erraticwisdom

Just Animated Stardust

2009-05-18T16:21:01Z

“Through science, we human beings are able to grasp at least some of nature’s secrets. We have cracked part of the cosmic code. Why this should be, just why Homo sapiens should carry the spark of rationality that provides the key to the universe, is a deep enigma. We, who are children of the universe – animated stardust – can nevertheless reflect on the nature of that same universe, even to the extent of glimpsing the rules on which it runs. How we have become linked into this cosmic dimension is a mystery. Yet the linkage cannot be denied.

“What does it mean? What is Man that we might be party to such privilege? I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here.”

- Paul Davies

My last post on the evolution of consciousness discussed only briefly the development of the more complex aspects of our minds: the abilities that make us distinctly human and define the phenomenal aspects of our mental experience. The former is related to the idea of “cultural evolution”, while the latter will require an account of qualia.

Kyle has a bit of an existential breakdown in “The Tooth Fairy Tats”. He reads some interesting books along the way too. Full Episode.

The evolution of the advanced features of the brain seems difficult to explain. Is there a distinct selective advantage to being able to do calculus, and what is it that propelled us to such heights of cognition and reason (and so quickly)? Evolution is a very slow process, the insane complexity of all forms of life means that a chance mutation is far more likely to have no effect or break something than give any selectively advantageous abilities. As animals developed more advanced brains, they actually created a new scale of evolution (one that circumvented “traditional” evolution). Rather than evolving stronger muscles to hunt bigger prey, these thinking animals made tools that evaded the need for physical evolution in what became “cultural” evolution. Particularly advantageous is the fact that learned abilities can be expressed and selected for within a generation and passed on through teaching, significantly speeding up the evolutionary process (even allowing the species to take control of its own evolution).

The anatomical advancements needed to give the foundation for cultural evolution were not dramatic. The modularity of multicellular organisms means that a tiny surge of growth hormone or enzyme expression during fetal development could have drastic effects. The incredible abilities of prodigious savants are a good example (read more here), where slight modifications in specific areas allows for astonishing feats of calculation, memory, and art.

So, the rapid development of advanced and uniquely human mental abilities seems to arise from a physiological spark that launched a rapid cognitive evolution. This (r)evolution doesn’t get us to consciousness and qualia though. For that, I’ll expand on the case I made that the centralization of nervous matter created a more efficient mechanism for motor control through a complex self-image.

Just as motor reflexes and control were centralized, so were sensory input and interpretation. Early systems followed a very basic path, where a sensory stimulus (a ray of light, for example) triggered a response by activating a receptor. As organisms’ receptors developed into full-fledged sensory organs, their responses were mediated by interneurons and (after centralization/cephalization) integrating centers. Furthermore, the clear causal connection in the primitive system suggests that there’s no reason to believe there’s a physically inexplicable aspect in its more complex parent.

The consolidation of input and output into a central nervous system created environmental- and self-awareness (along with a repertoire of involuntary and voluntary responses). The two are tightly linked, environmental awareness through touch and proprioception help complete the self image, while self-awareness contributes to the vital interpretation of sensory input in relation to the self. The experience of this awareness is the “theater of the mind”, where we are constantly acquainted with both our surrounding environment and our awareness itself.

The dependence of consciousness and qualia on environment- and self-awareness (system-awareness) is visible in revealing neurological disorders. Disturbances of either component have a discernable impact on the level of consciousness. For example, a case presented in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat describes a patient who has suffered damage to a particular region of his visual cortex. As a result, the patient’s environmental-awareness (the combination of sensory input and representation) was significantly altered so that he actually did as the title says, grabbing his wife’s head and attempting to use it as a hat. In this case, the patient wasn’t actually seeing a hat where his wife stood, but the centers of the brain involved in painting a proper conceptual picture of his visual field wasn’t connecting things properly.

