What Makes a Human Person a Person - Essay Example

What makes a human person a person? INTRODUCTION What makes a human person a person? The quest for understanding and clarifying this question has moved beyond the philosophical and theological spectrum and has entered the realm of science. As science claims the question, “its reliance is on observation and experiment” (Pellegrino, 1997, p 385) and the advances made in the study of genetics is a “crucial intellectual and cultural juxtapositions of our times” (Pellegrino, 1997, p 385). Thus, this paper will try to look into the relation of genetics with our beliefs vis-à-vis recognizing the important role played by science in our quest for meaning and understanding of human nature. GENETICS IN FOCUS Commonly understood, the term genetics is the scientific study of inheritance of specific traits. It is derived from the Greek term genno (γεννω) which means to give birth. However, contemporary discussion of genetics is not only limited to the study of inherited physical disabilities. It has now embarked on researches which hold that religion, beliefs are not something which is perpetuated by repeated actions and instituted by norms but that religious belief is in fact hard wired in our brains. But before we go there, we will have a glance on the importance and the story of genetics? THE STORY The story of genetics is not solely of contemporary concern. Long before the period of computers, during the genre of the ancient thinkers, great names like Hippocrates and Aristotle, have already been wondering and toying with the idea of the viability and possibility of inheriting acquired characteristics or attributes by a new born child from his/her parents or some distant ancestors. This particular notion which has been later developed fully by Darwin has been known as “pangenesis”. (Sturtevent, 2001, p 1) However, the most prominent person whose works have virtually laid down the foundation for genetics without DNA or chromosomes is the mathematician monk Gregor Mendel via his work on green peas. By performing hybridization experiments and systematically analyzing the result of his experiments, Mendel has given us the basic general laws of genetics which are segregation and independent assortment. The result of his works has been published on 1866 and by 1869 DNA has been discovered by Friedrich Miescher. By 1900 the work of Mendel has been found and a new interests on the field surged. On 1905, William Bateson coined the term ‘genetics’ to refer to the study of heredity. From the period of 1905 - 1944, scholars have come up with astounding findings. In 1910, the chromosome theory of heredity has been confirmed. By 1931 they already knew that genetic recombination is made by physical exchanges and that on 1941 they are already aware that one gene encodes one protein as the experiment of Beadle and Tatum describes. By 1950’s, the stream of interests is on DNA. In fact, the entire decade is a show of DNA findings such as DNA is shaped as double helix. It mediates heredity and protein. They found out that there is an equal amount of A and T, C and G in DNA. Being such, it is not surprising that by 1966 the genetic code is cracked by a number of researches. During 1972 – 73, Recombinant DNA is first constructed by Cohen and Boyer. And then on 1977, Fred Sanger developed DNA sequencing technology. By 1990’s genome projects have begun. During this time, DNA finger printing, gene therapy and genetically modified foods appear on the scene. By 1997, Ian Wilmut and his colleagues in Scotland performed the first cloning of mammal – Dolly the sheep. By 2001, the sequence of human genome has been released and until now controversies hound experiments on human and animal cloning, stem cell research and genetically modified foods. With the leaps that have been achieved in genetics, it is not surprising that same interests on the role of genetics in relation with beliefs and behaviour is not lagging behind and that the “challenge for the fields of neuro-developmental and psychiatric genetics is to develop methods …in attempting to map from genotype and physiological phenotypes and beyond to behaviour and cognition.”