December 2012 is Brain Month on my Blog!

The below post was incorporated into my e-book The Apple of Knowledge. If this interests you, please consider buying my book.

Okay, this blog is not supposed to be focused upon the philosophical question of the mind-brain identity. Next month I am going to start posting on entirely different topics. But permit me one last mind-brain blog post. . . .

How do we know that the mind is the brain? Three reasons:

1. Brain damage. Science has learned, from over 100 years of experience, that brain damage to a specific section of the brain corresponds to a failure in a specific function of the mind. For example, there is a part of the brain which once damaged causes the mind to cease to recognize faces, so a person can see the face of a loved one and not know who they are, and be unable to remember faces. This strongly suggests that the mind is composed of the collection of mental functions of each part of the human brain.

2. Drug effects. Drugs such as alcohol and marijuana have a specific effect upon the mind. These are physical substances which alter the brain. This is what we would expect if the mind is the brain. If the mind were a soul then we would not expect drugs to alter or control it.

3. Sleep, etc. If the mind was a disembodied soul then we would expect it to remain awake while the brain sleeps, not to be controlled by bodily urges such as hunger, etc.

The counterargument is people's anecdotes of out of body experiences and spiritual experiences, but this is adequately explained by hallucinations and wishful thinking.

One last note: I strongly believe that evolution not only changed the human brain, it also added new things on top of the old ones while leaving the old parts relatively unchanged. Thus I think the neocortex is the distinctly human reasoning part of the brain, while the older brain structures remain much as they were in our animal ancestors. This is why the conscious mind can focus and concentrate, but the older parts of the brain have a remarkably short attention span and are easily distracted: back one million years ago the brain needed to quickly react to new stimuli to survive (e.g. by fighting or running away from predators and dangers), whereas in modern man the need to mentally concentrate is key to survival (e.g. learning and developing technology). A lot of people underachieve their intellectual potential by not engaging the distinctly human reasoning part of their brain and instead let the animal part of their brain do most of their cognitive activity, which explains all the people who have short attention spans and do nothing but watch TV and eat potato chips in their spare time, instead of reading great books and thinking deep thoughts. That last part, however, is just my opinion, and is conceptually distinct from the brain-mind identity hypothesis.

Brains vs. Souls, and Brain Management

This blog post has found a new home in my book The Apple of Knowledge. If you enjoy it, please buy my book!

There is a popular Philosophy 101/Philosophy of Mind argument that looks at the data from brains which have had the corpus collosum, which connects the brain's right and left hemispheres together, severed. Severing the corpus collosum was an old remedy for seizures which is no longer used, but the data remains. These brains had minds where one part of the mind did not know what another part of the mind was seeing. For example, the left eye would look at an apple but the mouth would say "I don't see an apple." The Analytic philosophers' argument is that a "person" or a "mind" is one whole being, and therefore the self cannot be identical with the brain. I draw precisely the opposite conclusion: it is scientifically undeniable that the mind is the brain, and therefore cognitive neuroscience must conclude that the mind/brain has many different parts, which work together in a healthy brain but which can become separated by physical or psychological dysfunction. Based upon reading about it and personal observations, I believe the brain has several distinct parts, which most people would recognize. The consciousness or "upper brain" is probably the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex, possibly only the neocortex section. The consciousness is aware of reality and uses conscious reasoning. The "lower brain" or subconscious mind is probably many different structures, probably including both the other lobes of the cerebral cortex and structures in the middle of the brain including the amygdalae and basil ganglia. The lower brain uses subconscious reasoning, has emotional reactions such as lust or sadness, and also implements behavioral conditioning through feelings of reward and punishment. The "bottom brain" or unconscious mind controls bodily functions like digestion, and is invisible to the conscious mind.

