This article was downloaded by: [Case Western Reserve University]On: 16 October 2014, At: 13:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Women & TherapyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wwat20

The Neuron and the Mind:Clinical Directions andImplicationsCheryl Chancellor-Freeland aa Department of Psychology , San Jose StateUniversity , California, USAPublished online: 22 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Cheryl Chancellor-Freeland (2006) The Neuron and the Mind:Clinical Directions and Implications, Women & Therapy, 29:1-2, 179-188, DOI:10.1300/J015v29n01_09

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J015v29n01_09

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

51 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Neuron and the Mind:Clinical Directions and Implications

Cheryl Chancellor-Freeland

ABSTRACT. This article addresses the nature of basic humanness. It’sabout the science behind the mind and body connection. The problem atissue here involves the long standing notion that the human experiencecan be explained by classical physics–in pure electochemical terms. This isthe basic tenet underlying the approach by neuroscientists who empiricallyinvestigate the mind/body relationship. The power of thought, volitionand feelings, or what we interpret as the mind, are not considered vari-ables in neuroscience endeavors, and they are certainly not regarded ashaving a causal role in the human experience. A quantum physics ap-proach allows for the mindful element of human beings, and it provides amore accurate model for exploring the mind/body question. [Article copiesavailable for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website:<http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rightsreserved.]

KEYWORDS. Classical physics, mind/body, mindfulness, neurosci-ence, quantum physics

Cheryl Chancellor-Freeland, PhD, is affiliated with the Department of Psychology,San Jose State University, California.

Address correspondence to: Cheryl Chancellor-Freeland, Department of Psychol-ogy, San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0120.

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH/NIGMS)MBRS-SCORE developmental grant, SO6 GM 08192-19.

Women & Therapy, Vol. 29(1/2) 2006Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/WT

© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J015v29n01_09 179

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

51 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

We all have a sense that we possess something intangible within usthat drives and determines our behavior. This sense stems from anawareness of our own internal dialogue and of our very existence. Butthe question for many scientists, philosophers and religious leaders is,what is this “something”? Some refer to it as the “soul” or “spirit.” Wewho research the mind-behavior connection, refer to it as “mind” or“consciousness” and, although we don’t know precisely what the mindis, we believe that we’re homing in it. In the same way that scientistshave clearly defined how muscles move our bodies, and how sensoryorgans receive information about the outer world, neuroscientists be-lieve that the driving force behind these mechanistic activities willeventually be understood if we doggedly pursue an understanding of theinner workings of the nervous system, down to the smallest particle. Inother words, neuroscientists view consciousness as a matter of matterand empiricism. Because the impalpable mind cannot be directly testedand measured, many take a more practical approach: Mind is brain and acontinuous extension of the nervous system. The logic follows, once allbrain mechanisms are fully understood, all answers about basic human-ness will be revealed. Whether and to what extent this approach is cor-rect is currently being questioned, and it is that question that will beaddressed here. An obvious problem with the current approach tomind/brain research involves basic human characteristics, such as “freewill” and “volition,” essential aspects of the mind that go unaccountedfor in neuroscience. Another problem presented by the argument thateven an exhaustive compilation of neuroscience data would lead only tocorrelates of mental states, but not to consciousness itself. After morethan a century of dormancy or rejection, the issue of the mind isreemerging in the field of neuroscience.

HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM

Where and what is the mind? In what ways does the mind interactwith and affect the body? Although Hippocrates (460-370 B.C.) wasprobably the first to conclude that the brain is the seat of thought andemotion, it was the seventeenth-century French philosopher and mathe-matician, René Descartes, who provided a model by means of which toaddress the problem.

Descartes based his seventeenth century model on the mechanicalfountains and statues of the time, and he conceived that humans, too,were largely mechanical beings. Descartes resolved the mind/body

180 WOMEN & THERAPY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

51 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

problem by suggesting that humans consisted of two types of sub-stances. In addition to the material body, humans were thought to alsopossess a nonphysical, spiritual mind. The two interacted via the pinealgland deep in the brain. Although Descartes’ notion of dualism has beenuniversally rejected by scientists, his notion of a mechanical being madelasting philosophical contributions to science and, in particular, to thefield of physics. In roughly 1665, Isaac Newton extended Descartes’theory to solidly establish materialism and the idea of the world as a ma-chine, thus laying the foundation for contemporary neuroscience.

