How much of “Humanity” is ultimately reducible to “Biology”? And do you find such explanations satisfying?

Question

What am I talking about?

For example: There is an abundance of research in the field of Neuroscience aimed at identifying networks and molecular alterations in the brain that are responsible for “abstract” or “mystical” experiences (i.e. spirituality, religion, altruism, love).

How much of the Human Experience (in your opinion) will eventually be explainable in terms of evolution and physiology?

And/Or

Do you believe these explanations alter our self-perception?

Too many great answers to choose from! Thank you to each of you.

Lys – Loved your second paragraph, in particular.

upasaka_ben – great line “Biology can explain…”

Zingis – Stop upstaging me, my friend. Your questions are far more interesting than my original query.

Tacit Hue – LOL, LOL! It was actually *unintentional* subjectivity on my part. I didn’t know how many times I could reasonably say “explainable” in one question.

Param – Well gosh, I hope no one captures it. What would we do with ourselves? P.S. I absolutely do *not* require a resume! :-)

Answer 1

I think at the most, evolution is everything in humanity. In a euphoria of dubiously stated findings, I am convinced that all of man is a gene or that all the space in the mind is not in the least a non DNA based quality.

DNA is the lid of the steaming pot of human tea that brews making qualities that are human like love and religion and so on. When the lid is lifted, the tea is poured into a cup and then sipped. Like when you experience a religion, it is like tasting tea.

The sensations of the tongue are stroked into the brain in a taste, while in the DNA it is expressed in the proteins and experienced as an emotion or action or perception or estimate in the brain. So, when for instance, you feel like you love someone, it is because your DNA is creating a experience in the brain by expressing the proteins or like the way you taste the tea.

I think that all of the human experience is explainable in terms of evolution and physiology. For instance, the need of humans to recreate their environs is a gene not unlike one the birds nest with. These behaviors are all bit level DNA codes that express themselves in all our varied subjections. Quite strangely, you suppress your humanity too as a gene expression.

Self perception is altered all the time. And sometimes, these explanations may suggest a picture so different from the one that we're suggesting that it does make us alter our perceptions of the world.

For example, it is common at most debates to say that the humans learnt how to use tools. But it could have been a mutation that subjected the human to make them unconsiously or automatedly such like the one nesting birds have. So the above rendering of tool use could alter our ideas of how tools are used or made, from early stone tools to later iron ones or how the evolution began so disonantly and then resonated in the custom made ones that we are more subject to.

Someday, it is the hope that all of man will be able to define themselves through RNA modifications. I hope that that day is not that far away.

Answer 2

I think, first of all, that a lot of our experiences and origins will eventually be explained by science (not necessarily to biology). Although the explanations may not be correct and end along the vein of the luminiferous aether, the explanations will be there and will help us along to more correct ones. This isn't necessarily reducing our humanity to science, however-- that would suggest that explaining what and how we do things like love or hope or holding grudges with science somehow lessons them, I think.

Whether or not the explanations are satisfying, they're scientific, and science doesn't particularly care if people are satisfied. I suppose, in the end, it won't greatly effect our overall self-perception. On an individual level, maybe, but as a whole I don't think humans will ever care to have love summed up as a chemical formula or the spark of life explained through particle physics.

So I guess your question is sort of unanswerable. Everything about us is science, because science is just objective observations about the world around us, but just because everything is science doesn't mean everything can be explained.

After all, chemistry still doesn't know why water really works the way it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it does. Just because we know how love happens, biologically, will never necessarily mean we'll know why (inexplicably and amazingly) it works that way.

Answer 3

What I find interesting is our humanity changing our brain structure.

There are many studies that show that the brain, its structure and networks are plastic and respond to environment, mood, activity, etc.

So, if indeed those same networks are responsible for much of our 'believed' uniqueness that define our humanity, than which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
If we have such brain locales, were they there by nature or nurture?
Can we 'decide' that we believe in the abstract and by doing so, carefully, over a prolonged period, actually activate those other-worldly experiences?
If we do, are we the creators of those experiences or merely the craftspersons fashioning a door in our minds that can be opened to them?

I'm getting a little too mystical here, but my point is... I think that regardless of the biological roots of our humanity, it does not divorce us from our own free agency. We still can choose to go against our programming and even change it when necessary; especially when we know that the programming exists.

