The Mind And The Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force [Paperback]

However, Schwarz's free will is not idealized. His interpretation of the mind is more like a sleepy sailor on a mini-sailboat. The sailor is the mind, the boat is the brain, and the wind is nature. If the sailor isn't alert, the wind will guide the boat wherever the wind takes it. However, if the sailor is attentive, he can guide the boat however he wishes. Focus and attention are necessities--when we act rashly or go w/ our immediate reaction, we are just being guided by the wind. Schwarz is a Buddhist, but his conclusions can be applied to any philosophy or religion. His more "weird" conclusions are the result of confronting the "weird" realities of Quantum Mechanics and non-locality.

If there are any weaknesses in the book, it's two: 1.) the middle section on the monkeys is unnecessary, repetitive, and disgusting. He proves his point w/ human research, no need to bring this depressing garbage up of tortured monkeys, you can skip these chapters, and 2.) He is a little too hard on Descartes, as much modern day philosophers are. Is not the division between Mind and Brain, between Quantum wave fluctuation and Newtonian particles, merely updated versions of Cartesian duality? The lines may be blurred between the Mind of Volition and the Matter of classical physics, but they remain distinct on some level, if not in form than in purpose. Schwarz's dualism is far more Cartesian than modern-day postermodernism or deterministic biochemistry. "Cogito Ergo Sum" is reinforced by "Mindfull Attentiveness", not undermined.

He then goes on to discuss the topic of neuroplasticity citing the case of the Silver Springs monkeys. You get a nice history lesson in addition to a summary of some hard won facts about the brain. He also gives plenty of examples of neuroplasticity in humans. He uses this as the physical basis of his own stylized treatment for OCD. His treatment is based on the concept of a mental force (a nebulous concept if there ever was one) that is able to change the brain through the principles of quantum mechanics. He devotes the rest of his book to discussing the quantum mind as well as some implications of the theory as it applies to consciousness.

It is the last third of the book that attempts to explain the concept of a mental force that interacts with the physical substance of the brain (through quantum mechanics) to ultimately produce behavior. The problem as I see it, is that Schwartz believes that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, in that it is more than the sum of its mere physical parts. He seems to be unable to accept the idea that our mental lives are reducible entirely to physical processes. Many of Schwartz's conclusions in this book are based on his a priori assumption that the mind is more than the brain. He interprets the results of a variety of experiments as proof that the mind is not reducible. Granted, many of the experiments he alludes to are fascinating--neuroscience is fascinating by definition, of course--but that does not mean they HAVE to be the product of something greater than the brain. A good example of this is his discussion of Libet's experiments that revealed a readiness potential as proof of free will (and thus a rejection of the "philistine reductionist" viewpoint that all human behavior is caused because as we all know a lack of volition would just be the absolute-ruin-of-the-world-as-we-know-it GAG!). I also found Libet's experiments intruguing; however, I see them as simply raising more questions, not providing a death-blow to materialism.

Finally, Schwartz has a habit of quoting all over the place. He is especially fond of William James, and why not? James was ahead of his time. His contribution to our understanding of the mind is known by every student of psychology. However, Schwartz is using James's insights as an appeal to authority. He also quotes Roger Sperry among others as if to say, "well, these great thinkers think the mind is more than the brain so it must be so!"

Then there is the whole quantum mechanical (QM) brain theory. I'm not a physicist so I will refrain from commenting too much on it. To Schwartz and his physicist buddy Stapp, QM is the mechanism by which the immaterial affects the material. There is a lot of hype in the section of the book and some interesting proposals as well. However, it simply doesn't deliver in the end.

In the end, it is Schwartz's mixture of hard neurobiological facts with immaterial hocus-pocus conclusions that CAUSES me to give it an average evaluation. It's hard to believe that a scientist would be so quick to credit certain discoveries as irrefutable evidence of his own biased opinion. Contrariwise, these perplexing phenomenon are merely the beginnings of further lines of investigation. A scientist must assume he or she is working to uncover some material process. How would one go about trying to prove a physical process is the result of something immaterial?

If you have OCD, you will enjoy the first third of the book. If you are a student of the neurosciences you will enjoy the first two-thirds of the book. And if you're a dualist you will probably enjoy all three.

One statement on page 95 gives the thesis succinctly: "Conscious, volitional decisions and changes in behavior alter the brain." Schwartz offers plenty of evidence for this claim from PET scans of individuals suffering from OCD. On page 93 he writes: "The results achieved with OCD supported the notion that the conscious and willful mind differs from the brain and cannot be explained solely and completely by matter, by the material substance, of the brain. For the first time hard science--for what could be 'harder' than the metabolic activity measured by PET scans?--had weighed in on the side of mind-matter theories that...question whether mind is nothing but matter."

If these assertions intrigue you, you will enjoy the book. If you hold an opposing view you will also appreciate the substantial intellectual challenge this book offers your theory. I think probably one of the most important contributions this book makes is to affirm the common sense belief that we have some control over our lives and we can change for the better. The self-help gurus who urge reprogramming the mind/brain and behavior consistent with the reprogramming were right, at least in regard to the matter of self-control. If you'd like hard science (as well as passionate encouragement) that supports you in your efforts to control yourself, you will enjoy this book. If you make money giving self-help seminars, you need this book. If you want hope for changing for the better, you need this book.