Brain, Mind, and Culture
The history of human civilization and intellectual development has not been one of steady progress. The earliest Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Indian, and Chinese civilizations 4-6,000 years ago, with their advancements in writing, mathematics, architecture, astronomy and political structure, were followed by the Greek and Roman cultures, with their focus on learning, arts, and literature (as well as war and conquest). Unfortunately, these high points in cultural development were followed by the European Middle ages, which forsake learning and retreated from urbanization to feudal states, with an emphasis on religion and superstition. At the same time, the “Golden Age of Islam,” its intellectual traditions partially built on Greek and Roman beginnings, flourished. Great advances in urban planning, philosophy, astronomy, and outstanding achievements in mathematics took place in an atmosphere that valued education, writing (and the use of paper), and honored its scholars. It was not until the Renaissance, partly triggered by the “rediscovery” of Greek and Roman texts after the fall of Constantinople, that Western Europe got back on the wagon of intellectual progress, after 1,000 years of darkness.
Although our contrasting names for historical periods, such as “dark ages” and “enlightenment,” paint an exaggerated view of differences between these eras, it is clear that intellectual progress has been uneven over the centuries since civilization developed. What caused these differences? We like to think that culture and environment were the cause and the human mind remained the same across these different periods and in these different regions of the world. But the way we think is shaped both by our brains and our culture.
Some of the ways that humans process information appear to be built into our brains as a genetic inheritance. An infant viewing an object that rapidly gains in size will pull back as if expecting that is hurtling toward them. Babies also possess a sense of quantity, which becomes the basis for counting and, later mathematics. We have areas in our brains that are specifically dedicated to tasks such as recognizing faces. Other regions harbor circuits that automatically compensate for the effect of shadows on recognizing colors. Without needing to be taught, we are remarkably good at judging distances, direction, and speed of objects simultaneously, a skill demonstrated by baseball outfielders, soccer goalies, basketball rebounders, and wide receivers in football (not to mention the skills of baseball pitchers, soccer strikers, 3-point shooters, and quarterbacks in launching objects ballistically). Practice makes us better at these skills, but the ability to use them is built into our brains. But critical thinking, use of the scientific method, dialectical thinking, and logical argumentation are things we learn, and for some people they become second nature as their approach to learning and sharing knowledge.
Our culture is a powerful influence on our minds, on our view of ourselves in the world, on our approach to solving problems, as well as on our view of what is desirable and what is not. The proliferation of information via the internet and a multiplicity of media has widened the influence of culture on our thinking at the same time as it has allowed a fracturing of our culture into different factions who barely communicate with one another and who have radically different views of the world. Cultural influences help our minds create a world that seems, to each of us, to be the real world that is “out there,” existing independently from us. But that independence is an illusion.
Our worlds are constructed by a complex interaction between our brains and our experiences. Just as we only see certain wavelengths of light, which we perceive as colors, and we only react to vibrations at certain wavelengths when we hear them as sounds, we only perceive those aspects of our environment and think in those conceptual constructs which our culture has prepared us to perceive. Daniel Dennett uses Richard Dawkins’ concept of “memes” to describe these (and most) contents of consciousness, recognizing that such contents come from the society around us. For this reason, if we want to be able to think clearly and effectively, we need to be just as careful about creating our culture and our environment as we are about eating, exercising, and doing mental “exercises” to “keep our minds active.” Our culture will largely determine what and how we perceive and think. If we create a culture characterized by prejudice, possessiveness, conflict and antagonism, by an us vs. them mentality, or if we only extend our empathy toward those in our “tribe,” (our country, our race, our religion or our political party) we will see the world in these terms and think and plan our actions according to them. If our culture fails to teach us to examine issues by considering both sides, if it rewards us for arriving at quick and easy answers, elevating our “gut feelings,” above validated evidence, if we don’t learn to evaluate evidence critically, and if we are encouraged to put up barriers against considering viewpoints that differ from our own, we will behave at a less sophisticated, less informed, and more primitive level than if we learned to do the opposite.
