By Stephen Goodspeed, Regis '12
Almost
two decades ago, a startling invention known as the IQ Cap from the
Neurometrics Institute made it possible to bypass the conventional aggravations
of a traditional intelligence exam by investigating the “hard-wired” capacity
of a person’s neurons to fire quickly. IQ
testing would never be the same: this new method proved both efficient and
cheap.
However,
the access to such a test raises a worrisome question: is there really nothing
more to the mind than the stark biochemical processes that can be
scientifically tested?
The
Seminar students discussed this question and many more with Scott Moringiello, Ph.D.,
Regis ’97. Dr. Moringiello is a Fellow in the Humanities at Villanova University. He joined us for an hour not only to discuss
the nature of human intelligence, but also to hear our reactions to two
articles: Colin McGinn’s review of V.S. Ramachandran’s The Tell-Tale Brain and Tom Wolfe’s 1996 piece “Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died.”
Dr.
Moringiello began the discussion by describing philosophy of the mind as
pivoting on two concepts: metaphysics and epistemology, or the nature of
reality and the study of knowledge, respectively. He gradually led us to realize that this duality
comprised the fallacy of things like the IQ Cap: a fixation upon things defined
empirically, such as the firing speed of neurons, does not necessarily present
the entire picture of a complicated subject such as human intelligence. This assumption -- that neuroscientists in
these experiments and fields know exactly what they are talking about when they
say the word “intelligence” -- is a grave misunderstanding; the essence of the
mind may lie in qualities beyond what we can mathematically measure.
Continuing
his skepticism with allegedly black-and-white scientific definitions of abstractions, Dr.
Moringiello raised the question of the limit of reductionism, the attempt to
explain phenomena on the most basic level possible. He gave the example of Kobe Bryant hitting a
3-point shot in the fourth quarter of an NBA game: “Well in one way Kobe made his shot because he was open, he was down two [points], whatever. Well another thing we can say is that Kobe made the shot because the muscles in his arms moved a certain way and his legs propelled him up in the air a certain amount. But we tend not to talk about Kobe making a shot in terms of his muscle movements.” Dr. Moringiello left us with a
bit of a cliffhanger, as we continue to ponder the level to which
we can stoop (or rise) to investigate the meaning behind certain phenomena.
The
end of our discussion concerned philosophies from John Locke, Immanuel Kant,
and David Hume on causation and on the development of intelligence. For example, Locke argued that children are
born with a “tabula rasa,” or “blank slate,” to be formed by their
environment. On the other hand, Kant
argued that a child’s mind is “structured to encounter reality.” The fact that the environment plays
such a vital role in brain development for both Locke and Kant made us recall
that there truly is something more to the definition of one’s brain function
than simply the firing speed of neurons.
In trusting these views, we affirm that external forces alter one’s reactions
to stimuli and change something more significant than simply the electrical
pathways of the brain. Dr. Moringiello
wrapped up our talk by reminding us of the importance of not confusing
correlation with causality and referencing Hume’s thought experiment about
colliding billiard balls.
Dr.
Moringiello, finished with his hour-long quest to make us question all of our
conventional notions of intelligence and analysis, thanked us, and said that he thoroughly
enjoyed our discussion. But of course,
as usual, we considered the pleasure and benefit all ours. Inspiring indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment