I agree with you about the testability of science. Anecdotal evidence is problematic. With neuroscience it is about mapping and is different from experiments. As far as I see, Dispenza's ideas are consistent with mainstream science.

With neuroscience it is about mapping and is different from experiments — Jack Cummins

NO. Neuroscience is HARD science.

It is true that a lot of intellectual discussions about free will vs determinism go round in circles. It may be about the nature of opposites in human thinking and living with paradoxical aspects of life. Each person is part of so many chains of cause and effect in the web of life.

In fairness I just glanced at the pdf of the book ... it is pop-science rather than pseudoscience.

Not knowing much about the author that book appears to be an attempt at a self-help book like thousands of others. I think it might be a bit rich to call yourself a 'researcher' though :D Perhaps he is an amateur scholar of neuroscience (like me) and nothing more.

I had never heard of him before tbh. When it comes to pop-neuroscience I go for Damasio or Gazzaniga.

Neuroscience is HARD science insofar as it can be backed up by medical evidence. However, there is a lot to be learned at this stage, especially as each person is unique. For example, when people are given psychiatric medication some of the effects vary so much from one person to another, often making it a case of hit and miss. Also, the role of chemicals in will are complex. In particular, neurotransmitters affect motivation but so do experiences.

This means that there is a complex interaction between brain chemicals and human interpretation of experiences. So, understanding human will and choice involves both science of the brain and a person's meanings. The latter is harder to formulate into science. The most positive way forward would involve quantitative and qualitative research, possibly involving the psychological therapies as well as forms of psychoactive medication.

Neuroscience is HARD science insofar as it can be backed up by medical evidence. However, there is a lot to be learned at this stage, especially as each person is unique. — Jack Cummins

This is a common misconception. A great deal can be elicited from a comparatively small sample. I know this because an actual practicing researcher in neuroscience from Italy told me this. Granted, when it comes to medication and such all pharma is doing is basically carpet-bombing the brain it is far, far away from laser-guided missiles AND even then there is the issue of negative feedback (eg. drugs for depression).

This means that there is a complex interaction between brain chemicals and human interpretation of experiences. So, understanding human will and choice involves both science of the brain and a person's meanings. The latter is harder to formulate into science. The most positive way forward would involve quantitative and qualitative research, possibly involving the psychological therapies as well as forms of psychoactive medication. — Jack Cummins

It is not simply HARDER it is not science. I do not think taking psychoactive drugs will reveal much about will or choice and I am unsure why you even suggest that they would? Psychology is a SOFT science and is too poorly grounded in empiricism - yet still clings to it. I prefer the phenomenological approach (which I discovered reading cognitive neuroscience textbooks).

Speculation is fun, but if you want to get serious you have to get your hands dirty and commit to the grind ;)

Speculation is fun, but if you want to get serious you have to get your hands dirty and commit to the grind ;) — I like sushi

:up: :up: