Tanveer Ahmed,
congratulations on a splendid splice of neurological and psychological insight. Great article, and a definite literary bent (touches of Maupassant) on show as well. I wonder if you're a fan of Adam Phillips?
It would be sheer pleasure to spend all day interrogating this article and offering counterarguments, but alas I don't have the time.
I do think the analytic sciences should avail themselves more of philosophy, as you have. And I think "you" might look at the continental tradition as much as the analytic.
I was surprised you never mentioned language in all of this; how much of the brain is devoted to it, and how much our conceptual world is pre-textualised, and whether we are capable of thinking outside the text, or even outside or in excess of our neural horizon (Whether there even exists an ontological reality?).
It seems to me humans "are" capable of transcending these, that we do it every day with simple anxiety--perceiving the cracks and even chasms in our constructed (or forced) realities.
I believe our "natures" are distorted under capitalism, that we are, as you imply, endlessly manipulated by the market, and more directly by marketing.
Human beings are incredibly creative in their adaptation to an aggressive world of scarcity. This is inspirationally and appallingly on show in impoverished countries, which you seem to elide--tacitly suggesting Westernism is a global reality?
Globalisation is indeed a western reality--but of gross disparities which distort "both" halves. For the wealthy half this creative capacity has largely degenerated into a merely passive, indeed exploited relationship with, and reception of, stimulus ("Stimulus" here being synonymous with "commodity"). Plugged-in Western consumers are hot-house plants that could not survive outside in the real.

Thanks Squeers,

I don’t get it. Is this article a celebration of medicine and its achievements or a show of erudition?

We have many Doctors, too many, and when it comes to medicine men, I would say; god forbid!

Medicine and the gigantic pharmaceutical corporations on which it sits have much to answer for the ills of humanity.

Oh Dr. Ahmed! Where is a pill to control our urge to prevail over our fellow man?

Dear Ahmed, an interesting article but it left me thinking that it lacks direction. Where is this taking us? Is it pointing to the fact that a better understanding of the human brain will help humans cope better with the modern world? Or help achieve social equity and justice? Or is it that we can achieve a better understanding of “human nature”?

I’m afraid this just doesn’t do anything for me.

There seems to be some basic confusion about knowledge. When you say “Our brains evolved in small, homogenous communities but are now faced with extraordinary diversity in a fast-changing, globalised knowledge economy”, this is not quite right. What we have is rule based information societies, not knowledge.

Knowledge is an “action”. Brain Surgeons have information and knowledge because they can perform the surgery and apply cures. This applies to most professions. Societies are information based; they have lots of information (ingredients) but no recipes.

Your other key assertion that “We could even be on the verge of a new Enlightenment - one in which the concept of the individual autonomously making rational decisions is usurped by a new, more complex understanding of the forces that shape human nature.”

This implies confusion between education and intelligence. We have never and cannot teach “intelligence” in our schools and universities. Might I suggest the “an understanding of the forces that shape human nature”, might tell us something about what we are now however, to achieve “ enlightenment” requires us to become a benign species, so understanding our evolution into our current state is no help at all.

Our societies already recognize our selfishness, greed, envy, belligerence et al. Thousands of religions and millions of social rules have had absolutely no impact for thousands of years. We have not changed one iota. It’s just that we can screw up on an even bigger scale nowadays.

When you can identify “intelligence”, its source and state of evolution, you might have something of significance.

Sceptic,
I can relate to what I think you're getting at; it seems we've lost the capacity to "just live" to an obsessive determination to endure, to multiply, to prosper and to "experience". Experience (and experiences)is now something we anticipate, desire, pursue, analyse and above all "possess", rather than something we gather inevitably and unselfconsciously.
I don't celebrate this new state of consciousness, the epitome of Westernism, especially when this obsession for longevity, experience and satisfaction has no higher aim than indulgence for its own sake.
I agree that the psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries are opportunistic, symtomally conscripting consumers into a "sick" culture, psychiatric treatment and drugs being the ultimate commodified treatment (read indulgence). It's difficult to say what percentage of the droves of the "mentally ill" are "cultivated" for these industries, compared with those who are genuinely "afflicted". And of those genuinely afflicted it is a moot question how many of them suffer from an individualised malady, as opposed to the "illness" much more likely being a cultural one. It is a sick culture that neads treatment and not its narcissistic individuals.
All these things interest me greatly, but I don't worship at the shrine of empirical science like, perhaps, Tanveer Ahmed does. Indeed it's about time the scientists woke up to and acknowledged the fact that they are instruments of the state and thus instrumental in the social evils perpetrated by the state.

