The concept of neuroscience applied to marketing, called neuromarketing, has given much to talk about in this new millennium. Being just a recent branch of neuroscience, its popularity has grown tremendously. The objective of this work is to question the effectiveness of said application and propose that the increase in popularity has been due, rather, to an excellent marketing plan.
The subject will be introduced with a historical review that will cover the main contributions to the study of the human brain. The attractiveness of these investigations captivated marketing scholars, originating neuromarketing, without considering, however, the theoretical limitations that still exist in neuroscientific studies.
These shortcomings are summarized in two levels: at a practical level and at a theoretical level, which will be explained and developed below.
The practical shortcomings are exposed from different points of view. The theoretical one deals mainly with the philosophical problem of consciousness, its history, and the various answers that have been tried to give. These theories were not comprehensively addressed as it exceeds the objective of this text, which is to expose the shortcomings, of which little has been written
Finally, the conclusions are presented.
Historical background of Neuromarketing
The prestigious Spanish magazine Muy Interesante pointed out that this year, 2012, will be the year of neuroscience. This is not surprising, since the research of this multidiscipline, whose term began to be used in the sixtieshas had exponential progress, so much so that it is pointed out as one of the most relevant biomedical disciplines today. This great progress is due, in large part, to the growing impact that diseases of the nervous system have had on our society. The riseof patients with neurodegenerative diseases, psychiatric disorders or even strokes has generated greater investment in the development of research on the brain and its functioning. Emeritus professor at the University of Oregon, Robert Sylwester, agrees with this statement and argues that (2005. NUNLEY, K. (2002)) "neuroscience has become the largest field of research in the last 25 years." Also the Neuroscience, Mind and Behavior website states that it represents unquestionably one of the most vibrant fields of research in science today.
The foundation for this great advance lies in the sixties, with the founding of institutions linked to the area, such as the International Brain Research Organization, the Neuroscience Research Program at MIT or the creation of the Society for Neuroscience. The objective of these initiatives was to be able to find new knowledge of the nervous system, through the union and collaboration of two scientific areas; biology and medicine.
However, the study of how we think is much older. In fact, it was not always believed that the brain was the regulating organ of intelligence and thoughts. The Greek philosopher, Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC), believed that it was the heart that regulated the processes known today as neuronal. Even earlier, in ancient Egyptian culture (3,000 BC) the brain apparently was not highly valued either; when the dead were mummified, the brain was removed and thrown away, not the heart or other organs. The latter were carefully removed and repositioned on the body or in jars that were left next to the mummy. In fact, the Egyptians considered the heart as the most important organ in the body. For them, it was the essence of life.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Egyptians themselves were the authors of the oldest writings on the “brain” and part of its anatomy, such as the meninges and cerebrospinal fluid. This information is found on a papyrus called "Edwing Smith Surgical Papyrus." The document dates from 1700 BC, but it would be based on texts dating back to 3000 BC. It is considered the first medical document on the brain in the history of mankind. This papyrus is believed to have been written by the Egyptian physicist Imhotep.
It was not until 400 BC that Hippocrates pointed out that the brain is involved in sensations and that it is the basis of our intelligence. Plato, from the same time, agrees with Hippocrates, pointing out that the brain is responsible for the mental process, thus denying Aristotle's statements about the heart as the entity responsible for intelligence. These were the first foundations to arrive at what we know today as neuroscience.
Modern neuroscience, which accepted the brain as the procuring entity of the nervous system, dates from the year 1664. The English doctor, Thomas Willis (1621-1675), published the Cerebri Anatome, a document on brain anatomy. It is considered as the first attempt to get to know the nervous system in depth. Willis was influenced by René Descartes, and had a special interest in Cartesian philosophy.
Cartesian philosophy separates the body from the soul. Thus, diseases went from being disorders of a system in which psychological, social and environmental aspects influenced, to breakdowns or disorders of an organ caused by elements foreign to the body. Under this scoop, Willis was able to contribute with anatomical and physiological investigations of the brain. He is the first scientist to relate mental functions to specific areas of the brain, thus earning him the title of founder of neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neurology experiments.
Another event that contributed to the development of this science occurred on September 13, 1848. On that day, Phineas Gage (1823-1860), a railroad builder, lost a large amount of pre-frontal cerebral cortex in a work accident. Phineas did not die, he even made a remarkable physical recovery. He had no motor, language or memory disorders. What did change was only his personality. John Harlow (1819-1907), his physician, stated regarding the case:
Elsevier (Madrid 2003, p. 519.) ―His physical health is good, and I am inclined to say that he has recovered The balance or balance, as it were, between his intellectual faculties and his animal predispositions seems to have been destroyed. He is impulsive, irreverent, shows little deference to his peers, is intolerant of his limitations or of the advice offered when they do not coincide with his wishes; He is sometimes very stubborn, but, nevertheless, capricious and hesitant, he devises many plans of action for the future, which he abandons as soon as he organizes them.In this regard, his mind has completely changed, so much so that his friends and acquaintances say: no longer is Gage‖ 4.
This story promotes the first scientific studies of the main effects associated with the destruction of the prefrontal cortex in a human being. After the accident and two months in the hospital, Phineas Gage lived more than 10 years and died of epilepsy at the age of 37. This is the first scientific investigation that relates the personality to the brain.
Later, in the middle of the 20th century, the discovery of psychopharmacology makes another contribution to the improvement of neuroscience. This allowed the treatment of schizophrenia, anxiety, and many mental illnesses that we know today.
Finally, another pillar was neuroimaging. In 2003, the American chemist Paul Lauterbur (1929-2007) and the British physicist Peter Mansfield (1933) received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for the development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The images obtained from the brain made it possible to detect changes in the distribution of blood flow when the person performs certain tasks, or in different emotional or motivational scenarios. Neuroimaging is today the basal technique on which neuroscience rests.
As noted, the study of the origin of our thoughts dates back thousands of years. But the exponential growth of this science in such a short time is due to the progress of neuroscience and neuroimaging and the interest in researching and treating mental, medical and / or neurological diseases.
Based on these tremendous advances, the option of being able to manipulate human behavior also seems real (MARCUS SJ, 2002, pp. 600-607) ―through the artificial activation and deactivation of certain brain centers and connection systems that govern the functioning unitary nervous system‖. And why not, also the possibility of more accurately and scientifically predicting people's behaviors.
