Second Sight

adobe premiere pro tutorial downloadble Adobe Fireworks CS5 cheap aadobe premiere pro adobe creative suite premium edition mac Adobe Fireworks CS5 for Mac cheap cheap creative suite 3 adobe adobe creative suite site license Adobe InCopy CS5 cheap mac adobe creative suite3 design premium 7 adobe premiere pro Adobe InCopy CS5 for Mac cheap adobe premiere pro online training adobe premiere pro free video tutorials Adobe SoundBooth CS5 for Mac cheap adobe creative suite 2 standard adobe premiere pro cs3 tutorials Adobe SoundBooth CS5 cheap adobe premiere pro 7 free download adobe creative suite osx Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 for Mac cheap adobe premiere pro mpeg plugin free adobe premiere pro tutorial Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 cheap adobe fireworks review adobe creative suite 1.3 mac Adobe Contribute CS5 cheap adobe contribute movies adobe creative suite tutorial Adobe Contribute CS5 for Mac cheap adobe fireworks help adobe creative suite authorization code Adobe Creative Suite 5 Design Premium cheap adobe creative suite reviews total training for adobe premiere pro Adobe Creative Suite 5 Design Premium for Mac cheap adobe premiere pro dvr format adobe creative suite 2.3 review Adobe Creative Suite 5 Design Standard cheap adobe premiere pro video clips adobe creative suite ce trial download Adobe Creative Suite 5 Production Premium cheap adobe creative suite student version download adobe creative suite 2 Adobe Creative Suite 5 Production Premium for Mac cheap adobe creative suite download hack version adobe creative suite 3 contents Adobe Creative Suite 5 Web Premium cheap creative suite 3 design editions adobe adobe creative suite production studio Adobe Creative Suite 5 Web Premium for Mac cheap adobe creative suite site license

Archive for December, 2008

Mind over Matter

Quentin de la Bedoyere on 18 Dec 2008

I decided to click my computer mouse this morning. Or did I? There is good evidence that my brain anticipated my conscious decision by a fraction of a second or even, as the latest research shows, by up to seven seconds. And here we are at the heart of neuroscience: one of the fastest-growing disciplines of our time.

Already we can spot metaphysical questions. How can I speak of free choice for a decision made first by the unconscious brain? Could I have vetoed my brain at the last moment? Is my conscious decision merely a process of noting what has already been decided?

Neuroscience, or the study of the brain, involves many disciplines from basic biology to the meaning of consciousness, and takes us into the tricky area of the distinction between mind and brain, to say nothing of the theological question of the soul. We can date it back at least to Galen in the second century AD, who first recorded damage in the brains of the corpses whose owners formerly had mental defects. But the modern trigger has been the availability of measuring instruments, culminating in magnetic resonance imaging which can immediately locate and measure brain activity stimulated by external cues.

Already scientists can map the functions of many locations in the brain, which are better described as interacting webs of connections under continual revision, decay and addition. Although as yet we know only a fraction, we are able to identify basic aspects of memory, the senses, even the webs which process morality and religion, and many more. No wonder that some neuroscientists hold the view that we have just a biological brain, with a corresponding body, and nothing more. All is potentially explicable in materialistic terms, and hence presumed to have emerged through evolution. (Of course, other neuroscientists argue that there are elements, such as consciousness, which cannot be explained through conventional scientific methods. They are not always popular with their colleagues.)

But the sceptical conclusion is not surprising. If every function of which we know can be accounted for within the biological brain (even if they are not all discovered yet) what function could be attributed to any agent which is somehow superior to the brain but differentiated from it - and of course would not be a biological entity detectable by any conceivable scanning method?

Some believers may be concerned about this too. What, for instance, is my religious belief worth if it is simply the product of a gene expressed in my brain structure? What credibility can be given to my choices and aspirations if these can all be traced to biological brain function?

Of course neuroscientists acknowledge consciousness (they had better, hadn’t they?) They see it primarily as active in the higher operations such as cognition, long-term planning, memory and language. Such functions are centred in the neo-cortex, lying above the reptilian and mammalian brains whose operations, though essential, are more basic - and are thought to be earlier developments in our evolutionary progress.

But if you ask them to distinguish between brain and mind, you may get some strange answers. I don’t want to put words into their mouths, but I can fairly summarise the explanations which some of them have given.

They acknowledge that we are all Cartesian at heart. That is, we instinctively think in terms of a difference which distinguishes mind from brain. We experience a consciousness of self which overviews the biological. We are able to think about our thoughts with an introspection unique to human beings. We have a sense of self which is distinguishable from our brain although it may work through it - as the violinist makes music through the violin. Even sceptical neuroscientists find themselves speaking in Cartesian language because that reflects their inner experience.

Pushed back against the wall, a neuroscientist may claim that mind is simply another word for brain. Cartesian language may be convenient, they say, but in fact all the functions that we attribute to the mind are to be found in the brain including, perhaps, a higher level of consciousness through which our introspection takes place.

But few neuroscientists are philosophers. If they were, they would quickly see that the difficulty is not answered. We can think about our thinking, and we can think about our thinking about our thinking, and so on ad infinitum. Introspection must ultimately come from outside the biological for the merely material cannot introspect itself. And if it is outside the biological it cannot be caught in a scan.

Consider a couple of instances. First, think about the claim that the moral process is fully comprehended by a network of biological connections localised in the brain. In what way could moral approval or disapproval emerge from this? There would be no point in blame or approval if our behaviour were only the outcome of biological connections.

And that brings us to free will. How does the biological make choices? Without free will the sceptical neuroscientist is obliged to accept the conclusions of his neural circuits. And if those circuits came about through the random mutations of evolution, on what basis can he hold them to be true?

Of course many of our choices (far more than we imagine) are in practice not free. But there only has to be one occasion in the history of mankind when a truly moral decision was made, or one truly free exercise of the will - and the materialist case is blown.

So we can marvel at the wonder of God’s creation in the workings of the brain, without supposing for a moment that the brain has taken the place of the mind - or, if you prefer the terminology, the soul.

(Many will remember the conditions which had to be fulfilled for mortal sin: grave matter, full knowledge, full consent. Without for a moment denying free will, it does seem hard to judge subjectively whether full consent is easily present. Conversely, when we perform a virtuous act, how do we separate our free choice from other, secular, factors which influence us? You may have a comment about this, or other aspects of the column. Keep them coming!)

Keep the Anglicans at Bay

Quentin de la Bedoyere on 11 Dec 2008

Here is a passage from an authoritative manual of moral theology. It makes interesting reading:

“It is not, as a general rule, permitted to Catholic nurses in hospitals to send for non Catholic ministers to attend non Catholic patients for religious purposes; they must be passive in such cases (Sacred Office March 15 1858). This was further explained (Feb 5 1872) to mean that nurses might tell some non-Catholic attendant that the patient wanted the non-Catholic minister, and this was declared not to be active co-operation. Furthermore, if even this were found impossible, then for very grave reasons and to prevent enmity arising against the Church, nurses might themselves send for the non-Catholic minister if asked to do so.”

This passage comes from Moral and Pastoral Theology by Henry Davis SJ. It is a four volume work, and the 1958 edition. Apparently a nurse might prepare a table with flowers since this was not a specifically religious act but might not join in prayers even those common to Christians.

Now I read that the Catholic Education Service is recommending that Catholic schools should, if possible, provide a multi-faith prayer room for non-Christian pupils. And I think that if a Catholic nurse were to make a fuss about calling a non-Catholic minister to attend a patient, he or she would be regarded as a fundamentalist of the deepest and most unchristian dye.

The basic teaching about the uniqueness of the Catholic Church has not changed, but its exercise has changed quite dramatically. I wrote in my column posted on 20 November “The changes in the Church have taken place over so many centuries and, with some exceptions, by such small steps that we are often unaware of how considerable they have been.”

A question presents itself: if a common prohibition of 50 years ago was taken as orthodoxy, what orthodoxies of today will look grotesque in 50 years time? Have we now got it all right, or are we children of our time – blind to what will one day seem obvious. Who are our prophets?

Interestingly, the Catholic Herald went as far as it dared to be a prophet during the Henry Davis period, and before. But it did so in the teeth of the bishops who often threatened to ban its sales in their dioceses. I know, I was there.

So let us at least attempt to be prophets and make suggestions for the changes which could occur over the next 50 years.

Me Jane, you Tarzan

Quentin de la Bedoyere on 04 Dec 2008

Sexual attraction is a strange phenomenon, and we are often unaware of the factors which play a part. Men, faced by photographs of ostensibly identical twins, tend to choose the one whose eyes have the larger pupils, without knowing why. The women who used belladonna to enlarge their pupils knew what they were doing.