The Role of Physics in the Mind/Body Problem

Although it is neither appropriate nor feasible to try to review or ex-plain the complexities of classical and modern day physics in this paper,I will briefly describe the basic tenets as necessary to discuss themind/body problem.

Classical physics was based on observations of the motions of theplanets and large terrestrial objects. The whole universe was thought toconsist of miniature versions of the larger objects, and to follow thesame laws and principles. Included in classical physics was the notionof gravitational constant, which included rules that appeared to governthe behavior of small particles. Accordingly, the entire physical uni-verse could be explained by mathematical equations that link every bitof matter to every other bit. In other words, all things are made of mat-ter, and all physical actions are completely controlled and determinedby mechanical processes that are fully specified by local interactionsbetween material elements.

How does classical physics explain the mind? Mental phenomena,which are not matter, can therefore only exist as a secondary property ofthe brain, or that as an epiphenomenon. In other words, classical physicswould conclude that any belief that an individual’s conscious choicesmake a difference in human behavior, i.e., free will or volition, is simplyillusory.

NEUROSCIENCE AND MIND/BODY PROBLEM

The ultimate goal of neuroscience is to understand the mechanismsthrough which the brain unites and processes inputs and outputs to pro-duce behavior, both overt and internal. In other words, neuroscientistsstrive to understand basic humanness. As previously stated, classical

Cheryl Chancellor-Freeland 181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

51 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

physics’ concepts of locality and determinism provide the foundationfor neuroscience endeavors aimed at understanding these mechanisms.Following is a brief description of brain mechanics to illustrate thispoint.

The brain is composed of two cell types, nerve cells known as neu-rons, and support cells. A major discovery of the nineteenth century wasthat neurons are connected together to form functional pathways, withneurons controlling other local neurons through electrochemical pro-cesses. That is, ions enter and exit the cells in fairly predictable ways,resulting in the release of neurotransmitter molecules onto neighboringneurons, inducing a similar wave of ion fluxes and subsequent neuro-transmitter release in neighboring (local) cells, and so on (cell-by-cell),thus initiating a repeating pattern of rather orderly (determined) neuralactivity. Neurons from lower brain regions converge and diverge onneurons in higher brain regions, ultimately giving rise to complex func-tions such as language. Or even more impressive, consider this exampleof how the smell of your grandma’s perfume can elicit a specific olfac-tory and emotional response along with the vivid memory of grandma.This could be interpreted as consciousness, and neuroscientists canidentify the mechanism and the precise pathway giving rise to this phe-nomenon.

Obviously, I have presented a very simplistic description of brainphysiology, and it should be noted that there is enormous scope forcomplexity in the brain. There are thousands of billions of neuronsforming astronomical numbers of synapses in unknown numbers ofcomplex networks and systems. My intention in this section is only to il-lustrate the seemingly mechanistic activity of the brain, and the abilityof neuroscientists to explain very complex overt and internal behaviorsas a consequences of analyzing fundamental neuronal activities.

So how does classical neuroscience explain the mind? The mind,which is not matter, can only be an emergent property of the brain, avast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. It probablyrequires interactions between neuronal circuits, and can be dramati-cally altered or completely abolished by drugs which act on specificneurotransmitter receptors located on neurons. Thus, the classical-reductionist neuroscience view of the mind is an elaboration of the clas-sical physics explanation.

Classical physics’ mechanical laws of locality and determinism seemto work well with the reductionist neuroscience approach to the mind/body problem. Even though the exact nature of the thing or the neuralsubstrate of consciousness remains unknown, we seem to be homing in

