Can we improve society through improving the brain?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Can we improve society through improving the brain?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 08:46 am
I made quite an about face on this issue in the past few months after getting my @$$ kicked in an argument about what the mind is, and am now considering going to grad school for neuroscience.

My views are posted on another forum, mostly in Swedish (there's some code switching towards the end, as I did not acquire Swedish at L1):



I'll translate the original post for you, and any successive comments if you like:

Quote:
I am agnostic and so don't really believe in God per se, and I don't believe in humanism either.

How sad. What then?

I believe that nearly all of our hindrances stem from our stone age brains. My attitude is: "We can fix it." Eventually, science will make it possible to improve the brain, and, in doing so, improve society. This is the only realistic way to terminate nationalism, greed, self-delusion, violence in prisons (a huge problem in America), inequity, death cults etc etc etc. In other words: what you can see here: YouTube - Godsend (WARNING: disturbing images)

I believe that no one can fix all of these things reliably, on a global scale, without remaking the brain for civilization. As it stands now, the brain is hardwired for living in caves [a little glib, but what I mean to say is that we have many primitive tendencies unfit for civilization]. This can be funny now and again (in, for example, television comedy series), but ugly also. Why should you feel compelled to struggle with yourself? That is unpleasant and uneconomical.

I believe, however, that you can do something ... I was walking home from the library two days ago when I saw two people in wheelchairs, apparently afflicted by cerebral palsy, rolling down the bridge I was about to cross. I stepped aside to let them pass and the woman of the two sort of looked at me and grinned broadly, moving her mouth a little, as if to say "thank you". (She couldn't talk.) I thought that in the 21st century, we shouldn't have to accept plights like these, from obvious maladies like cerebral palsy to everyday irrationality, which afflicts virtually everyone. "We can fix it." That is what I believe.

/thread
 
de budding
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 02:12 pm
@odenskrigare,
The primitive tendencies of our minds which you are holding accountable for a lot of civilizations' problems arise from our passions and drives; our will to live, love, protect and survive... the id(?). And to get rid of these wills - to fix them - would be to fix life in the way you fix a dog. That is, to castrate it. I read a lot of Futurist manifestos in my second year at university and they all expound quite poetically the importance of violence, speed, power and excitement in life. In particular the Futurist manifesto of lust:

"Lust is a force, in that it refines the spirit by bringing to white heat the excitement of the flesh. The spirit burns bright and clear from a healthy, strong flesh, purified in the embrace. Only the weak and sick sink into the mire and are diminished. And lust is a force in that it kills the weak and exalts the strong, aiding natural selection." (Futurist Manifesto of Lust)

Also, Georges Bastille's Eroticism, I think, expounds how death and violence make up just one of the poles of our existence - the other being life and peace. We psychologically hover in between both poles, stretching taboos, having fun, breaking social norms and rules as we gravitate towards the pole of death, and we do so with a knowing, cheeky grin across our consciousness.

I think it is the two poles of life and death - of peace and violence - which give life its shades of gray. To get rid of one pole- the death pole as I think you propose, is to render life black and white; to castrate it.

Regards,
Dan.
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 02:33 pm
@de budding,
Quote:
"We can fix it." That is what I believe."


As you have to if you are going to go out and get look for research grants or do surgery on people in order to make a living.

Your mind has convinced you of this. Your Mind has given you this belief. So, maybe it needs fixing? Or maybe it doesn't?

My own credo is fix myself before I feel like I am in a position to fix others. As of right now, I am still working on myself.

Rich
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 06:48 pm
@richrf,
de_budding;76859 wrote:
The primitive tendencies of our minds which you are holding accountable for a lot of civilizations' problems arise from our passions and drives; our will to live, love, protect and survive... the id(?). And to get rid of these wills - to fix them - would be to fix life in the way you fix a dog. That is, to castrate it.

...

I think it is the two poles of life and death - of peace and violence - which give life its shades of gray. To get rid of one pole- the death pole as I think you propose, is to render life black and white; to castrate it.


Why? This looks like psychoanalysis. You even mentioned id.

I don't take stock in these kinds of claims because they're vague and untenable. Why is a duality of peace and violence necessary? Where does this all come from? Why do wars, greed, drudgery, prison violence, delusion, etc. have to exist for us to lead meaningful and pleasant lives?

richrf;76865 wrote:
My own credo is fix myself before I feel like I am in a position to fix others. As of right now, I am still working on myself.


