Brain

Patricia Churchland's Touching a Nerve, the Self as Brain

W.W..Norton Company, 2013.

Notes and comments of a decidedly personal nature by the summarizer. 

Neurophilosophy is about the impact of neuroscience and psychology and evolutionary biology on how we think about ourselves. It is about expanding and modifying our self-conception through knowledge of the brain. 

Facts and Reality and Logic: three points

1. Reality does not conform to what we want it to be. 

Facts are facts. R does not care if we don't like the way it is put together. 

2. Liking what is true is a psychological state. You can fight reality, hoping your fantasy will prevail, or you can decide to make your peace with reality and come to like it. Really like it. As I do. That's the key difference between me and most humans. 

3. We can regulate how we use science. Any discovery can be used for nefarious purposes. 

Intelligence and Worldview

Somewhere along your search for reality, especially as to who you really are, you realize that some things brains do very slowly and that involve deep intelligence or deep shifts in worldview. You either know you are very intelligent or just a mediocre human and if your worldview is consistent with science and morality. 

Philosophy and Neuroscience

Impossible to understand the mind without knowing the brain.

Somatoparaphrenia delusions which result from the failure of the brain's modeling of the body it inhabits.

The conditions remind us intuitions  are just intuitions. They are not always reliable, and they are no guarantee of truth.

Besides mapping/modeling of the body, some parts of the brain keep track of what other parts of the brain are doing. 

No soul. Only consciousness. 

Light, according to James Clerk Maxwell it the end of 19th century, is a form of electromagnetic radiation---on the same spectrum as X-rays, radio waves, ultraviolet waves, and infrared waves. 

Imagination is often limited by ignorance.

Inferring knowledge from ignorance is a fallacy. That is why the ancient Greeks labels this fallacy an argument from ignorance. Example: we are ignorant of the mechanism for conscious awareness, so we "know" that conscious awareness cannot be explained. 

It is conceivable that science will not ever understand how neurons produce feelings and thoughts. Nevertheless, you cannot tell just by looking at a problem that it is not solvable by science.

Hallucinations

Everybody hallucinates every night when they dream. A hallucination is a sensory experience of benefits and events in the world that seem real, but are not. All mammals dream, so far as we can tell. The evidence that sleep and dreaming are linked to learning and memory is becoming stronger, but exactly how is still puzzling.

H in the awake state are rather more unusual and usually signify a medical problem. A host of different conditions may be involved, including drugs, tumors, seizures, migraines, sensory deprivation, and psychiatric diseases such as schizophrenia and dementias. 

In the dream state, a special bundle of neurons in the brainstem actively block any motor signals that might merge from the motor cortex, destined for the spinal cord and the arms and legs. On effect, during dreaming you have a kind of temporary paralysis that prevents you from acting out your dreams. The inhibition of motor signals may not be complete. Sometimes small twitches, chuckles,and whimpers are still possible, but normal movements are not. If that inhibitory network is damaged, you will act out your dreams. This sometimes happens in patients with dementia, resulting in injury to oneself and others. In such cases, REM suppression drugs are used to prevent the dream states altogether.

In a small percentage of people, the usual synchrony of turning off dream paralysis and turning on wakefulness can be a bit sloppy, resulting in a brief paralysis after waking up. 

There's no heaven nor hell, only the thought of such locales. No God either. Don't fall prey to charlatans and hucksters. Read good books. Improve your knowledge. Engage in correct thinking based on facts, logic, and honesty. Avoid wishful thinking and false optimism. Cold hard facts are what you go by. Be strong and self-reliant. You have a beautiful mind, based on the evidence of your ability to reason and your facility with words and languages. You are a rarity. Be proud and enjoy being who you are. 

Where do values come from? 

Values are not in the world in the way seasons are. Nor are they other-worldly. Rather, they are social-worldly, and we live and die by them. They reflect how we feel and think about certain kinds of social behavior. Values are in the brain of every mammal. Brains are built by genes. Unless the genes built a brain that is organized to avoid danger and seek food, water, and mates, the animal will not long survive nor likely reproduce. If you have no offspring, your genes do not get passed on. 

Mammals have powerful brain networks for extending care beyond self to others: first to offspring, then to mates, then to kin, friends, and even strangers.,but how did those networks come to inhabit mammalian brains? How come they be favored by evolution?

Mammals are warm-blooded and need a lot of calories to survive. So they need a brain that can adapt to new conditions by being smart and flexible. Biologically speaking, it is more efficient to build brains that can learn than to build genomes that build brains with reflexes for every contingency that might crop up through life. When a brain learns, wiring has to be added, which entails that the genome has to have genes that get expressed to make proteins to make the wiring to embody new info. You want a circuitry that will allow you to respond flexibly to events and generalize, plan, and choose between options, and do all these things intelligently. Cortex---a special kind of neuronal architecture---turns out to provide the kind of power and flexibility needed for those intelligent functions. 

Are humans monogamous?

About 83 per cent of human societies allow polygynous patterns of marriage (cited on page 102). The explanation for the cultural variation of marriage practices probably rests mainly with variation in ecological and cultural conditions---in particular, with whether there are conventions for the heritability of property and other forms of wealth, along with the existence of wealth to be inherited. 

