Opinion DAILY NEBRASKAN
dailynebraskan.com
page 4
friday, november 11, 2011
point/counterpoint
dissecting the
BRAIN Materialism approach flies in the face of common sense; immaterial soul is bizzare, but a possibility
I
s your grief about the Northwestern loss only a matter of the brain and complex molecules? Is there an immaterial soul, or is every experience wholly reducible to physical parts? The theory that says we are only the sum of physical parts, called “materialism,” isn’t without consequences. If materialism is true, our lives are defined by our relatively brief tenure on Earth. There is no afterlife, no communion with dead relatives and no reincarnation or other traditionally held beliefs. Free will wouldn’t exist, if materialism were true. And that’s because no physical particle marches to any general beside randomness and the preordained laws of physics and chemistry. That is fine. Certainly the science from which materialism follows confers great benefits on society. But if our experience is entirely reduced to the physical, we should be able to live with wild consequences, such as the potential for millions of pain-receptive Ramen noodles. And perhaps, such a belief is just as strange as believing, as I do, in immaterial souls. Suppose the experience of humans and other carbon-based life is merely a nervous system. If that’s right, we must endorse the elitist premise that no entity is capable of conscious experience without the peculiarities of life on Earth. But that can’t be right. Couldn’t carbon-free aliens have conscious experience? Couldn’t machines have conscious experience? It’s implausible that only life like that which exists on this tiny corner of the Universe could experience pain, love or awareness. Professional philosophers call this problem “multiple realization.” And because of multiple realization, those who believe we’re physical parts flock in droves to a theory called “functionalism.” Functionalism says it’s not only neurons that could produce an experience like ours. Functionalism says nanochips and alien slime could produce such an experience, as long as those physical parts play the same functional role as neurons. Such a thesis, though, is shockingly offensive to common sense. If functionalism is right, it means very weird assemblies of physical parts could experience life as long as those parts play the right functional role. For instance, according to functionalist theory, millions of Ramen noodles, connected in the right way to garden gnomes and boxer shorts, could feel pain or fall in love. And shockingly this would be true, according to functionalism, as long as those items play
david logan the same functional role as neurons. Also, as philosopher Eric Schwitzgebel writes, functionalism implies that conscious experience is ascribable to groups as a whole. For instance, consider the University of NebraskaLincoln: a monolithic organization that sometimes acts unilaterally in response to certain stimuli (votes, budget changes, etc.) Is the university itself a conscious being? According to functionalism, it might be. If we are just the collection of functional subparts, then UNL, itself a collection of the same subparts, ought to logically exist separate from its constituents. And I’m not joking or arguing a red herring. I’m merely pointing out that which follows trivially from functionalism (unless we let fly with trivial logic). To be clear, it’s often argued that we are just a collection of mentally functional subparts. And so, there is little reason to think UNL, itself a collection of these subparts, isn’t conscious when it acts unilaterally. And there’s also little reason to think strange collections of physical items, like garter belts and greeting cards, couldn’t feel pain as long as they play the same role as neurons. Remember, we can’t say that only neurons and nanochips are able to have conscious experience. That was the problem that brought us to functionalism in the first place. And we can’t posit some mysterious, yet-to-be-discovered property on neurons either. An unverifiable, mysterious property is exactly the reason we thought we were only physical parts in the first place. Finally, the materialist faces all the problems that come with defining our daily persistence in physical terms. Why, intuitively, do we think people still exist after losing their arms, legs or some of the
neurons in their cerebral cortex? Which are the “necessary” parts? And why, if the vast majority of our matter is replaced each year, as research into radioactive tracers shows, do we think we’re physically continuous with the person here yesterday? These are hard questions without any obvious materialist answer. If we reject any day-today physical relation in our body AND reject immaterial souls, I’m afraid we are — like the Buddha — left to thinking we don’t ex-
ist at all. And that’s fine. But it’s also an extremely radical theory that isn’t based upon physical parts (Buddha believed in some variety of reincarnation). There are plenty of reasons to deny the existence of an immaterial soul, as my fellow columnist Kevin Moser mentions. I agree it’s extremely bizarre to believe, as I do, that every time I think, my immaterial soul violates the laws of physics. But it’s just as strange to believe billions of greeting cards and lawn gnomes, hooked together in the right way, could feel pain or cry at the movies. And it’s just as bizarre to believe UNL is a conscious entity, apart from its constituency. In truth, all views about the mind are quite bizarre, and that’s why the mindbody problem is still a live issue in 2011.