much like spindoc ..im not getting what your getting at
[i note the change of title?]..[away from ..'ways of seing text']

the mind is not a king-dom
just the thousands on connections ..indicate more a kin-dom[ain]

for that matter also ..you talk of neurons/brain etc
but miss the mind ..thing all together

considering your a phychatryst..you also dont mention much about the affects of poisens booze or drugs on the brain..[let alone on the mind]....

[im with those feeling ..its a quack science]..
that neuroligists have more valid application
[standing]..than pshyciratisist/phycologists..

any-thing that makes judgment calls
on what is said ..from a phycotic-mind ..just has to be suss

if there isnt actual physical evidencve..your pills and potions arnt going to re-educate a mind damaged by others influence..[be they via other abusive beings or drugs]

you also missout on the other mind in-fluences like those claiming hauntings or voices or even attention deficite ..ie the drugging of little children minds with legal lsd type stuff

as well as the other drugs in the nmews where people do things unconciously..and so much other stuff ..you dont even attempt to rationalise

drugs dont fix things
they hide the symptoms
make them mindnumb..docile..or even placeabo affect

but sure as heck dont install the king
back into his kingdumb

anyhow going to see if page two is any better
staying calm ..so as to not get a stroke

why am i so angry?
i refused to see one of you nutters
to get a pension re-instatted..[no letter no payment]

didnt want to see him collect 300 bucks medical care cash ..for a letter..and have him read back ..what i told him last time..10 years ago..

One thing the mind isn't & that's a rubbish bin. Once crap gets into it it can't be tossed out again !

An instrument of next week's ah-gotta-hav-one gadgetry, sustained by a Hav-a-Chat mentality and confirmed in their magical world of bastardized grammar?

Squeers has disqualified himself from participating in the discussion by his earlier assertion that nothing can be either proved or disproved, thus disclaiming rationality as a method. His criticism of others for enjoying life for its own sake, while he plays on the internet, displays pious hypocrisy.

Tanver claims rationality as a method but fails to provide any rational justification for his conclusions against the market, or in favour of policy.

It is axiomatic that voluntary exchanges are mutually advantageous, otherwise they wouldn’t take place. Tanver makes no attempt to prove his claim that this view is “flawed”. Homo economicus, the personification of the businessman, is a straw man, because in reality man seeks to satisfy his values in order of their importance to him, regardless whether or not they are monetary values.

The idea that our instincts for fairness and sympathy establish a case against voluntary co-operation – “the market” - and in favour of co-operation based on force and threats – “policy” – is confused. Man has evolved social emotions precisely because the division of labour is more productive than labour in isolation.

As for Keynes, those who think we can make real wealth – roads and bridges and hospitals – by printing paper are in no position to criticize the irrationality of others.

Tanver assumes that the GFC proves his assumption of the irrationality of markets. But while the price and supply of money was at all times controlled by government, it is completely irrational to blame the resulting mess on “laissez-faire hubris”, rather than its opposite “central planning hubris” or “policy hubris” – especially when the entire argument against political manipulation of the money supply for the sake of cheap credit is precisely that it causes the boom and bust cycle, by promoting instant grat over savings.

Tanveer introduces the supposed virtues of policy without the slightest attempt to justify it. He reasons simply “because problem, therefore policy is the solution”.

But if the original problem is man’s imperfection, policy could only be a solution if it could presumptively supply perfection, or a better outcome...

...This prepresupposes exactly the same of policy as religion presupposes of God. Tanver’s assumes that in the State we supposedly have available a source of knowledge, capacity and moral goodness over and above human imperfection. This is not a scientific belief, it is a superstitious belief.

The fact that our brains are plastic in the sense that they can to some degree assign functions to different parts provides no justification of any policy.

Problems are no justification of policy unless the government can do better. For example with brain development and child protection, government’s outcomes by every measure – abuse in care, illiteracy, mental health, suicide, teenage pregnancy, homelessness, unemployment, you name it – are far *worse* than the ordinary standards of parental responsibility in the community.