Similarly, one’s consciousness can be swayed by disturbances to the other component, self-awareness. The same book also describes a variety of “phantom limb” cases and the odd effects the loss of a limb can have on our consciousness. Several patients who’d suffered limb paralysis were also found to be in a strong state of denial, often refusing to acknowledge that their limb was actually paralyzed. The patients would try several activities requiring the use of both hands (carrying a tray, clapping), but would not see that they were unable to perform them. In fact, they actually perceived normal movement in their paralyzed limbs and in some cases the desired (but unrealized) result, like a clapping sound. When questioned directly about the extent of their paralysis, the patients’ minds were so averse to the possibility of paralysis that they would respond with nonsensical statements like “it’s not my arm”.

An organism’s awareness of itself and its environment is critical for its survival, and progressed from a basic reflex to the complex interpretation and subjective experience we enjoy as conscious humans. Whether or not Davies is justified in making his teleological leap in the quote above, there is no denying that we have a powerful gift in being able to explore our universe as agents within it. The experience of consciousness, of intensely vivid sensations, deeply personal and yet common amongst all of us, is unlike anything else in the universe.

Prodigious Savants and their Abilities

2009-05-18T16:20:50Z

Savant syndrome, a condition occurring most often in autistic patients, is a rare disorder where mentally retarded individuals have incredible abilities in isolated fields like memory, mathematics, and music. Even more uncommon are the subset of “prodigious” savants, those whose talents would be considered genius even without any impairment.

Prodigious savants are great examples (I hope my presentation here is as tactful as possible) of the incredible abilities of the mind. Even more remarkable is the increasingly favored view that savantism arises from a disturbance in the balance of influence between the brain’s hemispheres. The enhanced abilities in music and calculation are typically dominated by the right hemisphere, while the impaired social and language capacities are tied to the left hemisphere. Improper development is thought to be the cause in autistic patients, but even physical damage to regions of the left hemisphere (specifically frontotemporal) can give rise to talents that did not exist before.

These abilities could actually lie dormant in each of us, suppressed by the left-brain to prevent a potentially overwhelming clamor of unchecked sensory input and internal processing. Below are some cases of prodigious savants:

Leslie Lemke

Leslie has a remarkable memory and was able to recite an entire day’s conversation, even including the intonation. At 14, Leslie heard Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1 just once and played it in its entirety from memory.

Kim Peek

The inspiration for the movie Rain Man, “Kimputer” was born without a corpus collosum (the thick band of axons connect the left and right hemispheres). Kim is capable of incredible feats of memory and calculation. He can recall over 7,600 books, has a nearly complete (and up-to-date) knowledge of world history, area codes, zip codes, roads and highways and much more.

Stephen Wiltshire

Stephen’s abilities are in art and visual memory. From the age of 12, Stephen could draw from memory an extremely accurate representation of any scene, even after only seeing it a single time.

Alonzo Clemons

One of the more focused abilities, Alonzo showed a remarkable talent for sculpture from a young age. He can even produce sculptures from two-dimensional subjects (an image on television for example). Also remarkable is the speed with which he creates his works, a life-size sculpture of three moving horses took him only three weeks, and he can create smaller models in minutes.

Daniel Tammet

Daniel is even more unique in that he is a high-functioning savant, meaning he has an above average IQ and can process and respond to social cues normally. He has written several books describing in detail what he sees in his mind and how it allows him to do the things he does. Tammet became famous for breaking the European record when he recited Pi to 22,514 decimal places. Tammet’s savantism includes a form of synesthesia where numbers take various shapes and textures that aid in their manipulation. A number’s “bumpiness” for example indicates whether or not it is prime.

Flo & Kay, Savant Twins

The twins demonstrated incredible gifts with mathematics and calendar calculation (along with the strong genetic component of autism and savantism). Given any date, the twins could calculate the day of the week it landed on nearly instantaneously, even thousands of years in the future. A researcher once saw the pair exchanging six-digit numbers. Once he realized they were prime numbers, he joined in with an eight-digit number, which the pair quickly realized was also prime. The twins were soon trading 20-digit prime numbers and the researcher was forced to drop out as they exceeded even those in his reference of primes.

