Antonio Damascio is one of the top neuroscientists whose work directly touches on philosophical questions, and his clear and elegant writing is seasoned with relevant references to the arts. His blockbuster 1994 book, Descartes’ Error, explains that if the parts of our brain that support reason were not neurologically connected to the parts of our brain that support emotion, our reason would not be able to function. Reason requires that certain data are presented with emphasis, and that is the function of emotion. To be sure, our reasoning tends to be distorted by emotions; “biological drives such as obedience, conformity, the desire to preserve self-esteem . . . are often manifest as emotions and feelings.” For survival reasons, some emotions are connected with events in the brain stem and the limbic system, which are literally below the higher places in the brain that support intellectual reasoning.
His writing is head and shoulders above much science journalism. Although he reports many research results as solidly established fact, he also puts forth other ideas that he consistently acknowledges as tentative. He goes into detail, and reading his book thoroughly and carefully is hard work; but the less diligent reader can get a lot from a quicker reading, since so much of Damascio’s writing is easily accessible.
Most important, from my point of view, Damascio does an outstanding job of avoiding reductionism, emphasizing again and again that, despite the occasional appearance that the biological information he is reporting might seem to convey a reductionist leaning, he has utterly no intention of reducing the mind to the body. Some events in the brain are caused by the way we manipulate images in the mind, for example, by deliberation.
In his preface to the 2005 reprint of this book, Damascio writes that some research has supported his hope of interpreting “the mechanisms of basic homeostasis [as constituting] a blueprint for the cultural development of the human values which permit us to judge actions as good or evil, and classify objects as beautiful or ugly.” He was hoping to establish a “two-way bridge between neurobiology and the humanities, thus providing the way for a better understanding of human conflict and for a more comprehensive account of creativity.”
Now let me come to the point that moved me to write on his book today. Damascio traces connections (mediated by hypotheses here and there) between body, brain, emotion, and reason. Reading this started me thinking of my previous blogpost on cosmology, where I postulated an open universe with the Creator continuously pouring forth energy, mind, and spirit. Then I heard a sermon by a preacher who marvelously integrated spiritual, soulful, intellectual, emotional, and physical aspects of communication. Reflecting on this performance made me think of the different inputs into the mind from brain, mind, soul, and spirit. For example, I distinguish between material emotions (which Damascio describes impressively) and feelings of soul (a concept Damascio does not use, although he does distinguish higher level emotions or feelings).
Suppose we use the metaphor of the brain as including a radio receiver, sensitive to various wave-lengths. Suppose we imagine that that radio receive may be more or less sensitive to functions of the human mind that are nurtured by God:
And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of strength, the spirit of knowing and of piety. (Isaiah 11.2; Wycliffe Bible)
By expanding the picture in this way, we have a much fuller landscape in which to attempt to understand human experience. If our palette has more colors, we might be able to paint a more true and philosophically satisfying picture of how our mind works.
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-MM561_damasi_DV_20110211101605.jpg
Conflict and creativity are inherently social in character. Damascio’s wonderful three-part investigation, starting with “Descartes’ Error”, into the connection between neuroscience and what he calls the ‘Humanities’ recognizes this. My own interest in Damascio’s work stems from my interest in the mechanism of spiritual conversion from both an individual and communal point of view. Damascio seems to suggest an interface between ideation and that “strange warming of the heart that is as much a neurobiological development as a spiritual transmission of grace. I believe this process of transmission requires a social context wherein the soul is both a receptacle (of ‘radio waves’??) and deliverance of God’s grace.
The very cells of our bodies contain the facts of “spiritual” reality. The resilience of our limbic processes make this reality available to our “mind”. And our capacity for a common narrative provide us with the meaning – making for which I believe we “think” and communicate life.
Thank you Elaine. I’m glad you know Damascio much more than I do.
Some philosophers (I have Nancey Murphy in mind) hold that God can only affect us through the nervous system; I hold out for receptivity that is not mediated in this way. Just as Damascio recognizes that mind can affect the brain, I want a model that allows the spirit to be able reach the mind (or soul?) in such a way the ensuing neurological activation is an response. Philosophers speak of top-down causation with various senses; I want “input” that falls in this category, except for the term “causation,” which has material connotations for me that function in this context in a bottom-up way.
In one area after another I find the social dimension massively important; but again I want a model that also allows a direct line between the Creator and the human individual. The influence of the social realm is so pervasive that the relation between God and the individual is the only adequate foundation for their being any individual at all: a person who can think independently (yes, in the language of some community), an individual who has his or her own decisions to make, along with accountability that is not dissipated into the collective.