The fact of an alleged general preference for short-term over long-term reward provides no reason in favour of government paternalism or regulation. Firstly the *method* of blandly assuming a God-like benevolence and beneficence on the part of the State is rationally impermissible.

Also, at least in an unhampered market, people’s desire for instant grat must be balanced against the future cost which themselves must pay. Interest rates are the price of preferring gratification now to later. Monetary policy is to permanently promote cheap credit by *lowering* interest rates i.e. promoting short term over long term satisfaction. This affects the entire economy, value system, and social morality. Thus the general phenomenon of high time preference - consumerism, debt, etc. - that Tanver criticizes is a *government epidemic*, not a market epidemic – promoted first and foremost by the social democrats!

Tanver’s entire *method* of assuming an intrinsic conflict between individual self-interest and the common good, with the state available to supply the want of man’s virtue and reason, has no basis in reason or evidence and no better than a superstition.

Man’s social nature is in no way an argument against voluntary or in favour of involuntary relationships: on the contrary.

www.mises.org

PH,
I've in the past made the perfectly valid observation that nothing can be "ultimately" proved or disproved. I've advised you before to look at Rorty or Fish or Anti-foundationalism generally. Also look at Kant on Hume and Heideggar on Husserl. Then look at Roy Bhaskar.
Your trouble, PH, is that you cannot conceive of a reality outside capitalist economics.
As I've also said before, I would welcome a return to free marketism, the shortest path to emancipation.

Squeers
Unfortunately, appeal to absent authority and mind-reading are no advance on your original illogic of denying the possibility of rational proof or disproof.

You still haven’t answered whether Pythagoras’s theorem can be proved or disproved?

Nor dared to deny that the laws of physics or logic apply to human action?

You have in no way shown any reason why coerced social relations should be preferred to voluntary social relations.

Peter Hume,
I hope to have more time to duel with you over your Mises obsession when it doesn't take me too far off track and I have the time.
In the meantime, I've made some thoughtful comments on this thread and I'd rather have them interrogated. Otherwise, I doubt there's anything of interest to me here.

OUG,
I'd be interested to know what your concept of mind is.
The Psyches are supposed to be trained to take a meta-view of their diagnostics, but I suspect that at the end of the day they're servants of the system. Conclusions come too easily in all the sciences.

Squeers
As I have shown your remarks were not thoughtful, they were ignorant and hypocritical. They depend on underlying economic theories, or rather cluelessness, that you have been completely unable to defend. When challenged to either prove your argument or refute mine, you retreat into sheer evasion, endless repetition of logical fallacies, and end by denying the very possibility of reason as a way to knowledge. It is a disgraceful intellectual shemozzle of which you should be embarrassed.

squuers im not qualified to sepperate the mind from the brain
but that of the right brain is closer to that called mind

the left brain is that called of the brain
in the next life ..all is of the mind

im trying to sift out the distinction...via my mind
and come to the conclusion the emotive
relates more to the mind ..than the brain

we talk flipantly..that its all..in our mind's
by this they infure its all in our heads..
ie were emoting ..more than thinking logiclly about something..

you must remember i float freely into many other topics
i specificlly avioid specialisation in an area in particular

the closest i have come to specialisation is in the areas of god and his creation..but even there lack the completness of facts that inevitably result in judging anything as if a certainty..

the brain is that of the material and that factually materialistic
the mind more of the emotive and spiritual

but as usual im trying to interprite into words the mind imagry..your question in-spirates [influxes in-fluences..into my mind]

the brain is little more than a recieving relaying instrument
that recieves that ..of simultude to its current attentions

to try to explain it better...see im seeing an image
that directly relates to the other things
my mind is recieving via its sensory imputs

look science ..cant treat the brain like a hard-disk
your life's memories..isnt stored 'in' the conscious brain
its is held in its fullness ..in the sub-concious mind

but its not till we can overcome ..the overwelming inputs and actions of the active brain..[after death]..that the fullness of our mind becomes clear..

as i said ..the heading dosnt meld with the article
[i feel ..its the result of publish or perish]
ie the right brain..under the wrong title

[the only way to comprehend my post
is to try to let your mind visualise..the imagry
not digest the words ..under the guise of logic]

left brain people dont get me

peter when i read your words i read more sense
than found in the origonal article..that i feel is the fruit of publish or perish...if only by the many quoted texts..

i will respond in kind to that you said
regarding debt/desire ..

