I Think, Therefore I Am a Machine
Yoram Har-Lev
ISBN 9781520236155
Independently published
I dedicate this book to:
The human race, although I would never presume to understand everyone’s thoughts or agree with the values that drive them; I respect all of them.
The Jewish People has many and variant sub-groups, with most of which I do not agree. Nonetheless, I am proud to belong to these people.
My many friends and acquaintances left and right, women and men, whose company always makes me happy.
And most important, to my family, each of you, dear family members, carry some part of me. I love you all.
“I have striven not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, nor to hate them, but to understand them.” – Baruch Spinoza, Tractates Theologico-Politicus
Copyright
Do not copy in any way, any part of the material herein. Commercial use of any type of material contained without the express permission in writing from the author, Har-Lev Yoram, is prohibited.
INTRODUCTION
- One man broke out of the herd,
- He climbed on the wall, fled in despair.
- On top of the wall he sat, feeling sad ...
- Looking down ... but no man was there.
The March of Folly
- In her book, “The March of Folly, ”Barbara Tuchman describes decisions made by leaders against their own interests.
- She described 'Folly' by quoting Plato: "When the soul contradicts the viewpoint, or knowledge, or wisdom, all of which are natural laws, I call this folly".
- The march of folly did not stop with the Vietnam War which was her last example of folly. The march of folly continues until today.
- We cannot blame modern leaders for a lack of knowledge when they have the largest database ever - the Internet - and on their side are legions of intelligence personnel whose job is to find information. Despite this, this foolish march continues. Apparently, information, knowledge, and intelligence are of no help in preventing the tendency of leaders from repeating the march of folly.
- Some will argue that US President Obama's Middle East policy was a demonstration of a foolish march, causing the “Arab spring” and marking the decline of the power of the US in the world. This folly caused the bitter Shiva/Sunni war and, perhaps, even initiated the clash between the Western/ and Muslim civilizations.
- Some will argue that Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, brought about the end of Christian Europe, with her invitation to millions of Muslim refugees.
- We can argue that we, in Israel, practiced our own self-made folly in the Oslo agreement which brought a defeated enemy, the Fatah organization, into the heart of our land. It resulted in the deaths of thousands of Israeli lives, and complicated the Arab-Israeli conflict beyond repair.
- We have to ask what makes leaders ignore logic, and act against their own interests?
- The answer is that all these foolish decisions have one common denominator: the inability of these leaders to predict how people of a different cultural group will react. Time and again leaders have displayed this inability.
- Sadly, this lack of understanding often leads to disaster.
- In this book we argue that all of us, not just our leaders, have a limited understanding of the other person.
- It is very important for everyone to understand how other people grasp events, and how they react to them. Unfortunately, this is no easy task. The philosopher, Emanuel Levinas, noted that: “The face of the other is always what I am not and therefore is always an enigma.”
- We know very little about the ways in which our brain works, and less than nothing about what goes on in another person's mind.
- My interest in exploring to what degree we understand the other person was aroused by realizing that my intelligent friends cannot understand how someone like me remains faithful to ideas that they perceive as utterly unfounded on facts and logic. Of course, I also wonder how intelligent people like them could have illusions that are clearly not based on logic and facts.
- Obviously there is some aspect beyond people’s intelligence that determines our way of thinking. A person can be sure that he has the right ideas while the other person is wrong, whereas the other will think exactly the same of that person.
- Before we try to go farther, we need to acknowledge that vast differences exist among people, especially among people coming from a cultural group other than our own.
- To all of us it is clear that there is a difference between men and women, between the slim and the heavily-built person, between a tall person and a short one. Differences also exist in the aspirations and mindsets of different people. But as the philosopher, Levinas, noted, for each of us others are “the other face” and therefore enigmatic.
- Allow me to invite you on a research journey into that mysterious terrain of “the face of the other” in the hope that by the journey’s end, we will have at least a slightly better understanding of how others think and react.
- Just before we set out, let us open up our mind. It would not be the first time in human history that what was obvious to everyone turns out to be a false idea. After all, none of us believes any more that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around it.
- Some of the premises that we will present on our journey will seem to you as no less distorted than the strange notion that Copernicus had when he told our ancestors that the sun, rather than the earth, is in the center of the universe. After all, people could see with their own eyes, how the sun moved around the earth, which stood still in the center of the universe. Only that stubborn fellow, Galileo, insisted that moves it does). “Eppur si muove” (and yet it moves). And he was right!
- In this book I have attempted to open up our understanding of how the other person, the person “who is not me,” thinks and behaves. Further on, I presume that the way in which we humans think and react are emotion-based, as well as the result of logical thinking. Therefore, understanding the other person requires understanding the reasons for these emotions in a person.
- Scientists, busy in their laboratories, try to map the brain and find out which brain cells are responsible for various functions. Were we to know exactly how every synapse in the brain functions while we carry out one function or another, we would still be unable to estimate what the other person feels, and how he will behave.
- The primary thrust of scientific research is to understand how the brain is structured and how it processes data fed in by our senses. Yes, of course this is important information in the overall attempt to understand human behavior but no less important is the information stored in our brains, the mutual impact of community and the individuals in it, as well as the norms of culture which dictate the scale of values by which we conduct ourselves.
- Scientists study how the brain works; here we'll try a different approach. We'll try to explore why the brain functions as it does, rather than in some other way.
- We will do this by investigating which brain mechanisms were developed to meet the challenges that humans face, in spite of the brain's organic structural limitations.
- Then we will study how our culture influences our thoughts and actions since none of us is disconnected from the community in which we live.
- In Chapter 1, we explore the basic mechanisms behind the act of thinking and reactions inside the individual human brain.
- Chapter 2 presents the impact of our community on our thoughts and responses.
- Chapter 3 will delve into understanding human communities. This is important for having some clues about which ideas and feelings the community implants in our brain.
- I hope that when you finish reading this book, you'll know more about how people think and react.
Why is it Important?
Throughout the centuries, philosophers, poets and authors have written on the subject of human nature. There are millions of words describing how people think and behave.
This extensive study into people’s minds has been carried out for a very good reason.
It is important to understand how the other person thinks and reacts since this can guide us as to how we should conduct our relations with that other person. A wise person tries to understand the reactions of other people, and takes them into consideration when making decisions. In fact, people are in a constant process of assessing the behavior of others. They do it with consciously or subconsciously considerations, and with rational or emotional considerations.
A couple on their first date will make emotional assessments. Each one will want to know how the other feels toward him or her.
Marketing experts try to assess the reactions of potential consumers to their new products.
A politician will assess the responses of his constituents to his speech.
These are typical of the assessments we all make, day after day. The common denominator is the need to understand how “the other person, who is not me” thinks, feels and responds. We all feel that need to crack these enigmatic aspects, as noted by the philosopher, Emanuel Levinas.
Assessment is so vital to our functioning that nature, in its evolutionary wisdom, has equipped us with a range of tools that helps us to carry out this task. Some of these are direct tools, others are indirect, some are inborn, and some are acquired during our life time.
Direct tools include smart reading of body language and even very small facial gestures, which act as lie detectors.
Indirect tools include intuition, and stereotypical patterns engraved in our minds enabling us to reach a speedy assessment of the other.
An example of an inherited tool is the ability of infants to identify their mother's face.
An example of an acquired tool is a combat pilot's skill at identifying the silhouette of enemy planes.
These tools are, unfortunately, limited. They are not effective when the other person masks his feelings, especially if he conducts himself according to rules and habits unknown to our culture.
How Dare I Write a Philosophy book
The first question that immediately comes to mind is this: How can a layman like me have such pretentious aspirations as to succeed in a task where the best philosophers and neuroscientists have failed? Here are some reasons in my defense:
- I do not pretend to explore and understand how exactly the brain works. That task is handled by many scientists around the world. Rather, I attack the problems in another way, as is explained later in this book. In a nutshell, I am confident that evolution has found the best way to develop our brain in order to help us survive. Therefore any trait found in our brain is there for a good reason. All ideas presented here are based on the discoveries that scientists have made in their research. I am merely trying to build a complete picture, using these facts to understand how the human brain works. Over many millions of years, evolution has improved traits that helped humanity survive and thrive. I am like a person who has no idea how television works, yet knows enough to use it by pressing the appropriate button to see his favorite channel. He has no need to know how the data are processed in the integrated circuits inside the box in order change the channel. Equally there is no need to know how the brain circuitry works to know what makes a person feel fear. All we have to know that he does his best to survive. I am trying to investigate these kinds of phenomena in the book. This way we can understand better what makes a person react in one way and not another; in short how the other person will react. Here is a hint about the nature of some of the insights that will be discussed in detail later; the other person does not necessarily react the way in which I would, given the same situation.
- The results of studies and experiments conducted by neuroscientists are available on the Internet for anyone to see and use. One does not have to be a scientist to make sense of this research; on the Internet, there are plenty of professors explaining the meaning of such studies. Thus all one has to do is to fit all these pieces of information together into the puzzle to get the full picture.
- Brain research is still in its infancy, and professional neuroscientists do not understand much more than the curious laymen.
- Traits of the human brain have been perfected over millions of years. It can be assumed that many of the traits existing in our mind originated due to the mechanism of evolution, preserving the necessary features necessary for our survival. Understanding of evolutionary processes could help our understanding of the brain’s function.
- As Newton said: "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants". Since his day, the 'giants' of today have been growing bigger. That is why, sitting on their shoulders, we can now see much farther into the horizon.
- Nature tends to develop in simple ways. Therefore it is likely that one can understand the basic mechanisms of the brain even though the brain is very complex.
And one more thing – we must not rely blindly on experts. Studies have found that experts have difficulty in creating new ideas. Sometimes the experts refuse even to accept new ideas presented to them. Most experts are so confident in their own knowledge concerning their narrow field of expertise that they cannot pluck up enough mental courage to admit that they may have been wrong. One example of such an attitude is how the chaos theory was not accepted by the scientific community when it was first presented.
Many ideas that I present in this book contradict our intuition and our beliefs. But this was the case when other new ideas were also presented.
A theory should be valued on its ability to predict all observed phenomena, and whether it can be verified by experiments. Such is the quantum theory. No one really understands the quantum theory: it just is not intuitive. We cannot perceive, for example, the reversal of roles between cause and effect, as this theory predicts. But, until now, quantum theory has proved to be accurate in predicting results. That is why as long as a theory provides answers to phenomena, we have to accept its validity, even though we cannot perceive it with our intuition. It may be that the theory will be explained with some knowledge in the future, knowledge which is not at present in our possession. In the future we may find, for example, that the flow of time can be reversed, and that this reversal will explain the reversal of cause and effect.
Understanding the essence of time may solve also other mysteries that physicists accept as axioms - for example, the fact we cannot exceed the speed of light, which is the basis of the calculations that Einstein developed in his theory of relativity.
In the same way, one should accept the theories presented here if they can predict human behavior, even if one cannot perceive it in his intuition. It is not wise to rely on intuition; remember how intuition rejected the claim that the earth was moving around the sun!
A taste of what you'll find in this book
Before delving into the task of understanding the other person's mind, I would like to point out the main issues. Our thinking and the way we grasp the reality around us is influenced by many factors. In general we have to take into account the traits of the individual (in Chapter 1), the community in which he lives (details in Chapter 3), as well as the relationship between the two (as will be expanded in Chapter 2).
I know that these points are not completely clear at this point; they will be discussed later.
I'll present some theories in order to draw a complete picture of the way in which I think our brain functions.
Some of them are known theories, others are my hypotheses. Each one of them can, in itself, be discussed in a separate book, but here they are discussed in short in an effort to understand the main issue of this book, which is to understand how the other person thinks and behaves.
Basic premises
In seeking to understand the laws governing the mechanics of daily life, we can use Newton's empirical laws. There is no need to delve into the laws of quantum mechanics concerning the interactions between the basic particles. In the same way, it is also possible to use the empirical laws of nature to understand the operation of the human mind, without any need to know how the synapses in the human brain are connected.
Here are some of the relevant empirical rules:
- Evolution. We need to assume that the solutions formed by evolution are those that ensure our survival. Other solutions were sifted out by evolution. In this way if we discover a trait shared by most members of the human race, we might assume that this trait’s existence implies its necessity for our survival in the ancient savannas in Africa where most of our evolution developed. When discussing the brain’s activities, we will rely on this premise as a way of disclosing which traits in the human brain are best suited to answer the challenges that human beings encountered then.
- Simplicity. It is natural for the easiest and simplest solutions to be realized first, in the same way as water finds the easiest route along which to flow, bypassing natural obstacles, shaping the river bed. In the same way, it would appear that complex creatures such as humans have reached sophistication from a far simpler starting point by having to overcome obstacles encountered along our path of development.
- Balance. Newton’s third law is essentially a law of balance. A force exerted by one body on another causes a counter force on the first. In nature, the interaction between elements is vast and diverse, and the reaction does not necessarily have to be direct. It may occur through many other bodies. This law is not limited to mechanical phenomena. It applies to every process in nature, including the way in which people react. For example, when our body is dehydrated the concentration of salts sends a message to our brain. The brain interprets it as thirst and that, in turn, drives us to drink and lower the salty concentration of salts.
- Integration of long-term solutions and short-term solutions. Solutions developed through evolution are not optimized only for the short-term range or are solutions for the specific body. Certain traits that may seem harmful in the short term may actually bring about good solutions in the long term. An example of this is that the brain’s plasticity renders the human baby defenseless, but allows for it to adapt to future changing conditions. Solutions may be well suited to a more complex body of which the original body is a part. For example, some of the features in human cells were developed for the wellbeing of the human body and not for the wellbeing of the cell itself.
- Feedback. Nature prefers feedback systems on 'send and forget' systems since they enable corrections while in process to get to the target. It is possible to see how our body is based on feedback systems. The need to preserve precise demarcation of multiple parameters in the body, such as temperature and blood pressure, is best done with feedback solutions for every parameter. Feedback processes are everywhere, not only in our body. We can also detect them in economic systems and political systems. They are relevant when we discuss maintaining the balance between the individual human and his community.
- Repetitions. A successful process in nature is applied to many seemingly unconnected cases. That is why we can often understand how things function in one case, if we know how they function in another. For example, understanding certain features in plants can illuminate our understanding of similar features in human beings.
CHAPTER ONE
Understanding the individual
Deciphering the Traits of the Brain
There are several approaches to deciphering traits of the brain:
- It is possible to explore the human brain by observing human behavior as we do in everyday life, and as an author does when he tries to 'get under the skin' of the characters in his books.
- An author, like many other people, may learn much through observation. But to really understand the other person, we need better tools than just observation. It is very difficult to understand people because everyone maintains their privacy as though they were wearing masks behind which they hide their thoughts. Moreover, we have a tendency to judge others through our distorting cultural glasses, making it more difficult to see the real character of the other persons. That is why observation is not the best tool to understand how others are thinking.
- One can use scientific instruments to explore how brain cells communicate and perform various tasks. But there are some difficulties in such an approach. Scientists tend to pinpoint their study on one specific aspect, and neglect the overall picture of a brain’s function. Live person research techniques are very new; therefore there are not yet enough data on how our brain works. Thus the way in which scientists are trying to decipher brain activity does not yet provide an understanding of how a person thinks and feels.
- Philosophers have been puzzled for centuries trying to solve the mind-body dilemma, without reaching any conclusions upon which they can agree. The reason is partly because they do not have enough data on which they can rely. It is funny strange that they raise doubts about everything, except for that intuition-based assumption that claims we have mental consciousness. On that unfounded basis, they have built circuitous explanations that are sometimes bizarre and unconvincing. With all due respect, it seems that they complicate things only to reach an impasse.
When we are faced with an impasse, one should look for a different perspective that will override it, instead of banging our heads against the wall.
It is possible to explore the reasons for the brain’s evolution from its function as a basic control center to its current state by learning which features the brain developed to overcome its limitations in the face of the challenges to our survival.
Let me explain this approach: when we want to understand how a river shapes its route, we can examine the chemical and physical impacts of molecules of water on the molecules of the ground, and measure the amount of erosion and the direction of the channel being formed. This is the scientific approach in brain research.
This is, of course, a less practical method compared to the simple way of examining the obstacles causing the water to flow in a certain direction, and finding the route of the river, assuming that water flows along the easiest route. Similarly, we can examine the obstacles that the human brain has been forced to face, and see how evolution bypasses these obstacles while determining the paths of the brain’s development.
We will focus on the features of the human brain that help people in their struggles to survive when facing the challenges of a changing environment.
These features provide us with a clue that can assist us in understanding how other people feel and react.
Sometimes we find that even complex and inexplicable processes obey very simple laws.
When scientists sent the first rocket to the moon, newspapers published articles full of admiration at the scientists' success in achieving such a precise trajectory of the rocket, explaining that any deviation of even one hundredth of a degree would cause it to miss its relatively small target.
Of course these are comments of journalists who understand next to nothing of technology. It is very easy to guide the rocket right to the moon or to aim a rocket precisely into a specific window as a matter of fact. All we have to do is to use closed circuit camera control which can focus on the target, and allow real-time correction of the rocket’s flight path. When the rocket is close to its target, the target is seen to be larger, and it is easier to correct its flight path in order to hit the center of the target.
That is an example of what looks like a complex operation can, in fact, be very simple. In the same way we look with amazement at the complexity of a species in nature, and of the complexity of the human brain in particular, and find it difficult to understand how such complexity was formed. Many people, therefore, tend to attribute such complexity to a divine act.
But is there no simple explanation? Is it indeed the work of a divine being? There is nothing magical about aiming a missile at a target thousands of kilometers away. Similarly, the development of the human race is not a divine miracle.
The Power of Evolution
- Evolution is our key to deciphering the secrets of the brain.
- We already know that our brain developed from the simple control center to become the marvelous complex machine it is now. This took place over many years of evolution.
- That is why we should devote some time to laying out what is the evolutionary theory.
- Darwin showed how long-term evolution occurs; it is driven by several simple rules, the primary one being the principle of the 'survival of the fittest'. In other words, those that have the best traits for survival have a greater chance to reproduce (because they survive longer than others), and their descendants will inherit those traits.
- It is obvious, right?
- In the course of cell division, mutations occasionally occur. If these mutations occur during the formation of a baby they can alter its features. If a mutation led to the development of a feature that promotes survival, that feature will be carried down to the coming generations. Traits that diminish the ability to survive will be eliminated by virtue of the simple fact that this particular offspring will not survive for very long.
- In the most general terms, evolutionary principles are valid for any entity that meets these two conditions:
- It has the ability to develop traits to improve survival in a harsh environment and fierce competition with other entities with limited resources.
- It has the ability to reproduce and form similar entities which will continue to show the same traits.
Various species tend to acquire similar basic traits to improve the ability to survive, but they differ in detail in order to match their specific needs. This is due to the fact that what was the most simple and most effective way for one species to develop survival traits can also be suitable for others.
For example, various species use their hearing abilities to survive, but the sensitivity of the hearing differs from species to species.
This is true also for the brain. For example, researchers have recently found that some animals, including bumblebees, have feelings and an imagination resembling those produced by our brain. We usually apply the rules of evolution to living organisms and plants, but evolution can be applied to any entity that complies with evolutionary criteria.
This is true for plants as well as for other reproducible entities such as communities, technology, or economic systems.
This basic concept explains the development of species. Currently, evolutionary researchers know how to track the paths of development for many species with ever- increasing precision.
Nonetheless, the theory of evolution presented by Darwin was far from complete. Even Darwin himself understood that some natural phenomena did not fit his theory, which encouraged him to try and develop it further?
We might call Darwin’s original views “the private evolutionary theory” and the expanded version “the evolutionary theory of everything” thereby using parallel terms found in physics, where physicists aim at developing the “Theory of Everything.”
The Evolutionary Theory for Everything may include the following areas:
The private evolution – this is defined by the development of species through mutations, which cause selection over the course of generations. This is Darwin’s original theory.
The evolution of communities – this is defined by the development of communities. Communities grew, developed, split to create new communities and finally stopped existing in their original form. The first clue to this kind of evolution was due to altruism. Altruism does not sit well with Darwin’s basic theory. If a person is willing to give up his own life for the sake of the community, then clearly altruism will be gone as well according to Darwin's theory. However, we see that the trait of altruism still exists. The evolutionary reason for this lies in the survival of the larger entity, the bigger being, the community. People give their lives for the community in the same way as human cells die for the sake of the human body.
Fast evolution – this takes place when traits are modified within one generation.
Evolution of non-organic systems – this occurs when the principles of evolution are valid for anything that can reproduce and has to compete with others. This is true for organic molecules at the beginning of life, and it is true for the development of various other systems. These include technology, political systems and economic systems. In this book we will focus only on the evolution of human life, with an emphasis on evolution of the brain, and the evolution of communities with an emphasis on cultures.
Private Evolution
The most common application of the evolution principle is the evolution of species. This was the only application for many years. Only in recent years have evolutionists given some thought to other evolutionary phenomena.
Orthodox Darwinians, such as Richard Dawkins, have explained that even minute advantages gained by mutation in one member can, in the long run, change the whole species.
This explanation is valid in some cases, especially when there is a severe environmental change. But this explanation suffers from superficiality.
Small improvements by a single mutation can be dismissed for two reasons:
- The time required for spreading this small improvement may cause it to disappear by including? it with the majority of …..what?
- Another greater improvement may cause the loss of? this small improvement.
Evolution of Communities
Among the sophisticated ways found in nature to enhance the chances of survival, forming communities is one of the most common. A community -- or 'herd' in the animal world -- when acting in unison creates a bigger being, stronger than each of its individual members.
Mankind excels at forming very large groups, by using culture to ease the bonding of people with the group.
All kinds of communication have managed to reinforce this bonding.
One cannot discuss human evolution without taking into account the impact of culture.
A cultural group can be considered as a large living being, and the people forming it as cells of that being.
All these cultural groups try to survive in a hostile environment, competing with other cultural groups.
A family is such a small group. Together, many families can form communities such as those of the ultra-Orthodox Jews. All various Jewish groups may form a nation, the Jewish people.
The complex structure of communities will not be discussed here as all we need to know regarding the issue at hand is the impact of the community on the individual.
When the other person lives in a closely-knit group, such as the group of ultra-Orthodox Jews, or anarchist groups, there is no need to understand every individual within the group.
With a few exceptions, the identity of the individuals is the same for all members of the group. All we have to do is consider the characteristics of the group, in order to understand how each individual within it thinks and reacts.
But within groups with a looser ideology, people have a mix of self-identity and group identity. In this case, we have to understand the mechanisms of individual thinking together with the features of a herd instinct.
This ability of mankind to connect on the basis of a sophisticated culture is also one of the major obstacles in our ability to understand the 'other' person of a different cultural group. In this case we need to understand the nature of that different culture.
There will be a more detailed discussion on this subject, in the following chapters.
Rapid Evolution
The reason underlying my belief in the existence of rapid evolution is the immense advantages it has in a rapid adjustment to changing circumstances. If such a development is possible, I am confident that it became possible during the long history of evolution.
Some hints of rapid evolution can be found in a relatively new research field called epigenetics. Epigenetics deals with changes in adult characteristics, caused by environmental stress or learning. It was found that under such conditions an adult can change locations order of genes, and switch them on or off. These changes determine many qualities, without changing the genes themselves.
Barbara Hoon, a research botanist, found that a plant subjected to severe physical conditions could change in an epigenetic way in order to survive. These changes are inherited by its offspring. This phenomenon is not limited to plants but also exists in animals. This is actually an example of an evolutionary subsystem that generates features of the species without having to wait for many generations of evolution by screening of genetic mutations. The exact mechanism by which the epigenetics functions is not yet known but its existence can be seen in many phenomena.
Inheritance depends on the order and placement of the genes in the DNA (which is basically the same as programming) as well as the content of the genes. Perhaps the location of the genes is more easily inherited.
This is also the way in which stem cells differentiate into specialized cells. Perhaps in the same way cells can mutate in the process of division to become different cells.
Undesirable examples of such mutations are cancer cells.
Researchers such as Igor Kobltz'ik have confirmed this phenomenon but this research is still in its infancy..
The mechanism of inherited knowledge can be most important for humanity. The invention of the internet has enhanced the ability and the range of easily reached vast knowledge items; the problem is the limited capability of the human brain in absorbing this knowledge. If, somehow we can control epigenetics then some information as well as more important learning techniques can be engraved in the new born. Think of the advantage that the new born would have if he or she were to possess the knowledge of a language.
An example of a rapid change (a change within one generation) can be seen in some species of fish which are able to voluntarily change their gender, if there is a shortage of the other gender.
It is possible that this mechanism can explain inheritance of features for which no specific gene was found to be directly responsible.
An example of such a feature is the mystery maintaining our body shape.
Body cells die all the time and new cells are created by division mechanism. It does not take long before all our body cells are renewed, but still our body does not change much. How is our body shape maintained even though all our cells are replaced?
We know that every cell in our body has our full DNA code; does it contain the information of the shape of our body? The body-shaping gene has not yet been discovered if that is the case. Epigenetics is active in every cell division. The idea that one’s shape is governed by epigenetics can explain the resemblance of offspring to their parents. Epigenetics keeps our shape intact when we suffer from minor injuries.
Research carried out by evolutionists such as Wiesel (Axel Visel) can unravel the great mystery of controlling one’s body shape. Perhaps we will understand more concerning rapid evolution as the result of these studies. There is a chance that these studies will find additional mechanisms for the rapid evolution beyond epigenetics.
During cell division to create more cells, mutations can occur. The mutations can alter some of our features for better or worse.
An example of such mutations can be seen in the age spots or bumps on an old person’s face. These changes are maintained despite the death and the division of the original cells that created them. Perhaps mutations during cell division are 'inherited' by the new cells created by division of the old ones.
For rapid evolution to be realized, the changed features have to be inherited by the offspring. We do not know yet how this is done and can just speculate, but there are some hints as to what direction we can check.
Research on rapid evolution should check whether the organs that produce sperm or ova can be changed by the epigenetic mechanism. One should focus on blood fluid cells or other fluid cells that reach all other cells in the body.
In a research lab, a vein of an old mouse was connected to one of a young mouse. In this way they both had a common blood system. It turned out that the old mouse received some features of the younger mouse. His organs acted like those of a younger mouse. Even his memory improved. In fact he seemed younger. On the other hand, the young mouse showed signs of becoming older.
In this context it is worth remembering some studies done on worms: this proved that the memory of a baby worm that had been fed on a ground up mature worm could receive the memory of the mature worm, thus indicating that food can be part of the rapid epigenetic evolution. Another example of epigenetics in food is the changing of a bee; when fed by royal jelly, to be a queen bee, it becomes capable of laying eggs and growing to be much larger than the ordinary bee.
We will not discuss this form of evolution in this book, because it has no direct impact on the understanding of the 'other' person.
Evolution of Different Systems -- The simple but ingenious principle of evolution is also true for systems which we do not consider as living identities. Evolution can be seen in systems such as economics, politics, technology, and even the evolution of ideas.
Here is an idea: evolution can occur on stars in the universe. There can be an entity which can develop, reproduce, and compete with other entities in a harsh environment. It is not necessary for an entity to be based on carbon or in any other way resembling any entity on earth. Then this entity satisfies the criteria of life. With this definition of life, there is probably life in outer space!