(Mitchell, 2007, p 0692) GENETICS ON BELIEF The “idea of God is a distinctively religious idea.” (Lyman, 1922, p 449) and being such the normal tendency is to relegate it in the sphere of theology or religion. However, current developments in genetic studies have raised the claim that religious beliefs are not “rooted in the social needs and aspirations of men” (Haydon, 1923, p 590) but that it may be part of our genetic structure, coded in our DNA, hard-wired in our brain. Dean H. Hamer, Ph.D., a respected geneticist at the National Institutes of Health believes he has identified a particular set of gene that makes a person prone toward seeking the experience of a higher power. Hamer (2004), in his book The God Gene: How Faith is Hard-wired in Our Genes, utilized empirical experiments as he set out to prove that there exists a relationship between gene(s) and their biological ability to influence the brain’s capability to perceive what can be deemed as “spiritual experiences”. In Hamers’ experiments, he has used diversified classes from that of Buddhist monks who are ‘conceived’ as highly spiritual on one side and on the other extreme are poor college students who form part of the not so spiritual group. Basically, the essence of his research is quantification of sense experience. And the means of collecting a person's spirituality data relies on the use of a questionnaire. The questionnaire contains questions such as, "Do you feel a sense of unity with all the things around you?" or "Do you sometimes feel a spiritual connection to other people that can't be explained in words?" This questionnaire has been used to illustrate the causal relationship between spirituality and health; as such it earned some standing recognition in the scientific community. According to Hamer (2004), the term God gene is a “gross oversimplification of the theory…since there are many different genes involved as well as environmental influences” (p8). He utilizes what he terms as a powerful research method developed in molecular genetics and neurobiology which takes into consideration “the entire array of evidence-not just one ingredient” (9). The first step in this methodological approach is to define and quantify the link between genetics and spirituality. Hamer measures spirituality on a scale of 'self-transcendence', defined as the ability to see beyond oneself, a concept first coined by psychologist Robert Cloninger. He draws a sharp distinction between spirituality, which is a personality trait that is in varying degree of concentration in humans, and religion or belief in a particular deity, which is a culturally transmitted expression of spirituality. In certain respects some of that variation in spirituality is explained by genetics, although it is inferred that spirituality is most likely a complex trait influenced by many genes as well as the environment. These genetic factors may have been favored during human evolution because spirituality has some positive effect on the individual's ability to reproduce. He also sequenced DNA samples from the same individuals, looking specifically at nine genes known to code for chemicals involved in brain activity. One variation of one gene showed a statistically significant correlation with high scores on the self-transcendence inventory. The gene codes for a protein called a monoamine transporter, one of a family of chemicals that controls crucial signaling in the brain. The gene is rather prosaically named VMAT2, and the relevant variation is as simple as one chemical tread on the DNA spiral staircase -- in the language of the geneticist, a C rather than an A at position 33050 of the human genome. By analogy, this is like changing a single letter in a dozen sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As Hamer (2004) identifies one candidate gene which controls the transport of key neurochemicals called monoamines and has accounted it for a fraction of the genetic variation in spirituality, it is asserted that “monoamine modulation is the mechanism through which many psychoactive drugs may work and through which some of these drugs (such as psilocybin) might produce intense experiences sometimes described as spiritual or religious”(23). Hamer’s analysis of the genetic makeup of over a thousand people of different ages and backgrounds, coupled with the comparison of their DNA samples against a scale that measures spirituality, Hamer infers that he has identified a specific “God gene” that appears to one’s receptivity to spirituality. But how can it be transmitted? IT’S TRANSMISSION An important query that has to be addressed in lieu of a ‘God gene’ is the question of transmission. This is significant since the presence of a ‘God gene’ in the human person implies that there is physiological basis for adhering to a particular belief and its significance is doubled since the predisposition to adhere to a belief is passed on from one generation to the next, intact, since that is what gene is. And that is why there is the contemporary view that “DNA code is now regarded as the software that instructs life, while the cell membrane and all biological functions within the cell are seen as the hardware that must be snapped together to make a living organism.”