mind and brain

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundraboy/303703384/

What is our brain? What is consciousness?

These are tricky questions. Naturalists, who believe the physical world is all there is, don't have a simple answer. For we can distinguish between the physical brain processes which accompany an emotion like sadness (which neuroscience can measure), and the feeling of sadness (which science cannot measure, but which we experience). The experience is real, yet it isn't in any obvious sense physical.

The usual answer is that the mind and consciousness are emergent properties of the brain. They cannot exist without the brain (it is assumed) and they are thus anchored in the physical.

Neuroscience, and science generally, assumes naturalism. Even scientists who are non-naturalists (e.g. theists) work from the basis of methodological naturalism - a supernatural explanation is generally not acceptable as science. And methodological naturalism has reigned supreme in science, including neuroscience, for more than a century.

But some challenges to the naturalist view of neuroscience are appearing. One is the number of near death experiences (which I reported on in near death experiences - could they be real?) which seem to be unexplainable on naturalistic assumptions.

Another is the research of neuroscientist Dr Jeffrey Schwartz, whose study of brain dysfunction has yielded what he sees as unexpected results. Dr Schwartz has long experience in treating patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) using behavioural therapy, where the patient's behaviour is modified by their own will and discipline. In essence, when they feel compelled to do a particular action which is unnecessary, they, in a sense, "talk themselves out of it". This approach is recognised as a very useful means of dealing with OCD.

The unexpected result was that this therapy actually brought about a measurable change in the physical structure of their brains, in their neural pathways. It was a scientific case of "mind over matter" - non-physical thinking seems to have changed physical processes and structure.

All this is obviously welcome. However, Dr Schwartz has gone on to argue that these experiments demonstrate that the naturalist or materialist explanation of the brain/mind is clearly wrong, and a non-materialist explanation is required. This seems to entail some form of dualism. This of course is not acceptable to materialists. And so his views have copped criticism, e.g. from atheists like Austin Cline and PZ Myers.

I don't take too much notice of Myers on this - the vehemence of his critique is surely much more based on his preconceived metaphysics than on objective science. But despite searching, I haven't found any objective assessment of Schwartz's dualistic ideas, so while his therapy is well regarded, it is hard to know how his views on the non-material brain are being accepted.

I have also had little success finding out his religious (or otherwise) beliefs. He has signed the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, and his conclusions are well regarded by science journalist and author Denyse O'Leary, who is a christian. On the other hand, the only religious comment I have found from him is his comparison of his therapy with the Buddhist practice of mindfulness.

But regardless, metaphysics has again impinged on science, and the ensuing battle is likely to be more about the metaphysics than the science.

Read about Schwartz's book The Mind and the Brain, and a brief summary of his views from his website.

near death experiences - could they be real?

We've all heard of them - people who are clinically dead for a while but are then revived, and who report experiencing things which their dormant brain should not be able to experience. There seem to be two main types of these near death experiences (NDEs):

1. People report travelling down a tunnel of light to a peaceful place, where they are met by a loved one who has died or a religious figure such as Jesus. After a short time in this blessed environment, they are reluctantly sent back to "real life", are revived from clinical death, and remember the experience.

For example, in 1964 famous comedian and actor Peter Sellers had a series of heart attacks. While his doctor tried to revive him, Sellers reports that he saw an "incredibly beautiful bright loving white light above me". "I know there was love, real love, on the other side of the light which was attracting me so much. It was kind and loving and I remember thinking That's God."

Sellers saw a hand reach through the light, and then a voice said: "It's not time. Go back and finish. It's not time." He felt himself return to his body and he woke up.

2. People can report details of what was happening while they were unconscious and clinically dead. Sometimes they observe the room from above, as if they were floating near the ceiling.

A famous example of this is Pam Reynolds, whose story is particularly amazing. Pam had a brain operation that entailed the doctors inducing cardiac arrest, her eyes taped shut and 95 decibel speakers placed in her ear canals, and the blood drained from her head. Despite all this, Pam was subsequently able to recall many minor details of what occurred while she was in this state, including conversations by the staff and the music being played in the theatre. These details were all confirmed by medical staff.

are these experiences real?

There are of course both believers and sceptics. The sceptics say that these experiences cannot possibly be real; either the stories are unreliable, or the people weren't really dead, or the experiences are the result of lack of oxygen and increased carbon dioxide in the brain.

On the other hand, researchers such as Drs Edward and Emily Kelly of the University of Virginia and Sam Parnia of the Weill Cornell Medical Centre have investigated many reports and say that the sceptics' explanations are quite inadequate.

so ..... ?

It seems to me that we might more easily dismiss the stories of visits to "heaven" to meet God or dead loved ones. These stories are generally unverifiable, they often reveal very different and contradictory aspects of the after-life and God, and the sceptical explanations may be more plausible. Even so, it is impossible to totally dismiss them.

However the stories where patients are known to be clinically dead (as far as modern medical science can determine) and their accounts of events in the operating theatre can be verified, are not easily dismissed, and the sceptical "explanations" so far seem weak.

So, perhaps these accounts "prove" there is life after death, but more likely they show that we still don't understand the relationship between consciousness and the brain. Perhaps there is indeed more to consciousness than what physical science so far understands.

free will?

Most of us don't even think about it. We just go about our lives, making choices and accepting responsibility for them (and sometimes trying to avoid responsibility for them!). But do we really have free will, or are we just programmed?

what is free will?

Free will means the ability to choose between two or more alternatives, without being predetermined by our genes, our brain processes and cause and effect to make a particular choice - the ability to initiate an action, or be a cause of an action, that wouldn't have occurred otherwise, and which we were not compelled to cause.

The Oxford Handbook of Free Will says: "we believe we have free will when (a) it is "up to us" what we choose from an array of alternative possibilities, and (b) the origin or source of our choices and actions is in us and not in anyone or anything else over which we have no control."

Some have defined free will in "lesser" terms, as the absence of external compulsion. However, if we have no inner free will, then our entire selves are the result of external actions leading to our birth and genetics, over which we had no control. So this definition doesn't seem to be what most of us consider to be free will.

do we actually have free will?

No-one doubts we are in many things not free to choose (e.g. to fly unaided), nor that our genes determine much about us. The question is, do we have any choice?

We seem to have free will. We make choices, blame people for their choices, present arguments we expect to influence other people, and have legal systems that make people responsible for their actions as if they had true choice. But is all this an illusion?

Naturalists, who believe that the space-time universe is all there is, find it hard to avoid the conclusion that everything is determined by the laws of the universe and cause and effect. Our brains function on simple and deterministic laws of physics, and there is no "us" outside our brains to control our thoughts. For naturalists, our brain processes seem to be predetermined.

Biologist Francis Crick: "You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."

Professor William Provine, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University: "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

"Compatibilists" believe that although our brains are determined, we still have free will, though I cannot see how that can be. "Incompatibilists" believe that because our brains are determined, we have no free will, which seems like a logical conclusion to me.

Some theists believe that God's sovereignty, especially in setting up the universe, means that we cannot have free will either, but most believe God gives us the dignity of free will, and thereby holds us responsible for our actions.

Most theists would also be dualists, that is, they believe God has made us as spiritual-physical beings, and our minds or selves have a dual nature, which allows us to escape from the determinism of naturalism.

what can we live with?

It is one thing to have a theoretical view. Most people seem to be natural dualists, believing we have genuine free will and moral responsibility. But this seems inconsistent for those who are naturalists and atheists. But although it may be inconsistent, it may be difficult to get away from.

One option for naturalists could be that we have evolved to think we have free will even though we don't, because it is advantageous to think so. For example, one study has shown that those who believe we lack free will are more likely to be dishonest (perhaps showing the link between free will and moral responsibility).

So if an atheist believes there can be no true free will, can they actually live as if this is true, or will their minds revolt at the thought?

And does our common perception indicate that there is more in the universe than some people say, perhaps even pointing to God?

exercise makes you happier, smarter, and .......

Photo: Morguefile

Most of us want to be happy. Most of us want to be smart. But probably most of us don't want to exercise all that much, or else we just don't have time. I have some good news and some bad news .....

the good news .....

A new book, "SPARK: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain" by John Ratey MD, outlines a whole range of benefits of exercise:

• It makes you happy - it affects the brain in a similar way to anti-depressants.
• It reduces stress and ameliorates the effects of stress by purging brain toxins and building up antioxidants.
• It improves our brain, increasing intelligence and improving memory.
• It reduces the likelihood of responding to threatening situations aggressively.
• It can help fight addictions - e.g. it reduces the desire to smoke.
• And of course, exercise is good for health and fitness.
  

and the "bad" news ....

These beneficial outcomes require at least a 30 minute walk 5 times a week. Better is to make that an energetic walk, or to include some short intervals of sprinting. But even a little is better than none.

Read the article by Simon Usborne which was reprinted in the Sydney Morning Herald recently, or read further information on what makes people happy and do we REALLY know how to be happy.

evidence to make you think?

Earlier this year I posted a couple of times (here and here) on an apparent healing miracle after a cardiologist prayed for an apparently dead man. I researched the matter as thoroughly as I could, and found responses to the story fell into three distinct types:

1. The press generally just reported the story without comment, treating it as if it was true, but just another news story.
2. Believers accepted it immediately as genuine and a confirmation of their faith, and so rejoiced.
3. Non-believers were sceptical, if not scornful. Miracles just don't happen, and here's another example of the gullible being duped.

So I posted the story on an atheist website, to test the response. Not surprisingly, they were sceptical, if not scornful. Many offered explanations as to how a natural medical event could be so misinterpreted. Many of their suggestions were contrary to the evidence, but when I pointed this out, people just shifted ground. And when I asked if anyone wanted to work with me to try to verify or refute the story, no-one was interested.

So I wondered, atheists say their belief is evidence-based, but how much do they really base their views on evidence? How much do christians? Which comes first, the belief or the evidence? If you discount evidence before you look at it, is that "evidence-based"?

What would it take to cause you to reconsider your beliefs? Or me?

Then I found another story, about two New Zealanders, Grant Stubbs and Owen Wilson, flying in a microlight plane which ran out of fuel and the engine stopped with no clear landing place in sight. They knew that most people who crash in a microlight plane die, so while one tried to coax the plane over a ridge in hope of finding a spot to land, the other prayed. Over the hill they found a grass landing strip they didn't know existed.

Sceptics will say that the strip was there all along, they were just lucky, and prayer had nothing to do with it. And maybe they are right. I certainly wouldn't claim this as a miracle, more as a funny story. But don't tell that to Grant and Owen, because when they came to rest on the airstrip, right in front of their eyes was a sign which said "Jesus is Lord".

If it happened to you, would that be enough to make you think? Or just laugh? Or both?

are some things REALLY right and wrong?

Stephen Pinker is an experimental psychologist at Harvard who has researched and written on language and mind, and has written a number of newspaper articles on ethics, including The Moral Instinct, published in the New York Times earlier this year.

In this article he discusses:

1. Whether someone who achieves a lot for the disadvantaged in the world (e.g. Bill Gates) is more admirable than someone whose personal motivation is "good" (like Mother Theresa). This is a question of utilitarian ethics vs personal ethics.
2. Whether it is morally justified to sacrifice one innocent person to save a number of equally innocent people. Studies show that most people think it is in some circumstances, but not in others.
3. Addressing the dilemma of where our moral sense comes from (see my previous blog, selfish genes?), Pinker supports the idea that it is innate, a genetic result of evolution. He describes five ethical "themes" that are found in societies around the world: avoiding harm, fairness, community (or group loyalty), authority and purity.
4. He argues that variations in ethics around the world can be explained the different emphases given to these different aspects of morality - for example, some Middle Eastern cultures place greater weight on the community/family aspects, which western people can see as threatening the fairness aspects.
5. He discusses how altruistic behaviour can, in the long run, result from mutual benefit - societies may find that if individuals help each other, both gain.
6. Finally, Pinker addresses the question of whether ethical behaviour can be considered objectively right or wrong. He mentions moral realism (the view that ethical truths are a feature of the universe just as mathematical truths are), but doesn't offer any conclusion.

