It is his capacity for self-improvement and self-redemption which most distinguishes man from the mere brute.
- Aung San Suu Kyi
Neuroscience fascinates me. The brain is so mysterious and marvelous. One of the age-old questions posed by students of the mind is whether our consciousness and body are distinct entities or whether they are actually the same thing. Monism is probably the most popular school of thought today and holds that our consciousness is a phenomena arising solely from physical processes of our brain.[i] Through science, we now know that our very consciousness, our personality, memories, hopes, and fears are inextricably linked to the few pounds of biological tissue in our craniums. When our brain changes, so do we. However, too many smart people misinterpret this fact to mean that we are simply a product of our environments. That free will does not exist. And that there is nothing more to the world than the sub-atomic particles that make up the universe, as science understands it. The worst part about this misinterpretation is that people use it as an easy excuse. They say, “I just am who I am”; "I am simply a product of physics”; “I can’t help doing wrong”; “I can’t change”; “I can’t improve.” But, they are wrong. In this post, I intend to argue that, although it is tremendously difficult, we can improve who we are and that we are ethically obligated to make the effort.
Concluding that humans are automatons from our
limited scientific observation is to prematurely jump to conclusions. It under-appreciates the experience of consciousness and our inherent capacity for self-improvement. The first
question then is how can we square the scientific understanding that our
physical brains control our mind with how we experience ourselves as rational,
free, social, political, conscious, and ethical beings. I will not be able to
address this in full (I don't know the answer); but my purpose in writing this post is to debunk people’s
efforts to excuse poor performance, lack of improvement, and misdeeds by saying
that they are merely a product of the physics or biology. People too often underestimate our ability to change for the better; they give up on themselves too quickly.
FREEDOM AND NEUROSCIENCE
I propose a sort of limited dualism wherein there
are two realms of existence: physical and spiritual. On one level, they are all
one kind of matter and I am making a false dichotomy; but, in another sense,
they are separate. On Earth, we observe primarily the physical matter. Science
does not yet comprehend the spiritual and how or how much it interacts with the
physical. The belief that there are other kinds of matter we do not yet comprehend
is not unprecedented. For the past few hundred years, science has discovered
different kinds of matter and different subdivisions of matter. We learned that
everything is made of atoms, then that atoms were made of subatomic particles.
Then we learned that subatomic particles are composed of quarks, leptons and
force carriers (but, what are quarks made of?). We have also discovered a
matter that does not share space with us: anti-matter. From observational evidence of gravity, we
know that there is matter that we do not understand that accounts for much of
the mass of the universe. In sum, we have not figured out the system of
physics, matter, space, and time. I expect that there exists some other
dimension of the system of physics that I will deem the spiritual.
In my experience, the most common objection to this
view is that given the fact that physical neurobiology accounts for much of consciousness,
Occam’s razor dictates monism. In essence, my opponents argue that I err in
postulating another kind of matter when the physical world can be explained
with reference only to the physical. But, I don’t think that the world can be
explained merely through reference to the physical world. In short, I believe my
opponents too easily discount epistemological experiences that have lead to my
religious faith. Faith is inherently subjective. Unfortunately, I cannot share
it; my consciousness is my own. I can only try to explain how I have come to
faith through experience and study. I find, however, that many of my opponents
actively avoid subjective evidence and value only objective evidence. They too
quickly conclude that if something happens in their head, in their own
subjective experience, it cannot be evidence.[ii] It cannot be descriptive of
reality. Subjective evidence or religious experience, for them, must be a false neuronal firing, cognitive bias, or a evolutionary
glitch giving the illusion of purpose. I think these arguments have some merit; but not as much weight as my opponents give them. Despite the tendencies
of the natural man, I feel that humility, self-awareness, and self-honesty can be
more effective at diagnosing and evaluating our own knowledge than some people
give credit. Sometimes, religious faith cannot be boiled down to a biologically-wired bias. Faith can be objectively rational and
subjectively confirmed through so-called "supernatural" influences and self-realization.
Although we do not yet understand the neuronal
basis for subjective consciousness, I expect it will be thoroughly tied to our
physical brain. However, I don’t think we understand the implications of the
matter making up our physical bodies and universe. Our consciousness and being
somehow continue after death in a spiritual existence. The corruption of or
physical bodies does not corrupt our spiritual bodies. Our experience in the physical world is recorded on physical and spiritual
software, but it does not change the spiritual hardware. When we die, the recording stops (at least on the physical side). I think that,
either occasionally or constantly in ways we do not yet understand, our being and
experience in the spirit realm can affect our being and experience in the
physical world. We may coin such influence supernatural because we do not yet understand it; but it is ultimately natural. I am not sure the extent to which this occurs and I don’t
necessarily disagree that the system of physics is closed, but that my
opponents too quickly draw the borders of the system too small. Like ancient
cartographers who drew the edge of the world without including America, they
draw the edge of the physics and neuroscience without including the spirit
existence.
In essence, my reconciliation of the mind-body problem
can be analogized to a sort of double-sided carbon paper (to a degree). Before
photocopiers and computers, carbon paper was used to make copies of
hand-written documents. On one side of the carbon paper was loosely bound dry
ink or pigment. To make a copy, one would slip the leaf of carbon paper between
two sheets of standard paper and, as he or she wrote on one, the pressure of
the writing utensil on one side of the carbon paper would deposit the ink on
the opposite sheet reproducing the original document. Similarly, my proposition here involves two kinds of matter. As we experience life on Earth it is simultaneously experienced in
spirit although we only readily observe the former. And, I also believe that happenings in the spirit realm can affect the physical too.
