The Astonishing Hypothesis

A few months ago I picked up an issue of Time Magazine titled ‘Your Brain: A User’s Guide’. One of the articles was called ‘The Riddle of Knowing You’re Here’, by Steven Pinker. It was really interesting but I couldn’t find it online, so I’ll cite the relevant portions of it here as well as talk about possible implications. As the author points out, “The major religions locate [consciousness] in a soul that survives the body’s death to receive its just reward or punishment or to meld into a global mind. For each of us, consciousness is life itself”. The article goes on to explain the two problems that scientists encounter about consciousness. These problems were dubbed by the philosopher David Chalmers as the Easy Problem and the Hard Problem.

“What exactly is the Easy Problem? It’s the one that Freud made famous, the difference between conscious and unconscious thoughts. Some kinds of information in the brain-such as the surfaces in front of you, your plans for the day, your pleasures and peeves-are conscious. You can ponder them, discuss them and let them guide your behavior. Other kinds-like the control of your heart rate, the rules that order the words as you speak and the sequence of muscle contractions that allows you to hold a pencil are unconscious. They must be in the brain somewhere because you couldn’t walk and talk and see without them, but they are sealed off from your planning and reasoning circuits. The Easy Problem, then, is to distinguish conscious from unconscious mental computation, identify the proper correlates in the brain and explain why they evolved.

The Hard Problem, on the other hand, is why it feels like something to have a conscious process going on in one’s head - why there is first-person, subjective experience. Not only does a green thing appear different from a red thing, remind us of other green things and inspire us to say, ‘That’s green’ (the Easy Problem), but it also actually looks green, it produces an experience of sheer greenness that isn’t reducible to anything else. As Louis Armstrong said in response to a request to define jazz, ‘When you got to ask what it is, you never get to know.’ The hard problem is explaining how subjective experience arises from neural computation. The problem is hard because no one knows what a solution might look like or even whether it is a genuine scientific problem in the first place. And not surprisingly, everyone agrees that the Hard Problem (if it is a problem) remains largely a mystery.

Although neither the Hard nor the Easy Problem has been solved, neuroscientists agree on many features of both of them, and the feature they find least controversial is the one that many people outside the field find the most shocking. Francis Crick called it ‘the astonishing hypotheseis’ - the idea that our thoughts, sensations, joys and aches consist entirely of physiological activity in the tissues of the brain. Consciousness does not reside in an ethereal soul that uses the brain like a PDA; consciousness is the activity of the brain. ...And when the physiological activity of the brain ceases, as far as anyone can tell, the person’s consciousness goes out of existence. ...Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive ‘I‘ that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Consciousness turns out to consist of a maelstrom of events distributed across the brain. These events compete for attention, and as one process outshouts the others, the brain rationalizes the outcome after the fact and concocts the impression that a single self was in charge all along. The illusion of voluntary actions is in part a result of noticing a correlation between what we decide and how our bodies move.”

So, if we’re not the decision-maker, then who are we? If nobody has a say in their own thoughts or actions, then how should that affect the way that we treat other people? How should it affect the way that we treat ourselves? This doesn’t seem to leave any room for pride or condemnation. Obviously we need to keep dangerous people away from the populace, but we don’t need to kill them, or spend our time hating them. Like the Buddha said, “Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.”

AZ, it's a dry hate

Just a little snippet of life here in AZ:

Feministing: "Arizona school tells mural artist to "lighten" Black and Latino students' faces"

Original article cited:

AZ Central: "Altered mural fuels race debate in Prescott"

So, Femisting is obviously biased, which is why included the original article. However, I don't think the AZ Republic is making a much better impression. Here's to hoping that this is all being blown out of proportion. But, Blair. Not him. That guy needs out.

As a side note:

As an Arizonan, (a first generation U.S. citizen, a young person, a female, a consistent law-breaker, and as a lifelong native) the last couple of years in the Valley of the Sun have been pretty disheartening. Instead of feeling more compelled to run away to happier coasts, however, I have often let my imagination run away instead to thoughts of public service for my lovely home, which I really think is in dire need of some feminist-progressive slapping around.

I should note, also:

I borrowed that clever title from someone else.

Tolerance

Tolerance is a virtue that has long been touted by our society and other democracies like it. It is intertwined with our notion of a just society. Religious and political tolerance are thought to be ideals upon which this very nation was founded. I'd venture that there are few people who are willing to admit that they are intolerant, even while they may hold intolerant beliefs.

We know, however, that not everyone--nor every society--lives up to the ideal of tolerance. Segregation, discrimination, elitism, populism, class wars, religious fervor--these are all examples of intolerance which have taken place in this country and others; and many are still taking place today. Not only do we see a lack of tolerance within our borders, but between our nation and its neighbors as well. We intervene in foreign nations when we see what we perceive as violations of human rights, injustice, or actions that threaten the free market. These actions are all contrary to our core values as a liberal-democratic nation--human equality, due process, and open markets. These actions are usually framed as just 'Wrong.' Period. I think that if we look closely, though, we'll see that these actions are only wrong from our particular viewpoint--from our particular culture.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that human rights violations are okay. I also think democracy is good, and that the world would be much better if democracy were more common. But at the same time, I recognize that my holding these views means that I'm not that tolerant, and that liberal-democracy isn't a particularly tolerant form of government. We respect alternate views to a point, but when was the last time we had a socialist or atheist leader? When was the last time we allowed a socialist coup in another country? Don't forget Guatemala.