In this book, we will discuss only the evolution of the individual brain, and the evolution of cultural communities.
We will illustrate how cultural communities are born, how they develop, and eventually die (or disintegrate to become other smaller communities).
We'll also discuss the influence of the community on the individual persons which are the building blocks of this community.
The Brain is Me
“Some people think a man is just a machine. The only difference between a man and a mill is that one is driven by blood and the other by water.” – Horace Mann
The basic premise of this book is that we are our brain, and the essence of the other person is his brain. Specifically, it is our conscious part of the brain that we consider as the real us. Consciousness will be discussed in detail later.
When only the brain of a paralyzed person is functioning, he is still a person. No one disputes the fact that Stephen Hawking is a person, even though almost no part of his body functions – apart from his brain. In contrast, a person suffering from Alzheimers, even with a totally healthy body, is not functioning as a person.
I am relating to the entire brain and not just to our consciousness that is usually considered as 'ourselves'. As we will see shortly, consciousness is no more than a small part of our existence. Usually consciousness is nothing more than a screen on which our brain projects the results of its calculations: in other words, the image of reality, memories, thoughts, and feelings. We cannot say that consciousness is who we are, just as we cannot say that a computer screen is the computer. Look under the table: there you’ll find the computer.
My claim that, basically, brains work in a similar way for all people derives from the fact that the brain, much like the body, was developed over millions of years, in which humans were concentrated in a small area of the African Savannah. Throughout this entire period, this small group of humans shared challenges and dangers, fighting with other creatures over limited natural resources. The human population explosion occurred only over the last few hundreds of thousand years, a relatively short period in evolutionary terms. It is therefore natural that the brain developed similarly.
The brain’s basic mechanisms developed into their current form since the brain’s hardware is based on slow electro-chemical communication. It is much slower than a silicon-based computer but, more important, it is much too slow to cope with the challenges of real life. In answer to this situation, intricate algorithms were developed.
We might assume that the brains of all people use the same basic algorithms.
Understanding these algorithms is necessary to comprehend how the human brain works but it is not enough since these are not the only mechanisms involved in processing data in the human brain. In addition to these algorithms, human communities over the years have developed many additional layers of mechanisms, unique to each community. Above those layers, there are the selectors of character and life experiences unique to each person.
It is not enough to evaluate only the basic functions of brain algorithms if we wish to successfully assess how the other feels and acts.
Understanding these algorithms will, however, bring us closer to understanding the other person.
The similarities and differences among people can be viewed as similarities and differences in the world of computers. Every computer company’s product is different, even though they are all structured from a CPU (central processing unit), some memory components, and binary signals that link these various elements. One company’s computer uses hardware comprising elements more or less linked similarly to another company’s product. But they differ in their database, operating systems, and the software applications.
In the same way, the basic structure is the same for all people.
Like computers, humans differ in their database usually termed as “stereotypes” or patterns, operating system, which is our character, and software applications which are our “worldview”.
By understanding how the basic mechanisms in our brains work, and which factors influence reality images structured in our brains, we can take a great step toward understanding the other person, and estimate on which facts this person based his conclusions.
If we learn something more about his worldview and character, we'll have a better chance of guessing how this person reacts.
It is important to emphasize that understanding the other does not imply agreeing with his way of thinking, or adopting his hierarchy of values.
Evolution has shaped the human brain over millions of years during which humans did not have the technology and culture that we know today. It is a great wonder that our brains can cope with the challenges of modern life. It seems that nature has refined our brains to make them multipurpose and flexible, enabling us to adapt ourselves even to an environment that has changed enormously.
The Limitations of the Brain
Before taking a look at the brain’s limitations, one should stop and admire its amazing abilities.
Anyone who has ever seen a clown balancing a stick on his nose, an acrobat catching a fellow acrobat on the trapeze with split-second timing, or a baseball player hitting the ball pitched at a speed of 100 km per hour cannot help but marvel at the human brain’s sophistication in controlling our body.
We wonder how the brain can calculate the baseball’s orbit, given that it takes a few tenths of a second to reach the player, compared with the time it takes for the process of receiving the information, calculating, and moving the baseball bat to the exact position.
The answer is practice. The brain is a learning machine. It learns to anticipate where the ball will hit from the way in which the pitcher holds the ball. An untrained person cannot come close to the performance of a veteran baseball player who has spent hundreds of hours in training.
Actually, a great deal of our automatic actions is the outcome of just such a process. An infant practices for hours before being able to walk confidently on his legs. The circus acrobat walks the tightrope confidently only after hours of training.
As much as the brain’s physical control over the body is stupendous, its intellectual capabilities are even more staggering. The cultural and scientific development of the human race is the outcome of the human brain’s abilities. The brain’s wonderful performance is due to the many years of evolution during which it was refined.
It is impossible not to be impressed by the force of the water that shaped the Grand Canyon. Although it is difficult to imagine how water can carve out the rock so deeply, it is clear that this is a natural phenomenon resulting from many years of erosion.
Even though it may be difficult for us to grasp, that was the case with our brain. It has become refined over millions of years. Our difficulty in comprehending this brings many to attribute this development, mistakenly, to God.
To demonstrate the brain’s vast ability, let us observe the process of facial identification. Any child can identify faces better than the best of computers of today. Identifying faces is a complex task performed by the human brain speedily and effectively. This skill is particularly predominant in humans and primates since they are social creatures for whom it is important to identify others, and what their intentions are. In a fraction of a second, we identify gender, age and intention, after only a quick look at the face. If that face is familiar we can even attach a name to it, and recall our shared history.
Researchers have found that various brain sectors are involved while looking at a face, depending on our relation to whom we are looking at.
For example:
- Familiar faces immediately increase activity in the visual area of the brain and the amygdala. The latter is part of the limbic system.
- Pretty faces cause an increase in activity of the neural system, the degree of reaction depending on the observer’s sexual preference.
These findings indicate that faces arouse associations, memories and feelings, in addition to image processing by our visual systems which are responsible for identifying facial outlines.
We are good at identifying faces belonging to people with whom we share some history because we are emotionally connected to them, and we know them well.
In a study of functional imaging conducted in the USA, subjects observed three types of faces: family members, celebrities, and faces of strangers.
Faces of people with whom the subjects were personally acquainted caused increased activity in two areas of the brain which mediate recall of information from memory. Looking at a familiar face causes spontaneous recall of many details linked with the person to whom the face belongs. Additionally, unlike an unknown face that we have not yet evaluated and may yet be clarified as dangerous, a familiar face does not require us to be on guard. This causes a decrease in defensive activities focused in the amygdala.
An additional study scanned the brains of mothers while they were looking at the faces of their children, and compared it to the same mothers as they were looking at unfamiliar children. The findings indicated that looking at images of their own children activated the limbic system (the amygdala and the insula) and areas in the frontal cortex in mothers. The neurological activity in these specific areas enabled mothers to love, be concerned about, and protect their children.
The emotional link between mothers and their children is based not only on neurology but also biochemistry, in the form of oxytocin, a hormone released during birth and breast feeding. This hormone is also released both by men and women during sexual relations. Some claim that due to its vital role in the survival of one’s offspring, its release during female orgasm causes many women to fall in love with the men with whom they have sexual relations. In other words, this gives rise to the inability of women to separate sex from love. It indicates also a biological link, in addition to being the closest social link, between people. We will delve into this more when discussing the impact that social relations has on the individual human.
Besides being a command center for activating our bodies, our brain is also our entire being. It controls our actions, our thoughts and our emotions.
Now it is time to discuss the brain's limitations.
The limitations of the human brain are due to the slow electro-chemical communication and to the limited space of the skull in which it is housed.
The speed of synapses firing in the brain is far slower than the speed of man-made electronic computers. More important, the speed at which our brain calculates cannot cope with the speed of events to which humans had to react in order to survive.
The skull in which the brain is housed further limits the number of cells to do the job. These limitations led to the need for clever solutions that would allow the brain to cope with reality.
This relatively slow calculating speed is party compensated for by the brain’s parallel computations: multiple processes can take place among the brain’s neurons. In this situation, the brain is more like the Internet network than the standalone computer. Many people can work simultaneously on servers across the Internet, and receive faster service than by using a single, central computer. This is the case even though the speed of communication is lower than that of the central computer system.
For the purpose of deciding on a course of action at the speed needed, we will make use of estimations instead of certainty, and activation of existing database (stereotypes) in the brain, instead of restructuring conclusions each time anew.
Unfortunately, this course of action also leads to errors in perception causing misunderstandings among people.
The use of preconceived responses, (or stereotypes) to stimuli received via the senses can cause judgment failures.
The 'database' engraved in our brain is, in part, inherited genetically and in part acquired by learning. Logically, if I act on the basis of my database, the other person will act on his different database, resulting in different outcomes.
We have to take into account these differences in modes of thinking when we try to understand the other person.
Structuring the Picture of Reality
No person is identical to any other. Some are tall, some short; some are slim while others are heavy, and there are many skin colors. Yet we are all instantly able to perceive the difference between a human and a monkey, a primate, even though we share some 98% genetically identical traits with the monkey. It is obvious that some elements are shared by all humans, which allow us to distinguish ourselves from every other living creature.
Similarly, no human mind is identical to that of any other yet we can identify basic cognitive abilities shared by all humans. Later in this chapter, I will attempt to outline these abilities.
We still do not know precisely how the human brain works. But much can be deduced when we take into account the brain’s physical limitations, the latest brain research, and our own observations. This way we can discover the solutions which evolution has found to enable the brain’s functions to cope with the challenges of reality.
- When another being moves toward us at high speed, we must be able to come to a decision very quickly, based on the limited amount of data that has managed to reach our brain from the senses. What action should we take? We must be able to decide whether that being is a tiger charging toward us and we must flee, or is it our beloved wife running toward us joyfully, and we should run forward with outstretched hands, smiling.
The brain makes use of data based on multiple clues: speed, sound, silhouette and more to reach this decision.
Research shows that even if we observe, for example, some dots moving on a screen arranged in a specific way, we can deduce that the figure on the screen is dancing happily. The brain’s ability to assess events based on very little data relies heavily on cumulative prior experience.
We can describe the brain’s function as a vast database arranged in a table, where the first column contains a list of events. The brain searches through them until it finds one that matches the initial information being fed in by our senses. When an event is found, it acts as a trigger to read the relevant line where all the attributes and reactions are written. The brain activates the registered structured reaction found in that line of the table. Of course the real function of the brain is much more complicated but this analogue gives some understanding on how the brain acts.
In an experiment conducted to verify the way in which the brain works, it was discovered that it does indeed draw on the appropriate line in the table even if when what is registered there sometimes clashes with objective reality. In this study a banana was displayed under colored lighting, altering the banana’s color. Nonetheless, the researched subjects always indicated with conviction that the banana’s true color was yellow, and did not relate to its altered color. The reason is that the banana was identified in the human brain, triggering the relevant data and found that it is listed as being yellow. The brain immediately projects this information onto our consciousness visualization. However this was not the case when the researched subjects saw a square of yellow paper illuminated to change its color. In this case, the brain of the researched subjects does not find any engraved data for a specifically colored square since a square could be any color. The square’s altered color, changed by lighting, can therefore be easily identified.
Some years ago the USA was buzzing over a case in which two police officers killed a Hispanic man in Los Angeles. The man was not armed. He had attempted to extricate some identification papers from his jacket, but the police officers mistakenly thought they saw him drawing out a pistol.
Researchers presented students with clips showing different people, some of whom drew out a wallet and others, a gun. Students were requested to state whether they saw a wallet or a gun, and were given the same short period of time to decide as the police officers had. The students tended to ‘see’ a gun in the hands of African-Americans and Hispanics with greater frequency than when related to whites.
This proves the power of stereotypes embedded in our minds. The stereotypes in the students’ minds linked specific populations to violence. When the need arose to reach fast decisions, the brain was forced to resort to stereotypes rather than rethinking. If the brain had had enough time to process information, the outcomes might have been different.
We can understand just how strongly our brains rely on stereotyping by the way in which we relate to the food we were raised on, or the familiar landscapes of our place of birth. If we were raised in a normative family, we will love the food, and feel nostalgic over our way of life. All these are engraved in our brain. Each of us has his/her relevant reaction listed in the 'table' in his brain. When the brain receives the appropriate association for that listing, it immediately brings all relevant data to the surface.
The database of stereotypes in our brains is not the only source that helps the brain to shorten processing time. We absorb information from the environment through our senses, which are more or less identical in all of us. Nonetheless, different people may process that information differently. We can compare this to a couple watching an opera. The man may focus his opera binoculars on the women in their gorgeous gowns, while the woman gazes at the handsome tenor on the front of the stage.
To reduce time even further, the brain directs the senses to get the information it considers of greater importance first. Movement is absorbed faster than a stationary object. Sharp items, which may be dangerous, are more readily processed than blunt objects.
Our brain also filters out environmental noise to get the strictly relevant information. When we listen to our friend speaking, our brain mutes the voices of others around us; thus it does not have to waste time dealing with irrelevant information. There are more algorithms the brain uses to save time. For example: in a study conducted to understand how people read books, it was found that we do not read the written content, the words, in the order in which they are written. The brain commands our eyes to run down the page, skipping words we know well, and then return to reading the less familiar words. In this way, the brain can accelerate our understanding of the written content.
After crunching the information from the senses as described, the brain processes the filtered information, using its database to understand what is going on.
What the brain understands as reality is not necessarily exactly what our eyes see. It is a combination of the information pouring from our senses and our engraved database.
When activities within areas of the brain are monitored when people are looking at pictures, they are found to be just like activities within the same areas when the people imagine those same pictures. This proves that our consciousness “sees” the image produced by the brain rather than the image seen directly by our eyes.
Each of us creates different images when watching something since we direct our senses differently and our databases are not the same. This is why people argue over facts. They “see” different facts.
If we are to understand the other person, we must be able to assess what he 'sees' in his mind, even though it may be very different from what we perceive as reality.
The brain’s information processing system contains roughly three main stages. Each of them operates somewhat differently in each of us, which also makes it necessary to understand how the other person’s brain relates in each stage. The stages are:
- Data collection.
- Data processing and visualizations to determine the appropriate reaction.
- Additional processing to plan long-term strategies
When the brain decides on the proper reaction, it kicks into action its body control mechanism, which was the core of its original being.
The Brain as a Documentary Director
In the previous sector we learned that the other person does not necessarily see the same reality that I see. Nonetheless, people are certain that their vision of reality is indeed the true one. Thus, if I can 'see' something with my own eyes, and hear the sounds it makes, you cannot tell me that, in reality, there is something else.
It is like the case when a manager relays a hand-written document for processing. His secretary sees only the text whereas the graphic artist focuses on visual aspects of the document. Yet neither of them sees the full picture.
If we want to understand what is on the other person’s mind, the true reality is not important. What is important here is to comprehend that different people base their conclusions not only on different interpretations of facts but on different facts even if they look at the same reality.
The reason that the images of reality reaching our brains do not faithfully reflect reality is due to the limitations of our senses, as well as the limitations of the brain itself.
Our senses are limited in terms of frequency (the range of colors we can see, or the range of sounds we can hear), and their sensitivity. Our senses are limited especially when compared to those of other living creatures. Our sight is not nearly as good as that of an eagle; our sense of smell cannot match that of a dog, and our sense of hearing is very much less sensitive than that of a bat.
Moreover, we find it difficult to absorb extremely large numbers, unfamiliar sights, extremely long or short periods of time, or very long or extremely small distances.
We also have great difficulty with anything that is not intuitive.
On top of this, the brain guides our senses to see only the facts that match our point of view.
Those limitations forced the brain to rely on evaluations, rather than construct a full picture of reality.
The way in which the brain operates as described above has been extensively researched these last few years but is not yet fully understood. In any event, it matches the evolutionary logic of what should be the course of operation.
When examining the iris of the eye while the subjects observe a picture, researchers were surprised to find that it homes in on the important points in the picture, such as faces or interesting objects, which are scanned rapidly several times while we gaze at the picture. The eye never scans the entire picture. The brain receives individual pixels, and places greater emphasis on central points that relate to our daily lives. A human face will involve some fifty percent of the data processing, while the rest of the picture will receive only marginal attention.
We are accustomed to think of our eyes as a camera lens, shooting the video film of reality, and of our brain as a video camera computer constructing the scene. In fact the eyes translates the images into electrical-chemical pulses, which run along the nerves to the brain’s processing centers where they are processed according to algorithms engraved by the arrangement of synapses, and finally produce some visual experiences. Here are two examples that show how wrong the concept of a video camera is:
- When matrices of needles were activated by a video camera to press on a blind person's skin, that person could experience the image. The resolution of the image depends on the number of needles serving as pixels in the picture. This experiment proves that we do not need the eyes as a camera lens to see.
- It is a known fact that we see a picture in its correct position even though the image projected onto our retinas is upside down. This shows that the brain processes the image before presenting it to our conscious experience. In experiments, people wear eyeglasses with lenses that reverse the images. Initially, they did in fact see upside-down images, but the brain quickly learned to re-position them correctly, and the subjects then saw the image as though they were not looking through inverting glasses. Once the glasses were removed, these individuals again saw things “upside down” for a while until the brain re-corrected itself once more.
I prefer to view the process of reconstructing the model of the real world as the more complex creation of a movie. What we 'see' on the screen of consciousness is not the picture of reality. It is the modeling of reality carried out by the brain’s subconscious. In this way we can view the brain's subconscious as a documentary director with a fixed agenda, creating the documentary with a clever manipulation of the camera (the senses). The process of creating the film in this example is carried out in three hierarchic stages, which match those of the brain’s hierarchy of data processing:
- Shooting the film – collecting the data from the senses.
- Editing the photographed scenes into the film’s plot – data processing for shaping the narrative of the reality.
- Completing the film adding effects – editing the narrative of reality to decide on the action needed with the aid of visualization that we can see.
Consciousness is that part of the brain that we tend to identify as “myself”.
A more detailed discussion on what is 'consciousness' will be presented later in this chapter.
At present, it is important to note that our consciousness sees only the reality that our subconscious, acting as a film director, projects onto it – which may not necessarily be the true reality.
Having said this, let us continue in presenting in detail the analogy of the brain’s subconscious as a documentary director.
Shooting the Film
Very much like a documentary director, the brain guides the senses acting as its camera man, as to what should be filmed and what should be left out of the frame. This is rather like the way in which some news reporters manipulate the facts to fit their political views.
In many cases, the brain of a person writes the 'screenplay' which, in our analogy, is his worldview agenda. In such cases, the 'actors' in the real world seem to act according to that person's specific worldview/screenplay leading to a misinterpretation of events.
If reality is analogous to a documentary, our dream is like a Disney fantasy animation film where nothing is based on data from our senses and yet it seems very real to us.
Dreams or chemically-induced hallucinations are further proof that we perceive reality not as a video film but rather more like a screenplay compiled by our documentary director/brain.
In both cases, the documentary and the fantasy films of our consciousness accept the virtual images as the true reality. Whether in a dream, or experiencing reality in our waking hours, we feel the same in both cases. The sensations of sight, hearing and smell are identical in both cases despite the fact that, in a dream, there is no sensory stimulus arousing them. Sometimes we experience a kind of a 'dream state' even in our waking hours while watching a good movie or reading a compelling book or just day-dreaming.
In real life, as in movies, there are 'video cameras': our eyes and ears, recording video images. But do they really record the physical world? When we see two actors talking in a moving car, is that car really moving, or do we just have that impression because the moving view is projected onto the background?
Similarly, when we sit in a train and another train is moving parallel to us, we get the impression that it is our train that is moving.
There are many more examples of delusions to convince the skeptics that we cannot rely on what our eyes see, or what our ears hear.
We do not truly see reality, but rather interpretations of reality. This is also true for the other person.
In a movie the film director creates a scene, using flesh and blood actors to represent reality by playing roles according to his instructions. Our brain instructs our senses for the same reason. Different people will create different “scenes” based on the same reality, thus perceiving reality differently.
Like a good journalist, the brain makes use of every tidbit of information available as it deciphers data in an optimal manner. And, like that journalist, it ranks its sources of information based on their reliability, while rushing to submit his story in time before the deadline.
Harry McGurk conducted some research and found that our sense of sight is far more reliable than our sense of hearing; this is known as the “McGurk Effect” A video was shown in which the lips are mouthing different words to what viewers hear; the brain rejects the data coming from the ears in favor of the visual information we see with our eyes, causing viewers to 'hear' what the moving lips are forming.
This effect is so dominant that even a researcher, testing this effect, admitted that he “hears” the movements of the lips even though he is aware of the manipulation, and knows what the actor is really saying.
The “McGurk Effect” demonstrates the sophisticated way in which the brain operates to get the most reliable information. And, again, it shows that what our mind perceives is not exactly true.
Some researchers claim that the brain uses only some ten percent of the input sensory information in order to understand reality. In light of this fact, it is odd that judges place such weight on the testimony of eyewitnesses. Should any judge rely on ten percent of the truth of the testimony of an eye-witness?
The brain completes the other ninety percent by referencing its equivalent to 'database' and its strong 'assessment algorithm'.
In the magic tricks involving a 'disappearing ball', a magician throws the ball into the air several times. He will then simply continue to repeat the same movement, but keeps the ball in his hand. In controlled experiments examining the direction of vision, the eye indeed sees that the ball did not leave the magician’s hand, but the brain believes its database which has recorded that when the hand makes a certain throwing movement, the ball has been tossed upwards. For a while, we 'see' the ball in the air, very much like we did in the previous instances, until enough data from our eyes convince our brain that this is not the case, and the ball seems to disappear.
This proves that, for the brain, what it finds in its database is considered more reliable than the actual information flowing to it from the senses.
This mode of action exists in order to overcome the slow operation of our brain in our struggle to cope with fast-moving reality events. It prefers to use data that already exist in our database rather than the slow in-pouring data from our senses.
An ancient hunter would not be able to throw his spear and kill a fleeing hare without that marvelous capability of the brain to imagine the creature’s path of flight, much like it did in the 'disappearing ball' magic.
Data Processing
We have seen how the brain can manipulate and integrate information coming from all our senses by cross-referencing information and merging it with the existing database. This database is sometime called stereotypes.
Using the analogy of writing a document for the manager, the secretary makes use of the dictionary – like our word database -- to correct spelling errors, while the graphic editor focuses on an image database like our visualization algorithms.
The database engraved into the liberal brain, what helps people feel they should be thankful, rather than murdering their savers.
Therefore it seems unfeasible that the extreme Muslim population would be so ungrateful but to our great horror, reality does not match its anticipations. The database -- or should we say the stereotypes -- engraved in the Muslim brain, regard any non-Muslim as an infidel. An infidel should be submissive toward the superiority of Muslims. That is why it is natural for second-class humans such as the infidel Americans, to help the Muslims and no thanks are in order. In their mind, infidelity is the worst crime and should be punished by a humiliating death.
Thus the different stereotypes engraved into the minds of people in these two cultures lead to this misunderstanding.
The word stereotype has a bad connotation but still we are all using stereotypes in the practice of reacting fast enough despite our slow brain.
It is important to know how that stereotypical database is constructed. Here is a suggestion as to how it may work:
- Stereotypes structured in the infant’s mind as part of genetics. In this way the infant “knows” how to snuggle into its mother’s breast, how to fear the hissing of a snake, and many more things. Almost all people share these stereotypes since they were assimilated over the long period of the brain’s evolution, relative to the short time-frame of human history. These stereotypes are also common among other animals.
- Stereotypes engraved through education. This mechanism engraves stereotypes via imitation of other people in the same community, or by formal education. Usually these stereotypes are engraved at a fairly young age. The less individualistic a person is, the more readily he will share the stereotypes of his cultural group. These stereotypes are typical in a specific cultural group, but may be different from those held by members of other cultural groups.
- Stereotypes learned by individual experience, either learning a specific task, or simply automatic accumulation of life’s experiences. For example, pilots are trained to make speedy, instinctive decisions via the engraved automatic responses into their minds. With experience, they accumulate many more engraved stereotypes. These stereotypes can vary from one person to another. It is difficult to assess this type of stereotype in any specific individual without knowing him well.
There may be other ways in which a stereotype is engraved in our mind but for the purpose of this book these are sufficient.
Intuition, experience, database, patterns, and stereotypes are all terms describing brain mechanisms used to help us make fast decisions, as they draw on reactions engraved in our brains.
Few people will admit that some of their decisions are based on stereotypes. The term, “intuition" is a milder term for the same thing. Every person thinks that his thoughts and actions are based on logic and ethics. But when it comes to judging other persons, he is sometimes convinced that they are acting according to their primitive stereotypes, engraved in their minds through brainwashing.
This reminds me of an old radio game in which participants were asked to define the same characteristic from three different perspectives: me, you, and him. An example would be:
I know how to manage my money well.
You’re a bit thrifty, but he? He’s downright miserly!
We can project this example onto multiple cases in our life. Such as:
I am in favor of having foreign residents pass a suitability test to ensure that they feel comfortable in our environment.
You prefer neighbors of your own kind, but he? He’s a xenophobic racist.
When it comes to using stereotypes, we can apply the same format:
I function logically and ethically.
You are rather sentimental and use intuition, but he? He’s a racist who acts and thinks according to stereotypes, because he has been brainwashed.
It is well known that we have a blind spot in our eyes, but the black holes in our brain are ignored. We should not ignore them. To avoid falling into such a hole, we must adopt a habit of “hovering” above ourselves to be able to locate such holes and avoid them. Only an individualist can manage this because he can free himself from the bonds of stereotypes, when others rely more on stereotypes stored in their brains, and rarely take an objective look at them.
The evolutionary reason for blocking original thoughts is that we have to unite with our community and we do this better when our way of thinking is aligned with that of the others. We think better of ourselves than of the others, because one of the functions of the brain is to keep ourselves in a tranquil state as far as possible. Our brain will not recoil from any means toward achieving this goal: it will distort vision and memory, invent stories that glorify us. It justifies everything that we do but is very critical toward others.
We must identify our own stereotypes and discard them, as we judge others. We should also learn and take into account the stereotypes of the others. For such a task we should learn what are our own stereotypes as well as those of the others.
All this should be considered in addition to assessing how the other sees reality as discussed earlier in this book.
It is like taking off our distorting glasses, while removing the mask that the other person is wearing. Only then can we recognize the true face of the other.
Additional Data
Next, our brain: The film director sits down to finish the movie. The raw film is edited.
The film editor adds text, titles, music, and other effects to narrate a story.
Similarly, the editor inside our brain uses our engraved database and shape extensively with the help of algorithms, developed by many years of evolution reality narrative ready to be presented on the screen of our consciousness. In addition, the story projected is modified to match our worldview since, if it does not, we would feel uncomfortable.
Other parts of our brain can now apply logic to the movie visualization, and conclude what action is necessary. Sometime our subconscious adds emotions to this dish, in order to force us to override logic if necessary or shape decisions in the right direction.