David Logan is an undeclared graduate student. Reach him at DavidLogan@ DailyNebraskan.com
Science, logic point toward a sense of self caused by biology, not a metaphysical phenomenon
O
ne of the most unsettling existential concepts humans face is the fact that we are animals — a result of millions of years of evolution. However, there is something that sets us apart from other animals — our sense of self. We hold ideas about who we are, where we want to be. We make moral or amoral decisions by ourselves. We can even understand the fact that we will all die someday. The self is truly an important aspect of humanity. But
kevin moser
railroad worker. Phineas Gage was a competent foreman on a railroad construction crew. People who knew Gage believed he was a capable and smart individual. They viewed him as a hard and efficient worker. It was a regular day for Gage on Sept. 13, 1848. Little did he know, he was about to make a mind-blowing psychological discovery. While preparing a railroad, an explosion sent a 13-pound tamping iron through his skull. The rod passed under his cheek bone and through the front part of his brain. Remarkably, Gage was alive after the event. Months after the metal rod blasted through his head, Gage returned to work. However, he didn’t seem like the same person. The clear-headed, professional had become incredibly profane and disrespectful. Those closest to him said Gage was “no longer Gage.” This single bea huff | daily nebraskan event is the best evidence that the self and where does the self origithe mind are biological phenate? Is it beyond the physinomena, not metaphysical. cal realm — something alGage went from one end most spirit like — or is it just a mass of neurons, chemicals of the behavioral spectrum to another. Those arguing and electric signals? Philosophers and scientists have for a metaphysical self will be hard-pressed to describe pondered this question for how he changed so much a long time. For the longest after losing part of his brain. time, we believed a metaPerhaps the soul is slightly physical force drove who we magnetic and some of it are and what we do. attached to the rod as it However, science tells us passed through his head. a different story. The self is Maybe it’s pressurized, and incredibly difficult to undersome escaped when a hole stand and even harder to was punctured. Or maybe study. Still, we have strong the self is simply the result evidence that the self is not of biology. metaphysical, but rather has The next problem with its roots in biology. a metaphysical self comes For many people, “soul” from the fact that we are is used synonymously with susceptible to behavior “self.” changes after taking certain In fact, Merriam-Webster drugs. Just look at antidedefines soul as “a person’s pressants, one of the most total self” or “the moral and prescribed drugs in America. emotional nature of human According to WebMD, 19 beings.” Many people bemillion American adults suflieve the soul is what drives fer from major depression. their daily activities. These individuals go However, this concept falls flat on its face when we look through life feeling worthless and helpless. They have inat all the evidence against creased fatigue and difficulty it. Our first clue that the self making decisions, giving is rooted in the brain came rise to feelings of pessimism. from an unlikely person – a
However, there is hope for depression. Research shows these people suffer from imbalances in critical chemicals. By administering antidepressants, these imbalances can level out, making the individual feel happier. This highlights another problem with arguing a metaphysical self. If the self is beyond the physical realm, we would not be able to alter it chemically – something that is easily done. Ever had too much to drink and turn into a completely different person? Maybe you become quieter or maybe you become a jerk. These behavior changes show up because alcohol affects brain chemistry. If the mind is beyond the physical realm, this wouldn’t be possible. You could remain clear-minded no matter what level of intoxication. The next problem with a metaphysical self is personality disorders. An antisocial personality is a disorder where the affected individual is deceitful and manipulates or exploits the rights of others. Because of its link to criminality, antisocial personality disorder has been heavily researched through the years. These individuals are pretty nasty overall. Interact with them, and you might argue they have no soul. However, these symptoms are because of biological and social differences. For people affected by antisocial personality disorder, the region of the brain that handles aggression and recognizing fear in others tends to be smaller. Genetics and twin studies have also showed that heredity plays an important role in this behavior. One easy way to find the influence of genetics is through adoption studies. Using these studies, we can look at how genetically similar individuals differ when raised in different environments. By looking at this data, we can see there is a genetic influence to antisocial personality disorder. If the self was beyond the physical world, we would likely not see patterns of heredity. Individuals would be no more likely to behave like their parents and everyone would have a clean slate. This, unfortunately, is not the case. The simple fact of the matter is that the self is easily modified. If the self were beyond the physical world, it would remain unchanged through time. From brain damage to drugs, behavior can suddenly change in anyone. The self clearly has its roots in biology. We may not be able to fully understand the concept of self, but it doesn’t mean we have to come up with our own reasons. There is no evidence that what drives us is metaphysical; it’s just a mass of neurons, chemicals and electric signals. Talk about mind blowing.
Kevin Moser is a senior psychology major. Follow him on twitter @ Kevin_R_Moser and reach him at kevinmoser@ dailynebraskan.com