Monogamy appears to have emerged in Eurasia as agriculture became widespread, with lands and herds an important source of wealth that could be passed to heirs (103).  Once certain practices become norms, once they are seen to bring benefits and to circumvent troubles, once they are enforced by social approval and disapproval, they are felt to reflect they only right way for things to be. Our notions about what is right are strongly shaped by the prevailing conventions.

The question of Fainess. 

The ethologist Brosnan points out, what the capuchins in the experiments show that  is not so much concern that others get fair treatment but concern for oneself---I should get what he gets. And of course, this is a strong trait in humans (p.112).

Caring about the fair treatment if those to whom we are attached is plausibly linked to the extension of self-care to care for offspring, mates, and friends, especially in those mammals that have the capacity to see things from the vantage point of others. 

Wherefore Religion and Morality?

R emerged at about the same time that agriculture took hold as an important way of getting food---about 10,000 years ago. It is not that organized rs invented and set up moral rules as much as they adopted and modified the traditional moral norms that were the implicit practices typical of small human groups. 

Not all Rs associate the source of morality with a god or the teachings of the clergy. Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are three such examples, and these are neither small nor inconsequential rs. 

Moral behavior and norms do not require rs. Nonetheless, a r may add to existing norms or create new ones, such as requiring animal sacrifices on particular days Of the year or mandating particular dietary or clothing rules. Rs may also provide a forum for discussing moral dilemmas, for reinforcing group norms, and for stirring up the appropriate emotions in the event of battle. 

Tensions and balance

Social life brings both benefits and tensions. Social I life can be very subtle, calling for wise judgment than strict adherence to rulers. 

Us versus them delineates the border of one's safe group. Within the group, individuals can count on affection and adherence to group norms. Outside the group, interactions are riskier and individuals have to be more vigilant. 

Wiring for aggression

Natural selection involves competition for resources. At some point in biological evolution, some creatures will have the capacity to kill and eat others. Just as inevitably, some of those others will eventually be born with the capacity to resist, by camouflage, by beating a hasty rest rear, making a terrible smell, or fighting back. The arms race is on. 

Competing for the best mates 

Male and female brains

When a sperm ferries an egg, the resulting human conceptus has 23 pairs of chromosomes. A pair of sex chromosomes is either XX (genetic female) or XY (genetic male). In the early stages of development, the sex organs (gonads) of the fetus are neutral, but during the second month of fetal development, genes on the Y chromosome produce proteins that transform the neutral gonads into male testes. Absent this action, the gonads grow into ovaries. In the second half of the development, testosterone produced by the fetal testes is released into the blood stream and enters the growing brain. Testosterone now comes to affect the anatomy of the male brain. The surge of testosterone masculines the fetal brain by altering the number of neurons in very specific areas that mainly concern reproductive behavior, such as mounting and penetrating. Even when the testosterone is available, other factors, including timing of testosterone release and the amount released, may mean the brain is not released at all or it may be masculinized to some lesser degree. 

Sexual attraction and its biology 

The idea that homosexuality is a life choice has largely crumbled over the last 30 years. One significant reason was the discovery of Simon LeVay in 1991 concerning a small region of the hypothalamus. In postmortem comparisons of brains, LeVay found that a small hypothalamic region of male homosexuals was anatomically different from that of male heterosexuals. The region was smaller, more like that seen in the female brain. In and of itself, this discovery could not point to this brain as the source of sexual orientation, nor could it claim with any certainty that gay men were born gay. And LeVay, tough-minded scientist that he is, was entirely clear on that point. Nevertheless, given what else was known from basic research about the role of the hypothalamus in sexual behavior, and given what else was known about fetal brain development it seemed a good guess that being gay was simply the ways me people are. 

Also there appears to be very little evidence that environment has much to do with sexual orientation. children of homosexual parents are no more likely to be homosexual themselves than children of heterosexual parents. Somewhere in the thicket of causality involving genes,hormones, neurochemicals, and fetal brain development, certain hypothalamic cell groups are masculinized or not, to some degree or other, with the result that sexual orientation is largely established before birth. This is biology, not a choice made in adulthood. No 5-year-old child makes a life choice to be gay.

Testosterone and Aggression

Testosterone is a major factor in male aggressive behavior, but high levels of testosterone alone do not predict that the male will be especially aggressive. Aggression is a multidimensional motivational state. 

Controlling and Harnessing Aggression

We live in a matrix of social practices,practices that shape our expectations, beliefs, emotions, and behavior. Our personalities and temperaments are bent and formed within the scaffolding of social reality. The matrix gives us status and strength, and, above all, predictability. The matrix of social conventions is both a boon and a bind---sort of the way a sailboat is. You need to move through the waters, but you have to play by its rules. 

Aggression and Pleasure in Hate? 

There is very little research on the neurobiology of the association between aggression and pleasure in hate, and not much on the psychological research either.  Churchland suspects that hostility does not always involve pleasure, but in some conditions, particularly when groups fight groups. The two seem closely linked. At the same time, however,  aggressive impulse in all mammals are subject to self-control.