There are many more documented savants with equally unique talents. I remember a savant from middle school who memorized the phone numbers of every student, and another who could provide the fastest route between two cities anywhere in the country, even accounting for construction and regular traffic. More rare savants have exceptional abilities in language, spatial navigation (like marking a clear path through thick brush), time (perfect internal clocks), and heightened senses of smell, vision and touch.

These abilities are more than dismissible edge cases, as we cannot understand how the brain works unless we understand all of its amazing capabilities. It’s really amazing that this is our potential as human beings. If you’re interested read this where I talk a bit about the evolution of consciousness and what savants can tell us.

Courchesne, E., Carper, R., and Akshoomoff, N. (2003). “Evidence of Brain Overgrowth in the First Year of Life in Autism.” Journal of American Medicine, 290(3), 337-344.
O’Conner, N. and Hermelin, B., (1989). “The Memory Structure of the Autistic Prodigious-Savant Mnemonists.” British Journal of Psychology, 80(1), 97-111.
Sacks, Oliver W. (1990). The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales. Harper Perennial Library. New York.
Treffert, D. A., Wallace, G. L., (2003). “Islands of Genius: Artistic Brilliance and a Dazzling Memory can Sometimes Accompany Autism and other Developmental Disorders.” Scientific American Mind, 14(1), 14-23.

Why Medicine Again?

2009-04-18T22:25:03Z

Medicine isn’t what it used to be. I’ve talked to alot of physicians, researchers and residents recently and I’m not encouraged by what I’ve heard. What seems to motivate many students now isn’t a passion for helping people, it isn’t an unfailing dedication to the art of medicine, it’s comparably trivial things like money, recognition and lifestyle.

“Lifestyle“, that’s a word I hear often and it’s nothing but wrapping a nice word around hollow motives. The most competitive residency programs are in dermatology and plastic surgery. Why? Well, apparently that’s how you work the least and make the most money.

An anesthesiologist I met on a flight recently boasted about the ease of his profession. He’s active only a few hours a day and for most of those he’s kicking back after administering a few drugs. He cited the limited communication with his patients as an apparent “perk” of his specialty.

I bought the stethoscope for fun, sounds amazing (like a bass drum in a cavern). Can you tell I don’t iron?

Physicians today are also prone to the influence of pharmaceutical companies, prescribing drugs like tic tacs. I’ve been shadowing a rheumatologist for several years and it’s not uncommon for patients to come in with bags full of prescriptions, each one of their doctors having added a few medications (some to counteract side effects of others). While recent legislation has limited the gifts that doctors can accept in several states, there are no such restrictions on hosted conferences (sponsored vacations). So, there is still considerable interest in maintaining the current system.

By no means are all doctors this dishonorable, but the existence of just a few tarnishes the reputations and hinders the efforts of real physicians. The doctor-patient relationship is sacred and requires complete trust for the doctor to learn what he or she needs to make an effective diagnosis, and for the patient to actually follow through on the doctor’s plan. If doctors are only in it for the money, how can a patient trust that their diagnoses are well-researched? If doctors are in any way influenced by pharmaceutical companies, how can patients be sure that they actually need the drugs they’re given?

When (not if) I take the Hippocratic Oath, I will actually heed its very simple points. A doctor is responsible for the health and life of his or her patients, a task that permits no gray area. Any sacrifice of the patient’s health or violation of their trust for convenience or profit is plain wrong.

Do I just feel like this because I’m still a naive student, will I change in medical school or later? I don’t think so, I’ve assessed and reassessed my motivations and they’re real. In fact, it was this motivation that inspired (possessed?) me to work so hard for my MCAT’s and for the tests that are sure to keep coming. I couldn’t have gotten through those last weeks and today’s exam if my reward was money. Whatever specialty I choose, I will serve people honestly, passionately and with respect, I will never let profits or any company affect my judgement, and I will “enter only for the good of my patients”.

Below are the reasons that I want to be doctor, my personal statement:

My path towards medicine began early (after all, I had picked up the toy stethoscope not the fire truck) but veered widely as I developed in my academic career. My background in philosophy first triggered deeper questions into my motivation for medicine as I struggled with impossible questions about life, purpose and truth. After a Cartesian dissection of my beliefs (one that left his cogito etched in me), I found that there were few things I could hold firmly, but those that I did would withstand any assault.

