It is worrisome that so few people are interested in the less explicable aspects of their consciousness, their experienced outward world and their introspective selves. In Scientific American - Mind (April-May 2006) an article by Eric R. Kandel, a professor at Columbia University, entitled “The New Science of Mind” brings up-to-date the study of the molecular mechanisms that are responsible for our mental life, he points out that they are the same as those that regulate life’s other various processes. He also indicates that most of our mental life is unconscious and that eventually there will be a field of molecular sociology. The philosophical implications of such reductionism are profound. My book: Cascading Universe, was an endeavor to introduce a reductionist and rational society which I believe is necessary for our survival.* Such a thesis is further supported by the recently published report on Gerald ‘t Hooft of Utrecht University. (‘t Hooft was awarded the Nobel prize in physics in 1999 for laying the mathematical foundations for the standard model of particle physics.) (See article in New Scientist, 6 May 2006 by Zeeya Merali). His particles represent a deeper layer of reality than currently accepted quanta and behave predictably according to deterministic laws. Mathematicians John Conway and Simon Kochen, both of Princeton University, state that if ‘t Hooft’s theory is right there would be no way for us to have free-will.
*As I have indicated elsewhere our destiny was foreordained at creation. Humans have an illusion of decision making. (See reference to John Searle in Worthingtonism commentary). Truth is a matter of resonance. When an incoming stimulus resonates with one’s current neural network, the new input is “true”; if there is dissonance the input would be sensed as false. In both cases the “assessment” is the biological you.
Philip Shaw and colleagues at the National Institute of Mental Health have shown that in children of high intelligence the outer layer of the brain thickens more rapidly during childhood, peaking at age 11 – 12 and then thinning during adolescence. They report that “distinctive brain growth in superior-IQ children reflects prolonged development of neural circuits that contribute to reasoning, planning and other facets of analytical thinking.” (Science News, April 1 2006).
Past studies have shown that genes, and thus inheritance, influence brain structure and general intelligence. Unfortunately such thinking is “politically incorrect”. An article in The Wall Street Journal (June 16, 2006) describes the trouble caused by a lecture by Dr. Bruce Lahn, a professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago, Dr. Lahn reported finding signs of recent evolution in some people linking brain size and intelligence but not in sub-Saharan Africa. The resulting brouhaha has caused Dr. Lahn to give up the research.
Pilar Ossorio, professor of law and medical ethics at the University of Wisconsin criticized Dr. Lahn’s conclusions as supporting the controversial The Bell Curve by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray published in 1994. Ossorio’s endeavor to stop “racism” by ignoring the facts is stupid. All humans are different. Some are more different than others. It is time to stop trying to hide our mediocrity and call a spade a spade!
It is very evident that Americans are becoming increasingly anti-intellectual. Eighty percent of the U.S. population believes in Biblical mythology. Furthermore, we have a simpleton president who claims to have taken his orders from God (not Cheney, as some have suggested) to start a war of aggression on what he called an evil empire. Undoubtedly Saddam was an evil man but he was not our problem. By utter stupidity, the US, lead by a mentally incompetent and morally impaired Administration has caused untold misery throughout this country and Iraq. I just hope that God doesn’t order Bush to attack Iran, another Mideastern Country that would probably be happy to establish trading relations with us if we would refrain from interfering in their affairs.
However, according to a number of insiders in the Bush White House a preemptive strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities has a very good chance of happening. Seymour Hersh’s article in The New Yorker (April 17, 2006) is very discouraging. Bush considers Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to be a potential Adolf Hitler. The President talks about diplomacy, but knowing how bold a liar Bush has proven to be, such talk is meaningless. As a Messianic leader, Bush feels he should tackle satanic empires. Iran is his current target. A nuclear war with an unimaginably dreadful outcome perhaps encompassing the whole world is in the offing.
The Wall Street Journal of April 21 points out the seriousness of the current situation and indicates that sanctions would be futile. They recommend that the Administration have a candid discussion with Congress and explain to the public what is at stake. Unfortunately that is not the President’s way; his way is to have a discussion with God (and perhaps Karl Rove). Bush himself is of course the “decider.”
Another factor to be considered is Israel. In the Islamic world, Israel and the U.S. are usually considered a single enemy. Although we consider ourselves fair-minded and with a keen sense of justice, we have whole-heartedly supported Israel’s immoral usurpation of Palestinian land and their shabby treatment of the Palestinian people who have been driven from their homes into refugee camps. By providing moral support and billions of dollars for arms and nuclear bomb facilities ( the same type of facilities that we are likely to go to war with Iran to prevent),. it is no wonder that Muslims see us as hypocrites and an enemy. See the “Israel Lobby” a part of this commentary which explains how President Bush and the Congress are completely held in thrall by wealthy Jewish lobbies.
It may seem odd that politics are brought forth in a commentary on neuroscience. But it isn’t really odd. Politics reflects a neurological activity (or corruption thereof) of human societies.
Neural activity manifests itself as our egos and creates the illusion that we view the world objectively and so can marvel at the wonders of nature and our mendacious President. With our expanding knowledge of the universe and its fundamental mathematical equations we are becoming better able to appreciate its intricate dynamic structure as a mass of seething energy particles. These molecules are responsible for the beauty of the setting sun, the oceans and rainbows and the complex group of integrated biochemicals that constitute our bodies. Actually our only visual contact with the world is via bits of energized photons impinging on retinas; these create in the brain images of a world unique to each individual. Similarly, taste, smell sound and sense of feeling are also due to patterns of electromagnetic activity in neural networks which give rise to our persona of the instant.
Watch an ant walking across the floor. Does it know where its going? Not hardly! But its leg motion is a result of biochemical activity just as yours is, both activities resulting from a cascade of subatomic particle reactions that began about fourteen billion years ago.
Probably you are cognizant of where you walk but only because of a more complex neural system which manifests itself as a stream of consciousness. Cognition is defined as perception or awareness. YOU ARE THAT AWARENESS!
There is no way of avoiding reductionism without assuming some unknown force as yet undetected. The concept of “emergence” is not the answer.
Two papers in Nature Reviews – Neuroscience (April 2006, vol.7 #4) lend support to my reductionist theme of personhood and behavior; which is essentially that “we are our thoughts”; a view that was taught to me in psychology 101 at the University of Virginia in 1933 and has been reiterated in all my writing ever since. No scientific training is necessary to realize its truth, just introspection.
Reductionism is a product of the human quest for understanding the universe by accumulated empirical data gathered by observations of nature which are available to all normal neural systems throughout the world; it differs from religion which is based upon faith. FAITH HAS BEEN DEFINED AS BELIEF IN THE OBVIOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE!
(My reductionist theory is developed in depth in the “Worthingtonism” commentary in this website and also in my book: Cascading Universe.)
In “Neuroscience and legal determination of criminal responsibility” by Nigel Eastman and Colin Campbell (pgs 311-31 
the authors are concerned about the proper exercise of justice and treatment of civil liberties in light of recently identified areas of the brain corresponding to violent behavior that are observed by non-invasive functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) studies. In no way should the mere presence of such foci be the basis for assigning responsibility for criminal acts by the courts or be a basis for preventive detention in the interest of public welfare.
However, since crime is becoming more evident with increasing population density some steps must be taken in order that most of us can live in a libertarian world without fear of interpersonal violence and knowing that our property is secure.
As the authors point out, law is ultimately pragmatic and pursues an abstract idea of justice. Although science interests itself in real, measurable phenomena, the courts are unlikely to accept evidence of association of violence with biological variables; nor should they. It is essential that there be unequivocal proof of a crime committed by a certain individual prior to justice being meted out. Retribution should be based upon protecting society from further crime and not upon revenge or punishment. We should not forget that we are but integrated bundles of particle activity that flows on and on. It behooves us to safe-guard our selves by humanely disposing of criminals as we do rabid animals. Storing either in cages is not the answer.
In “Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition” (pgs 268-277), David M. Amodio and Chris D. Frith report on studies of the relationship between the brain and the social mind using non-invasive neuroimaging methods such as functional MRI. They indicate that neuroscientists have found neural structures that support various aspects of social cognition and endeavor to integrate neuroscience and social psychology.
It has been found that the area of the brain called the medial frontal cortex (MFC) is closely related to social cognition. In human studies, functional divisions have been determined for various tasks that activate frontal regions for which they hypothesize a systematic map. There is a region that seems to be concerned with determining future behavior. The most frontal region of the MFC enables us to think about thinking, reflect upon values linked to outcomes and actions. (There are 136 references cited for those readers interested in pursuing this subject).