Is Genocide in our Genes?

A tricky question because for anything you do, you must have the capacity to do it, and hence you must have the wiring for that capacity. But what about the hypothesis that killing other humans was selected for in our evolutionary history, and that is why we do it. For this kind of claim, evidence goes begging. 

To claim that genocide is our genes on the ground that humans do commit genocide is like saying that we have genes for reading and writing because humans do read and write. This latter we know to be wrong. Writing and reading were invented a mere 5,000 years ago and were made by other, more general capacities that we have, such as fine motor control in our hands and the capacity for detailed pattern recognition. Writing and reading were cultural inventions that spread like wildfire. 

For all that we now know, human warfare was not as such selected for in biological evolution. It may have been, like writing and reading, a cultural invention that exploited other capacities. Perhaps the pleasurable bloodlust during the hunt of large mammals is extended to the hunt of other humans. In some environments, humans may have found other humans a good source of protein.  

A small handful of human diseases, such as Huntington's disease, are associated with a single scene. This tight link between a single gene and a phenotype is the exception, not the rule, even in the case of diseases. Even height, previously commonly suspected to be linked to one gene, is linked to many genes. There are 50 known genes associated with height, and how many other genes are involved but not yet identified is anyone's guess. The idea that any aspect of human cognitive behavior, such as genocide, is tightly caused by a single gene or two is unlikely. 

How Institutional Norms shape Behavior 

From the perspective of the brain, one major advantage of cultural norms is that they reduce uncertainty. You know what you have to do in a social setting and what I am likely to do. We don't have to stop and figure ít out each time. As part of the group, we want approval and not exclusion, so challenging a norm will not come easy. Conformity to local forms feels comfortable. Speaking out or resisting is edgy. It sends the levels of stress hormones climbing.

Because we depend on our social institutions for norms concerning justice, prosperity, and decency, we have to ask: What happens when this every institutions subvert decency? What happens when the brain's reward system gets tuned to social practices that are evil? What happens when clannishness becomes cruel or fraternity hazing gets so bad that the men end up killing an initiate? It is right here that human responsibility is of monumental significance. It is right here where Nelson Mandela convinced the crowds intent on revenge, after years of apartheid, to take the peaceful option.     

In one of the most profound books on the moral history of the 20th century, Jonathan Glover sees the issue this way:

"When terrible orders are given, some people resist because of their conception of who they are. But there may be no resistance when a person's self-conception is built around obedience." (Humanity, 2001, p. 404)  

Glover suggests that one important tool in staying on the right side of the dilemma is skepticism, not believing too readily the emotional appeals in politics, economics, or anywhere else for that matter. Think. Get the facts. Read history. Get a bit of distance.   

Another tool is a lifelong devotion to the truth.  

Brain Mechanisms for Self-Control.  

To the neocortex is owed the spectacular increase in mammalian intelligence and capacity for self-control, though HW this worlds in terms of neural mechanisms is not known. In primates, the great expansion of the prefrontal cortex is probably  also responsible for the enhanced capacity to predict the behavior of others, usually via the attribution of goals and emotions. 

Free will 

Two different things that can be meant by free will. 

1. Your decisions are not caused by anything at all---not by your goals, emotions, motives, knowledge, or whatever. Somehow, your will (whatever that is) creates a reason (whatever it is) . This is know. As the contracausal account  of free will. The term contracausal reflects a philosophical theory that free choices are not caused by anything, or at least by nothing physical such as an activity in the brain.Kant and some contemporaries of his held this view. 

One problem with this theory is that it elevates having a reason and acting on it to a semimagical level. Such an elevation is unhelpful. A reason can be a perception, an emotion, a memory, a solution to a problem, an evaluation of the future consequences of an action, and so forth. Any of these can be reasons, and all involve functions carried out by the physical brain, almost certainly. 

A second problem is the assumption of a no physical soul, a dubious assumption that has found itself singularly evidence-weak. 

 

A third problem: when I made a bad problem, such as impulsively running away from a dog, is that decision caused by fear in my soul? Are only good decisions caused by the soul, while bad ones are caused by the brain? Any soul-based strategy for solving it appears ad hoc---made up for the occasion rather than part of a systematic and powerful explanatory theory. 

2. Ordinary meaning of free will: volition, no coercion 

Your conscious does the talking

Brains cannot reason, minds can. Brains have neurons, minds cannot. 

Dan Dennett argues that only thought involving language are conscious. 

Panksepp thinks being conscious enables the acquisition of language, not the other way around. If you are not conscious, in any of the various ways that a person can be nonconscious (for example,k in deep sleep), you are not going to learn much if anything, let alone language. 

The science of consciousness 

The ribbon of consciousness that is the central thalamus is controlled by activity in the brainstem and in turn regulates the cortical neurons to ready themselves for conscious business. Activity in this three-part arrangement---brainstem + central thalamus + cortex---is the support structure for being conscious of anything at all. 

It seems plausible that consciousness, in some form or other, is a feature of the brain of all mammals and birds. 

Right now there are no electronic devices now that can tell what another person thinks we analyze their brain waves.