Whatever Happened to the Subject?
Proceedings by Caspar Hewett
and David O'Toole
Panel Discussion: Thursday 18th March 2004, 7-9pm
International Centre for Life, Newcastle upon Tyne
Click Here for event details
Click Here for printer friendly version of this page
Click Here for Newcastle Science Festival 2004 page
Speakers:
Rita Carter,
James Heartfield,
Raymond Tallis
Chair: Caspar Hewett
The chair, Caspar Hewett, gave a short introduction in which he asked the questions:
Are we masters of our
destiny? Can we really influence the direction of change?
Since the Enlightenment the idea of the subject has had a central place in thought about
the special nature of humanity. This is a description of human beings as active agents doing
things for reasons and shaping the world to their own ends. Yet, in recent years, fields as
diverse as neuroscience, literary criticism and Evolutionary Psychology have converged on a
very different vision of what we are. The postmodern era has brought us the end of
history and the death of intention. Evolutionary theory and philosophy have brought us a
vision of humans as machines; zombies experiencing the illusion of choice and
intentionality. Why is this? Has the subject really disappeared in a puff of logic or are
these interpretations more to do with the way we view ourselves today?
He went on to introduce the speakers:
Rita Carter is a medical writer, contributing to, among others, The Independent,
New Scientist, Daily Mail and Telegraph.
She was twice awarded the Medical Journalists'
Association prize for outstanding contribution to medical journalism. She wrote the best
selling Mapping the Mind, the first illustrated guide to the brain, and more recently
Consciousness in which she ponders the nature, origins and purpose of consciousness.
Raymond Tallis is a Professor of Geriatric Medicine at University of Manchester, a
position he has held since 1987, and is a Consultant in Health Care of Older People at
Salford Royal Hospitals Trust. He has been awarded many prizes and Visiting
Professorships, including most recently the Dhole-Eddleston Memorial Prize for his
medical writing about the care of older people. He has published fiction, poetry and over a
dozen books in the fields of the philosophy of mind, philosophical anthropology, literary
theory, and cultural criticism. His books offer a critique of current predominant
intellectual trends and an alternative understanding of consciousness, the nature of
language and of what it is to be human. His most recent book The Hand: A Philosophical
Enquiry Into Human Being argues that the nature of difference between human beings
and other animals is the result of a complex sequence of events which began several million
years ago with the evolution of the human hand.
James Heartfield is a writer and lecturer who has written books on Need and Desire in
the Postmaterial Economy, the creative industries in the new economy and
The Death of the Subject Explained in which he explores the ways in which the
attack on subjectivity
in modern theory reflects the diminished role of the individual in society.
Rita Carter introduced the commonly held idea that a person who and autonomous human
being is a free agent. The alternative would be a beast, a zombie, an amoral agent. Such a
being is generally thought to be something less than human. For Carter however, the
subject is an illusion and never existed. The notion of agency is rooted in the belief that
we are not purely mechanistic. This is sometimes described as the 'ghost in the machine'
or the 'soul'. If the human will is something which can cause things to happen but is not
caused what sort of thing could this will be? Carter argued that an understanding of brain
mechanics leads to the conclusion that there is no room for freedom. Cause and effect are
physical processes. She questioned if there is any evidence for the non-mechanistic bit of
human nature. The problem is that we cannot get our heads around the fact that the brain
is just a very, very complicated system. She drew attention to the historical connection
between the words conscience and conscious which implies a voice from outside. This is a
form of Cartesian Dualism.
To back up her argument she pointed to the fact that there are people who have lost the
ability to will freely. She asked; are people who have a tick or epilepsy less than human? To
be a part of the natural world is not something to be ashamed of. Carter suggests that our
assumption that we are separate from nature is mere arrogance.
Her closing comment was that we are not free but that we have a deeply embedded notion
that we are which motivates and drives us and it is this which makes us loathe to give up
the idea of free will.
Raymond Tallis was very enthusiastic about Rita Carter’s Mapping the Mind and
opened with a long quote from it on the question of free will. However, he did not buy into
the idea of a lack of free will. Not everything can be understood in terms of neuroscience.