(Shand et al, nd, p43) An important factor in the transmission of the gene is the environment. It is deemed that “knowledge of the environment is necessary for all living beings if they are to adjust to meet dangers, and to survive. The unknown world must be turned into a known one, so that one will be able to act meaningfully in it.” (Gallus et al, 1972, p 546) but in the turning of the unknown world to that of the known it should be noted that “our experiences affect what aspect of the world interests us and how we come to think about them.” (Hubbard, 2003, p 799) This assertion is in fact affirmed by a study conducted by social psychologist James Olson and his colleagues. The study included 195 pairs of identical twins and 141 pairs of fraternal twins. It reported that: It has found significant heritability effects for 26 of the 30 attitude items studied, including such diverse items as attitudes toward reading books, open-door immigration policies and roller-coaster rides. (However, the effects of the non shared environment again outweighed those of heredity across the board.) The study also examined how attitudes might be transmitted genetically, since it's highly unlikely that attitudes are directly inherited, Olson notes. To test this, the researchers included self-report questions about three sets of characteristics generally purported to have substantial genetic components: athletic ability, personality traits such as aggressiveness and sociability, and intelligence. They then examined how well the characteristics correlated at a genetic level with all 30 attitude items on their list. In several cases, individual attitudes did indeed correlate significantly with characteristics in a similar domain: Positive attitudes toward leadership and high levels of sociability were strongly related, for example, as were attitudes toward sports and levels of athleticism. The findings indicate how attitudes might be transmitted, says Olson. Genetic and biological factors lead to differential experiences among individuals, which in turn help create differential attitudes, he explains. An athletically gifted girl, for example, has more positive experiences with sports than others--she's chosen more often for teams and garners more praise from coaches and classmates. As a consequence, she develops positive attitudes toward sports. While on the surface it might seem that the girl's positive experiences led her to enjoy sports, those experiences were partly determined by her athletic ability, which is likely genetic, says Olson. (DeAngelis, 2004, p 50) In effect this study present to us the important interplay of genes and the environment as we try to understand the behaviour of an individual. What in turn makes this unique and different from other assertions regarding human behaviour is the notion that human physiology in itself plays an integral role in our belief system. While maintaining and at the same time upholding the symbiotic relation existing between our genes and the environment to which it responds, thus, the transmission of ‘God gene’ clearly shows us that “Human evolution cannot be understood as a purely biological process, nor can it be adequately described as a history of culture.”(Ayala & Fitch, 1997, p 7694) Rather, it made manifest the complicated yet interdependent relation between our genes and our environment. In ascertaining the presence of a ‘God gene’, it in effect rationalizes the fact that “God is a concept that appears in human cultures all over the globe, regardless of how geographically isolated they are. Say for example, a tribes living in remote areas come up with a concept of God as readily as nations living shoulder to shoulder, it is fairly strong indication that the idea is preloaded in the genome…it’s an equally strong indication that there are very good reason its there.”(Kluger, et al, 2004, ¶ 27) In the face of this development, what then is human consciousness, human mind? HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AND MIND Human beings are always considered as a rational animal. This is based on the assumption that they have the intrinsic ability to think. This particular ability is a very important skill as “humanity is set in a cosmic environment too often cruelly unkind” (Haydon, 1923, p 591) to the point that some people “cannot control even themselves in totally uncertain surroundings (Gill, 1971, p 16).’’ Being such, “human thinking leads to conscious adaptation to the environment and to meaningful behaviour within it (Gallus et al, 1972, p 544)’’ and that this kind of consciousness is not “a sort of picture or reflection which is a process of unification…it is an activity raising an existing organic complex to a higher power of comprehensiveness (Harris, 1956, p 227).’’ Thus, there is an agreement among scholars that consciousness “appears as a development of the cortical areas and of their interconnections in the brains (Gallus et al, 1972, p 551).’’ But how is this possible? William James has emphasized that the “fundamental aspect of the stream of consciousness is that it is highly unified or integrated (Tononi & Edelman, 1998, p 1846).’’ Integration as a property of general consciousness is the “impossibility of conceiving a …conscious scene… which is not experienced from a single point of view (Tononi & Edelman, 1998, p 1846).’’ Differentiation, on the other hand, as a property of general consciousness is that attribute which allows human consciousness to access in a fraction of a second innumerable scenes whose information content makes a “difference in that it may lead to different consequences in terms of actions or thoughts (Tononi & Edelman, 1998, p 1846).’’ But the underlying factor that allows consciousness itself is the neural activity with in the brain. According to Gerald Edelman, there are fundamentally two different types of nervous system that act in a symbiotic manner in the conscious process. The first is the thalamocortical system, which is named after the two principal structures, the thalamus and cerebral cortex. The cerebellum and several limbic structures send neuronal projections, called axons to the relay station also known as the thalamus. The second system is known as the limbic brain system is the area between the spinal cord and brain. This system contains the thalamus, hypothalamus, and amygdale which play a key role in emotional responses and the hippocampus which is the region where memories are stored. The complexity of the human brain can be attributed to the fact that “its anatomical structure have evolved to accommodate particular kinds of functional and dynamic interactions…the tendency of neurons to connect with other neurons in its immediate vicinity…may provide a more satisfactory account to explain the observed patterns of connectivity…(Sporns, Tononi & Edelman, 2000, p 141),’’ plus the fact that the “environment it samples is complex (Tononi, Sporns & Edelman, 1994, p 5037).’’ However, there is one philosophical query that seems to put its head in genetics and that is since the basic presupposition which underlies neurobiology is the notion that human consciousness is basically the result of neural interactions, can it be maintained that discourses regarding human consciousness is geared towards the acceptance of materialism in the problem of mind – body dualism inherent in the question of human nature? Are the current developments in the study of neurobiology moving towards the elimination of the concept of the mind? Or can we maintain that the mind is different from the brain? If we are going to be honest with our reading regarding the current development in neurobiology, it appears that the scientific community has basically taken the materialist position pertinent to the mind-body dualism. As the experiments that have been currently undertaken asserts already the integral connection between the neurons of the brain and our thinking ability then it seems safe to maintain that the mind which for a time is considered as the ephemeral stuff that allows human beings to think is now a figment of human imagination but what is real and do exists is the human brain. Perhaps, it is possible to take the discussion to another level wherein we now try to understand how unique and private conscious experiences of a human person (Sporns, Tononi, & Edelman, 2000) transcend its solipsism and relativism. Beyond the polemic, as “consciousness…arises only at a high level of organic development where the integration of organism and environment is very intimate (Harris, 1956, p 229),’’ it is not surprising that the question of reality vis- a-vis human consciousness is once more given a primordial concern. REALITY As we accept the viability of the explanation of neurobiology of conscious human experience as a result of complex interconnections in the neuroanatomy of the brain, we try now to see how this elucidation can help us in understanding external reality. It should be noted that neurobiology has technically affirmed the validity of the internal experiences of the individual. What we will try to look into is how human consciousness via genetics or neuroscience can present to us the realness of reality which is considered as external to the subject or the individual. In a simple realist view “Human being are able to form ideas that correspond in some way with a real world, outside of themselves (Royce, 1982, p 30),’’ and that the particular connections present in the ideas formed in our brain are also how the external world is. As such, we assume the reality of two world facts, the