It is exactly the latter that motivated scientists and marketers to create a new area of neuroscience; neuroscience applied to marketing, today popularly known as neuromarketing, whose objective, apparently, is far from that of neuroscience.
What is Neuromarketing
Where does the purchase decision originate? What motivates the consumer to buy one product over another? How can we build brand loyalty? How can we understand and manipulate consumers? These are the main questions that marketing has tried to answer. And it is that achieving it, the marketers would have in their possession the longed-for ―buy button‖. This would allow them to predict consumer behavior, and therefore, work with certainty in their marketing plan, thus obtaining an exact and predictable return on investment. And it would not only be for the benefit of the companies, but also for the consumers themselves, to whom the companies will offer products tailored to their personal preferences. But can these questions be answered today?
This is the promise of neuromarketing, a discipline that is based on neuroscience, and whose purpose is to take advantage of the knowledge of brain processes to be able to precede and manipulate human behavior for the benefit of the business-consumer relationship.
The term neuromarketing began to be used in 2002 by Dr. Ale Smidts, a Dutch professor at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam and winner of the Nobel Prize in economics that same year. Its origin arises from the need to find alternative ways to reach consumers, make them consume and retain them. This, because consumers are increasingly and better informed, which causes the knowledge gap between the seller (or the company) and the consumer to be smaller and smaller. This narrow gap means that customers are not so easily fooled by a salesperson, or by a marketing plan. To this is added the large number of offers that exist in the market. In countries with a free market system, it is very rare to find a product that has no substitute; that is to say,Today more than ever we are faced with the possibility of choosing between two or more products or services. Product specificity also plays a difficult role for marketing, as consumers want products tailored to their specific needs. Marketing effectiveness is therefore essential; Faced with this colossal competition, you need to be extremely assertive. Amid so much complexity, making a small mistake, or doubting for more than normal, can be fatal. Faced with this scenario, they have sought to expand the tools that traditional marketing has, thus arriving, neuromarketing.because consumers want products conditioned for their specific needs. Marketing effectiveness is therefore essential; Faced with this colossal competition, you need to be extremely assertive. Amid so much complexity, making a small mistake, or doubting for more than normal, can be fatal. Faced with this scenario, they have sought to expand the tools that traditional marketing has, thus arriving, neuromarketing.because consumers want products conditioned for their specific needs. Marketing effectiveness is therefore essential; Faced with this colossal competition, you need to be extremely assertive. Amid so much complexity, making a small mistake, or doubting for more than normal, can be fatal. Faced with this scenario, they have sought to expand the tools that traditional marketing has, thus arriving, neuromarketing.
Unlike neuromarketing, traditional marketing could be divided into two edges; one that seeks to receive information through market research, which would be the simile to neuromarketing. And the other, that by means of previously studied methods, they seek to manipulate the senses, in order to generate positive shopping experiences. For example, if a consumer is offered two brands of cookies, each with a different packaging, he or she will choose the one that they consider to be the best presented, with a more professional appearance or the one that shows a more appealing image.
Regarding the reception of information by its consumers, traditional marketing uses surveys, personal tests and focus groups. These techniques are not perfect, since surveys can be partial, have prompted questions and in focus groups you can run the risk of having interviewees who, consciously or unconsciously, impose their opinions on others. And the most important; the lock on which neuromarketing bases its advantage; people lie. They can know it, be aware of it, but it also happens, and in a much more common way they do it without knowing it, at the unconscious level.
In this way, neuromarketing enters the game promising to discover new information regarding consumers never seen before. Thanks to the techniques of neuroscience, the neuroscientists at the disposal of marketers, analyze which areas of the brain are activated by certain stimuli. Thus, if something attracts them, one area of the brain will be activated, and if it rejects it, another.
With this premise, they hope to find an image or a story that leads them to build a behavioral map, through which they can fully understand the purchase process, and then thus optimize it in the direction that is proposed.
However, all these promises may not be as possible as you think.
"Neuromarketing is the key to what I have called our logic for our purchase: the subconscious thoughts, feelings and desires that drive the purchasing decisions we make every day of our lives" Buyology - Martin Lindstrom
Criticism of neuromarketing
If you surf the internet in search of the great criticisms of neuromarketing, the lack of ethics that this tool could have predominates, which is invasive, which makes people vulnerable, which is immoral and which it manipulates. The same NGO released a video against neuromarketing for ethical problems.
But this criticism can be countered, as manipulation has always existed in marketing. Regarding how dangerous and invasive this tool could be, it does not differ much from others, such as the use of X-rays or anesthesia, to name a few. It is necessary that its use be done with responsibility and criteria, favoring their contributions.
The Argentine lecturer, professor, businessman, consultant and writer, Néstor Braidot adds (Braidot, Néstor. 2005) ―This does not mean manipulation of the client, what is intended is to ensure a level of satisfaction such that when he feels a specific need, the first thing whatever product we offer you comes to mind. The main objective of Neuromarketing is to understand and better satisfy the needs and desires of customers ”―It is true that neuromarketing is a direct line to the minds of consumers. And if you ask me if you can manipulate people, the answer is yes. It all depends on who uses the tool. It is like the old example of the knife, which is used to eat or to kill, but it is not the responsibility of the knife to be used for one or another function‖.
But what Baidot does not consider, is that if you use a knife to kill, there will be a punishment as a consequence. Not so with neuromarketing. To date, there is no official regulatory body if a bad practice is exercised, nor is there a clear definition of what a bad practice would be.
This problem of legality is not only encountered by neuromarketing, but also by all disciplines from neuroscience, including this one. On the official site of the Society of Neuroscience we can find statutes on its practice. However, they are quite concise. The emphasis is on the methods of publishing results and the inner workings of the society, not its limits.
Furthermore, ethical criticism is not new to marketing. Traditional marketing has been criticized for encouraging obesity, diabetes, alcoholism, gambling, and smoking 8. But it has not been a reason for closure, only for censorship.
You have to understand that neuromarketing methods do not invade people's thoughts or secrets. What it does is show which parts of the brain are activated by a stimulus, the result depends on the interpretation of the data generated.
Neuromarketing problems go far beyond the ethical issue, it is related to a practical and truthful issue.
In the present investigation of the subject, two major shortcomings are identified that would prevent neuromarketing from fulfilling its promises. The first is at a practical level, and the second is at a theoretical level.
Finding the information to reach this last conclusion was not easy; Information that is not due to ethical problems is scarce, and what really contributes seems to be only from expert authors on the subject, whose publications are in fairly specific sites and generally not visited by the common person interested in the subject.