Namely, I discovered that I cannot wait for a role to be dealt to me, and therefore I know only that I want to be positive weight in the balance of the world. When I last travelled overseas, I saw many people suffering from illnesses whose treatments were either unavailable or far too dangerous given the conditions. The same thing is happening around the world on an unimaginable scale. In the face of so much suffering (easily the heaviest counterweight in that balance), I’m immediately struck by a sense of purpose and a desire to help. When millions die every year from preventable/curable diseases, it is clear that we have lost our basic respect for personhood and obligations to one another as human beings. I want to be a doctor because there is no worthier means of defending this fundamental right to life.

My experiences learning from physicians have only cemented this goal. During a recent shadowing stint with a neurologist, I encountered a child whose file described him as a “bad kid,” a constant troublemaker who had recently lashed out violently in school. The doctor uncovered a history of abuse by the mother, which included drug abuse during pregnancy, as well as spasms that he thought could be seizures associated with such drug abuse. Just weeks later, it was clear that the prescribed medications had worked. The boy’s behavior had reversed completely; he was performing well in school and was much more attentive than during his first visit. It was as if a veil had been lifted from his eyes and seeing him smile for the first time made my chest feel like it was going to explode. In seeking to tip the scales, there is no force more powerful than that of a life renewed. I want to ensure that no child like him is ever dismissed for reasons beyond their control and that everyone is always given the chance to be everything they’re capable of.

Other experiences were equally affecting. While shadowing at a local emergency department, I noticed a particularly active doctor and asked if I could shadow her. I spent the rest of the night chasing her from room to room as she expertly handled her many patients. She was both very compassionate and incredibly skilled. Despite her impressive stature, she was never imposing and she was always quick to comfort her patients by telling a joke or easing them into an encouraging conversation. I vividly remember how she sutured a man’s wound in a single fluid motion, sweeping the needle from side to side and knotting it in a big blur while I looked on in awe. My first attempts were miserable (luckily I only injured a piece of foam), but I practiced often under her direction and she soon labeled me “proficient” (an improvement over “dangerous”). Shadowing her inspired me not only want to be a doctor, but to be a great doctor.

My newfound drive towards medicine has helped focus my learning, with every course, lecture and concept settling in more firmly and with broader implications. Whether it’s the intricacies of neurophysiology or the huge variety of the body’s enzymes, what I’m studying now finally has meaning. This learning revolution (in addition to causing uncontrollable dorky outbursts of the “did you know?” variety) has expanded my interests in biochemistry, sparking my first foray into medical research. The almost Zen-like nature of delicate lab work has helped teach me the merits of patience, meticulous attention to detail, and steady hands.

Also rejuvenated is my central interest in neurology and neuroscience, where I redoubled my efforts as the vice president of my university’s CO-SIGN (College Student’s Interest Group in Neurology). Over the course of my membership, I’ve helped secure permanent status within the student association and organized community service projects, relevant guest speaker events, and shadowing activities for its members. As I moved up the executive board ranks, I learned how to entice and maintain an active membership and the importance of communicating sincerely and confidently.

I used to simply idle along a career path to medicine; now, ignited by real passion I can commit every ounce of my energy to perhaps the first real cause of my life. My philosophy is simple, “seek everything possible”, to experience the peak of what I am capable of. Only then can I fully know the limitless capabilities of my self. For me, that peak is medicine where I can satisfy both my passion for science, and my intense desire to help those who are suffering.

What of the Soul?

2009-03-07T05:41:52Z

I received a question recently that asked what I thought about the existence of a soul given the relative secularity of most of the content on this site. Soul, Mind, whatever you call it refers generally to the experiences of consciousness and self. For materialists, the properties of the mind are purely physical ones dependent on the physical brain and subject to the usual laws of nature. For dualists, the soul is immaterial and its properties are non-physical.