first is our internal world of consciousness and the other is the external world. Thus, “The external order of the world beyond corresponds to the order of this internal world of our consciousness…(Royce, 1982, p31)’’ With this particular assumption we tend to delineate that which is imaginary or inauthentic from that which is real. However, I would like to believe that the more pressing question that needs to be articulated is the question how can an external reality be such, so much so, that it can become the catalyst for various neurological reactions/sensations in my body. In understanding the externality of reality and its relation to human consciousness, one proposition that has been strongly supported is the idea of physicalism of the external reality. It is basically the “empirical thesis” (Block, 2001, p 109). In the empirical thesis what is considered as real is on the premises that here is regularity and coherence of conscious experience is simply accepted to be as real. There are no insinuations or doubts regarding its presence in time and space. There is no question with regards to the authenticity or veracity of the actual sense experience. What they have been considering as the problem is not really the reality of the external world but the linguistic differences or the diversity in the naming that we have created in order to refer to the objects of our experience. Since language disparity is basically bounded by certain cultural differences, variations in norms and dissimilarities traditions, thus, linguistic differences are unavoidable. However, what should be considered and given more concern is the fact that “every assertion regarding the world, being an assertion beyond the sensory data of consciousness must spring from an activity of judgment that does more than merely reduce present data to order (Royce, 1982, p 43),’’ for this particular claim provides us with a better insight as to what human beings are and that is we are never passive receiver of data or sensation but that “all [human] cognition is discursive…” (Harris, 1956, p 228) Thus, the interpretation and understanding of reality as empirical thesis as it is in sync with the current discourse of neurobiology and that the connection between human consciousness and the external reality is not some magic or invisible fluid but that the two are of the same nature – matter. CONCLUSION Humanity’s growth is “conditioned by his response (Horton, 1923, p 607).’’ All of us are hoping that the growth that we may achieve will bring the people of the earth a better world, a more humane society. In the light of this ethos, advancements in the field of neuroscience have provided contemporary human beings with new tools and knowledge that will enable us to better understand human nature. As genome is now called “the Bible, the book of life, the Holy Grail (Nelkin, 2004, p 139)’’ we now enter into a new paradigm for “DNA is not just a biological entity in the rhetoric of science; it is so called sacred text, the core of essential humanity, or the master code…(Nelkin, 2004, p 139)’’ being such, it brings us to the proposition that human beings can be known via the understanding of the interconnections of the neurons in our brain. By bringing it a step further, geneticists have not just decoded physiological framework of humanity but that they have also found the key that will unlock the connection between our genes and our beliefs. Although Hamer is not a pioneer on the research of the connection between genes and belief (Krugler et al, 2004), but his finding has startled the world. The idea that humanity’s propensity in believing to a higher power is not solely conditioned by an external factor, the environment, but that it is technically a predisposition due to the presence of a gene in our brain counters tradition and long held belief. But do we have to be afraid? Hamer’s claim removes the purported ‘irrationality’ which is supposed to be inherent in spiritual/religious experience since it is maintained that “humans tend to invoke supernatural agents to account for emotionally eruptive events with a teleological structure that seems to lack a controlling force…(Pysiäinen, 2003, p 178)’’ but this knowledge has provided us with the notion that there is a strong physiological reason why we believe in a higher power, and that such a belief is not something whimsical or arbitrary on the part of the individual. Thus, affirming the claim that indeed, “it is not society that needs religious revival but the individual…(Gallus et al, 1972, p 553).’’ Although we may maintain that neuroscience provides us with alternative view regarding the humanity of all human beings, this path should be taken with extra care. The eugenics of World War II is as real as the very air we are breathing. In fact, one of the reasons why people are weary of genetics is because of the bad name and experience that we have in the past for there is always the possibility that “deliberate genetic control might lead to the abuse of human rights and values in the name of genetic perfectionism…(Fletcher, 1983, p 516).’’ Again, this is no longer just a sci-fi movie or a bad dream; the Dr. Josef Mengele experiments are real. Another thing that we should be guarding ourselves is against ‘genetic fallacy’, “There is no gene for conservatism. There is no gene for Catholicism ( Levy & Lotz, 2005, p 235),’’ although we are not denying that our genetic make up forms us, still we must guard ourselves against sweeping generalization on the basis of genetic fallacy. In the end, as the understanding of human nature is essential in our conception of human dignity, personhood we maintain that “while the ascertainment of facts and the determination of values need to be relatively distinct enterprises, facts and values are constantly interacting with each other in life…(Lyman, 1922, p 451).’’ BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ayala,F. & Fitch, Walter. Genetics and the origin of species: An introduction. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 94 ,No. 15. July22, 1997, pp 7697 – 7697. Block, Ned (2001). “Is the content of experience the same as the content of thought” in Language, brain and cognitive development: In honor of Jacques Mehler ed by Emmanuel Dupoux. MITPress: Massachusetts. DeAngelis, T. Are beliefs inherited? Research shows some are rooted in genetics, though environment is a key. APA Monitor on Psychology, Vol. 35, No.4. April 2004. p 50. Fletcher, John C. Moral problems and ethical issues in prospective human gene theraphy. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 69, No 3, Apr 1983, pp 515 – 546. Gallus, A, Blacking, John, Cohen Erik, Dunn, Stephen P., Kehoe, Alice B., Leeuwe, J.D., Loeb, Lawrence D., Miranda, Pierre & Von Sicard, Harold. A biofunctional theory of religion [and comments and reply]. Current Anthropology, Vol. 13, No. 5. Dec. 1972, pp 543 – 568. Gill, John G. The definition of freedom. Ethics, Vol. 82, No.1. Oct.,1971, pp 1 – 20. Hamer, Dean (2004). The God gene: How faith is hard-wired in our genes. DoubleDay: New York. Harris, Errol E. The mind-dependence of objects. The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 24., July 1956, pp 223 – 235. Haydon, Eustace. The quest for God. The Journal of Religion. Vol. 3, No. 6, Nov., 1923, pp 590 – 597. Horton, Walter M. Reasons for believing in God. The Journal of Religion, Vol. 3, no. 6, Nov., 1923, pp 598 – 615. Hubbard, Ruth. How DNA became the book of life. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol., 28, No. 3, Spring 2003, pp 791 -799. Kluger, Jeffrey, Chu, Jeff, Liston, Broward, Sieger, Maggie & Williams, Daniel. Is God in our genes? Time Canada, Vol. 164, Issue 17. Oct., 2004, pp 44 – 52. Levy, Neil & Lotz, Mianna. Reproductive cloning and a (kind of genetic fallacy). Bioethics, Vol. 19, No 3, 2005, pp 232 – 250. Lyman, Eugene W. The rationality of belief in the reality of God. The Journal of Religion, Vol., 2,No., 5, Sept., 1922, pp 449 – 465. Mitchell, Kevin J. (April 2007). The genetics of brain wiring: From molecules to mind. PlosBiology, 5, Retrieved May 10,2008, from http://www.plosbiology.org. Nelkin, Dorothy. God talk: Confusion between science and religion: Posthumous essay. Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 29, No. 2, Spring 2004, pp 139 – 152. Pellegrino, Edmund D. Theology and evolution in dialogue. The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 72, No.4, Dec. 1997, pp 385 -389. Pysiäinen, Ilkka. Gods, genes and passions. Journal of Cognition and Culture, Vol. 3, 2, 2003, pp 175 – 185. Royce, Josiah. Mind and reality. Mind,Vol.7,No.25, Jan., 1982, pp 30 – 54. Shand, Hope, Thomas, Jim & Wetter, Kathy Jo. Playing god. Ecologist. pp 43 – 46. Sporns, Olof, Tononi, Giulio, & Edelman, Gerard M. Theoretical neuroanatomy: Relating anatomical and functional connectivity in graphs and cortical connection matrices. Cerebral Cortex, 10, Feb. 2000, pp 127 – 141. Sturtevent, Alfred H. (2001). A history of genetics. CSHL Press: New York. Timeline of genetics history. Retrieved May 14, 2008 from http://www.bio.davidson.edu/peopel/kahales/301Genetics/timeline.html Tononi, Giulio, Sporns, Olof & Edelman, Gerard M. A measure for brain complexity: Relating functional segregation and integration in the nervous system. Neurobiology, Vol. 91,May 1994, pp 5033 – 5037. Tononi, Giulio & Edelman, Gerard M. Consciousness and complexity. Science, Vol. 282, Retrieved May 13, 2008 from http://wwwsciencemag.org. Read More