Rahul Chonkria MIDTERM 300980152

Question: Considering the literature we have studied thus far, what is your position on the

relationship of the brain to the mind? Nagel talks about materialism, dualism and dual aspect

theory. Where do you stand? Use any articles we have studied so far, but remember to draw on at

least three different examples from three different topics, for instance: happiness, sexuality and

neuro-marketing or any other combination you see fit for your argument.

Answer:

According to Nagel, the mind and body are two separate entities, one is made up of

matter, energy and is of physical nature, and the other is a soul that is attached to our bodies in

some way, something that is completely mental and something that controls or is our

consciousness [ CITATION Tho87 \l 1033 ]. I respectfully disagree, as I think that the we, as a

whole, are one entity, and the only reason why we do not understand and are not able to close in

the gap between the supposed ‘mind’ and ‘body’ is because we are not that far yet in terms of

advancement in the technological and medical fields. The premise is very strong, for something

that was written in 1987, but if we look at how far our species has come since then, 23 years, we

can now identify and do things that we couldn’t even imagine in the older days. For example,

we can now identify which parts of the brain specifically light up or activate when a person is

feeling happy, using technologies such as fMRI [ CITATION Ron13 \l 1033 ]. We are now starting to

understand the brain more and more, slowly unraveling the organ that is the powerhouse of

humanity. I believe that even though the astronomical lengths we have reached to understand the

brain are quite amazing, we still have a long way to go in terms of comprehending it to a level

where we can pinpoint exactly how the brain works at every facet. There have always been myth

surrounding the brain, and we have slowly been debunking them and putting the facts out every
single day. For example, the rather popular myths such as using only 10% of the brain, getting

holes in the brain from drug use, learning through subliminal messaging and many more have all

been exposed as false information [ CITATION Sha08 \l 1033 ]. We also have learned to manage or

control certain areas of life that have been regarded as pure such as love with some level of

success, and its inevitable that the technology will only continue to prosper. We have been

developing drugs, therapy techniques and various other ways to increase, decrease, regulate

‘love’, an aspect of life that is regarded by many as the core of our existence [ CITATION Tob05 \l

1033 ]. This type of intervention is also present in the highly controversial conversion therapies

for non-heterosexual people, and researchers and scientists are continually finding ways on how

our brains work and what truly takes someone out of the supposed ‘natural’ genders of humanity

[ CITATION Bri14 \l 1033 ]. Basically, my point is that as we continue to explore and delve into this

magnificent piece of our vessel, we will have a better understanding of the mind and body, and

eventually, I believe in the future we can some day consider them truly one.

Question: Is neuromarketing a threat to consumer privacy? Considering the studies,

neuroscientific findings and examples used in the target article outline your position and argue

accordingly.

Answer:

What truly makes this conversation ultra-controversial is that contemporary

neuromarketing techniques have ripped through one part of our body (quite literally) that some

of us never thought was possible, the skin. Is it a threat to consumer privacy though? I’d say it

depends on who does the scanning, where the data gets stored, who has access to it, and what can
be done with the data involved. I believe there should be a regulatory system that keeps the

neuromarketers in check, because this data could be potentially hazardous for a bunch of reasons

if it gets into the wrong hands and not used right. It can be used to manipulate the masses; the

data can be used for different purposes rather than the intended ones if data breaches were to

occur. Neuromarketing includes the direct use of brain imaging, scanning, or other brain activity

measurement technology to measure a subject's response to specific products, packaging,

advertising, or other marketing elements for commercial gain [ CITATION Pin15 \l 1033 ] . Many

believe that using such techniques are major invasion and transparency issues, because it

involves targeting of customers, manipulation, and non-disclosure of examination. I believe that

is definitely right, that it is a violation of a person’s privacy especially if a seller can just directly

monitor, scan, and derive the appropriate course of action to get the buyer to buy their product at

the point of contact. This puts the buyers at an extreme disadvantage, and although many may

argue that different marketing manipulation techniques have been used for a long time and this is

just one of them, I’d say this one is not just any other technique because the data that is gathered

utilizing this approach can be used in various ways unbeknownst to most people that can cause

potential mass outrage if it were to be disclosed. Marketing consultants David Lewis and Darren

Bridger have mentioned that there is no “buy button” that can ultimately make someone buy

their product at the seller’s will, assuming the customer has the means for it [ CITATION Pin15 \l

1033 ]. This might be true, but it is not necessarily the intentions, it’s the content and all its

vulnerabilities that make Neuromarketing a threat to privacy. The author of “Neurotheological

Eudaimonia” Andrew Pinsent argues that even assuming the technology is used strictly for

commercial gain purposes by the marketer, it can still potentially be a major threat to privacy and

that privacy protocols must be implemented to properly use the prevailing technology. My stance
would be almost be the same in this case, that regulatory bodies need to oversee and govern these

neuromarketers, but I also believe that the benefit this whole phenomenon might have is

outweighed by the threat it has to human society.

REFERENCES:

Breazeale, R. (2013, February 13). The Role of the Brain in Happiness. Retrieved from Psychology Today:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/in-the-face-adversity/201302/the-role-the-brain-in-
happiness

Brian D. Earp, A. S. (2014). Brave New Love: The Threat of High-Tech “Conversion” Therapy and the Bio-
Oppression of Sexual Minorities. AJOB Neuroscience, 9.

Freeman, S. (2008, September 17). Top 10 Myths About the Brain. Retrieved from HowStuffWorks:
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/10-brain-myths.htm

Nagel, T. (1987). The Mind-Body Problem. In T. Nagel, What Does It All Mean? (pp. 27-37). New York:
Oxford University Press.

Pinsent, A. (2015). Neurotheological Eudaimonia. New York: Springer Science+Business Media

Dordrecht.

Tobias Esch, G. B. (2005). The Neurobiology of Love. The Neurobiology of Love, 9.