A beautiful illustration of the muscular system.

I tend to favor the former position, but if the properties of the mind are physical where did they come from? As I’ve learned more about the structure and function of the nervous system, I’ve been trying to understand it in the context of evolution. Appending a “why” to every fact has helped me formulate at least a conceivable scenario for the emergence of Mind. Here’s what I think (and it’s purely speculative):

Organisms first developed basic reflexes: move towards nourishment and flee from danger. As they evolved, so did these reflexes, which soon involved nerves and clusters called ganglia. Eventually, these organisms began to consolidate these controlling elements into a larger, central brain. In a primitive form like amphioxus, the early nervous system coordinates only crude senses and a few reflexes. It lacks both the need and anatomy for a complex Mind. But what happens when you put the reigns to an elegant animal in a big bundle? These bundles now control the organism’s entire muscular system, autonomously manage its internal functions, and continue to develop more complex reflexes and behaviors. This now proper nervous system becomes the command center for a very complex machine.

The most drastic changes are seen in the telencephalon. As the forebrain grew larger, it developed grooves called gyri and sulci to pack more into the limited space in the cranial cavity.

These higher animals required a way to quickly and accurately coordinate sensory input and motor output. More importantly, organisms that were able to interpret this information in relation to themselves were at a distinct advantage. Have you noticed how our bodies seem to fit like a glove? Our entire form seems to be penetrated by an immaterial substance such that moving a limb is just a matter of willing that motion from within. I posit that this apparently immaterial force is an advanced mechanism for controlling the body, a mechanism that allows for incredibly precise control through the activities of the central and peripheral nervous systems. This is the Self.

Ask me not how it learned to reason. The last 50,000 years have seen minimal changes in the brain, and in the meantime we’ve developed language, culture, technology and everything else associated with the modern man. This cultural evolution worked much more rapidly and employed the faculties of the enlarged forebrain to develop these advanced functions. We’re very far from understanding how our brain does all these things, but it does do them, it is the seat of the Soul.

Turtles All the Way Up

2009-02-23T01:53:34Z

That pervasive question, “what are we doing here”, or more accurately, “what’s the fucking point” continues to steal away my attention (and sanity). Looking up is one impetus, but more recently looking inward has reignited my internal debate on our position in the universe and what role we might play on a larger scale.

Easily, and without qualification, the human body is the most exquisite machine we have discovered in our universe. Its design (excuse that term’s implications) and function are staggering in their complexity and ingenuity, and what we are capable of through our bodies simply begs for a “bigger picture”. As I look inward, I see that the functional units of the human form present an apt analogy for our own lives. The trillions of cells that comprise my body are not unlike the billions of people that inhabit this planet. The cells of a growing embryo differentiate into specialized cells with specific jobs in the larger organism, just as we might develop and contribute our abilities to a larger society.

An embryonic stem cell can (by controlling the genes expressed) differentiate into every cell type in the human body.

For example, red blood cells (erythrocytes) are an oxygen transport army, so specialized, in fact, that they’ve lost their nucleus and are essentially sacs of hemoglobin. As a result, they cannot synthesize their own proteins and are recycled frequently. The skin cells of the epidermis are similarly short-lived, just brushing your arm will cause millions of dead cells to slough off the outermost layer. Neurons, on the other hand, are cellular royalty. Extremely specialized, they detect stimuli and conduct electrical impulses controlling most of the autonomic and voluntary activities of the body, and more importantly they’re responsible for the higher-level functions of the brain.

Every cell plays its own role in the functioning of the larger organism, and some are more important that others. Even so, no single cell is essential for the survival of the organism, and even the regal neuron relies on an array of support cells (that outnumber it by a factor of ten) for its survival.

As one goes further down, the pattern repeats with constituent parts contributing to a larger function or set of properties (within an organ, a single cell, molecules, elements, subatomic particles, etc). What function do we participate in (and what role will I play), what about all those stars and galaxies? Is it “turtles all the way up”?

