Reply to comment

To me, the idea to question in the discussion we had in class is not whether or not there is a disembodied “mind” floating around in the brain, responsible for our consciousness and free will. By accepting the theory of evolution, I have accepted the fact that we, and our brain included, are products of this mechanism, and therefore and no more, or less, than physical machines built for the reproductive benefit to our genes.

It is contradictory to claim to believe in the theory of evolution, while not applying it to humans and what our brains. Because our brains give us our reality, they fool us into NOT thinking about them, and simply using them. Natural selection didn’t favor larger, conscious, language-able brains so that we could delve into the mysteries of why we are here, but rather because of an environmental pressure that our ancestors back in the savannah dealt with. By banding together, using language, and enlarging their brain mass, these ancestors were able to survive better.

So unless we claim to have a different ancestry than evolution describes, I don’t see how a nebulous mind could exist (or even, using the principle of parsimony, why it would have to) when we developed from a shared ancestor with creatures most claim do not have minds.

The idea that I question, is the idea that there is no truth in science. Perhaps there is no unbiased, absolute truth, however I like to think that the scientific method leads us to some sort of workable truth. Professor Grobstein said in class that science is not a realm that can uncover truth, perhaps another discipline can (philosophy?), however I’m not so sure I buy this. It seems to me, that science is the only discipline that tries to “rise above” our humble limits and investigate the world. While I understand that this is impossible, due to our obvious limitations and biases in viewing the world based on our perceptional and processing tools, I don’t think that any other discipline has the tools to discover Truth either, for don’t philosophers use the same biased eyes and same hunk of tissue to process what those biased eyes see? I believe that we can discover relative truth, for the human species, based on this earth. To say the scientific story has no more validity than the crackpot drug addict crying out truths on the streets of New York (however real his truth is to HIM) does not rationally make sense. For if science doesn’t provide a sort of truth, how can it really be justified using in public policy. If evolution isn’t the truth as we best know it now, can we really deny the requests of creationists to teach their science in schools?

I don’t think so, and it’s this that I question far more than the issue of whether the soul, embodied in the mind, plays a role in dictating free will and consciousness to the brain. Anybody who is interested in reading more about this should read Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by Dan Dennett. He discusses the lack of need for a mind, when an evolutionary discussion can explain the brains abilities. A search for a distinct mind, unobeying to the rules of science is simply talking a saltionist leap, and looking for a skyhook, when evolution provides a step by step crane explanation for the brain.