You Are Not Your Brain

[Hypatia]

You are not your brain

We have become too reductive in understanding ourselves, argues philosopher Alva Noe. Our thoughts and desires are shaped by more than neurons firing inside our heads.

By Gordy Slack

March 25, 2009 | For a decade or so, brain studies have seemed on the brink of answering questions about the nature of consciousness, the self, thought and experience. But they never do, argues University of California at Berkeley philosopher Alva Noë, because these things are not found solely in the brain itself.

In his new book, "Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons From the Biology of Consciousness," Noë attacks the brave new world of neuroscience and its claims that brain mechanics can explain consciousness. Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist Francis Crick wrote, "You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." While Noë credits Crick for drawing popular and scientific attention to the question of consciousness, he thinks Crick's conclusions are dead wrong and dangerous.

Hypatia's discussion topic: If this is so, would this have any impact on how we base our gender identity on "brain sex"? Noe argues for consciousness being based in the flow of activity in the world around us that we engage in, as much as in the neurons. Would this entail a "social constructionist" basis of gender identity? Noe says "Meaning is not intrinsic, it's relational."

[Alyssa M.]

Yay, my favorite topic!

"Would this entail a social constructionis basis of gender identity?"

As Douglas Hofstadter would say, MU.

I tend to agree with Dr. Noe, but I think his criticism of Crick is a little over-harsh. His criticism should be of overreaching on the implications of science -- something that philiosophers are notorious for, though many well-known scientists are also guilty of it.

Hofstadter said much the same thing in GEB-EGB 30 years ago: in essence, meaning emerges from interactions between different levels of "reduction" or (conversely) "chunking" of a system. Every theory we have in science (physical or social) is an effective theory that averages the effects of a more fundamental theory in order to illuminate emergent properties. My guess would be that consiousness emerges from an enormous amount of violation of levels of desription, so that neither a reductionist nor a holist description can ever be found (not to say that attempts at understanding are worthless; they are just limited in what they can achieve).

So gender, like everything else, could be described (to give some simplistic examples) psychologically (how an individual feels and interacts with others), physically (variations in brain structures), socially (how society sees individuals), chemically (intrauterine hormone levels), or in a nunmber of other ways. Why not? But no description can ever be complete. When we emphasize one and say "well, gender is really just _____," we are fooling ourselves, whether we fill in the blank with chromosomes or social constructions or something in between.

Gender is not "really just" anything; nor is anything else that is worth discussing.

~Alyssa

[Constance]

So gender, like everything else, could be described (to give some simplistic examples) psychologically (how an individual feels and interacts with others), physically (variations in brain structures), socially (how society sees individuals), chemically (intrauterine hormone levels), or in a nunmber of other ways. Why not? But no description can ever be complete. When we emphasize one and say "well, gender is really just _____," we are fooling ourselves, whether we fill in the blank with chromosomes or social constructions or something in between.

I've encountered many people who posit that sex is biological/anatomical/physical while gender is social/mental. The first part about one's sex makes sense to me. But, I'm not entirely sold on the concept of gender being purely constructed. Certainly, societal gender roles are constructs, but your description seems more accurate, to me at least.

[Saraloop]

I think the subject at hand is more about spirituality than gender. But ultimately, I guess it does fall in there somewhere. If we have spirits though, I would find it odd that we'd have a gender.

[Hypatia]

Not sure about that... if you read through the article, Noe says he's atheist. Ultimately I think he's using philosopher-language to arrive at an essentially social-constructionist theory of consciousness. But not a hardline position: he says that although neurology alone isn't enough to explain consciousness, it is part of the whole picture. To me the only sensible approach to the hoary old nature-vs.-nurture debate is to admit that both are important, especially in how they interact together to produce the whole person. If I'm reading Noe right, through my admitted biases, he seems to be taking the same approach, and emphasizing the nurture side to restore a balanced view, mainly because the nature side has been so dominant lately.

[Constance]

Nature versus Nurture: another binary model that (to me, at least) seems incomplete.

[tekla]

Nature versus Nurture: another binary model that (to me, at least) seems incomplete.

I would think that most people who look at that find out that its not one or the other, but, rather, both.  And perhaps some other factors added in.

[Miniar]

I think it's a chicken and egg sort of thing.. which is it? Our brain chemistry changes because we're experiencing an emotion, or do we experience the emotion because it changes?

[Constance]

Nature versus Nurture: another binary model that (to me, at least) seems incomplete.

I would think that most people who look at that find out that its not one or the other, but, rather, both.  And perhaps some other factors added in.

That's kind of what I was thinking.

[Saraloop]

consciousness from nurture? That concept sounds preposterous to me...

[Constance]

consciousness from nurture? That concept sounds preposterous to me...

I've had to think about this one for a while.

I don't think that nurturing someone (or failing to do so, for that matter) will bring consciousness into being. But, I do think that the way one is nurtured or not will affect the way their consciousness developes. Unless, of course, I don't fully understand how the word "consciousness" is being used. Words like that one seem to me to be used to describe a complicated concept that could have various qualities.

I am not a philosopher and not familiar with philosophical language, so I'm afraid I can't contribute anything more elegant than that.

I found your contribution quite elegant. Thanks for posting it.

[Saraloop]

Bryce, liked your view of tg in the second paragraph, but did not understand most of the first one.
Personally, I think gender identification is purely 100% a social construct, and that in no way does a human have something neurological for that.

For consciousness, there's quite a few definitions, but, I think it's impossible for conciousness to develop as a social construct, .. if it can, then that's not conciousness, and they need to find a better term for it.