sarah, sartre, what's the difference?

Excerpt from my travel journal (actual trip recap to come later):

Paris, 6 March 2009

Friday night in Paris - sitting in Les Deux Magots with a glass of red Bordeaux and a notebook. I'm feeling inspired and philosophical...and like maybe I should go buy a beret.

Yesterday I had a meeting with my Biological Psychology professor to discuss my essay on the mind-body relationship that's due next Thursday. Ever since I learned there was a debate about the relationship, I've known my stance--I firmly believe that what we define as the mind, consciousness, or even the "soul" is a mere product or extension of the physical brain. I don't believe in some higher intangible element of our being that lives on after the body's death.

And not to offend anyone, but I think the main reason people do believe in an eternal soul is that they're scared of dying, of ceasing to exist. Religion began because a) people needed explanations as to how the world worked, and b) people wanted to believe that they would live forever, in some way or another. Now religion has become a tradition--in certain cases (but not all of course), a narrow-minded, bigoted, and prejudiced tradition--and even though science is answering all of these previous unknowns, people don't want to give up their God and their idea of Heaven because they're scared to death of, well, death. Truth be told, I'm scared of death too. Which is why I'm living it up in Paris while I can, I guess!

But back to the mind-body thing for a bit. There are some recent research developments that give evidence to support my claim. They are also totally mind-blowing and slightly disturbing. And super cool, if you're a nerd like me. So basically, fMRI scan technology has advanced to the point where it can quite accurately read people's intentions; effectively, a simple form of "mind reading". One form of experiment is as follows: they stick people in the machine then have them do simple mathematical equations without telling the researcher whether they are adding or subtracting--and based on the machine's readings, the experimenter can then predict what the final number will be. Of course, they can't read thoughts, and the data isn't instantaneous because it still has to be analyzed after it's collected, but the main point is that the most recent tests have shown that the neurons in the brain can start firing almost full seconds before a person is consciously aware of a decision they are going to make.

If this is an accurate depiction of how the mind works, it brings up a pretty scary prospect: free will, as we understand it, doesn't actually exist. We think our conscious mind is deciding something, but if our neurons have made the decision long before we are aware of it, then is it really us doing the deciding? Can we even be held responsible for our decisions? I don't think the excuse "my brain made me do it" would fly in most cases, but it's an interesting thing to think about. Some people say the human brain is incapable of understanding itself. Maybe that's true, because this stuff is blowing my mind...or my brain...or whatever. This type of technology also brings up a whole host of ethical issues, but that's for my Conceptual Issues paper, not my Biopsych paper, so I don't have to think about that until next week.

Well, that was a long and pointless ramble. Maybe there's something in the French air that makes people want to harp on about God and philosophy. Me and Descartes, just like two peas in a pod...

France has made me weird.

Weird, indeed. I just thought I should share.