A. Practical difficulties
Neuromarketing has been announced, unsurprisingly, with an excellent marketing plan; with bass drums and cymbals. It has been sold more for (Max Sutherland, August 2004) "quantity of sales than for the effectiveness of science." Max Southerland, a marketer, psychologist, and independent consultant in the US and Australia, adds that “the increasing natural commercialization of science has sometimes resulted in hype, out-of-box for scientific substance itself. In genetics it is called genohype; in marketing, Neuromarketing. In the race to sell these new gadgets, suppliers have not skimped on the damage they can do to society.
- Popularity vs scientific backing
Those responsible for announcing neuromarketing as the new tool, and the new angular concept of Marketing, have been nothing but irresponsible. With the short time that this tool has been in society, it could already be considered more massive than neuroscience itself. If we google the word "neuroscience", we will find 1,960,000 results, while with the word "neuromarketing" we find 1,580,000. Considering the proportion of what each concept encompasses, we can appreciate that in the present, reign of the digital network, neuromarketing has been ahead in popularity compared to its foundation, neuroscience.
An interesting situation occurs with the PubMed.com site, where the publication of articles first requires a scientific review process.
In the search engine, eleven results are obtained with the word ―neuromarketing‖ versus 150,839 with ―neuroscience‖. Under this scenario, believing in the results that a neuromarketing company delivers is based on the confidence that one has in it, and not on scientific facts.
- Little novel contribution
In the online version of the articlepublished by the prestigious Forbes magazine, there is a comment made by a CEO of a neuromarketing company, where he defends the prestige of the business. He reached such a point that he compared the launch of neuromarketing with the first beginnings of market research, in the s. XX. This statement, however, is unsubstantiated, as there is still no scientific evidence to say that neuromarketing is fully effective..
The hardened followers of this field boast that neuromarketing has brought great discoveries to the area of marketing. But they are not big, much less new.
In a study called - Cultural Objects Modulate Reward Circuitry ‖It was concluded that products that symbolize wealth and status increase activity in the center of the brain, which is associated with pleasure. Marketers sensed this long before.
Another study called - Bias-Specific Activity in the Ventromedial Prefrontral Cortex During Credibility Judgments ‖ showed that when consumers are faced with a product that does not convince them, the brand was a very important factor to convince them to carry the product. This is because an area of the brain associated with attraction is activated. I think that this conclusion could be known by someone without any prior knowledge of marketing, or at least intuiting it.
Finally, a study called (Consumer Research, San Antonio, Texas, Sep. 29 -
Oct. 2, USA) - Why Are Celebrities Effective? An fMRI Study into Presenter Context Effects ‖ it was discovered that in front of the image of celebrities, the brain activation of the memory center occurs, thus making consumers remember the product to a greater extent. The truth is that it was not necessary to do this study to know that this occurs. Studies of motivation and human perception had already investigated it. What impacts the most is retained more.
Max Southerland mentions in a publication (August 2004. Neuromarketing- in Retreat. Http://www.sutherlandsurvey.com) that neuromarketing is an extension of previously used techniques. Max criticizes the profile that has been generated around this tool; as if it were able to read minds and that alone could solve and improve all aspects of marketing.
What these studies and the set of these tools do is nothing more than validate what marketers already knew and do not deliver information so revolutionary as to put it on the same level as that of Market Research.
- Lack of independence
To say that all followers of neuromarketing boast that this is an independent and objective tool would be a fallacy. However, the most popular authors in the media, if they do.
Michael Brammer, CO of Neurosense Limited, with a public letter seeks to rectify the above. In it he mentions, in a harmful context, that (Michael Brammer. October 2004. Nature.com) "there are papers that boast, for example, of having discovered, thanks to the fMRI, the preferences of light drinks." While neuromarketing may have contributed to this discovery, it cannot be held solely responsible. Many adherents refer to this particular topic. Although they accept the contribution of neuromarketing to scientific knowledge of consumer behavior, they point out that it is misused if they only rely on it to draw conclusions. The ARF (Advertising Research Foundation) is quite explicit in mentioning that (Richard Thorogood. March 25, 2011) ―Neuromarketing is promising,as long as it is used as a supplement, not as a replacement for another study.‖ Graham Page, Vice President of Millward
Brown adds that (2011. Using neuroscience effectively. Http://www.quirks.com) ―We have seen that there is clear and significant value in certain neuroscience methods, but only when used in conjunction with existing methods and not as a replacement, and only if carefully interpreted by people with experience in the field. It's important that marketers use the right tools to tackle problems, rather than treating neuroscience as a single entity and using one tool to do everything.
Donna Mitchell-Magaldi, a biologist at the University of Connecticut, tells us that
(June 2007. The Jury Is Out - Is Neuromarketing The Next Big Thing Or The Next Raw Deal. Http://www.nerac.com) ―the human brain is complicated, and activity in several sections at the same time can be interpreted of many ways. As a result, conclusions are often based on assumptions.
But that neuromarketing restricts its field of action only to the interpretation of data is not the only problem, since it excludes the conscious experience of the individual. In an experiment, they sought to find information about a commercial where a caveman faced a dinosaur. The study yielded an activity in the amygdala, which is related, among other things, to the unconscious primitive reaction to escape in case of threat, or - flight-or-flight ‖ in English. The scientists then interpreted the results as that the commercial was perceived as threatening. Then the subjects studied said they found the commercial, paradoxically, funny. The scientist in charge of the experiment said there was a "disconnect between the verbal report of the commercial and brain activity while watching the commercial." There is an insistence on the part of the scientist that at a subconscious level, the person felt threatened.The amygdala is a very old part of the brain, which allows us to react in certain ways automatically and quickly, in order to reduce the probability of a potential threat consequence. It is the first thing that reacts in our brain when seeing a virtual threat. But then come filters that tell us that something is certainly not dangerous, thus avoiding the physical reaction. This inhibits us from jumping everywhere and at all times in the face of a possible threat. The brain works with a complex interconnection of parts, and the more developed cortex compensates for the instinctive fear reaction that the amygdala may stimulate.It is the first thing that reacts in our brain when seeing a virtual threat. But then come filters that tell us that something is certainly not dangerous, thus avoiding the physical reaction. This inhibits us from jumping everywhere and at all times in the face of a possible threat. The brain works with a complex interconnection of parts, and the more developed cortex compensates for the instinctive fear reaction that the amygdala may stimulate.It is the first thing that reacts in our brain when seeing a virtual threat. But then come filters that tell us that something is certainly not dangerous, thus avoiding the physical reaction. This inhibits us from jumping everywhere and at all times in the face of a possible threat. The brain works with a complex interconnection of parts, and the more developed cortex compensates for the instinctive fear reaction that the amygdala may stimulate.and the more developed cortex compensates for the instinctive fear reaction that the amygdala may stimulate.and the more developed cortex compensates for the instinctive fear reaction that the amygdala may stimulate.
Graham Page says that "the brain as a whole is better than the sum of its parts." And in relation to this result, he clarifies that (Neuromarketing: Beyond the buzz. April 2006. http://www.millwardbrown.com) ―depend exclusively on the brain's response to a particular region, without understanding the conscious part of the subject in experience, can lead to wrong conclusions.
Chris Frith, London Institute of Neurology, agrees with Graham, adding that (November 2003. A Probe Inside the Mind of the Shopper.
www.commercialalert.org) ―Just because you can see and measure an increase in activity in the brain, you cannot feel with more authority of knowledge than what the person says he thinks or feels. We don't know enough about how the brain works as a system to be able to assert the above. It's too early to say what these findings mean.
The year 2007 another event worth exposing occurred. Marco Iacoboni, director of the Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Laboratory at the Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, published an open article in the New York Times, about the analysis of twenty people who observed videos and images of political candidates. The conclusions were based on the activity of some areas of the brain, such as the amygdala. As the state of anxiety is also associated with the amygdala, the analysis concluded that the candidates were not accepted by the subjects studied. The reaction was immediate and a large number of eminent (17) in the field of neuroscience published a letter in the New York Times, where they questioned its results."It is not possible to definitively determine whether a person is anxious or feeling connected simply by looking at activity in a specific area of the brain," part of the letter read. If so many leading scientists felt compelled to write this letter, it is because there is a problem.
Given the substantial growth of this practice, in 2010 the ARF (Advertising Research Foundation) announced that it would make an evaluation of the methods used by neuromarketing and the consistency of its results, in order to validate its effectiveness. The surprise was greater when two of the large companies in the field (NeuroFocus and EmSense) refused to participate, a fact that helped raise further doubts about this new emerging field. AK Pradeep, founder of NeuroFocus, stated that he was not going to participate in this evaluation because it was led by Duane
This study protected the participating companies, as they would not name them in the report. In addition, the objective was not harmful, since it wanted to strengthen the field by creating ―neurostantards‖ with the purpose of standardizing and improving the reports.
Without these two great participants, the ARF then created the Neurostandards Collaboration Project, where eight companies linked to neuromarketing studies collaborate.
The first evaluation done was with a Colgate Total campaign. Each of the eight companies evaluated this campaign, and then delivered their respective results. Richard Thorogood, director of strategic insight and analyst at Colgate, said, following the results, that (March 25, 2011. ARF Panel Finds Promise for Neuromarketing, but Also Plenty of Problems. Http://www.thearf.org) ―Most vendors said the campaign was good, but often for different reasons. In one case, different companies interpreted the same response as positive or negative. For example, some companies said that some features of the campaign were appropriate for the customers, while other companies said they were not suitable for the target customer. “There wasn't much consistency.It's hard to understand where science ends and hypothesis begins, ”Richard said.
The latter clearly demonstrates the importance of the interpreter variable, more than the information itself. Interpretation of these results alone should not be used. For now, and perhaps forever, it should be used as a complement to traditional methods, not as a standalone tool.
- Lack of rigorous studies
This problem of subjectivity of interpretation could be reduced if companies shared their results and studies more, in order to homogenize the information. But this does not happen. The field of neuromarketing is primarily guided by private companies and not academies or universities. This generates competition between the companies involved, so they do not share the new discoveries or their results. Craig Martin Bennett (April 22, 2011. The Seven Sins of Neuromarketing. Http://prefrontal.org/) ―This means that the analysis of all companies is like a black box, where data enters at one end and interpretations come out through the other. ‖ What happens in between, is not known. He adds, ―Because a lot of current neuromarketing data is hidden,it is impossible to judge the success of their methods in reality, and to what extent their results are false positives.
Also, that they are mostly private institutions, encourages them to aim to stand out from the rest, avoiding, for example, providing objective and real information. This scenario also encourages companies to publish only positive results, while negative results are omitted, thus obfuscating the feedback necessary for this field to evolve.
- Temporal mismatch between stimulus and response
The analysis of this tool is based on the fact that the reaction of a subject to a stimulus is temporally parallel to the stimulus. That is to say; each brain reaction is associated with what was happening in the movie at that very moment. However, humans take different reaction times to different stimuli. If we see something dangerous, our reaction will be quicker to something that is not. Introducing this variable to the analysis would be very subjective.
On the other hand, our brain is capable of anticipating events, which activates a part of the brain before the event occurs in the video, thus making it impossible for the correct stimulus to be associated with the correct reaction.
Our reactions depend on the context. Measuring them in a solitary and punctual way can lead to false conclusions.
B. Theoretical
But neuromarketing could be facing an uncertainty even more complex than the previous one. It is even possible that problems derive from it. Their origin comes from a long time before the beginning of neuroscience, therefore, they were inherited by neuromarketing.
The scientific world has not yet managed to solve the question of who or what makes the decisions. But does that entity exist? If it exists, is it in our brain? If not, neuroscience would be greatly limited. Nemeroff C. adds (1999. pp.671-67) ―Neuroimaging allows the identification of brain regions in which activity is correlated with some baseline measures, but they do not answer how this pattern of brain activity results in certain behavior. This will be the arduous problem to solve for this technology and one of the 21st century‖.
It is difficult to be convinced that neuroscience could be able to read us completely just by an analysis of our brain. Or accept that our own feelings and thoughts, what we are in essence are just chemical reactions of our brain.
- Hard problem of conscience
This problem is known as the mind-brain problem, or the hard problem of consciousness. Australian philosopher David Chalmers says (Oxford University Press 2002. Phylosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings) ―It is called the mind-brain problem because –at least as it is posed to ourselves- on the one hand we have subjective experiences and on the other we are capable of scientifically examining the material organs involved in them, without the unity of both perspectives being easy to find.