I think that evolution intended for the conscious mind to "manage" the subconscious mind and to make a deliberate effort for the brain to function properly and for the different parts to work as a whole. The lower brain has a naturally short attention span and gets easily distracted by sensory stimuli or thinking about sex, and has the attention span of a fish--maybe 30 seconds before something distracts it. Concentration and focus come from the upper brain. The lower brain also has a natural tendency to be irrational, and I believe that evolution intended the upper brain to impose rationality upon the lower brain. Cognitive neuroscience indicates that the brain often functions by having biological impulses and urges which can be suppressed and inhibited by the action of the brain, and I think that the consciousness acts by controlling the lower brain and directing the brain's tendencies into a rational plan. Performing a task uses the entire brain, with the bottom brain interfacing with and moving the body, the lower brain using the habits conditioned from experience, and the upper brain paying attention and thinking about the task.

The human brain has a design flaw in that the consciousness naturally thinks of itself as a nonphysical "soul" and sees the lower brain as the "body." I dispute such a view of the mind. The consciousness is a part of the brain, and the mind is a physical object in reality, a "res extensa" to discredit Descartes using his own terms. The consciousness as brain does not mean that there is no such thing as free will. As stated, the brain can modify and influence itself by its internal cognitive processes, and the conscious mind can make decisions which control the lower brain. But the lower brain can also have physical malfunctions which impose irrationality upon the consciousness, which is how I would characterize mental illness. The self is not ethically responsible for mental illness which has an entirely physical origin, although it is the task of the upper brain to impose rationality upon the self, and it is also probably possible for a brain to freely choose to behave in an insane manner. Free will is "top-down" causation wherein the upper brain controls the brain's behavior, whereas mental illness is a type of "bottom-up" causation wherein physiological factors influence or control the conscious mind's thinking. Obviously this would be difficult to scientifically inspect using contemporary methods, but could be inferred from first person introspection. This is not so much a scientific postulate as it is a theory which could be called philosophy of mind/philosophy of science presenting a foundation for cognitive neuroscience.

The Movies of 2012

My favorite movies of 2012:

1. Atlas Shrugged. They really did this one right. I am surprised that it was not more popular at the box office. A must-see for objectivists and libertarians. Don't bother to see Part One though, it was not nearly as good. Atlas Shrugged Part Two stands by itself, and was very impressive.

2. The Avengers. The first truly incredible 3-D action movie. As a lifelong Buffy fan, it was nice to have another chance to see Joss Whedon work his magic. I wonder how long it will be before all movies and TV shows are in 3-D. Probably only a matter of time.

3. Batman. Surprisingly this movie had a very libertarian, anti-socialism message in the end, and it was a fun film with great action and some unexpected twists. Implausible at times, but well thought out and good execution by good actors.

4. Skyfall. Finally, the producers have decided to return James Bond to what made the classic 007 films great. Enough of all that new stuff, the last two Bond movies were horrible! This one was better, and may have saved the franchise. Implausible, but fun.

What I am looking forward to seeing: The Hobbit. Need I say more? Although I wish they would have done the entire novel as one 9 hour-long movie. I would have watched it from start to finish.

What I have no interest in seeking: Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part Two. I absolutely LOVED the original Twilight movie, but each sequel was worse than the one before. Breaking Dawn Part One was sheer propaganda for the pro-life movement, with the whole Bella's baby thing. I have no problem with a movie having a message, but there has to actually be some sort of entertainment injected into the movie to carry you along with the ideas. By the way, on the subject of Twilight, Twilight is Pride and Prejudice with vampires, and New Moon is Romeo and Juliet with vampires. Well-written and clever, but these are plots borrowed from the classics, these were not original inventions. Also it seems somehow dishonest to make a movie franchise based around hot teenage guys and then build it as a message about the wrongness of sex before marriage. The message isn't  necessarily bad, it's just inconsistent and self-contradictory with the appeal of the movies.

Religion as Myth and Mental Illness

This blog post was refined and published in my e-book The Apple of Knowledge, which gives a far broader analysis of science vs. religion.

Christians and Muslims, please turn away. It’s about to get ugly. Jews and atheists, keep reading: you don’t believe in Hell, so there’s really no downside to being exposed to my heresy.