I have no problems believing that the ethical behaviour sanctioned by different societies may have evolutionary origins, though I can't help feeling that many of the evolutionary explanations offered to explain different types of altruistic behaviour are mere surmise, based on the assumption that natural selection has produced the behaviours rather than any evidence.

But it seems to me that Pinker's analysis leaves the most important questions unanswered, for example:

• Why should I follow an ethical injunction if it doesn't suit me?
• Are some things (e.g. pedophilia, rape, murder, treachery, genocide) really wrong, or do we just feel that they are?
• If a society evolves an ethic that we find repugnant - e.g. the anti-Semitism of the Nazis, terrorism, or treachery (as occurred in an Irian Jayan tribal group reported by Don Richardson in Peace Child) - does that make that ethic "right", for them at least?

It still seems to me that evolutionary psychology and sociology explain lots of things about ethics very well, except for many of the things we most deeply hold to.

selfish genes?

It was a nightmare story which attracted enormous public interest.

A couple of months ago, in Melbourne, Australia's second largest city, the morning peak hour was disturbed by a man dragging a young woman towards a taxi. Two men intervened to help the woman, shots were fired and the assailant fled. One man, a husband, father and city solicitor on his way to work, lay dead. The other man, a Dutch backpacker, and the woman, were seriously injured, but survived.

And in the following days people asked: "In the same situation, would you intervene?"

Altruism is an interesting phenomenon, and was discussed in a recent Sydney Morning Herald article. It is a key question in any discussion of ethics.

Photo:Pix

Where do ethics come from, and why should we obey them? And why should we help others if we may endanger ourselves?

There seem to be three main views:

1. Some would say human beings have no ability to choose beyond how our brains are programmed, and therefore, ethics are an illusion. Thus Professor William Provine says: "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. ..... no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; .... and human free will is nonexistent."

If this view is true, then we don't have any real choice about altruism - it is something our brains either do or don't lead us to do. We have evolved to sometimes behave in unselfish ways, if it benefits the species, and the survival of our genes. "Psychiatrist Dr Michael Dudley thinks our selfishness and also our latent altruism might simply get back to biology. He says there are arguments for altruism being beneficial for the species."

But if this view is true, we cannot really criticise another person's behaviour, no matter how extreme - they are behaving as they are programmed to do. It also makes punishment for crime unfair.

2. Others also believe that ethics, and altruism in particular, did evolve as human society evolved, but that we have a genuine choice whether we act selfishly or unselfishly. Thus social researcher Hugh Mackay writes: ".... morality is a social construction. At its core is the idea of mutual obligation .... willingness to take the rights, needs and welfare of others into account, on the assumption that they will do the same for us."

But this then raises some difficult questions. If I have a choice, why should I disadvantage myself for the sake of someone else? Why should I follow society's rules if I think I can get away with it?

And who decides what is right and what is wrong anyway? A common answer, evident in Mackay's comment above, is that society as a whole decides. But are we really willing to accept that? If the majority of Germans supported Hitler (I'm doubtful they actually did, but this is a hypothetical), would that make the Holocaust "right" for them? And presumably wrong for the rest of us? Was slavery right when the majority accepted it?

In the end, most of us believe some things are REALLY right or wrong, but this doesn't fit well with this view of ethics.

3. The third view argues that ethics have a factual basis in the universe and can be true just as the laws of physics are true, with the difference that we have a choice about obeying ethical "laws". This view raises its own set of difficulties. Who or what makes things 'right' in the universe? And if the answer is "God", then which god are we talking about?

Nevertheless, this view is the only one which explains what we generally believe about ethics, that some things really ARE right and wrong.

So altruism isn't a simple thing. It seems to go against nature. Hugh Mackay: "It's actually not natural. The natural thing is to go along with the crowd." Thus altruistic behaviour is, for some, another indication that the naturalistic explanation for ethics isn't correct.

