{"id":2116,"date":"2014-10-20T14:29:43","date_gmt":"2014-10-20T18:29:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/?p=2116"},"modified":"2014-10-20T14:29:43","modified_gmt":"2014-10-20T18:29:43","slug":"memo-to-neuroscience-we-are-not-brain-puppets","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/2014\/10\/memo-to-neuroscience-we-are-not-brain-puppets.html","title":{"rendered":"Memo to Neuroscience: \u201cWe Are Not Brain Puppets\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

The notion that human beings walk, talk, think, and do things because our brains control us is a fringe idea, easily refuted with a few moment\u2019s thought and rarely taken seriously. But it got a boost from an Op-ed piece in the\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0last week under the title, \u201cAre We Really Conscious?\u201d Thousands of readers were exposed to an argument that has been around for decades, holding that the brain is a machine analogous to a computer, and its working parts (neurons) operate through strict cause and effect. Therefore, when we believe that we have free will, we are as mistaken as marionettes controlled by invisible strings.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The author of the Op-ed piece, a Princeton psychology professor named Michael S. A. Graziano, states the extreme case for brain-as-machine: We are fooling ourselves to believe we are conscious. He also states, quite falsely, that this mechanistic view is the only viable explanation for consciousness currently to be found in science. Actually, there are a number of annual conferences on the topic of science and consciousness, and it\u2019s fair to say that Graziano\u2019s strict materialistic view, although a pet theory in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), rarely comes up in these conferences. But with the name of a prestigious university attached, his Op-ed piece will start a discussion, so here\u2019s my contribution.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Here are five points made in the piece and why they\u2019re wrong:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \u201cBiologically speaking, we\u2019re not a special act of creation. We\u2019re a twig on the tree of evolution.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Actually, human beings are neither of these. Our nervous system makes us unique on the evolutionary ladder, which is more than being a twig. Yet we are biological creatures, as if this needs stating.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Graziano points out that a camera attached to a computer can determine that grass is green, but we humans believe we\u00a0experiencegreenness. \u201cWhat is this mysterious aspect of ourselves? Many theories have been proposed, but none has passed scientific muster.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

       <\/p>\n

      It\u2019s quite true that a scientific explanation for subjective experience has yet to be successfully formulated, but the very worst theory is the one Graziano favors, that consciousness is an illusion, the only reality being electrical and chemical activity in the brain.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      It\u2019s obvious at face value that human beings have a mind while the molecules of water and organic chemicals that make up the brain do not. Creating a bridge from neural activity to mind is very difficult, but to say \u201cWait, I have the answer. The conscious mind isn’t real,\u201d is nonsense. \u00a0This is like solving the question of gender equality by saying that women don\u2019t exist.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      Even the statement that a camera-plus-computer setup can determine that grass is green is flat wrong. The wavelength of light that falls into the spectrum of green doesn\u2019t become a color until processed by a nervous system. Photons have no color. Indeed, we have no idea if other creatures see green as green. What we do know for certain is that a camera and computer have no perceptual ability whatever.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

        \n
      1. \u201cWe don\u2019t actually have inner feelings in the way that most of us think we do.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

         <\/p>\n

        To be accurate, all of us think we have inner feelings, not most of us, and this includes Prof. Graziano when he burns himself at the BBQ, finds out that a loved one has died, or got an appointment at Princeton. \u00a0He calls the refutation of inner feelings \u201cskeptical,\u201d but he might want to consult arch-skeptic Sam Harris, whose new book,\u00a0Waking Up<\/em>, is entirely devoted to the validity of subjective feelings.<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

          \n
        1. \u201cThe brain builds up models (or complex bundles of information) about items in the world, and these models are often not accurate.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

           <\/p>\n

          This point is flogged to death by similar thinkers like Daniel Dennett who somehow believe they can accuse the brain of being faulty, fallacious, and unreliable while with the other hand relying on the brain and nothing but the brain for the existence of mind. Leaving that aside, the brain doesn\u2019t build up models of anything.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Imagine a CD-ROM as it stores the symphonies of Mozart through the processing of digitized information. A mind has to create the storage, decided what to select, etc. The brain without instruction is as mindless as a CD-ROM, and to say that the world we perceive amounts to stored information is a sleight of hand\u2014it skips the part where a mind actually understands and experiences the world. Again, neurons are made of molecules, and molecules don\u2019t create or listen to music. They don\u2019t create any experience of the world, any more than the wood and ivory in a piano experience music even though music is played on a piano.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

            \n
          1. When speaking of why subjectivity is false, Graziano says, \u201c. . . there is only information in a data-processing device.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

             <\/p>\n

            This notion that mind = information is at the heart of AI, but even if we throw out all counter-arguments and accept the premise, it falls apart immediately, because \u201cinformation\u201d as such requires a mind. Without a mind, zeros and ones have no meaning. Only mind can turn digits into a language. To take the position that the brain is all that\u2019s needed to build a model of the world would mean that zeros and ones figured themselves out and turned themselves into a mathematical language all on their own \u2013absurd.<\/p>\n