Chalmers believes that this problem consists of “explaining how the experience of our own identity is produced in us, the sensation of being aware and that we are, in some way, masters of ourselves and of our activity; in other words, self-awareness in general‖. It is the brain's ability to know itself; that is, to know that we are someone who moves in the world but with a different and separate identity from it. Antonio Damasio, Professor of Neuroscience and Director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California, chose to call this problem subjectivity.
Subjectivity, since, for example, when we see the color red we perceive a sensation, which is subjective and incommunicable towards a third party. We do not necessarily perceive color in the same way as other individuals. We can agree with other people about the presence of the color red, or we could even group different colors into categories in a similar way, but we cannot be sure that the subjective feeling we have when we see the color red is the same in all of us.
So what is it that determines this subjectivity? Or, put in another way, is there objectivity in what is perceived? Are we oblivious to our surroundings or are we closely related? The Chilean scientist Humberto Maturana refers to the ―objectivity in parentheses‖ and the current of Constructivism, for its part, denies objective reality.
This dilemma was approached from its beginnings in a monopolistic way by philosophy, but today it concerns science as well. This new combined scenario has not made the research process easy, since scientists have few literary resources and philosophers lack scientific training, thus making communication difficult. It is not a coincidence then that the great contributors to this matter today are those who specialize in both areas.
Currents of our time
In modern times, the hard problem of consciousness can be divided into four great beliefs, all created by scientists studying the brain. These are behaviorism, reductionist monism or materialism, dualism, and non-reductionist physicalism.
Behaviorism, as its name suggests, considers that the objective of its study is behavior. The American psychologist, Jacob Robert Kantor (1888 - 1984) defines it as "a renunciation of the doctrines of the soul, mind and consciousness, to deal with the study of organisms in interaction with their environments." Since behavior can be observed and measured, discussion of conscience could be dispensed with. In fact, the mind could be considered as a black box, where a stimulus enters, is processed in the black box, and a response comes out. The heroes of this theory were John B. Watson and BF Skinner.
Reductionist monism, a widely accepted position today, says that the mind is part of the brain, that they are not different entities. Consciousness explains it in physical or biological terms, that is, it reduces all levels of reality to the physical level. This theory states that the complexity of our higher behaviors such as thinking, consciousness and all the others, are reduced to the functioning of brain neurons. It is a system whose basis is none other than its biochemical functioning. Some well-known neuroscientists are Francis Crick (1916-2004), Nobel Prize in Medicine, who even went so far as to postulate that the reticular nucleus of the thalamus could be the nodal center for the consciousness of the individual. Also Antonio Damasio, mentioned above, is a follower of this position.
Although eliminative monism is the mainstream among scientists who study the brain, neurophysiological dualism has recently taken center stage. This position is held by the Australian neurobiologist John Eccles, Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1963. According to Eccles, the brain is not a complex enough structure to explain the phenomena related to consciousness, so it is necessary to admit the autonomous existence of a self-conscious mind distinct from the brain, which is neither material nor organic and which exercises a superior function of interpretation and control of neural processes. Eccles says that everything that exists is contained in three types of worlds: that of physical reality, mental phenomena and cultural products.The brain would belong to physical reality and the mind to that of mental phenomena. Elena Alcázar adds that (No Date. Speaking of mind and brain. Psychiatry, neuroscience and psychoanalysis: convergence and integration. Http://vitae.ucv.ve) ―the idea that mind and brain are separate entities - frequently referred to as Cartesian dualism, because it is recorded from the writings of René Descartes-, refers to that duality between the subject and the object and the casual connections between them, as can be seen in language once the differences between subject and predicate emergegen.see) ―the idea that mind and brain are separate entities -often referred to as Cartesian dualism because it has been recorded since the writings of René Descartes-, refers to that duality between subject and object and the casual connections between them, such as it can be evidenced in language once the differences between subject and predicate emerge‖.see) ―the idea that mind and brain are separate entities -often referred to as Cartesian dualism because it has been recorded since the writings of René Descartes-, refers to that duality between subject and object and the casual connections between them, such as it can be evidenced in language once the differences between subject and predicate emerge‖.
Finally, non-reductionist physicalism tries to unite dualism with monism. Although it is considered part of the current of monism, it tries to separate itself from it. It was proposed by Malcom Jeeves, Professor of Psychology at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, and Warren Brown, Professor of Psychology at Fuller Theological Seminary in California. They maintain that it is not necessary to postulate for the soul or mind a second metaphysical entity. In this way, the mind or soul would be physiologically incarnated in our person. ―We are soul, we don't have souls say its authors to synthesize the belief.
In summary, the two great current branches would be that of reductive materialism (or monism) and that of dualism. One that explains that the mind and consciousness are not separable from the brain, and the other that says that they are. We can see that the theory of reductive materialism seems to be much more coherent with the postulates of Neuroscience; everything can be explained by the neuronal synapse, by the brain.
A fascinating theory that I learned about at the Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez with the Chilean philosopher and historian, Julio Retamal Favereau, can provide us with a peripheral vision about the history of this discussion. He called it `` Pendulum Theory and is founded on the middle ground, of which Aristotle spoke, where he points out that the virtues are the balance of two extremes. Mr. Retamal expands it beyond virtues, and extrapolates it to society itself. It says that all the ideological currents of the West (whether political, social or economic) are swinging like a pendulum; from one extreme to the other, and whose stimulus is towards the center, balance. This has happened throughout the history of our society. We have transitioned from totalitarianism to relativism in a cyclical way. We have gone from being an emotional society to a rational one, and vice versa, many times. Thus, for example, we have gone through Plato and his acceptance of the soul, then Materialism where only material bodies exist, to then go to the end of the Middle Ages with Saint Augustine and Modern Era with René Descartes,where they again accepted the existence of the soul. Later, the empiricist philosophers were skeptical of these supposed extrasensitive realities.
This theory can also be extrapolated to the currents mentioned above. Although today reductive materialism seems to reign, dualism has begun to make noise again. There is a discomfort in our society, weary of science and its overvaluation of the "rational." There is something far beyond what our senses can perceive, as expressed by poets, mystics, and the inspired of all time.
Gonzalo Casino, Graduated in Medicine, with postgraduate degrees in editing and biostatistics, seems to disagree with this feeling of discomfort. In an article he points out that (November 7, 2005. Dualists and Monists. Http://medicina-generalfamiliar.blogspot.com) ―Descartes is not having a good time now. The Cartesian separation between body and mind, between matter and spirit, is denied time and again by scientists. Ours is a markedly materialistic time, of a materialistic monism led by the sciences that proclaims that all mental phenomena, from dreams to freedom, are only functions of corporeal matter.
