot deal with in any detail today – maybe a future essay. But the basic idea is this. Scientists have been unable to resolve the mind/brain problem satisfactorily by the use of classical physics. The reason that they have be unable to resolve this is that they have taken matter as a given, and that mind is the unknown quantity. The essential feature of quantum mechanics is that the observer inter-relates with the observed – in other words quantum theory makes a connection between the objective physical world and what we regard as subjective experience. How it does this is fairly mind blowing – as Niels Bohr said anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it. On that rather tantalising comment I must leave quantum theory for another occasion – it may help us to link mind and brain but I need to do much more research to be convinced one way or another.
So, let me come back to earth and to Descartes to end this essay. He has left us with a legacy of great value. He is quite correctly described as the father of modern philosophy – through his methodology he provided a starting point from which many could now build systems of thought. He has made a lasting contribution to mathematics where he was the originator of co-ordinate geometry. But perhaps most importantly of all through his concept of Cartesian Dualism, he separated scientific endeavour away from the authority of the church and of the Bible – an authority which previously had been a most inhibiting factor in the domain of scientific discovery. The Bible has a tremendous value in demonstrating human nature and in establishing an ethical basis of living our lives but we must be able to add to this by using our God given abilities to understand apply modern scientific developments.
I have, hopefully, today demonstrated that 350 years after Descartes’ death Cartesian Dualism is a very useful starting point when we are considering the relationship between mind and brain.
I would now like to close by leaving last word with a maverick and Christian biologist, Rupert Sheldrake. “(Our minds) are much more extensive than our brains. They reach out through attention and inattention. They work in every act of perception, through social bonds. They connect us at a distance. Minds are also extensive in time – we tune into a kind of collective memory through (a form of) resonance, so we are linked up with each other through memory and the influence of ancestors. All this takes us far beyond the standard materialist view of the brain. It makes much better sense of our own immediate experience, and of phenomena which at present have to be pushed aside and treated as taboo in science. I think that in this way we have a much more rational and satisfying science, and one which enables the psychic realm to be seen as normal; as part of our normal human (and animal) nature. I think this provides a much better interface for understanding the way the spirit works in and through us.”
Brislington Community News 