Let me begin by disclosing that I am an atheist. My theory of religion is that religion is a mixture of mythology and psychological defects arising from “design flaws” in the human brain. I can explain the myth part of religion very simply: ancient humans circa 10,000 BC to 1500 AD did not have science, but they needed theories to explain the natural phenomena they observed, so they dreamed up gods and supernatural forces to explain lightning, fire, death, etc. The mental illness side of religion is the more interesting aspect, which I will discuss here.

What is a “mental illness”? Let me begin with two foundational premises. First, humans are animals. Second, the mind is the brain. If the brain’s purpose as an organ in the body is to think, then we can define “mental illness” as a physical malfunction of the brain which interferes with the brain’s ability to think properly.

My basic idea is that religion is a type of mental illness, not as extreme as insanity or delusions or schizophrenia, but lacking in sanity and based upon brain malfunctions. It should be clear that religion, in itself, would be defined as a “mental illness” by most psychiatrists if not for the fact that billions of people believe in religion and that makes it socially acceptable and immune from criticism. If someone came up to you on the street and said to you that God has spoken to them, your natural reaction would be to think that this person is completely insane. But for some reason when a book written 2000 years ago says that God spoke to people it is regarded as truth and not as evidence that the Bible’s authors had mental health problems.

It is perfectly understandable that so many people believe in God. I believe that the human brain has evolved several “design flaws,” problems with how the brain works which make it easy for human beings to believe in religion. A list of these mental illness vulnerabilities follows:

1. Confirmation bias. Brains have “confirmation bias” of thinking that something might happen, and then when it happens they think it is supernatural because there was a chance it wouldn’t happen, or else they notice when what they expect happens and don’t notice when what they expect doesn’t happen so they believe in the supernatural. Thus when a person has a religious belief they tend to feel that their experiences confirm their beliefs, but when they have an experience which would refute their belief they simply ignore it. For example, when a believer wins the lottery they think God gave them good luck, but if the very next day this same person’s best friend gets sick and dies they won’t notice it as it reflects upon the existence of a supposedly omnipotent loving God. Another example of confirmation bias: you have a feeling that something will happen and then it does happen, you think you predicted the future, but you do not notice the ten other times today that you felt something was going to happen and it did not happen.

2. Subjectivism, and prayer as a reaction to helplessness. Ayn Rand had a theory which she called “primacy of consciousness,” which is really subjectivism, the feeling that brains have that thoughts, beliefs, and feelings, can alter reality supernaturally without any physical activity or physical causation. The brain knows that what it perceives is real, so some brains incorrectly infer that reality is coming from perception, when in fact perceptions and beliefs are coming from physical reality. This explains the belief in the power of prayer. When the brain is totally helpless it turns to prayer as the only thing it can do, and then when the person who prays is somehow saved they credit the prayer and believe in the supernatural. The people who survive disasters and who prayed to God and were saved then become fanatical believers who tell everyone else to pray, but nobody ever hears from all the people who had emergencies and prayed and their prayers were not answered and they died. When people think that subjectivism is true they think their beliefs and feelings can change reality so when they are helpless they pray. I think the brain actually has a design flaw which makes the mind try to get control of the situation in situations where the person is totally helpless instead of simply accepting one's helplessness.

3. The blank slate problem. The brain is born empty and is essentially programmed like a computer by what it is taught from ages 1 to 15. Young children have no knowledge or experience and most often they simply believe what they are taught. And as adults the human brain tends to simply go with what it already believes instead of questioning beliefs or using critical thinking directed in upon itself. This is why most people believe in the religion they were raised on and were taught by their parents. If there was one true religion then you would expect everyone to believe in the same religion, and if people reached religion is a result of thought then one would expect various religions to overlap geographically. The fact that each region has one majority religion (e.g. Christianity in Europe and the USA, Islam in the Middle East, Hinduism in India) is what you would expect if religious beliefs come from what parents teach to their children. It is rare for a belief to come as the result of what a person reasons independently instead of what you are taught and indoctrinated in. This is because of a design flaw in the human brain which causes brains to soak up beliefs that they are fed as young children instead of thinking critically from a young age.