Yes. The Individual soul surely is a blessed gift from God. And, yes, I too believe that the soul is constitutive of the society. And I acknowledge the crucial importance of choice (by definition an individual action) in apprehending truth, recognizing beauty, and seeking the good. Rather than a bottom-up / top-down division between the individual and society I imagine a kind of moebious dimension wherein both individual narrative and cultural expression coexist for the sake of making meaning. The thing I find fascinating about Damascio is his way of seeing that dimension, if I understand him correctly, within the neurobiology of the human “mind”. Perhaps, most of all, it’s the seeking of an integration of the constitutive parts that appeals so much to me. It’s a holy seeking, I would say.
What a wonderful and intriguing discussion. Thank you, Charles, Carl, and Jeff for such rich commentary. I feel the conflicting urges to both meditate and grab my theology texts as I ponder the implications of your thoughts…
Along these lines, I think it is interesting to note that certain mystics have reported being able to enter a state in which there is a sense of powerful realization that awareness as such is not even centered on the body/mind, let alone the brain. The philosopher and mystic Ken Wilber confirms this, and given his demonstrated ability to stop his brain waves at will https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFMtq5g8N4 it seems to me he has a right to an opinion on the matter.
Ultimately I believe that there is no coherent way to base cognition, morality, esthetics, or even consciousness itself on any organ, finite system of organs, mode of feeling, mode of cognition, form of action, on anything other than Absolute God–Final Reality. The attempt to do so, however well-intentioned and natural it may be for us, always ends up in some form of idolatry. That idolatry may be gross or exceedingly subtle, but it is idolatry nonetheless. To me at least this is an important part of what faith is: the refusal to rest our hopes on any sub-absolute aspect of reality no matter how valuable it might otherwise be (reason, logic, sense perception, platonic perception, will, desire, benevolence, compassion, revelation, experience, etc. etc. etc.).
God and God alone is our alpha and our omega, our ground and our hope.
Thank you.
Thank you for these important thoughts, Carl. My approach would be more many-sided, since we have no access to God and God alone (even to believe or know that that he is our alpha and omega, our ground and our hope) outside experience of some sort. Spiritual experience teaches us (some of us–smile) that truth transcends our experience, which leaves us open to correction. And revelation in some form is needed for us to get the idea of God and God alone. And revelation makes adjustments in order to communicate with us, and our reception of revelation is imperfect. But this is precisely the evolutionary adventure that the Creator has designed for our progress.
A recent book by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt outlined something similar. In one part he notes that our sense of morality picks up far more phenomena than a basic regard for the proscription of harm, and concerns itself with other details that might not even fall under morality. These might include taboos on food, for example. The idea is that much of our morality is based upon intuitions of belonging, and these would certainly include feelings of empathy.
He then goes on to separate two modes of “moral mindedness”: systematizers and empathizers. Kant, for example, would be a consummate systematizer. A systematizer will appeal only to reason, moral theory, rules, and so on, but an empathizer will be more attuned to persons. He further claims that if one were a low empathizer and a high systematizer they would behave in a manner consistent with autism. This is not to vilify Kant, but to show that our morality is far more rich than can be described by any clear system of ethics.
Frankly, I find this to be correct. Being good is much more than understanding and following any moral system. (I think we had this conversation a few blogs ago where I invoked Susan Wolf’s idea of the moral saint.) What’s more — and I know I have discussed this not so long ago — is that systematizers are very good at focusing on macro issues of justice and focusing on ‘people’ but often neglect concern for persons. An example of this just came out today in an article from the New York Times. A young lady traveling sent a few off color messages through social media to be funny. During her travels these “tweets” went viral and she became the focus of a great deal of rage. As a result this lady’s life was turned upside-down. Were her tweets in poor taste and bigoted? Sure. But I don’t feel that she deserved to be the recipient of such rage. Here is the article if you wish: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?fb_ref=Default&_r=2
A friend of mine responded thusly: Jesus said love thy neighbor, not neighbors. Of course we should love our neighbors, too, but I get what he was suggesting. When our emotions follow a system of morality we are often blind to the persons that form our closes communities. We all likely have family members and neighbors who say and behave poorly at times, but, we more often overlook that for the sake of family and community coherence. We may reproach them, but lightly. Were we only led by a system of goodness I cannot see life being anything by impoverished. I see this happening a lot in our culture and it worries me. Otherwise decent people being so committed to moral and political ideologies that in their attempts be be just they are not good. Alasdair MacIntyre said something similar in After Virtue. Paraphrasing, he said something like this: “when men and women identify what in fact are their particular causes with what is a universal principle, they usually behave worse than they would otherwise do.”
