As a corrective to that rather disappointing lecture discussed in my last post, I offer this series of lectures by Michael Gazzaniga, one of the major figures in cognitive neuroscience. In fact, he coined the very term “cognitive neuroscience”, and is responsible for much of the well-known split- brain research that has been instrumental in demonstrating the neuroanatomical localization of specific cognitive functions, and the degree to which cognitive processing occurs at the sub-conscious level.
The videos below comprise a series of talks he gave in 2009 at the University of Edinburgh as part of the highly prestigious Gifford Lectures series. Though ten years is a long time in this rapidly advancing field, as far as I can tell most of the key concepts he discusses remain current. If you don’t have time to watch all six lectures, I would suggest focusing on the 2nd and 3rd of them, in which he provides an overview of how it has been demonstrated that cognitive functioning occurs thru the actions of discrete distributed neural networks, functioning with relative independence from one another. This is followed by an explanation of how our experience of ourselves as possessing conscious unity may be a largely illusory consequence of the actions of an area in the left cerebral cortex he refers to as “the interpreter.”
He goes on to argue that morality can be accounted for in purely neurological terms, as a consequence of the “downward” causation of our minds and those of others around us, in the form of a social network of minds exerting constraints on the functioning of our brains. In this regard, I believe Gazzaniga would be categorized as a non-reductive materialist, according to the definitions discussed in my last post. More specifically, he would be considered an anomalous monist, in that he considers the mind to be caused by physical processes in the brain, but that the mind also has causative properties of its own. This is in contrast with epiphenomenalism, which is the view that the mind is the product of the brain, but has no causative properties of its own, with all mental activity being understood as solely the result of brain activity. (A common analogy is to compare the mind to the steam whistle on a locomotive: Even though the operation of the whistle is the result of the same mechanical processes that propel the locomotive, the whistle has no actual effect on the vehicle’s movement).
Gazzaniga concludes by arguing that while our mental processes are, in his view, determined by physical processes, we nonetheless possess free will at the level of our individual choices regarding whether to follow what we are inclined to do as a result of our nature as human beings. I must say, I do not find this last argument very persuasive as he presents it here. But, regardless, I still highly recommend these videos as an overview of much of the research underlying our current attempts to understand how the brain and mind work, presented in a clear and engaging manner. Enjoy!