Reader comments
Joseph A. Cannon: Neuroplasticity gets your brain in shape in a very literal way

Clarification needed | 12:31 a.m. July 12, 2009

Is the author saying that the mind is not located in the brain?

This is quite a fascinating field of study. It's good to know that the brain can change and learn throughout life.

Hello Dr? Joseph A. Cannon | 6:48 a.m. July 12, 2009

Well there Mr. Cannon, yes it is obvious, and all people have long understood, that our brains react to external stimuli. Example's; Libertarians and Constitutionalists are natural fiscal conservatives due to their desire to reduce government spending, pay off the national debt and shrink the size and scope of government. Nevertheless, the Republican Party is most often credited with creating the fiscal conservative ideal, despite the big-spending tendencies of the most recent GOP administrations. Fiscal conservatives seek to deregulate the economy and lower taxes. Fiscal conservative politics has little or nothing to do with social issues, and it is therefore not uncommon for other conservatives to identify themselves as fiscal conservatives.

Movement conservatives are those who accept the logic of conservatism across-the-board, and stand up for its powerful principles despite liberal hatred and baseless ridicule. Movement conservative thinkers include:

Phyllis Schlafly
Jesse Helms
Pat Buchanan
Jerry Falwell
Ann Coulter
Rush Limbaugh (when he's not doing dope pills)
Michelle Malkin

not a science | 8:33 a.m. July 12, 2009

Neuroplasticity isn't a new science.

"Plasticity" is a scientific term that describes the brain's ability to change. It has been in use for decades. Google Scholar does a good job of finding relevant peer reviewed articles.

Recent research also shows that the brain continues to grow new nerve cells throughout life. That's an important contributor to plasticity and would have been a useful addition to the article.

The role of the spirit on brain development is interesting but the way the idea was tacked on at the end of the article makes it seem like the author needed another paragraph to fill their assignment.

Comments continue below

Kevin | 8:59 a.m. July 12, 2009

From the article:
Dr. Benjamin Carson, world-class child brain surgeon, is often asked, as "somebody who was brought up in the sciences, how can you believe in a God? When I look at the human brain with hundreds of billions of interconnections, much more sophisticated than anything that we can create and call a computer, I know that that did not just happen" (Interview in the "Academy of Achievement").

Mr. Cannon, you just never give up trying to make your religion fit in the natural world. If you want to argue that because of the complexities of our brains that a god must have existed to manufacture it, then ponder how complex your god must be. If your god is similarly or more complex, then by your reasoning - and Dr. Carson's reasoning - something must have created it. A supergod. Then who made the supergod? An ubersupergod.

I suggest a different perspective. Let's just try to figure this out without assuming there is a god. We may actually learn something.

Positively Honest | 10:25 a.m. July 12, 2009

To the Author: You can repay you campaign debts if you really put your mind to it!

Joe Cannon | 3:05 p.m. July 12, 2009

To "Not a Science" - We could quibble about what constitutes new. While the notion of plasticity has been in use for some decades, according to the OED, "brain plasticity" comes into the vocabulary in 1964. In the more narrow sense discussed in this column it enters the vocabulary in 1989. In any case, against the background of centuries of formal brain research, neuroplasticity is new.

In a special issue of Scientific American "Better Brains - How Neuroscience Will Enhance You" (2003), the editor states "this special issue . . . describes new insights, not just into improving disordered brains but also how neuroscience is finding ways to make good brains better."

Joe Cannon | 3:14 p.m. July 12, 2009

To Kevin - I very much hope that I am not perceived as sneaking some religion in these columns. I am very explicit about it. Part of choosing the topics I choose is to demonstrate how a religious person can look at various aspects of science and philosophy and see the hand of God in all aspects of our lives.

These are opinion columns. It is perfectly fine for you to disagree. I thought readers would be interested in Dr. Carson's observations since he is one of the leading neurosurgeons in the world.

RE: Kevin | 5:07 p.m. July 12, 2009

ISn't it severe narrow mindedness to say you must deny God to learn something.

Isaac Newton didn't,

Galileo did't,

Einstein did't,

farnworth didn't,

Da Vinci didn't,

All the great arabic mathmaticians, astronomers, scientists didn't,

and the list just goes on and on and on and on and on and ...

Kevin | 11:28 p.m. July 12, 2009

@RE: Kevin | 5:07 p.m. July 12, 2009

Narrow in the sense that I personally reject and rule out the notion that that's how the universe works and was originated. In my mind, that narrows down the possible explanations for the universe from infinity to infinity minus one, which is still infinity. Amazing how people dwell on the one.