Antonio Damasio, with his book ―The error of Descartes‖ published in 1994, defends materialist ideas. He attributes to the French philosopher the folly of separating mental operations from the structure of the organism and believes that reasoning and moral judgment can exist separately from the body.
But, according to the “Pendulum Theory”, perhaps it is only going through a cyclical change, and the answers we have found are manipulated by the intentionality of the search, by the lack of objectivity in the scientific gaze.
Another great author who contributes greatly to this debate is the Chilean biologist Francisco Varela (1946 - 2001) who was mainly interested in this phenomenon of consciousness. He called the field that studies this matter Neurophenomenology. In this, he (Francisco Aboitiz, August 2005, From the eye of the insect to the eye of the mind. Http://www.ceo.cl) ―he tried to reconcile a scientific and formal view on cognition, with life experience, in the first place person, of being and being in the world. These works were left unfinished due to his premature death. V Várela says that (Mturana H. and Varela F. 1990. p.198) "when interacting with both hemispheres there are behaviors that we usually identify as belonging to a conscious mind capable of reflection". In short, for Varela, consciousness is the product of brain activity,it qualifies what we call mind (or the mental) and is inseparable from reflection. In the latter concept, he would be referring more than consciousness to self-consciousness.
The phenomenon of subjective experience translates it to metarepresentation, which would be a system that monitors the processes that occur at other levels. Francisco Aboitiz, from the Institute of Biomedical Sciences (ICBM), University of Chile, wonders (October 2001, Chilean Journal of Neuro-psychiatry. V.39 n.4) ―But what gives this new mechanism the ability to generate subjective experiences? Ultimately, there are only action potentials and neurotransmitters there. It could be the complexity of meta-representation networks, but there is nothing to indicate how subjective experiences can arise from the increasing complexity of such processes.
In search of the answer
But let's not dwell on the explanations of this phenomenon, the important thing is to focus on what has not been clarified. What is missing to be able to determine if having a total knowledge of our human brain, we could have in parallel a total knowledge of our being.
This is precisely what the English psychologist, writer and speaker, Susan Blackmore, tried to do in her book ―Conversations on Consciousness‖ (2010). Susan managed to interview the great heroes of neuroscience, such as
Francisco Varela, Francis Crick, Vilayanur Ramachandran, John Searle, Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose, Daniel Dennet, David Chalmers, among others. Each of these scientists has specialized in a specific topic with respect to neuroscience, but Susan limited herself to asking the same questions to all of them, regardless of their specialty. Questions of a general nature, but essential to try to decipher the problem of consciousness.
One of the questions he asked was ―What is consciousness? Unsurprisingly, each scientist described it in their own way, without reaching a consensus. That it differs so much reflects that there is still a lot to advance, and therefore, it does not seem responsible to affirm with so much determination the theories that each scientist has in this regard. On the other hand, it is also negative because the discussions may be taking place in an area where they do not know what they are discussing, and they may be different things.
Where Susan did find consensus was that there are no two principles; all agreed that dualism is untenable. However, Susan adds that one thing is what is maintained in public (dualism is false) and quite another thing is to stop being dualists, in reality each and every one of these researchers (each in their own way) continued to be dualists, some reductionists, some monists, some neoplatonists, and some just messed up when confronted with the hard problem of consciousness.
Blackmore continued to insist and investigate his interviewees. He asked them ―If the brain processes information through neural networks and electrical or chemical impulses, how can it produce concrete subjective experiences? If the brain and mind are the same thing, how does the brain manage to construct these kinds of subjective experiences? ‖ The psychologist noticed certain semantic devices to answer; "Proceeds from," "gives place to," "correlates with," or "emerges from." There was no clear or convincing answer to how two seemingly different things can be the same.
Interesting was also when Susan confronted the scientists with the Zombie's dilemma. This dilemma is a thought experiment, created by the Australian philosopher David Chalmers, where it is a question of imagining an entity capable of speaking, memorizing information and paying attention, but without a subjective mental experience; a zombie. The idea is that if we can imagine it, then logic says it is possible. Then, if possible, it can be concluded that consciousness is independent of the human brain. David argues that (January 25, 2011. Zombies. Can a zombie break a door with a brick? Http://neurosofia.wordpress.com/) ―although the idea that zombies exist is not conceivable, to end physicalism, reductionism or eliminativism, it is enough to think that at least metaphysically speaking they are possible.‖ Most of the interviewees did not agree with this dilemma, and ―some of them, including Varela himself, drew the bullet.‖
The discussion seems to have no end. And it is that perhaps the problem lies not in the concept to be discussed, but in the platform of where and how it is done. Varela agrees, since he proposes a change in the conditions of the experimental method, which seems to have been designed to demonstrate what we already know from experience. This experimental method, exclusive to the West, is based on a different proposition: on the observation of phenomena in their collective form, and the proposition of describable mechanisms based on language. This means that the hard problem of consciousness could not be solved with our current methodology. Perhaps the American philosopher, William James (1842 - 1910), is right. "Consciousness should be conceptualized as a process rather than a substance."
However, this does not mean that everything that has been done is in vain. In the Chilean Journal of Neuro-psychiatry, they conclude that (Rev Chil Neuro-Psiquiat 2001; 39 (4): 281-285. On-line version ISSN 0717-9227) ―These studies possibly allow us to better describe the functioning of the brain, which is a goal of western science. In this way, Varela's contribution to the understanding of conscious phenomena has marked a milestone that will not only endure as such, but has opened the possibility of research in a field that was technically forbidden until he and his collaborators managed to develop a adequate methodology. In this sense, Varela's studies are pioneers in a nascent line of research,that will probably give us many answers about the neurobiology of large-scale neural processes. Varela was optimistic about the solution of the "hard problem", and believed that this problem corresponded to a stage in the development of science. Only the future will be able to say to what extent this intuition of the great Chilean neurobiologist was ultimately correct.
But you don't have to be fatalistic; The fact that there is still no answer does not mean that you should stop inquiring. The process of trying to answer these big questions has yielded tremendous advances to better understand the human being; but it must be done with caution and aware of the possibility of error. In this way enriching discussions are generated, prudent and open to the new.
In relation to the above, the study of neuromarketing boasts of being an effective method to reach the unconscious. However, as we have seen throughout this section, there is not even agreement as to what consciousness is.