             <\/p>\n

            Prof. Graziano goes on to describe his own laboratory work in developing an \u201cattention schema,\u201d which would make attention a process involved in the coding and decoding of information, while awareness is the brain\u2019s inaccurate version of attention, which a computer would do better because it can be built with better computing chips than the brain possesses.<\/p>\n

             <\/p>\n

            The intellectual vacuity of this line of thinking would cause despair but for one thing. Neuroscience knows what it\u2019s doing technically, like a piano tuner called in to fix a piano. Many human ills and difficulties can be traced to brain processes gone awry. There is great good to be achieved by delving into the physiology of the brain.<\/p>\n

             <\/p>\n

            If Graziano and other technical-minded types believe that human beings are brain puppets, no harm done. It\u2019s a bizarre, self-contradictory, empty notion. Meanwhile, the ability of the mind to alter the brain, create new neural pathways, break old conditioning, generate new brain cells, promote well-being, and even direct gene expression forms the true frontier of neuroscience. The mind-body connection has never been as promising as it is today. If Graziano is facing in the opposite direction, that\u2019s his right. \u00a0One wishes that his brain cells would create a different and better illusion for him, though.<\/p>\n

             <\/p>\n

            Deepak Chopra, MD is the author of more than 80 books with twenty-two New York Times bestsellers including\u00a0<\/em>Super Brain<\/em><\/a>, co-authored with Rudi Tanzi, PhD. He serves as the founder of The\u00a0<\/em>Chopra Foundation<\/em><\/a>\u00a0and co-founder of The Chopra Center for Wellbeing. Coming soon,\u00a0<\/em>The Future of God<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(Harmony, November 11, 2014)<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

            The notion that human beings walk, talk, think, and do things because our brains control us is a fringe idea, easily refuted with a few moment\u2019s thought and rarely taken seriously. But it got a boost from an Op-ed piece in the\u00a0New York Times\u00a0last week under the title, \u201cAre We Really Conscious?\u201d Thousands of readers…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":125,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1137,367,1136,1128,903],"class_list":["post-2116","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-consciousness","tag-brain-activity","tag-consciousness-2","tag-michael-graziano","tag-sam-harris","tag-subjective-experience"],"yoast_head":"\nMemo to Neuroscience: \u201cWe Are Not Brain Puppets\u201d - Deepak Chopra and Intent<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"noindex, nofollow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Memo to Neuroscience: \u201cWe Are Not Brain Puppets\u201d - Deepak Chopra and Intent\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The notion that human beings walk, talk, think, and do things because our brains control us is a fringe idea, easily refuted with a few moment\u2019s thought and rarely taken seriously. But it got a boost from an Op-ed piece in the\u00a0New York Times\u00a0last week under the title, \u201cAre We Really Conscious?\u201d Thousands of readers…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/2014\/10\/memo-to-neuroscience-we-are-not-brain-puppets.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Deepak Chopra and Intent\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-10-20T18:29:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Memo to Neuroscience: \u201cWe Are Not Brain Puppets\u201d - Deepak Chopra and Intent","robots":{"index":"noindex","follow":"nofollow"},"og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Memo to Neuroscience: \u201cWe Are Not Brain Puppets\u201d - Deepak Chopra and Intent","og_description":"The notion that human beings walk, talk, think, and do things because our brains control us is a fringe idea, easily refuted with a few moment\u2019s thought and rarely taken seriously. But it got a boost from an Op-ed piece in the\u00a0New York Times\u00a0last week under the title, \u201cAre We Really Conscious?\u201d Thousands of readers…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/2014\/10\/memo-to-neuroscience-we-are-not-brain-puppets.html","og_site_name":"Deepak Chopra and Intent","article_published_time":"2014-10-20T18:29:43+00:00","author":"Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/2014\/10\/memo-to-neuroscience-we-are-not-brain-puppets.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/2014\/10\/memo-to-neuroscience-we-are-not-brain-puppets.html","name":"Memo to Neuroscience: \u201cWe Are Not Brain Puppets\u201d - Deepak Chopra and Intent","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/#website"},"datePublished":"2014-10-20T18:29:43+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-20T18:29:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/#\/schema\/person\/40a7773935ae623bbb543302f1b3520a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/2014\/10\/memo-to-neuroscience-we-are-not-brain-puppets.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/2014\/10\/memo-to-neuroscience-we-are-not-brain-puppets.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/2014\/10\/memo-to-neuroscience-we-are-not-brain-puppets.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Memo to Neuroscience: \u201cWe Are Not Brain Puppets\u201d"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/","name":"Deepak Chopra and Intent","description":"Beliefnet Voices","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/#\/schema\/person\/40a7773935ae623bbb543302f1b3520a","name":"Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/e37\/e379d06bb2d8f3928b8fb1008e150364x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/e37\/e379d06bb2d8f3928b8fb1008e150364x96.jpg","caption":"Admin"},"url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/author\/gbrown"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2116","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/125"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2116"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2116\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2117,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2116\/revisions\/2117"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/intentchopra\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}