4. Conformity and obedience to authority. When I took Psychology 101 in college I was taught that it was well established by scientific experiments that the human brain has two tendencies: the obedience to authority and conformity tendencies, which are wired into the human brain. Humans will take orders from a perceived authority figure which they would not take from normal people. And an individual will tend to say that he believes things which parallel the beliefs of the group that he/she is a member of, in defiance of his/her own independent perceptions. So religions get people to say they believe in them because everyone else believes and people tend to conform to the beliefs of the group. If atheism were popular then everyone would be an atheist, but because religion is popular everyone is a believer. Also religion creates authority figures, and the human brain has a tendency to obey.

5. The stress reaction. It is well established that the emotion centers in the human brain react to fear and panic by shutting down the thinking centers in the brain and giving energy to the “fight or flight” response which is accompanied by fear and panic in the emotional parts of the brain. This design flaw in the human brain makes people behave stupidly and irrationally in crisis situations, which makes people tend to seek help from the supernatural to save them instead of calmly, rationally figuring out how to solve the problem.

6. Habits. The subconscious mind parts of the brain tend to develop habits, and the argument can be made that the human brain can be conditioned, like a dog or a bird, to repeat the same behavior if it has been given a reward repeatedly for performing that behavior in the past. This conditioning and subconscious repetition tends to embed traditions in human behavior, which would not exist if decisions were always made as a result of reasoning.

7. Hallucinations. Most people erroneously believe that they see with their eyes. That is not how the brain works. The eyes send neural signals to the vision centers in the brain, and the vision centers in the brain are what actually forms visual perceptions which are “seen” by the mind, really, by the conscious mind which I believe is the frontal cerebral cortex or perhaps the entire frontal lobe. Thus, when the brain chemicals malfunction or the neurons malfunction and misfire and there is an imbalance in neurotransmitter chemicals, it is very possible for the brain to believe that it is “seeing” something which simply does not exist. And these hallucinations are influenced by the ideas which are already in the mind, so if your brain malfunctions you might think that you are hearing God speak to you or seeing spirits which look like your religious beliefs. The brain plays tricks on the mind, and this is probably what happens to ancient “prophets” who thought God was speaking to them. I do not believe that the possibility of hallucination makes it impossible to achieve certainty and knowledge, and hallucination is not an excuse for philosophical doubt and skepticism. But we humans do need to be aware that our brains are vulnerable to design flaws, and also that the people we trust, and the groups we follow and go along with, are all of them vulnerable to human brain design flaws.

8. Problems in the different parts of the brain communicating with each other, i.e. a flaw in the evolution of interneurons. This takes many forms: 

A. Confusion regarding who hears your thoughts: you hear your own thoughts and think God is listening to you. This is a brain malfunction. You also talk to yourself in your thoughts and think you are talking to God, which is part of the origin of prayer. Prayer is talking to yourself in your thoughts and hearing yourself think, and a brain malfunction and the lack of an evolved set of neurons within the brain for the brain to see its own activity permits the mind to think that it is talking to God and that God is listening, the mind sees someone listening but the neurons don’t make the connection that the thing which is listening is also the thing that is thinking. As a matter of neuroscience it is well established that the center in the brain which speaks and forms words is not in precisely the same location in the brain as the center which hears and interprets words. I believe that religious mental illness can arise when these different hearing and speaking centers in the brain do not communicate properly with each other and when the brain does not pay attention to its own thinking and fails to pay attention to its listening to its own thoughts and is not properly self-aware of its own thinking, in other words if the brain does not know that it thinks to itself then it believes that it is speaking to God.

B. The visual parts of the brain when they hallucinate send signals to the frontal cortex/conscious mind and you see the hallucination but your brain does not tell you that it is a creation of the imagination and not from the sensory receptors in the eyes, this is a design flaw in communication between the eyes and the brain and between the different parts of the brain, which would not exist if the neurons had evolved better.

C. The ability to “will” or wish, of the conscious mind to send signals to the brain stem or motor cortex (which control the muscles and move the body) desiring things to happen, and the brain perceives no difference between sending a signal to the muscles to move the hand, which it can do, and sending out signals to cast a magic spell to make it rain, i.e. to “wish/will” it to rain, which it cannot do. If the frontal cerebral cortex received accurate signals from the brain stem and motor cortex to see where its signals went and what they did then this would simply not exist.