We have to keep in mind that the sole purpose of the brain is to enable us to choose the best way to survive, and not to draw the most accurate picture of reality. Those two are not always identical (but causally related). Thus our private film director – the subconscious brain -- processes data in a way that will best serve us survive the dangers that we face.
It may be possible in the future to implant “pictures of reality” into our consciousness through means other than the subconscious brain. The fierce competition among computer companies in the business of computer games leads to ever-higher quality screen images. This race has been proven to contribute to computer technology.
We might surmise that, at some point, one of these companies will find the way to project images directly onto our consciousness screen. Such a day may not be far off. We already have interfaces that link digital computers to the human brain. Such displays allow the implanting of a visual and vocal display, as well as aromas and even emotions. All these elements are implanted in our consciousness only by the brain.
The Brain’s Mechanisms and Tools
We first make our habits, and then our habits make us. – John Dryden
As evolution progressed, the brain developed various tools to assist its functioning.
These exist primarily in what is known as the subconscious. The tools fall into these categories:
- Decision-making.
- Memory.
- Mimicry.
The part of the brain generally known as awareness or consciousness employs additional tools:
- Imagination.
- Suppression.
The brain structure is very complicated and not yet fully known, but those are the main categories relevant to the topic of this book.
The Decision-making Mechanism
“Pretend that there is a machine whose structure makes it think, sense and have perception. Then we can conceive of it enlarged, but keeping to the same proportions, so that we might go inside it, as into a mill. Suppose that we do: then if we inspect the interior, we shall find there nothing but parts which push one another, and never anything that could explain a perception. Thus, perception must be sought in a simple substance, not in what is composite or in machines.” - Gottfried Leibniz
The purpose of understanding the other person is to predict how he will react in thoughts, emotions, and actions, to events.
This is what this book is all about.
A person's reaction is based on the assessment of the reality made by his brain. The brain applies decision algorithms and makes a decision, either logical or emotional, and then issues order to the muscles to carry out the decision.
The decision-making hierarchy is as follows:
- If the incoming data fit into the pattern of an urgent danger, the brain immediately issues the response engraved in that pattern. It does not wait for more data to accumulate before issuing commands to the muscles. There are simpler forms of reactions that do not involve the brain at all. They are issued by the nervous system to cut response time even further. They are therefore known as reflex reactions. Consciousness is reported only after the response.
- When the incoming data fit an immediate action pattern category, fast action is needed but the situation does not involve danger. In such a situation, the brain reacts and simultaneously informs the consciousness part of the brain. The consciousness is not aware of sub-conscious operations; it thinks that it is its own decision, and invents some story to justify this decision. Responses of this kind were the subject of Libet's famous experiments.
- Another type is the emotion-based decision, or intuitive decision. These are none other than decisions made by the subconscious forcing the conscious to carry out this decision. Numerous studies have proven that each emotion is related to a certain chemical. These chemicals (or hormones) induce the phenomena we experience as feelings. The exact procedure is not yet clear to science. It was found that oxycontin known as the “love hormone”, affects our decision-making by causing a blurring of our rational thinking and suspicion, thus heightening trust in the other person. In this way, the subconscious forces one’s consciousness to take decisions that defy logic. This behavior is typical of people in love.
- And the most familiar form is the decision-making that follows a conscious logical path of reasoning.
If we are to understand how the other person feels and reacts, the two last types of long-term reactions are of importance. Emotion-based decisions may also sometimes seem to have a logical basis but, again, one person’s logic may seem Pavlovian to another individual.
An old philosophical question asks whether we have free will, or are our reactions like the decisions made by a computer.
It’s difficult to see a dictated reaction as an “independent decision”.
The issue of free will arises following an experiment conducted by the brain researcher, Benjamin Libet, in 1983 in which he showed that the subconscious knew what a person would decide even before he knew it consciously. Thus, it is not our consciousness that decides, but our subconscious, and our consciousness merely justifies the decision after the fact, adopting that decision as though it, the consciousness, had done it.
Evidence of such behavior comes from experimental work in social psychology. It is well established that people sometimes think they have witnessed an event, or have taken a decision that they really did not take. They invent some reasons and make their reports as though they had reached a decision because of those reasons.
You may check this for yourselves. Think about whether there is a different explanation for the one you gave for an action you carried out. Did you ever choose a longer path toward your destination and, in retrospect, justify it with some reason or another?
Sometimes the brain translates a decision into emotion by injecting chemicals, or through some other way. The brain causes the release of endorphin, which causes pleasure, as a way of increasing encouragement; it may cause the release of other, different, chemicals to produce disgust, fear and so on. This is how it pushes the appropriate reaction into consciousness, and the brain area responsible for consciousness invents the narrative appropriate to the feeling. The ability of consciousness to invent narratives, which seem to us to be the unchallenged truth, is also presented in trials which examined people with a split brain. When an image was shown to the left visual field (the left half of the picture was shown to both eyes) they invented a narrative to explain the image. The reason is that the image in the left visual field was processed by the right half of the brain, but in the absence of a fully functioning corpus-callosum, the information could not reach the speech center which in most people is in the left area of the brain.
The procedure examined by Libet is not typical of all decision-making. When a snap decision is called for, the consciousness understands this as gut feeling or intuition. When an even faster action is needed, the brain operates instinctively and bypasses consciousness completely.
Consciousness, however, is not an ornament that nature has given us. Remember that we already noted how, according to evolutionary theory, every trait has a function, otherwise it would not survive into the future generations?
Consciousness therefore also has a function, beyond creating narratives. Its purpose is to plan and decide in the long term. For this reason it uses both imagination and analytical capabilities. Sometimes it reaches a decision and forces the subconscious brain to cooperate. When a discrepancy occurs between the decision made by the subconscious brain and that of consciousness, we feel uncomfortable. In extreme cases, the brain will veto an action that the consciousness wishes to execute and causes that action’s cancellation or raises obstacles to seeing it through. People explain such experiences with reasons such as “I just couldn’t get my legs to move.”
Think about the way in which we, as humans, can set off into an imaginary future. Think about the human capability to consider results and consequences, weigh alternatives, plan in advance and invent technologies.
This ability to foresee is very helpful not only for the human but also other animals. Indeed we find animals such as lions or dolphins that plan a coordinated attack on their prey. No creature, however, apart from humans, has such a long-term planning capability. Frequently though, the subconscious takes control over consciousness and we experience an unexplained desire for something. In such cases, we simply say we couldn’t withstand the temptation, or as Oscar Wilde claimed, “I can resist everything but temptation”.
Still humans rely on logical decisions and do not succumb to temptations much more often than other species.
Apes do not excel at withstanding temptation. When a reward intended for the future, one forty times greater than an immediate reward was offered, chimpanzees managed to restrain themselves for no more than eight minutes, while gorillas held back for two.
This gives an edge to the human race over other species.
It should be noted that the brain never stops the process of evaluating data. After the decision is made and an action is taken, the brain stores all data for future use in similar conditions, enhances the patterns used or newly created, and traces the success of its decision to conclude whether such a decision was advisable.
The process used for the decision is learned and can be applied to reactions to different events. When success is repeatedly achieved, the brain can shift a decision-making process from the conscious to the unconscious or even to a reflex decision process.
There are no separate parts of the brain dealing with each kind of decision; rather the brain functions in a continuous way by using the same elements over and over again for economy and easy function. Just like many processes in nature.
The Mechanism of Memory
The amazing abilities of the human brain’s insight and wisdom are closely linked to our ability to remember. Many brain researchers have delved into seeking how memory works. There are many questions regarding memory functions: where it is positioned, what the brain decides to remember and, specifically, how memory functions. The mechanism of memory function is not yet fully understood but there is sufficient knowledge of how it influences our thinking.
Studies of the human brain are the most fascinating field of all but, despite extensive research, the brain remains a riddle in many ways.
The development of F-MRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machines allows the locating of electrical brain activity while the brain performs various tasks. Nonetheless, the concealed aspects are still far greater than the revealed; and our understanding of brain function and our knowledge of it, though expanding, remains minimal.
But to understand the other person, however important it is to know how exactly memory functions, it is more important to note that the brain discards chunks of memory, and implants other, erroneous, memories.
Anyone who knows something about how computers function is awed at the brain’s ability to recall events. For a computer to remember the same number of events that a man can remember in his lifetime, it needs huge memory banks to store those huge amounts of video clips, audio files and images, as well as other information such as the smells, emotions and thoughts which accompany each event. This would require a tremendous amount of memory storage, which would be difficult to compact into something as small as the human skull.
And this is not the only drawback. It would be difficult to retrieve the memory of an event as quickly as the brain does when all we have at our disposal is slow “hardware” that relies on chemical processes and neural pulses.
In DVD technology terms, we would need in the vicinity of 500,000 DVDs just for the images, taking into consideration that a good computer these days has memory storage equivalent to some 70 DVDs.
How is it, then, that our brain does not keep growing? In fact, the brain actually shrinks with age, even though it has to store more events each year.
The answer must be that the brain does not actually store the memory of events, but structures the display of each specific event each time anew, from the raw material using algorithms. We have discussed the amazing abilities of the brain to construct visualization by using minimal data bits from our senses. The same techniques with the same algorithms are used here when the brain reconstructs visualization from memories.
This mode of brain function also explains how we can experience dream events that seem as real as wakeful reality. In the case of dreams, the brain links to a narrative and builds the appropriate display just as it does when following sensory stimulation. Why it does so, and which narratives it chooses to build are not important issues for our objective of understanding the other person.
Memory structured in the human brain influences the individual’s behavior and thoughts. It is important to realize that memory is not a true copy of what occurred in reality, but rather a new structuring of images each time something from the past is remembered. Life experiences impact the content of the brain’s database, which is constantly updated with each event. This explains why, each time we reconstruct a memory, we may receive a different memory of the same event, based on the updated data bank.
Native Americans, on first seeing the Spanish ships far off at sea, had no data bank of memories to call on, never having seen such big ships before; therefore they simply ignored them, lacking the data with which to carry out a comparison. Only when the Shaman called their attention to these images, did his people take note.
The brain compares images of reality from the senses and compares them to existing images learned from previous experiences and events. Therefore it needs to process only the differences. If I meet a person after a separation of ten years, I shall most likely be able to identify that person despite changes in his appearance. I'll probably be able even to remember our shared experiences, and recollect details such as smells, sounds, and emotions relevant to that situation, even if I cannot recall every single detail. That shows how marvelous is this brain of ours.
Our brains are instruments of learning. They learn by focusing on specific points and/or experiences or events. The more time that passes without drawing on a particular memory, the deeper the images are buried in the archives of our life experiences and it is more difficult to remember.
To conclude: the clever methods are used by the brain to recollect allow long-term memory with relatively few resources involved, but they can also lead to the storage of incomplete and inaccurate memories.
The Mechanism of Mimicry
Mimicry is one of the more common mechanisms that nature uses to promote learning.
An infant learns to speak by imitating the sounds made by adults. The meaning of those words is learned later.
An artist learns painting techniques by copying famous works of art.
Mimicry is also an important talent from a social perspective. In Part 2 of this book, we will see how strong our need is to belong to a group. We imitate the behavior of others in our group partly to avoid controversy; hence they are more ready to receive us as a member of that group. In our world of labeling and branding, mimicry is the entry card into community. In a psychological study where the researcher imitated the actions of the researched subjects, the researcher’s opinions were more readily accepted than those of another researcher who purposely sought to be quite different from the group. Advertising to promote commercial brands uses our desire to be accepted by community; it urges us to mimic popular community icons and models, claiming that they use that particular brand.
Numerous psychological studies have proven that a significant part of human learning derives from mimicking others. This is, in fact, the most basic learning method among children from early infancy onward.
Learning begins with observing others, followed by copying their behavior. We then watch the response of others: if we get encouragement, then this behavior is reinforced; if not, it is avoided.
The stages in mimic learning are: first focusing attention on the subject, then retention, followed by the motivation to imitate, and finally translating what we have learned into actual behavior.
Learning through mimicking is explained well by Bandura in his Social Learning Theory. But there is more to mimicry than mere learning. In the process we express our need to belong and integrate into the groups in our environment.
Mimicry is strongly influenced by social motivation and social pressures applied by the group on the individual.
The human race excels in advanced cultures. Much of this is due to its talent for mimicry that plays a crucial part in the first stages of forming a group culture.
Learning through mimicry is easy because by copying a paradigm the brain does not have to develop reactions.
Research has shown that the brain releases dopamine - the pleasure chemical -- each time it identifies a pattern. This is why we enjoy Mozart, with its repeated and easily identified patterns.
Formal education is also based quite strongly on mimicking. Children mimic their parents and teachers. Many people with clearly-defined political worldviews are children of parents with the same worldviews. However, in our current Western culture where the connection between parents and children is less strong than in the past, children may find alternative models to emulate.
Parents and teachers try to educate their children through personal example to be good and to do well. The problem arises in the definition of “good.”
For parents in Thailand, “good” may be equated with being nice to other people For some extreme Muslim parents in ISIS, “good” may be killing whomever they see as the infidel.
In the Arab world it is good to honor the elderly whereas the elderly are more frequently scorned in Western civilization.
The desire to educate the younger generation is, in part, a subconscious desire to integrate the children into the community by ensuring that they acquire the values and habits of the community in which they are being raised. This is why Muslims feel threatened by the open channels of communication offered by Western technology. They fear that their children will emulate the models they see on TV or the Internet, rather than remain true to their own social norms.
Dictators understand the importance of education in consolidating their subjects under their regime.
MaoTseTung was involved in the education of the Chinese population to the point of obsession, which led to the famous Cultural Revolution.
Hitler established the Hitler-jugend, the youth movement for the same educational purpose.
In democratic communities we also find emphasis placed on education, and for the same reason: to integrate the young into the community by adopting its values and customs.
Summarizing, mimicry holds several diverse goals:
- Learning. Certain types of mimicry are for the sake of learning new skills. When that is the purpose of mimicry, people focus on their goals rather than on the behavior of the model. This is an individualistic learning method involving partial mimicry although, sometimes, there are children who, uncertain of their ability to complete a task, will mimic more precisely the actions of their role model.
- Cultural mimicry. People may mimic others for social reasons. They may mimic the behavior of others in their social group, especially if those others are figures of authority. This phenomenon can also be seen among children who copy the behavior of their kindergarten teacher. Social mimicry of this kind can also be a form of communication, in which the individual mimicking wishes to convey message: “I am worthy.” Occasionally, mimic is done unintentionally. We are all familiar with the phenomenon of a mother feeding her child, and simultaneously making the movements of eating with her mouth. We may be familiar with the sense of looking at someone in great pain and feeling pain ourselves. Two very common unconscious responses are yawning on seeing someone else yawn, and smiling in response to seeing someone smile at us.
- Integrated social and learning objectives. Mimicking can, in some cases, contain the dual purpose of learning and social acceptance. The best example is how we learn to behave in the group to which we belong. Infants and kindergarten-aged children tend to mimic the actions of adults in their environment rather than the actions of other children.
Thus, if we are to understand the other, it is worth our while understanding an individual’s sources of mimicry. The chances are high that a person will behave and think like the others in the group.
Misconceptions Inherent in the Brain
In previous sections, we showed how no one truly sees the real physical world.
This is not crucial in order to understand how the other person thinks and feels. It is more important to assess the picture of reality that the other person has in his mind. That picture does not have to be the picture that we have.
We are all structured, in fact, from the same “assembly line.” Consequently some people can intuitively decipher the minds of others and find out what makes them tick.
Artists such as Escher, or magicians, have found ways to deceive our vision while making use of the way in which the brain interprets the signals received through the eyes.
Composers found ways of creating musical pieces that arouse our emotions ranging from sadness to joy, from freezing horror to rhythmic dance. They do it simply by putting sounds in a certain order and rhythms to make the desired pattern. They intuitively understand how the brain reacts to the patterns of certain sounds to produce the chemicals that arouse the emotion.
Romantic movies repeatedly employ the winning formula that makes viewers shed tears, just as Hitchcock found the formula for creating tension and fear in his films.
Similarly, swindlers and marketing experts (both of which I regard as con artists), as well as specialist negotiators and politicians have all found how to manipulate human weaknesses to their advantage.
If you press “the right buttons” anyone will produce the desired reaction.
Even though people in diverse areas of interest, as noted above, have found ways of manipulating the brain, they are capable of doing it only in the narrow field of their own expertise.
Many humans lack an understanding of the human brain’s mechanisms, partly due to a lack of knowledge, and partly to a lack of awareness.
In most cases, lack of understanding is due to typical errors of assessment.
Primarily, these are:
- The illusion of equality.
- Focus on the individual, disregarding the influence of group culture.
- Acceptance of another group's narrative.
If we can avoid those pitfalls, other persons can be better understood.
The Illusion of Equality
A common error among those wishing to understand others is the premise based on a liberal interpretation of the principle formulated during the French Revolution: “All people are equal”, (even though in the French Revolution they meant ‘equality’ in the sense that all people deserve equal rights and obligations, not identity). Thus if all are identical, then the other person should feel and react just like them.
This mistake is common among liberals in the Western world; they feel that people with a different culture, given the same liberties and economic status, will behave just as they do. This mistake is also typical of other cultural groups as well. The Muslims are convinced that all people would share their feelings of submission to Allah, if they were be introduced to the principles of their faith.
For all of them, it is clear that their values and way of life are what all people should be aspiring to. If anyone has different aspirations, values and behaviors, he is simply mistaken or still needs to develop.
The Muslim scale of values differs from that of the liberals. Submission to God – which is the meaning of the word “Islam” -- and honor are at the top of the values, higher than the sanctity of life, and certainly far higher than the standard of living, both of which are at the top of the values of the liberal community. That is why each cultural group has difficulty in understanding the other.
Khomeini, the leader of Iran, acts on the same premise that all people are equally God’s creations, and therefore he cannot fathom why they are not all Muslim. To him, it is as clear as daylight that everyone should be a Shia Muslim and live by Sharia laws.
The lack of understanding on the part of leaders is noticeable because it carries danger; but we, the common people, also make the same error. Do men understand women for example in regard of the latter’s obsession over shoes?
Have you ever noticed that in social gatherings, men and women tend to form separate groups, with each group discussing different subjects?
We can observe that different people think and react differently although basically our brains operate in the same basic manner. To say that people are equal and therefore react similarly is simply a mistake deriving from wishful thinking rather than reality.
Using computers as an analogy, clearly a computer running graphic applications will show on its screen something very different from the screen of the computer running a word processor, even though both computers are similarly structured and function on the basis of identical principles.
Persuading oneself to believe that all people think and feel similarly leads to an erroneous assessment concerning the feelings and reactions of other people.
This premise must be avoided!
No two people are equal or, as Levinas put it, “The face of the other is always what I am not.”
Group's Culture
People have difficulty understanding abstract concepts. It is far easier to relate to a specific individual and identify with a specific example.
Thus, when attempting to understand the other, one relates more easily to personality traits, and tends to dismiss the role that a group trait plays in his behavior, groups being abstract entities.
TV news editors know this well, therefore they usually prefer to present the personal angle in the news stories. Events relating to a specific individual will usually be more interesting and easier to understand. General concepts are more difficult to assimilate for most people, and are therefore also perceived, generally, as boring.
The human brain has greater difficulty in displaying empathy for some undefined entity rather than for a specific known individual. Hundreds of refugees were drowned trying to reach Europe, but the narrative that tugged at everyone’s heartstrings and became a symbol of this mass migration, was that of one drowned infant’s body washed onto the shore.
It is a mistake to disregard the cultural community to which a person belongs since it influences that person’s thoughts and reactions. Abundant studies show that people modify their behavior when they are in a group. No in-depth study is needed to see how a person’s behavior changes when he is in a group. Look at the worshipers leaving the mosque on Friday mornings, shouting slogans as one voice. Observe football fans supporting their team with enthusiastic chants, or swearing at the referee with words they would never dream of using at home.
Occasionally the influence of the group is not limited only to the time in which the individual participates in the social activity but, more broadly, affects that person’s view of reality, opinions and actions in the long-term.
Understanding what the other sees and how the other may react, requires learning about the perceptions of reality and values of the group to which this other person belongs, and assessing the “herd impact” on the individual.
Infants tend to be egoistic because they are still struggling with life, and have no resources to share with others. Once they grow up a bit, they tend to show tribal tendencies as they wish to receive the patronage and protection of the group. They will obey the rules and customs to the letter. They wear the clothes of the tribe, speak and behave as expected in that specific group. These extreme behaviors tend to become modified in maturity.
Mature individuals are in part very personal, and the other part belongs to their cultural community.
Understanding the other optimally means learning about the nature of the communities to which the other person belongs, while simultaneously learning about the nature of the individual at the personal level, evaluating the degree of influence those groups have on the individual. It would be a mistake to try and understand the other person without learning about his community. It would be a mistake to study the behavior of ants without understanding the functioning of the nest as a whole. A single ant is just one element in an entire community of ants.
Accepting Narratives
The most dangerous error of all would be to accept unquestioningly the narrative of other cultural communities.
The purpose of a narrative is to solidify our cultural community and prevent other cultural communities from tempting us, as in the story of Odysseus, to leave their group and join the sweet tempting Sirens. Our cultural community covers our ears to prevent us from hearing the sweet singing of other cultural community's narratives, by pointing to the false facts in these narratives compared to our own. But this is done by other communities as well.
Those who are open to hear other narratives can, like the sailors in the story, lose their will to return to their own cultural community.
There are people accepting the narrative of the other to the point of merging into the other cultural community. It begins simply enough with a desire to learn about the other people’s way of life which is, in essence, vital to understanding the other person; or it may spring from a wish to be open, tolerant and accepting.
Learning about and/or accepting the other way of life, means lowering our own cultural defenses that distinguish us from other groups. Doing this admittedly allows for a better understanding of the other person, but it also carries the danger of adopting the beliefs and values of the other culture, by being exposed to the power of the narrative.
It is important to learn other narratives. But we have to keep in mind that narratives are meant to tempt people to join in.
If we become too intimate with the narrative of another culture, we may become caught up in the charms of that rival group, and may forget that there is no close link between narrative and reality as narratives are biased. We may forget that we belong to a different group, and that we should be heading for our homeland, rather than being tempted to join to some strange cultural island by following the voices of strangers singing, even though they have the sweet voices of the Sirens.
The tendency among Western liberals to contain the Muslim narrative in the name of multiculturalism may reduce the ability to survive in Western culture. Muslims have proven to be smart enough and very experienced at deceiving the others. Their culture allows deceiving when necessary to advance their cause – this is called 'Takiya'.
They push the right buttons and activate Western public opinion. They push the button of wretchedness, the button of openness and compassion; and they never hesitate to push the button of open hatred towards the Jews, hatred that has been with the Christian West for many long years.
The walls of Muslim culture are high enough to make it difficult for those imprisoned behind them to exchange their Muslim narrative for a Western one.
The Conscious Part of the Brain
The Study of the Human Soul
The greatest mystery that philosophers have tried to decipher for centuries is the mystery of the relationship between the physical world, the body, and consciousness, the soul.
Although, intuitively, the 'conscious self' is considered the entity that we know for sure to exist, we have to question this intuition; it seems that is what philosophers have failed to do.
Are we sure we understand why we have decide on one course of action and not on another? Are we sure that what we see, really exists?
Do we know why a joke brings a smile to our face, and why rhythmic music moves our feet to dance?
But first let us present two basic assumptions of nature and evolution theory:
- The first is the continuity of evolution. From the simple to the complex, from bacteria to humans, this continuity has been well established by biological researchers that have almost completed the missing links of the evolutionary tree.
- The second assumption is that simple creatures, those at the bottom level of complexity, have no mental consciousness.
If we assume that there is no mental capacity of molecules, and if we add the assumption of continuity from the simple DNA molecules to the complex human being, then we should ask how and at what stage, mental consciousness emerges?
We can attack these basic assumptions in the same way as I attacked the premises of the philosophers in the previous paragraph. But there are two differences between the nature of these premises and the premises of the philosophers.
The first difference is that instead of faith in intuition that cannot be proved, continuity can be demonstrated by an evolutionary tree. The ancient creatures were very simple and it is reasonable to assume that they did not possess any mental power. If mental particles are to be found in the future, one still needs to show the relationship between the function of the brain, mental thoughts and feelings. The existence of mental particles, if they exist, can not explain how we feel pain when hit by a hammer. In this case, the original philosophical difficult problem remains.
The second difference is that, in the end, the reasoning based on these assumptions, explains the difficult Mind-Body philosophical problem. If we have a simple way to explain a phenomenon, then convoluted explanations are not necessary.
It is as when we want to understand how the river channels meander, we can examine the chemical and physical effect of water molecules on soil molecules, to check the amount of erosion and direction of the water particles flowing.
This is similar to what neuro-scientists are trying to do when working on the painstaking study of synaptic functions.
A reasonable person assumes that water flows in the easiest way and checks to see whether there are obstacles causing the water to flow this way.
Similarly, we examine the obstacles forcing the evolution to find ways to circumvent them and determine the way human think.
Many people in the world, whether holding secular or religious views, intuitively believe that humans have a soul that is different from the physical body. All religions are based on the idea that a soul enters the physical body at birth, and is released by the body on death.
Humans hold a sense of self-perception, which can also be called the “mind” or “consciousness”. This is the closest that secular people get to believing in what others would call the mental aspect. The accepted view is that the mind, or our consciousness, distinguishes us from every other living creature, and certainly from the plant and inanimate worlds.
Exploring the mind is as ancient as humans themselves. Philosophers have grappled with this concept since the earliest times. Even if we do not believe the stories of paradise and hell, in some far recess of our minds we want to believe that, when we die, we do not simply cease to exist; and that some mental aspect of us will survive. That mental aspect carries different descriptive terms.
Soul – is the name for and used by religious people and poets.
Spirit – is the term used in horror stories.
Soul mate – is the name in romantic stories.
Conscious state – is the term used in the world of medicine.
Mind or consciousness – is the name among psychologists and philosophers.
No matter what it is called, is it scientifically possible to prove the existence of such an evasive entity? It is interesting that a subject so essential to human existence is not researched more by scientists, but left to philosophers, religious leaders and writers.
Is human unique?
Ecclesiastes 3:19
M
an, tree, and house are alike
an, tree, and house are alike
Is there any difference between humans and animals, or between animals, plants and the inanimate?
In the game “Human, animal, plant, object...” even children have no difficulty in providing answers that fit the correct categories, intuitively realizing that I am living but a plant is not; I can move but a stone cannot; I can feel but the animal cannot.
But is intuition always right? The human race has made plenty of mistakes in the past, based on intuition, such as the “fact” that the sun moves around the earth, and only Galileo’s persistence eventually proved that intuition wrong.
When we discuss that mental element that perhaps exists within our physical bodies, we need to be even more suspicious of what our intuition whispers in our ear. Our egoistic interest makes us think we are unique, and that something distinguishes us from the stones along the pathway. Are animals truly different from humans? For many people, this concept is so uncomfortable that monkeys are protected by legal rights in some countries.
Researchers have found that animals do indeed have a range of emotions. Crows, for example, have intelligence that enables them not only to use but even to make tools. They and many other creatures have cultural behavioral codes in a community. This indicates that there is no significant difference between humans and other creatures. In Peter Singer’s book entitled 'Animal Liberation' he claims that “all animals are equal,” which is also the title of the book’s first chapter. His book is like a Bible for animal rights activists.