I also believe that for this field to continue developing well, certain criteria must be safeguarded:
First, be aware that it is an interdisciplinary discipline; it is not just about science or philosophy. The great figures of this subject have both philosophical and scientific training.
The second is that a universal and clear language must be used. It seems that many discussions have not found an answer simply due to terminological misunderstandings.
Finally, it is important that experts in the field get rid of prejudices when posing problems and when providing solutions. We are in a field where very few things could be validated for sure, so being blinded by an ideology could lead to a formula problem from the beginning.
After all, perhaps the Egyptians weren't too bad at discrediting the brain organ. Although, it is in the brain where the neuronal synapse, feelings and emotions, our internal world and consciousness, perhaps, are in the heart, or elsewhere.
Conclusions
Two arguments have been presented that allow doubting the effectiveness and independence of the fundamental postulates of neuromarketing.
In practical terms, the shortcomings seem obvious. These problems are due to the fact that neuroscience and neuromarketing have different goals. Neuroscience seeks to know more about the human brain; investigate how it works, what it is made of. Remember that their motivation is to investigate and cure diseases. On the contrary, neuromarketing aims to study consumer behavior and associated variables.
In addition, neuroscience still has many unsolved questions for neuromarketing to use as a theoretical framework.
It is essential to consider that although neuromarketing can provide information, it is in no way independent from the other branches of marketing research. It is not a discipline, it is a tool. The results are not absolute, if not interpretive.
Most of the texts that question the effectiveness of neuromarketing end up recognizing that it is a tool that could potentially contribute a lot to the knowledge of human behavior. This is why large companies continue to invest in studies. However, studies so far have done nothing more than validate previously known discoveries - there is no scientific evidence about the effectiveness of neuromarketing.
In theoretical terms, the problem seems even more cumbersome. That the journalist Susan Blackmore has received, on the part of the great scientists, a great diversity of answers when asking for the description of the Consciousness, reflects that there is still much to advance. It seems irresponsible to affirm so strongly the theories that every scientist has in this regard. This discrepancy in concept makes discussions difficult since they may be taking place in different areas.
This affects the effectiveness of neuromarketing, the purpose of which is to discover what triggers the 'buy button'. Neuroscience has the tools to determine which areas of the brain are activated in the face of a specific stimulus. But when faced with two stimuli that must be chosen, he is not empowered to know who chose between those two. It is consciousness that decides and science does not know where it is.
I believe that the problem of the mind-brain relationship and consciousness is far from being solved. I would even dare to conclude that it can never be. We must be able to accept that we cannot understand everything from a rational-scientific point of view.
The limits of our mind are relative, but there is a point where we all agree, and that is that we cannot reach their understanding. Trying to get to know someone you know with the same language is impossible because they are at different levels of abstraction. It is as if you wanted to know the infinite, but it ceases to exist the moment you understand it. In fact, we can't even understand the deep concept of what infinity is. Perhaps our mind is infinite, and it is for the same reason that we cannot understand it. And if we believe we have achieved it, then it will cease to be the mind.
Neuromarketing must then recognize its practical and theoretical limitations, so as not to sell false expectations, and above all, to avoid drawing wrong conclusions that can lead to major errors.
Bibliography
- Aboitiz F (2001), Chilean journal of neuro-psychiatry. On-line version ISSN 0717-9227. Rev Chil Neuro-Psiquiat 2001; 39 (4): 281-285 Braidot, N. (2005). Neuromarketting, Neuroeconomics and Business. Buenos Aires; Braidot Library.Braidot, N. (2009) Neuromarketing Why do your clients sleep with others if they say they like you? Barcelona: Ediciones Gestión 2000.Chalmers DJ (2002), Phylosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2002.Crick F (2008), ―Function of the thalamic reticular complex: the searchlight hypothesis‖, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USADamasio AR. (1990) Synchronous activation in multiple cortical regions: a mechanism for recall. Semin Neurosci 1990; 2: 287-96. David Lewis & Darren Brigder (July / August 2005)."Market Researchers make Increasing use of Brain Imaging" Elsevier (2003) Principles of Neuroscience, Madrid 2003, p. 519.Fugate, D. (2007) Neuromarketing: A Layman's Look at Neuroscience and its Potential Application to Marketing Practice, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24, 7 pp 385-394.Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. (Trad. Cast. Kairós, 1996). Kotler P., and Armstrong G. (2001), Marketing. Edition adapted for Latin America. Eighth Edition Lindstrom, M. (2008). Buyology: How Everything Why Believe About why We Buy is Wrong. United States: Random House, MARCUS SJ (2002) (ed.), Neuroethics: Mapping the Field, The Dana Foundation Press, New York 2002 MATURANA, H and VARELA.F. (2008) - The tree of knowledge. The biological bases of human knowledge. Madrid, Ed. Debate, 1990, p.198.North American Conference of the Association for Consumer Research (ACR), San Antonio, Texas, Sep. 29 - Oct. 2, USAThomson E, Varela J. (2001) Radical embodiment: neural dynamics and consciousness. Trends Cognit Sci 2001; 5: 418-425 Varela FJ, Thomson E, Rosch E. (1991) The Embodied Mind. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Bibliography Internet
