Friday, April 27, 2012

THE BRAIN, THE MIND, AND THE NEUROSCIENCE: IS THE HUMAN BEING REDUCIBLE TO HIS BRAIN?





El Nido, Palawan, Philippines
With the undeniable advancement on the study of the brain, there is this general sentiment in science that we can finally unlock the mystery of the human being. The ultramodern machines like brain imaging methods and other sophisticated experiments provide a great help to researchers in investigating the structure and function of the living brain, especially that of the human being. Some neuroscientists and psychologists like John Rawls believe that a substantial body of empirical evidence could challenge the established views and morality. But the questions would be: Can machines really read our mind? Could machines really reveal our plans, memories, and even our innermost thoughts? Could these machines measure the hidden knowledge or conscience in a human being? How accurate are they?

Julian Savulescu et al. of The Oxford Centre for Neuroethics of the University of Oxford enumerate some of the recent significant findings in the field of neuroscience[1]: Employing neuroimaging and psychological experiments, Haidt (2001), Hauser (2006) and others have documented unconscious influences on moral judgment with little input from consciousness. In one influential study, Greene et al. (2001) used fMRI to study the neural correlates of responses to moral dilemmas, showing that subjects who responded in a non-utilitarian manner exhibited strong activation in brain areas associated with emotion. These claims have been supported by studies of patients with frontal damage (Koeings et al. 2007; but see Kahane & Shackel 2008). Others studies show that the reasons people adduce to justify moral judgments are often merely post-hoc rationalizations (Haidt 2007). Finally, surveys of the intuitions of lay persons have shown moral judgments vary across cultures and classes (Haidt 2001). Such research has been claimed to support far-reaching conclusions such as the denial of the viability of virtue ethics (Harman, 1999; Doris 2002) and of common views about killing (Greene 2003), risk, punishment, and reproduction (Sunstein 2005). 

Boracay , Aklan, Philippines
In all these mentioned researches and claims, the main argument is that all human aspects including the source of man’s morality, rationality, and religiosity could be explained through the scientific investigation of the human brain.  They equate rationality to utilitarian thinking: the human being uses his mind not to detect what is right or wrong, but rather what is useful and pleasurable that he must do and what is useless and harmful that he must avoid. Thus according to the same article, Utilitarians such as Peter Singer claim that opposition to utilitarianism is due to irrational emotions. Morality (not utilitarian but based on virtues) and religiosity are consequently relegated to the realm of the irrational emotions. Conscience then is not a rational judgment but simply an emotional activity. 

 The article, however, admits that “there are some serious philosophical questions about the methodology and interpretation of this empirical research, its bearing on normative claims, and its implications for ethical practice.” How far can the machines and investigations reach to reveal the most profound aspects of the human existence? Could rationality and morality be investigated empirically through the study of the brain? Is the human being reducible to his brain? Some neuroscientists try to reduce the human being to his brain the way they reduce the animals they experimented with to their brains. The human mind, however, is not and could not be reduced to the brain, although the former presupposes the latter. Both the human beings and the lower animals have brains, but unlike the lower animals, man is a rational being. The human being has a rational mind. Those animals may have brains, but we can never attribute a mind to them.  They do not have the conscience, sense of duty, morality, faith, knowledge, etc. that the human beings have or are capable of. Moreover, if these mentioned aspects are essentially connected to the irrational emotions as some neuroscientists have argued, how come those lower animals are not able to develop or to have them. If ethics or religion is a product of emotion, how come those animals are neither ethical nor religious?

Isla Naburot, Guimaras, Philippines
Jonathan Haidt believes that the human being’s moral judgments are mostly intuitive and that human intuitions are powerfully shaped by the institutions around them like family, religion, state, etc. If morality is just an intuition and intuitions are simply influenced by institutions, therefore, the institutions that the human beings have founded and that influence his moral judgments are but products of his irrational emotions.  If utilitarian morality is the true morality that some neuroscientists insist on, how come that the animals do not have morality to speak of since they are more utilitarian than the human beings? In some recent investigations, some scientists claim that they have found or located the part of the brain where lies the decision-making in animals. The question is: are animals capable of decision- making? We know that decision-making involves a rational mind, and we know that rats, dogs, and the rest of the animals do not have this. 

What I am confused with is they try to equate or even lower the human beings to the level of the animals while at the same time try to endow a rational nature to those animals. Without doubt, those powerful techniques and the neuroscience in general are indeed a great benefit to the humanity for it helps to detect abnormalities in the brain and can assist in the diagnosis of neurological and mental disorders.

 I believe, however, that we cannot totally deduce a human being to his brain. This organ is undeniably important part of man, for it is the seat of our cognitive faculties. Man, however, is more than his brain. A human being in coma or who has dementia or other mental disorders never ceases to be a person. Any mental illness does not and could not debase our human dignity. Our brain does not and could not exhaust our human nature/ essence.

The Human Brain


[1] J. Savulescu et al., “Neuroscience of Morality”, The Oxford Centre for Neuroethics @ www.neuroethics.ox.ac.uk.

No comments:

Post a Comment