For most people it is even more difficult to accept that there is no real difference between living creatures and plants. But this is not the case with botanists. In the book; “What A Plant Knows” Professor Daniel Chaimovich shows that plants have an abilities to discern; these abilities are similar to senses. They see, move, smell, and communicate with other plants, are sensitive to touch, and even feel pain. Worth watching is the lecture given by Professor Stefan Mancuso on plant intelligence: http://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_intelligence
Plant's revenge
I love meat.
Give me meat for breakfast, lunch and dinner and I'll be happy.
So what am I doing here in the greenhouse?
I wiped my forehead. It is hot, humid and stuffy in the greenhouse. It seemed to me that I am in a tropic land soon the noon raindrops will fall thick and warm.... Suddenly, as if they had heard my thoughts, the showers opened from above and fill the air with shards of hot water making it difficult to breathe.
I wanted to run away.
Too late!
Down the lane, my skinny wife appears. She walks on her matchstick legs, armed with a big smile of self-satisfaction, pleased she was able to overcome my resistance and bring me here. "Do not move. It'll stops in a minute." She said.
I blame Dr. Bezalel for this awkward situation. Is he really a doctor or a charlatan posing as a specialist?
Two months ago she went to his clinic, and became a devout vegetarian.
Bezalel diet method includes refraining from eating meat. Two onions and a tomato for breakfast, lettuce salad with green leaves from the incubator near his home, and fruit with yogurt for dinner. A strict diet under the supervision of the new diet guru.
My wife has a long history of moving from one guru to another. Everyone promises a weight loss of 20 pounds in two weeks, as if she is not thin enough. After two weeks, and then another two weeks, and another... She manages to lose 2 pounds in a mere two months. Only to gain it back within the few days' break between one Guru and the next.
Dr. Bezalel said she had to bring me along to his Institute: "Diet is not about food alone. It is a way of life; it is an effort the whole family should do together."
Yeah right! He earns more if the whole family comes to the Institute.
My wife complies. She was rocking me every day, accusing that she cannot successfully lose weight because of me: "Come just for one day and you will fall in love with this way of life."
I gave in. Who can endure the pain and the tears of a woman who cannot get into clothes two sizes too small?
Now I'm going to sweat greenhouse, urged by my wife to pick tomatoes, pull some carrots, pick a cucumber, and cut them all into salad. "Are you not hungry? Don't you like to eat a juicy, nutritious salad? "
Yes, I'm hungry, and I feel like eating a nutritious juicy steak.
"No, I'm not hungry." I said.
"You skipped breakfast. Here you'll get a delicious salad." She said and started to pull, pluck vegetables in the greenhouse.
In the greenhouse's sweaty silence, whispers and moans were heard, which soon formed words of despair and pain.
I looked around to see who it was. I saw nobody; we were alone in the greenhouse.
My wife has become tired and sat down to rest on the edge of the center well, under the dense bush. She looks with satisfaction at a variety of vegetables and leaves piled at her feet: "Well here we are, I am tired. I'll rest a little before, pulling a few carrots, and I'll cut a few leaves for decoration."
She leaned back, sinking into the soft branches, and closes her eyes.
Sure she was tired after walking 5 miles obeying the commandments Dr. Bezalel, when in her stomach were only a few leaves of the lettuce she had eaten for breakfast.
I stood there, looking with disgust at the pile of plants slaughtered, wiping sweat off my brow, wondering how I got married to a girl with such obsessions.
Now the whispers could be heard more clearly: "Here is the cruel uprooter, who cuts off our lives at their peak!"
And before my amazed eyes, the branches closed around her, pulling my wife into the well.
Yoram Har-Lev
|
Now we can move forward and ask how the inanimate is different from animals and plants? Scientists still have not successfully created life in the laboratory but are very close to doing so. The researcher, Stanley Miller, has already shown the possibility of lab work creating the molecules that comprise the basis of life. Within a closed setup of pipes and test tubes, Miller prepared a mixture that imitates our ancient chemical soup. He electrically charged the mixture as though it had been struck by lightning, and heated it to the level of a volcanic eruption. In short, he formed an ancient world in a bottle. Surprisingly, in the paste that was formed, amino acids, nucleotides and sugars could be found, the same components that form life, which are the building blocks of DNA and of enzymes that activate our bodies.
It is for a good reason that scientists and philosophers alike have difficulty in defining life. There is no definition that clearly differentiates the animate from the inanimate: perhaps because there is no real difference. There is a continuum of development in the atoms comprising the molecules which, under certain conditions, link with other molecules to create what is considered the foundation of life. They also know how to replicate themselves; in other words, to propagate.
While the process is not yet completely clear to scientists, there is no reason why scientists cannot create life in the laboratory. Of course the issue of economics would come into play since it is simpler and more pleasurable to create life in the conventional, tried and true methods.
But the difference between animate and inanimate objects is also blurred in other ways:
Crystals will multiply in a saturated solution. Does that mean they are alive?
Viruses and seeds can become dormant when environmental conditions do not allow development, and will reawaken when those conditions alter. Does that mean they are animate or inanimate?
What about the DNA molecule? It is inanimate but it can multiply and its offspring inherit its traits; does it live? The seed is inanimate as well but can produce life when provided with the proper conditions.
Numerous traits attributed to life can be found in a system that practically everyone would mark as inanimate, such as a village that develops over time into a metropolis. If there is no difference in principle between humans, animals, plants and inanimate objects, perhaps the researchers, Arthur Tansley and George R. Price, are right when they claim that we are nothing more than sophisticated machines equipped with organic computers.
Death occurs when a critical part of this machine is broken beyond repair (depending on today's medical knowledge). In addition there is a self-destruct mechanism that limits the number of cells reproducing.
Their view has been proven in many studies. Nonetheless, those supporting this claim must still explain the nature of consciousness, and what we sense as the mental phenomenon. They need to explain the following points:
Can a machine feel love, this very same emotion about which generations of poets have sung?
What are the emotions of envy, loathing, and others, which writers describe so well?
How can a machine become depressed and pay a fortune to psychiatrists for ridding them of the depression?
Do not all the above attest to the existence of a mental element in addition to the physical body, as claimed by philosophers from the dualism school?
Scientists respond that emotions are primarily chemical media which the brain, or what is called the subconscious, uses to drive other parts of the brain responsible primarily for planning future actions as part of our need to ensure survival. So who is right?
In contrast to those who believe in the soul, and those who believe in some other mental essence such as consciousness or mind, arguments can be offered that endorse the view that a mental entity exists separate from the physical body.
Studies have shown that it is possible to cause confusion in the human mind through chemical substances such as drugs, through electrical pulses, and hypnotic suggestions. The question that needs to be asked, then, is how can a non-physical entity, such as a mind or consciousness, be influenced by physical materials such as chemicals? Other studies have shown that those same traits attributed to the mental in humans also exist in animals. Does this mean that animals have consciousness or a soul? Perhaps they have a partial consciousness? How do the findings of these studies balance against the beliefs of religious streams which claim that humans are indeed of a higher level than
animals?
Philosophical Approaches
We are not conscious of our brain’s activities, except those that exist in our mind. Thus we assume intuitively that the consciousness is who we are. The philosopher, René Descartes, expressed it in his famous claim: “I think therefore I am”. Although he meant this as a bare proof of the one thing he could be sure of, many take it for granted as a proof of the existence of their consciousness that is their own being.
There are not many philosophers who doubt the very existence of consciousness that is the mental 'me', relying on our intuitive 'inner sense’ and 'privileged access' to the mind.
But is intuition reliable?
There are a few philosophers who began to doubt it. The philosopher, Gilbert Ryle, argues that we learn about our own minds, not by inner sense, but by observing our own behavior. Therefore we have no direct knowledge or proof of the existence of consciousness.
In their research, Gary Klein and Daniel Kahneman discovered that intuition is no more than the fast retrieval of past memories regarding the solutions to the problem at hand.
In other words, intuition is nothing but the sum of the experience accumulated in our lives plus that experience of our ancestors engraved in our genes.
Intuition is not really a feeling although we feel it in our guts. It is just a ready-made paradigm based on experience which the brain draws on whenever it has to make a quick decision.
When asked, experts on any subject can give an 'intuitive' answer engraved in their brain by study and experience. This is an automatic response, something between a conscious decision based on logic and the operation of an unconscious reflexive response.
It is a fact that many intuitive ideas were proven wrong when we learned how things really work. Flashes of lightning are not really arrows fired from the bow of Zeus. Gods do not really shower rain in answer to our prayers.
Thus, in my opinion, intuition is a very bad adviser, especially on such an intimate subject as the essence of our self.
Recent scientific research has shown that most of the activities we associate with mental consciousness are actually carried out in our subconscious mind, hidden from consciousness. These activities include many of our thought processes, and a large number of the decisions we make.
We also know that visions and feelings can be produced by chemical substances such as drugs) which circumvent our senses.
All these add up to the conclusion that the phenomena we tend to think of as our mental consciousness are really produced outside the conscious mind, if there is one.
That said, it leave us with two options:
One option is that part of our 'self' is hidden in our subconscious rather than in our consciousness. Or alternatively, accepting that at least some of the phenomena we associate with consciousness -- such as cognition and emotions -- are not what characterizes our consciousness. This contradicts the intuition that emotions are the essence of our “mental self”.
The second possibility is that the existence of our “mental self” is nothing but a graphic visualization that our brain generates. Hence what we think of as the conscious mind is nothing but a part of the entire physical organic computer we call a brain. I know that this is a very difficult concept to comprehend. It will be discussed later in further detail.
Logic is an algorithm acting much like computer software algorithms. Imagination is not different from the existing visualization algorithms used in computer graphics software. Emotions could be another form of data illustration. Until now, there was no need to use such visualization algorithms in computer software.
Many studies reinforce the latter alternative rather the first intuitive option.
On this subject, philosophers can be divided into three main points of view.
One, which claims we are nothing but material, without any other substance, is known by several terminologies: materialism, physical-ism. The predominant philosopher holding this view is Spinoza. This approach is supported by many scientists and researchers.
A second approach is that of dualism. This term describes the concept of the existence of a mental entity such as the mind, alongside the physical entity of the body.
A third group believes that there is no body at all, nor is there a world around us and everything we see and sense is the outcome of our imagination. Everything is mind. This group is known as idealists. Intuitively, this claim sounds no less unfounded as that which claims we have no mind. How can a claim possibly be made that we lack a body? Can we not touch and feel our body?
Before we refute any claim outright, it is worth remembering that even when we dream, we seem to be in a real world. And don’t we dream all the time? Scientific research shows that we do not see reality as it is, but imagine it according to what our brains have structured and presented as reality (see previous sections). Different brains present different realities.
As odd as it sounds, our technological community is striding toward the world of the idealist philosophers, a world in which the individual does not see reality; rather he sees life through the smart phone he is holding; in other words, a virtual world, since our real life interaction with other people is becoming increasingly rare. There is less importance to real people, and what has become important is the image which they project to us, and we in turn project back. Technology changes the way in which we see reality. Technology isolates us, positions us behind glass screens which alter reality, and enables the use of Photo-shop to further enhance or otherwise alter what we see, the shape of female models in particular.
But we are not yet in a totally virtual world. The global village, which seemingly unites all humanity but actually isolates us from reality, is just one current and exciting direction that may yet be diverted by a wave of technological culture that will carry us in a very different direction. Basically, though, reality does exist and it will find a way to penetrate the glass screen.
To understand the other person, which is the purpose of my discussion in this book, there is no need to discuss the philosophical stream that claims there are no other persons around. That leaves us focusing on two streams and having to decide between them: are we machines without a soul but with a mental consciousness, as the materialists claim, as do many scientists involved in brain research. Or is there something more to us, as claimed by the dualism philosophers and our own intuition?
In the next passages I intend to propose a theory that explains the possibility that what we experience as consciousness is nothing more than a trick of the brain to make good decisions and there is no mental part in the consciousness, any more than there is a mental part in computer software. But this thought – which is difficult to swallow -- will be discussed later in detail.
Let us look at this from the angle of evolution of living things. We see a continuum of life, beginning with single-celled creatures, such as viruses, which are somewhere between the living and the inanimate crystals; we continue to more complex single-celled beings such as bacteria, and on to increasingly complex beings. If a soul exists, the question, then, is: at what evolutionary stage did it enter living beings? Does a virus have a soul? Does a wolf? Or do only humans have souls?
Dualist philosophers also need to address questions such as: How does the soul enter the body? Where does it reside? What happens to it on death? For people who believe in the divine, creationists who do not believe in evolution, the answer is simple: “God gives humans a soul” and takes it back when the person dies, storing it either in Paradise or in Hell depending on the individual’s behavior. In the Far East, there is a strong belief in reincarnation. Very few souls actually achieve nirvana, a type of paradisiacal state. The remaining souls return to other bodies for another cycle of life.
I have neither the interest nor the ability to argue with beliefs using rational claims. My interest is more in secularists who are proud of their views, based on reason, and have answers to these questions. Anyone who thinks that life developed through evolution, from simple to complex, must cope with these questions. No one would claim that a bacterium has a mind but anyone who has ever owned a dog will testify that dogs definitely have many traits such as feelings, loyalty, and intelligence which we attribute to consciousness.
Where do we draw the line between a living creature with consciousness and one without? Are people who fight for animal rights correct in their views? They are currently fighting primarily to avoid killing animals that we use as food, but will they fight tomorrow for the rights of worms, and the day after that for the rights of germs?
The answers offered by monist philosophers and an increasing number of scientists is that humans, like any other form of life, are physical bodies alone, which exempts us from determining the evolutionary stage at which the soul enters the body simply because there is no soul.
Scientists use research to support their claims that emotions are not really “the mirror of the soul” but chemical manipulations of the subconscious, which is primarily in the brain, activating another area of the brain that they call consciousness which, in turn, drives us to implement what needs to be done. If the human brain makes use of such manipulations, why do the brains of other animals not do the same?
A branch of psychological evolution called the “Theory of Mind” (TOM), investigates the understanding that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own. Another field of research called “Social Neuroscience” deals with emotions in the context of interaction with others in the community. According to these theories, emotions are not merely the brain’s manipulation of the consciousness, but are also the human’s manipulation of the other. Thus, scientists finally reached conclusions that have been clear to poets and writers since very early times.
Believers in the soul think that human thought and action is dictated by this soul, which entered it through reincarnation, according to Far Eastern beliefs, or, according to other beliefs, by divine intervention at the time of birth. If they are right, it will be difficult to understand the thoughts and reactions of the other, as who can understand a soul?
People who believe in souls therefore often resolve the need to understand behavior with countering remarks such as “black soul” for wicked folk, and “pure soul” for those of their own group. Usually people with these views do not bother to understand the other. There is little point in predicting reactions by something as divine and incomprehensible as a soul.
I am aware that the soul and the spirit are emotionally charged terms, linked with faith among many people, sometimes even among those who do not define themselves as religious. The claim that we do not have a soul hurts our pride as humans, who wish to be superior to those of the animal, plant and inanimate kingdoms. Consciousness is a term that serves to describe that aspect among secular individuals who also believe that they are superior creatures, different from all others. In this sense, consciousness is a mental entity of awareness; only the human race is blessed by it. But there is no proof that consciousness exists, other than human intuition, which claims that it does.
We have already seen that intuition is not always right: remember, some time ago human intuition maintained that the sun revolved around the earth. In my view, intuition can be considered a kind of storage by the brain of experience and assessments rather than some kind of mysterious conscious entity. Many studies support this view, but for intelligent readers, no research is needed. Have we not found, from personal experience, that in every field in which we have accrued knowledge and experience, we can offer better intuitive responses than people without the same degree of experience? Intuition holds a place of importance and cumulative experience should not be belittled, but we must not rely wholly on intuition to determine between various worldviews, nor should we rely on the intuition of others.
An important question explored by philosophers is whether we are actually only describing the way in which we perceive the world around us, or the world per se? This, too, is linked to the issue of whether reality is a true situation in which we live, and which we can study, or whether it is our limited means for perceiving and defining the extant, which is not a real world. The German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, dealt with the issues of existence in his book “Time and Being.” Heidegger was actually exploring the existence of consciousness, and claimed that, in three ways, the being of humans is essentially different from that of objects:
- Human existence is in a state of constant movement.
- Human existence “knows itself.”
- The human “knows” that he is in the world.
These three aspects are advantages concerning what a person knows of himself, compared to what the same person knows of the other. Heidegger suggested a response to the question of “What is the entity?” by exploring human existence.
Beyond these philosophical sophistries, Heidegger touched on the problem of the brain acknowledging reality (or, Man, in his formulation) even without the knowledge currently available on brain research.
What is more important for us is that he touched on the problem of understanding the other.
An individual “knows” what is happening in his own life, which is his advantage over the other. But this is simultaneously a disadvantage, since that same person cannot know what is happening in the brain of the other. Similarly, the other has no idea what is happening in the brain of the first person. As far as understanding per se, things are even worse. We saw that the human brain is constructed to presume what reality is, not taking a picture of it. Nor does the individual know what is happening in his brain, since more is concealed from consciousness than is revealed. Should the view that says, “This question and others like it have answers, but we don’t know them yet” not be given a fighting chance?
Philosophers are considered clever people, and no small number of them supports the concept of the existence of consciousness but to what degree can a fellow human’s conclusions be relied on, no matter how wise that person is, if the conclusions are not based on facts found in recent research on the brain?
A philosopher from ancient times who did not understand how lightning works might have concluded that Zeus was angry because mighty flashes of lightning, of blinding light, crossed the skies. Could this not be the arrow from some god?
In the same way, scientists, those modern rebels, might conclude from the Big Bang theory that a god caused it. But the same degree of respect should also be given to the view that a scientific explanation exists for this theory even though we still do not know what it is. What would they say if an answer were found to questions that have no seemingly logical conclusion? What if people who believe in gods and frequently ask “Okay, but what was before that? Who caused the initial phenomenon?” were provided with an answer at some
future point, explaining the Big Bang, and humanity would understand better the issue of cause and effect; and what came first, an issue already alluded to in quantum theory.
Countering the beliefs in consciousness, strong claims can be made in favor of the view that supports the existence of consciousness as an entity separate from the physical body. As already noted, studies have shown that it is possible to sow confusion in the human mind through chemical substances such as drugs as well as electrical pulses and hypnotic suggestions. The question, as also noted, is how a non-physical entity, such as consciousness, can be affected by physical materials such as chemicals?
Science fiction writers and new age philosophers discuss whether computers may receive consciousness at some point. My answer is clear. If consciousness is not disconnected from the physical body, and the sense of consciousness is not tangible but is, rather, a manipulation of the brain, then this question does not exist. Computers cannot just wake up and become conscious. A computer can be programmed with reactions that appear as emotions. In such a case, can we say that the computer has a soul?
Another question, linked to the above, is whether we actually decide for ourselves. Science fiction presents the image of a possible mode of human existence where computers with a mind decide for themselves and eventually take control of humans. This option is actually very logical. It is the result of computer programs that operate independently at all three levels typical of humans: data collection, deduction, taking appropriate action based on a hierarchic scale of laws embedded into the program.
If computers are indeed to be programmed that way, then silicon-based computers that operate a thousand times faster than the human brain and have no storage limit, will indeed overcome humans. Currently they are only less refined than the human brain in parallel performance evaluations and sophisticated algorithms.
When computer techniques become more refined and reach the capacity of a human brain in these areas too, computers could easily control humans… on condition, of course, that they are programmed to do so. At present, computers collect data independently, deduce, and take appropriate action, but only in very clearly defined areas of activity.
Some computers are also able to learn: in other words, they can program themselves, much as the human brain learns. In fact, all the components are already there. There have even been computer accidents when bad programs caused a loss of control. The international Stock Exchange crashes are one example, where automated reactions by computers operating too speedily bought and sold shares.
So, yes, we can program computers to appear to have a mind, feelings, and the ability to learn and even create. There are already computers able to produce original artwork which museums and galleries display. Computers, then, possess the features that we equate with “mind.”
Nonetheless, we know that a computer is not a living creature and does not have a soul.
Why is it not possible for humans to be merely another kind of machine, highly refined over millions of years of evolution? As we have already seen, serious doubts have accrued over there being no consciousness. Moreover, we must always remember our own tendency to attribute the matters that we do not understand to the category of the intangible. Perhaps that is why gods were invented, serving human needs alongside the mind.
The functioning of the human brain is one of the wonders which we still do not fully comprehend, and therefore explains our tendency to attribute the aspect of intangibility to it, by claiming that it involves consciousness. However, brain research has advanced a great deal in recent years and we understand far more and have explanations for increasing numbers of behaviors which, in the past, were considered reactions of the mind.
People tend to say “I feel anger/love/fear… therefore I clearly have consciousness.” We have already seen, however, that what we feel, see and smell are just products of the brain. What we see does more or less match reality, which can be sensed, but there is still no real connection with reality. Sometimes, what we see can be just a dream. Sights and emotions are just the way in which our central computer, that is, our subconscious, connects and activates that part of the brain responsible for long-term planning. The part of the brain that we mistakenly call mind or consciousness looks at the monitor on which images and feelings are displayed, and operates according to the data it sees.
Subjective experiences such as fear, anger or pain are like images or aromas. They are just forms of communication between the subconscious and the conscious mind, both of which are parts of the brain. Perhaps there is no need for the feeling of pain in order to activate the fight-or-flight response, but it is needed to plan how to avoid pain in the future. Perhaps there is no need for anger in order to attack an opponent but the memory of anger will guide us on how to behave with that opponent in the future, and perhaps alleviate the fear of fighting a strong opponent.
If, as explained, the consciousness is not a separate entity and is only a part of the brain, and if it is possible to transfer the brain to a computer, as suggested by Raymond Kurzweil in his book, “The Age of Intelligent Machines,” would that same computer be said to have a mind? That would depend on what we define as mind or consciousness.
Computers can plan and calculate stages in advance. Remember “Deep Blue,” the computer that beat the world chess champion? It can also be programmed to recognize itself. But will it have feelings? Will it use imagination? The computer has no need of such traits in order to execute its tasks. Reactions can, of course, be programmed into it that emulate emotions, but it has no need for emotion to force one part of itself to execute decisions from its central part: it has direct pathways for doing that. It has no need of imagination. It can rely on algorithms for planning. Silicon computers operate differently from humans, who function as organic computers.
Perhaps it will be possible to build a replica of an organic computer, that is, a brain, but it is simpler to create another human in the old co-productive manner between man and woman. It is also a more economical method; in fact some say that there is even an advantage in it over the production of humans. The economical method may also ensure an improved ability in humans, as Kurzweil suggests.
We are Machines
As you have seen, serious doubts accumulate against there being a mental entity alongside the body. We must always keep in mind our tendency to attribute matters that we do not understand to the category of the intangible. Perhaps that’s why gods were invented. Perhaps that’s why the soul was also invented. Since brain function is one of the wonders that is not yet fully understood, our tendency has been to attribute the intangible to it in the form of consciousness or soul. However, brain studies have advanced greatly and we find a growing number of explanations for reactions previously not understood and now deemed mental.
The discourse on the essence of consciousness serves as the basis for the claim that humans are mere machines with comprehensible actions; or at least, it is possible to learn which buttons to press in order to receive the desired reaction.
You may justifiably ask why I am dealing with the issue of the existence of consciousness in a book seeking to explore how to understand the other. My answer is that we must understand what consciousness or the mind is if we are to understand how the other thinks and operates. But if consciousness is nothing but a part of the brain, then it is important to understand the entire brain, and not just part of it, if we wish to understand how the other feels and reacts. Whether you believe in mind or soul, and in a God who breathed it into the human body, you can check whether the way that thinking mechanisms in the human brain allow deeper understanding of the other. We cannot understand the mystery of how the other feels and acts without understanding the mechanisms activating the brain, which produces those thoughts and reactions. If a soul existed, who could begin to understand the thoughts of something as divine and intangible as the human spirit?
Thus we will now take our next step forward based on the premise that we are nothing but sophisticated machines equipped with an organic computer.
It is not too pleasant to discover that, is it? We’ve been accustomed to thinking that we are superior creatures with consciousness, almost gods. If we are thinking machines, we have the ability to understand how this sophisticated machine functions and to assess how it might react if we press specific buttons.
Personally, it scares me to see people who know how to press those specific buttons in order to produce the reaction they wish, whether it is the preacher in the mosque, the smart marketer or Western advertising agencies.
I realize that the idea of us being thinking machines is difficult to swallow.
One can reason that if we are just machines, there is no point in life.
That is not the case!
I recommend you to use your ability to suppress selectively to enable you to enjoy good music, to be excited by a pretty painting, laugh when watching a witty passage in a film, and let the hormones of love rush through you, as you hug the people you love.
The fact that we are machines does not have to keep us from enjoying life, rather to improve them by understanding how our brain and that of the other operates.
What is Consciousness?
Let us start from the beginning.
The initial evolutionary justification for the existence of the brain is to control our organs.
The brain has no central control center; rather it is more like the internet.
In the early stages of evolution, the brain had control only over the internal organs that were vital for the existence of the primitive creatures but as soon as sensory organs evolved, the brain used this information to direct the body as well.
Hence the brain has evolved to be what it is today.
Is the existence of mental consciousness separate from the physical brain really necessary?
Consciousness is usually defined as the way in which we experience things:
- We experience the physical world as it is reflected through our senses.
- We experience feelings and emotions.
- And, above all, we can think.
It is obvious that we experience all these, and yet I claim that consciousness is just a graphic display.
Let us investigate those experiences.
What we 'see' in our Mind
Once primitive life could distinguish between light and shade, its control center developed into a brain using algorithms that triggered the body to approach or to hide from the light in an effort to avoid danger or to find food. When the sense organs evolved further, even more sophisticated algorithms were devised enabling the brain to assess the direction and speed of the movement of shadows seen by the primitive eyes, and to draw the right conclusions.
The eyes translate the light reflected from objects into electrical signals. These signals pass through the nerves into the brain. Similarly our ears translate sound waves into electrical signals, and so do all our sensory organs. The brain has information only in the form of electrical bits.
Therefore it is clear that what we 'see' is just a graphic representation that our brain generates.
The large investment in brain resources to display 'graphics' was justified by the desperate need to act quickly despite the slow organic brain computation. I use the term 'graphic' in a loose way in an effort to indicate the images we 'see', 'hear' and so forth.
Our brain can understand images by comparison with already-known images (or patterns), more easily than trying to make sense of a sequence of bits in our synapses.
It is much more difficult to decide whether a shadow is a "friend or foe” using electrical pulses, rather than examining the graphic patterns of those pulses. You can try it yourself. Try to compare the percentage of various sectors of voters just by looking at the numbers. Then look at the relevant pie chart. Which is easier to understand?
In the previous sectors, we discussed how the brain uses patterns to find a quick match to the new information from the senses. Here is the exact same mechanism. The only difference is that the brain creates 'pie charts' when faced with new and difficult situations.
