Human nature and its implications

One of the best non-fiction books I've read was "The Human Mind Explained", edited by Susan A. Greenfield. While we certainly are far from knowing everything about how the human mind functions, this book makes it clear that scientists now have an understanding of some of the basic physical processes that are essential to human thought, one of which is the firing of the synapse and the generation of a 'brain wave'. The diagrams and explanations in this book are excellent and made it easy to understand, even for someone like me who is not well educated in biology (though my education in basic chemistry and physics certainly helped).

If there weren't enough already to make it clear that our consciousness has a physical basis (e.g. the affect of drugs and brain trauma, split-brain effects, affect of amydala function on temperment), this information should be enough to convince anyone with an honest, open mind who is willing to seriously consider its implications. Of course, it doesn't convince many people simply because they don't want this too be true and their instincts tell them that it is not. The immediate implication is that there is no after-life... that death equals non-existence. With that conclusion, their primary reason for believing in a God disappears and with it the emotional support that comes from believing that their lives are part of a plan in which God is looking after their interests. It of course also means that they will not see again all of their loved ones who have died. Of course there is a cascade of further implications, but that should be enough to make the point. The transition from a belief in a 'soul' that is separate from the physical body (aka, "The ghost in the machine") is too overwhelming for most people to accept.

I've just finished another book ("The Blank Slate", by Steven Pinker) which mentions "The ghost in the machine" along with another commonly accepted faith, "The noble savage", but focuses in upon the appealing idea that every childs mind is a 'blank slate' in that anything can be written upon it and anyone can become anything they (or their parents, government, etc.) want to be. Pinker presents the case for there being an evolved 'human nature' (though both 'nature/genes' and 'nurture/environment' are shown play a role in our behavior) and discusses several aspects of this, 1) the backlash from the public and even some scientists against this notion, 2) a rebuttal of their arguments (which amount mostly to fears), and 3) examples of how this different way to look at human behavior can impact the way we deal with societies problems (e.g. education, violence, crime and punishment, discrimination based upon gender).

Pinker describes how the political ideologies of the far left and far right have folded into their justifications the concepts of the 'noble savage' and the 'blank slate' and how this was part of the explanation for the huge backlash against scientists proposing that even a portion of our behaviors are explained by our genes. I found this very interesting, because my own centrist political philosophy has been based upon the idea that 'liberals' and 'conservatives' (amongst others) are different by their very nature and that we cannot expect them to change... that we must have a system that accomodates our inherent diversity. The ideals of one group run contrary to the nature of other groups and their political ideologies are doomed to eventually fail (which Pinker also notes and gives examples of). I believe that the founders of American government went a long way towards accomplishing this goal of building a society that accomodates diversity and that they were on the right track. It is a society based upon meeting the needs of people as individuals, but this does not mean that society will suffer... in fact I believe society likely can maximize its success along such a path (see Pinkers discussion of the evolution of ethics).

These books and the ideas they stimulate are what I mean in my Blog self-description when I talk of developing a philosophy driven by our understanding of nature. This course in life demands a love of, and dedication to, scientific inquiry and it means able to be self-honest and self-critical when it comes to deciding what you 'believe'. At the same time it means that 'belief' is endlessly subject to change as our understanding of nature improves. It does NOT mean that science is my 'faith', for I fully recognize its potential to be wrong. At the same time I DO recognize its capability, proven time and again, of identifying its errors and improving its models. Anyone sharing this perspective: I'd love to see your 'favorite non-fiction book list' and hear how this learning has affected your political or philosophical views. If you have a blog... please send me the link!