Empathy Neurons?
They’re sometimes called Mirror Neurons, or Monkey-See-Monkey-Do Neurons. According to a neuroscientist I am watching at a science convention right now (watching the video, anyway), there is a subset of neurons that fire when, for example, we get poked with a needle. What we now know is that these same neurons will also fire when we poke someone else with a needle.
The scientist, Ramachandran, describes this experience as literally dissolving the barrier between two people because the neurons do not know the difference between poking yourself and poking someone else. He concludes, “it provides a basis, almost a neuro-basis, for ethics.”
He then goes on to explain that many children with autism are missing these neurons, “which is one reason they lack empathy…and are unable to look at the world from your point of view.”
Here is the link to the particular session with Ramachandran. You’ll have to get through the first speaker and some discussion before the speech I am referring to. And I’ll warn you if you try to watch the first speech, none of the scientists in attendance understood the guy, nor did they seem to accept his premises. Ramachandran’s speech was quite interesting.
I’ve been watching videos of the entire conference for a couple weeks now. It is was a recent conference called, Beyond Belief, with other well-knowns, such as Dawkins, Shermer, Sam Harris, and many others I am getting to know. It’s been completely interesting. It is essentially a debate about the stance atheist scientists should should or should not take on religion. There are very many view points and it’s great to see that the scientists have no problems giving and receiving criticism to one another’s opinions. There is a lot of discussion on the morality question as well.
Note: If you click on the link to the entire conference, you will need to scroll way down until you see the big black box with titled, “Beyond Belief.”
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
December 22nd, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
The November, 2006 issue of Scientific American has an article on mirror neurons and their potential role in autism. That seems to make sense since autism generally involves to a person’s ability to relate to other people. The extension to empathy would seem to be an obvious connection. Are we hardwired for empathy?
After reading Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” I’m sure he would have some form of Darwinian evolutionary explanation if we are. That is quite a brutal book that ought to give the theologians something to think about. I thoroughly enjoyed most of it but would have preferred he stick to presenting information and avoid some of the commentary. Referring to some articles of Christian faith as “barking mad” probably didn’t contribute much no matter how true.
December 22nd, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
Gregg100-I’m reading The God Delusion right now. A friend gave it to me for my birthday. I adore Dawkins and his sense of humor, but I agree with your criticism of his harshness. Ron made the same comment when Dawkins referred to parents who raise their kids under a religious name as committing child abuse. It’s not a fair claim, as most parents do it not to manipulate, but out of complete love and in what they think is the interest of the children.
At the same time, the friend who gave me the book requested that I write an article in response to the “child abuse” chapter because he feels he is still recovering from the tramatic scarring of his religious upbringing as an adult often has to recover from real child abuse. Personally, I don’t regret a thing about my childhood. But having witnessed how my friend has worked so hard to undo the emotional associations or “triggers,” I can see how the results of a religious upbringing can sometimes be similar to child abuse.
I think Dawkins could temper his language a bit and to gain a few more minds.
December 24th, 2006 @ 12:58 am
I finished “The God Delusion” a couple of weeks ago. At first I responded to the “child abuse” accusation just as both you, Noell and Gregg did. But, upon giving it some thought, I came to see his point. I certainly would not claim that the INTENT of religious parents is to abuse their children, but often the results amount to just that. Inculcating religious belief in young children is in its way, at least unfair, and at worst very damaging. (Again, think of the “Jesus Camp” movie.) To do so does not allow children to grow and learn in any objective way. It creates a huge blind spot that as they mature, they don’t even realize is there.
The same accusations about harshness have been leveled at Sam Harris and his two books, “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Remember though, that from, say a christian perspective the worst thing one could say or believe about a person is that they are going to hell. That is just what they believe about the likes of us, and they say so with great gusto and regularity, often from a pulpit and/or on national radio and TV. I think that qualifies as harsh, not to mention presumptive and just wrong.
I know what we and our opposition are doing should not be measured tit for tat, but the audacity of the religious right, in particular tends to raise one’s ire.
I don’t believe that either Dawkins or Harris take cheap shots as say, Michael Moore so often does. Some of the accusations leveled by Dawkins and Harris may be harsh or even brutal, but they most often arise from well considered and constructed arguments. Not from a desire to pull off a zinger.
There has long been a tradition of handling the religious with kid gloves, as if they were made of crystal. But many of them claim to be warriors for their faith, soldiers for christ – or allah, or whoever. They are ready to do battle. We must prove to be worthy opponents.
TLS
December 24th, 2006 @ 7:27 am
Terry S.–I don’t disagree with you at all, and I expect Gregg100 doesn’t either. My only question is whether Dawkins’ statements propel us forward or push us back. I haven’t actually decided on that. Dawkins and Harris have gained a lot of attention. Have they convinced more people to embrace their nonbeliefs or encouraged more outrage by believers? I don’t know.
I think it would be more accurate to state that the effects of religion are comparable to child abuse, rather than to say that parents are committing child abuse.
Still, I believe that Dawkins is incapable of stating anything other in the way he sees it. And I don’t mind that different people take different approaches. If there are a handful of super outspoken atheists while the rest of us are more reserved about the way we state things, it may possibly be a healthy balance. As long as the rest of us come out of the closet, that is.
December 24th, 2006 @ 10:33 am
I would assume that Dawkins, Harris, etal have brought some into the fold and propelled others further away. Is there a net gain? As with you, I don’t know. I do really appreciate the fact that Dawkins and Harris present their positions in a reasoned manner as I indicated above. The target of such efforts are in the main, fence sitters, the wafflers.
Unlike the likes of Michael Moore and coming from the opposing camp, Rush Limbaugh and the infamous harradan, Ann Coulter who are at least cheap shot artists and at worst mean spirited opportunists.
As I stated, I certainly don’t believe that most religious parents intend any harm to their children. Just the opposite. Most honestly believe that they are acting in the their best interest, if not in this life, then certainly in the next.
I’m not sure just how you soft sell these issues. Our position is diametrically opposed to believers’. We seek to undermine the very basis of their lives. Our position threatens their core beliefs, their raison d’etre. As you know, probably only too well, you can’t “sorta” believe. You can’t really be a part of the religious community with luke warm faith. In this day and age zealotry is expected. Anything less is literally damning.
While I am not a particular fan of Michael Moore, I do believe that he has brought attention to the issues he has targeted and probably had the effect of galvanizing people either for or against them. As you suggest, it takes all levels of involvement. Most of us are content working more or less under the radar. It is important that more of us “come out” as it were. I have a niece who was aghast upon hearing of my blog from her daughter. My niece is a dyed in the wool raptarian. She has her spiritual bags packed. I haven’t spoken with her since her revelation regarding my efforts, but it may well be a less than comfortable meeting. She is a good woman, and I am truly fond of her. But I can no longer avoid these issues with her or anyone else – family, friends or work associates. I don’t shout my disbelief from the roof tops, at least not yet, but I feel that it is important for all of us to rise up and be heard. The stakes are too high to remain silent.
TLS
December 29th, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
[...] I loved Olga’s reaction to the Beyond Belief videos that I posted a link to in a recent post. I WANT MORE is all I can say. I learned some new names at the conference and want to know more about these people and their ideas. The next conference will take place November 1-3, 2007. [...]