I don't know the answers. I'm seeking them just as you all are. But when it comes to the origin of man and the universe, I feel strongly that I know a wrong answer when I see one.

It is interesting how physicists tend to be more religious than, say, biologists. I'm not going to defer to these people on matters of religion either. It would have been thrilling to argue with them.

But your point is taken. We'll continue to move ahead in our knowledge and understanding in spite of religion, bad science, or anything else.

@Joe Cannon | 3:14 p.m. July 12, 2009

Definitely not accusing you of sneakiness. I'm just frustrated over our differences. We have competing ideas, and such competitions can be frustrating.

Joe Moe | 9:18 a.m. July 13, 2009

To Joe Cannon:

Thank you your articles, and thank you even more for frequently posting responses in the comments section. The exchange with Kevin is a perfect example. We need more of these articulate, sincere dialogs, and less of the knee-jerk, shallow jabs we see here too often. We don't always have to agree, but often we could find better ways to disagree.

RE: Kevin | 11:28 p.m | 5:27 p.m. July 13, 2009

ULTIMATELY ALL thing are based on Physics and chemistry,

even biology,

you CAN NOT explain how it works without it.

I any case, what hard science is biology based on?

What part of biology can you NOT understand and believe in God?

Kevin | 12:25 p.m. July 14, 2009

@RE: Kevin | 11:28 p.m | 5:27 p.m. July 13, 2009

Sure all things reduce to elementary particles and fields, and whatever else that has not been discovered. My observation that physicists are more religious is anecdotal.

Physicists like Newton may have been religious, but then again Newton also believed in alchemy. Einstein's passing mentioning of "god" was probably less about faith and more about the physics he was arguing. Even he went off on wrong tangents. In his latter days, Einstein was so out of touch that his colleagues at Princeton avoided him in the halls, according to Schwinger.

So let's not make an argument like "Einstein and Newton believed in god, therefore god is more believable!"... just in case that's what you were thinking.

What part of biology can one not understand and believe in a god you ask? I'm not arguing that biology cannot be understood while simultaneously believing in the supernatural. I'm arguing that such beliefs serves no purpose in understanding biology, and that they're a waste of thought. There's no predictive power. There's nothing verifiable. It's all just made up.

RE: Kevin | 4:47 p.m. July 14, 2009

Shame on you!

Now you are putting words into people mouth and say making up[ arguments that they did NOT make.

THIS IS THE ARGUMENT:

Their belief in God did NOT get in the way of them learning whatever they could scientifically.

And in some cases inspired them.

I am not sure what alchemy has so with anything, it was simply the study and attempt to change or transmute one element into another.

and as far as einstein goes, many Jews were greatly affected by what happened in WWII, including affecting their understanding of God.

And you still failed to answer the biology question.

Kevin | 9:28 p.m. July 14, 2009

@RE: Kevin | 4:47 p.m. July 14, 2009

Sure. Lot's of people have studied nature scientifically because they were inspired by the notion they were learning about creation. And they saw that creation as by a god.

My point about Newton's foray into alchemy, a completely mystical interpretation of matter, and Einstein's misadventure into grand unification was made just to show that eminent minds can be dead wrong.

OK, you asked, "What hard science is biology based on?" I really don't know what you are asking. Biology is generally considered a hard science.

And you asked, "What part of biology can you NOT understand and believe in God?"

No part of it. Or all of it. I see people rejecting science whenever it is at odds with their frivolous scripture. Understanding is then lost. Biology seems to be the most in conflict, though no science makes any consideration of a god.

RE: kevin | 11:52 p.m. July 14, 2009

All you offer pointless thoughts and give arguments that are only, at best, opinion.

So with no substance to dialog about there is nothing more to say.

To 11:52 | 2:13 p.m. July 15, 2009

I think you didn't read Kevin's post carefully. He said, "I see people rejecting science whenever it is at odds with their frivolous scripture."

The most famous example of this is when the Catholic church persecuted Galileo for saying that the earth revolves around the sun. Hundreds of years later the church apologized for that, but meanwhile we lived in ignorance because of stubborn religious belief.

This still happens today, so we need to be careful with regards to superstition and the ego of the priestcraft.

Darleen | 2:22 p.m. July 15, 2009

Hey Kev, I agree with you.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.