Sure, it's a done deal, but what I'm talking about are the reasons why it runs against the intuitions of people who are unfamiliar with any of the science. There is an intuitive expectation that everything has its own essence and makes people all different and dogs different from cats, and that is probably a key factor in the resistance of the evolution of life from common ancestors.
The intuitive responses that lead to the assumptions of vitalism were presented in a fun way by research psychologist - Bruce Hood, in a demonstration he did in some open lectures described in the book
SuperSense: Why We Believe in the Unbelievable .
In brief, in the demonstration, a couple of items were passed around in the audience; of the first -- they were informed that it was a fountain pen that belonged to Albert Einstein; and the group crowded around it and wanted to hold it like it was a magical talisman. The 2nd was a cardigan sweater, and were not told about it's origins, but that it was free to anyone who wanted it, and a show of hands was called to determine who to give it to. But, on the screen behind the Professor, the image of the infamous British serial killer - Fred West, was flashed on the screen, and they were told that it had belonged to him. Needless to say, the hands immediately went down in an involuntary jerking and revulsion, even before the connection between the killer and the cardigan was made clear to them.
Now, the difference between this educated student audience, and a primitive tribe in New Guinea, would be that none of the students might be interested in the sweater, but they would rationalize away their response as an illogical reaction, and agree that a sweater could not contain the essence of the owner; whereas the tribe in New Guinea, following the intuitions that have informed every major religious viewpoint in the world, would still declare the cardigan as an evil talisman that had to be burned to take away the evil spirits it contained within it.
The challenge for any science educators teaching evolution, modern medicine, quantum mechanics or some basics on cosmology, is that the average person probably leans more heavily on an intuitive sense to understand subjects that are out of their league, than they do in going with the basics from science. The science may be settled, but every science educator I've heard speak to a public forum, is always confronted with retreaded objections about "why are monkeys still here if we evolved from monkeys?" The divide between how evolution should be taught to the public, hinges on the core issue of whether scientists should be trying to tear down religion and openly stating that evolution cannot be harmonized with a religious viewpoint (Dawkins) or that if religious adherents do not see a conflict between believing in their religion and accepting evolution, then the educators should back off and not criticize their religious views (NCSE). Personally, I think the latter approach makes a lot more sense, because science is a lot harder to grasp than religion, and will have a much more permanent hold on the way most people want to deal with life than science will, which could just as easily disappear again in another dark ages.
I know there are intense debates with proponents of embodied cognition, but that's a debate which is out of my league. My acceptance of the general ideas behind embodiment likely stems from having read their books first.
One of the criticisms of studies on neuro-correlates with conscious mental activity from the proponents of free will and a few dualist models, is that brain imaging does not show brain function directly: fMRI and SPECT just show where the blood is flowing to and from, indicating approximate brain areas which are being utilized. But new technologies that can analyze the neuro-electric and neuro-chemical responses of the neurons would seem to be direct proof of what the neurons are actually doing during mental activities.
Had you heard of or watch the Vilayanur Ramachandran videos?
"Vilayanur Ramachandran has been called a Sherlock Holmes of neuroscience. Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, San Diego, and adjunct professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, Ramachandran has brilliantly sleuthed his way through some of the strangest maladies of the human mind. "
Take some time and go back and check out both the free will papers. The brain fires before actions are taken and a person is conciously aware for one. Free will seems to be an illusion.
Actually the Pet and FMRI work well in understanding brain function and how the brain is working in orchestration even though there are specific areas of the brain that carry out specific tasks. The FMRI and PET are tools used along with other methods. Conciousness has parts to it. They know this from brain damage and from different brain conditions as well.
The brain imaging was not really about the free will however, but where all emotions are coming from and we know quite a bit although not all about neurotransmitters and the brain.
As I also mention the brain in the gut or second brain has 100 million nerve fibers as many as the spinal cord and has all the neurotransmitters the brain has within it. In fact 95% of your bodies serotonin is produced in the gut.
The brain is in charge for sure, no brain function no mind.
The Electric Brain
How does a three-pound mass of wet gray tissue (the brain) succeed in representing the external world so beautifully? In this interview with noted neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinás of the New York University School of Medicine, find out how the rhythm of electrical oscillations in the brain gives rise to consciousness, and how failures in this rhythm can lead to a variety of brain disorders.
Why brains are important
NOVA: Let's start by talking about why one needs a nervous systemor a brainin the first place.
Rodolfo Llinás: That's a very intriguing issue. The nervous system is about 550 million years old, and it first came about when cells decided to make animals. Basically there are two types of animals: animals, and animals that have no brains; they are called plants. They don't need a nervous system because they don't move actively, they don't pull up their roots and run in a forest fire! Anything that moves actively requires a nervous system; otherwise it would come to a quick death.
Why would it die if it didn't have a nervous system?
Because if you move, the variety of environments that you find is very large. So if you happen to be a plant you have to worry only about the very small space you grow into. You don't have to do anything other than maybe move up and down. And you're following the sun anyhow, so there is no planned movement, and therefore there is no necessity to predict
what is going to happen if, which is what the nervous system seems to be about. It seems to be about moving in a more or less intelligent way. The more elaborate the system, the more intelligent the movement.
So you need a nervous system in order to be able to predict the future?
Yes, and in order to predict you have to have, at the very least, a simple image inside that tells you something about the purpose of the outside world. That is common to all nervous systems of all forms that we know of. Each animal has a different universethe universe it sees, the universe it feels, the universe it tastes. Earth probably looks very different not only for all of us as individual humans, but also for different animals.
"We assume we have free will, but we don't"
How does consciousness come into this view of the brain? Is consciousness a mysterious phenomenon, in your opinion?
I don't think so. I think consciousness is the sum of perceptions, which you must put together as a single event. I seriously believe that consciousness does not belong only to humans; it belongs to probably all forms of life that have a nervous system. The issue is the
level of consciousness. Maybe in the very primitive animals, in which cells did not have a single systemic propertyin which each cell was a little island, if you wishthere may not have been consciousness, just primitive sensation, or irritability, and primitive movement. But as soon as cells talked to one another there would be a consensus. This is basically what consciousness is aboutputting all this relevant stuff there is outside one's head inside, making an image with it, and deciding what to do. In order to make a decision you have to have a consensus.
But it all just boils down to cells talking to one another?
Some people believe we are something beyond neurons, but of course we are not. We are just the sum total of the activity of neurons. We assume that we have free will and that we make decisions, but we don't. Neurons do. We decide that this sum total driving us is a decision we have made for ourselves. But it is not.
NOVA | The Electric Brain
I highly recommend reading the whole article above, especially on
Consciousness interrupted and How else can consciousness get damaged?
The scientific theory of Evolutionary of course has nothing to do with any religion.
