An extremely interesting article has come from Raymond Tallis in which he discusses neuro-determinism, a view gaining widespread popularity amongst neuroscientists. Here is a quote from the article:

There is now a significant population of neuroscientists, along with philosophers and others, who accept not only their findings but also the interpretations they place on them, who argue that because of advances in brain science ‘we now know’ that free will is an illusion. The attacks on free will from this direction are particularly powerful because they encompass both material and cultural determinism; for the brain is not only a piece of matter causally wired into the material world, it is also brain-washed in a laundry made of a collective of other brains. This is a powerful double whammy for our notions of freedom and of the self as an independent point of departure.

It amazes me how science, in so many fields, is beginning to sound more like the religion belief, and less and less real science, which is rooted in establishing fact, measurable fact. While I would definitely argue that freewill, as most people conceive of it, is an illusion, along the lines I believe of how Jean Genet would view the matter - most people just don’t think. Most people act on impulses and urges that are largely conditioned by their society and everything in it. As is quoted in the article by Tallis:

Colin Blakemore, an eminent neuroscientist, captures all of these views in the claim: ‘The human brain is a machine which alone accounts for all our actions, our most private thoughts, our beliefs… All our actions are products of the activity of our brains. It makes no sense (in scientific terms) to try to distinguish sharply between acts that result from conscious attention and those that result from our reflexes or are caused by disease or damage to the brain.’

Well, I notice one thing right off. Blakemore does qualify this statement by “in scientific terms”, which shows some depth. However, despite having said most people don’t use anything approaching what I would call freewill, nevertheless, I would argue, along with all those who have ever pursued yoga, meditation, cultivation and mysticism that the brain is not the source of all our actions. Mind and Consciousness, in my experience, precede the brain. I guess it could be put very succinctly thus: reincarnation is either a fact or it is not. In my experience, it is a fact. Furthermore, my experience tallies with the same view expressed by many people who I respect, even revere for their wisdom.

Tallis makes a good point here:

The first line of attack is to remove the hype from the neuroscience of consciousness and remind ourselves how little we know. We understand even less. There is at present no adequate theory of qualia (the actual experience of things – such as the sensation of yellow, the feeling of warmth, the taste of wine); of the way different qualia are seemingly associated with activity in different nerve pathways – why optic nerves give the feeling of brightness and the auditory nerves the sound of sounds; of how experiences cohere into the meaningful unity of the present moment and are more or less coherent and self-sustained over great stretches of time and in a multitude of situations; and of how things that are supposed to be integrated into unities are also kept apart, so that I can, for example experience at the same time the sensation of yellow and the shape of a yellow object and a feeling of warmth on my arm and worry about a lecture that I have to give or an operation that I am listed for, without these simultaneous memories and experiences being lost in a general mush of awareness.

Right, as scientists, we know very little. We are certainly no where near the point where we can make broad statements about the nature of consciousness and the interaction of Mind and Brain.

Spread the Word