And perhaps altruism is becoming a rarer thing. After the Melbourne shooting, police spokesman Senior Constable Wayne Wilson said: "I have no doubt we're a far more selfish society and far more individually-orientated than we ever used to be. For that reason, people are less willing to intervene in a humanitarian way in other people's lives."

Perhaps ethical behaviour and personal integrity are also becoming less common on an individual level (e.g. truthfulness, faithfulness in marriage, selfishness, greed), even as it appears that we are making progress in improving society in the areas of racism, sexism, pedophilia, abuse and war.

Would you intervene if someone needed assistance?

Read more about where ethics come from, how our brains work, and our responsibility for what our brains decide.

what sort of human being would you create?

Graphic taken from the Emergence lab website.

I read about an interesting new "show" on the weekend (I put "show" in inverted commas because that might not be the best word - "experiment" might be equally applicable).

It's called Emergence, and it's an "interactive audiovisual performance" coming to the Sydney Opera House this week. In the show, each member of the audience takes on the role of parent and decides on the characteristics of a human being they create, and then watch to see how it works out.

Before each performance. audience members log in to the Emergence lab, and decide on traits for their developing embryo. At the performance, they discuss and then vote on their being's emotions and characteristics, then watch film clips and live theatre, even interacting with their creation, and see the consequences of their choices. It sounds simple, but reports suggest that the outcomes are emotionally engrossing and thought-provoking.

The most interesting thing for me is the types of choices people have tended to make during the show's initial season in Canberra.

• The majority of people would not choose for their creation to always be happy, but would prefer them to be able to feel sadness. However most men would prefer they never could feel pain.
• Only half of people, and even less of females, would like their being to always be honest.
• People would generally prefer their being to be more critical rather than more empathetic, if they have to choose between the two - I find this very surprising.

It may be that, before too long, the choices faced in this show will be faced by real people. I wonder if we have any understanding of the implications of tinkering with the balance of what it means to be human?

Read reviews of Emergence in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Program.

we know more than we can tell

What does riding a bicycle tell us about science and knowledge? (Photo:Webshots)

We live in a world where science and technology rule. So much so that some people seem to think that the only kind of real knowledge is that revealed by science. "Show us the evidence" they say, "We only believe what can be demonstrated." It all sounds very reasonable. It is, in fact, an expression of a philosophy known as positivism: "the only way we can know something is through empirical evidence, that is, observable via our senses."

Michael Polanyi was a scientist and philosopher who lived through much of the twentieth century. He reacted against positivism, and came to the conclusion that "We know more than we can tell".

From his and others' insights have come the ideas of tacit knowledge and the relevance paradox. Tacit knowledge is the information we carry in our heads that cannot be easily explained through logical statements. How to ride a bicycle might be an example - it cannot be learnt from a textbook, but requires experience and practice.

The relevance paradox arises where a group of people miss important information because they did not recognise its relevance. A classic example (according to Wikipedia) was when NASA scientists were trying to develop a knee joint for a spacesuit, and finally found that their problem had been solved centuries before, and the solution could be seen in King Henry's suit of armour in the tower of London.

Why is all this important? I want to suggest three reasons:

1. Tacit knowledge has been found to be important in innovation and research. Despite the scientific method being all about testing the evidence, many top scientists say that their initial ideas came via inspiration, which were then verified by evidence. Sometimes we know more than we can tell.

2. We have been burned many times by the relevance paradox, for example, in ecology. In Australia, foreign plant and animal species have been introduced for some purpose thought good at the time, but almost all have turned out disastrously:

• foxes and rabbits were introduced for sport, but now wreak environmental havoc;
• European Carp and the lantana plant were let loose in the wild and now are in pest proportions;
• cane toads were introduced to control two species of beetle which are pests for cane growers, but have multiplied and spread across vast areas of northern Australia, leading to much destruction of native species
• non-native feral cats are one of the biggest threats to many smaller native animals and birds which have never before had to cope with such voracious and vicious predators.
  

