Remembering What we are Told

This is the 18th blog in the series which began with The Brainless Bible and the Mindless Illusion of Self and is exploring ideas about free will, the mind, the brain and the self. The previous blog is Do We have the Brains to Deal with Ourselves? (II).   This blog series is based on the recent books of two scientists who are considering some claims from neuroscience about consciousness and free will:  Michael S. Gazzaniga’s  WHO’S IN CHARGE?:  FREE WILL AND THE SCIENCE OF THE BRAIN and Raymond Tallis’  APING MANKIND:NEUROMANIA, DARWINITIS AND THE MISREPRESENTATION OF HUMANITY.

One of the areas which the new neuroscience is exploring is the nature of memories.  What a memory is exactly in terms of brain function is still not completely understood.  While scientists are exploring the nature of memories in mice, how this translates to the human mind is not completely known.

“A mouse’s memory of a single fearful event is one thing: the complex associations of human memory, powered by a dense network of neuronal connections, is quite another. … More complex memories, like the recollection of an event that happened to you, are  stored in many different areas of the brain.”  (Dan Hurley, “Where Memory Lives,” DISCOVER, April 2012, 37)

Tallis commented extensively on how memories cannot be reduced to a simple biochemical or neuronal action.  Memories are complexly stored over a wide area of the brain.  Part of the wondrous mystery of the brain is exactly how the memories are stored and how they are recalled to form cogent images that our brain can interpret and use.  Not only does an individual’s brain use these memories, but they can be shared socially by a number of people in meaningful interactions.

Tallis’ point is that human mental activity is not coterminous with the brain functions that bring them about.  There is an immaterial element to thinking, remembering, choosing and creating.  This is the “self” which the neo-atheists cannot allow because of their ideological commitment to materialism, not because it doesn’t exist.

Even the recent claims by some of the neo-atheists that science proves the brain begins to act seconds before the human appears to know what action it is going to do fails to take into account that a human does not just begin acting in any one second, but rather each human mind is composed of a countless number of neuronal connections – memories of past experience as well as inherited reflexes.  So any activity we do is shaped by and founded in memories and thoughts that are already stored in the brain.  We simply do not have the complete picture yet and so cannot claim that free will does not exist.  Past choices and experience do shape our thinking, choices and actions – the brain doesn’t just suddenly jump into motion with no premeditation when it has a choice before it.   Past experience, likes, pleasures, memories, emotions, etc, are all already at work in us and so predate every decision we make.  The fact that neurons begin working and that scientists can from fMRIs predict what a person is going to do before they are aware themselves of what they are going to do, doesn’t disprove free will, it only shows us that our self and will is married to our physical bodies and cannot be completely separated from them.  The science is telling us that a dualistic understanding of the human is an incorrect understanding.  The notions of self, consciousness and free will are essential for understanding what it is to be human – to understand what has evolved in the human species, in the uniqueness of the human mind.

Jonah Lehrer writing in the March 2012 issue of WIRED (“The Forgetting Pill”) describes the efforts of medical science to deal with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Neuroscientists are trying to understand the nature of memories to see if a memory can be isolated in the brain and then in one fashion or another removed or neutralized so that a person can overcome their PTSD and be freed from the pain of those memories.   Such “memory tweaks” raise a variety of ethical problems and questions:  Who decides which memories are to be erased?  When we lose memories we also lose lessons learned – who accepts responsibility for that loss?  How do we deal with people who intentionally erase memories so as not to be held accountable for things they did?  Who owns our memories – do future generations (our children for example) have a right to possess or inherit our memories?   And legally a host of problems will be raised in courts when people intentionally erase memories which are needed as evidence (tampering with evidence is a crime after all) and witnesses will be invalidated by accusations that their memories were tampered with.

Again, the push for the use of science raises ethical concerns that science itself cannot answer.

Jeffrey Kluger writing in the 5 March 2012 issue of TIME applies some of the same neuronal questions to the subject of will power and whether science can reshape the will once it understands the neuronal activity involved in self-indulgence and self-denial.  Here too the complexity of brain function has meant so far an incomplete understanding of how will power works and what can be done to affect it.

But the implication in all of these studies is that science one day will be able to know exactly how the brain functions and will be able to control or change that function in any/every human being.  Whether we want science to have that power, or whether we believe that power will be harnessed by other social groups (government for example; or militant ideologues) for their own nefarious purposes, we come to understand that all of these issues in neural science have serious ethical implications for us all.

We need to pay attention to what science might wrought.

Next:  Brain Life and Death

6 thoughts on “Remembering What we are Told

  1. Pingback: Do We have the Brains to Deal with Ourselves? (II) | Fr. Ted's Blog

  2. Pingback: Orthodox Collective

  3. Thanks for the blog entry. I look for blogs like this one because I have a spirit-directed approach that is set forth on my web page “How to solve free-will puzzles and overcome limitations of platonic science” and an accompanying essay found at

    I challenge the “modern scientific view” that declares that “all things are made of atoms,” that a “mathematic scheme governs the structure of the universe” and that “laws of physics” comprehend “reality.” I construct alternative views that include both spiritual principles and new kinds of engineered devices that model activities of brains; and I criticize the hegemonic attitude of modern science. In connection with the subject of the blog post, my constructions employ “consciousness” or (more specifically) “awareness of imagery” and “memory” as a means of matching present experiences to past experiences and thus enable an organism to base activities on the basis of remembered “forms.”

    Despite all the “I” statements, my approach is actually more modest than that of claimants to scientific hegemony. For example I think that evolution is a good idea — but subject to improvement in ways that have been rather clearly identified, e.g., by Gould in his “saltational” speculations. Those active in scientific disciplines might better lead the way in looking for improvements rather than insisting that present notions are perfect. On the other side, I also think that Biblical fundamentalism is a good idea — especially for believers who are new to spiritual disciplines. Some fundamentalists could also benefit from studies in textual analysis, form criticism, etc. Fundamentalism is like high school: some will go beyond but it is useful for all, even those who don’t go beyond. In my view, Biblical fundamentalism and evolution easily co-exist because I do not see why either should exclude the other. I like them both, although I find Biblical fundamentalism a source of spiritual growth and mental entertainment at this aging point in my life while evolution has never been more than a minor interest. The popular conflict between the two arises from the fact that they share a common defect in that each asserts such an exclusionary hegemony. The problem is not with ideas, which may be good ideas even if imperfect, but with attempts at hegemony, especially with imperfect ideas.

    I might add that my faith community is with the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) — who are definitely not fundamentalists — and one principle is declared in the Quaker children’s “George Fox song” in a statement attributed to Quaker Founder Fox: “Will you swear on the Bible? ‘I will not,’ said he. ‘For the Truth is more holy than the book to me.'”

    Evolution, like scriptural passages, is found in a book. I believe that truth can only be approximated by what is found in books. There are other ways to approximate. Worship approaches truth from one direction and engineered devices from another direction. These are my preferred directions. But books are what is mostly being written and read by human beings these days and I do need to keep informed.

    Thanks for the blog post and the series. It is good to see such subject addressed from a spiritual perspective.

  4. Pingback: Brain Life and Death | Fr. Ted's Blog

  5. Pingback: Storms: Choices, Consequences, and Contentment | Social Behavioral Patterns–How to Understand Culture and Behaviors

  6. Pingback: Ronnie Murrill

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.