More sophisticated scientific methods enable us to delve deeper, and in particular we have begun to understand the effects of the monthly cycle both on the woman herself and on the men she meets.

Many married women, particularly Catholics and those investigating sub-fertility, are likely to be aware of the stages of their cycle, as measured through the tracing of symptoms as commonly used in natural family planning. But there are other signs of ovulation which are less well-known but nevertheless significant in their effects. The examples which I give are all from reputable and recent scientific studies. They are not old (or young) wives’ tales. They will not occur with every woman, but they are likely to occur to many more than those who recognise them.

Women are more likely to fantasise about men other than their husbands as they approach ovulation. In a complementary fashion husbands are more likely to be attentive to their wives, watching their behaviour and telephoning them more frequently. The more a woman secretly fantasises, the more watchful their husbands tend to be.

There may be an evolutionary advantage in women grabbing genes for their children from attractive, if unreliable, casual partners. For short-term relationships they prefer “rugged” faces – preferably enhanced by facial scars. These characteristics are seen as associated with high testosterone. For long-term relationships gentler faces may be preferred. Meanwhile steady old hubby will provide the security they need. Up to 30 per cent of children are not the offspring of their purported father, although this varies in different societies. So hubby’s careful oversight may be prudent. Women are more likely to be unfaithful in their early 30s; typically they are at their peak of sexual response, but on the eve of declining fertility.

Much has been made of smell in choosing a mate. The theory behind this is that it is genetically desirable to bear children with someone who has a different immune system, thus giving the child a potentially broader spread of resistance to disease. But the evidence here is not one way because, on a visual basis, women prefer the faces of men with similar immune systems. It seems that a balancing of both factors is needed. However, women on the Pill become less likely to choose the right mate through their sense of smell. And this fits the finding that the discriminatory activity in the female brain, particularly the part associated with risk and reward, is measurably more active when, at the time of ovulation, she is reviewing a mate.

Women raise the pitch and femininity of their voices, at least in their initial remarks, around ovulation. The effect is stronger as they approach ovulation, and more marked in younger women – especially if they are highly fertile. These last are also important factors in the way that women dress and groom. The care which they take in their appearance and clothes is typically raised as they approach ovulation.

Beware a woman wearing red, I say to my brothers. Unconsciously you will find her more attractive than in, say, blue – and, if you take her out, you will spend more money on her. Then reflect that this corresponds with males among the higher apes who respond to the reddening of females as they approach ovulation.

While this evidence all seems to point one way, we must remember that it only addresses average phenomena, so it does not apply to any particular woman. Nor, of course, does it say anything about the ability of a woman to exercise control over instinct, particularly when she recognises how her instincts may work. So I conducted a rather small survey among the women of my sufficiently close acquaintance to pose the question: are you aware of any difference in your behaviour and feelings at the time of ovulation?

Predictably, many were aware of discomfort, and one friend who was having infertility scans had been able to confirm that she could accurately identify which fallopian tube was involved. But the evidence for mood change was mainly of a negative nature. That is, they might be aware of feeling low immediately after the menses, and all reported pre-menstrual tension at different levels. So their awareness of mood change at ovulation lay in their comparative brightness between these two events. I had not given them any clues about the research, and they did not volunteer any such phenomena. This at least suggests that they are unaware of their changes in mood or behaviour, unless they chose not to tell me. Tiresias (the seer of Greek myth) who had spent seven years as a woman, was struck blind by Hera because he revealed to Zeus that women enjoyed sexual activity more than men. It is dangerous knowledge

Women have evolved over the generations to be both physically and psychologically inclined to sexual partnership at the time of maximum fertility. It is a trait developed when infant mortality was very high and it was necessary to bear several children in order to sustain and gently increase the population. Because evolution is essentially mindless, the trait remains even when, in the developed world at least, it no longer synchronises with current conditions. And it is a trait for which in many countries, including our own, we have over-compensated, and will pay the price.

Plenty of opportunity for comment here. Are women really as devious as my column suggests? And how about men’s sexual strategies? And there is always the difficult question raised by a rate of fertility which developed under much more primitive conditions. If you have problems logging to make a comment, email me at quentin@greenyonder.co.uk. But remember to change “green” to “blue”. (anti-spamming device)

A shared exploration of the relationship between science and faith

Archive for December, 2008

Mind over Matter

Keep the Anglicans at Bay

Me Jane, you Tarzan

Search

Categories

Monthly

Pages