In conclusion, if religion comes from brain malfunctions then it is highly debatable whether people are “to blame” for mistaken religious beliefs, since the physical matter of the brain is to blame, and conscious choice plays a minimal role. People are not weak and stupid, they are merely human, all too human. Perhaps religion will remain in the human species until the human brain takes its next steps of evolutionary progress. Perhaps wars between Christians and Muslims will lead to nuclear war and our total extinction before that evolution can happen. These are merely idle speculations. However, from a biological, scientific point of view, there is an adequate explanation of religion purely from physical causes and with no reference to the actual real existence of God or anything supernatural.

Experimental Philosophy and External Contradictions

This blog post is now a chapter in my book The Apple of Knowledge.
Today I would like to introduce two related concepts: experimental philosophy, and external contradictions.

Many philosophers claim to want to introduce the "scientific method" into philosophy. Hume said this. So did Kant. But philosophers have been notoriously lazy in terms of actually using science in philosophy. The scientific method begins with a belief, theory, assumption, premise, hypothesis or postulate, and then looks at experience, usually in the form of empirical data from tests and experiments, and science asks: "is our experiences exactly what we would have expected them to be if our theory was correct?" If not, throw out the theory and try a new one. If it is confirmed, always be looking for more verification from other new tests.

What would experimental philosophy look like? Well, if Kantian subjectivism is true and the mind creates the experience of space and time, then you could jump out a window and your mind could alter your experience of the noumena so that your phenomena of space would look like you were flying. Kantians who are unwilling to test this hypothesis are intellectually insincere.

Or, if Hume's skepticism were true, one would expect the sun not to rise tomorrow. If you possess knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow, and this knowledge is confirmed, then it can't have been true that you did not know anything. But Hume believes that we could not know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow.

A related concept involving the use of empirical data in philosophy is external contradiction. Every great philosopher claims to have a "coherent" philosophy, that is, one which is internally consistent and has no internal contradictions. The only problem with these claims is that it is incredibly easy to think up a theory which is internally consistent. Hume's philosophy is. So is Kant's. So is Ayn Rand's, and so are most other great thinkers'. Perhaps the only example I can think of a famous theory with an internal contradiction is Christianity, namely that God is loving but evil exists, or that God is the only power but the Devil is powerful.

The far more difficult, but more important, task of a theory is to not have external contradictions, in other words, not to conflict with what our experiences teach us. For Rand, the idea, as one objectivist recently wrote in a reply to a Liberty article of mine, the idea that "emotions are robots" is internally consistent with her philosophy. Indeed, Rand seems to have believed that Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden could program their emotions like robots, to make NB love Rand and to make BB love NB. But experience proved that emotions are not robots and love comes from chemistry as well as logic, and the whole Branden-Rand sex affair explosion happened, disproving the "emotions are robots" hypothesis. But history seems to indicate that Rand clung to her theory instead of rejecting it when she faced the external contradiction. This is not a scientific attitude to have. If being scientific is a desirable trait, then we must challenge, and be ready to discard, any belief which is exposed as having an external contradiction.

Be Yourself

I have decided that this blog is going to be as accurate a reflection of my personality as it can be. As such, it will be rare for me to post a blog post where I ramble on about gossip or comment on current events. There are enough other blogs which do that. More frequently I will be posting short stories (usually in the fantasy or science fiction genres, my specialties), libertarian political essays, or philosophical essays from a somewhat Objectivist-oriented point of view (although I am not a traditional Objectivist and have deep disagreements with some of Ayn Rand's ideas). I hope that these blog posts are interesting and that someone somewhere reads them, but to paraphrase Ellsworth Toohey, the villain in Ayn Rand's novel "The Fountainhead": "How can we ever know who reads our stuff?"

Debut Post

This is the inaugural post of my new Blogspot blog, RussHasan. Let's see how it looks!