- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It sounds like neurobiology. Nothing wrong with science, but in this instance I think I have to throw in with Gopnik, in that the theory doesn't come near to explaining consciousness and the things which descend from consciousness. Of course I have my own neurobiological theories, which I suspect I'd be wise to keep to myself, but if nothing else this sort of science tends to do something anti-human, which is to "Split the Lark" as Dickinson wrote. I suppose understanding the intracacies of the human brain are necessary and useful, but I'm not sure any one person could utilize this particular knowlege to a good end. As with the lark in the poem, once split open to find the origin of its song, the entire, wondrous thing is lost, lark, song, beauty, wonder -- and to what end? I'm not certain and I'm not sure I'd be willing to bet the farm on it, even if it were certain.
We can always explain everything away as brain chemistry and synapses firing, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in a world so Vulcanized. I rather prefer my science stick to performing "miracles" which make us better able to enjoy our wonderment at how little we really know.