Frozen Worlds: a Time Puzzle

2008-12-23T18:34:28Z

I got a bit giddy when we got to the “Space and Time” portion of my Metaphysics class. Most of my semester was spent deciphering bizarre accounts of matter (where two theories’ definitions could differ by just a single word), and I was more than ready for a change. I like the topic of Time in particular because I really have no idea what it is, and metaphysical analysis seems a bit more accessible than a purely physical approach.

Time is typically associated with change, and a famous puzzle related to this concept is Shoemaker’s “freeze world” scenario. Shoemaker’s scenario, first proposed in “Time Without Change”, describes a discrete possible world consisting of three zones: A, B and C. Under normal conditions, the inhabitants of each zone are able to observe and communicate with each other. However, a mysterious phenomenon occurs occasionally whereby all change in a zone ceases, meaning no motion, growth or decay occurs. During these “local freezes”, inhabitants of the other unfrozen zones can observe that all activity has, indeed, stopped (while their zones remain active). Individuals in the frozen zone do not immediately detect the freeze, as their activities will simply resume as if no freeze had occurred. Frozen observers focused on one of the other zones would notice large, instantaneous changes as they become acquainted with the post-freeze world. In Shoemaker’s example, these local freezes are found to occur cyclically (every three years in Zone A, every four in Zone B, and every five in Zone C) and last for one year each time. The cycles are in phase, so every sixty years, the frozen periods of each zone align to create a “total freeze” where absolutely no change occurs in the entire world. The term of this total freeze would be undetectable to the world’s inhabitants who had previously referenced other zones’ clocks or their own perception of other zones’ change to recognize the freeze. This scenario establishes the idea that one in sixty years will be what Shoemaker calls a “changeless interval”.

The importance of these total freezes is that they dissociate the passage of time from the occurrence of events in the world (that our normal conception of time requires). However, there are a few inconsistencies in Shoemaker’s scenario that prevent it from convincingly proving its conclusion. For anyone interested, I discuss some of the more theoretical problems in this paper I submitted in the course. I’ll explain some quick ones here.

The first is a physical problem with the scenario. As far as we can understand, motion and change are critical to the very persistence of matter. The constant movement and vibration of atoms and subatomic particles are required to maintain the tenuous structural and electrical integrity of these entities. Take the phenomenon of absolute zero, for example, the temperature (0K, -273°C) at which molecular motion mostly ceases. Reaching absolute zero is theoretically impossible, an asymptotic limit not unlike the speed of light. Even approaching absolute zero causes wild variations in a substance’s properties including quantum effects like superconductivity. The impossibility of reaching absolute zero therefore raises serious doubts on the feasibility of Shoemaker’s scenario.

Another critique of Shoemaker is theoretical in nature and involves the ideas of time and change in the “freeze world” scenario. The terms are not well defined, and the lack of clarity ultimately leaves Shoemaker begging the question. What exactly does it mean for time to pass in frozen zones, what do these “changeless intervals” refer to? In the scenario, time can be observed to pass when one or two zones are frozen because of the remaining reference zone(s). When the frozen zones thaw, they can consult clocks or observers in the unfrozen zone to learn that their zone had indeed been in a freeze. However, in a total freeze, no such reference exists, and to say that the zones continue frozen for one year is to gratuitously assume the conclusion that changeless time is possible. During the single local freezes, the passage of time is still relative to changes occurring in the unfrozen zone(s). To inhabitants of the frozen zone, the one year freeze passes instantaneously and would have gone unnoticed were it not for observers in the unfrozen zones. However, during the total freeze, all changes in the world cease, and without the reference of changes in unfrozen zones, the intervening period does pass instantaneously and inhabitants of the world would never know. Shoemaker’s scenario is therefore reducible to the total freeze (there is still time and change during single local freezes), and the conclusion that there is a one-year changeless interval is not adequately supported.

These problems mostly disprove the scenario for me. What do you think, is changeless time possible?

