Of Two Minds
I really enjoyed reading “Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain” by neuroscientist David Eagleman, so much so that I’ll probably return to it again and again as time goes by.
It is an interesting overview of the current state of our knowledge about the brain, and Eagleman’s views on the implications both for society as well as for the individual.
One of his premises is that most of the things that make us who we are occur below the level of conscious thought. We already knew that vast swaths of the brain control autonomic behavior, but Eagleman asserts that more of the things we consider “us”-including our behavior, beliefs, motivations, and what we are allowed to think-are learned and burned into the brain’s circuitry at a level that is simply inaccessible to conscious inspection, modification, or control.
To paraphrase the popular philosopher Hamlet, “There are more things in your speech and behavior, Horatio, than are thought up in your consciousness.”
I find this dovetails nicely with the Buddhist belief that the unexamined life is ruled by long-established habit patterns from our past, and that most of our behavior is a straightforward, linear result of the coming together of conditions: specifically the intersection of those established personality patterns with the external conditions we find ourselves in.
Amusingly, this echoes something I theorized a good 30 years ago. In a document I titled “Orny’s Hypotheses”, entry number one reads as follows: No organized religion can never reflect the true beliefs of its nominal adherents, for each such individual must learn the tenets of the religion from an external source and accept them without any possible reservation. In truth, individuals cannot consciously modify or mold their beliefs; faith comes from within the individual, and what is in his heart is his true faith, no matter what his professed faith. This faith may be discovered through introspection and be consciously acknowledged or it may remain hidden in the subconscious of the individual. One cannot decide what one believes, merely discover it, although this does not prohibit change in beliefs over time.
Getting back to Eagleman, his view of the human mind differs greatly from the popular conception of a single conscious entity. He regards the brain as what he terms “a team of rivals”. In his mind, the brain has different factions, each of which wants to influence the mind’s single output channel: our behavior. Even the language is familiar to us: we’re “of two minds” because part of us wants to eat that bowl of ice cream, but part of us says we shouldn’t. Rather than a unified single computing machine, the brain is more like a parliament or a family. But your conscious mind is only made aware of this when there’s an unresolvable conflict between factions that requires an arbiter, when a decision needs to be made.
All this sounds like Eagleman has a dim view of our vaunted concept of free will. We think we’re in control of our body and our mind and our personality, but that is largely false. Freedom-choosing to think and act in ways that are not influenced (if not determined) by our biological, chemical, and material makeup-is an illusion.
Eagleman diverges briefly into a discussion of the implications this has for criminal justice, based as it is on guilt, blameworthiness, and personal responsibility. For most people, there is an ethical difference between a responsible person committing a premeditated crime and someone whose brain chemistry causes them to perform socially proscribed actions. As we understand the brain better, our justice system should drop such outdated concepts as blame, responsibility, and punishment in favor of altering the criminal’s conditioning and mental habits such that in the future they will act in accordance with the law.
The thread that most interests me in Eagleman’s book is his demonstration that who you are and what you think is extremely closely tied to the chemical and biological state of your brain. He illustrates how easily the brain can be changed by various means: narcotics, viruses, genetics, neurotransmitters, hormones. We tend to think that we all share the same basic brain function and capacity, but that’s very much not true. We aren’t even guaranteed that our own brain performs consistently from day to day. And those changes can have dramatic effects upon our personality, outlook, opinions, speech, and behavior.
At the same time, Eagleman isn’t a strict material reductionist. While we are inseparable from our physical componentry, he views consciousness as a kind of emergent property that might indeed be something greater than the sum of its parts. But the parts are a whole lot more important than we’ve been led to believe.
For me, the book prompted a lot of soul-searching (or mind-searching). It brings up the idea that the ego-the self-is ultimately nothing more than a very convincing illusion. In that respect, I must admit that it’s a much more accessible introduction to that concept than all the esoteric writings and talks I’ve seen regarding the Buddhist concept of not-self.
Most people have a visceral reaction against the idea that who we are is wholly determined by this three-pound bag of neurons. After all, their sense of self is real and immediate, and giving up that view comes with a very powerful sense of loss. Perhaps future humans will equate those emotions with what people felt back in the 17th century when Galileo’s observations disproved the Ptolomaic view that Earth was the center of the universe.
Over time, that earlier fall from primacy opened our eyes to the incomprehensible scale and majesty of the solar system, our galaxy, and the known universe. If neuroscience winds up evicting our conscious minds from the central seat of our internal world, it will simultaneously reveal the brain’s truly incomprehensible complexity and renew our sense of wonder at the unbelievable natural achievement that is the human mind.
I’d like to know “what you think”.