When the same situation is well known, the brain can make decisions without that graphic aid and we do not 'see' the images. That is why we do things automatically.
Our brain uses graphical presentations only when we face unknown situations. In this case the brain has to calculate the decisions needed. A decision for the same situation encountered many times in the past, as in the case of experts, is made automatically without the graphical presentation in our subconscious. Thus the difference between a conscious behavior and an unconscious one for the same situation is the graphic representation. Graphic representation is necessary for a quick calculation in the first case, and not needed when practice and learning have engraved the right decisions in our brains' data base.
When an acrobat first learns to walk along a rope, he must see the rope to know where to put his next step. A veteran acrobat walks the rope without the need to look at the rope.
Another example concerning our daily life experience is the following: When we drive along an unknown road, we pay full conscious attention and 'see' the road but when we drive along our well known route home, we drive automatically without really seeing the road.
One has to ask; if visualization of the road vanishes from our conscience, is it not proof that these visualizations are graphic representations, only for the sake of making fast decisions by comparing them to known patterns?
For new situations, the brain algorithms show what the philosophers like to call a "Cartesian theater" - the picture of physical reality created by the combination of information gathered from all the senses with the additional help of the brain's data base. This presentation is not made for some obscure entity called consciousness, but rather for other brain zones responsible for making decisions and reactions. One can call these brain areas – "consciousness" but it is not what the philosophers mean by the term “mental consciousness”.
There is no problem of time synchronization of information in-pouring from various sources. The presentation is made only later by other algorithms.
Feelings and Emotions
Now we should explain the nature and role of feelings and emotions, as philosophers tend to present them as a major argument in favor of mental consciousness.
Feelings and emotions are not intended to aid quick decisions; rather, sometimes, our feelings even contradict our logical decisions.
Emotions are designed to obscure and distort visualization and defy logic, changing decisions made in the brain.
But, still, this is only visualization, even if distorted.
Love, for example, causes one to turn a blind eye, to ignore the faults of the beloved.
Patriotic feelings make us sacrifice ourselves for the benefit of our community, ignoring the logic of self-preservation.
The empathy of a new doctor to his patients' suffering disappears when the doctor is more experienced. This phenomenon shows that here, too, feelings are only graphic representations that disappear whenever they are not needed.
This can be partly explained by the brain defending the doctor's mental health but apparently it is again a balance between the need to encourage the physician to act, and not burden him too much to be able to function automatically when this representation of feelings is not needed.
A new teacher feels very excited in his first class, but feels no excitement when this is no longer a new experience. Again it indicates that this feeling is only a graphic representation that the teacher is aware of only when needed.
Here too, we have the same phenomenon of feelings that vanish from our conscience whenever we are faced with a well known one. It proves that feelings are graphic representations too, and not some mysterious mental phenomenon.
Thoughts
Still, we have to explain the process of thinking. Thinking processes are the strongest arguments for consciousness.
To do this, one should analyze what we really do when we "think".
Usually when we think, we "imagine" possible courses of action or chains of events, either visually or verbally, in order to activate the desired response or decision.
To do this, we use the same algorithms created originally for presenting the physical reality as seen by our senses. The use of mechanisms evolved to solve a problem is a very common and efficient way in which the evolution acts.
Then we apply an algorithm of logic to decide on which course is best for us.
Thus thinking is a visualization process as well, combined with logic algorithms.
While a new chess player has to invest careful thought into every move he is going to make, the expert chess champion playing with him uses intuition and answers in swift moves, not consciously aware of the reasoning for his moves. Here, too, is another affirmation of the conscious thoughts as a graphic representation that is not needed when the brain is familiar with the situation.
To conclude:
Philosophers doubt everything except their intuitive belief in the existence of conscious awareness. It is amazing to watch their faith in what intuition tells as intuition has been proven wrong many times (no one believes now that the sun revolves around the earth). In the case of our consciousness, we have to be even more suspicious because of the known deceptive nature of our subconscious. We tend to believe that we are better and in command -- which is not the case.
The phenomenon of a conscious effort (in all the ways in which consciousness is usually defined: the image of reality, feelings, and thoughts), turning into a lack of awareness, strengthens the thesis that there is no consciousness as the philosophers define. These are just visualizations algorithms, intended to make quick decisions by inspecting meaningful patterns. Visualization is not mental consciousness.
The Role of Feelings
Feelings have two main functions:
- Individual related functions
- Community integration functions
Individual related functions.
The brain activates the production of hormones that affect the internal organs, such as streaming adrenalin and accelerating pulse rates, in situations of distress and anxiety situations. We are aware of those changes and interpret them as feelings.
The reason for our awareness of feeling is perhaps to better engrave this situation for future use. When we are afraid of something the recollection of that feeling will make us more cautious if we are to face that situation again and that recollection will pump the same hormones again.
Community Integration Functions
Some logical decisions benefit the individual but are anti-social. Emotions help suppress such decisions in favor of integrating into the community. Charging an assault on the enemy higher up the hill, despite the obvious logical decision to stay in the trenches, is one example of this mechanism. Moral code feelings, (or cultural codes) prevent us from taking something belonging to someone else or, in other words, stealing. This is one example; others include feelings of friendship, solidarity and love. Some of the feelings act upon our inner organs and produce communicating phenomena. The emotion of love, for example, causes the expansion of blood vessels and produces blushing for the other to see. The same goes for the dilation of our pupils to signal empathy to our loved ones.
“Mind and Body” Dilemma
“A theory is the more impressive, the greater the simplicity of its premises” - Albert Einstein.
Philosophers pondered on the mind-body dilemma problems for centuries without reaching any plausible explanation to this question.
It is remarkable that the philosophers are skeptical about everything except the question of our awareness. René Descartes based his philosophy on what he thought as an unquestionable fact that he could think. In other words; he was aware of his thoughts. Thus he took his awareness for granted.
Can we really base our awareness on itself?
In the following paragraphs the concept of awareness will be questioned.
The thesis presented in this article does not take the existence of mental consciousness for granted. True, we think, feel and visualize images. But this does not prove the existence of a mental entity. These images can be the product of chemical activity affecting the functioning of the cells in our brain.
We can watch graphic representations such as our visual images on the screen of a computer, showing the results of calculations of the software.
It is possible to assume that the images that appear in our mind are illustrative of calculations of the brain, just like the pictures on the computer screen. This assumption is supported by the following observations:
- We know that we do not 'see' the physical reality, but rather the processing of information coming in through our senses in the form of electro/chemical bits.
- Our ability to learn is not unique. There are already computer programs that know how to learn and improve themselves. In the same way, our creative abilities are not unique either. There is software capable of creating paintings good enough to be displayed in a museum, and composing music good enough to play in concerts. All those wonderful achievements are done with no mental consciousness in the computer.
I do not rule out the notion that there is something beyond the physical world, of which we still do not know enough; and maybe we will never know. But it seems to me that the evidence supporting the view that we possess mental consciousness is much weaker than that supporting the opposite view.
Libet's research has shown that at least some decisions we make are made by our subconscious. Still, we are fully convinced that we consciously made those decisions, even if we are aware that the experimenter knows before we do which decision we will take, proving that the decision was made without our conscious knowledge.
There are also several other studies proving the existence of these phenomena of false stories that the mind tells with inner conviction, explaining what it perceives as being the truth.
This phenomenon can be the basis to doubt that the rest of our mental experiences are nothing but such false tales.
On one hand, we have experimental evidence that the origins of what we were accustomed to think of as "mental abilities" are the subconscious. On the other hand, no one can show any proof for the existence of any mental soul.
My thesis argues that what we experience as the "first person" mental consciousness is nothing but the manipulation of our unconscious brain graphics. The reason for this is that our brain is more comfortable with graphics than with crunching data, because graphics is easier to understand. This makes sense, as we already know that most of data crunching in our brain are created with the help of known patterns engraved in our data base.
To conclude - The arguments for this thesis are based on the following:
- If the source of the symptoms resides in the hidden part of the brain, we cannot associate them with consciousness.
- There is no reason for the evolution of mental consciousness. In fact, some people maintain that cockroaches will survive longer than we will.
- Computers follow the same characteristic operations which we attribute to consciousness without having mental consciousness.
- But most important – this thesis solves all problems of body-mind in an easy and elegant way.
We have only to conclude that we are all just organic machines – and there is no soul involved.
Now, if we are machines and not some mysterious beings made of clay and soul by a divine entity, the problem of understanding seems solvable. Machines, we can understand!
Here is a happy thought: If we are machines, then it is possible that we can live forever, like those antique cars still on the streets, their proud collectors driving them in a parade. All it takes is maintenance.
The Function of Consciousness
In the previous sections we concluded that there is no mental consciousness as a separate entity from our brain. But it is convenient to speak of those parts of our brain as “consciousness”. Herewith we shall discuss the role of that part of our brain – our consciousness.
Returning to the analogy of the brain’s functions as the work of the movie director, I likened consciousness to the screen on which the final narrative is projected.
However, this is not a precise representation because if consciousness were merely the screen there would be no reason for it to evolve, and devote such vast brain resources to it. The complexity of consciousness, and the resources allocated to it indicate its important role in human survival.
As befits the evolution tradition, that part of the brain we call consciousness holds several functions, the most important being long-term planning. In this area, humans far surpass any other creature. This is where human superiority really comes into play.
So far, we have focused on the way in which the brain absorbs and processes information and even reacts immediately. In order to improve our ability to survive, it is worth planning for the long term, rather as a good chess player calculates many moves ahead.
Long-term planning requires running several possible courses of action and reactions by using our imagination. In this way, from all the possibilities that we can foresee, we can choose a course of action.
The same creative imagination is used by writers, composers, artists, and anyone involved in artistic endeavors or inventions.
Our preferred course of action is not always based on logic. Sometimes we let our feelings take over. Most of the time, our choice of reactions has to best fit our values even if they do not agree with logic or feelings.
The other person does exactly the same thing, although his logic, feelings, or scale of values may be different. Even if that other person has reached the same conclusions at the data processing stage, his reaction would probably be different from mine.
For example, Arabs who believed that Al-Qaeda terrorists brought down the Twin Towers reacted with joy, handing out candy to everyone, while we were deeply saddened by this same event.
That part of the brain that we identify as consciousness is equipped with traits that assist us with planning for the long-term. Among those traits are:
- Imagination - This allows us to imagine or consider various courses of action, enabling us to choose the most appropriate ones.
- Suppression and Invention - These functions allow us to suppress information that may depress us, and hinder our functioning. It allows us to ignore our mistakes, and live in peace with ourselves without harming our functioning.
In the analogy of the content editor versus the graphic artist working on the same document, the graphic artist is not concerned about spelling errors, and the content editor is not interested in the details of visual layout.
The other person can hold a consciousness of the contents quite different from mine. His consciousness encompasses emotions, values and worldviews that are different from mine; therefore he can pick a different course of action from a wide range of actions available. Each of us believes that his choice is the correct one.
The brain organizes the visualized information in such a way so as to reinforce this belief.
This mechanism makes us very tolerant of our own mistakes, but we are less forgiving towards the other person.
It is important to acknowledge this vital mechanism in the brain as the other person's brain plays the same trick on him.
He will ignore his own mistakes but, at the same time, he will show uncompromising harshness toward us. We should take this into account when we assess the way in which the other person thinks.
Imagination
Our toilet at home did not stop flushing water. I drove to the hardware store and asked the salesman to help me. He looked up and gazed vacantly at the air in silence, for a minute. I could see the wheels in his brain spinning while he was trying to figure what the problem might be, using his imagination. Then he stood up, and handed me a rubber sealing ring, saying that the existing one must have been worn out. Back home, I swapped the old ring for the new, and the toilet worked again as it should.
We have the ability to imagine situations by running them through a set of scenarios as the salesman did in this case, and find solutions to problems.
This visualization is so powerful that a student afraid of a test, may run a scenario of failure in his mind, and that scenario is sufficiently vivid so as to cause physiological reactions such as vomiting.
Every one of us has some degree of imagination. Research shows that even some animals have imagination. The scope of imagination differs from one person to the next. There are different kinds of imagination: one person may have a visual imagination whereas another has an auditory imagination.
Each type of imagination is distinguished by its complexity: a two-dimensional imagination is less complex than a three-dimensional one which, in turn, is less complex than a body moving through space, while the most complex imagination is conceptual imagination.
You can easily check how developed is your visual imagination is. Let us say there is a white wooden cube, painted black on all six sides. Imagine cutting it into 64 smaller cubes of equal size. A two-dimensional imagination can answer the following: How many of these small cubes will have only one black side?
A three-dimensional imagination can answer the following: How many of these small cubes will have no black paint anywhere?
A person with a highly developed visual imagination will be able to imagine a three-dimensional object moving through space along various trajectories.
There is a story that Einstein discovered the theory of relativity by imagining “riding” a light beam.
In my work as an electronics development engineer, I found that the best and the easiest way of checking whether an electronic circuit I had designed would function properly was by “operating” it in my imagination even before the technicians had assembled it.
The highest level of imagination, in my view, is that of philosophers who examine complex philosophical questions.
Imagination was developed as a mechanism that the brain uses to project images on the screen of consciousness but it is also useful for many other purposes. In fact, it is very important for various human activities except perhaps when we merge with the group and lose our individuality.
Imagination is needed for planning the future, telling stories, and even making love. Contrary to common belief, imagination -- like any other ability -- can be taught and developed.
A novice chess player has difficulty in moving chess figures in his imagination and predicting his opponent’s moves but experienced players can imagine several moves ahead and find solutions that enable them to outwit their opponent. Excellent players have a developed imagination that enables them to plan their strategy, by anticipating several steps.
One of the advantages of planning ahead by using one’s imagination, is the speed at which one can check a course of action, irrespective of time constraints in the real world.
It is also possible to imagine combinations that do not exist in reality, such as dogs with wings, or smiling clouds.
It is impossible, however, to imagine completely contradictory traits, such as white shadows or something completely unknown, which is why many of the aliens in science fiction books have humanoid traits.
Very few people can think out of the box, and imagine, or invent new things.
In cultural groups where the component of “the herd” is dominant, it is rare to find new ideas.
Nobel Prizes in the Muslim world, where the concept of “the herd” dominates, are rare; however, in the much smaller group of the Jews, in whom individualism is a trademark, there are many Nobel Prize winners.
Imagination is an important feature in humans for all areas of life if they function as individuals. On the other hand, imagination disrupts the ability to identify with others and, therefore, can be bad for the community.
We can find many types of imagination, and each one has its own level of intensity.
Many people possess a visual type of imagination but some people have an auditory imagination.
Gregorio Allegri composed religious Gothic music - “Miserere ” - it was considered secret music and no one was permitted to copy it. It was played just once a year in the Pope’s church, and the score was kept under lock and key. Leopold Mozart attended one such performance; his phenomenal memory and perfect auditory imagination enabled him to reconstruct the music, revealing this music to the world.
Imagination is linked to memory. It is clear why visual imagination is necessary, not only for future planning, but especially in order to see and present reality on the screen of consciousness.
The question of interest, then, is why would an auditory imagination be needed? Perhaps the need lies in the preparation for verbal communication?
The magic of music, which can make us jump up and dance when hearing one type of music, while another type lulls us to sleep, is still a mystery.
What is so unique about harmonious music that moves us? Does a disharmonious noise indicate danger? Is it a worldwide perception, such as perceptions of beauty? To what degree are certain sounds linked with specific symbols learned, such as the very different ranges of keys and rhythms of the Western, Eastern and Asian worlds? Those are questions to which we do not yet know the answers.
Scientists tend to invest deeply in examining physical features, and far less in traits of the brain such as imagination.
But for the purpose of understanding the other person, it is important to investigate the brain’s mental characteristics such as imagination.
Suppression and Invention
Some people are vegetarians because they think that animals, like people, have feelings and should be protected.
Vegans are extreme vegetarians, who abstain from eating or using any animal products.
Members of the Jain faith in India are even more extreme. They choose total veganism to the point that they avoid wearing clothes which may trap and accidentally kill insects; they cover their faces with masks that prevent them from breathing insects in.
I wonder what vegetarians would do if they were to be convinced, like many researchers, that plants are as alive like all other creatures. Would they avoid eating plants as well?
In my opinion, some vegetarians are motivated by a vivid imagination, combined with their inability to suppress the pictures of the living creature being slaughtered in order to provide them with the meat on their plates. Usually, people are able to suppress unpleasant situations.
Suppression is vital for our peace of mind, and sometime even vital for our existence. People sometime suppress disturbing facts in the process of understanding reality, and therefore reach erroneous conclusions. We have to take this into consideration when trying to understand the other person.
We all know that feeling of “That won't happen to me.” Bad things happen to others. It’s the way our brain protects us from disquiet and fear.
We suppress the possibility of death. We suppress health issues that lurk in our future. Without this suppression of facts, we would never leave the house, or risk driving a car.
Of course, suppression of facts must be balanced if we are to survive. Excess suppression can cause loss of caution.
Beyond the role of the suppression trait in our fight to survive, this mechanism holds an additional role in our functioning within our cultural community.
Suppression and invention traits are active when:
- Dismissing inconvenient data from our senses, and inventing facts that are not there.
- Suppressing those of conclusions that do not match the worldview and the invention of alternative narratives.
- Eliminating unpleasant situations from our consciousness, by manipulating our memory, and substituting pleasant but false scenarios.
This mechanism of suppression and the invention of facts are most noticeable in our attitude toward death, and our behavior when we are in love.
We suppress our fears by ignoring death.
We suppress faults and invent virtues of our loved one.
But we also suppress many less important things.
Without suppression and invention it is difficult to live alone, and even more difficult to adjust ourselves to our community.
Unfortunately, the mechanisms of suppression and invention make it more difficult to understand the other person if we do not know on which facts he based his responses.
Survival requires us to fight and even sometimes to kill the enemy. Our nature prevents us from hurting the members of our own cultural community, which is why the enemy has to be excluded from our community. The way it is done is by suppressing similarities of traits we share with the enemy, and inventing threatening facts, which help to demonize the enemy as a group.
We suppress everything in the enemy that might be respected, and invent an image of an utterly evil enemy.
This is what the Nazis did to the Jews, presenting them as sub-human.
This is also what Shia Muslims do to Sunni Muslims and vice-versa. Each of these groups depicts the other as infidels.
Racism is another extreme form of DE-legitimization of the other.
The same mechanism, but not in the same intensity, acts in the way in which the political right wing perceives the left wing, and the left wing perceives the right-wingers. This mechanism works also when there is a need to exclude a person from the community. DE-legitimization is the way to overcome our inherent nature to protect those who are like us.
A reverse phenomenon also exists in which we include someone in our group. An example would be the personification of pets which, in our brains, become legitimate members of our group. There are people who love their pets even more than they love other people in their community. As an example of dehumanization, I offer a quote by a left-wing woman, reacting to an article on creativity. Dehumanizing members of the right wing within her left-wing community, she wrote as follows:
“Creativity exists primarily on the left. There are very few right-wing creative people. There is a biological explanation that links right wing views to inferior brain structure... We cannot argue with facts.”
The notion that creativity is somehow related to political views, or that political views define a different species defies logic; however, the above claim shows that even an apparently intelligent woman can hold such views.
Every person adopts the facts that strengthen his worldview; and he can even distort facts or invent other facts, for this purpose, as did this woman.
Can a Person Be Changed?
“Some people change when they see the light; others, when they feel the heat.” – General Schwarzkopf.
Friday night. Our friends are sitting in our living room discussing politics.
That is, the men are yelling out their views on the latest news, while the women in another corner of the room are conversing in low voices.
While my friends with leftist views present their claims, my other friends are busy looking for the best possible way to refute these claims. When one of them finds a particularly successful argument, he cannot restrain himself from pouring out his opinion but interrupts whoever is speaking at that particular moment. In their turn, my friends on the political left do the exactly the same thing. Neither side can understand how the others fail to see the obvious truth that they are supporting.
The debate comes to an end when my wife gets fed up with all this screaming; it is obviously leading nowhere. She serves coffee with her famous cake. It is so delicious that all my friends have nothing to say except to compliment her. And for a while there is a peaceful flow of friendly conversation.
I do not remember a single argument in which one side managed to persuade the other of the rightness of their argument. Can you, dear reader, point to any success in convincing the others in a debate?
The question is this: Why cannot two intelligent people agree, especially when the facts leave no doubt?
Could it be a lack of civilized debating habits?
I believe this phenomenon has deeper roots than the lack of ability to conduct a civilized argument. In the USA and Europe, supposedly the epitome of civilized debate, this phenomenon exists just as it does in our sweating Levantine country.
Apparently, it all stems from the way in which our brain perceives reality. We learned in this chapter that our brain is a slow organic computer. It uses its computing ability to fit incoming data to known patterns. No time is spent in calculating the fresh data: on finding an approximate match, it has a ready reaction. Later, when it gets more information, it can modify the decision, and even alter the patterns to match more accurate future data. Patterns concerning ideas are called stereotypes.
Different stereotypes, databases, are engraved in our brain.
Stereotypes are considered as a bad trait lodged only in the minds of other persons that do not belong to our cultural group, as a result of brain-washing. We are never guided by stereotypes; we use logic.
But is that really the case?
Let's see. Are you reading editorials and articles written by people with views different from your own? Or do you prefer to read and watch those media outlets you're used to -- the media that strengthen your views, and make you feel good? Don’t be ashamed to answer “yes” because that is, after all, how our brains work.
So… does that mean that our stereotypes' databases cannot be changed?
The answer to that is that it is possible. But it is a long tough road. It is very difficult to disconnect ourselves from views repeatedly drummed into our consciousness, and to set out to build new ones.
Golda Meir’s government was elected yet again, right after the colossal failure of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, a failure that cost more than two thousand lives. What caused the electorate to choose the same leaders, the people who had already brought heavy losses to the small country, even when that government’s blunders were brought to the surface in the protest movement. I remember my father saying: “Who would you want us to vote for? A right wing party that will cause war?” He was not conscious of the irony in his words; it was the left wing government which had just brought that awful war on the country!
The stereotype of a right wing party's identification with war, and a left wing party's identification with peace was embedded in his brain causing him to reject the real facts. That is why the same government was re-elected.
It took another couple of years for the right wing to win the election, showing that at least some people had changed their views.
Now we can understand why no one could persuade the others in our Friday night argument.
The reason that we ignore the claims of the other group is because it’s difficult for us to accept that our stereotypes could be wrong. Our cunning brain, operating beneath the radar of consciousness, convinces us that we are always right.
Can we outwit our brain and change our opinions?
Yes, it is possible, but it is very difficult.
In that context, General Schwarzkopf once said: “Some folks change when they see the light, others when they feel the heat”.
It is much more difficult for older people to change their views because their brains have been locked. Children, who are still free of preconceived notions, can change their minds more easily.
In every group there are some people able to free themselves of the chains of their earlier views and accept a change.
In a consolidated community, especially in religious groups such as Muslims, it is even more difficult for people to free themselves than in the Western community.
Where are you, dear reader, in this regard? Are you willing to admit that perhaps you're mistaken, and that there could be something in what your rival is saying? Are you willing to read articles by people whose views oppose yours? Perhaps, in that way, some facts presented from a different angle could pass through the filters of your brain. Are you willing to accept the idea that it’s possible to see things in a different way?
In many Hollywood romantic movies, we find the woman trying to change her lover's behavior to suit her ideals. It never works.
When it comes to religions such as Christianity or Islam, the goal is always to change a person from being an “infidel” to becoming a “believer.”
The need to change the individual often derives from the need to understand the other. We understand someone like ourselves better than others.
The need for a community to convert someone from the other cultural group derives from its wish to bring everyone into their own community.
I do not like this kind of proselytizing, either at the individual level or at the societal level; but I acknowledge that it is the outcome of survival mechanisms existing both in the individual and in the community.
If a scientist comes along and proves that God does not exist, would believers stop believing in God?
Whoops! I’ve now probably just lost all readers who are believers. Let’s look at this from the opposite direction: If there’s a scientist who proves that there is a God: would all non-believing secularists become believers?
Whoops! I’ve now probably just lost all the rest of my readers.
You, the few readers who are willing to continue reading, and allow me the chance to present an interesting angle on how the brain functions, have proven that you have enough openness to help yourself understand the other person.
How many people do you know who have changed their opinions?
For a person to change his views of his own volition, he must be willing to release the strong conviction of believing everything projected onto his consciousness, even though he identifies the consciousness with himself. This requirement to release one from what is going on in the consciousness is a particularly tough thing to do.
People can change their views if an external force is stronger than their belief; one such force could be the power of a charismatic figure that they admire. The same mechanism is in action when public opinion dictates the ideas of a cultural group and erases the individual's previous views.
People change their views themselves, when they experience a personal crisis or a seminal event. Very few can change their world views by following a logical process.
However, technology and accruing knowledge have led to the development of tools and methods, which can change people’s ideas. These tools include mass media, educational methods (even to the extent of brainwashing) and Internet tracking on the individual's behavior. And of course branding and advertising, which implants in our subconscious the need to buy products, or to behave in certain way. Examples include: the requirement to be thin, to love a specific song, or to wear black.
Throughout history, various persuasive methods have been used intuitively, but the progress of technology in this field has made it easier to control our way of thinking.
That is a very scary thought.
CHAPTER TWO
Man / Community Integration
In the distance, little Gustav could hear the uniform thunder made by the march of the “Hitler Jugend”. He hurried to find a hiding place in a nearby hallway. With horrified eyes, he saw many young boys marching in the street. Every so often, one of them would break out of the line and lash out with his heavy bat on anyone who did not salute the Nazi flag. Only long after the last echoes of the march had died away, did Gustav dare leave his hiding place and run home.
- Parades of this kind were a very common sight in Germany in the early 1930s. Now a grown man, Gustav tells us the story of that day, when a leader of the Hitler Jugend came to his school to recruit all the children in the class. In his testimony Gustav described that it did not take long before he found himself marching in a kind of hypnotic state, brought about by the sound of the rhythmic beating of boots on the ground, shouting enthusiastically with all the others “Heil Hitler!”
- With deep shame, he recalls how, with his heavy bat, he hit anyone who dared not salute the Nazi flag.
- He also recalled the fury which he felt on such occasions. He remembers himself thinking: “How dare these Insolent people insult our beloved leader?"
- This post-war testimony given by a German citizen reflects the way in which a normal person can drift into merging with the group, losing his own identity.
The Mechanism of Synchronization
Very little scientific study has been made on individual–community relations. In fact, only recently have scientists begun to explore this issue which was originally dealt with only by writers, philosophers, and psychologists. The reason can be found in the fact that scientists did not realize the important influence of the community on the individual.
It is worthwhile spending some time and discussing the significance of this influence.
Studies conducted in this field show that the individual–community relations are a combination of genetics and social relations.
The social relations aspect has been well covered by people outside the circle of natural sciences. Novelists and philosophers have dealt with this issue obsessively ever since Aeschylus presented his first play in ancient Greece.
Scientific study of the integration of individuals into a community has been limited to the study of the human capability to identify with others. This is known as “The Theory of the Mind.” This research field is still in its infancy. Many studies are focused on the location of functions related to empathy, and the development of these abilities as we mature.
