I've been more open lately. Less aloof, more receptive to emotions.
At first I blamed this on Neon Genesis Evangelion, but looking back, I clearly remember at one point (pre-NGE) thinking in amazement after a strong, introspective, personal experience, "Since when have I become an artist?"
I was completely astounded.

It is apparent that my reaction to Neon Genesis Evangelion was only the culmination of a larger trend.
When I realized this, my automatic response was,

"Man, what a pussy!"

But I was mostly joking. It's great. I have the emotional benefits of a good girlfriend - without the girlfriend.

Won't you join me / In holy sodality?

So this is where I psychoanalize myself, right?

No. Psychoanalysis was so 1930. I'm moving forward. Instead, I'm going to play around with my new favorite hobby - neuroscience.

I would be willing to bet that, with such a profound change, there is some kind of detectable chemical alteration in my brain. Something has to be different up there. Was it somehow self-induced? Possibly.

But wait - if my thoughts are dependent upon chemical and physical processes (I just assumed that in the last paragraph), what, if any, meaning does "self-induced" have?

This is a fun topic. But first, some other fun:

In experiments with people who had their corpus callosum (the connection between the left and right hemispheres of the brain) cut, the subjects were presented with the phrase "HAT BAND", with "HAT" in the left field of view (processed by the right hemisphere of the brain), and "BAND" in the right (processed by the left). They reported seeing the word "BAND", but were unaware of the word "HAT". Apparently, the right side of the brain is no good at reading. [1]

A man with a lesion in his temporal lobe was unable to recognize human faces. When presented with a pictorial representation of a face (sort of like this: , but not green) and asked to describe it, he responded with " 'possibly' an apple". [1]

Synesthesia

is thought to be caused by an abnormally close collaboration between specialized brain segments. [2]

Aphasia can be caused by damage to particular areas of the brain (specifically Broca's area). [3]

By applying transcranial magnetic stimulation to frontal regions in one hemisphere, researchers were able to influence the decisions of right-handed people asked to choose a hand to move (80% picked the right hand when stimulation on the left side, compared to 60% in the control group). "Despite the external influence on their decision-making, the subjects continued to report that they believed their choice of hand had been made freely." [4]

The Shakti can even induce religious experiences in customers at will using magnetic fields that correspond to an electroencephalograph reading. (I wonder what George Orwell and Philip K. Dick would think of that?) [5]

It would appear that non-determinism (say, through a soul), is a completely untenable stance. Our brains are the source of both our perceptions and our decisions.

Get used to it now, if you haven't already. Make it easy on yourself.

However, this is not grounds for succumbing to fatalism. We still have free will. (Duh - we make decisions constantly.)
Unfortunately, there are many who have confused the issue (in general, incompatibilists - in particular, a guy I was debating on IMDb - naturally, in the Neon Genesis Evangelion forum ).

After accepting determinism, one thing becomes clear: you are your brain.

Incompatibilists argue that free will does not exist because "if man has free will, then man is the ultimate cause of his actions. If determinism is true, then all of man's choices are caused by events and facts outside his control." [4]

While I agree that one's choices are, for the most part, caused by events and facts outside one's control, there is an important exception.
Remember, you are your brain. Outside events may cause it, but your brain (you) makes the decisions. The only way you wouldn't be making the decisions is if you were something other than your brain - like a soul.

That's right, one of the underlying assumptions of incompatibilists is that you are a non-physical being.

And, ironically, they usually consider themselves to be the most scientifically informed in this debate.

(I promised some of you that I would write a blog about my political views when I finished re-evaluating them. That re-evaluation grew... a lot. The blog should be here in a few weeks, at the most. I'm excited.  )



[1] Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence

[2] Wikipedia - Synesthesia

[3] Wikipedia - Aphasia

[4] Wikipedia - Free Will, "Neuroscience and free will"

[5] Shakti - thanks to Brainsturbator for that one