182 WOMEN & THERAPY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

51 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

on an understanding. So what’s wrong with the classical physics ap-proach to neuroscience? One problem is that the depiction of humans asmechanical beings evokes the image of some sort of human automa-tons, which is not only unpalatable, but seemingly incorrect. I say thisbecause if it were true, then we could build a machine, a computermodel of ourselves (i.e., a “Turing machine”). However, according toleading mathematicians and physicists, this is not possible based onclassical physics and using the a silicon computer’s algorithmic ap-proach. (Having no expertise in this domain, I have to take their wordfor it. See Penrose, 1989 and Feynman,1982, for a complete discus-sion.) It would seem that the primary human characteristic that distin-guishes humans from machines is free will. This is missing fromcomputer models and it is missing from the classical neurosciencemodel. Recall “grandma’s perfume,” although the neural pathway giv-ing rise to the resulting emotional/sensory percept and memory can bemapped. Volition is the missing element. The perfume scenario couldbe thought of as some form of consciousness, it does not account for thatvariable which drives us, that which allows us to make choices that af-fect behavior, and that which causes us to behave, at times, in unpredict-able ways.

There exists another essential problem with the traditional neuro-science approach to the mind/body problem. The classical physicsprinciples on which neuroscience is based, are now thought to be funda-mentally false. That is, the physical model, consisting of a single hy-drogen atom interacting with an electromagnetic field can be mathematicallysolved precisely with classical physics, but the computed solutions donot match the empirical results. (See Goswami, 1993, for a completediscussion.)

Quantum Physics

The anomalies that were found with empirical research in classicalphysics opened the door for a radical new scientific thought. During thefirst part of the twentieth century, the mechanical theories of classicalphysics were replaced by a new theory of quantum physics. Atomicphysicists, Werner Heisenberrg, Neils Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli and col-leagues promoted a vastly different world view, in which the world isseen not merely as bits of matter, but also as spatially encoded elementsor waves. How can something exist as both a particle and a wave? (Or asit has been referred to, “wavicle”; Goswami, 1993.) The double-slit ex-periment demonstrates this phenomenon by shooting a light particle

Cheryl Chancellor-Freeland 183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

51 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

through a single slit in a barrier and then demonstrating that it travelsthrough two slits, and depending on observation, appearing as either aphoton or a waveform. The wave function collapses upon measurement(i.e., the point where the photon hits the photosensitive wall behind the slits),showing that the act of observation determines the trait that light energywill exhibit. (See “Copenhagen Interpretation” and “von Neumann In-terpretation,” Goswami, 1993.)

Quantum theory is erected upon the classical principles of physics,but it includes new mathematical concepts that have apparently both re-solved the deficiencies of prior theories and reproduced all of the suc-cessful predictions. And in addition to driving all sorts of technologicaladvances and, more importantly here, quantum physics theory includesthe observer as a causal element. This radical shift in modern physics isdrawing some neuroscientists back to problem of consciousness be-cause it promises a model with which to test consciousness directly.

Quantum Physics and Neuroscience

The primary question is whether, in fact, physical actions and themind are completely controlled by mechanical processes that are fullyspecified by local interactions between electrochemical things, in whichcase, consciousness is of no consequence. And if this were true, whatpossible explanation could there be for the existence of consciousness?This question, alone, should give scientists pause, and yet the vast ma-jority of neuroscientists hold steadfast to the view of mind as an emer-gent property of the brain with no efficacious power itself. The brainmechanics continue to be intensely investigated and have yielded gooddata, but direct reference to, or examination of, the mind (i.e., not thebrain) remains off limits from scientific explanation.

Recently, however, fascinating clues about the mind are comingfrom extraordinary new imaging methods such as functional magneticresonance imaging, which can map the activity of the brain in conscioushumans. In a stream of articles and books, one neuroscientist, JeffrySchwartz, has documented an impressive series of cases of profoundbrain plasticity (Schwartz et al., 2002, 2003, 2004) By “plastic” I meanthe brain’s ability to redefine its cytoarchitecture, to respond physicallyto stimuli, making new neuronal connections, changing functional ar-eas, and overcoming pathological thoughts and behaviors. Brain plas-ticity has been shown following a Buddhist form of systematic mindfulawareness, and these findings have been used to develop an effectivetreatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), one of the most

184 WOMEN & THERAPY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

51 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

debilitating forms of mental illness, and one that responds poorly topharmaceutical and behavioral treatments. The driving force in whatSchwartz (2002) refers to as “self-directed neuroplasticity” is volition;focusing attention to rewire and freeze functioning brain circuits and toameliorate the disorder. These causal effects of mental effort are mathe-matical consequences of the quantum rules, via an interpretation ofmodern physics. Following is a description the Quantum Zeno Effectinterpretation (Schwartz, 2003):

In Quantum Zeno, the questions one puts to nature have the powerto influence the dynamic evolution of a system. In particular, re-peated and closely spaced observations of a quantum property canfreeze that property in place forever, or at least much longer than itwould otherwise stay if unwatched.

