Susan Alabsi

The excerpt I found to be quite intriguing in The Blank Slate begins with discussing the ghost in the machine. Pinker discusses “the astonishing hypothesis”, the theory that all our feelings, emotions, and personality traits, come from the tissue of our brain. This hypothesis squashes the belief that every human body has a corresponding soul.  This hypothesis leads to the belief that everything can be artificially implemented into a person’s brain. The article dicusses how stimulation to the brain can cause a person to recall a memory that never actually happened. To support this, he goes on to say that a person’s personality can be altered from surgery. An example of this is the case in which a person underwent a procedure that severed his corpus callosum creating two separate consciousness’s. This concept is troubling to me because the complexity of my being can be reduced to electrical impulses. The idea that once my brain dies, I will cease to exist is unsettling and I don’t agree with it. Pinker does a good job in discussing this topic with how he presents his case. Usually in essays, a writer will first say their opinion and support it with evidence or examples. In this paragraph, Pinker begins by saying “Neuro science challenges the ghost in the machine”, which leads into examples of what the field has proved. He provides a couple of examples initially so that the reader can make a decision, and then he states that he believes the science is right. The paragraph left me questioning my own beliefs and it honestly made me uncomfortable. This internal struggle is something that is not new to me though. I am studying the empirical sciences, but I also find myself quite religious. I understand that if a repeatable experiment proves a hypothesis, then that strongly suggests the hypothesis is accurate. I am competent in the sciences and I am confident in my knowledge, but when religion and science contradict, I find myself on the side of religion ALWAYS. Sometimes it makes me feel naïve and slightly dumb, but I truly cannot help it. I also find that I am forced to keep these opinions to myself, especially with the field that I am in. In reality, I completely do believe that every human does have a soul that cannot be mapped out and cannot be recreated. Furthermore, I do believe that there is an afterlife, even though I'm not sure what that might be. 

            My beliefs versus Pinker's are two sides of a very common story. This debate has been and will always be present in society. Each person needs to decide for themselves what side they are on, but I don’t think a conclusion will ever be reached. There are huge stakes when it comes to this topic, because each side leads to different attitudes toward discovery. No matter what one might believe, there should always be a push towards wanting to discover more about our reality.