Tulisan lama untuk Wawan...

--

  MSNBC.com

How to Think About the Mind

Neuroscience shows that the 'soul' is the activity of the brain
By Steven Pinker
Newsweek

Sept. 27 issue - Every evening our eyes tell us that the sun sets, while we 
know that, in fact, the Earth is turning us away from it. Astronomy taught us 
centuries ago that common sense is not a reliable guide to reality. Today it is 
neuroscience that is forcing us to readjust our intuitions. People naturally 
believe in the Ghost in the Machine: that we have bodies made of matter and 
spirits made of an ethereal something. Yes, people acknowledge that the brain 
is involved in mental life. But they still think of it as a pocket PC for the 
soul, managing information at the behest of a ghostly user.

Modern neuroscience has shown that there is no user. "The soul" is, in fact, 
the information-processing activity of the brain. New imaging techniques have 
tied every thought and emotion to neural activity. And any change to the 
brain—from strokes, drugs, electricity or surgery—will literally change your 
mind. But this understanding hasn't penetrated the conventional wisdom. We tell 
people to "use their brains," we speculate about brain transplants (which 
really should be called body transplants) and we express astonishment that 
meditation, education and psycho-therapy can actually change the brain. How 
else could they work?

This resistance is not surprising. In "Descartes' Baby," psychologist Paul 
Bloom argues that a mind-body distinction is built into the very way we think. 
Children easily accept stories in which a person changes from a frog to a 
prince, or leaves the body to go where the wild things are. And though kids 
know the brain is useful for thinking, they deny that it makes them feel sad or 
love their siblings.

The disconnect between our common sense and our best science is not an academic 
curiosity. Neuroscience is putting us in unfamiliar predicaments, and if we 
continue to think of ourselves as shadowy users of our brains we will be 
needlessly befuddled. The Prozac revolution provides an example. With 
antidepressant and anti-anxiety drugs so common, critics wonder whether we're 
losing the ability to overcome problems through force of will. Many an 
uncomprehending spouse has asked, "Why don't you just snap out of it?" But 
depressed people don't have lazy souls. The parts of their brains that could 
"snap out of it" are not working properly. To depressed people it is 
objectively obvious that their prospects are hopeless. Tweaking the brain with 
drugs may sometimes be the best way to jump-start the machinery that we call 
the will.

Prozac shouldn't be dispensed like mints, of course, but the reason is not that 
it undermines the will. The reason is that emotional pain, like physical pain, 
is not always pathological. Anxiety is an impetus to avoid invisible threats, 
and most of us would never meet a deadline without it. Low mood may help us 
recalibrate our prospects after a damaging loss. But just as surgeons don't 
force patients to endure agony to improve their characters, people shouldn't be 
forced to endure anxiety or depression beyond what's needed to prompt 
self-examination.

To many, the scariest prospect is medication that can make us better than well 
by enhancing mood, memory and attention. Such drugs, they say, will undermine 
striving and sacrifice; they are a kind of cheating, like giving the soul a 
corked bat. But anything that improves our functioning—from practice and 
education to a good night's sleep and a double espresso—changes the brain. As 
long as people are not coerced, it's unclear why we should tolerate every 
method of brain enrichment but one.

In Galileo's time, the counter-intuitive discovery that the Earth moved around 
the sun was laden with moral danger. Now it seems obvious that the motion of 
rock and gas in space has nothing to do with right and wrong. Yet to many 
people, the discovery that the soul is the activity of the brain is just as 
fraught, with pernicious implications for everything from criminal 
responsibility to our image of ourselves as a species. Turning back the clock 
on the ultimate form of self-knowledge is neither possible nor desirable. We 
can live with the new challenges from brain science. But it will require 
setting aside childlike intuitions and traditional dogmas, and thinking afresh 
about what makes people better off and worse off.

Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor in the psychology department at 
Harvard. His books include "How the Mind Works" and "The Blank Slate."
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.



------------------------------------

Post message: prole...@egroups.com
Subscribe   :  proletar-subscr...@egroups.com
Unsubscribe :  proletar-unsubscr...@egroups.com
List owner  :  proletar-ow...@egroups.com
Homepage    :  http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    proletar-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    proletar-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    proletar-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Kirim email ke