These studies, however, do not address the question discussed in this chapter, namely how the community influences the way in which another person thinks, behaves, and reacts to a given situation.
One need not be a scientific researcher to know that there is a feeling of empathy for other people. Everyone can see that we are synchronized in some way or other with others.
We feel pain when we see someone else writhing in pain. Laughter is contagious. We yawn when the person next to us yawns. We clap our hands in synchronized rhythm with the others.
These are all phenomena of synchronization between individuals.
Studies conducted in this field found that a synchronization gene exists. In addition, it has been found that the brain produces a hormone called oxytocin, known as “the love hormone,” because it causes us to feel empathy with the other. Hormones and brain patterns (better known as stereotypes) have evolved to assist us in the integration with others for the sake of creating a larger group which is better fitted to survive than the lone individual.
At the same time, evolutionary developments of the brain produced some traits enabling us to integrate even better. Those are the same traits discussed in Chapter One, traits which will achieve peace of mind through suppression and invention. We ignore the faults of fellow members of the group in the same way as we ignore our own faults. We feel good in the company of others within our cultural group in the same way as we ourselves long to feel.
A good deal of empirical information on this involuntary connection with others can be found, surprisingly, in studies of consumer behavior in the field of marketing. Advertisers use this information for the purpose of influencing consumers to buy their products. Marketing experts are assisted by studies in psychology, allowing them to employ the phenomenon of the herd mentality.
These studies find that the individual tends to buy popular products to be just like everyone else. The attraction of a product is enhanced by the complimentary words of celebrities, a person that one wants to imitate. As an individual finds traits in common with the other persons, his/her sense of identification grows. It grows even further when individuals find themselves isolated within another cultural group. Tourists often experience a sense of friendship with other tourists from their homeland even though these may be people with whom they would not necessarily choose to spend any time, back home.
Although very little scientific data exist on this mechanism, its existence cannot be ignored, nor can its importance be waved away.
This mechanism is so powerful that people may even feel a sense of sharing and understanding with their pets, their computers, or their much-loved car.
To understand the other person, it is important to know that this system of synchronization exists. Understanding the way it works is worth some research but, for the moment, it is important to acknowledge that the synchronization system can be found everywhere. Without it, musicians could not play music with precise coordination in an orchestra, and soldiers could not march in a parade.
Understanding the other requires assessing which part of each person is independent, and which part identifies with the community.
The Human Fractal System
People gaze in wonder at the complexity of nature. The greatest mystery of all is the formation of life, with special emphasis on human life.
Any man with some common sense acknowledges that nature always chooses the simplest path, just as water chooses the simplest way to flow, yet forms complex winding rivers.
The mathematician, Benoit Mandelbrot, showed that complex forms in nature such as the coast line were formed over time from simple and recurring elements since that is the simplest and therefore the most natural way.
A fractal is defined as a mathematical set which exhibits a repeating pattern that displays at every scale. In “The Fractal Geometry of Nature,” Professor Mandelbrot explains that fractals fit the description of nature far more accurately than the simple forms of Euclidean geometry: "Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not shaped cones, the coastline is not made of circles, the bark is not smooth and lightning does not progress in a straight line."
As with many things in nature which at first glance seem complex but which when explored turn out to be simple, the fractal systems are the outcome of simple relations. The complex shape in the image here is in fact a regressive equation for the simplest ratio that can be defined by an equation:
f (z) = z2 + c.
The same process exists for many systems in nature, and all the complexity we see in nature is formed with the same kind of fractal hierarchy. Let me expand this idea beyond shapes to living systems in nature and introduce the “Human Fractal System” - HFS.
We know that the evolution of life began with the simplest building blocks and successfully developed into the tremendous complexity of life forms on earth.
Here we will focus on only a small part of that process: the cell in the human body, at the lowest level; the human at the second higher level; and the community at the top level. Just as the human comprises multiple cells, so the human community comprises multiple individuals.
We can consider cells, people, and communities as hierarchic human life systems. This hierarchic component integrates as a "Human Fractal System" (HFS).
Each level of this fractal system has similar features. As with geometric fractals, each level of the human fractals has the same characteristics of the other levels:
- The human cell can be viewed as a living entity. It is nourished (consumes food and oxygen) to keep alive, reproduces, protects itself, and finally "dies" like all living things. The cell contains features that allow it to cooperate with other cells for the welfare of the human body.
- The human body displays similar traits. It keeps alive by consuming products (eating food and breathing oxygen), reproduces, protects itself, and finally dies. It also possesses traits that enable it to connect with other people and to contribute his share to the community.
- Communities also display similar traits. They consume products (using energy for example), reproduce (by creating smaller and more homogeneous communities, as will be explained later) protect themselves , and finally die (when they surrender to other communities, or break up into smaller communities and ceases to exist). Sometimes, they join with other communities to form a greater community.
There are many levels of communities: the core community is the family; above it, there is the immediate social circle such as friends, political parties and so on; the next level is the nation; and the highest level is civilization, which can contain numerous nations. Each level displays similar traits.
A community, like the human body and the cells within that body, evolves in order to survive in the changing environment, and with competing communities.
A membrane separates one cell from the next. The human skin separates one individual from the next. The cultural envelope of a community functions rather like the human skin, setting the boundaries of the community, while uniting and consolidating the individuals within that community into one body, and separating them from other communities.
Occasionally the cultural envelope is so tight that it creates identification among all the human cells comprising this community, thus forming a “herd”. Even when the individuals within that united organization do not completely lose their personal identity, they are connected and share an ideology that affects their personal ideas.
It is puzzling that scientists were not aware of the phenomenon of synchronization between people. Brain research is mainly carried out just on the individual. Only in recent years has the effect of the community on the individual been receiving more attention.
Researchers in the field of social psychology, and the Theory of Mind (TOM), as with related areas, study the links between people within the same community, but these fields of research are still very new.
Research of the human fractal system (HFS) is far simpler than one can imagine. There are two reasons:
- The most complex structures are built from simple, easy-to-understand, building blocks whose traits are reflected in the levels above them. But, as with fractal shapes, they form a new and more complex entity.
- As with the original geometric fractals, human fractals are based on just a few simple basic characteristics. Only their outcome seems complex. The fact that we do not know how to reduce it into a regressive mathematical formula does not obscure the similarity of the processes.
In the field of physics, scientists seek to reveal the unified theory that explains everything.
In the same way, researchers should march toward the unified theory of humanity.
Human Fractal System (HFS) is a good candidate for such a theory.
The Individual in the Community
"What do you most yearn for? Do you yearn to defend your own beliefs, or do you yearn to see the world as clearly as you possibly can?"
Julia Galef
First, let us try some self-investigation.
One tends to reject the concept of the herd phenomenon as something that happens to others, very probably ignorant people of the lower classes. You, the reader, are a free person who thinks and decides logically and independently.
Your worldview is the outcome of independent thinking and healthy logic.
Is that really true? The next time you read a political article in your favorite newspaper, stop for a moment and think. What makes you choose to read this particular article in this newspaper? If you're honest with yourself, you'll realize that your choice has quite a bit to do with the fact that it matches your worldview. Then please read some article that does not match your views. Did you find anything of value there? Of course you did not. You probably think that all claims in that article are stupid claims. Did that article anger you? I think it must have annoyed you, to say the least.
Only if one is able to think out of the box, he might find that there might be some justification in the ideas of others. Then he will find reason to consider the views of someone from a cultural group other than his own.
News reporters usually distort the information. The reporter will emphasize those aspects that match his worldview, and minimize or ignore those that contradict it. That is even before making a commentary on the subject. Here’s a quote from a comprehensive study of journalists in Israel: “Around 7 of every 10 journalists feel that the media systems do not implement the rules of ethics and integrity as required from their subjects of interest, and about half of the journalists report on being heavily pressured to fulfill expectations of them at any price.
The even more problematic phenomenon, according to respondents, is the distortion of quotations by journalists. Almost 30% of those asked have frequently encountered this distortion of statements made by interviewees. An additional 23.2% have occasionally encountered such distortion of statements, and only 17.2% of respondents claimed that they had never encountered this issue of journalists distorting quotes.
An unfair review as a result of negotiation among journalists and sources is also a common phenomenon: 30.2% of respondents reported that they encountered this frequently, 17.6% encountered it occasionally, and just 21% said they had never encountered it.
No less worrying is the fact that 27.6% of respondents reported they had never encountered the impact of commercial considerations on news content, and just 18% said that they had never encountered incidents of censorship and breach of 'gag orders'.”
Should we rely on the information and commentaries of journalists such as these?
To be sure that you receive the full information and not just selected information based on your worldviews, it is important to expose yourself to many, diverse sources of information. That is the only way to build up a more complete picture of reality for yourself, and reach your conclusions.
Usually we prefer the commonly shared aspects in our cultural group, and reject those that are different. Think about dating. Everything that the couple has in common increases their liking for each other. Their affinity derives from the feeling of sharing the same cultural group.
The interrogation method commonly known as “good cop, bad cop” is based on arousing feelings toward the 'good cop' that seem to be in the same camp.
Studies have shown that we tend to like the similar and recoil from the dissimilar, sometimes to the degree that mentioning that dissimilar person’s name is enough to rouse a sense of loathing and even a physical reaction.
Racism is an extreme form of that recoiling from the other.
Some of the stereotypes causing this rejection derive from our education, while others are hard wired from the time of our birth. They may be reinforced through formal education in school or a religious framework such as the church; they may derive from environmental pressure, or from personal experience.
The evolutionary justification for the existence of stereotypes is to consolidate the group (the herd) which, in turn, allows for a better chance to survive, and to reinforce differentiation from other groups competing for the same resources. Categorizing people as belonging to “my herd,” in contrast to those who need to be distanced, strengthens the herd.
According to the Theory of Mind, the human brain developed a neural network whose purpose is to enable us to understand the thoughts, feelings and intentions of the other, predict the other’s behavior, and feel empathy for the other person. This neural network is based on the similarities between our cognitive and behavioral modes. The mechanism screens the modes of thought and behavior of someone not from our group or our framework of understanding. Such social skills hold tremendous evolutionary advantages. Living in cooperative communities has significantly expanded our chances of survival.
Balancing the Ego with the Community
- The prophet, Isaiah, did not like this submission to rituals, and preached for moral behavior and against hypocrisy: “Though you pray, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves, cleanse yourselves, put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes and cease to do evil. Learn to do well, seek justice, relieve the oppressed, deal justly with the orphan, and plead for the widow.”
- Age is no limit either. Little children absorb this cultural flow, even before they learn to read. This makes it impossible to limit influences to a mature age group, a group that has already formed its own culture, and may have developed a level of independent thinking which provides some buffer against unwanted foreign influences. These flows of cultural content through television and Internet may be very acceptable to people of a Western culture but they clash with other cultures. The brainwashing by Western culture is more dangerous than ever for them. . The rise of extremist Islam is, in part, a reaction to this cultural invasion.
- There is a strong tendency in the Western culture toward extreme liberalism. These extreme liberals shift the balancing point far toward citizens’ rights, neglecting the citizens’ obligations to the state. In fact, by doing this, liberalism causes disintegration of the national fabric and social solidarity to the point of dangerous collapse.
- The human species is not unique in having a culture. Diverse species have some elements of culture. Primates and crows excel in that department but other species also show signs of a functioning culture. However, the cultures which humans developed are by far more advanced and richer than those of any other living creature. This is the reason that people could be organized in much larger groups than required by evolutionary needs.
- Culture develops as an outcome of social evolution. At the basis of culture we find the same mechanism of synchronization with other humans, and the empathy we feel for the others. Without these, it would be impossible to describe many of the voluntary and involuntary actions of people: for example, musicians who do not agree with voluntary synchronization could not play in an orchestra.
- In nature, processes are based on balance, beyond the simple processes discussed in the previous sections. The nature of this balance can be described as follows: change in one element causes counter effects by changes in another place. For example: an evolutionary mutation improving the running speed of reindeer causes a parallel change in their predators' speed, maintaining a predator-prey balance.
- Most natural phenomena involve interactions of more than two elements. I like to consider the laws of balance in nature, not as Newton’s third law but rather more like the expansion of this law formulated as Lenz's Law allowing third party reaction to maintain the balance. Lenz's Law deals with electromagnetic induction, but it is rather a general law of nature as it allows the reaction to be caused by a third party rather than by a direct reaction. This is true in any case of disturbance of the balance in nature. A new level of balance is always maintained by counter effects involving numerous elements.
- One of the main issues, one which should be studied, is what shapes the mechanism of cooperation among people and causes the formation of one large, cooperative body. Cooperation is linked to what evolutionary researchers define as “altruism,” this being the individual’s willingness to forego his rights for the sake of strengthening the community. This cooperation can be discerned at all three levels, as defined in previous sections:
- The level of individual cells, which form a body while foregoing parts of their independence. Despite each of them having all the information needed to create a whole body, they do not. Only the sperm and ova cells reproduce.
- The level of the individual body, which foregoes part of its independence in favor of the community by obeying the laws that limit it, and by volunteering for the community’s benefit.
- The level of many communities (such as families, circle of friends) that create a nation, while foregoing part of their independence. For example, living under selected leaders elected by majority rule in a democratic nation even if this was not their choice.
- According to Hamilton’s Law and, actually, according to common sense, altruism becomes stronger as the more an individual feels closer to with his community. This can be explained as a drive for expanded survival: from the survival of the self to the survival of the immediate family, then to the survival of the close community, expanding to the nation and, finally to the whole culture (which is usually identical to religion).
- When the body is in danger as, for example, when the skin is wounded, cells tend to multiply and grow faster in an attempt to close the wound. When the community is in danger, as in wartime, people tend toward a higher consensus, and become more altruistic. Then people become more patriotic, and less tolerant of those who are out of the consensus.
- Throughout the evolutionary process it was found that the optimum requires a balance between the traits that allow individuals to cooperate as a group in order to face dangers, as well as other traits that maintain the individual’s freedom to think and act beyond the accepted norms of the community. Individual freedom is necessary to introduce 'new blood' into art and innovations, so vital to the development of the community.
- Decades ago, the pioneering kibbutz members of the political left were the biggest group of volunteers for elite combat units, and the kibbutz itself was perceived as an example of sheer altruism, a community in which the individual member was required to forego his rights for the community’s sake. Currently, however, the biggest group of volunteers for elite combat units comes from the political right wing.
- The question then is: what is the correct balance? To what degree must an individual contribute to the community, and what can that individual receive from others? We should keep in mind that an individual’s investment in the community strengthens all that community's members including that individual himself.
- In my view, the smart strategy would be for citizens to invest in their community as much as they can, without causing themselves harm. In this way, the community would prosper, as would the contributing individual. This is much like the owner of a manufacturing plant who invests in the purchase of new machinery that would increase production and therefore also increase future profits despite the immediate expense.
- The ratio between a person’s willingness to contribute to the general good, and that person’s investment in self-welfare, in short between egoism and altruism, defines the person’s worldview. Balance is achieved in time, because only balanced systems are stable.
- If we position worldviews on a graph, we can better understand the relationship between the two worldviews. Left wing versus right wing, conservative versus innovative, belief in God versus non-believers.
- Most people would be seen in the middle range of this graph, but there will always be some in the peripheral areas.
- In tough times, this Gaussian graph is steeper, and more people 'slide off' to the extremes.
- If we look at the behavior of these extremists more closely, we will find that those at the two polar extremes of the graph are actually very similar.
- Their most typical feature is support of rituals, and clinging to symbols.
- Religious people are extremely conservative as regards their traditional clothing; they cannot miss their prayers, and admire their spiritual leaders.
- Extreme liberals are equally enthusiastic about their labeled clothing, cannot forego the current music trend, and admire celebrities as their spiritual leaders.
- Luckily for us, the silent majority is the group that determines the community's character.
CHAPTER THREE
Cultural Communities
The thesis of the well-known philosopher, Friedrich Hegel, was that the ideas that we, as individuals, possess are totally shaped by the ideas of other people. Our minds have been influenced by the thoughts of other people through the cultural and religious institutions of which we are a part. "Geist" – spirit, is Hegel’s name for the collective consciousness of a given community which affects the ideas and the consciousness of each individual.
Carl Jung, the renowned psychologist, advanced Friedrich Hegel's theory one step further and coined the term “collective unconscious” -- this is the expanded subconscious of the community. According to his theory "collective unconscious" includes the pool of experiences preserved from one generation to the next. Jung further defined the archetype of the collective subconscious. The recurring appearance of the same images in diverse cultures was, in his opinion, proof that the collective subconscious does indeed exist. Jung concluded that, in his dreams, the individual connects to this treasury of collective memories, and that without acknowledging the heritage of culture deeply embedded in the human unconscious, it is not possible to understand the individual’s internal world and its many levels. These archetypal images constitute a driving force behind a person's character and how he thinks and feels.
Jung’s theories were rejected by the academic psychological establishment since it was difficult for researchers to accept the concept of a collective bond let alone a collective subconscious. Their intuition could not accept the idea that they, as individuals, were not unique. Currently, there are some second thoughts regarding Jung’s theory.
I do not advocate the idea of a collective subconscious but I hope that the renewed interest in this theory may lead to more thorough research on communities as living entities.
The true nature of how worldview shapes the behavior of a person will never become clear until we can understand the manifold ways in which human culture serves: to nurture, to regulate, and to amplify the cognitive activities of individual humans.
The ideas of Hegel, Jung and others indicate the direction of recognizing the community as a living organism. This is the higher level in the human fractal chain.
In this chapter we discuss this communal organism, in an effort to decipher the way in which ideas are formed, and how they influence our point of view.
This means that we can regard people as the cells of the community's organisms. These human cells function as team players in the pursuit of common goals, not just consciously, but down to the roots of our unconscious mental processes.
This super organism displays the same spectrum of relationships as does the individual human. These community's organisms are best known as “cultural groups”.
This super organism displays the same spectrum of relationships as does the individual human. These community's organisms are best known as “cultural groups”.
All political systems, religious systems and other cultural systems are roughly like species in ecosystems, enabling the behavioral study of “cultural groups”, using the same research techniques that evolutionists already use for the study of species.
But first we have to understand how and for what purpose these cultural groups were formed.
At the beginning, human families lived isolated from one another, with each of them having different, unique traits.
Then some families joined with others to form a small group called a tribe.
Eventually some of these tribes consolidated with others to become a much larger group, known as a nation.
Over time these groups grew even more, and became an empire.
The amount of friction among members of a family was very low because they shared common genes. As groups grew bigger, members of the group did not know one another very well, and this could lead to conflicts within the group. As a consequence, some sort of regime introducing law and order was formed. This regime unified the group and reduced friction among its members.
Each such group tried to differentiate itself from other groups and enhance consolidation within the group.
In the previous chapter we discussed mechanisms that synchronize people. These mechanisms were based on traits within our brain, using genes and hormones. But these mechanisms are effective only if people are in close touch with one another. In a large group, most people do not know one another; that is why the activities of people connected within a big community are based on culture.
People living together sharing traditions, customs, and education tend to think and react in a very similar and typical way, different from the way people in other groups think and react. One can call these typical characteristics a “culture”, and the way of thinking – “Ideology”. A cultural ideology for the community is much like a worldview for the individual.
The communities evolve over time, much like the way in which species develop, and use pretty much the same mechanism.
Common cultures make individuals identify with their cultural group.
Sometimes this identification is so strong that one can perceive the group as a “herd.”
The sense of identification in the 'herd' can be total. In such cases, members of a community are ready to kill and to be killed in order to defend the existence of the culture and its values.
When people merge into their community to the point of losing their self-identity, one can easily understand them because they all think and react in the same way as their culture dictates.
This is true, for example, in the Caliphate community of extremist Muslims known as ISIS.
In most communities, however, people do not share total identification. There are communities, such as those in Western culture, in which individualism is the norm and not the exception. But even in Western communities people can, for a short time, merge into the crowd, as, for instance, when they are watching their team in a football game.
The key to understand communities is to learn their culture. This is why we have to discuss culture in detail.
The Fly that Plowed the Field
One of Ivan Krylov’s fables describes a fly that perched on the back of an ox plowing a field. At the end of the day’s work, he turns to the ox and said: “What a difficult day we had, the two of us plowing the field all day.” This fable applies to people who are proud of human achievements as though they, themselves, had succeeded in carrying out such achievements single-handed when, in fact, the feats been achieved by that large entity -- the human race..
It is inconceivable that one man alone could succeed in building all those wonderful things around us. It is the effort of many people in diverse fields of expertise, together with the accumulation of wisdom over many years. No Robinson Crusoe can plow the field; it is the strength of the ox, the human race that did it.
In Chapter 1, we discussed how the human brain processes information. Understanding the brain’s basic mechanisms helps us understand the other. This is because we gain a better understanding of the other when we understand how reality is perceived by the other, and how it can affect his conclusions.
We also alluded to why attention should be paid to the other’s mode of understanding, since it helps us to evaluate how the other will react to an identical virtual reality.
In Chapter 2 we found that it is necessary to evaluate how much a person possesses his own individuality, and which part of his brain’s processes reflects the community in which
that person lives; how much of that person’s worldview is the outcome of his own experiences and thoughts, and which part reflects the identity of his cultural group.
In this chapter, the cultural group itself is discussed.
Understanding the behavior of these cultural groups is vital if we are to complete our understanding of that part which reflects the community in which they live.
By understanding the factors which affect the creation of culture, we can understand the community's part in our brain, and thereby complete our understanding of both aspects: the individual, and the societal.
The claim that a cultural community is a living entity is difficult for Westerns to digest since the Western worldview glorifies the individual. But it is vital to fully understand the other person. The claim I make is that not only does a human community satisfy all the criteria for those known as living beings but, in fact, it is the being that plows the field, and not the human flies lodged on its back. The achievements of the human race are the achievements of the human community.
This chapter does not explore small communities such as families but seeks to clarify the components influencing the nature of this great body, defined as a “nation,” and for the following reasons:
- A similarity exists between small and large communities. This makes it possible to draw analogies from what is known of the behavior of a nation to the behavior of smaller communities such as a political party.
- Humanity is striding toward linking smaller communities into ever increasingly larger communities. It is therefore of great importance to discuss the nature of these large communities.
- We find that small communities such as the family are losing their influence over the individual.
People may merge with others within a community to the point of losing their personal identity, just as a cell may merge with other cells in the same organ inside the human body. To understand such a person, it is enough to understand how the cultural group thinks and functions. It is important to define that entity, and to pinpoint its characteristics or, in actual fact, its culture, to help us understand how that entity “thinks” and “operates.”
Let us first present the entity, functioning as a living body that we called “the human herd.” Then we can look at the similarities between the living body called a person, and the living body called the human herd. In Chapter 1, when introducing the human fractals, we showed that evolution is an overall mechanism describing the development of nature. This is why the human herd develops according to the laws of evolution, just as the individual human does.
In this section, we will analyze how communities form. Such communities, those that are far larger than they ought to be, are the main reason for survival in the jungle. Huge communities are possible only by introducing culture and advanced means of communication. These communities introduced technologies that have given the human race a clear advantage over all other life forms.
Finally, we will discuss whether it is possible to alter the ideology of the cultural groups, much like the discussion in Chapter 2 on the possibility of changing a single person’s way of thinking. This large entity that we call a "herd", or "empire" as the largest cultural group, has a life-cycle similar to that of the individual human, but in a far longer time frame. The herd comes into being, lives, and finally dies. Embedded in the human body is the mechanism of aging which leads finally to death. Similarly, in the body of the cultural group or empire, is the inherent mechanism of its death.
The seeds of the herd’s failure germinate on a bed of success.
The Secret Life of Communities
Anyone watching from a distance the stream of people shouting slogans in a demonstration, can imagine the mob of demonstrators as a living entity, growling and crawling along the street. This herd of people moves like any other herd of animals found in the Savannah.
The phenomenon of the formation of herds is usually common among the weaker species in nature since this ploy allows the prey to withstand the attacks of the predator. It is a genetic capability that allows even a newly-hatched fish to join a school of fish. The same evolutionary mechanism enables a newly-born foal to stand on its legs and gallop with the herd.
Researchers are studying the cooperative behavior of communities of species such as ants. The ants are sterile, and their sole purpose is to serve their queen and help her to lay eggs, and take care of the offspring.
In these studies, it was found that some of the principles controlling ant behavior could also explain the appearance of other communities such as bacteria at the lower end of the chain of life, or human communities at the other end of the life chain. It was found that bacteria, like ants and humans, live in complex colonies. They communicate in order to cooperate for the benefit of the entire colony. Thus the phenomenon of creating communities where the individuals comprising it cooperate for the benefit of the entire population is natural and even common in nature.
A question worth asking, then, is this: Why have communities of fish, ants and bees not reached the same achievements as a human community?
One possible answer is that creatures such as bees do indeed live as a community, but they do not deviate from their genetic behavioral norms. The size of their community is just the size they need to survive. When the population of a beehive grows larger, the colony splits into two smaller communities, each becoming a separate colony. Humans, by contrast, have succeeded in agglomerating into larger groups than those inherently driven genetically by evolution. Humans do this primarily through the development of cultural rules and advanced communication. The groups, having merged together and operating as a large community, give the human species a tremendous advantage over any communities of other creatures.
Cultures shared by large groups of humans were developed with the support of the invention of sophisticated communication, allowing connections among people even when they are far apart in time and place. Communication allows people to form joint conventions in the community, and thereby create a joint culture. Culture becomes the glue joining people together even if they do not know one another personally, and allows them to consolidate large human communities.
Another possible answer to the question of why humans have succeeded in achieving such grand aims, can be found in the delicate balance between the individual person and the community in which he lives, as presented in Chapter 2. This balance allows humans to enjoy simultaneously the best of both worlds: the strength deriving from being part of a large body, and the flexibility that allows outstanding individuals to advance the group. Communities of other creatures are more homogeneous. They lack the free thinkers of the human species. These individuals are crucial for inventing new ways to advance their communities. Therefore these groups lack the advantage of the advances through inventions. They rely only on strong genetic connections, not on advanced culture.
Ferdinand the Bull, in the well-known children’s story by Munro Leaf, loved to smell the flowers while standing alone beneath the branches of trees. He refused to fight in the bull ring. This is a fantasy -- precisely because a bull cannot act like a human being.
I doubt whether you'll ever find a bull lying in the meadow when the herd marches forward.
The Human Herd
- People consider themselves intuitively as a separate and intact identity.
- They can agree on the existence of the community's social bonds. After all, as Aristotle, the legendary Greek philosopher, said, “Man is by nature a social animal.” But the idea that they are not in full control of their mind, and that some part of them is shared by all others in the community, is too much to swallow.
- However, is it possible to rely on intuition? We saw earlier that intuition is an unreliable crutch to bear the weight of proof regarding our own consciousness.
- We assume by intuition that our skin separates us from the others.
- But is it really?
- Research shows that our brain can decide to extend our body. In one experiment, a rubber hand is extended from the left hand of a person, and both the right hand and the rubber hand are stroked with a brush. The person regards the rubber hand as his own.
- The phenomenon of extending the body is very common. Any bus driver will testify that he regards the bus as extension to his body. Any violinist will testify that he regards the violin as an extension to his hand.