Of course, there are some issues in which tolerance would seem wrong. I don't think that we should be tolerant of countries who violate humans rights, or individuals who hold racist views, or people/countries who use/condone violence against women. I think most of you would agree. But that has me thinking: Since total tolerance is probably not possible and definitely not desirable, where do we draw the line? When is the ideal of tolerance overridden by my other beliefs?

For example, I'm a vegetarian. I told myself before I decided to stop eating meat that no matter what, I would never pass judgement on those who chose differently. But, after learning of all the detrimental effects meat has on the environment, I often wonder, how tolerant is too tolerant? When should I put my foot down and say, "Stop. What you're doing is bad for the planet and is endangering all of us"? The same question could be asked in regards to environmentalism, feminism, liberalism--any belief that we may hold dear.

I believe in tolerance to a point, but I think at some point we should be honest and admit that we take certain values for granted. We just have to make sure we take the best ones.

See also:
1. "Autonomy, Gender, Politics" (Amazon.com)
2. Paradox of Tolerance
3. "Political Tolerance and American Democracy"

Virtual Communities, Emphasis on Virtual

Last week I received an email from Maya's Farm.

It was forwarded from a third party and contained directions on how to navigate the craziness of downtown Phoenix due to the Anti-SB1070 Protest that was happening on Saturday morning. It also contained directions on how to join in the protest if so inclined!

I have to include Maya's only addition to this forward:

"FYI! Let's give Washington a big message!"

So, it was obvious that Maya supported the march and was recruiting a wee bit. I didn't mind this. I'm not saying I wouldn't have minded if we didn't happen to share the same sentiment about the issue either...

Anyway, it was also obvious that she sent the email to inform the marketgoers that there would be some traffic at the pickup for the CSA that weekend.

What Maya (and all who were CC'd) received for this tidbit of info was an immediate "reply all" email from one woman who was so bothered by the "mixing of politics and business" that she asked to be unsubscribed from the newsletter.

Ten emails later (many in the same spirit of condemnation and disapproval), I sent Maya alone the following letter.

Maya,

I want to voice my support for your decision to share information on the march downtown. I was happy to receive the info. I was equally happy to see that the info came from a reliable source. I think Maya's farm represents a certain voice in the Valley- a voice that to me is a link to the food revolution movement. I think you would agree with me that Maya's Farm is a shining light for the small organic farm community here in the Metro area.

I think that it's important for this movement to align itself with movements like the support of immigrants in farming states like AZ. After all, a large majority of farm workers come to AZ to work at all levels of farming and this includes the small organic farm. It is important for the customers and supporters of Maya's Farm to be aware of the issues in AZ and share empathy with those people who are linked so intimately to us- through the growing, picking, shipping of our food!

I understand that complicated issues like these are often not well understood, yet still manage to cause such knee jerk reactions. But, I want to applaud you for reaching out to your virtual community. Some of us can only connect via the internet, but I'd like to think our loyalties lie deeper than that.

Marta Orozco

Student, Educator, food lover

The reply was a simple thank you.

What I wanted to use this incident to illustrate is, first, how virtual communities are not always what they seem. The emails saddened me and angered me and almost embittered me. But, after writing to Maya, I have just come away with some understanding.

I think that sharing views and ideas and passions over the internet is kinda dangerous. Especially when they are usually so brief. Yet, everyday I climb into Facebook Land and semi-share things about my life. They're vague, but I'm a private person (for further reading on privacy...). I resist sharing those views that I know are controversial. I don't share much about my political, ethical, spiritual views for a reason! Because there are those who I would ostracize from me. I don't want that. I think communities are for sharing and inclusion.

This is why filtering our communities is important! On Facebook, the only way we express kinship of ideas is when we "like" the same existentially meaningless tag: A Million Doing What, Exactly?

To tie this together: I was unhappy to see people removing themselves from our virtual community of food enthusiast/small farm supporters. This is a struggling movement. Maya's Farm is one of the best resources for people actually DOING things to revolutionize the food industry. I hate to see people boycott her food, her ideas, her emails because they couldn't forgive her email etiquette snafu (people were also upset that their email addresses hadn't been blind-copied).

When it comes to making public my views about any given subject, I abide by the following lyrical guideline: "Don't ever renounce or ever claim to be." A little Devendra Banhart, anyone?

You'd think bearing witness to the polarizing effect that this can have on people would only reinforce this notion of mine. It hasn't. I think people should begin to wonder why we don't share our potentially schismatic views about the world. Instead of keeping them to ourselves and wondering why the "other side" is so ignorant about it, we should just share! I am a big believer in being informed. How can we expect people to be informed when we're all tiptoeing around our beliefs instead of discussing them?

Virtual communities like blogger, or Facebook, or any other conduit of information-sharing should all serve as better grounds for debate and discussion instead of side-taking and narcissism.

So I'll conclude with a pat on our backs, because that's exactly what we're doing here.