Peace

Answer 4

While I feel that there are flaws in reductionism, I think that the motivation to analyze phenomena into simpler parts is a sound approach.

I think a great deal of our experience can be described in terms of biology and evolved processes, but not all of it. Reductive neurobiology still suffers from the problem of qualia. Biology can explain what neurons fire when a person sees a beautiful object, but it cannot explain what it is like to be a person viewing a beautiful object.

I believe the more we understand about the biological correlates of our experience, the better we can understand what happens when these systems stop working. I don't think that such knowledge will alter our self-perception all that much, except in ideologies where humans are thought of as somehow special and transcendant.

Answer 5

I think our self-perception and everything else will change the day the great scientists are able to create ova and sperms in laboratories. It is all very laudable to have created test-tube babies or clones but you still need cells/tissues from the existing creatures. Science can take us apart cell by cell but can it put us together? Can scientists put soul/spirit/energy or whatever term they like to use, back in a dead body? The infra-structure is already there, they need to only add what has disappeared so mysteriously. What Neuroscience does is identify the workings of the brain but not the triggers that move it or Why...there's nothing physical about thoughts and feelings, to my mind.

We, in the East, believe the body is made up of five elements-- earth, water, fire, air, sky. (the Panch Tatva)And then there is the sixth element--the soul (atma), perceptible to human sense yet beyond reasoning. The day we are able to capture/create this elusive sixth element, all mysteries will be solved...

P.S. Since you posted this under 'Philosophy', not 'Science', I've tried giving my two-penny worth of an opinion.....I am completely in awe of science and scientists, and keep my distance!!!

Answer 6

Reducible, what an interesting word. Consider that the first hydrogen atom, essential for water, was made from the big bang about 13 billion yrs ago, and that what we have now is that old. All of it. Biology was the point then, as now. The universe is heavily weighted in favor of biology ,if there's water. Evolution was invented by the Maker to produce every probable type of biology. She likes variation with her bio. Since every possible combination of elements that can result in life is somewhere in this universe, biology will never be consistant with being reducible. Then again, is life just a way to keep the meat fresh?

Answer 7

Those who don't find the biology utterly amazing in its own right have a problem in my opinion. There is a little known movie called Tadpole, and the 15 year old kid is saying to his stepmom (upon whom he has a serious crush, but she does not return his feelings) a bunch of romantic things about the "poetry of the heart" and his stepmom says that the amazing thing about the heart is the real heart itself.

I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the "superhuman" science you describe. I pay far more attention to the real and observable science, because that is the truly amazing realm. Instead of trying to stand atop life and control it from above like a god, which is a strategy doomed to failure, the better thing is to be part of life, and understand its beautiful complexity and intricacy.

It's odd, but I find the notion that the universe is neither guided from above by a god, nor wholly random to be totally fascinating (rather like a kaleidoscope). We are finite beings, so enjoy the moment, knowing we can see and occasionally touch the transcendant, but we cannot live there, nor should we try.

And p.s. - even Jesus had his bad days. I got a 97 on my chemistry exam today. Take it for what it is worth.

Answer 8

Oh, you should definitely read this book:

'Why beautiful people have more daughters'

It explains why humans do what we do, not in sociological terms.. for sociology just states what we do but not the WHY. The book is based on Evolutionary psychology. A lot things are explained in this book to why beautiful people have more daughters, to why there is religion, to why there are homosexuals (gay men as lesbainism is still a mystery), why do males get jealous, why are more people becoming obese... ect. It is all based on human evolution from the cave man to now.

You should seriously read the book! The book is written by two evolutionary psychologists: Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa.

Hope this will help in your research!

Answer 9

You know what? I do. I think neuroscience will eventually explain everything. A lot of people don't like that, probably because they believe this knowledge will alter self-perception. However, I don't believe it has to. I don't see why we can't see beauty in biology and neuroscience. I do, and it's okay if that's caused by molecular alterations!

Answer 10

All of human thought behavior and experience can be explained in naturalistic terms. We have yet to discover the correct measurement tools for a lot of this, but because of studies like split brain experiments and brain damage research, it's pretty clear that the human mind is housed entirely by the physical brain.

Many people do not want to believe this and retreat into their caves of religious nonsense because it just can't be true that we are totally physical beings. Ironic that evolution designed the brain to be susceptible to the kinds of religion that deny its nature.