Friday, January 19, 2024

The Authenticity Fallacy

(This post is part of series of posts, beginning here. It is recommended they be read collectively, and in order.)  


"Be Your Authentic Self"


This has become a popular phrase of late.

There is just one problem. You don't know yourself well enough to be your authentic self.

Consider the case of "Joe".


Joe is an individual whose corpus callosum was cut, severing the left and right hemispheres of his brain, in an attempt to control severe epileptic seizures.

Some interesting observations came from experiments performed with Joe. Having him focus on a dot in the center of a computer screen they would display words or images to either the right or left side of the screen. Anything which appeared on right side, he could verbally name. If it was on the left side, he could not. He could, however, with his left hand, draw the object.

Taking it a step further, they would show different objects in each side at the same time. He would draw object on the left side. But report seeing the object on the right.

In some instances, when asked about the disparity between what he said he saw, and what he drew, he provided a believable (albeit false) explanation. For instance, he reported seeing a hammer, but drew a bell, he would report having passed a church while driving to the facility and must have seen the bell in the steeple. Note he wasn't lying, he was creating a false memory to justify the disparity, to make sense of it.

Which side of Joe's brain is his authentic self?

It is noted that women, every month, go through a series of four hormonal phases (menstrual, follicular, ovulatory, luteal), during which significant changes in various hormone levels occur. These changes vary in effect from one person to the next, but in some instances, they very drastically alter mood, to a nearly Jekyll and Hyde level in some cases. Recent studies suggest there is also an impact on decision making (specifically, higher estrogen levels reduce impulsivity). At what point on the Menstrual cycle, then is a woman her "authentic self"?

(Men experience something similar, though not nearly so drastic, and on a 24 hour cycle, but this too may alter mood and decision making to some extent, so again, what time of the day is the man being his "authentic self?")


In the previous post, "The Invictus Illusion", I noted a report on instances of drastic personality change occurring in victims of brain trauma. Further, consider the instances of dissociative identity disorder.

Putting that together, I wish to propose a theory.


Each and every one of us consists of multiple "personalities".

Perhaps our brain is in fact a distributed system, with each region having its own personality. For most people, we are unaware of this due to one or more mechanisms which coordinate those separate personalities. If this is the case, then dissociative identity disorder is the failure of this mechanism, causing a person's separate personalities to manifest independently.

What then is our authentic self? The combination of all the personas? The command-and-control system, assuming one exists? Perhaps finding your authentic self is lifelong struggle in which one personality ultimately subdues the others?


This is of course a theory, but one which fits with what we know, and could possibly explain much of what we don't. It of course becomes a tricky talking point for people of faith - if you consist of multiple personalities, what then, is "the spirit", and what control does it actually exert on body and mind?

I don't know how close to truth my theoretical model is, but at any rate, who you are, and who you think you are, are likely much farther apart than you realize.


Tuesday, January 9, 2024

(Dis)Proving Evolution

 I created a series of posts on the topic of (Dis)Proving God quite some time ago. I believe I need give a similar exploration of evolution now.

I believe it is necessary to consider the concept of evolution in two separate categories:

1. Evolution as a mechanism utilizing natural (or artificial) selection to alter the characteristics of a living organism.

2. Evolution as the origin of life.


In the case of the former, this has been quite clearly observed and documented. The peppered moth is a key example of this. The moth was largely white in color with black spotting, which worked well as camouflage against lichen covered tree trunks. There were of course mutant variations of the moth which had less white and more black. They were easy prey for birds, however, thus rarely survived to procreate. 


As we humans constructed cities, and burned wood and coal to keep ourselves warm, we introduced pollution which blackened the nearby trees. Suddenly it was the black moths, not the white ones which had the advantage. Their numbers rose, while the population of white moths declined. 


We humans have been using this evolutionary process to our advantage for millennia now. We have carefully selected and breed dogs for specific characteristics. We manipulated evolution to create dog breeds specifically suited to heard and guard grazing animals. We created breeds to pull sleds or wagons, breeds to retrieve small game. Breeds to hunt and kill small rodents in and around our homes. Breeds to protect our families from potential threats.


We have manipulated various vegetation, selecting for sweeter, hardier, more visually appealing characteristics. Many of today's vegetables would be unrecognizable to those who first used them.


Evolution is a clearly observed mechanism. Only an utter fool would argue against it at this point.


What is not entirely clear is whether this scales beyond altering characteristics within a species. Certainly, it is reasonable to conclude that a new type of animal can be created through this process. I use the Mule (a cross between a horse and a donkey) and the Liger (a cross between a Lion and a Tiger) as observed examples of this. And though ligers are usually sterile, there have been instances where they have produced offspring.


It is notable a Liger is still a cat. We haven't observed the creation - through natural or artificial selection - of a 'cog' for instance (a hypothetical cross between a cat and a dog, though some might point to the fox...). 


There are two possible arguments to rebut this however:


1. Such drastic evolution takes more time than human history has yet had to observe. (i.e. men evolved from monkeys over millions of years)

2. Such drastic evolution does not directly occur; rather two different mutations in two different surviving species of a primitive organism lead to the two entirely different creatures. (i.e. men and monkeys both evolved from the same origin ancestor [a frog? an amoeba?]  over billions or trillions of years)


Each of these is a potentially viable possibility, based on what we have observed within natural selection. Or perhaps better stated, it is not an unreasonable theory to propose, based on what we have observed. Certainly not one which can be summarily discarded.


There is still that question of the first spark, the initial origin of life.


Now this one is arguably problematic for both evolution and intelligent design. If you are going to posit the question, "where did the first living thing come from?" it is equally fair to ask the question "Where did God come from?" And if you are willing to accept that God just always existed, why then is it not equally acceptable to claim the first living organism always existed?


(Perhaps my mind is simply too fettered by its finite limitations, but to me, both seem improbable).


But setting that aside for the moment, let's just consider this universe as something which came into existence. "Bang", and there it was. Either it did so because some external, intelligent entity acted upon it (perhaps even utilizing artificial selection to evolve it), or it did so through random chance.


There is a thought experiment which posits the argument, if you have an infinite number of monkeys banging away on an infinite number of typewriters, one of them will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. That is fundamentally what is at the heart of the random chance argument.


That is a probability problem. What is the likelihood of such an occurrence happening?


(Dis)Proving God

 This is an index for a series of posts I created titled "(Dis)Proving God".



1.  Dis/proving God: Math, Science and a Checkerboard

2. Dis/proving God: Logic, Anecdotes and Water

3. Dis/Proving god:The Facts

4. Dis/Proving God:Science and Faith

5. Dis/Proving God: Patterns

6. Proving God: Math and Personal Science