Neurochemistry is an area of science
that has been advancing fairly rapidly in recent years. Scientists have
discovered that specific chemicals produced by the brain are associated with
specific kinds of feelings experienced by the owner of that brain. Dopamine, endorphins,
epinephrine (adrenaline), serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin are examples of
such neurochemicals. Taking mind-altering drugs (whether recreational drugs or
anti-depressants), or engaging in certain activities such as physical exercise
or sex, can stimulate the production of some of these chemicals in the brain,
thus altering your general mood.
Now, this is
all very interesting, and neurochemistry is certainly a worthy area of
research. However, there has been a tendency to make broader claims for the
findings of neurochemistry than they are entitled to, a tendency to try to
explain all human feelings through the findings of neurochemistry. To combat
this tendency, I must insist on the fact that neurochemicals are not the only
ingredient in human feelings. Feelings are so much more than just these
chemicals. They are produced by a
combination of: chemicals and context, with context probably being the more
important of the two.
Human feelings
never occur in a vacuum; they always have a specific intellectual context. By
intellectual context, I mean the totality of what makes an individual human
being who they are, at the moment when the feeling is experienced. The
intellectual context is shaped by the unique, past experiences that have shaped
an individual’s personality, experiences that contribute to forming people’s
personalities in non-standardized ways due to each individual’s unique genetic
make-up and brain structure. The result will be a unique configuration of
preferences, values, and ideas held about the world, in place when the concrete
feeling is experienced. This configuration will necessarily be different for
each individual person, and will also necessarily be different for the same person
at different points in their life. For every moment of an individual’s
existence that passes, this configuration will change and the old one will be
gone forever, never to be faithfully reproduced.
In casual
language, we usually refer to feelings in broad, expansive classes, such as:
happy, sad, angry, euphoric, frustrated, satisfied, excited, bored,
disappointed, etc… While necessary for purposes of concise communication, such
language serves to conceal the vital role of context in human feelings.
Everyone can feel something that they can identify as ‘euphoric’ or ