You are here:   Civilisation >  Critique > Beware the Fausts of Neuroscience
 

As in contemporary art, critics of a certain age, aching to keep up, can be the first to hop aboard. A.S. Byatt is among those Tallis admonishes for being dazzled by neuro-lit crit. Mirror neurons, she has suggested, help explain the appeal of John Donne's erotic poem "On His Mistress Going To Bed". Here she is in a radio interview on the same theme:

If Shakespeare had met a mirror neuron he would have loved it...Because of the word mirror, partly because you can take that out of a quite other vocabulary: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?" And you can put it together with little blobs of brain matter which are in most people's idea formless, and you find form moving around in the brain and the eye and the mirror and — oh, he would have loved it!

A danger of neuroaesthetics will be the vaporous artspeak it can induce. This is not to say that mirror neurons or other discoveries cannot fire the artistic imagination or inspire a passing critical insight. But it is mirrors as a source of empathy that appeal to the social idealist or Utopian dreamer, which is why they make an appearance in the neuro-Arcadia evoked by the Cambridge neuroscientist Simon Baron-Cohen in his Zero Degrees of Empathy (Penguin, 2011). "Empathy circuits", he claims to have established (others disagree), exist in the brain. Terms like "evil" should therefore be abolished in favour of degrees of positive or negative empathy, and cultivating positive empathy could solve many of our problems, including the Arab-Israel dispute. Once again the human animal is destined to graze peaceably on the sunny uplands, this time through the development of the brain's intrinsic capacity for fellow feeling. 

Baron-Cohen must have been fortunate in his schooling. In the state sector empathy rather than facts, feeling as distinct from knowledge, have been at the core of educational theory for decades, with the results we have seen. When professors like him climb into the pulpit to preach a new science of feelings, a brave new godless world in which no one is responsible for  anything and all we need is to teach folk to be nicer to one another, it's time to take cover. My own empathy with humanity recedes each time I am promised a new edition of the New Man.

Baron-Cohen's Panglossian tone invites yet more scepticism: empathy is an under-utilised resource...Empathy is a universal solvent. Any problem immersed in empathy becomes soluble...I hope you have been persuaded that this resource is a better way to resolve problems than the alternative, such as guns, laws or religion."

We ought not to smile, yet it is easy to imagine a film starring his cousin Sacha as a crazed scientist with a fetching grin. Essentially his is a sentimental vision, reminiscent of H.G. Wells's childlike Eloi in The Time Machine, and for discriminating reviewers like Andrew Scull in the Times Literary Supplement the book is indeed "all a bit of scientific magic". Yet quite a few critics rather liked it — why argue against empathy? — which suggests that the market for neuroscientific self-improvement is there. It won't include Marilynne Robinson, who prefers to see us as something more than an "optimised ape", albeit a feelie one.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Michael Russell
April 4th, 2012
6:04 PM
Every discipline gets in trouble when it claims to have reached the level of full determinism from causes to effects. But I don't see those claims among those folks only some tendrils pushing out to find more answers. Eagleman's "Incognito" and Pinker's current book "The Better Angels of our Nature" are both evocative of more discovery without a sense of completion. I am surprised that you dealt with Pinker 2002 and not Pinker 2011. As an aside... for heaven's sake get ride of the sans serif type face it is ugly and hard to read when so densely packed!

Anonymous
April 4th, 2012
5:04 PM
Brilliant stuff - clearly puts the new eugenics in it's place and a plague upon reductionists everywhere. Sadly Michael Farr's comments only serve to demonstrate that so many people still miss the point entirely. E

runbei
April 4th, 2012
4:04 PM
The "method" for balancing the influences of the amygdala and prefrontal cortex has been known and tested for millennia. It is meditation; see the studies of Richard Davidson, Vilas Professor of Affective Neuroscience at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Also, see "Out of the Labyrinth - For Those Who Want to Believe, But Can't." Walters makes an excellent case for the primacy of consciousness, not matter. If true, of course, that would change everything, turning the materialists' presumptions upside down.

Anonymous
April 4th, 2012
1:04 PM
"logically they should be given longer sentences, because nothing can change them." This gets it completely backward. The hard determinist claims we're unfree because characters and choices are causally determined--which means *everything* we do "changes them." But they can't be held morally responsible because they can't directly change themselves, and only can indirectly change themselves only *after* the deed for which they're held responsible. The anti-free will argument is not fatalism but determinism: put another way it's causalism, the belief that things don't happen magically, by chance, or arbitrarily, but by causes, and that there are no first causes (magic self causes like free agents). Ironically, it is the belief in free will that rejects change, because it rejects natural causality, the source of change. If a person's choice is not caused by any prior cause, it is arbitrary--it cannot be caused by anything, and so the person cannot do anything but what the magic 8 ball in their "will" tells them to do.

michaelfarr
April 4th, 2012
8:04 AM
sorry mate, a straw man if ever i have read one. Of course the "self' resides in the brain, connect body to heart-lung machine, remove brain, bit by bit, check sense of self, identify incremental loss of function and self then find eventually a deceased person even with heart and lungs pumping. The primitive machines we have at this time make rudimentary measures of the most complex organ we know of with trillions of connections and potential states, still it doesnt need a soul to explain it.

Shalom Freedman
April 4th, 2012
7:04 AM
I would also include in the bibliography of works debunking explain-and- cure- all neurocience the recent work of Roger Scruton. He also takes on the other great explainers-of- it- all these days the evolutionary psychologists. There is more I am not afraid in heaven and earth than is dreamt in all their computer- simulations.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.