European settlers in Australia didn't understand the environment they were effectively experimenting with - and fell victim to the relevance paradox.

3. I think there is a danger that twenty-first century western culture is falling foul of the relevance paradox and ignoring tacit knowledge in many ways. So much of what we know and do is changing so fast, from ethics to relationships to information and entertainment. It is like we are in the middle of an enormous social experiment and we don't know where we'll end up. Some of the gains are enormous, for example in medicine and communication, but I can't help feeling we may be throwing away some of the intangibles like ethics, courtesy, faith, altruism and common decency a little too fast. We may live to regret it. We know more than we can tell, but not as much as we think we do.

It is interesting to note that sociologists tell us that "modernism", built on the certainties of science has now almost passed, and given way to "postmodernism", which has far fewer certainties. But that's another story.

Read what Wikipedia has to say about Michael Polanyi, tacit knowledge and the relevance paradox.

only our imagination will bring us home?

Ever wondered what makes things right or wrong? Is it God, or is it what works best, or is there something within each of us that tells us? Do right and wrong change?

Aussie-born Professor Margaret Somerville is founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University in Canada, and she recently released a book which addresses some of these questions.

Somerville believes each of us has a set of innate ethical principles, many of which we share with others, built around respect for nature, the natural and life. However she believes that "liberal individualism", which is the dominant value of western culture, is no longer adequate for our brave new world, especially the advances in medical and reproductive technology. She is concerned that in the rush to give adults everything they want (abortion, in vitro fertilisation, genetic engineering, perhaps even "designer children"), we have virtually ignored the rights of children to know, and live in a family with their biological parents.

Photo from Webshots

She argues we need new approaches to ethics, especially reproductive and family ethics, and that ethics be built around recognising the natural as "sacred". She uses the old Aussie phrase "going on the wallaby" (referring to itinerant farm workers living rough in the bush and following wallaby tracks) and says we need to go on a search for new ethics: "We're in a great hot desert and we're looking for something along these trails."

She suggests three basic birth rights: "children's right to know the identity of their biological parents; children's right to both a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents; and children's right to come into being with genetic origins that have not been tampered with." Thus she believes we should disallow medical technology that puts "our common humanity at risk".

She is wary of a reductionist scientific view of humanity, and encourages us to keep our imaginations open to the "awe and wonder" of things science cannot explain. She believes "science will give us many answers, but only our imagination will bring us home."

I agree that science alone cannot tell us what is right and wrong, but perhaps we need more than imagination. What do you think? Where do you get your ethics from?

Check out reviews of Somerville's "The Ethical Imagination: journeys of the human spirit" in the Sydney Morning Herald, christianity.ca, The Other Librarian, or read about the original lectures which led to the book in the McGill Reporter.

is there anybody in there?

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundraboy/303703384/

How much are we responsible for what goes on in our brains?

In an article in The Sydney Morning Herald entitled "Grey Matter" (April 6-8 2007), Jeffrey Rosen discusses how current neuroscience is impacting on our understanding of human behaviour. In particular, neuroscience is being used in criminal trials as defense teams use brain scans to argue that if the defendent's brain can be shown to not be functioning in a normal way, they cannot be held responsible for their actions.

This makes you wonder whether we control our brains or they control us, whether our minds are our brains or something more. Joshua Greene, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard University: "To a neuroscientist, you are your brain; nothing causes your behaviour other than its operation. If that's right, it radically changes the way we think about the law." Greene says we should "abandon the idea of retribution, the idea that people should be punished because they have freely chosen to act immorally."

However, as Rosen points out, "since all behaviour is caused by our brains, wouldn't this mean all behaviour could potentially be excused?" Stephen Morse, professor of law and psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania insists "brains don't commit crimes; people commit crimes". He argues, for example, that the differences in murder rates between youths in Scandinavia and the US indicates that it is more than just immature adolescent brains that determines behaviour.

The article raises some deep questions about how our minds and selves relate to our brains, questions which inner and outer space will return to again.