The chicken or the egg?
I imagine that at some point in our life most of us have been exposed to the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. It is one of those questions which, for many people, has a very clear and simple answer. For many others, the answer is not so clear. Some of the most famous arguments in favor of first cause (the existence of God) are those presented by St Thomas Aquinas in his five ways. Four of those ways are “versions of the first-cause argument.” For a fuller discussion of St. Thomas Aquinas’ five ways, one can explore one of the numerous discussion by well known philosophers and/or theologians. Among those is an article by Peter Kreeft on Peterkreeft.com. These discussions, postulations, or inquiries are often about the universe as a whole.
Dr. James Doty who is a clinical professor of neurology at Stanford University and founding director of the Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education is more interested in what I am going to refer to as the micro systems of the individual human or the individual human community in which one finds themselves. Dr. Doty is also the author of “Into the Magic Shop: A Neurosurgeon’s Quest to Discover the Mysteries of the Brain and the Secrets of the Heart.” Dr. Doty recently discussed his professional and personal interest in these questions in an interview with Krista Tippett on the NPR program, “On Being.” One can download the audio version of the program or google the transcript of the conversation.
The question of first causes in contemporary biology and the neuro science of the human being and the community of we humans determines our approach to health care, the judicial system, and conflict between we humans on the family, local community, state, national and international level. (For purposes of this discussion, I am going to ignore the possibility of multiples universes and life forms.)
In many areas of our life, we seem to currently decide an approach based upon the following assumptions:
The healthy human being, sans diagnosable mental illness which is narrowly defined or a clearly diagnosed brain disorder such as cancer, dementia, or a developmental disorder, has a brain which is independently capable of making what we consider rational choices. (Given this assumption it is not surprising that sanity and insanity are so narrowly defined in determining the guilt or innocence of an individual in a court of law.)
The brain makes decisions based upon one’s values or one’s intrinsic goodness or badness.
We affect others and are only nominally affected by others.
Although emotional and other traumas and physical trauma affect the overall health of the brain, in most cases they do not determine how the brain makes decisions.
Behavior of the group affects us but does not determine and cannot be blamed on our behavior.
The brain and other parts of the body can only be healed if the damage is minimal, i. e., a cut or broken bone.
One of the exciting opportunities which is available in this period of history is our ability to measure changes in the human body in response to the presence or absence of stimulation which is internal, external, or both. The results of this more “evidence based” methodology are the calling into question all of the assumptions which I listed above. No longer can those claiming those claiming that emotions compassion and love heals be so easily dismissed as religious zealots or academic pie in the sky thinkers.
If we consider one aspect of the research which Dr. Doty and many others are conducting, it is now evident that, in fact, meditation, compassion, and other positive forces can shrink parts of the amygdala.
Consider the following question by Ms. Tippett to Dr. Doty:
“MS. TIPPETT: We mentioned Richie Davidson a minute ago, who’s at Madison and has done some of these important studies. I’m pretty sure I heard him say [laughs] — but I wanted to check this out with you — that they’re doing studies now practicing compassion and actually seeing the amygdala shrink.”
Why is this important? We know that the amygdala is divided into the right and left amydala. We also know or think we know that
“There are functional differences between the right and left amygdala. In one study, electrical stimulations of the right amygdala induced negative emotions, especially fear and sadness. In contrast, stimulation of the left amygdala was able to induce either pleasant (happiness) or unpleasant (fear, anxiety, sadness) emotions.[9] Other evidence suggests that the left amygdala plays a role in the brain's reward system.
Each side holds a specific function in how we perceive and process emotion. The right and left portions of the amygdala have independent memory systems, but work together to store, encode, and interpret emotion.
The right hemisphere of the amygdala is associated with negative emotion. It plays a role in the expression of fear and in the processing of fear-inducing stimuli. Fear conditioning, which is when a neutral stimulus acquires aversive properties, occurs within the right hemisphere. When an individual is presented with a conditioned, aversive stimulus, it is processed within the right amygdala, producing an unpleasant or fearful response. This emotional response conditions the individual to avoid fear-inducing stimuli.” (Wikipedia).
The article in Wikipedia also goes on to state the following:
“The amygdala is one of the best-understood brain regions with regard to differences between the sexes. Larger male than female amygdalae have been demonstrated in children ages 7–11,[14] in adult humans,[15] and in adult rats.[16]
In addition to size, other differences between men and women exist with regards to the amygdala. Subjects' amygdala activation was observed when watching a horror film and subliminal stimuli. The results of the study showed a different lateralization of the amygdala in men and women. Enhanced memory for the film was related to enhanced activity of the left, but not the right, amygdala in women, whereas it was related to enhanced activity of the right, but not the left, amygdala in men.[17] One study found evidence that on average, women tend to retain stronger memories for emotional events than men.”