Beloved brother Charles, thank you greatly for taking your time to participate once again. It is good to have you as a regular. I agree with everything you say, but my style of thinking is to see effective and defective versions of both empathizers and systematizers. To love the neighbor but not the neighbors makes sense in situations that are predominantly one-to-one. But our relating, as I think Elaine would say, is implicitly communal; in addition, we often find ourselves in groups where we need ethics to apply the golden rule or love of the neighbor to a social system (formal or informal).
One more thought. Lawrence Kohlberg, who did so much to launch the psychology of moral development, was a stout defender of the ethics of moral principle as superior to the ethics of social empathy, and he had piles of research to support his claim. (Carol Gilligan had a little research in support of a critical and also insightful alternative and was able to gain at least equal status for her interpretation.) But a couple of times people came in to be tested in Kohlberg’s lab who did not place into his scheme of pre-conventional, conventional, or post-conventional levels of moral reasoning. Their way of resolving the series of dilemmas that Kohlberg used to test subjects showed a seventh stage, beyond moral reasoning, a stage of universal love. One person had a warm, God-centered religion; the other had a cosmic philosophy that got her to universal love.
My own view is that moral development is more complex than Haidt, Kohlberg, or Gilligan have portrayed, but that is another subject. Actually, what I propose is a more complex version of the same body-mind-spirit type of analysis I have proposed in conversations with neuroscience and cosmology.
The distinction between systematizers and empathizers reminds me of a moral dynamic I’ve encountered countless times over the last three decades within the microcosm of wildlife conservation and welfare. Certain types of people within that world base most of their ethical decisions on a systematic understanding of the ecological dynamics involved. I’ve never met such a person who was completely indifferent to the welfare of individual animals, but I’ve encountered many who come depressingly close. The results of this outlook have very real consequences in the lives of countless wild animals around the world. For some conservationists, the ecosystem is almost everything while the individual animal is almost nothing. While I have never witnessed deliberate cruelty on the part of professionals or any seriously committed to the cause, I have seen much that makes me wish for more empathy, and that makes me grateful for empathizers.
On the other hand, empathizers are often utterly unrealistic in their expectations and proposed solutions. They comprehend the fate of the individual animal quite clearly and with admirable concern, but frequently have little understanding of ecology and thereby have little ability to think about situations within an ecological context. While they would never knowingly chose to do so, in practice they are willing to let an entire ecosystem collapse as long as no animal is deliberately harmed by human beings. They can also be wildly inconsistent. A contemporary example here in the U.S. is that there is widespread protest of eradication programs for feral cat and horse populations, but virtually no protest of eradication programs for feral hogs. This in spite of the fact that hogs are quite intelligent and sensitive animals (esp. after a few generations in the wild) and the scale of feral hog eradication in the states dwarfs that of feral horses and cats. It is also, in my sad experience, often done in a considerably less controlled and thoughtful way.
I am unregrettably an amateur but see in these conversations a degree of separatism of the constituent parts of human nature which in reality are relatively balanced and harmonized by mind and finally unified by unique individual personalities. A new paradigm for oneness. Inclusive and necessary is man’s spiritual nature in contradistinction to purely human materialistic nature. Why do we find digression so exhilarating when the infinite differentiations of oneness of the one uncaused cause is much more thrilling? I do like the analogy of the brain functioning as a receptor for mind. I also like Elaine’s awareness of constituent parts. Humbly submitted.
Ray, you perform an outstanding service by inviting us to balance analyses of the self as a set of components and the person as a unity, as a whole. It is easy for a philosopher to emphasize structural reflections and neglect holistic person-to-person relating and talk.
Let me offer this passage by Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) as a way of expressing a bit of what you said:
Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth–in a word, to know himself–so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves. (Introduction to Fides et Ratio, On the Relationship between Faith and Reason)
When we speak simply of ourselves as children of God, when we regard each other as family, we are not analyzing; we are relating as whole persons to whole persons. The basic truths of the universal family, the spiritual and religious core of this emerging philosophy, are the context, the ground of meaning, for every other inquiry.
A personalist philosophy of religion need not deny that there is more to God than we can understand in our experience of the Father; but the topic you urge as more thrilling than our recent conversation is a topic that exceeds the bounds of this conversation.
In a philosophy of living that addresses the spiritual needs of people of this generation, it matters a lot to clarify what it means to be a human being, a question which this philosophy addresses in more ways than by enumerating components; a tremendous amount of work goes into showing the unification of those components. In fact our unity as evolving material mortals is hardly complete, so understanding what is there to be unified and how this integration and unification can proceed is part of the game. In the philosophical chaos of modern culture, many people are led astray. Reductionist philosophies abound in great variety; a few paragraphs to clarify the issues involved may help some people to recognize (and help explain to others) that intellectual responsibility is consistent with pursuing spiritual inquiry alongside scientific and philosophical interests.