During my own lifetime I have seen what I believe is a deterioration in our culture. Admittedly, it is alongside some striking improvements. In terms of the latter, we have generally developed an opposition to war, shared by the citizens of most nations, partly due to fear of a nuclear holocaust, that has kept us from a large-scale world war for 80 years. We have eliminated blatant racism in its worst forms such as segregation, and broadened our acceptance of women in power, same sex romance and nonbinary sexual identities. Technology has made most of our lives easier and raised our standard of living, although not for everyone. All of these accomplishments are ongoing struggles that are not completely resolved, but the improvements in my lifetime are striking. Science has made enormous progress, marked by almost complete revisions of basic knowledge in genetics, neuroscience, astronomy, astrophysics, and a whole new field of computer science and artificial intelligence. Technology has moved forward, right along with science. Despite these advances, recent years have been characterized by a decline in how the majority of people think (at least those I see here in the United States).
Absolute truth and mental certainty are the enemies of rigorous reasoning and creativity. It’s helpful to make a distinction between the outcomes of reasoning or creativity and the processes for arriving at those outcomes. Much of the progress made by humanity over the last 2500 years is due to two aspects of thinking: logical reasoning and validation through observation. Plato preached the value of reasoning, as did Aristotle, and the latter also urged observation as a method for reaching truth. Socrates died for the value of keeping an open mind even on issues that are considered sacred. These values guided Western thinking through its periods of greatest progress and were notably absent during periods of intellectual and cultural stasis, such as the Dark Ages. Unfortunately, the society we live in today values absolute truths over relative ones and particularly over uncertainty, even if different groups’ versions of that truth don’t agree with one another. As an example, a significant portion of American society treats one’s national identity as not just a matter of citizenship, but as a racial and sometimes a religious concept. The racial identity and cultural traditions of White Christian Western Europeans, mostly the British, are regarded by many as so synonymous with American culture that they believe we should preserve their dominance in our current society. In contrast, other Americans see racial and religious diversity as a cultural value and push for greater inclusion of those groups who have been victims of discrimination and prejudice and locked out of positions of power, or even equity, within our society. Both sides in this issue make the mistake of arguing their point of view as not only an absolute truth, but as the only decent position worthy of discussion. They both seek to punish those who disagree with them. Logical argument is relegated to low status compared to ad hominem points made by revealing “devastating” secrets about the lives of those who we disagree with. Open dialogue is not allowed. Books that preach the opposite of one’s point of view should be banned, in their opinions. Children should not be exposed to the viewpoint they despise and those who teach it should be “outed” and prohibited from teaching. Middle of the roaders, who want a discussion, are considered at best to be spineless and at worst, traitors to the cause.
The situation that I’ve described characterizes our national debate about the values that underlie our country (and for some, all of humanity). Reasoning, logic, empirical validation, and open mindedness are absent from this debate. Even worse, it extends to how we teach our children in our schools and universities. It’s not confined to the political or cultural left or right, to conservatives or progressives. It’s the way we deal with these issues and with each other when discussing them. It’s more characteristic of the Dark Ages than ancient Greece or the Enlightenment.
What I’m talking about is not confined to the political sphere. It also characterizes our handling of controversial issues in entertainment, sports, within religions and in reporting the news. It characterizes whole neighborhoods, town, cities, regions and even states with regard to what issues are openly discussed and how viewpoints are expressed. The internet has broadened the reach of those who affect other people’s opinions. Politicians, talk show hosts, podcasters, and social media “influencers” touch the minds of millions of people, and the most popular ones are those that amplify the technique of bombastic “trolling” of other points of view and show complete and often sneering certitude in asserting their own beliefs. Their “followers” don’t analyze what they hear, they eagerly join the tribe that incorporates their spokesperson’s point of view and method of reasoning (which is usually one-sided, illogical, and reliant on cherry-picked “facts”) into their own minds, so the podcaster’s words become the memes by which their listeners perceive and understand the world.
As a nation, perhaps as a civilization, we are becoming dumber and many of those who are in the positions of power to prevent this happening, from politicians to media pundits, to university professors, are celebrating it. They are not concerned with helping people reason, but with presenting and enforcing their point of view. There are still plenty of thinkers around. Mostly, they have disappeared from politics, from the airwaves and internet, and even from the universities, or least university leadership positions, but they exist. It’s up to them to fight back, to argue for deep thinking instead of strong allegiance to a point of view, for reasoning instead of forcing others to think as they do, for teaching how to find and evaluate information and to question what they are told or taught. It’s crucial that like Socrates, they influence the minds of our younger generation, even if they are persecuted for it. It’s not about who is right or wrong, or even about changing people’s minds on issues. It’s about changing how we go about examining and arriving at our opinions on those issues. It’s developing better memes that become the constructs around which we shape our thoughts. Our thoughts shape our world.