- If the body can be extended, can our mind be extended too?
- Our mind is not isolated. In many ways we share some parts of ourselves with our community. A part of us is “the playground of the community.”
- We relate to our neighborhood football team as a single entity. When our national football team plays, we relate to it, also, as a single entity. When all our players are wearing the team’s colors, visitors watching the game have difficulty identifying an individual player within “the team”. Similarly, we cannot single out one specific soldier from the platoon of another country at war. We refer to each of them as 'the enemy'.
- We relate to religious groups as a single entity, because their uniform clothing and certain typical behavioral traits make each of them look no different from any other members of the same group. That is the meaning of the phrase: “All Chinese look alike”.
- If we examine this closely, we will find that many phenomena are impossible to explain other than in terms of our sharing with our fellow members of the community.
- One cannot explain in any other way why we have a typical behavior of our community; when we are all driven by deep religious feelings; when we all encourage our team in a thrilling game of football, or when we all gather admiringly around a charismatic figure.
- Sometimes people behave within the community as though they have no willpower of their own. Their personality withdraws, and they merge with other people in the community. In such cases we can refer to the community as a "herd".
- One can argue that human cultural groups have no well-defined boundaries, as seen in the human body. Therefore, it’s not possible to consider cultural groups as a living being.
- But even though there is no skin wrapped around the community, everyone can distinguish between different human herds with almost the same degree of ease as they distinguish between individual persons. There are the white Western people, the black Africans, the yellow Chinese, and we can distinguish between each of them in a blink of an eye. There are the Russians, the Germans, the Americans -- all of them white people, but still we can clearly distinguish each group by its language, and manners. There are the Democrats, and the Republicans -- all of them white Americans -- but they clearly differ in their beliefs.
- It is clear that we can refer to each community as one body, one being, but can we refer to it as a living body?
- For a person to be able to identify a community as a living being, that person must be outside that community. We can identify the group of Muslims pouring out of the gates of the mosque like a living being, crawling up the road, growling "Allah Akbar" with its many mouths, together. But we find it difficult to accept that we liberals also share with others, the life of a big living being.
- And yet communities all have features that we find in a living being.
- Human communities are often 'born' through the consolidation of more ancient communities; then they acquire wealth and power to become a nation or even an empire. As wealth and power increase, there is a greater need for rigid rules to manage the population.
- When the power of the community is at its peak, people allow themselves to advance their own needs, putting them above those of their community. This causes the solidarity of the community to crumble. More and more people leave the herd, and go in other directions. This is the moment that predators are waiting for. The predators (called 'Barbarians' when we refer to nations) leap forward to devour those individuals who have left the herd’s 'circle of protection'.
- We can see this process happening now as ISIS predators devour the individuals with weak solidarity links to the European culture.
- Just as a pack of lions will attack those animals that have been separated from the herd, so humans separated from the human herd will be attacked by other cultural groups.
- When too many individuals leave the community, the community is weakened. Then a younger, more vibrant community will defeat the original now-weakened community.
- This phenomenon occurred constantly in the history of mankind.
- This is exactly what happened to the ancient Greek Empire; it fell to the barbaric Roman tribes which then took over its place and role. This is what happened to the ancient Roman Empire which, in turn, collapsed after reaching its peak. This is what happened also to the Ottoman Empire which, at the height of its power, became “The sick man on the Bosphorus.”
- We can find this phenomenon occurring now, as the Empire of the West, which has ruled the world for centuries is now slowly dying. Following the pattern of what happens to communities which are no longer challenged by any real threat, the individuals comprising Western communities have lost their willingness to die for the community’s values. As an outcome of this loss of solidarity and determination, the Western community is unraveling and weakening.
- This is precisely the right time for the new 'Barbarians', in the form of extremist Islam, to attack.
- I am aware that the description above is somewhat superficial since the issue of cultural groups is far more complex than that.
- A person can participate in several different cultural groups simultaneously.
- He can be a Muslim citizen of the same country as a Jewish citizen, and, at the same time, participate in the Muslims’ cultural group.
- The factor which determines to which cultural group he is loyal, determines his action in a state of crisis. The individual will be loyal to the group with which he has the strongest bonds.
- When a Muslim citizen feels stronger bonds to his religion than to his citizenship, that individual will feel greater affinity with a Jordanian Muslim, rather than with his Jewish or Christian neighbors. In peace time he can be a good citizen and have Jewish friends, but this may not be the case when circumstances change.
- In extreme cases, an individual may attack his neighbors.
- History is full of examples of this trait. This was true in Yugoslavia where the Croatian population expelled and murdered its Serbian neighbors with whom, until the war, they had lived peacefully.
- The same is happening in Iraq, where Sunni Muslims are fighting Shia Muslims neighbors.
- The more cohesive a cultural group, the less it will exhibit tolerance.
- The greater the potential danger with which a rival group threatens a community, this community will fight more fiercely against the group. A civil war is the most cruel form of war because the culture of both sides is very similar, and therefore there is a strong possibility that members of one community will be tempted to desert and join the other group.
- A cultural group is much like the human body: it rejects foreign human cells or foreign groups, to maintain its inner harmony. If minorities groups do not adopt the culture of the majority group, the latter will expel them in order to ensure its own cultural cohesion.
- If the rejected cultural groups are sufficiently large, they will separate and establish a new community of their own. One can consider this as a birth of a new community. Sometimes the original community can split into several communities, very much like the reproducing of bacteria.
- This mechanism of a community's birth is a common phenomenon in history. In our recent past, the former USSR was divided into many daughter nations, as was Yugoslavia. There are many other cultural groups fighting for independence; the Catalans in Spain, the Scots in Britain, the Flemish in Belgium, the North of Italy in Italy, and so forth.
- The driving force for keeping empires from disintegrating into smaller nations is the stability and cohesion of its population. A homogeneous population is more stable and shows greater cohesion.
- If, for example, the American president had divided Iraq into three homogeneous nations after the American occupation in the 2003 war, the friction between these three cultural communities -- the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurd -- would have been much smaller, and perhaps the bitter war in Iraq could have prevented.
- Human communities are 'born', struggle to survive, 'give birth' to sub-communities, groups with their own features, and eventually, 'die'. This is typical of a living creature.
- If we are to understand humans, we do not need to investigate the function of each cell in our bodies. To understand the human communities, we do not need to examine each individual in it.
- Very few studies are focused on this phenomenon.
- According to the Theory of Mind (TOM), a research area still in its infancy, the human brain developed a neural network whose functions enable us to understand the thoughts, feelings and intentions of fellow humans, to predict the behavior of others and to feel empathy for the other. These social skills held tremendous evolutionary advantages because living in cooperative social groups significantly expanded the chances of survival.
- Researchers found a pheromone, which is excreted by animals for the purpose of signaling that they are of the same species. Usually this is for the purpose of mating. Owners of a female dog knows that she exerts pheromone signals to the male dogs when she is ready to mate. The male dogs smell it, and come to mate with her.
- Humans are not that much different. A researcher named Jacobson found that humans react to pheromones as well, although in a more restrained manner than animals. Several studies have shown that women can be attracted to men simply by smelling their sweat. Another study, though controversial, found that female students living in close quarters, such as dorms, eventually synchronize menstrual time frames. This is known as the McClintock Effect.
- There are not many studies on how people synchronize but it is impossible to deny that the phenomenon of synchronization exists.
- The exact nature of synchronization is of little importance for the discussions in this book; we just need to know that it exists.
- Humans are social animals not just because this is how we have learned to be through education but also because evolution has refined various mechanisms to make it easier for us to connect with other people to form a group. This is the natural norm mentioned earlier.
- As with many processes which developed over the years, evolution has structured diverse traits, each of which supports the need to form groups.
- There are supportive traits to form communities, and other traits preventing separation from the community. Among the supportive traits we can find empathy, compassion and altruism. In addition there are many other traits, such as mimicry, as well as the need for friendship.
- In the spirit of the way in which evolution works, there are traits to prevent negative processes from impeding the desired result. Here, too, the collapse of the community is prevented by features such as feelings of loneliness, which push us back to the comforting arms of the community, and boredom which can be avoided by gathering around the hearth of the tribe. Those are but two of the social traits.
- There are features designed to help consolidate our cultural group, and distinguish it from other competing cultural groups. On the positive side, we have national pride or patriotism. On the negative side, we have developed the trait of hating our enemies.
- It is apparent that part of our difficulty in understanding people of another cultural group is a function of the same traits which assist us in consolidating our own group.
- These traits are common in all cultural groups.
- Here is some research concerning a group of financial analysts under the title: “The Herd Phenomenon. An Analyst’s Recommendations”.
- In this paper, the author quotes a researcher in the field who notes that analysts are writing overly optimistic recommendations because they have a herd instinct, which is manifested in the tendency to belong to the group of fellow analysts. That is why they publicize recommendations that align with the consensus. In this way they reduce the chances of a critical backlash if their forecasts are wrong.
- To help keep our bodies intact, the immune system in our body attacks every defective cell which threatens our health. In the same way, any community member that poses danger to the unity of the community is attacked. There are many examples of such behavior in every community;
- Salman Rushdie faced death threats because he criticized the Muslim religion. Authors criticizing the kibbutz in which where they grew up were shunned by all their friends.
- A member of a religious community is considered dead by his family for daring to leave the religion.
- There are journalists who are afraid to publish their real opinions because the community of journalists will boycott them.
- In 1963, Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment to assess the ability of people to have and to maintain their own opinion. He wanted to check whether an authoritative figure could instruct people to do something without their objecting to his instructions.
- The experimenter and the student were actors. The tested person was given the role of a teacher. The experimenter and teacher (whom we tested) are in one room and the 'student' in the second. The 'teacher' needs to test the 'student' by asking questions. For every wrong answer, the 'teacher' has to punish the 'student' with an electric shock.
- The 'teacher' was instructed by the experimenter to increase the electrical shock for every wrong answer. The 'student' was an actor acting as though he had really received the shocks. Some 65% of tested 'teachers' obeyed the rules. The experiment finally reached a point where the electric shocks would have killed the student if they had been real.
- Milgram’s experiment proves the strength of the tendency to obey orders from a leader. The leader's function is to symbolize the 'spirit of the herd'. This is another typical herd characteristic.
- A leader is not always needed. Even if no leader is present to define the “appropriate” behavior, we toe the line with the masses around us.
- For example; we witnessed spontaneous outbursts of disruption among African-Americans in Baltimore following the death of a young man shot by a policeman.
- Even people who are normally not violent, can find themselves smashing shop windows and becoming involved in other negative behaviors that “everyone’s doing.”
- In everyday life, parents of children need to cope with the effect of the herd phenomenon when a child says, “Everyone’s going…” or “Everyone’s got one…”
- The well-known story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” by Hans Christian Andersen, demonstrates the herd effect. Everyone is cheering the naked emperor; only one child breaks the spell of the herd effect by shouting out the truth: “The emperor is naked!”
- In liberal Western culture, we witness the herd effect manifested as “politically correct.”
- Studies have shown that people behave differently when they are in a large crowd from when they are among their close family or their inner circle of friends. The reason is that the more the crowd acts as one entity, the more influential it becomes.
- This is why leaders speak at public rallies, where the masses can be influenced to act in union as a herd and the individual does not have a chance to think for himself.
- The strength of the herd phenomenon can be seen by the testimony of a Jew who attended one of Hitler’s rallies. The crowd around him was roaring with enthusiasm. Soon enough he found himself roaring with them. It took him some time to realize that he was calling for the murder of Jews! He then fled in shame.
- Huge public rallies are not the only way to consolidate a large number of people.
- The mass media, including newspapers, electronic media, and social networks, are all the modern 'gatherings' of the masses.
- The herd effect grows with the adoption of symbolic signs of group identity, such as uniforms. Soldiers wear uniforms in order to crystallize them into a company which obeys orders and is ready to kill.
- Every religious cult adopts its own identifying garments.
- Every child demands that his parents purchase clothes with fashionable labels to be just like everybody else in his class.
- The illusion of consciousness brings us to thinking that we are strongly differentiated from others.
- This is not the case!
- “The tree cannot see the forest.”
The Evolution of Communities
For most of their evolutionary period, humans lived in the jungles of Africa along with other animals. To survive better in this harsh environment, for protection, they evolved some social traits to ease the forming of groups. Humans are not the only living beings to use this mechanism of living together as a group. Other creatures live in groups of varying sizes. The size of a group is optimized to the dangers it faces.
There is a balance between the desire of man to fight with the others take for himself the largest possible share of resources on the one hand, and the desire to belong to the community to enjoy the benefits that it offers on the other. The life-cycle of communities is much like that of individual human beings.
One short and interesting definition of the human life-cycle is: “Find food, reproduce and eventually die.”
Human communities are often 'born' from the consolidation of more ancient communities, a process much like the mating of humans.
Then they acquire wealth and power – these are the food of communities, and grow to be a nation or even an empire. When the community’s power is at its peak, people in the community allow themselves to advance their own needs, putting them above those of their community. This causes the solidarity of the community to crumble like the bones of an old man. The old community becomes ill with social diseases, such as corruption and extreme gaps between classes. Then more and more people leave the community, and choose other directions. This is the moment that predators are waiting for. The predators (called 'Barbarians' when we refer to a national community) leap forward to devour those individuals who have left the community’s 'circle of protection' and, eventually, the community is conquered and dies.
Different species have different balance points. The more they are vulnerable to dangers, the greater the herd becomes.
The natural balance of the human race was a family or tribe. But the sophisticated culture of humanity enables it to create communities much larger than dictated by the natural balance.
When its culture weakens, the large community breaks down. Predators are organized in small groups while the groups of the weaker members, the prey, are organized in large groups.
The human race faces fewer dangers than do zebras, but more dangers than predators such as tigers. Therefore people had the ability to form groups, but only the size of a family or a small tribe. A small group, such as the family or tribe, was enough to ensure its safety but despite this humans succeeded in forming very large groups, using culture and communication capabilities.
In such large communities, humans could devote more resources to perfect their culture and communication even more, and reach new levels of achievement.
The factors affecting the development of a community and its ability to compete with other communities are:
- Its effective size - which is the number of individuals participating in its development.
- The nature of its culture that consolidates and unites the individuals within that community.
The Effective Size of a Community
The size of a community, for the purposes of assessing its development, is not measured by counting the number of individuals it contains but, rather, by counting the number of individuals contributing to its development, since a community’s strength lies in the accrued contribution of individuals comprising that community.
A community under a dictator has a very small number of active contributing individuals. The masses are no more than an unskilled work force, and therefore can provide only a meager contribution to the group. This creates a smaller community rather than a dynamic democracy in which a large proportion of free individuals participate in the development of the community.
From this perspective, Israel is no smaller a community than all the Arab countries put together.
By way of example, we can describe an economic development comparison: China is known as a huge country with a poverty-ridden population, which allows it to be the center of world production because of low wages. When it comes to labor costs, it has no competitor. But the most productive Chinese worker, receiving a low wage, and working long hours under slave-like conditions, is unable to compete with automated production lines that function at high speed, without stopping, without salaries or social benefits, working 24/7. All day and every day. All that is needed is a supply of electricity and ongoing maintenance. If production lines like these were set up in Israel, China would lose some of the advantages of having this huge population.
The Nature of Culture
A veteran actress complained in rather crude language about the government not investing enough in culture. She demanded more public money for her theater as she thought that theater is culture. For me, a polite individual represents culture more than this actress, even though that individual might not like theatrical entertainment.
Culture can be defined in numerous ways;
One definition states that culture is: “The sum of values as manifested by the behavior of humans”.
Another definition is more specific. It states: “Culture is a system of values, ideas, and shared behavioral norms in a particular community, conveyed through a process of social learning passed from one generation to the next”.
Tradition, art, clothing, customs, and the like are all included in the phrase: 'behavioral norms in a particular community'.
A person born and living in a particular community absorbs the modes of behavior and thinking patterns typical of that community.
Culture to a community is like a worldview to the individual. Both dictate the rules of behavior. The worldview dictates the rules for the individual, while the culture dictates the rules for the community.
When trying to understand the other, it is important to understand the basic mechanisms of culture. In Chapter 1, we examined the impact that a worldview has on the person's decisions. In the same way we have to study in depth the culture of the community that influences the other person's decisions.
To illustrate the meaning of culture in detail, we can imagine culture as the wall of a fortress surrounding the community, protecting it from external influences of other communities, while consolidating the people within it:
- The foundations are: shared mythology, religion and history.
- The building blocks are: rules of conduct at the individual level, and between the individual and the community. The rules of conduct formulated in terms of “to do” and “not to do” are conveyed through education and personal emulation, from one row of stones to the higher row of stones, from father to son, from the past to the future.
- The cement that binds the stones together contains: the language, the images, education, the close interactions when working together, and more. In Judaic culture the unifying cement is defined by the statement, “All Jews are responsible for one another”. In the Western culture, it can be represented by: “All for one and one for all; united we stand, divided we fall” from the book “The Three Musketeers”.
- The plaster overlay giving a uniform appearance to the wall symbolizes the uniformity of all individuals belonging to that culture. This includes the language, the customs, the clothing, and the manners.
- The paintings on the walls display the narrative of that culture, told by stories and displayed in the arts.
- The wall is topped by sculptures, representing the symbols of that culture: its flag, anthem, historic symbols and heroes.
The high walls can defend the people within it from the influence of all other communities outside the walls.
If we wish to see the other persons in a culture beyond the walls, we must climb the high wall, and peer over it.
I am aware of the fact that when we climb to the top of the wall to be able to see the others, we are exposed to the others as well.
When Western culture, in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism, encourages lowering its cultural wall, it weakens its own ability to survive. A flood of Muslim extremists can break through it, and reach the heart of the Western community.
Despite the process of removing row upon row of bricks of their cultural wall, many individuals in the West still have difficulty in understanding the Muslim culture in spite of living with them in the same city.
To really understand members of a foreign culture, we need to go one step further, and remove the masks behind which they hide.
A lack of understanding can result in a dangerous flood of immigrants into Europe. Even those Europeans who understand the dangers are afraid to act as they do not wish to be viewed as xenophobic and racists.
Yes, it is confusing. Some -- but not all -- of those acting against the members of a foreign culture are really racist xenophobes.
The evolution principle is also valid for communities.
In the name of its culture, a community fights with other communities. Similar to the evolution in species, the fittest survive and its culture wins.
There are aspects in a war that are good for the community along with the devastating damage. The very fact of being at war helps the community unite. This consolidation is achieved by diverting internal tensions outward, causing people to cooperate in the face of a shared existential threat, whether real or imaginary.
The long war of the United States with the USSR is an example of the importance of the existence of an enemy to a community. As long as the US faced the Communist culture as an enemy, it flourished. Now, for some years, the US has not had any powerful enemy, and the US is weakening.
Competition between cultural communities is always good for humanity, in the same way that competition between businesses is good for the economy, or competition between species helps to perfect their traits.
The Importance of Culture
Through its culture, the community influences the way we think and react. Therefore, we need to explore every aspect of the community's culture in detail.
The human race, like all other species, was developed both as an individual and as a community of individuals in the same mechanism of the evolution. Here is how culture evolved:
- Evolution of the species is responsible for the sophisticated structure of the human body and brain.
- Evolution of the communities enabled the development of culture that is responsible for those most incredible achievements of the human race.
Individuals tend to function according to their animal nature as defined by evolution of the species, but their behavior is constrained by culture. These cultural constraints are called morals, ethics, conscience, fairness, integrity or simply, “the cultured being.”
Culture allows humans to live together, while foregoing some of their individual freedom in exchange for other advantages. That is why culture is vital to living in a social framework. Sometimes there is a conflict between the natural tendencies and the rules of culture. When that happens, the human brain finds a way to ignore the cultural rules, by disconnecting the context of this action, from the rules of the culture. In such cases, when the action harms the social group, the individual is described as having committed a crime, while he himself thinks he is not guilty. An example would be excessive use of an expense account, allowed the employee by his employer. While the employee might not see this as theft, continued excessive use over time, could amount to sums greater than a direct theft from the employer’s business.
The culture reflects the behavior of the community as a whole and the interactions of the individuals within it. Hence the importance of understanding how culture functions.
In ancient communities, culture was identified primarily with religion.
The monotheistic faiths are cultures in every aspect.
The Jewish culture was the Jewish religion and its cultural norms were formally prescribed for the first time in the form of the "Ten Commandments". These core rules were developed later to become the Jewish religion.
There is a big difference between the Jewish religion and the other monotheistic religions that stem from it, regarding the attitude to the other person and to other communities.
The Muslim faith demands total solidarity. This demand leads to proselytizing to coerce all humanity into adopting that faith. In countries controlled by Islam, violence is directed toward non-Muslims who are regarded as “infidels”. This is no different from the behavior adopted by Christian countries in the Middle Ages.
Judaism, in contrast, has always supported freedom of thought. “Choose your own Rabbi" is a famous adage in Judaism. It means that each person can choose to follow views of his liking. Judaism chooses a defensive strategy to build high cultural walls against the attacks of other cultures. The other religions prefer the offensive strategy.
This freedom of thought gave the Jewish culture strength to change its rules with the changing of circumstances. This is the basic evolutionary rule of survival.
That is why Judaism survived all these years.
This flexibility of the Jewish culture is evidence of the advantages of a balanced culture where free thinking is allowed within the community.
The Jews have contributed greatly to humanity in diverse fields. Communities with cultures more rigid than Judaism force all its members to comply with the mainstream, thus suppressing innovation.
The impregnability of a specific community compared to any other is directly related to the degree of solidarity, which is linked to the community's culture.
Let me explain this.
In the West, the culture focuses on the welfare of the individual; therefore people are less willing to sacrifice their convenience for the good of the community. This is one reason why the West has trouble in defending itself from the Muslim suicide bombers. The life of each individual is more precious than any other value; this is why people in the West are reluctant to defend cultural values with their life.
In Muslim culture, on the other hand, the individual is less important than the culture of the community - Islam. That is why people -- such as the suicide bombers -- are willing to die for the cause.
Communities with extreme cultures are not stable.
In the Muslim extreme culture where the individual does not count, the individuals have no initiative to contribute to the community. This is why some Arab states are not developed.
In the extreme Western culture where the individuals think only of themselves, the individual do not contribute to the community's strength. This is why some Western countries are so vulnerable.
Of course these are the extreme cases. Most communities are not extreme, but we can detect in many communities these tendencies toward the extreme.
A successful community should find a balance between the individual and the community.
A balanced culture allows the individual maximum advantages without undermining the existence and development of the community of those individuals.
Comparing Culture & Laws
In some democratic cultural groups, there is a tendency to see the obedience to legal rules as a basic value that underlies everything.
This is also true for religious people keeping the traditional laws of their religion, even if they contradict the spirit of their own faith.
Can civilized behavior really be replaced by compliance with legal rules?
Let us first find the reason why the justice system was formed in the first place.
The reason for this is that wherever there are people who choose not to behave in a cultural manner laws must be legislated to ensure a cultural behavior.
Culture has a far greater range of influence on a person's behavior than state laws, and it reflects far more justice than religious rites. An acculturated individual will behave according to his internal cultural code, even when others are not watching.
Laws are legislated when too many people behave in an uncultured manner. In such cases, the cultural code needs to be enforced. In a community where no one steals, there is no need for laws to protect property. When the culture of a community is religion, people obey its laws either from tradition, persuasion, or fear of an omnipotent God watching every move. In such cases there is almost no need for a legal system and means of law enforcement. But even in such communities, irregularities occur, making it necessary for a religious leader such as a Priest, a Rabbi, or a Shaman, to set things straight.
In Western culture, religion has weakened and, in its stead, we find that the state law holds a higher standing over cultural or religious behavior.
I respect the belief in the superiority of the state law, just as I respect any other religious belief. However, I wonder why devout law-abiding believers justify the unquestioning application of the law in every circumstance. Why are laws more important than moral principles?
Laws are, by their very nature, rigid and thus cannot be applied to every case. Modern judges, as opposed to the demands of the judges in the Bible, are there to judge according to the laws of the state, not to apply justice.
Laws are the product of some compromise reached during the process of legislating. Sometimes laws are regulated by corrupt legislators, or influenced by the interests of a small power-group.
The superiority of state laws can result in severe injustice. A way should be found to override the law in order to preserve human dignity.
One extreme example would be when Nazi Germany’s racial laws were applied to the Jews. According to these laws, Jews should be handed over to the authorities to be sent to the gas chambers. Nonetheless, certain individuals chose to override the laws and to remain faithful to moral principles.
As much as a modern justice system has its shortcomings, it is obvious that a set of laws is necessary.
Laws exist to regulate the lives of people living in a group; a lone person, living
Robinson Crusoe does not need any law.
On the other hand, a group of people who know how to live together, whether through mutual respect or guided by tradition and morals, does not need a legal system.
Such was the situation among the ancient tribes.
In the huge communities of today these measures cannot work. This is why we find application of social punishment whenever legal laws do not apply. Social punishment acts through rejection from social activities and, in severe cases, through excommunication. This kind of banishment can be found in extreme cultural groups where anyone daring to voice non-politically correct (PC) views is considered a traitor and is a pariah. Both types of penalization, by state laws and by social excommunication, may be unjust and immoral.
Throughout the law enforcement process there are failures and lapses:
- Some legislators are unethical, voting for the wrong reasons.
- Judges, whose duty is to enforce these laws, are trained lawyers, not the wise, authoritative judges of the past. They are regular people, with personal opinions. Their moral judgment is no better than that of any other person. In any event, even the most talented and ethical judge must judge according to the written law, and not according to justice.
- Laws exist primarily to protect the community from individuals threatening to disrupt its integrity and harmony. Law and order are vital to its existence of the community. Too frequently the law tends to protect the accused rather than the victim, and ignores public interests, setting the pyramid of justice on its head. As previously argued, public interest should be first consideration, then the victim and only then the rights of the accused.
The “contract” between the citizen and the state obligates the citizen to obey the rules of that state, to ensure the protection of all other citizens.
Laws are like crutches supporting a lame person, the community being the body in this metaphor. The broken legs are the criminals.
Applying laws to convicted criminals in the community would be like using crutches to help the lame person. Both have their disadvantages:
- A person using crutches reduces his willingness to invest greater effort in walking, resulting in the weakening of the muscles even more instead of strengthening them. Laws, in the same way, weaken the willingness to use moral decisions. With no moral inhibitions, criminals find ways to circumvent the laws, and continue their deeds with no fear of punishment.
- People learn to cast responsibility on the law, instead of on their own moral judgment, just as the person places all his weight on the crutches instead trying to use his legs.
The Balanced Culture
One of the dangers faced by communities is extreme inequality within the community.
There is a basic truth in the socialist theories that sees danger in class inequality, not from the moral perspective but from the worldview of the advantages that a balanced culture community has. This balanced culture will aspire to prevent large disparities between segments of its community on one hand but, on the other, will try to maintain some level of disparity, which motivates people to make an effort.
Inequality is not the only parameter that should be balanced in a community. I presented it for the sake of demonstrating what should be the rules in a balanced culture. All cultural parameters in the community should be balanced. It is not in the scope of this book to list all the parameters, and to explain why they should be balanced, but here is one example to give an idea on what, in my opinion, is a balanced culture.
