Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Freud once pointed out that the history of ideas in the last few
centuries has been punctuated by "revolutions," major upheavals of
thought that have forever altered our view of ourselves and our place
in the cosmos.
First, there was the Copernican system dethroning the earth as the
center of the cosmos. Second was the Darwinian revolution; the idea
that far from being the climax of "intelligent design" we are merely
neotonous apes that happen to be slightly cleverer than our cousins.
Third, the Freudian view that even though you claim to be "in charge"
of your life, your behavior is in fact governed by a cauldron of drives
and motives of which you are largely unconscious. And fourth, the
discovery of DNA and the genetic code with its implication (to quote
James Watson) that "There are only molecules. Everything else is
sociology".
To this list we can now add the fifth, the "neuroscience revolution"
and its corollary pointed out by Crick — the "astonishing hypothesis"
— that even our loftiest thoughts and aspirations are mere
byproducts of neural activity. We are nothing but a pack of neurons.
Further assume that the scientist can make your brain "think" and
experience being a combination of Einstein, Mark Spitz, Bill Gates,
Hugh Heffner, and Gandhi, while at the same time preserving your
own deeply personal memories and identity (there's nothing in
contemporary brain science that forbids such a scenario). The mad
neuroscientist then gives you a choice. You can either be this
incredible, deliriously happy being floating forever in the vat or be
your real self, more or less like you are now (for the sake of argument
we will further assume that you are basically a happy and contended
person, not a starving pheasant). Which of the two would you pick?
My point is only that such innovations would be lost from the meme
pool were it not for mirror neuron-based abilities such as imitation and
language). Even that most quintessentially human trait, our
propensity for metaphor, may be partly based on the kinds of cross
domain abstraction that mirror neurons mediate; the left hemisphere
for action metaphors ("get a grip") and the right for embodied and
spatial metaphor. This would explain why any monkey could reach for
a peanut but only a human, with an adequately developed mirror
neuron system, can reach for the stars. This "co-opting" of the mirror
neuron system for other more sophisticated functions may have been
but a short step in hominid brain evolution but it was a giant leap for
mankind. I suggest this crucial step emerged 100 to 200 thousand
years ago in the inferior parietal lobule.
Mirror neurons also deal a deathblow to the "nature vs. nurture "
debate (I like Matt Ridley's suggested replacement "Nature via
Nurture") for it shows how human nature depends crucially on
learnability that is partly facilitated by these very circuits. They are
also an effective antidote to sociobiology and pop evolutionary
psychology; the assertion that the human brain is a bundle of instincts
selected and fine-tuned by natural selection when our ape-like
ancestors roamed the savannahs. Even if you admit some truth to
this view I have never understood why the savannah is such a big
deal. Why stop there? We spent a much longer time as fish in the
Devonian seas 500 million years ago. One could argue that the
reason we enjoy going to aquaria is that our piscine ancestors spent
millions of year's time looking at and enjoying other fishes. If you
think this idea is silly, you should see some of the others that have
made it into print and clutter the literature. Yes, genes profoundly
influence behavior. No ape, even if educated at Eton or Harrow, will
ever speak with a proper public school accent. But, the notion that
human talents and follies are governed mainly by instincts hard-wired
by genes is ludicrous.
Who could program the "culture" into the brains in the vats without
first having themselves discovered culture? One could also make a
strong case for the idea that you cannot program innovation given its
highly contingent nature and dependence on rare combinations of
fortuitous circumstances. It is conceivable, though, that one could
achieve a reasonable approximation of culture. Even if we could
generate "fake" culture and create a reasonable simulacrum in the
vat, the question arises: Would we ever want to? I confess I have a
sentimental attachment to my "real " brain even though I can't defend
my choice rationally. It may just be pure narcissism. But, under some
circumstances to which people are subjected, whether a starving
peasant in Bangladesh or a torture victim in a secret jail, I might
easily be swayed to choose the brain in the vat!
I will conclude with a metaphysical question that cannot be answered
by science. I cannot decide whether the question is utterly trivial or
profound. I call it the "vantage point" problem foreshadowed by the
Upanishads, ancient Indian philosophical texts composed in the
second millennium BC, and by Erwin Schrödinger. I am referring to
the fundamental asymmetry in the universe between the "subjective"
private worldview vs. the objective world of physics.
But what has this got to do with brains in vats? Everything. It's a fair
assumption that the identity of your conscious experience (including
your "I") depends on the information content of your brain, "software"
representing millions of years of accumulated evolutionary wisdom,
your cultural milieu, and your personal memories; not on the
particular atoms that currently constitute your brain. You can't actually
prove this logically, no more than you can prove that you are not
dreaming right now, but it seems "beyond reasonable doubt" given
everything else we know. After all your actual brain atoms and
molecules get replaced every few months yet you wouldn't want to
insist you are existentially reborn each time and stop planning for
what (in such a view) would essentially be an identical twin in the
future.
Bill Hirstein and I recently showed that the isolated left hemisphere
would tell you it is conscious, if asked directly. More surprisingly, we
showed that the right hemisphere in such a patient does indeed have
introspective consciousness, for we found it was quite capable of
deliberate lying when tested through non-verbal signing (and you
cannot lie without being conscious of yourself and others).
Will you choose the vat or the real you? This exercise might not
provide an obvious answer, but fortunately none in this generation or
the next will have to confront this choice. For those in the future who
are forced to answer, I hope they make the "right" choice, whatever
"right" means.
___