i answered one of laura's posts about something she listened to on public radio and said i never listened. i'm trying to be more balanced in the news i take in - a daunting task. anyway i found this and think it is by far the worst study and conclusion i have ever read.

moral judgements, [ which we aren't supposed to inflict upon each other according to the way i was raised ] can be changed with magnets. The author's pleasure at this is actually felt as you read it.

Here's the conclusion of this inept researcher:

"The new study is really part of a much larger effort by scientists to explain how the brain creates moral judgments, Greene says. The scientists are trying to take concepts such as morality, which philosophers once attributed to the human soul, and "break it down in mechanical terms."

If something as complex as morality has a mechanical explanation, Green says, it will be hard to argue that people have, or need, a soul. "



No it won't Mr. Green; it just makes people like you , working so hard to prove that you are smarter, look foolish and i will say that with ten magnets held to my head.

Talk about a jump. People who are doing this study are trying to disprove the soul? haha good luck! how much money do you need i'll fundraise for you.

How perfectly this thinking is in step with mankind as he gains too much of everything. That's where the U.S.A. is now/too much information to control and no moral guide.

These researchers are spending dollars trying to prove the unprovable. Maybe we all are but our clinical trials usually have some merit when they set out and people take serious risks for us all to feel better.

the money for this research should be revoked. the outcome is predetermined; biased even in it's tone. Most important is it won't change any minds, even if the soul was discovered in a little box [magnetic] in our hearts in the shape of the ARC of the Covenant - you cannot argue that there is a soul with a nonbeliever.

This money could feed people. so i deleted my public radio link already.

grrrrr
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...304448&ps=cprs

Uh oh, Paula. NPR has a very liberal bias; I used to listen, and as a person with strong Liberal viewpoints, well...even I grew tired of it. lol

Funny though, I heard some of that story as my latest listening habit entails flipping around the radio on the way into work. I heard the basics, rolled my eyes and settled on some Fleetwood Mac instead. Some days, Christine MacVie makes more sense than a room full of neuroscientists.

I think this study is an adjunct of the explosion in Social Cognitive Neuroscience. Just google that and be amazed at the number of results you get. Not sure what you know of this but it the BIG thing these days to take psychology, mainly emotions, and use neuronal imaging, to explain the brain mechanisms behind it all then apply it or see it in a larger socio-cultural context. They have been using it to study things like empathy and given how ugly people can be with each other...this might be a useful thing but also scary if a thought police component comes along with it.

One of my very favorite writers and columnists, David Brooks, has covered some of this newer research; a lot of it is fascinating, but how useful is it in the long run? He hints that at least it takes us past our current obsession with IQ, ability, and material attainment- it gets us looking into more complex aspects of human nature. Wonder how the scene between Bob and tea protesters might have played out if they had been coached based on some of this social neurocognitive stuff. See his column "The Young and the Neuro".

Brooks also tackles the question of science and morality. He rather agrees with what you are saying right here:

Finally, it should also challenge the very scientists who study morality. They’re good at explaining how people make judgments about harm and fairness, but they still struggle to explain the feelings of awe, transcendence, patriotism, joy and self-sacrifice, which are not ancillary to most people’s moral experiences, but central. The evolutionary approach also leads many scientists to neglect the concept of individual responsibility and makes it hard for them to appreciate that most people struggle toward goodness, not as a means, but as an end in itself.


I think he nails it right there; this is what the NPR report omits. If you look at the MIT lab where the magnet research originates...the researchers point out that the magnets do not reverse moral judgment but skews them. I'm not sure they are trying to eliminate the concept of our soul or take away that human element more than trying to get a handle on how complex our emotional thought processes are and how they may be organically awry. Brooks also has a fascinating piece called Neural Buddhist - he finds that this new wave of cognitive focus does not readily dismiss the idea of God or a soul, and in fact, mentions that despite vast cultural differences; people around the world have common moral ideas.

It is all quite fascinating, but really in the end, I think of it in terms of our struggles. How in the hell do researchers get access to all these fancy, expensive neuroimaging technologies to study behavior, while we don't even merit a PET scan as part of our diagnosis and treatment? I'd say some key people involved in shaping neuro clinical practice may need a magnetic adjustment on their moral compass.

Laura,

What a thoughtful post! And full of information. I am always so focused on getting through the day with my own brain, I hadn't thought about an explosion of psych imaging but of course it makes sense and has spilled ever so slightly [ in terms of scanning] into our community.

I don't know how I feel about the social categorizing. There are so many reasons why people do what they do and much of it is common sense. We are being diced into more and more categories. Shouldn't they be studying how to help people? The lack of emotion is rather creepy - maybe we'll just end up being a "color" in a mental caste system.

Is this a priority or a new business opportunity?

I see what you mean Laura, the Brooks article is much better written. I am enlightened.

I'm really glad you posted this because I had filed away in the back of my mind this new direction in neuroscience and it had slipped my mind. I also remember something about the use of this type of scanning to differentiate between normal ageing and dementia. I think we would both be interested in that.

Apologies for the Brooks' bombardment...talk about biases I am not at all related to the guy. He is generally considered Conservative, yet I find him to be one of the more balanced, truly independent voices around, plus he is insightful and funny (it must be clear by now that I have a bit of a schoolgirl crush).

I like that image of a color coded mental caste system. I think you bring up a really good point to consider...where does all this lead?

I know that if they are studying autism via this blend of disciplines, and I also had a fleeting thought that they might be able to study some of us and learn more on how placebo, dopamine, and the reward system interrelate? I guess I'm all for it if they can begin to harness this new approach and use it to help others.

Laura

There is more and more 'neuroscience' to explain the way everything lives and performs as living beings. My gut feeling on this is that it takes the joy out of existence to be able to break down our every response and docket it, it has something immensely bureaucratic about it! And yet I love the science, I love what I can learn from it, and that people are finding out so much. It's just when they want to label it all and turn it into something less than the whole that I despair. We have seen successive waves of this, well those of us who have lived long enough, and I cannot help thinking that reducing existence to it's component parts is somehow out of context, if there is anything that life teaches me it is that we are all incredibly interdependent, on each other, on circumstance, on change, on everything else, and no matter what you call it, from the position of science, faith, culture or just yourself, the bit that apprehends it all has got to approximate to a 'soul', and morality, conscience and ethics come out of that. Anything else is apartheid of the mind, and a concept that at it's heart is deeply flawed.

There is no problem observing, it is the interpretation that counts.

I too, like Laura, would ask where does all this lead..... we are only just coming out of one blind alley where current knowledge was deemed as all there was to know, it has absolutely damaged the world and it's beings, we really do not need another........

But there's hope yet, there are still the spirited, spiritful sceptics of the world to balance things off!!

Hats off to Laura and Paula..............