We read to know that we are not alone

I wonder why I write, or what the point in writing is. Can I call myself a writer? What can I call myself? By my name, the one my parents named me before getting to know 'who' I was? It was a loaded name, stuffed with their own hopes, dreams and vicarious aspirations for a baby. I really don't know. I am reminded of the movie 'Shadowlands' the story of the great author (back in a time when far more people read I would suspect) C. S. Lewis. In the film, which no doubt is a dramatization and certainly does not retell the literal event I am referring to, one of Lewis' regularly tardy pupils in college tells the story of his father and his view on reading. He stated that 'we read to know that we are not alone.' Again I am sure this did not come from the mind of Lewis or one of his actual pupils. And perhaps I am too hard on screenwriters whom I regard as not even third rate writers. But in this case, the writer hit a very deep and profound vein of truth or at least of pondering. But is it true? I don't know. But if it were, I would like to know the company we are keeping and on what basis we are 'knowing' we are not alone.

A review of "Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience"; Authors Sally L. Satel, Scott O. Lilienfeld Publisher Basic Books, 2013

In the past few decades there has been a growing enthusiasm in the field of Neuroscience. This passionate optimism is fueled by a body of research made available through more recent technological advances in brain observation and measurements of brain functions. However, in spite of these magnificent developments, authors Sally L. Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld, in their book “Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience,” highlight those they characterize as over-zealous neuroscientists and the misguided conclusions, and industry, it has inspired. The book begins with an overview of theories on the brain and how brain states are related to mental states. It admits the challenges of the ‘hard-problem’ in Philosophy of Mind, but boldly proclaims that consciousness and mental states cannot exist without a brain. But, there is a tendency, Satel and Lilienfeld argue, in light of some modern neuroscientists, to identify specific regions of the brain as not only being responsible for various mental states, but of their being identical to them; a throwback to the failings of Identity Theory. And while Satel and Lilienfeld do not advocate for any sort of dualism, they remind their readers that at certain levels there are Biological, or in this case neural, systems that present undeniable distinctions between Neurology and Psychology. Satel and Lilienfeld eloquently describe modern brain scans by which data are collected to identify ‘hot spots,’ areas of the brain involved in an oxygen depletion process calculated by certain statistical data, through the use of fMRI and PED scans as well as EEG’s. This intricate and laborious process, while clearly expanding our understanding of how the brain works, is perhaps, as Satel and Lilienfeld have found, not as effective in predicting and identifying many functions and maladies of the mental. Chapters on psychological conditions and the justice system suggest that this new Neuroscience, or ‘junk’ Neuroscience, seeks to take the blame of crime, addiction and other volitional acts away from individual responsibility and shift it to nothing more than brain chemistry. The authors however caution their readers from ignoring the significance of brain chemistry and its role in our behavior and personalities. But even still quite often the findings are a result of what they refer to as ‘neuro redundancy;’ data that reveal what one already knows through either personal experience or the psychological fields of research. Even more, the book illustrates how the use of brain scans in marketing, referred to here as ‘neuro marketing,’ promises far more than can be delivered. In spite of a sober analysis of what they term ‘neuro realism,’ a naïve perspective on the data collected from Neurology akin to Naïve Realism in Epistemology, Satel and Lilienfeld certainly adopt a rather controversial view on consciousness. Their insistence that conscious states cannot exist without a brain, and their treatment of the causal relationship between mental states and brain states, smacks of an uncritical acceptance of Biological Emergentism. Despite these minor criticisms of this work, “Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience,” by Sally L. Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld, offers an availing expose on the recklessly radical conclusions of Naïve Neuroscience and what must be addressed to maintain a comprehensive, sensible and constrained Modern Neuroscience.

Well...

...It's safe to say no one reads my blog so fortunately I can say what I wish without offending anyone. With that said, how I am feeling right now is inspired by that discontent which rises out of confusion and mistrust of people's judgments and sentiments; why is it so hard to say, I don't know? But even more than this, to succumb to that typical and almost fashionable agnosticism, there seems to be something we know. I mean we know enough to make a statement that we don't know. So maybe, just maybe, what we do know is nothing more than that which is impractical and useless. For if it were practical, all of the practical people would be right all the time. But they are already insufferably arrogant and annoying about their skills and abilities. So that won't do. And besides, practicality assumes some practice. And a practice furthermore assumes something to practice. And having something to practice assumes some reason to practice. And it is this last condition which I have problems with. For reason or purpose are not evident at all. One can not see purpose or reason anywhere in the world. And this goes for usefulness and utility. For this assumes as well that there is a reason to utilize something. And likewise this reason is not present anywhere. Therefore knowledge of anything would be of a sort that we cannot see. And what we cannot see is of a different sort of anything in this world. And so, we can only know of that which exists in a different or separate world from which we live. And I don't mean planet or cosmological location. No! Literally a different world of experience that stands outside of atoms, forces, vacuous outer space and the like. Another world, like that of what we read in myth and fairy tales and religious texts of Heaven. These are the only content of knowledge we can have. And should we be surprised?

What to do

Sitting here thinking of my prospects, they seem rather grim indeed. Firstly, I see no way in which I can make a living in this modern world. For all that are useful are laborers that are squeezed into boxed warehouses, opening up boxes and taping them up again like some Sisyphus exercise. Or some second rate babysitter at schools, being reminded how poorly I perform those functions. Misery, absolute misery everywhere. The only way to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune is through drugs. And if you can't take them, then you are forced to bear the misery. Or perhaps its better to simply die. I don't get why we have to work, not only so hard, but at tasks that make our existence more miserable than what they are. It would be better if the upper classes would simply exterminate us so that we needn't continue with it all. Just really tired and see no other way out. But I will continue on, yet I know that the only way out is through death.

Science

I am so tired of hearing everyone talk about Science. This behemoth of knowledge, skill, intelligence and wonder, what is it? Is it the magic wand that with the flick of a wrist will wipe away all of our sorrows and produce everything we could desire? Is it some mystery that uncovered answers all of our questions, including the ones that wake us up in the middle of the night wondering why we exist and what will become of us? When anything questions its methods, it is immediately dismissed as unintelligent, uneducated and plain stupid. But like the suspect in the old Agatha Christie novels, if it were on a solid foundation, why act so defensive and suspicious about it? Why react so violently towards any criticism of it? I begin to wonder if it is a belief system or what I had always thought it was, a system of understanding the natural world through inductive reasoning, testability and empirical measurements. I guess I would like to know that if it is the only reliable means of knowing anything, why we don't rely on it to answer questions that mean the most to us; like about Love, about Art and Beauty and what logic?

Wonder

I wonder sometimes what is the meaning of things. It seems that within the past few years I have been weighed down with depression and grief. I think it has to do with my children and the struggles they go through. But even more than this, it has to do with their uncertain future. I suppose the future is the one thing I fear the most. And in fact the fear of it paradoxically hastens it even more. I want to see the wonder and the awe that Joey sees. I want to feel the excitement that Sammy feels. These elude me and I am left wondering where they are. But am I to suppose that they don't exist at all? Am I to just throw up my hands at the whole matter and agnostically deny all that seems reasonable? It is the true the senses are missing something and there are only two options, or two alternatives: One, it is just the way our brains function or two, there is something missing that we are aware of that exists but is not visible to the senses? If it is the former, then it would seem that our brain relaying information to us and creating information for us would be indistinguishable. Looking at the brain as some organ we can analyze seems contradictory from the perspective that we are using our brains to know our brains. And so, it would seem to me that embracing metaphysics, the soul, the spirit and God is far more rational. But, then again I still wonder how it will all turn out. I just want to hide in my mind and be embraced by God, by a Tom Bombadil.

Debating

I have grown rather tired of debating with people. I find that most I engage in discussions either use too many ad hominems or I find myself defending myself or my views as opposed as attacking them. I don't know it just really depresses me when I think about it. It makes me sad as well. And I think it has something to do with the fact that I look down on myself so much in an attempt at avoiding criticism. I just can't take it when it comes to a personal criticism. I already feel like pond scum most of the time. I am a financial mess, I hate to work-not because I am lazy but social anxiety and my views on capitalism cause a great deal of tension-and so many other reasons...by my fay I cannot reason right now and just wish to be left alone...like forever...