Here's an example of "fixing others". Let's do away with the faux humility.

This man, Matthew Nagel, is in an experiment testing a neurally-controlled prosthetic limb:

http://neurophilosophy.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/matthew_nagel_brain_implant.jpg

You can see a further description and video here:

Brain-machine interface controls movement of prosthetic limb Neurophilosophy

I hesitate to ascribe ulterior motives to people's actions, but it really seems you object to this kind of research because it violates a quaint notion of personhood you adhere to. But to make progress on this front and others, we need to shed light on the mind and its material basis.

To give sight to the congenitally blind, for example, we may even have to devise full-blown neural prostheses that don't just tap into the brain as it is, but add on to it. (That's because the visual cortex of people who are born without sight is soon taken over for other purposes.)

Now think about this, really think about it: are comforting self-delusions more important than the potential to improve the lives of millions? Do you really value your worldview so highly that you would deny others a higher, much higher quality of life to maintain it?
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 07:40 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;76902 wrote:
Now think about this, really think about it: are comforting self-delusions more important than the potential to improve the lives of millions? Do you really value your worldview so highly that you would deny others a higher, much higher quality of life to maintain it?


My guess is a few people can benefit, as they do from most things that men create. But at the same time people can, and often are damaged. If you don't realize it, tens of thousands of people are killed every year from improper application of medical drugs and other treatments.

The last time neuroscientists decided to fix people they came up with the idea of lobotomies. And why not?

From Wikepedia's description of lobotomies:

Quote:
The patient's informed consent in the modern sense was often not obtained. After the introduction of the antipsychotic chlorpromazine (Thorazine), lobotomies fell out of common use[1] and the procedure has since been characterized "as one of the most barbaric mistakes ever perpetrated by mainstream medicine".[2]


So, my sense is to always maintain a great sense of humility when tinkering with someone else's mind.

Rich
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 08:11 pm
@richrf,
richrf;76915 wrote:
My guess is a few people can benefit, as they do from most things that men create. But at the same time people can, and often are damaged. If you don't realize it, tens of thousands of people are killed every year from improper application of medical drugs and other treatments.


I hate to pull a tu quoque but ...

A dose of woo: Martial Idiocy : Neurotopia

Anting anting seems very similar to 气. "Life energy" or something, aligned on the meridians of the body? Isn't that what you believe in?

For mainstream medicine's failings (many of which don't have to do with the basic research per se, many more so to do with greedy insurance companies, burnout, understaffing, failure of doctors to apply Bayes' theorem to diagnostic tests, etc.), I think it a hell of a lot better than woowoo.

richrf;76915 wrote:

The last time neuroscientists decided to fix people they came up with the idea of lobotomies. And why not?



  • Lobotomy is not the next most recent idea suggested by neuroscientists.
  • This argument is similar to criticizing the theory of evolution because of hoaxes like the Piltdown man. In both the case of the Piltdown man and lobotomy, science got bollixed up, admitted error frankly, moved on. Generally speaking, the same cannot be said of woowoo practitioners. (I wonder how many people die when alternative medicine doesn't work.)
  • The brain-machine interface depicted above does not cause horrific brain damage as in the case of lobotomy. It is true that experimental visual cortex prostheses have caused seizures, but the subjects willingly entered into the procedure, well aware of the risks.

    Even so, the analogy between that and sticking an ice pick in someone's brain is reeaally strained.



richrf;76915 wrote:
So, my sense is to always maintain a great sense of humility when tinkering with someone else's mind.


We need to be careful, but bold as any other explorer.
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 08:37 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;76922 wrote:
We need to be careful, but bold as any other explorer.


Now my motto:

Be bold with your own brain, and careful with everyone else's.

Rich
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 08:49 pm
@richrf,
richrf;76924 wrote:
Now my motto:

Be bold with your own brain, and careful with everyone else's.

Rich


Well you can't do surgery on yourself, that's for sure.

And even if you could, how would you hook yourself up to a brain-machine interface for a prosthetic limb if you were quadriplegic like Mr Nagel there? Think about it.

And there are rats and macaques and such to work with too, don't forget that.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 09:34 pm
@odenskrigare,
The only part of society we can legitimately change is ourselves... We should presume that what nature made it made for a certain purpose which we may not be in a position to judge....If we say as the Muslims, that if you would change the world, first change yourself; then we would see what we are up against, and have some respect... If you want to change people; the two best ways are, one, to make them feel differently; or two, point a gun at them... One is better than two by yards, because if you cannot always have the gun pointed at them you may be in trouble..
 
de budding
 
Reply Mon 13 Jul, 2009 09:07 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;76902 wrote:
Why? This looks like psychoanalysis. You even mentioned id.

I don't take stock in these kinds of claims because they're vague and untenable. Why is a duality of peace and violence necessary? Where does this all come from? Why do wars, greed, drudgery, prison violence, delusion, etc. have to exist for us to lead meaningful and pleasant lives?


I think to get rid of war, greed and violence you would have to tend to the underlying human wills which drive us to such actions. You would have to get rid of the id, which serves as the source of instinct and yearns for for the immediate satisfaction of our primitive needs. I think of it as the raw mental energy and fire of existence left over from our primitive days, which is now shaped and barricaded by the superego - which is social rules and taboos. We are the Ego, the balance that hovers in between the two.

And if you got rid of the id, greed, violence etc. You would get rid of, what I think is, one of the poles of emotion, the negative one; death.

I jumped to that idea as a reductionist. It was an idea that came to me while studying music therapy and emotion in music. Simply enough, the whole spectrum of emotion could be derived from two poles - positive and negative - the specific timbre of each emotion is then founded on how close to either pole a reaction lies. The spectrum is developed through experience throughout life. For example, falling in water at a young age may put water closer to the negative pole than the positive, resulting in what may seem to be an irrational fear of water, but, nonetheless, your own specific timbre of emotion when you encounter water.

The poles can't be anything other than life (positive) or death (negative) because that is what everything, thanks to natural selection, is derived from. After all, what else could emotional reaction be based on? What else could all morality, good or evil, be based on? Whether you die or not... simples.
I just applied the logic of evolution to our emotional, psychological selves and it made sense.

Do you not think our strongest emotional actions override logic? Do you really think you can lump all the negativity of the world into one category and simply say 'fix it'? Haven't you ever enjoyed being bad and stretching the taboos of life? And why do you think we gag at the smell of excrement and decaying flesh? Why is sex so violent and sometimes perverse? And why do we (or at least some people) enjoy that?


Dan.
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Mon 13 Jul, 2009 02:57 pm
@de budding,
de_budding;77014 wrote:
I think to get rid of war, greed and violence you would have to tend to the underlying human wills which drive us to such actions. You would have to get rid of the id, which serves as the source of instinct and yearns for for the immediate satisfaction of our primitive needs. I think of it as the raw mental energy and fire of existence left over from our primitive days, which is now shaped and barricaded by the superego - which is social rules and taboos. We are the Ego, the balance that hovers in between the two.


What are id, ego, superego other than hazy psychoanalytic guesswork? Until you can define these in terms of neural function, I will continue not to believe in them.

Fido;76931 wrote:
The only part of society we can legitimately change is ourselves...


There goes schooling.

Fido;76931 wrote:
We should presume that what nature made it made for a certain purpose which we may not be in a position to judge...


No, we should do away with vague teleological arguments about how nature "has some purpose" for things, because this is functionally really no different from believing that capricious gods rule the Universe, a notion the Ionians did away with with great success.

What we should assume is that nature blindly made us through evolution (this is the empirically tenable position), resulting in a Stone Age design that could certainly be improved.

Fido;76931 wrote:
If you want to change people; the two best ways are, one, to make them feel differently; or two, point a gun at them



  • I'm not advocating pointing a gun at anyone.
  • How can you fix quadriplegia by "making someone feel differently"?
 
de budding
 
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 08:42 am
@odenskrigare,
Well, what aspects of human emotion, will and drive can be explained neurally?


EDIT: Scratch that. This article sheds some light claiming that:the core of the mind is a
phylogenetically ancient set of emotion systems, that also dominate early mental
development. Of course, with greater knowledge has come a vast increase in the level
of detail. Where Freud could only speculate about broad systems associated with
sexuality, attachment and aggression, we now have a detailed understanding of an
architecture for multiple independent emotion systems (e.g. Panksepp, 1998)...

...Indeed, the instinctual mechanisms that govern human motivation may be even more primitive than Freud imagined. We appear to share basic emotion systems that
determine our core values not only with our nearest primate relatives, but also with all
mammals, and to a lesser extent even with more 'primitive' species.

The paper is from 2005 and seems to suggest the idea of an instinctual and emotion drive which is outside of conscious thought or control - like the id - is not so hazy. See what you think, I'm not sure how credible it is, and I will go see what else I can churn up on the subject.


Regards,
Dan.

EDIT: And a website which is dedicated to the discipline of neuropschoanalysis: Neuropsychoanalysis
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 08:49 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;77073 wrote:
What we should assume is that nature blindly made us through evolution (this is the empirically tenable position), resulting in a Stone Age design that could certainly be improved.


This is really scary stuff. This is one step away from eugenics.

Rich
 
Solace
 
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 09:49 am
@odenskrigare,
I'm uncertain what degree of brain tampering the OP is promoting here. On the one hand, s/he is advocating the advancement of neuroscience to aid people with disabilities, (paraplegia, cerebral palsy, etc...) but on the other s/he seems to be leaving the door open for using it as a matter of reformation, to correct the deranged mind, so to speak. Well, I think most of us would agree that there's a wide range between the two. Using any science or medicine to help a willing patient is one thing, but using it against someone's will, even a criminal's, is walking a whole different path altogether. I'm just curious; to what extent does the OP advocate using this technology and these methods?
 
salima
 
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 10:14 am
@Solace,
Solace;77206 wrote:
I'm uncertain what degree of brain tampering the OP is promoting here. On the one hand, s/he is advocating the advancement of neuroscience to aid people with disabilities, (paraplegia, cerebral palsy, etc...) but on the other s/he seems to be leaving the door open for using it as a matter of reformation, to correct the deranged mind, so to speak. Well, I think most of us would agree that there's a wide range between the two. Using any science or medicine to help a willing patient is one thing, but using it against someone's will, even a criminal's, is walking a whole different path altogether. I'm just curious; to what extent does the OP advocate using this technology and these methods?


and i am curious as to who gets to decide which brains need to be fixed and which are superior...this is a plan to make a superior race, right?

actually there is the possibility that more good can come out of nature's 'mistakes' than its successes. in my own life are many examples, but i will share one.

a friend's daughter and her husband had some normal children and one who was profoundly handicapped. i dont remember the name of the disease, but some famous football player's son had it and that was what they named the disease after. anyway, this child was not expected to live beyond a few years, and the family was advised to institutionalize it because of the level of care it would need. they refused, and decided to keep the child in their home as a family member and include him in everything they did as far as was possible.

the child last i heard is still alive coming to his teen-age years, and you may question the quality of his life but you do not know what it is. no one knows whether he suffers (though he doesnt appear to be) or enjoys anything or thinks anything. he moves and has eyes open, but cannot walk, sit, eat, nothing much at all. but the effect this has had on the family is amazing. they are the strongest family with the highest set of ethics one could imagine, and as individuals they are courageous-what can they fear when they have already dealt with the worst life can dish out? add to that the effect they have had on me and how many others that have come to know about them, and you have an effect on society as a whole. this is why i find it debatable that all troubles should be seen only in the negative because they can also have a positive effect.

no one can envision the 'big picture' so who is competent to judge what is to be changed by intervention? who has the right or authority to intervene?
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 10:19 am
@odenskrigare,
Wasn't it you Salima who quoted someone once, "we should thank God for our misfortunes too."
 
salima
 
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 10:41 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;77217 wrote:
Wasn't it you Salima who quoted someone once, "we should thank God for our misfortunes too."


i probably made a reference to the sufi attitude that everything is a gift from god, therefore they thank him for everything without judging it bad or good.

i know i am grateful in my own life for my misfortunes which i believe have taught me more than my good luck...
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 10:47 am
@odenskrigare,
Yes im the same Salima, when something goes wrong im always looking to get the positive out of the negative. I always learn something too.
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 04:51 pm
@Caroline,
de_budding;77192 wrote:
...Indeed, the instinctual mechanisms that govern human motivation may be even more primitive than Freud imagined. We appear to share basic emotion systems that determine our core values not only with our nearest primate relatives, but also with allmammals, and to a lesser extent even with more 'primitive' species.


