Stephanie West Allen at Idealawg thinks so. In her post, Neurolaw: leaving out a big piece of the puzzle, she says we should take into account how “the mind can be in control [of our brains] if we want it to be”. What is at stake? Responsibility for our actions. However, I wonder if our brains are plastic enough to permit the sort of control over our brains that her position requires.
Even if it does, I don’t see how neuroplasticity can mount a good defense of anti-materialism. Relying on material phenomena to dodge the materialist bullet seems… odd, to say the least.
She also raises the interesting question, are we under a moral or legal obligation to cultivate our brains’ capacity to behave responsibly? I, for one, would be a tad alarmed if governments enacted legislation to promote or enforce the ‘mental sculpting’ she describes. It’s almost as scary as neuromarketing.
Hi, Corey. It is question of whether the brain controls the mind or vice versa. Self-directed neuroplasticity certainly indicates the mind can be in control. The materialist position says the brain controls. To deeply understand the relationship between materialism and self-directed neuroplasticity, read The Mind and the Brain. It is the best coverage of the topic of which I am aware. The book is reviewed here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2161
The review also explains.
I am not sure why you mention the government’s involvement? I certainly was not suggesting it. I asked about our moral or civic obligation, not legal as you said.
Thanks for reading and commenting on my post.
Hi Stephanie. Thanks for the comment and clarification: I understood your use of ‘civil obligation’ to have a technical, legal meaning referring to the duties between private individuals.
You refer to Jeffrey Schwartz & Sharon Begley, who wrote The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force (Harper Collins, 2002). It is the controversial volume championing a sort of mind-body dualism that tries to root itself in a very odd interpretation of quantum physics.
While I appreciate his work with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), his theoretical framework is another matter. It is difficult to get beyond the term “mental force”, and neither it nor dualism seem to be a necessary explanation for the successes of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.
[...] Of late, there has been a ballooning blog storm on self-directed neuroplasticity (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.), which has interesting implications in light of toposophy, which “deals with the [...]