The idea seems to be that self-directed neuroplasticity works becausethe wave form is continuously collapsed so that the neural circuitry isfixed, etching new neural patterns of connectivity in place. The imagingdata of the brain show that this is indeed happening, and the implica-tions raised by these data are enormous to fields of brain sciences. Thisresearch is an empirically based “top-down” interpretation of the effectof the mind on brain action and function (Schwartz, 2004). That is, con-scious, mindful activity affects brain action in a way that is not due tomicroscopic processes alone. The mindful approach profoundly altersnot only behavior, but actual function and structure of brain, and thus offuture thought patterns and behavior.

Application to Clinical Practice

The issue of brain plasticity is particularly relevant to women be-cause estrogen, which serves as a trophic and protective factor duringbrain development and adulthood, greatly influences neuroplasticity.Neuroscientists have documented the ability of estrogen to influenceneuronal structure and biochemistry as well as to improve learning andmemory (e.g., altered neural connectivity and varying memory functiondepend on the estrogen ebb and flow during a normal monthly estrouscycle; See Gould et al., 1990). It follows that brain circuits, both adap-tive and maladaptive, likely develop and are strengthened during peri-ods of elevated circulating estrogen. Consider the at times lethal formsof psychopathology, anorexia nervosa, bulimia, and body dysmorphicdisorders (BDD). These disorders generally manifest during or follow-

Cheryl Chancellor-Freeland 185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

51 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

ing adolescence (at least 2.5 of the American student population; Pinel2003), when estrogen levels are particularly high. It seem reasonablethat if maladaptive thoughts about body image or maladaptive eatingbehaviors develop during this time, then existing high levels of estrogenwould cement the pathological circuits in place, creating an enduring,hardwired psychopathology.

Traditional psychotherapy, with its emphasis on interpretation of un-conscious processes, has been used to treat such disorders. This hasbeen found to be relatively ineffective (Bruch, 1982), although the ef-fectiveness is improved some when therapy is mixed with some form ofbehavioral therapy, and when pharmaceuticals are used. Still, one studyreports that only 29% of treated anorectics maintained recovery 20 yearslater. Approximately 15% of the sufferers die from suicide (Ratnasuriyaet al., 1991). Why is this treatment so ineffective? Given what we knowabout plasticity and etched circuits, we could speculate that talk therapyserves to further strengthen bad circuitry by holding connections eachtime therapy revisits the issue and associated anxiety. Such eating andBDDs would be most amenable to self-directed neuroplasticity.

Self-directed neuroplasticity is unlike typical cognitive therapy inthat it trains people to respond differently to the intrusive thoughts andurges by employing “mindful” introspection, in the form of an impartialobserver. This allows for the escape from fear or anxiety, and for refo-cusing attention on healthy responses, so as to form new neural connec-tions. Specifically, Schwartz proposes a four-step program that involvesthe following steps: relabel the problem (i.e., false signals and not validideas), reattribution (signals due to aberrant brain chemistry/connec-tions), refocus (move attention to new thoughts) and revalue (false sig-nals are toxic thoughts). This mindful approach would alter functionand structure of brain, and thus of future obsessive thought patterns andcompulsive behaviors, as has been demonstrated with other forms ofOCD.

Past findings and possible future applications for self-directed neuro-plasticity are many, and modern physics provides a model for how thiscan work. But the question remains, does the Quantum Zeno model re-ally serve to bridge the mind/brain gap?

