Words&Dirt

“Mental states both emerge from (bottom-up) and constrain (top-down) neural activity. With this formulation, one of the traditional ideas in neuroscience––that brain activity precedes conscious thought and that brain-generated beliefs do not constrain brain activity––is also challenged. The concept of ‘bidirectional causation’ underscores the fact that in order to understand the nature of brain-enabled conscious experience, we must learn to decipher the dynamic interactions among and between hierarchical levels of the brain (Mesulam, 1998), both anatomically (e.g. molecules, genes, cells, ensembles, mini-columns, columns, areas, lobes) and functionally (e.g. unimodal, multimodal, and transmodal mental processing). Since each layer animates the other, just as software animates hardware and vice versa, phenomenal awareness starts at the point of interaction between the layers, not in the staging areas within a single layer. This suggests that we are living in real time, not after the fact. It also means that the hypotheses, beliefs, and other mental constructs our mechanistic brain generates and constantly changes as we move forward in our experiences can influence subsequent actions. Our freedom comes from gaining more options to act upon as we relentlessly explore our environment. When all of this is taken together, I suggest that not only does the concept of personal responsibility remain intact but that brain-generated beliefs add further richness to our lives and can free us from the sense of inevitability that comes with a deterministic view of the world.

Many of us––who have turned our thoughts to these subject after spending our lives in bioscience and particularly in neuroscience––see the problem from a particular perspective. There will be extensive and rich discussions of the issue of free will and determinism throughout this collection, and the arguments are daunting and challenging to consider. Yet, the intricacies of many of the classic discussions feel arcane to me. Arcane because we live in the twenty-first century and have both the advantage and the burden of having learned more about the neuroscientific nature of life in the last 60 years than was ever known before in human history. Surely our predecessors were handicapped by their lack of this newly gained biological knowledge. No doubt, there isn’t one great philosopher, and there have been many over the past 2,000 years, who wouldn’t exchange their scientific knowledge base for that of a modern bioscientist. It is not only knowing about modern scientific information that makes the difference––it is also feeling it! I believe it is at this point where modern philosophical argument should begin, at the p0oint where modern neuroscience is both appreciated and understood. And so, I can think of no more exciting enterprise than to examine the issues of determinism, free will, and responsibility in light of this modern knowledge and see where it takes us.”

–– “Mental Life and Responsibility in Real Time with a Determined Brain,” by Michael S. Gazzaniga, Moral Psychology, Vol. 4, ed. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, pg. 59-60

“One thing was sure: things had started to move. I told myself this as I walked home clutching my bag of groceries. Now all I had to do was hold on tight to keep from being knocked off. If I could do that, I would probably end up somewhere––somewhere different from where I was now, at least.”

––The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, by Haruki Murakami, pg. 372