[those with long memories overcome the impulse ..by memory of when we got caught ..in the high intrest rates of the 80's]..

replying to you is more stresfull..
because you are more studied..and have asimulated your study
[there isnt much i could add to your thoughts..or refute in any easy manner]

policy is an unthinking solution [for the mindless]
thus is never a 'perfect solution'..in fact its policy that has destroyed jesus message..and made religeons into yesterdays error-fixatudes

[thats possably not a word
but an agromination of other words]
darn..there are to many words/meanings joining together here

its likely im undergoing a migrane aura..[stroke]
much like that female reporter did ..on tv yesterday
i know the imagry of my mind isnt being reflected in my words

im overthinking ..trying to use too much brain
but never mind...its clear...[if only in my mind]

i guess i respond better to specific points
that hold my mind ..in focus

for me mind is everything
and the brain relitivly speaking as if nothing

they are focusing ..so much on seeing the minutia of the trees
they miss the for-rest ..*bigger picture..all together

trying so hard for a catch all policy to police
they miss the joy ,reason purpose..of discovery

but its not till we can overcome ..the overwelming inputs and actions of the active brain..[after death]..that the fullness of our mind becomes clear..
under one god,
?? you mean like getting a new hard drive ? What exactly happens after death ? Have you been dead & experienced that ?

individual..
believe it or not
its taken a lot of reading ..and study to form my mind..
[into the miss-shapen/wreck ..you see reflected..in my words]

never the less..i am sure of the science-law
that says energy.. "cant be created..*nor destroyed"

a living-sperm... melded with a living egg
to form the sparks..of all life

juring our lifetimes..we have transmogified other energies..
so much so that the energy-field that is contained..
within the being we are being..lives on...
in the life energy ..that sepparates incarnate ..from disincarnate..

in other words our life-energy lives on
to wit.. the energy i call me..or you call you
survives the disolution of the meat/flesh/blood
..that we thought ourselves to be..

joining many dots.. i hold that we transorm our life-energy into 'other dimentions'..to wit that ..some call heaven or hell
or science simply calls other dimentions

my latest validation comes from[via] ..the brane theory
as well as numerous other text's 'channeld' back into this 3 dimentional realm..plus time [the forth..]

[many of which i have posted here]

anyhow from them ..its revealed...no new hard-drive
but yes a new computer..that runs on the same programing
same bugs ..same favourites ..same networks and friends lists

in fact our new final eternal life
takes with it all bugs and idiosingacies
debts duties and obligations as we had in our previous incarnation..
while we served out our life ..sentanance..here/now

you dont need to have been dead
to validate that what feels reasonable
and in acord with science fact..

just as you dont ..need to be ..crazy/insane..
to judge others crazy or insane..

though pot/kettle ..is a constant ..if not nearly a law

What exactly happens after death ..is unique to us all
we are each of differnt loves and intrests
each have divergent karmic balances and urges

indeed its like is said ..in the books
more ..OF THE SAME..shall be given

thus some ..CHOSE to go to heaven
if they have the simultude of good vibratory[light] mindset

while those who get-off ..on vile
can chose to ...by their love of vile
or works of vile...to go to hell

OUG,
where does your "mind" come from?
Your "mind" is the product of data input.
All your thoughts derive from the culture (of ideas) in which "you" (the interpellated you) developed from pure ontology (if that exists) to identity, expression and representation.
Mind is epiphenomenal.
The interesting question is "the remainder".
If you think about it at all deeply, you must acknowledge that your thoughts are derivative (if not from your culture, your social/historical milieu, then where from? You might say God, but you have no verifiable knowledge of this. And if it's from God, it is nonetheless in historicised translation, no?).
Mind is in an epistemological trap, but is there anything to escape into?
We all have a strong feeling of identity and authenticity beyond our cultural conditioning.
What is the source of this? That's the question!
You possibly would say "God", without really understanding this incomprehensible designation.
Or I could argue that we're the footnotes of this cultural/linguistic identity (or text), that we're pure and idle confabulation, random access memory.
Our ego's are not satisfied with that, but perhaps we should be. It's miraculous that nature or God or whatever has achieved and agonises over this sense of Self.
I don't believe in scientific determinism either, but I find it perfectly acceptable that individually we're no more miraculous than a snowflake.