Ineffable Understanding

2008-12-01T01:04:59Z

Near-death experiences, hallucinogenic trips, meditation, you’ve probably read about (or felt firsthand) the odd nature of these “out of body” experiences. A philosophically interesting consequence is the sense of understanding and intangible comprehension that often follows. Authors attempting to document these experiences typically produce almost nonsensical statements sprinkled with capitalizations, you know, where “now” becomes “Now” and immediately triples in metaphysical weight.

Joking aside, there is something ineffable about fully grasping a concept (which is what appears to happen in these cases). For me, one uninduced experience involved the cogito. I’d first come across it in a class and had no difficulty comprehending its role in Descartes’ argument, its wide-reaching impact, and even a couple flaws in its presentation. But, it wasn’t until a few weeks later that I fully grasped the concept while thinking quietly in my room. I can’t easily describe the immensity (sorry, “Immensity”) that the concept grew to in my head, but in that moment, I felt as if I had the same experience that Descrates did sitting by his fireplace, that I had razed the foundations of my knowledge to the ground and begun anew with one solid brick.

It’s from Dumb and Dumber, don’t ask.

In my case, I did not gain any new information nor would I say that my ability to apply or process the concept had improved. What had happened was far more subtle and personal, but denying that something had happened would be foolish. What that something is, I don’t know (although the phrase “consciousness-expanding” rings true).

So, my question is, do these special experiences (NDE’s, drug-induced hallucinations, or meditation) introduce any new information or provide access to real knowledge, or do they just flick the “grasped” switch on things we already know?

The Neurobiology of Freedom

2008-07-28T14:26:20Z

So, consciousness is accompanied by an experience of freedom, which phenomenologically speaking, does not seem illusory. But, what exactly does that mean about consciousness and our brain?

There are basically two options. One, the experience of freedom is simply not real, our brains, like every other physical object, operate deterministically. Like an elaborate computer program, the firings of various neurons (or whatever the exact mechanism is discovered to be) are causally sufficient for a decision to be made.

The second option is that consciousness does somehow allow for us to make and act upon free choices. How exactly could something like this occur without making the mind out to be a causal black hole somehow circumventing the laws of physics? (At this point, quantum mechanics is often brought up as a loophole of sorts, but introducing randomness isn’t quite the same as free will. See discussion in Phenomenology comments)

Let’s take an example of what we normally see as a “free” choice. In the famous case of the Judgment of Paris, there is a point right before Paris begins to consider his alternatives (Hera, Athena, or Aphrodite as the most beautiful goddess) where no decision has been made, and then a second point soon thereafter where he has made his decision and begins the motions of awarding the golden apple to Aphrodite. In the intervening period, Paris appears to make a free choice. He responds to the problem presented to him as a conscious being, considering the potential rewards and penalties as they affect him.

What is most important is that there is a necessity to this type of response. One simply must exercise this (potentially illusory) freedom. Paris, now a dejected determinist, cannot just sit back and wait for his fated choice to roll out of his mouth. No, whether genuine or random, he must at least make the mental motions that would produce one of the available three names.

Free will is then dependent on a conscious, self-aware being, and is a necessary component of even the simplest decisions. How exactly does this freely acting consciousness fit into our physical world then?

Now that’s a doozy and perhaps the single most fascinating question I can think of. My immediate inclination is to view consciousness as a higher-order aspect of traditional brain functions, neither entirely immaterial nor causally chained. Without being too nebulous, consciousness as a subjective phenomenon cannot be easily reduced to objective parts, and so it seems to somehow emerge from the activities of the brain. The relationship roughly corresponds to that between the molecules in a man-made object and the function of the artifact itself. For example, the table in front of me is composed of different molecules, and its solidity and brownness are reducible to properties of its molecules and their bonds, but its function as a table is not entirely contained by the particles buzzing around inside.

Similarly, consciousness seems to be rooted in but not entirely reducible to neural activity. Damage my brain, and my level of consciousness will appreciably suffer, but psychological abuse, for example, can be just as damaging and its effects aren’t always visible at the level of neurons and neural networks.

Is consciousness as a higher-level product of the brain’s activity therefore outside of the determined world? Not quite, but if we can establish, or at least allow for the possibility, that the state of my brain’s neurons at any point is not sufficient – causally speaking – to determine the state of my consciousness at the next point, then we have something like free will.