The community of the Jewish people is an example of a balanced culture.
This is why;
The principles of Jewish culture were formulated in the Ten Commandments.
If we remove the “divine component” which, in my view, was added to ensure obedience, we find that:
- Three main rules remain for organizing coexistence among individuals.
- Three additional rules deal with relations between individuals and their community.
- One Commandment advocates an altruistic framework for the good of the entire community.
I refer here only to the cultural rules and not to the religious ones.
The basic framework of rules for coexistence between individuals lies in the following:
- “You shall not murder”. People must live in an atmosphere of personal security.
- “You shall not steal”. This allows financial security. A person can accumulate assets without fear.
- “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”. Integrity and tolerance toward other members of the community prevent suspicion and assure harmony.
The basis for coexistence between individuals and their community can be found in the following rules:
- “Honor your father and your mother”. All people must be treated with respect to ensure harmonious coexistence.
- “You shall not commit adultery”. This sets the relationships within the nuclear and extended family, which is the basic unit within a community.
- “You shall not make for yourself a carved image”. A community must unite around ethical values, and not around the worship of celebrities, media images, or famous objects.
These rules allow for the consolidating and preserving of the community.
One additional rule within the framework of Judaism enables the community to change and prosper:
- “Remember the Sabbath day”. As I see it, this means that for one day of the week, we should forget our own interests, and contribute our efforts towards altruistic activities for the benefit of the community.
Communication in the Community
The human species is not unique in its ability to communicate. All living things have some ability to do so but a person’s communication is far more sophisticated and complex than that of any other creature or plant.
Beyond enriching human knowledge, communication is vital for producing the culture that unites individual humans into a large consolidated community. A community of this kind can achieve much more than simply responding better to the challenges of survival.
Communication, in its broadest sense, strongly influences the advancement of knowledge. Advanced communication allows the accumulation of knowledge over time, making each generation more knowledgeable than its predecessor.
The advent of human communication in its broadest sense has enabled the accumulation of knowledge. Good communication enables the sharing of knowledge from one generation to the next and storing knowledge in sophisticated mechanisms. Thus humanity accumulates knowledge with time, and this knowledge becomes ever more accurate, and spread over more areas.
The progress of communication was achieved by successive leaps, as follows:
- Speech
- Reading & Writing
- Printing
- Transportation
- Wired (land line) communication
- Wireless communication
- Internet
- Smart phone
Speech
People could share knowledge using language. The sophistication of speech using a rich language, allows the precise transfer of information and ideas from one person to another. There is also a dark side to the ability of speech. It can cause harm, as one can express dislike and even hatred of the other.
Speech also enables persuasive people to convince others into carrying out evil deeds. But this is true for every invention. In every invention lies its inherent dangers. It is up to each individual’s character to determine how he uses the invention.
Animals can make communicating sounds. But they are far less sophisticated than human language and convey the richness of information of which the human language is capable.
Reading and Writing
Speech as a form of communication was limited only to the people with whom a person actually met face to face. Consequently, knowledge could be shared only by people being in the same place and time.
With the invention of writing, humans could leave behind a testimony of their knowledge. This allowed others to read and learn from it, even if its writer had long been dead. It was also possible to convey written knowledge to places far from where it was originally written. Writing improved the ability to convey knowledge across time and place. It was yet another huge leap forward for humanity.
Writing is, without doubt, one of the most important inventions in human history, allowing people to preserve knowledge, pass it down over generations, and increase the total number of individuals able to contribute.
Writing has allowed us to develop advanced cultures, commerce and trade, science, and systems of government.
The earliest known evidence of written messages was found in south Iraq where the ancient Sumerian people lived. That was less than ten thousand years ago, barely one minute in terms of human existence.
These people used tablets of soft clay, and wrote into them with a narrow stick. Initially, writing was a series of images depicting objects and actions but it slowly evolved into formalized shapes of letters, which were used to create words. As time passed, many more nations developed written languages of their own.
Not many people had the skills of reading and writing in the ancient world. This knowledge
was limited to the narrow ruling class. The rest of the people were ignorant for they had no access to written knowledge.
There was one exception to this – the Jewish people. Around the first century AD, their leaders issued a rule that every father had to teach his children to read and write. Later these Jewish leaders built a system of schools to spread these crafts of reading and writing even for those that could not learn from their parents. This ability of the Jewish people has played a role in their survival and even in their excellent achievements for humanity in general.
Printing
In Victor Hugo’s book, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame,” a studious man is described as spending his days hunched over his books, gazing at a newly-printed text, which was to eventually replace the hand-written books of his day. Then he looks through his window in the Church of Notre Dame, and muses aloud. “This will bring about the end of that.”
By this, he meant that printed books would lead to the end of the dominance of the church, which held the monopoly on knowledge which was concentrated in hand-written books.
Until that time, writing books and letters was limited only to those few who could read, write and had access to those books. For centuries, very few people had access to what was considered a privilege; usually they were members of the ruling elite who possessed not only the knowledge to read, but also the means to buy these expensive books.
The invention of the printing press enabled the production and sale of reasonably priced books; now many people could afford them. That had been impossible when books were written by hand.
Now, at the time of this invention, there was a growing circle of people who could read and write. These two events vastly increased the number of people able to contribute to the community; and they enhanced its ability to accrue knowledge.
The invention of printing affected human social consolidation as well, by standardizing the language in the country, thus contributing to unifying the many dialects into to one language that all citizens could understand.
Before the advent of printed books, almost every geographical area had its own unique dialect which was frequently so different from the others that it prevented mutual understanding. Books printed in a specific dialect of language led to broader assimilation of the linguistic structure according to that found in the books. Secondary dialects fell into increasing disuse. In this way even people living far from the center of the country, gradually absorbed the main linguistic structure. In France, for example, the language developed primarily from the dialect prevalent in the center of the country, the city of Paris.
Transportation
Improving means of transportation over land, by sea, and in the air, allows those living at great distances from other people to meet and exchange ideas. This can be considered as a means of communication. A person from one cultural group who migrated to another country could meet with the local scholars to exchange ideas. Today there is no place, however distant, which cannot be reached within the space of a day’s flight.
Wire communication
The invention of the telegraph comes first, then the telephone, with physical wiring. With these inventions, people could enjoy long-distance calls. Information and knowledge could be exchanged, even if the people could not travel, physically, to meet for that purpose.
Wireless communication
Wireless communication appeared initially in the form of wireless telegraph machines. Later this was developed into a mass media system. First the radio was invented, followed by the invention of television. These means of mass communication allowed the spread of knowledge and views from one central point to a vast mass audience. It also helped to consolidate a culture which could now be shared.
The establishment of entertainment and news channels had no small impact on human culture as well as the group’s ability to recruit others into that group.
Internet
The continuing drop in the price of personal computers has made them affordable to many. Computers are currently owned by vast numbers of people. This, and the invention of the internet, made another leap forward in the ability of humans to access, store, and share knowledge.
No less important than producing knowledge is the ease with which knowledge can be accessed.
Improved automated translation systems offered by internet companies help break down language barriers. Social networks have increased the possibility of social bonding abilities. People can share ideas and form groups in ways which were unimaginable in the past. They are not limited by borders, nationality, or distances. Social networks and Internet have already produced yet another major leap forward in global communication. They have a great impact on the nature of communities.
Smart phones
The invention of smart phones allows everyone, irrespective of time and place, to come into contact with others. This invention also enables access to the media and Internet in the same way as though they were at their home or office.
Communication becomes personal, making everyone available to everyone else.
A smart phone is actually a computer with video capabilities; it includes a camera and navigation tools in addition to being a telephone.
The smart phone with its many applications furthers the ability to consolidate communities.
Communication is the empowering factor which increases a community’s scope and its strength.
The means of communication has been developed chiefly in the Western world, which pushed it far ahead of other cultures, and was the primary factor in empowering and reinforcing the Western Empire. But in recent years, the Western world has begun to use communication more for trivial purposes, such as spreading gossip and playing games, more than for the purpose of spreading knowledge, and the advancement of the community. This tendency should worry anyone in the Western culture.
Seeds of Failure
Throughout history empires have risen and fallen. They were defeated after reaching the peak of success. One reason for this is the loss of solidarity within the community, thus losing the urge to fight for the integrity of the community. Here are some examples of the rise and fall of the large communities we call Empires;
The Roman tribes won the battle against the ancient Greek empire when it was in its peak. The Barbarians conquered the Roman Empire when the Romans dominated the world. The Ottoman Empire was defeated in the same circumstances.
It seems that all empires underwent the same fate for the same reasons. The people of rich and prosperous empires became addicted to luxurious life styles and were not ready to fight for their community. They were too busy caring for themselves to risk their lives for their country, like their "barbarian" ancestors.
The new "barbarians" on the other hand, were full of fighting spirit which gave them the victory.
There is a disturbing similarity between the life cycle of the Roman Empire, and the current status of our Western empire.
From an organized and disciplined warrior nation, the Romans became a collection of people seeking no more than “bread and circuses” – “Panem et Circenses” – or, in other words, shallow amusements.
Anyone closely observing the nature of current Western culture can discern this same phenomenon. The West is placing increasing importance on wealth and entertainment in all its forms. It focuses on the economic wellbeing of the individual and on “the good life,” which is the modern version of “Panem et Circenses”. Our satiated, wealthy Western community lacks all motivation to fight in its dying days. The Western empire, in the name of tolerance and hedonism, is risking its own existence.
Autocracies, such as the Muslim culture, are much like the barbaric tribes that attacked Rome. Free and prosperous democracies tend to have bitter disputes that weaken the community, or even cause it to collapse because of the lack of solidarity.
As an example, the Muslim culture is fighting relentlessly for total dominance over the Western infidels, while people in the West are willing to accept the Muslims, and share their wealth with them. We can conclude that here the Muslims have a distinct advantage.
True, in the war between cultures, as with many other processes, we can identify various and contradicting trends.
People in a culture of oppression, like that of the Muslim tyranny, will ultimately rebel in order to attain a minimum of rights and freedom. Many oppressive governments have collapsed following internal rebellion by their citizens.
It is difficult to know which of these opposing trends will win but history shows us that the barbarians eventually defeat the prosperous cultures, even if it takes longer than we might expect.
That is how things come to a full circle: the seeds of failure germinate in a bed of success.
Leadership
The human community needs a leader just as any herd needs a shepherd.
A leader can cause others to cohere around him, like drops of rain that need a speck of dust to begin the process of condensation. Under the right conditions, these drops of people pour down on the community, causing floods of aggression with such force that no one can stand up against them.
Leaders are not necessarily unique persons that possess “leadership qualities”, just as a speck of dust does not have to be unique to make drops of rain condense around it.
One can be a leader by chance, or through familial inheritance.
People think that a leader should have one central trait that distinguishes him from the masses. Often, in a leader, this trait is called "charisma" but we can find many leaders in history who lacked charisma.
Often the very fact of holding a leadership position puts the leader in a preferential place at many levels. The highest level is the love of the people for the leader, which may even bring them to be willing to sacrifice their lives for the leader’s sake. At one level lower comes admiration, then respect, and then social identification.
Among those outside the group around the leader, we find opposing manifestations in various degrees; these range from a low level of derision, then to fear, and hatred.
Hitler is an excellent example of someone who would never have been marked as a leader.
Hitler did not seem to be a particularly authoritative figure: he was short, and ugly, at least according to Nazi standards; he lacked the blond hair and blue eyes of the pure Aryan. He never completed high school, he was rejected by the art academy due to a lack of talent and was, in fact, an abject failure in his youth. He was not a brilliant orator. His voice was high-pitched, and he spat as he shouted slogans at his audience. He lacked any outstanding qualifications yet he found himself turned into that speck of dust that caused the drops of rain to cohere around him. This rain became a flood, threatening to drown Europe.
How did such a man manage to excite an entire nation which was considered to be the most cultural nation in Europe? How did he succeed in gaining the position of leader?
The answer lies in his being in the right place and at the right time to promulgate ideas that were presented as holding the solution to the dire straits in Germany at the time.
He stepped in during a period of economic depression, and deep national humiliation after Germany's defeat in the First World War. He also stood out compared to other leaders by manifesting compassion-less extremism. In this way, he gained the image of a strong and uncompromising leader.
He expressed what the nation needed most at that time: pride, and a unifying power that would heal the country’s economy. In times of crisis the people seek a strong leader who can decide unhesitatingly.
Many are the leaders who have wielded their power for evil purposes once they have achieved the position of leader. Many of them have used their powers for personal gain.
Even when a leader slaughters some members of his herd for a feast, all the rest continue to look up to him in admiration. In time of war, facing the danger from the outside, the nation consolidates even more behind its leader.
Independent thinkers are not welcomed by the community, and therefore these people usually cannot become leaders. Nonetheless, some thinkers can be called upon to lead. The story of the biblical Moses describes such a leader.
He reached leadership status by coincidence after fiercely protecting a Jewish slave.
It is important to understand how people who blindly follow their leader’s orders lose their individuality.
To some degree we can see God in the role of an imaginary leader, and his believers just follow his orders.
Faith
For much of human history, the only culture that unified a community was religion. Even today, a large proportion of the human race believes in some sort of religion. Even some of those who claim to be secular believe in a divine power.
Issues of religion and faith have been discussed widely for many years. It is not in the scope of this book to discuss faith, not even my opinion on the subject. Here we will discuss the subject of faith only in relation to its impact on the individual person and on communities.
Religion has a great impact on how people think and act. Therefore we cannot ignore it in our quest to understand the other person. Let us keep in mind what was noted in the previous sections. A person is motivated by his own beliefs; therefore we should study those beliefs no matter what we think of them.
Belief in a divine entity is the product of our natural tendency to attribute to God the coincidences or natural phenomena that we do not understand.
Brain scans show that religious faith activates neural networks that mediate social communication, emotions, memory, and imagination. It shows the great impact that religion has on the brain.
As mentioned in the first chapter, numerous studies show that the human brain is always trying to fit phenomena into a known pattern. When no pattern is found for a phenomenon that we do not understand, it is attributed to God.
Just as secular people tend to match their pets’ behavior with known human traits through the mechanism of personification, and perceive them as members of the family, so the believer attributes human behavior patterns to God. The human brain perceives the divine as “another person”.
Dr. Jordan Grafman conducted a study where he found that the basic neural networks which allow understanding other people are adapted for the cognitive processing of religious belief.
The use of the same traits for different purposes is common in nature.
It is interesting to note that the same neural areas of the brain have been activated in many studies where researchers examine political claims of persons holding various political views.
It shows that in any faith, whether religious, political, or environmental, our brain uses the same mechanism. Thus understanding this mechanism is important for the task of understanding the other person.
Studies show that, in comparison to secular people, the believers are healthier, happier, live longer, and contribute more to the needy. They accept life’s hardships, and are more at peace with themselves. Communities of believers are more united and their members tend to line up with the group. They have the characteristic of a 'herd' that cannot tolerate free thinkers.
Can Culture be Changed?
Every culture experiences spontaneous changes that were not orchestrated according to a specific plan. Usually, these changes are slow. The question is this: Can a community’s culture be consciously changed in an extreme manner?
Historically, the answer is yes, it can.
Numerous examples of extreme cultural change exist. The French revolution is one predominant example in modern history. Nazism is another. Generally such changes occurred in the form of revolutions which gained impetus from a background of severe crisis.
Can a leader change the nation’s culture?
A strong leader can bring about changes in values, only after he has taken control over his people. It is human nature to show empathy toward a leader who represents the majority of a nation. This is how Hitler was able to bring about a complete change in the values of the German nation.
Crises can change cultures.
The crisis must be immense for it to drive an entire nation against its previously unifying culture.
Cultures can also change very slowly.
Social processes do not bring about change at the speed of modern technology
but technology accelerates social processes. The very ability of technology to change how people communicate by offering non-stop communication no matter when or where they are allows human interaction without the limitations of geography. This enables the creation of new types of groups, which ignore a particular location, or even a particular nation. The fact that most cultures have such free access to other cultures makes it more difficult for any culture to remain utterly isolated.
We can say that communication technology alters culture.
Radio, then television, and later, the Internet, can all be regarded as instruments for brainwashing. The Internet can even lead to changes in a regime as was demonstrated in the Middle East. Whoever wields control over social media and the various instruments of communication can bring about cultural change. The question is whether an individual or organization can gather sufficient authority to bring about a change. It would seem that there are numerous attempts to do this with a number of successful outcomes.
Whether holding such power is desirable would depend on each individual’s point of view.
Culture continually changes, even without being directed intentionally.
The ways in which people dress, what they eat, or how they organize their free time, all change with time. Many changes are spontaneous, and are linked to the economic and social status of the group in question.
Education is a tool used to influence the direction of the culture. Children are frequently the focus of education, as they represent the future of the culture. Every regime tries to exert influence on the culture through various forms of education, ranging from institutionalized education to brainwashing and preaching designed to overcome the individual’s natural filtering mechanisms, and prevent the undesired influences of other cultures.
Narrative is another tool used to create a culture that binds together its members, while differentiating them from other nations at the same time.
Narrative mixes facts and imagination, and forms the nation's historical story.
Narrative works for the community just as the human brain works for the individual. Some people brag that their belongings, behavior and actions are the best. That is because our brain tries to justify and praise everything we do and say. The narrative brags in the same way for the community.
Culture influences individuals at all levels of brain activity:
- At the level of constructing reality pictures, cultural ideas blur facts, adapting them to fit the shared culture. This is in addition to the other reasons which cause people from one culture to see reality differently from people of another culture.
- At the second level of understanding reality, the brain uses cultural stereotypes in addition to the personal stereotypes. The stereotypes of another culture will be different from those of ours, thus changing the way in which information is processed in the minds of people. All this should be taken into consideration when we try to understand the other.
- At the third level of consciousness, values are ranked very differently in different cultures. This is vital for understanding how someone of a different culture will react in specific situations.
SUMMARY
What Do We Need to Learn?
In order to understand how the other person thinks, feels, and reacts, we have to gather information from different areas, as well as exploring how the brain works. Here is some of the information we should gather:
- What information the senses present to the brain.
- On what database the brain relies to build the reality images. This database includes patterns (stereotypes) engraved in the brain, the person's life experiences, and what he learned in the past.
- How he processes his picture of reality to reach decisions. How he reacts after reaching a decision. The reaction is influenced by his character, and the extent of his involvement in his cultural group. All this should be investigated.
- To which cultural group he is most committed, and how this culture influences the picture of reality in his brain.
These are very challenging tasks. The best we can hope for is to learn all we can, and apply our estimations to what is going on in the other person's mind.
We have to keep in mind that there are always contradictory trends influencing a person's brain. The trick is to estimate which trends are dominant in the mind of the person we are analyzing.
These include freedom versus willingness to accept authority, fear versus courage, and so on.
All this information can help us, for example, to estimate the other person's reaction to specific events.
Below are several categories that must be explored if we are to understand the other person:
- How the other person perceives reality. In earlier sections we reviewed the complexity involved in structuring a picture of reality.
- The rules of the other person's cultural group.
- The other person’s relevant personal knowledge. This may not necessarily be true knowledge but, rather, what the other knows concerning the relevant issue.
- The threshold’s level of reaction. If it exceeds his high level, then a person will react. A person will ignore anything that does not reach his individual lower threshold.
- The intensity of the reaction to any given situation, provided that it is greater than the threshold.
- It is also important to examine the other person's sensitivity to a specific situation, and not only the power of reaction that exceeds his threshold, the latter being defined as a change in the force of reaction relative to the change in the force of the situation.
If we accept the thesis that the person is actually an organic machine, controlled by a kind of a computer we call the brain, the other person can be understood. All we have to do, is gather enough relevant data and knowledge. This is in contrast to the approach that sees the human behavior controlled by a mysterious soul, or some equally mysterious mental consciousness. In that other approach it is an unsolved enigma.
A significant part of the meaning of "understanding the other" is to assess how the other person would react to the event.
In this book I introduced another thesis called the 'human fractal'. It states that we are part of a greater being, which means that we cannot fully understand a man by analyzing him as an individual. We have to analyze his behavior as part of a larger cultural community within which he operates.
Here are several formulas to demonstrate scientifically how we can estimate the other person’s reaction to an event.
Of course this is no easy task. It is difficult to estimate the parameters in these formulas, and the formulas do not include all elements that affect people’s decisions. These formulas are, therefore, incomplete and inaccurate.
I assume that when, in the future, there is progress in finding more accurate assessment tools, we will have a more accurate assessment of understanding how other people will react, or at least a better understanding of how most people belonging to a particular cultural group are likely to respond.
Let us define:
- Events = E
- senses = s
Es is the part of an event received through the senses. It is not exactly the whole real event because of:
1. Our sensory limitations (limitations = l).
2. We see only the parts of reality to which our brain is directing the senses in order to get as much important information as we can in a short time. - Direction = d.
Individual = i, indicates a personal part of the brain. i can have a value between 0 and 1, depending on the human tendency to rely on ourselves.
Community = c, indicates the part of the community in the brain. c can have a value between 0 and 1 depending on the human tendency to rely on community culture.
The values of both should amount to one. i + c = 1
Feelings = F, Indicates the emotional filter and should have a value between 0 and 1.
The individual image a person has of an event is:
Ei = Fi * Es
The perceived community aspect part of the event is:
Ec = Fc * Es
And the total event perceived in a person's mind is:
E = i * Ei + c *Ec
In the next step, the event is compared to an existing pattern template in the human brain, to determine which reaction can be issued in time.
Patterns = p
If a partial match is found, the decision of that pattern is issued - E = Ep.
This process does not stop, and continually matching is performed while an incoming stream of information flows from the senses. If a better match is found with another pattern, the decision is exchanged for a new one.
The brain pulls the template engraved matching Ep event from his memory, as long as there is no information that contradicts it.
If the brain cannot find a suitable template, it is forced to fit the information to bits of different templates available. In this case, the decision time is longer.
In the next stage, the brain must decide on the proper response that follows the decision.
Let us define:
- Event intensity = Er
- Low response threshold = rl
- High response threshold = rh
To decide on the proper response, the brain compares the intensity of the event to the thresholds. These thresholds are determined by the cultural values of the person's community, the personal nature of this person, and his mood at that time.
If the intensity of the event is lower than the low threshold - Er <Erl, then there will be no response as the person is indifferent to the event.
If the intensity of the event is higher than the high threshold - Er> Erh, then the brain sends the relevant commands to act.
If the intensity of the event lies between these two thresholds - Er2> Er> Er1, the person will react emotionally, but will not act upon it.
Then, according to the nature of the event and the required speed of response, the responses are directed to various areas of the brain for further treatment.
These different areas activate muscles by nerves and appropriate commands or stimulate one’s hormonal glands to regulate body function and display emotions.
In the case of immediate danger, there are some reflexive responses made by the nerves even before the brain receives the information, circumventing the described process, but in most cases, decisions are made by the brain.
We are aware of some of the decisions, but not aware of others.
When the brain finds a perfect match between the event and a well-defined pattern as in the case of driving home, or the act of walking, the brain activates the appropriate muscles automatically without alerting our consciousness. In other cases, especially when long-term planning is required, as in evaluating the next move in a chess game, the brain uses logic and imagination mechanisms and uses the help of graphics to compare possible operating routes to existing patterns for a quick decision. In these cases we are consciously alert. This is when we feel emotion, and become aware of the display of our senses.
In all cases, the brain builds these new pattern templates or modifies existing pattern templates, as a consequence of the decision that it made.
Can We Really Understand the Other?
The thesis of this book is that humans are just sophisticated machines with an organic computer we call a brain. There is no soul or any other such incomprehensible mental entity whose actions cannot be anticipated. Therefore we can estimate the thoughts, feelings, and reactions if we can collect sufficient data. Machines are not mysterious beings and can be understood.
It was also discussed in previous sections (see the 'human fractals'), how communities are entities with similar features; therefore they also function according to rules which can be understood.
If these theses are accepted, then all we have to know is what data are fed into these entities, and how they process these data in order to achieve a response.
In conclusion; if the other person is a machine then the answer to the above question is yes, we can understand the other person, but it is not easy. It is not easy because we see the real physical world through distorting filter
- We judge the world through rosy glasses that spare us unpleasantness but, at the same time, distort reality.
- We are all wrapped in our cultural garments that are woven of traditions, customs, conservative approaches, and routine. The purpose of these garments is to reinforce similarities; and they blur the differences among all members of the group, thus uniting our cultural position. These garments around us and around other persons, create a smooth shield, enabling us to reduce friction with others in our cultural group but, at the same time, prevent us from seeing the true nature of other persons.
- Our group is surrounded by a cultural wall that helps to consolidate our group and blocks the influence of other cultures. But, at the same time, it prevents us from seeing the real nature of persons residing within the walls of a different culture
- The foreign person within the walls of another culture is also wrapped in garments of his own that hide him from our view
This is why many of us cannot understand the other person. We are convinced that the other person reflects our own image, and will react as we do, believing in our values. This leaves us sometimes standing, scratching our heads in disbelief when the other person reacts differently from the way in which we would react to the same situation
Because of all these obstacles, we have to remove our cultural garments and look beyond the walls of the culture surrounding us. Then we have to look for the other person hiding beyond the wall of his own culture, wrapped in his own protective garments
Only an independent person can remove all these veils, and understand the other. Regretfully, freethinkers are rare. They are often shunned in their community because the group demands solidarity and uniformity
In this book, I have tried to open a window, through which we can peep into the other person’s soul, and see how he feels and thinks, enabling you, dear reader, to estimate his reaction to a given event
But can you really remove all these walls and masks, to see clearly the other person’s behavior?
We need to keep in mind that our feelings of distaste toward “other persons that are not us”, are no more than chemical reactions that our brain implants in order to enhance the solidarity of our group and to separate our group from that of the other person.
Let us ignore them for a moment, and remember that the other has similar feelings toward us as well.
If you can do this, perhaps you will understand the other person to some degree. But even if you cannot do it, I hope that the insights you have gained from this book will help you understand yourself better, at the very least.
And that, too, is a worthwhile achievement.
The End
Thank you
To write this book I had to dig into numerous studies to find the information I needed. First and foremost, I want to thank all those who took the trouble to gather all this vast amount of human knowledge into the buffer memory shared by all humanity - the Internet. Special thanks to the researchers who consented to publish their research online, and make it available for everyone. Many thanks to all the people who built this phenomenal database
.Thank to all the people who helped me in formulating this book
It is my pleasure to thank Dr. Amos Sargon for proposing some very clever amendments
Thanks to all my family for supporting and encouraging me in my writing. Special thanks to my son, Lior, who read bravely, without any complaint, the boring parts of the book in progress. He made many suggestions on how to correct my style. Lior is a brilliant film director, raised the idea of accompanying the book with a series of short videos, each on a different topic discussed in the book. See his site
http://www.liorharlev.com/en
I have to thank you, my readers, in advance and would be very grateful for any comment you might care to send me on any aspect of this book. Please contact me
understand.the.other@gmail.com
Yoram Har-Lev
No comments:
Post a Comment