What this later part to the article does not address is the extent to which we universally treat male and female babies differently. Many studies have confirmed that as soon as parents know or think that they know the gender of the child in vitro it is likely that they begin to talk differently to that child. Once the child is born, parents and others not only encourage the child to explore the world differently based on their gender, they dress them differently, touch and hold them differently and, in other ways, give them different messages. We can and should still ask the question of whether there are innate differences in the male and female brain development, but even more importantly is the question of how various factors such as compassion, play, and early spoken and unspoken messages affect the future size and function of such brain parts as the amygdala.
There are many other questions regarding our future ability to affect how our individual human brains function to suit the needs and conditions of the world we have and the world we want. The neurosurgeon may, one day, have a 3-D printer in the operating room to make the part of the brain which reflects the mirror image for the autistic person who is missing that part. Perhaps we will be able to adjust the chemical production of those neurotransmitters which affect mood without needing to give person medication which has other side effects. Perhaps the work of such researchers as Patience Mthunzi will be able to use lasers as a delivery method directly to parts of the brain without affecting the entire system.
The possibilities are endless. As with any other advances, some changes are uncomplicated. The use of meditation or compassion may not require the involvement of spiritual leaders or moral philosophers. Some other possible decisions might.
Whether it is the recent confirmation of gravitational waves, the amazing effects of compassion and meditation, or the business theories of such people as Margaret Hefferman, what we think we know we may not know and what we think we may not know we may know.
The essential spiritual lesson seems to be to accept the limitations and possibilities of our humans’ brain and hearts. We have always “known” that the possibility of wisdom arrives via way of humility – that is only by leaping into the unknown that we may know.
Could it be that Dr. Doty is accurate when he suggests that it is “the age of compassion”? Could it also be possible that many of the “truths” we think we know such as the ones I listed above, may have to be called into question. Let’s now ask list those again:
The healthy human being, sans diagnosable mental illness which is narrowly defined or a clearly diagnosed brain disorder such as cancer, dementia, or a developmental disorder, has a brain which is independently capable of making what we consider rational choices. (Given this assumption it is not surprising that sanity and insanity are so narrowly defined in determining the guilt or innocence of an individual in a court of law.)
The brain makes decisions based upon one’s values or one’s intrinsic goodness or badness.
We affect others and are only nominally affected by others.
Although emotional and other traumas and physical trauma affect the overall health of the brain, in most cases they do not determine how the brain makes decisions.
Behavior of the group affects us but does not determine and cannot be blamed on our behavior.
The brain and other parts of the body can only be healed if the damage is minimal, i. e., a cut or broken bone.
Written February 14, 2016
I imagine that at some point in our life most of us have been exposed to the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. It is one of those questions which, for many people, has a very clear and simple answer. For many others, the answer is not so clear. Some of the most famous arguments in favor of first cause (the existence of God) are those presented by St Thomas Aquinas in his five ways. Four of those ways are “versions of the first-cause argument.” For a fuller discussion of St. Thomas Aquinas’ five ways, one can explore one of the numerous discussion by well known philosophers and/or theologians. Among those is an article by Peter Kreeft on Peterkreeft.com. These discussions, postulations, or inquiries are often about the universe as a whole.
Dr. James Doty who is a clinical professor of neurology at Stanford University and founding director of the Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education is more interested in what I am going to refer to as the micro systems of the individual human or the individual human community in which one finds themselves. Dr. Doty is also the author of “Into the Magic Shop: A Neurosurgeon’s Quest to Discover the Mysteries of the Brain and the Secrets of the Heart.” Dr. Doty recently discussed his professional and personal interest in these questions in an interview with Krista Tippett on the NPR program, “On Being.” One can download the audio version of the program or google the transcript of the conversation.
The question of first causes in contemporary biology and the neuro science of the human being and the community of we humans determines our approach to health care, the judicial system, and conflict between we humans on the family, local community, state, national and international level. (For purposes of this discussion, I am going to ignore the possibility of multiples universes and life forms.)
In many areas of our life, we seem to currently decide an approach based upon the following assumptions:
The healthy human being, sans diagnosable mental illness which is narrowly defined or a clearly diagnosed brain disorder such as cancer, dementia, or a developmental disorder, has a brain which is independently capable of making what we consider rational choices. (Given this assumption it is not surprising that sanity and insanity are so narrowly defined in determining the guilt or innocence of an individual in a court of law.)
The brain makes decisions based upon one’s values or one’s intrinsic goodness or badness.
We affect others and are only nominally affected by others.
Although emotional and other traumas and physical trauma affect the overall health of the brain, in most cases they do not determine how the brain makes decisions.
Behavior of the group affects us but does not determine and cannot be blamed on our behavior.
The brain and other parts of the body can only be healed if the damage is minimal, i. e., a cut or broken bone.
One of the exciting opportunities which is available in this period of history is our ability to measure changes in the human body in response to the presence or absence of stimulation which is internal, external, or both. The results of this more “evidence based” methodology are the calling into question all of the assumptions which I listed above. No longer can those claiming those claiming that emotions compassion and love heals be so easily dismissed as religious zealots or academic pie in the sky thinkers.