- A Probe Inside the Mind of the Shopper. By Jerome Burne.Advertising Age: ARF Panel Finds Promise for Neuromarketing, but Also Plenty of Problems. By Richard Thorogood.Learn To Think.net. Article ―Medium term‖. By Lucilius. November 9, 2009.Tag Archives: Zombies. Can a zombie break a door with a brick? By José Luis Fernández Moreno. January 25, 2011.Letter to the director. Nature.com. By Michael Brammer. October 2004 Chalmers's Master Argument and Type Bb Physicalism. By Sam Coleman. August 21, 2009.Cultural objects modulate reward circuitry. By Susanne Erk, Manfred Spitzer, Arthur P. Wunderlich, Lars Galley, and Henrik Walter. October 22, 2010.From the eye of the insect to the eye of the mind. By Francisco Aboitiz. August 2005. http://www.ceo.cl/609/article-1454.html#h2_2Diario El Mundo digital. ―The WHO foresees an increase in mental and neurological diseases.‖ January 9, 2001. https://www.elmundo.es/elmundosalud/2001/01/09/salud_personal/979062501.html Dualists and Monists. By Gonzalo Casino. November 7, 2005.Evidence for a neural correlate of a framing effect: Bias-specific activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex during credibility judgments. By M. Deppea, W. Schwindt, J. Krämer, H. Kugel, H. Plassmann, P. Kenning, EB Ringelstein. July 25, 2005.The Cartesian paradigm. By Luciana Capellino. January 23, 2010, Gonzáles Victoria. (2011) ―Very Interesting‖ Magazine, edition 12/27/2011, Spain. Speaking of mind and brain. Psychiatry, neuroscience and psychoanalysis: convergence and integration. Elena Alázar.com ―Neuromarketing - Can we find the purchase button in the consumer's brain? ‖, By Javier Piedrahita. February 8, 2008.com ―An NGO creates a viral against neuromarketing‖. April 6, 2010.Mind and brain in contemporary neuroscience. An approach to its interdisciplinary study. José M. Giménez-Amaya and José I. Murillo. February 2007.Nemeroff 1999 in the text ―Speaking of mind and brain. Psychiatry, neuroscience and psychoanalysis: convergence and integration.‖ By Elena Alcázar. http://vitae.ucv.ve/pdfs/VITAE_3019.pdf NEUROMARKETING: Beyond the buzz. By Graham Page. April 2006, Neuromarketing: Companies Use Neuroscience for Consumer Insights. By Laurie Burkitt. October 10, 2009.Neuromarketing - in Retreat. By Max Sutherland. August 2004. http://www.sutherlandsurvey.com/Columns_Papers/Neuromarketing%20in%20Retreat%20(Aug04).pdf New York Times. Letter to the editor: Politics and the Brain. November 14, 2007. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/lweb14brain.html New York Times digial. This Is Your Brain on Politics. By Marco Iacoboni, Joshua Freedman and Jonas Kaplan. November 11, 2007. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/11freedman.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=e0ca987ad4bd515f&ex=1352437200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rssThe Jury Is Out - Is Neuromarketing The Next Big Thing Or The Next Raw Deal. By Donna Mitchell-Magaldi. June 2007 The Seven Sins of Neuromarketing. By Craig Martin Bennett. April 22, http: // prefrontal.org / blog / 2011/04 / the-seven-sins-of-neuromarketing / A science for conscience. By Pablo. March 22, 2010. https://pacotraver.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/una-ciencia-para-la-conciencia/Using neuroscience effectively. By Graham Page. https://www.quirks.com/articles/using-neuroscience-effectivelySylvwester, 2005. NUNLEY, K. (2002). Layered Curriculum: Dr. Kathie Nunley's web site for educators.
Magazine "Very Interesting", 12/27/2011, by Victoria González. It is pointed out that it will be her year, due to the large number of publications, conferences and new technological equipment expected.
The term neuroscience began to be used in the 1960s when the "Neuroscience Research Program" (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1962) began to function.
This rise is supported by a study done by the WHO. In the newspaper El Mundo, digital version of you can find. "WHO foresees an increase in mental and neurological diseases." January 9, 2001.
We found the concept of the buy button in an article published on Marketingdirecto.com “Neuromarketing - Did we find the buy button in the consumer's brain?”, By Javier Piedrahita. February 8, 2008.
The video and the article about it can be found on the Marketingdirecto.com site “An NGO creates a viral against neuromarketing”. April 6, 2010.
The results of neuromarketing studies are very little shared, since they are generated mostly by private companies. With the experiment having so little exposure, it can certainly lend itself to practice going beyond what is ethical. In most studies, patients sign a reliability contract. 8 In this regard, you can find an article called Neuromarketing - in Retreat. By Max Sutherland. August 2004.
Max Sutherland publishes on his personal website. In this particular case, we can find this information in the article Neuromarketing - in Retreat.
Neuromarketing: Companies Use Neuroscience for Consumer Insights. By Laurie Burkitt. October 10, 2009.
This lack of evidence is corroborated by Donna Mitschel-Magaldi in an article called The Jury Is Out - Is Neuromarketing The Next Big Thing Or The Next Raw Deal. June 2007.
This study, done by Susanne Erk, Manfred Spitzer, Arthur P. Wunderlich, Lars Galley and Henrik Walter dated October 22, 2010 can be found at the following website:
This study, done by M. Deppea, W. Schwindt, J. Krämer, H. Kugel, H. Plassmann, P. Kenning, EB Ringelst.
Problem related to the issue of neuromarketing as a unique and independent tool.
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/11freedman.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=e0ca987ad4bd515f&ex=13524 37200 & partner = rssuserland & emc = rss
Adam Aron, Ph.D., University of California, San Diego
David Badre, Ph.D., Brown University
Matthew Brett, MD, University of Cambridge
John Cacioppo, Ph.D., University of Chicago
Chris Chambers, Ph.D., University College London
Roshan Cools, Ph.D., Radboud University, Netherlands
Steve Engel, Ph.D., University of Minnesota
Mark D'Esposito, MD, University of California, Berkeley
Chris Frith, Ph.D., University College London
Eddie Harmon-Jones, Ph.D., Texas A&M University
John Jonides, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Brian Knutson, Ph.D., Stanford University
Liz Phelps, Ph.D., New York University
Russell Poldrack, Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles
Tor Wager, Ph.D., Columbia University
Anthony Wagner, Ph.D., Stanford University
Piotr Winkielman, Ph.D., University of California, San Diego
The letter can be found at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907E1D91E3CF937A25752C1A9619C8B63. Varan, head of the Disney Media & Advertising Lab, who, according to Pradeep, is a competitor. "They've tried to take customers away from us in the past," he said. The EmSense representative did not comment.
This term came from the philosopher of the mind David Chamlers of the Australian National University. David points out that we can distinguish two problems. The first, and which would be easy to solve, he called the easy problem of consciousness. This refers to the distinction of mental processes that are unconscious and those that we can identify as conscious. That is, our experiences are largely conscious, as are our reactions to them. However, there is also an unconscious process, such as the beat of our heart or our own breathing, which can oscillate between the two areas. The second would be the hard problem of consciousness.
For philosophy this problem is approached under the name of the Philosophy of the mind.
It is quite interesting that neuroscience also falls into the same practice, where the conclusions are based only on the stimuli and the chemical response of the brain. Deep down, in this theory, being limited by the knowledge of this black box, they simply excluded it from the equation. Neuroscience could be doing the same, but out of ignorance, which is worse since the errors that this could lead to are not recognized.
The concept of middle term can be found in the article published by Lucilius on November 9, 2009. Aprender A Pensar.net. Article "Middle term".
Download the original file
