Reddit Reddit reviews The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force

We found 13 Reddit comments about The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Health, Fitness & Dieting
Books
Psychology & Counseling
Popular Neuropsychology
The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force
ReganBooks
Check price on Amazon

13 Reddit comments about The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force:

u/flyryan · 6 pointsr/science

Wouldn't a link to purchase it do better than a link to an image of the cover?

Amazon link

Barnes and Noble link

u/CNCTEMA · 4 pointsr/CCW

keep fighting for your recovery and dont be easily satisfied. get second opinions, get more MRI's, hassle the docta.

I know you are not a research monkey in a cage, but theres some stuff in the mind and the brain that may be helpful to you. and its a good read.

as for your actual question I know in KY having one good arm is all you need to fulfil your CCW requirements but it could be different in FL, but you should be good.

u/EntropyFighter · 3 pointsr/philosophy

I mean, the basic argument is that we have the ability to impact the wave function collapse. I'm not saying I support that. But that's the argument.

Here's a book that's not Deepak Chopra that gets into it. It's called "The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force".

The basic argument here is that because of quantum physics we're capable of rewiring our own neurology even when the neurochemistry says we can't.

Sounds really buzzwordy. I'm not well versed enough in the topics to say whether it's nonsense or not.

u/teleomorph · 2 pointsr/neuro

You should read at least the first two chapters of The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force, which is a book all about the neuroscience of OCD from a research psychiatrist who studied OCD for 30 years at UCLA Medical School.

u/kooldeela · 2 pointsr/reddit.com

Have you read any of the books on CBT? It would probably go a long way in her mind if you were actively attempting to understand her predicament. Here's a great book which describes exactly what is happening in an OCD's brain and how it can be altered for the better. It's a matter of opening neural pathways towards healthy non-obsessive behaviour. The roads are already there, it's just the signs aren't pointing in the right direction.
EDIT: That direction btw is a healthy sex life. An ex had a similar low sex drive and it made me feel terrible because I was obsessed with her sexually whenever she was around. It was as if the deprivation made me more depraved. A very unusual situation to be that horny all the time (when we lived together) because in other normal relationships it wasn't as big a deal. I relate mate and can attest you are between a rock and hard, dry, arid, barren...

u/[deleted] · 2 pointsr/books

This book, The Mind and The Brain by Jeffrey Schwartz is amazing. It is basically about where consciousness comes from - it touches science, metaphysics, philosophy but in a very grounded way.

The author became immersed in the subject through his research into OCD and various treatments thereof. OCD is one of the few mental illnesses that sufferers have a certain remove from. That is to say - a schizophrenic will try to convince you the voices are real. A sufferer from OCD knows something is wrong and experiences it as an imposition on their reality not an organic part of it.

Regardless, the book is fascinating. It was a little over my head but the intro alone is worth the read.

u/Wesker1982 · 1 pointr/ADHD

>I too thought it was normal, up until I found out that some people actually think about little to nothing sometimes..

Ha! Exactly! It was hard for me to grasp this for the longest time. I would get almost annoyed when I asked my wife what she was thinking about and she would say "nothing really". I'd be like... WHAT?... what do you mean?

I think it was hard too because I have a strong sense of empathy. So when I absolutely could not understand the concept of not thinking, it was very confusing. I could NOT relate, at all. Sad? Angry? Happy? I get all that. Not thinking though..... is that even possible?!?!?

The only reason I understand now is because I looked into ADHD, then it smacked me in the face, hard. What a realization after all of these years. WOW!

>Is distracting yourself the healthy thing to do?

If you are able to replace a negative thought that you don't want in the first place, then yes. If you neglect something that actually needs attention, then that's bad.

I read about the strategy in a book about the brain. Long story short, it's been successful in treating OCD. When someone has an urge to wash their hands, they instead FORCE themselves to go garden etc. Eventually the desire to wash will go away (if successful, duh).

The book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Mind-Brain-Neuroplasticity-Mental/dp/0060988479

If you are interested in the subject overall, this book was actually better imo: http://www.amazon.com/Brain-That-Changes-Itself-Frontiers/dp/0143113100/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426110863&sr=1-1&keywords=the+brain+that+changes+itself

>How do you do it?

I'm definitely not a pro, but when I actually do have success, it usually starts with talking to someone close to me and comparing thought processes. Or sometimes I imagine a friend coming to me and asking for help, but I pretend they are using the same arguments I use in my own head. When I do this, I realize that if a friend came to me speaking like I do, I would instantly realize they are being irrational.

Those two things sometimes allow me enough wiggle room to focus on another subject. And if you get this wiggle room, you might have more luck doing something physical that requires attention. I've found that my brain can start acting up very easily if I just explore my own thoughts.

>And don't you get extra fidgety? I get so restless if I try to ignore it.

Sometimes, yes. When it doesn't work, I get very restless. It feels like there is a bunch of energy that wants to release. Very uncomfortable.






u/monabluespeaks · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

Summed it up perfectly. Wish I had something to add other than I plan to watch a bunch of YouTube videos tonight on this stuff. You'd be interested in this book - https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brain-Neuroplasticity-Power-Mental/dp/0060988479

All in all I'd say consciousness has to play a role in influencing the material world. We can't deny the evidence. We just have to do the complex work of figuring out how that maps across a body.

u/QuietlyLearning · 1 pointr/Frisson

I read this in The Mind & the Brain. Great frisson accompanying a good book is always sexy.

u/Stalked_Like_Corn · 1 pointr/dvdcollection

I lost it but when I find it i want to finish The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force

u/Brolonious · 1 pointr/politics
u/magiknight2016 · 1 pointr/askscience

Did you image patient's brains to correlate active regions with other mental disorders like OCD? This would be not unlike something from this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brain-Neuroplasticity-Power-Mental/dp/0060988479

u/Proverbs313 · 0 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

> The hard problem of consciousness alludes to the fact that we don't know how the brain produces consciousness, but we already know that it does.

