Philosophy of Genetics

Thanks for the Memory

Slate magazine recently published a couple of stories about the arrival of new memory drugs and memory enhancement techniques.  These will be godsends for an aging populace suffering from mild cognitive impairment.

What is probably more interesting is why we remember what we do.  Certainly we remember what interests us (and excites us, motivates us, drives us, etc), and we forget what doesn't.

The amygdala (in the center of the brain) helps to process and categorize our experiences.  Is the structure of the amygdala different among the population, leading boys to be more interested in trains and girls more interested in dolls?  Is it responsible for causing some to be interested in seeking power, whereas others are only interested in seeking approval?

What is the Inner Eye?

When we think of the brain, we usually think of a lump of undifferentiated gray matter, made up of neurons. But the brain actually has a quite complex internal structure, laid out very specifically by the genes, to allow it to encode and store our experience.
   
As we evolved from the apes, and they from reptiles and other creatures before them, our brain evolved as well. Pieces were added, but rarely removed, building on previously evolved parts of the brain. The most ancient section, the limbic system, or what I call the inner eye, is a relic from our reptilian ancestors. It lies at the center of the brain, and is almost completely genetically laid out, unlike our higher brain, the cortex, which is laid out more flexibly to be shaped by our experience.

Interestingly, information from all the senses (touch, smell, hearing, tasting and seeing) passes through the inner eye before being routed to the higher brain. In other words, nerves from our senses relay information through the inner eye, where their signals can be nuanced, enhanced, ignored, or otherwise colored, before they are processed by the cortex, and our higher consciousness.
       
This lends the genetically-laid-out part of the brain--the inner eye--a powerful means of control over us. In fact, it determines who we are. We remember what interests us, and we forget what doesn't. We pursue what drives us, and we ignore what doesn't. We take the path of least resistance in life, with resistance defined by what experiences resonate with our inner eye. If our inner eye thrives on novelty, then we will always seek novelty. If not, then not.

There is a distribution of inner eyes across people, so no two people are motivated by the same experience. The inner eye thus determines our temperament, and who we can become. This obviously has dire consequences for free will.

One important thing to keep in mind about the inner eye, however, is that it can only recognize vague invariant patterns in the environment similar to those in the State of Nature. It has no power by itself to plan or recognize more complex or modern objects. For this it must exploit its knowledge of the higher brain to do its bidding.

How can we feel an emotion toward an object that didn't exist when we evolved?

You may ask how we can feel an emotion toward modern objects which didn't exit in the State of Nature. Have you ever felt envy (a natural emotion) toward another person's computer (an object only now part of the nurturing environment)?

Actually, it is not too hard for the genes to encode a disposition in the inner eye toward a general category of "novel objects"--in other words, objects which are rare and unusual in the current environment. The inner eye may do this, for example, by employing the facial recognition center in the cortex to detect if an emotion, such as pleasure, is found on another person's face, and then induce greed and envy upon the object of that pleasure.

Some things not present in the State of Nature, such as chemotherapy, may throw off our innate responses, however. If a cancer patient eats maple ice cream and then later undergoes chemotherapy, the inner eye relates the resulting sickness to the ice cream, not the treatment. The patient may be forever sickened by maple ice cream in the future, but feels no additional fear of the next chemo session. We have strong innate reactions to certain experiences over others.

You can't teach motivation

You can motivate people, but you can't teach motivation.  In other words, you can exploit people's existing motivations, but you can't give them entirely new motivations.

For example, my son is very motivated and excited when he sees a bus go by.  "Daddy, see the bus, the bus!"  If I want to get him motivated about a long car trip, I can mention the fact that we will see buses.  But I can never get him excited about being in crowds, no matter how hard I try.  He just becomes agitated.

My daughter, on the other hand, loves crowds.  She goes up to other children and asks if they want to play.  Most of them reject her (out of shyness and other reasons), but she persists and always finds the one or more children in the room who want to play with her.  My son is more affected by rejection, and he doesn't persist as long.

Why are my children the way they are?  Did I teach my son to be excited by buses?  How would I do that?  How can you teach an emotion?  Can I invent an entirely new emotion (say, teaching him to be motivated at the sound of nails being dragged across a blackboard)?

Why are my children different from each other?  Did I raise them both differently?  Did I teach my daughter to be more resilient in the face of rejection?  Did I teach my son to get agitated when in crowded settings?

No.  You can't teach motivation.  If someone is motivated to be a leader, you can certainly help them reach their potential.  But if someone else is not motivated to be a leader, you can't make them a leader.  They will get agitated and depressed.  But they will probably tell you that they could have been a leader, yet simply chose not to be one of their own free will!