***This is a Work in progress. I will add sources as I come across them. Many of the following arguments are simply philosophical while some have a strong basis in research.
Friends,
Recent events galvanized me to start pondering about what makes each of us 'human' and where the 'us-ness' comes from. This thought pattern arose from seeing an individual that I have known well, transform into a person, antipodal (in a negative sense) to what they were before [name and identifying characteristics omitted-for now], with the help of mind-altering substances. I hope this is a short term change, but I fear that this may not be so.
It is apparent that said incident has generated more distress in me than I have admitted and thus writing will serve as my outlet and a balm to my spirits.
I digress,
Personality:
Where does personality come from and what makes us,'us'. The word personality is derived from the Latin term
persona, which roughly translates to 'mask'. So, our personalities originally were seen as the mask that we wear in society, and not today's definition that is more akin to a long-lasting set of beliefs, opinions and guiding moires that influence how we interact with society. The latter definition seems more fitting with our current understanding of a personality and, more vaguely, our understanding of 'consciousness'.
So, where does a 'personality' come from and what is 'consciousness'. From a rudimentary standpoint, it is clear that personalities are the overt representations of what makes us, 'us'. The antiquated belief on this matter (which still persists) is that personality is derived from ones' animus or soul. That line of thought went that humans are an empty vessel, a 'mation'-sans the 'auto'-that cannot function without the essence of a pre-conceived and pre-crafted soul. This soul was said to be created by one of many Gods, or to be a product of the eternal energy of the universe, or to be the essence of some celestial force or another (and et cetera et cetera) . I won't concentrate on this line of belief (that persists in religious theology today) as I am a follower of science in general, and reason and empiricism in particular ( and thus subscribe to Monism and the evolutionary beginnings of humankind).
Neuroscience and the Brain:
The preponderance of evidence in the canon of neuroscience research has demonstrated that the brain, not the soul, is the main progenitor of human activity and human thought (or at least that science need not refer to an abstract soul to explain human behavior-parsimony plays a role here). The billions (if not trillions) of communicative neurons that make up our brain determine our actions (or possibly vice versa?) via their neurochemical and neuroelectrical signals. I won't go in to the wonky details (consult a neuroscience or bio psychology textbook for this), but it is clear that neuronal interactions with receptors on specific proteins goad our bodies into movement and shape and informs our personalities. For an overview of neuronal processes and how thought and various actions occur, you can check out this free online neuroscience textbook:
http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/
Choice and the brain as a 'puppet-master':
Trying to discern 'choice and free will' in the context of biology is a tricky subject, as the question always arises, 'do we will our finger to move, thus causing neuronal activity to occur and said finger to move?' or 'Does a set of particular neurons fire first, inspiring our will to move, and thus resulting in the action of said finger (s) moving?' The same question can be (and should be) extrapolated to cover the formation and execution of 'abstract thoughts' and 'ethical norms'. Do we will our brain to commit charitable actions or to indulge in heinous crimes? Or does our brain make the decision for us, before we are cognizant of said decision being made (us=the conscious, 'us')?
Research:
Interesting research leans us far closer to the latter assertion, that is that our neuronal firing determines our decision-making. A new study by Fried, et al. (2011) suggested that neuronal firing preceded the 'self-initiation of movements'. And that, furthermore, researchers could detect with 90% certainty what decisions (in regards to movement) each individual was set to make, before they consciously made them (or decided to make them). You can read the fascinating article here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627310010822
Injury and personality change:
Nature and Nurture:
Thus it appears reasonable to assume that the brain is the 'progenitor'-if you will- and facilitator of all human activity. Genetics isn't everything of course, environmental influences can and do have a dramatic affect on the development of the brain and the manifestation, or lack thereof, of certain genes and other genetic pre-dispositions. For instance, one may be born with a lack of empathy and other characteristics of Anti-Social Personality (Psychopathy), but that individual doesn't necessarily become a murderer or even a greedy hedge fund manager. Perhaps, if one was raised in just the right loving, stable and healthy environment where specific negative traits took the 'back-seat' to fostering compassion and an honest work ethic (while maybe, not feeling true empathy or compassion), one could advance in society and become a pro-active member of said society. Whereas the same individual, raised as a child soldier, may note that his/her negative biological traits are exacerbated and fostered by and through killing, raping or other crimes. One's environment is fundamental to the development of one's personality-indeed,it is necessary, but not sufficient. The brain and the environment work in tandem to make us 'us.
Choice and love:
Are we slaves then, to our brains and to a largely unwieldy and uncontrollable world? I would posit a qualified yes, as in we are slaves only in the sense that we had no hand in creating our brains and cannot chose what foundation we have to build upon. We can make conscious choices to better our lives, but only if we have the 'brain capacity' to do so. We cannot do so if we are missing our pre-frontal lobes or have other deficient or defective judgement centers. Most of us feel, reasonably so, that we can manage addictions and stop bad habits by changing our thoughts (this is fundamental to counseling). This is a very true assertion, for the most of us. But, to a certain extent, there will always be a substantial segment of the population who will lack empathy, or who will suffer from a paucity of proper judgement, who will be inclined to take risks, or who will be oriented toward anti-social traits, or who will be inclined toward the expression of narcissistic traits and/or the committing of crimes. Many of these individuals can be helped by counseling an/or medications, but many more will receive only limited benefit from these therapies.
So, can we and should we love those who are different than they used to be in every significant way? Should we love those who once were kind, compassionate, friendly and hopeful, but have become the Jekyll's of all things self-serving, introverted and irritable/ornery? The point being, is what makes our loved ones and our friends, themselves? Will they always be themselves even when only a fraction of their prior personality remains? What if one's mother was given a full brain transplant, would she still be one's mother or a stranger in a unfamiliar shell?
I honestly do not know the answer to this question and I'm not sure that there is a universal answer. Maybe, the love and friendship once felt could be replaced with a understanding detente and possibly an appreciation of the affected individual's new personality.
Justice and Choice:
What about the aforementioned discussion on responsibility and traditional justice? Can an individual with
Anti-Social Personality and an abnormal Hippocampus/Pre-frontal Cortex be held to the same standards of justice as an individual with more healthy, functioning organelles? And how do we determine who can or cannot be held to said standards-besides relying solely on the 'insanity' defense. There is a lot to discuss here and again the answers are few and far between. Individuals like
Ferdinand D.Schoeman have suggested the possibility of quarantining those that are dangerous to society, especially the criminally dangerous. I am inclined to think that this approach is not only
not a palatable alternative to many in society, but also simply 'passes the buck' in regards to finding a tenable solution to this issue.
Should we then go the route of genetic testing and counseling to help predict and/or mitigate criminality? An individual proclaimed to be 'at risk' at birth could be placed in an especially stimulating and comforting environment and receive counseling/medication from an early age. This is a more humane route, but may also lead to selective abortions for those who fit the criteria for 'likely future criminal'. Additionally, determining who will become a criminal later in life is incredibly difficult seeing that numerous genetic and environmental factors play a role in bringing about the expression of criminality. We are many years from this level of ingenuity.
I just wanted to stimulate a conversation. I may bring up many of these issues again in the future.
For now,
Auf Wiedersehn.
For further reference, read Sam Harris's "
Free Will".
