I'm not sure a secular neuroscience necessarily leads to a spiritually impoverished reductionism with no interest in the deeper side of life. Some people worry that the scientific method reduces a rich inner life to "just another brain state" but among neuroscientists there's usually considerable awe at the enormous complexity of those brain states, and how very little we know about them. There is also an interest in deep inner states such as meditation - see this video for the interesting history of that side of neuroscience http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/?id=247
I think a secular world-view will however change our understanding of ourselves and our inner lives profoundly; much much MUCH more than secularists realize or are willing to admit. Thoughts, feelings, decision-making, values, personality traits, morality, existential judgements, love and fear will no longer seem to inhabit a distinctly mental realm, but will be described neuroscientifically in immense detail. I don't think the terms will go away: we all have a 'theory of mind'; we can all take the 'intentional stance'. But as neuroscience progresses people will come to accept that they are brains; that their inner states are brain states, no more no less. My opinion is that this will lead to (1) widespread moral relativism, not in the sense of anarchy or cruelty but if moral values are well-defined, vividly visualized brain states explained in high-school biology textbooks then nothing IS right or wrong, it just SEEMS right or wrong; (2) widespread adoption of techniques to change the brain, driven by and driving neuroscientific advances and moral relativism; and (3) a situation where a scientific understanding of people in general and yourself in particular will be extremely valuable, not displacing subjective forms of knowledge but rather enhancing and being enhanced by them.
Where does this leave spiritual experience and the search for deeper meaning beyond the material? I don't know. Maybe, as traditional organized religion gradually acquires the status of myth and make-belief not suitable for a scientifically aware 21st century person, civilization will see an even greater hunger for transcendence and religious conviction. Maybe not. Maybe you can fill that hunger with ever larger TV screens and new technology, maybe not. Maybe we will turn our eyes toward a medical and technological defeat of the aging process and explore the stars together.
Part 2, part 3
1 comment:
Maybe.
Once you realise that there are no rules, no boundaries, no God to tell you what's right and wrong - you fall freely at first. If your and other people's feelings are nothing but a certain combination of neural nodes being either active or silent at a given time, nothing but a mixture of neurotransmitters, nothing but certain ion channels opening and closing in a given accord, nothing but a carbon-based reaction to the outside world - then how do they matter? Add the fact that there's 6.5 billion brains out there doing exactly the same thing. How can you still claim that your particular mental state is worth a shit? Love, hate, jealousy, fear, sadness, happiness - it's all the same fucking thing. It doesn't actually matter once you realise that the mechanism that is at play here doesn't fundamentaly differ from what makes you hungry, yawn or want to take a leak.
It's important to note that social conventions still remain useful - not because they actually are, but because total anarchy would be the only other logical option. The transition phase might very well be one of turmult and unrest. What is a human to do if he realises that it's all a big nothing, that values preached for centuries are not all that, that we are all just biomass? Why are we even striving for immortality, while happily killing prokaryotes, flora and fauna on an hourly basis? Because 'we're a virus with shoes' and a nervous system? - Big fucking deal.
Of course neuroscience allows for a unprecedented degree of introspection - but it doesn't tell us how to live and what to live for. Once social norms and religious rites become exposed as being nothing but a construct, it becomes every individual's responsbility to come up with their own code of conduct - otherwise we are faced with global nihilism, which - for better or worse - would mean the end of human civilisation the way we know it today. Coming up with an alternative won't be easy, and it won't come naturally. In that sense it is perfectly understandable that so many people are still trying to cling to seeing themselves as freely acting soulful agents. In a way, this kind of world view offers more hope than neuroscience can (at least as long as we know so little about how to manipulate our brains in a truly effective fashion).
Post a Comment