Free will means different things to different
people. I do not claim to know whether all of our volitions have predictable
causes that are fixed in the past and outside ourselves (determinism) or whether some
phenomenon within our beings gives flight to volition or can give flight to volition. Ultimately, I believe
our minds are not magical, but comprehensible at least to God. Free will, for me, means choosing according to our fundamental preferences that are not compelled by ignorance, addiction, or other compulsion. True and full free will is only capable through knowledge and self-mastery.[iii] Human agency means more than a reaction to physical causes
beginning at our birth. To say, as many
philosophers do, that “we feel we are choosing, but we are not” without further
elaboration is to misleadingly undervalue choice. At the very least, one must concede that our subjective consciousness cannot be reduced to objective neuronal firings. Whatever is happening, the experience of consciousness is special. It brings about a feeling and self-aware "I." Consciousness is inherently subjective and cannot be explained in 3rd person objective descriptions of neurological mechanics. We are not well served by
smug self-satisfaction that comes from a disavowal of responsibility for our
actions. Even if choices are ultimately predetermined by the mechanics of the universe, the cause of our conduct is still within our being and responsibility will thus attach to us.
NEUROSCIENCE OF SELF-IMPROVEMENT
Almost everything we do not only registers in our
conscience, but physically changes our brain. This is what makes breaking bad habits so difficult. This is what makes building character and talents so demanding. Deciding to be better is not enough.
It takes repetition and a network of supporting decisions to alter our neurobiology and truly change who we are. The
more we make right choices, the better we become ethically and biologically. The more we cave to base temptations, the less good we become morally
and physically. The brain is not static. It is more like a muscle. The more and
the way we use different parts of our brain determines the physical structure
of our brain. As we use our brain often and properly, it becomes more adept. If
we do not use our brain or we use it the wrong way, it becomes less adept at doing good.
Some Examples:
(1) Drug addictions, pornography dependencies,
overeating, and gambling dependencies have been shown to decrease the size of
parts of the prefrontal cortex that correlate with self-mastery. The more we
cave to yearnings for chemical pleasures from risk, lust, drugs, etc. the less
our brains are equipped to deny short term pleasure for postponed, longer term,
and greater pleasure.
(2) Taxi drivers have larger hippocampuses that play
a role in navigation and memory.
(3) Violinists have a pronounced knob in their
motor cortex for their left hand. Piano players have also been demonstrated to have
an enlarged part of the brain dealing with finger coordination.
(4) The architecture of Albert Einstein’s brain had
a unique parietal cortex that likely contributed to his ability to
conceptualize and synthesize complex information.
The fact that our being is tied to our physical
brain means that there is often an illusion of inability to change. But, change
is, in fact, possible. The illusion of impossibility arises because even after
we make the choice to change, temptations, tendencies, and lack of aptitude
remain and only change after repetitive use of the brain in the right way. People too quickly discount preferences, tendencies, and personality traits as immutable after making a facial effort to change. Real change requires more than a single choice to change. It will frequently require a whole network of choices. The
slow improvement of our physical brain, choice by choice, may involve more than
any single and isolated choice. In other words, overcoming a bad habit may not
be best accomplished by trying to force one’s self to affront and deny the
temptation at issue. Similarly, will power alone might not be enough, in the
beginning, to establish a new good habit. We have to make choices to alter our
environments in such a way as to support our decision. Improvement and change
has to come step by step. For example, it is probably not smart for a person
addicted to tobacco to hang out with others who smoke, to see and smell
tobacco. Rather, if the person is serious about quitting cigarettes, she is
better served by making choices to alter her environment for a while to minimize
the temptation. Eventually, her brain structure will change and the biological
urge to smoke will diminish. Eventually, she may be able to see cigarettes and
smell smoke and have the will power to say “no.” Another example of this
principle comes from my experience in Paris. When I first began living in France, I was
somewhat self-conscious about my ability to speak the language. A friend advised simply,
“fake it until you make it.” I didn’t understand what he meant at first.
However, by pretending I understood what I was hearing, by participating in
conversations, I gave people the impression and permission to speak to me in
French freely. And, people did speak to me more in French. Before I affected confidence, people would
sense my nervousness or inabilities and would switch to speaking to me in
English. Thus, making the decision to speak French, alone, wasn’t enough. I had to
make a series of decisions, one of which was to pretend I spoke French better
than I did.
Whether the moving factor of free
will lies within or without us we ultimately experience agency in a very real
and subjective way. On some fundamental level, we can choose to improve. We have the tools inherently in us to improve. We can
make choices that will alter the physical makeup of our brains to bring about
improvement in our lives on a scale too often underestimated. I am not asking for perfection. Just a resolution and commitment to build character and be better. To not live beneath the divinity within us. As we improve ourselves, society improves,
and it becomes easier for others to improve their lives. Indeed, it is my
conviction that we are not only able to fundamentally improve ourselves, we are
ethically obligated. Improvement, I believe, is part of Deity's purpose for us and He has provided a way. I'll end it here with this thought, that we are capable of more change than we give ourselves credit for. Now, let's do some improving.
[i] The kind of monism I
describe here is sometimes referred to as “materialism.” However, another sort
of monism is known as idealism. Idealism holds that only the mind is real and
is most closely associated with the philosophy of George Berkeley. Indeed,
there is a third-view, the least popular, which holds that really all being can
be reduced to one substance that is neither thought nor physical substance but
something else, e.g an energy.
[ii] This reminds me of a
conversation between Dumbledore and Harry Potter, which can be understood on at least a few levels, in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter
and the Deathly Hallows: “Tell me one last thing, said Harry. Is this real? Or
has this been happening inside my head? Of course it is happening inside your
head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”
[iii] How would you choose if you had all the relevant information and mastery over cognitive biases? Such is a free choice according to my definition.
[iii] How would you choose if you had all the relevant information and mastery over cognitive biases? Such is a free choice according to my definition.