Wrong. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed academic resource) states in the entry on the hard problem of consciousness: "In more detail, the challenge arises because it does not seem that the qualitative and subjective aspects of conscious experience—how consciousness “feels” and the fact that it is directly “for me”—fit into a physicalist ontology, one consisting of just the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements. "

Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

David Chalmers introduced the term "hard problem" of consciousness and if you go to his PhilPapers profile you'll see his answers to various questions in a survey he actually helped create. Here's the question: Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism? and here's his answer: Accept: non-physicalism

Source: http://philpapers.org/profile/2/myview.html

So yeah, if you can solve this hard problem of consciousness and save physicalism then maybe you'll be the guy getting the Nobel Prize eh? This is a big problem that's been plaguing us and stands in the way of the greatest mysteries mankind is aware of: consciousness and the brain. So if you think you're Nobel Prize material then go ahead and get crackin on solving that hard problem of consciousness there.

> Physical and material aren't vacuous terms at all. Somebodies' say so doesn't make it so.

This is either a blatant straw man or you clearly didn't check out the link from Chomsky. Chomsky gave an argument, check out the link again without the straw man.

> You should check out the argument from authority fallacy in good times, since your pretentious and pompous drivel is always chock full of it.

Do you even know what that fallacy even is? Me citing scholarly sources is not fallacious, its just research and an avoidance of plagiarism. I follow academic publications, I keep up with the scholars as much as I can. That's what a person who wants to be informed on this matter does my friend.

> I could also cite tons of philosophers who subscribe to physicalism, many of whom have actually done real work in that regard instead of scholastic mental masturbation.

The difference between you and me is that I'm giving arguments and not just throwing books at you like you tried to do. Chalmers is no fringe quack, he's a leading expert in his field and the hard problem of consciousness is unraveling this physicalist paradigm.

> the majority of professional philosophers subscribes to naturalism.

Yes it is the majority but the numbers aren't as impressive as you'd make them out to be. Only 50% are naturalists. And as I've noted, with research to back me up, this paradigm of the majority is being contradicted more and more.

> Also: material is usually understood to be space, time, fundamental particles, fields, energy, laws of nature.

Again, check out that video from Chomsky without the strawman and you'll see this doesn't help.

> A theory is not an example. Can you actually provide a counterexample? Because nobody can.

First off, you can't even meet your own example. As noted in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed academic resource), a physicalist ontology with qualia/subjectivity doesn't seem to make sense. Think about it for a bit: if all is objective or 3rd person then what room is there for a first person? There is none. There would be no qualia or subjectivity, only objectivity since reality=objective. But the idealist posits what's right before them: consciousness. To them reality is consciousness and they actually have some pretty good arguments for this as even Godehard Bruentrup notes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDR5i6z4L8c

> What the hell. Prove that and collect your Nobel Prize.

LOL wow you are waaaay behind on your research. Here, let me catch you up to date. One source on this is Jeffrey M. Schwartz MD a Research Psychiatrist at UCLA School of Medicine and one of the world’s leading experts in neuroplasticity, and he showed the mind alone can and does influences the brain and change brain structures in his work with OCD patients: http://www.amazon.com/The-Mind-Brain-Neuroplasticity-Mental/dp/0060988479

Here's some other stuff as well: http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~ochsner/pdf/Ochsner_Reapp.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11549754

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811902000307

This is old news my friend. Brain effects mind and mind effects brain.

> More argument from authority.

Wow do you even know what I was saying there? You were trying to say all of this stuff comes from theistic motivations about life after death when the main scholars I've been citing are both atheists (Chalmers and Nagel) who haven't said anything about life after death as far as I'm concerned.

> Chalmers' arguments are so dumb that they actually lead even more philosophers towards mind physicalism. Pigliucci calls his views The Chalmers Delusion.

There is no "Chalmers Delusion" outside o the imagination of this guy you're citing who is not even a philosopher of mind. He's speaking outside of his field of expertise. And every source that's actually on this topic by experts in the relevant field suggest this hard problem is a serious problem for physicalism.

> The mind doesn't have causal powers.

The mind as you conceive of as these current scientists do, yes it certainly does and I just provided several scholarly sources demonstrating this to you. You're out of date my friend, way out of date. We've known this for awhile now. We know the brain effects the mind and the mind effects the brain.

> The only causal effects so far discovered are force interactions in physics.

That's a very hefty claim there and I don't know how you could actually go about proving this to be true. But I'd also like to know what causality even is in your view. Keep in mind, we're not talking about mere physics here we're talking about metaphysics and ontology and such. You can't retreat to physics and close off philosophy here without sawing off the branch you sit on. If you want to close it off at physics you're going to end up refuting yourself.

> You've also just unintentionally revealed a trick. You (non physicalists) love to define minds and consciousness as something which doesn't actually exist, and then ask the question how the physical brain can produce that.

???

When did I say mind and consciousness doesn't exist? And I never said I was a non-physicalist but I never said I was a physicalist either. I reject this dichotomy altogether as these terms are essentially vacuous.

> Of course. Exactly like in the case of all other fictional characters.

Wrong, this is not the case with fictional characters. You can conceive of mickey mouse and what he's like with all the properties that make him mickey mouse, but God's essence is not identifiable with anything.