Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
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.
I teach theatre courses at a small university.
I always have a hard time convincing students about the "social good" of seeing tragedies (they vastly prefer comedies, bevause, wh wants to be sad?) Tragedy is a stand-in for actual experience: the tragic hero a virtual sacrifice. s/he suffers and perhaps dies so that we don't have to, but we the viewers vicariously "feel their pain" without suffering the dire consequences. And if this articvle is to believed, it's good practice for our brains.
"Self-sacrifice and altruism might be mere byproducts of mirroring and not themselves adaptive in a way selected for by evolution."
Man! Am I tired of reading that altruism and self-sacrifice are either factually non-existent (replaced in the literature with something called reciprocal altruism) or some kind of evolutionary hiccup! It's as if science can't manage to face the proposition that competition as a means of genetic transfer might just be outmoded and could very well be in the process of being replaced.
Why is there so much research being done to prove humans are spirit-less creatures with no better motive to live than to pass on our genes? Is that myopic, or what?
Why isn't there more research being done to better understand the advantages of self-sacrifice and true altruism?
My guess is that altruism means religion to these guys, and as far as they're concerned, religion must be stamped out. No one wants to denigrate scientific advancement, but does everything we understand to be human have to be denied or relegated to mere biological function in order to serve that purpose?
We make interior models of the world, that's how we can function in it. This includes making models of other people as well as their emotions. I think that the "mirror neurons" are just part of these models, and that they aren't "hard wired", rather they are built up as children learn about the world and about other people.
When researchers look at neuron firings, they find all kinds of interesting things, like a neuron that fires if and only if (say) your grandmother comes into view. But you weren't hard-wired to recognize your grandmother, your brain formed new connections based on your experience. Rather, this is just the way the visual cortex is organized and we can find something similar for any person whose face you recognize.
So, in my view (though I have no particular qualifications other than as an interested amateur), mirror neurons seem to be an aspect of how empathy is represented in our brains, but it would be a mistake to say that mirror neurons cause empathy. Likewise, if we find that we can't locate them in the brains of autistic children, it will be because their models of other minds are incomplete, and it isn't like we could implant some mirror neurons and fix it.
Whether mirror neurons are a metaphor for empathy, create it or merely reflect it, the one thing that emerges from this article that in humainty, empahy has reached an evolutionary zenity. Whteher it is a metaphor or a physical reality, this qual;ity which lies at the heart of what a human is has another name: love
You might be interested in a comment on mourning posted to my blog: http://www,johnklotz.blogspot.com
And please n ote one crusicial aspect of empathy illustrated by the failure of the writer to act on his feelings for woman in the subway. He chose not to act. Lo0ve, more than any other human act, is act of FREE WILL>
Typos are my bain, but my above post is ridiculous. This will be better.
Whether mirror neurons are a metaphor for empathy, create it or merely reflect it, the one thing that emerges from this article that in humanity, empathy has reached an evolutionary zenith. Whether it is a metaphor or a physical reality, this quality which lies at the heart of what a human is, has another name: love.
You might be interested in a comment on mourning posted to my blog: http://johnklotz.blogspot.com
And please note one crucial aspect of empathy illustrated by the failure of the writer to act on his feelings for woman in the subway. He chose not to act. Acting on empathy -love -more than any other human act, is act of FREE WILL. Excuse the caps, but given the drive of some scientists to reduce every human act to some kind of determinism or other, the fact is we do have a the freedom of choice.
Following on from what Juliebird said, I think the understanding of mirror neurons is so important to recognizing the effect live theatre has. Las month, the director Anne Bogart gave a talk in Ireland, at which I was present, where she talked about mirror neurons in reference to the theatrical form.
For most of us theatre practitioners in the audience, it was the first time we'd ever heard of such a concept, and upon learning that watching another human experience something causes a "shadow" version of the experience to fire in the brain of the watcher I had a bit of an epiphany--I even turned to my companion and said, "This explains so much about my life."
What I mean by that is that in the past few years I've had extreme physiological and psychological reactions to events in front of me that were way out of adjustment with the actual reality of the moment. It's a bit like PTSD, with no specific trauma (that I can remember, anyway) that ever initially happened. Combining my understanding of the psychological effects my upbringing had on me with the concept of mirror neurons has finally shed some light on these mysterious reactions, and brought me further understanding and peace.
As a practicing Buddhist, I also think it ties into Buddhism in a big way: no wonder life has suffering in it--you can't help it! You see fellow humans go through something and you're going through it too! How you confront that suffering, though, is the key part of the Buddhist principles, and I do believe that pure compassion can and does exist and be exercised outside of a "monkey see, monkey do" setup.
Even if the hoopla about the significance of mirror neurons dies down, or turns out to be factually untrue, I've still found the concept of it immensely helpful in my life. Perhaps it's just an illusion, but it's a useful one. It's helped me find greater compassion for myself.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