The big leap here is the “higher-level” part, and I’ll readily admit that it’s purely speculative. It’s difficult to describe without sounding as if consciousness spawns magically every instant, but there are no other cases where we have subjective, 1^st person phenomena with objective, 3^rd person ontologies. Like I said, it’s a doozy.

Natural Kinds in Chemistry

2008-07-21T11:16:58Z

One of my favorite courses so far was last semester’s “Natural Kinds”. Everything from the unique subject matter to the seminar-like structure made the class a blast, up until the final paper was due.

Never one to procrastinate (cough), I got started early and buried myself in the literature. I was on the hunt for a good topic, something I could sink into to keep the required twenty pages tightly focused. I ended up – not surprisingly – back in the sciences, studying natural kinds in chemistry.

I worked feverishly in the final weeks and was rather proud of the finished paper. So, with some encouragement I submitted it to the department’s scholarship program, and was surprised to learn that I won.

The paper is long, probably pretty dull, and in such a tiny niche that I’d only recommend it for someone with at least a bit of experience in the area. For some support material, Natural kinds and the seminal works of Kripke and Putnam.

Download the paper.

The Phenomen- ology of Freedom

2008-06-30T19:35:50Z

Are we truly free? Are the paths of our lives charted beforehand, or is every moment an opportunity to break new ground? The answer isn’t easily found, the determinate physical world seems to hit a causal brick wall at human consciousness, and the theories of free will advocates are likewise thwarted by the explanatory role of rationality. Given the mind’s pivotal role in the debate, it seems natural to tackle the issue from within, working with our intuitions and direct experience to discover if we are free.

In my mind, there are not many experiences more clear or distinct than freedom. It appears to me, despite the supposedly ever-extending causal chain of events, that I am fundamentally free. At this moment, and without apparent cause, I can lift my arm and lower it, I can decide to daydream for a bit, I can choose to hold my breath, I can do (almost) anything.

Soft Determinism: Causal (hard) determinism and free will can be compatible.

There are those who disagree, the hard determinist, who asserts that no event is without physical cause, would argue that my actions here are all still not free, that the events of the past lead directly to that moment and would necessarily cause me to do one of those things. I may have the illusion of choice, but the reality is that I cannot help but raise and lower my arm. However, the hard determinist’s argument is too strong, annihilating both the opposing position and our own mindset (and the actions of our everyday lives). If I still feel that I’m free, that the choice I make is spontaneous, then the causal chain is irrelevant, I make choices.

For the hard determinist, an individual’s path is “locked down” or determined beforehand and the outcomes of specific events can theoretically be deduced given the appropriate antecedent conditions (and one hell of a computer). Within that individual’s mind, however, a choice is made and – at least psychologically if not physically – that choice could have been otherwise and the individual was free in making their decision. In this sense, the individual’s path is locked down after them, and a sense of freedom is maintained.

It may be a feeble distinction from an external perspective, but we’re working from the inside out; there’s no such thing as an “illusion” of choice.

The alternative, libertarianism, rejects causal determinism, finding it utterly incompatible with free will. Libertarianism seems outdated, modern physics tells us that our world is causally determined (at least at the relevant scale), that each action has a reaction. To deny these laws and their influence in the debate is to ignore a significant chunk of our understanding of the universe and seems counterproductive.

We therefore arrive at my preferred position, soft determinism, combining the existence of a causally connected world – whose physics tangibly influence the interactions of the mind – and the phenomenology of freedom. The position maintains the possibility of total causal determinism but still allows that our actions could have been otherwise (and that we were free to do so). It seems counterintuitive, but it makes more sense from our current, internal perspective: I do not know which of the three available actions I will perform, I will surely do one (and the specific one may have been deduced by somebody), but there remains – in my mind – a choice to be made.

That “almost” earlier is something I may return to (perhaps in the context of literature), it explores a different layer of free will.

Terms: phenomenology, causal (hard) determinism, libertarianism