If we consider one aspect of the research which Dr. Doty and many others are conducting, it is now evident that, in fact, meditation, compassion, and other positive forces can shrink parts of the amygdala.
Consider the following question by Ms. Tippett to Dr. Doty:
“MS. TIPPETT: We mentioned Richie Davidson a minute ago, who’s at Madison and has done some of these important studies. I’m pretty sure I heard him say [laughs] — but I wanted to check this out with you — that they’re doing studies now practicing compassion and actually seeing the amygdala shrink.”
Why is this important? We know that the amygdala is divided into the right and left amydala. We also know or think we know that
“There are functional differences between the right and left amygdala. In one study, electrical stimulations of the right amygdala induced negative emotions, especially fear and sadness. In contrast, stimulation of the left amygdala was able to induce either pleasant (happiness) or unpleasant (fear, anxiety, sadness) emotions.[9] Other evidence suggests that the left amygdala plays a role in the brain's reward system.
Each side holds a specific function in how we perceive and process emotion. The right and left portions of the amygdala have independent memory systems, but work together to store, encode, and interpret emotion.
The right hemisphere of the amygdala is associated with negative emotion. It plays a role in the expression of fear and in the processing of fear-inducing stimuli. Fear conditioning, which is when a neutral stimulus acquires aversive properties, occurs within the right hemisphere. When an individual is presented with a conditioned, aversive stimulus, it is processed within the right amygdala, producing an unpleasant or fearful response. This emotional response conditions the individual to avoid fear-inducing stimuli.” (Wikipedia).
The article in Wikipedia also goes on to state the following:
“The amygdala is one of the best-understood brain regions with regard to differences between the sexes. Larger male than female amygdalae have been demonstrated in children ages 7–11,[14] in adult humans,[15] and in adult rats.[16]
In addition to size, other differences between men and women exist with regards to the amygdala. Subjects' amygdala activation was observed when watching a horror film and subliminal stimuli. The results of the study showed a different lateralization of the amygdala in men and women. Enhanced memory for the film was related to enhanced activity of the left, but not the right, amygdala in women, whereas it was related to enhanced activity of the right, but not the left, amygdala in men.[17] One study found evidence that on average, women tend to retain stronger memories for emotional events than men.”
What this later part to the article does not address is the extent to which we universally treat male and female babies differently. Many studies have confirmed that as soon as parents know or think that they know the gender of the child in vitro it is likely that they begin to talk differently to that child. Once the child is born, parents and others not only encourage the child to explore the world differently based on their gender, they dress them differently, touch and hold them differently and, in other ways, give them different messages. We can and should still ask the question of whether there are innate differences in the male and female brain development, but even more importantly is the question of how various factors such as compassion, play, and early spoken and unspoken messages affect the future size and function of such brain parts as the amygdala.
There are many other questions regarding our future ability to affect how our individual human brains function to suit the needs and conditions of the world we have and the world we want. The neurosurgeon may, one day, have a 3-D printer in the operating room to make the part of the brain which reflects the mirror image for the autistic person who is missing that part. Perhaps we will be able to adjust the chemical production of those neurotransmitters which affect mood without needing to give person medication which has other side effects. Perhaps the work of such researchers as Patience Mthunzi will be able to use lasers as a delivery method directly to parts of the brain without affecting the entire system.
The possibilities are endless. As with any other advances, some changes are uncomplicated. The use of meditation or compassion may not require the involvement of spiritual leaders or moral philosophers. Some other possible decisions might.
Whether it is the recent confirmation of gravitational waves, the amazing effects of compassion and meditation, or the business theories of such people as Margaret Hefferman, what we think we know we may not know and what we think we may not know we may know.
The essential spiritual lesson seems to be to accept the limitations and possibilities of our humans’ brain and hearts. We have always “known” that the possibility of wisdom arrives via way of humility – that is only by leaping into the unknown that we may know.
Could it be that Dr. Doty is accurate when he suggests that it is “the age of compassion”? Could it also be possible that many of the “truths” we think we know such as the ones I listed above, may have to be called into question. Let’s now ask list those again:
The healthy human being, sans diagnosable mental illness which is narrowly defined or a clearly diagnosed brain disorder such as cancer, dementia, or a developmental disorder, has a brain which is independently capable of making what we consider rational choices. (Given this assumption it is not surprising that sanity and insanity are so narrowly defined in determining the guilt or innocence of an individual in a court of law.)
The brain makes decisions based upon one’s values or one’s intrinsic goodness or badness.
We affect others and are only nominally affected by others.
Although emotional and other traumas and physical trauma affect the overall health of the brain, in most cases they do not determine how the brain makes decisions.
Behavior of the group affects us but does not determine and cannot be blamed on our behavior.
The brain and other parts of the body can only be healed if the damage is minimal, i. e., a cut or broken bone.
Written February 14, 2016
RSS Feed