There are a number of ways in which the state of the brain can be altered from drinking
beer to a knock on the head to a new experience. Reasons and thoughts are about something
other than themselves. Rita Carter misses human intentionality in her argument. Unlike
Carter, for Tallis it does make sense to distinguish between conscious and
unconscious acts. The epileptic who accidentally hits another person due to a fit cannot be
equated with someone who deliberately attacks someone. Although it makes scientific
sense to think of both acts in the same way (as a result of brain processes) to us as
humans it is not at all reasonable. Tallis pointed to the complicated chain of decisions that
lead to any deliberate act, using the example of attending this debate. It was initiated by
receiving an email from Caspar Hewett inviting him to speak. He considered the subject
matter and the line-up of speakers before agreeing to take part. He looked at his diary.
Having decided to come he performed a series of actions over a number of months which
culminated in him standing there at that moment speaking. This is a perfect example of
the reality of agency.
Tallis argued that agency is made out of mechanical objects but is not of them.
There is a
distinction between the mechanics of the brain and the intention of the human who
decides to perform an act. Humans have abstract goals and this seems to be missing from
Carter’s view. We know what we want to do and do it for reasons. This is not imposed from
without. He closed by asking how we uniquely become agents and how we become free.
James Heartfield said that we should not be frightened of the soul. The soul is not so bad a
thing. He questioned why we ask where it is. At different points in history people have
theorised that it resides in the brain, the heart and the pineal gland. In fact the mind
partly resides in notes in the margin of a page and the memory of a laptop. We put
decision-making into the world when we set an alarm clock. Responsibility is very complicated -
sometimes it means having no choice rather than free choice. As Martin Luther said "Here
I stand. I can do no other." Heartfield is firmly of the opinion that we stand outside
nature. He used the phrase 'super nature' to describe the way we use artefacts and
materials of our own creation such as trains an petrol which clearer do not occur in nature.
Heartfield identified a tendency to retreat from responsibility using the example of the
novel Prozac Nation which he described as 'the slacker novel'. The protagonist sees
herself as a loser and steps back from responsibility. Yet as the story unfolds it is
apparent that she is a successful journalist and not the failure that she imagines herself
to be.
For Heartfield some of the interpretations of neuroscience give an excuse to abdicate our
responsibilities and our actions. They represent a retreat from agency. Today there is a
fake agency. Our grandparents lived in a world of heroes and we laugh at this. We are
uncomfortable with heroes. Instead we have celebrities. It makes us feel OK about our
failure. There is something of this in our reaction to terror. Terror is a sense of
diminished agency. We don’t say "you ratbags" when an act of terror is performed, we ask
what made them do this? We do not like to judge. The phrase "you are very judgmental" is
used as a criticism. But our refusal to judge people is actually dismissive. It means that
they do not count.
A lively discussion followed with a number of engaging questions from the floor. The theme
of responsibility was a major one throughout the debate. Rita Carter conceded that there
is a massive difference between a deliberate act and a reflex action. However, she argued
that knowledge is not the same as responsibility; we observe ourselves in the action of
acting. We gain the illusion of deciding and miss the fact that we are mere observers of
our own acts.
Carter drew attention to the experiments of Ben Libet who showed that there is a delay
between the moment that a person makes a decision and when they become conscious of
that decision. Carter considers that this backs up her view that free will is an illusion but
the rest of the panel and some of the audience did not agree with this interpretation. A
decision has to be initiated somewhere in the brain and there will inevitably be a time
delay between that moment and the ability to report it.
On the question of whether animals have consciousness Heartfield made the point that we
have a conscience, which animals do not. He argued that early people’s consciousness must
have been very different to ours and drew attention the break after the Renaissance in
the way that we view ourselves. It is in this period that the idea of the subject first
appeared. Tallis argued that many beasts have sentience but no knowledge and thus could
not be described as having consciousness. He expanded the idea of free will saying that
the purest expression of free will was when the action became entirely reflex as a
consequence of training. When a cricketer catches a ball it is a reflex action but the skill
has been acquired as the result of a conscious decision to invest in years of practice.
On the question of "whatever happened to the subject?" Carter is firmly of the view that
the subject does not and never did exist. Heartfield’s view is that the diminished
subjectivity of today is a consequence of the political and social climate and does not
reflect what we actually are. Tallis, as a humanist, is not convinced that modern
neuroscience should alter our view of subjectivity and is with Heartfield in his conviction
that we do possess agency, consciousness and free will.
The chair thanked the speakers and audience for their contributions. In closing he
thanked the Centre for Life for hosting The Great Debate at Newcastle Science Festival
2004 and gave special thanks to Joanna Rooke for her patience, good humour and
hard work behind the scenes.
Click Here for printer friendly version of this page
Click Here for event details
Click Here for Newcastle Science Festival 2004 page
Top of page