The other day the Chronicle of Higher Education had a lengthy article about the work of the “neurophilosopher” Patricia Churchland, with a few critics heard from but for the most part praising her, on the occasion of her new book Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality. It seems to come down mostly to oxytocin levels in our bloodstream.
As chance would have it, then I stumbled over a marvelous article from last fall’s issue of The New Atlantis, by Raymond Tallis, a real neuroscientist, titled “What Neuroscience Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves.” Tallis convincingly argues that neuroscience cannot–not just has not yet, but cannot–explain consciousness itself. Since morality is an artifact of conscious selves, it would seem that–poof!–there goes Churchland’s thesis entirely.
Tallis has a new book coming out this summer, titled Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity. I think I’ll be reading that, and giving Churchland’s new tome a miss.
June 15th, 2011 | 11:46 am
From Wikipedia:
June 15th, 2011 | 12:06 pm
Interesting to know–and disappointing. I still think his book will be worth reading. The late David Stove was an in-your-face atheist, but his book Darwinian Fairytales was a brilliant and funny takedown of “evolutionary psychology.”
June 15th, 2011 | 3:09 pm
Just like J. S. Haldane argued convincingly that a “mechanistic theory” simply could not account for things like “recovery from disease and injuries” and “reproduction” and “inheritance”.
Then the structure of DNA was elucidated…
June 15th, 2011 | 6:09 pm
Mr. Franck, isn’t this a classic example of confirmation bias? You intend to read the books that you’re inclined to agree with and skip over the ones you’re likely to disagree with.
June 16th, 2011 | 2:51 am
Perhaps Ray Ingles will give up his atheism and become a theist. Why? Because miracles happen: I’m finding myself in agreement with him! :-)
How do we know consciousness cannot be explained as a result of brain processess?
It seems as if Raymond Tallis may have a view similar to the philosopher Colin McGinn. The latter argues that, due to the cognitive limitations, inherent in our brains, our brains are unable to explain themselves. I don’t think McGinn denies that the brain is the explanation of all mental phenomena, he just believes that, our brains did not evolve to be equipped to handle the question of how, precisely, brains cause consciousness.
I think that McGinn allows for the possibility that we may someday discover how brains cause consciousness, it’s just at least right now, he believes that the notion that our brains are cognitively limited, and therefore cannot know fully how consciousness arises out of itself, is persuasive. He’s a brilliant philosopher, so one should never dismiss his claims without giving them fair consideration.
And the neurologist Richard Restak has pointed out that we must use the brain, to figure out the brain, this may be our limit.
But as Ray has pointed out, there’s a historical case of a great thinker being wrong, by in an a priori manner, dismissing the possibility of mechanistic explanations for biological phenomena.
Now, this in no way implies, even though atheists may disagree, that an immortal soul does not exist.
June 16th, 2011 | 2:56 am
Clarification: Richard Restak said we must use our brains to figure our brains out (to paraphrase him) but, at least I don’t think he has argued that this means we’re limited in out ability to figure out how the brain causes consciousness, or any other mental process (maybe he has, but I haven’t seen him argue this).
So when I stated “this may be our limit”, I was concluding that, what Restak said, could be used in favor of McGinn’s point; not that Resatk was making this point.
June 16th, 2011 | 8:37 am
Bret –
Since we don’t know how consciousness works yet, we certainly can’t disprove this idea. However, I have practical problems with the concept of the ‘unknowable’, of ‘things forever removed from human ken’.
Let’s say we come across something we don’t understand. How do we tell if it’s something unknowable or not?
The only way I can see to deal with it is to try to understand it. If we succeed, then we know it’s knowable. But if we fail, we can’t conclude that it’s unknowable. Maybe someone else will figure it out later (like Watson and Crick and Franklin figured out DNA after Haldane gave up).
We can never be sure something’s unknowable. All we can ever say is, “No one’s figured that out yet.” So far as I can see, “the unknowable” is a concept with exactly zero practical utility.
True. But I’d say we shouldn’t posit them until we’ve got good evidence for them. And based on the above, I’d resist any claims that souls, should they exist, are unknowable. :)
June 16th, 2011 | 9:17 am
I think we can conclude, contra Churchland, that we do not know what causes consciousness let alone morality.
I still maintain that if we are fully deterministic, nothing matters. We will do what we do and we can’t change it.
June 16th, 2011 | 10:12 am
Don’t forget Tyler Burge’s critique of the “neurobabble” engaged in by many in the neuroscientific community to paper over the lack of explanation for aspects of the mind in material terms. His NY Times op-ed piece is here
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/a-real-science-of-mind/
June 17th, 2011 | 3:01 am
Ray, you make good points. I wouls add though that, I find the empirical evidence, derived from respected researchers, of near Death Experiences, seems to be evidence in favor of something, perhaps an immortal soul, that works in conjunction with the brain.
Perhaps we have a plot getting rather thick, here!
June 17th, 2011 | 11:25 am
Bret –
I’m less convinced, but I’m glad people are studying it. If there’s something there, it should be demonstrable.
June 19th, 2011 | 7:58 pm
Sam Parnia is a well respected researcher. Thanks for providing the link, Ray.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact