Writing or talking about the brain is very difficult, in part because we identify our minds with our selves, our egos, our entire awareness. When you say “I,” you mean that you think of yourself as an entity, a person, a consciousness. And it’s hard to describe just what is going on in the brain, for at least 2 reasons: (1) we can’t see into our own heads and (2) whatever is going on there is incredibly complex. We can only speak about it metaphorically, by comparisons.

It’s true that with the relatively new brain scanning technology we have learned a lot. Scientists can actually see different parts of the brain light up at different times; they are continually surprised by what they find.  I want to remind you of what Eagleman says:

 

A typical neuron makes about ten thousand connections to neighboring neurons. Given the billions of neurons, this means there are as many connections in a single cubic centimeter of brain tissue as there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

 

So Eagleman, trying to describe to the educated reader the role of consciousness, must use comparison, metaphors, analogies. These figures change depending on what he’s trying to show. So when he wants to emphasize the conscious self’s awareness of the whole operation at one point it is compared to a stowaway, at another it’s compared to a plane running on autopilot, at another a newspaper reporting in very sketchy detail the operations of the whole nation (the entire brain).  He chooses his comparisons to suit what he’s trying to emphasize. But his main point is a simple one, though hard to really grasp: “most of what we do and think and feel is not under our conscious control.”  The brain “runs its own show.”

 

By the way,  I sensed some confusion about terminology here. You’ve got to get this in your heads: Consciousness means awareness. Unconsciousness means lack of awareness, but something still going on in our brains. Just to be clear, that’s different from the word “conscience”—the feeling of guilt that bothers us if we’ve done something wrong or warns us not to do something, what Freud called the “superego.” Eagleman isn’t discussing this. Don’t get these terms confused!!

 

Anyway, in his first chapter Eagleman presents his chief idea that we are not in charge of our own brains.  In earlier history we felt we were in charge, the conscious self controlled everything.  The poem Invictus says: “I am the master of my fate/ I am the captain of my soul.” Nice idea, not true. He shows us the historical development of that idea culminating in the theories of Sigmund Freud, whose theory of the id, ego, and superego you read a little more about.

 

We examined how much these figures seem to be present in many tales, both ancient and modern. The Good Angel/Bad Angel opposition mentioned in discussion. The poor ego, or consciousness, is caught between the Id which wants what it wants and tells the ego to yield to desires whether good or bad,  and the superego which is continually reproving the ego for not being good enough. Ideally, the ego should remain in charge of both these “angels.” The idea is not to beat the Id to death, however, because the Id always comes back. It’s best to understand and even befriend the Id. Which is why the frog prince is perhaps the healthiest of all the tales. The Id is not the ugly frog, but a prince in disguise. Nice outcome.

 

Anyway back to Eagleman: he shows that our conscious self is no longer seen as existing at the center of things; it is no longer regarded as the master. Metaphorically, the king has been removed from the throne. He is dethroned.

 

He compares this dethronement of the conscious self to another dethronement., in the 17^th century when scientists began to realize that the earth is not the center of the universe. People were killed or imprisoned for demonstrating this. The harm in this change of viewpoint was not so much the damage done to individuals but the damage done to human self-esteem. We’re not the center of the universe? All the stars and planets do not revolve around the earth? Oh no!!

 

What has happened in our knowledge of the human brain is similar. Our conscious self is not at the center of operations? We’re not in charge. Oh no!

 

Eagleman feels that both these “dethronements” open up realms of possibilities that we hadn’t been aware of before. Knowing that the earth is not the center of the universe opens up the possibilityof outer space, other solar systems, other galaxies, life on other worlds. It’s scary but fascinating. Similarly the dethronement of the ego (Freud’s term for consciousness) opens up the whole idea of a vast unknown inner space. And it’s this that his book will explore.

 

This week you’ll read “The Testimony of the Senses,” where Eagleman explores our relation to outer reality. What he says may surprise you.

 

It’s important as you read to keep an open mind, by the way. You might want to resist these ideas. But in any college course, you need to understand the reading and be able discuss it before you accept or reject it. Don’t be afraid to learn something new.