Problems with Quantum Physics

The idea of a sort of quantum communications to stimulate the braininvolves several theories (a discussion that extends far beyond the scopeof this article, but certainly worthy of additional study) with various in-

186 WOMEN & THERAPY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

51 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

terpretations and opinions. And although this is intriguing, particularlybecause it is consistent with my own thinking, the Quantum Zeno Effecthas some apparent red herrings. One problem seems to be that althoughthere exists evidence for microscopic entities in two forms (i.e., particleand wave), there are no analogies for this on the macroscopic level. (It’sdifficult to imagine the keyboard that I’m now tapping as being both aparticle and wave function that collapses whether or not I look at it.) An-other problem is that it is difficult to see how quantum physics explainsconsciousness. It provides a model by which consciousness can interactwith the physical brain, but the mind still cannot be directly mea-sured. In fact, it isn’t clear whether the mind exists inside or outsideof 3-D space, as acknowledged by renowned physicist, Henry Stapp(1993). Indeed, the Quantum Zeno model implies that the mind is notentirely made of matter, and this returns us to dualism, and from aneuroscientist’s perspective, this is a severe and counter-intuitive con-straint (possibly a problem of will and etched circuits).

CONCLUSION

Neuroscience represents a multidisciplinary approach to brain/be-havior issues, and it will likely to be neuroscientists who produce themost incisive findings in the study of the mind-brain connection. Theywill likely do so by broadening the scope of the field’s conceptualframework so as to include volition and mental activities. The brain im-aging data suggest that we need to interpret neuroscience data with re-spect to intention and attention, as opposed to viewing all aspects ofhuman experience as being simply the result of material brain-relatedphenomena. The perspective of materialist reductionism might be nec-essary, but is not sufficient. Self-directed neuroplasticity is in fact, aswell as in theory, evidence of the capacity of mental effort to alter brainstructure and function. Even neuroscientists are becoming increasinglyaware of the theoretical importance of applying new paradigms to thestudy of mind, brain and body, as is signaled by leading scientists, suchas Francis Crick. Consider the following reference to the mind/brain:“Radically new concepts may indeed be needed-recall the modifica-tions in scientific thinking forced on us by quantum mechanics. Theonly sensible approach is to press the experimental attack until we areconfronted with dilemmas that call for new ways of thinking” (Crick &Koch, 1992).

Cheryl Chancellor-Freeland 187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

51 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Perhaps if we press hard enough, we’ll come full circle, back to thenotion that we can indeed self-direct our own mental and physical heal-ing with thoughts and with words. Schwartz and his Quantum Zeno ap-proach suggest a model by which consciousness, in the form of attentionand intention, can direct our minds and our brains to alter their func-tions. The implications of self-directed neuroplasticity in mental andphysical well-being are significant.

REFERENCES

Bruch, H. (1982). Anorexia nervosa: therapy and theory. American Journal Psychiatry139:1531-1538

Crick, F. & Koch, C. (1992). The Problem of Consciousness, Scientific American,Sept., 219-32.

Feynman, R.P. (1982). Simulating physics with computers. International Journal ofTheoretical Physics, 21: 467-88.

Goswami, A. (1993). The Self Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Mate-rial World, New York: Penguin Putnam Inc.

Gould, E., Woolley, C.S., Frankfurt, M., & McEwen, B.S. (1990). Gonadal steroidsregulate dendritic spine density in hippocampal pyramidal cells in adulthood. Jour-nal of. Neuroscience, 10, 1286-1291

Penrose, R. (1989). The Mystery of the Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Ratnasuriya, R.H., Eisler, I., Szmukler, G.I., & Russell, G.F.M. (1991). Anorexia

nervosa: outcome and prognostic factors after 20 years. British Journal Psychiatry158: 494-502.

Schwarts, J.M. & Begley, S. (2002) The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and thePower of Mental Force, New York: HarperCollins

Schwartz, J., Stapp, H. & Beauregard, M. (2003). The volitional influence of the mindon the brain, with special reference to emotional self regulation. In M. Beauregard(Ed.), Consciousness, Emotional Self-Regulation and the Brain. [Advances in Con-sciousness Research Series]. Amsterdam & New York: John Benjamins.

Schwartz, J., Stapp, H. & Beauregard, M. (2004), Quantum Physics in Neuroscienceand Psychology: A Neurophysical Model of Mind/Brain Interaction. [Submitted forPublication] [http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html]

Stapp, H.P. (1993), Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics, Heidelberg & Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

188 WOMEN & THERAPY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

51 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014