I am well aware of this fact, but you haven't demonstrated how all of these primitive instincts are particularly useful at this stage in our development.

Personally, I find that the more a person appears to be governed by his limbic system, the less useful he is, and the less able he is to make good decisions, generally speaking.

And I'm not saying the emotional faculty should be abandoned entirely; it just needs to be retooled.

richrf;77195 wrote:
This is really scary stuff. This is one step away from eugenics.

Rich


All neural modifications should be elective surgeries with informed consent.

How is this "one step away from eugenics"?

Well ... I can see some ways that accelerating developments in technology could threaten ordinary humans. Out of all the possibilities discussed by people like Hugo de Garis and Nick Bostrom, two come to mind most strongly:


  • Posthumans exist in small enough numbers to feel a potential threat from humans, yet large enough to threaten humans. Armed conflict could break out.
  • Posthumans go all Robespierre on humans and just wipe them out in disgust.



The first, I think is more likely than the second, but both can be preempted very easily if everyone is on the same boat.

Solace;77206 wrote:
I'm uncertain what degree of brain tampering the OP is promoting here. On the one hand, s/he is advocating the advancement of neuroscience to aid people with disabilities, (paraplegia, cerebral palsy, etc...) but on the other s/he seems to be leaving the door open for using it as a matter of reformation, to correct the deranged mind, so to speak. Well, I think most of us would agree that there's a wide range between the two. Using any science or medicine to help a willing patient is one thing, but using it against someone's will, even a criminal's, is walking a whole different path altogether. I'm just curious; to what extent does the OP advocate using this technology and these methods?


I don't recall advocating forced surgery on people.

Even so, anyone's brain could potentially benefit from modification. None of us are what we could be, not by a long shot.

salima;77215 wrote:
and i am curious as to who gets to decide which brains need to be fixed and which are superior...this is a plan to make a superior race, right?


Yes.

Anyone who opts into neural modification should receive it. The difficulty is that one would expect them to be expensive, at least initially, and so these procedures should be subsidized so that those with little to no money can afford them.

salima;77215 wrote:
actually there is the possibility that more good can come out of nature's 'mistakes' than its successes. in my own life are many examples, but i will share one.


This is called 'turd-polishing'.

The less vulgar term would be 'Leibnizian optimism', and there's a novella you can read that shows you why it's bunk.

It's called Candide.

Caroline;77217 wrote:
Wasn't it you Salima who quoted someone once, "we should thank God for our misfortunes too."


I find it strange that you would want to thank an imaginary person. Are you OK?

salima;77222 wrote:
i probably made a reference to the sufi attitude that everything is a gift from god, therefore they thank him for everything without judging it bad or good.


Is dioxin a gift from God?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/217/497567230_bbeb5a7e9b.jpg

Regardless, you can't even receive gifts from an imaginary person. It just doesn't happen.

Caroline;77223 wrote:
Yes im the same Salima, when something goes wrong im always looking to get the positive out of the negative. I always learn something too.


Please don't advocate masochism.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 05:25 pm
@odenskrigare,
You are essentially proposing alteration to the limbic system. It seems like maybe the amygdala could be rewired or enhanced to reward positive actions and give only minimal reward to negative or suboptimal responses.

"The amygdalas are two almond-shaped masses of neurons on either side of the thalamus at the lower end of the hippocampus. When it is stimulated electrically, animals respond with aggression. And if the amygdala is removed, animals get very tame and no longer respond to things that would have caused rage before. But there is more to it than just anger: When removed, animals also become indifferent to stimuli that would have otherwise have caused fear and even sexual responses. "

Source : The Limbic System

Removal would be unwise, but (very) careful alteration might prove to be gainful.

---------- Post added 07-14-2009 at 07:30 PM ----------

odenskrigare;77265 wrote:

Please don't advocate masochism.


Please don't misunderstand the point being made and then attack a straw man based upon your misunderstanding. Try to give people the benefit of the doubt (which can be difficult). The point was that when a negative event occurs, there is some level of intrinsic benefit left for the taking. Just because a large loss has been suffered does not mean there is nothing left worth salvaging from it. Citing dioxin does not make your point, sort of like how an existence proof doesn't work when you are trying to show a property to be universal in the natural numbers.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Can we improve society through improving the brain?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/04/2024 at 02:45:59