P.S.
I think you give Peter Hume far too much credit, OUG.

science says we only use 9/10 th our brains
[meaning thats all they can detect us using]

this isnt to say we are all using the detectable 10 percent
or that 90 percent is unused

that being said i dont have much to correct you about
except your presumption re god

god does the so called autonimous actions of life
[he sustains all life]...he is the unseen/unrecognised 'cause'

he dosnt judge ..nor nudge
dont grudge nor budge

that input influx inflow inspiration ..you accord to god
is only that symbiotic inflow ..in sympathy with
that we focus our attentions on ..in real time

and dosnt 'come from god'..but the beings
in the higher and lower realms

we and they are all sustained our being ..by god

mind is not a secondary phenomina..[a by product of the brain]
its both reactive and interactive ..with far more than mere mental aberation and physical sensual mental or phycological input's..
[as previously expanded upon]

its more akin to harmoncs convergance
in discord and in simultude its more like a sending recieving radio with emotive capacity and residual accord..[symbiological sympatico
via seen and unseen physical or spiritual emotive or even mundane..

moderated by empathy ..will and desires]
[able to be limited or expanded upon ..by more than emotive classification ..or drug induced moderation/mediation or medication..;even elation and depresive repressive retardation]

its far more complicated
than mere words could sum up in a few lines
yet far more easilly to grasp by action and interaction
than by speculative or conjective or even subjective convective

its funny how the big words can still say so little

a picture really needs 1000 words..and still not reveal the full visioning of the picture attempting to be conveyed from one seeing to the other [hopefully]..recieving

Here's the problem, OUG.
I can talk about this topic and ask rhetorical questions, and speculate about the mind-brain discrepency--though many scientists will have none of this mind talk (that's just the operating system, they'd say). At the end of the day it remains a conundrum to those who don't want to give it up.. "There has to be more to me than that!"

You on the other hand "say" how it is.. as if you knew..
Based on what?

You have to show us some evidence we can evaluate..
It's not enough to just say how it is without evidence.
You're using our language, however much you play around with it, ergo you use our concepts. You think with them so you ought to respect them..
Your ideas are structured from our collective concepts.

It's your privilege, of course, to make no sense to the rest of us. But there's no point trying to communicate with us if you won't play by the rules.
The rules are that the position has to be defensible.
You can't just say stuff.
Like:
<mind is not a secondary phenomina..[a by product of the brain]
its both reactive and interactive ..with far more than mere mental aberation and physical sensual mental or phycological input's..
[as previously expanded upon]>

It's not enough to expand your beliefs.
You have to "defend" your reasoning..

Evidence... logic...persuasion...?

Experiences, strong intuition, faith, facts realised after events.

its no use asking the same questions
expecting a different answer.. i have done much reading and study by life experience.. failing that i rely on what appears most logical

take your quote..''Your "mind" is the product of data input.""

thats rather loose
we have sensual input..but its not all 'data'
even then much you term data is opinion or simply questions
or confusions and out and out lies or distortions opinions and 'feeling'

""All your thoughts derive from the culture""
asgain an over simplification ..close to a buzzword...culture(of ideas)...include much that isnt factual..even though the experiences underlying them might have validity or relivance..[or not]

you again fall into the same cliches by adding to idea cultures..''the interpellated you)..developed from pure ontology''

ontology is a taughtoligy..[buzzword]
concerned only with the 'nature' of our being
even then you add the slippery.."" (if that exists)''

it either egsists and is relivant
or it dont and becomes thus irrelivant
wether it applies to either all of individually to specifics
your following has this become as if of never mind

ie"" to identity, expression and representation.""
all pretty much divergent in application and relivance

"Mind is epiphenomenal"
no mind is an internal thing
its not even a phenomina...aND IF ITS NOT EVEN CL;AIMED TO BE LINKED..REVEALS ITSELF AS IRRELIVANT..[to wit big buzzzz words that hide behind ignorance]...

""The interesting question is .."the remainder".

yes the unkown knowns that phycoligists have no idea about
thus ask others to write their presies for them...

give sources
i have to write some publish or perish spin...to keep my position

the kingdom of the mind is a jungle
we each lay our own paths through it

each mind is unique..
we cant all be labled under the same tag

we each really are unique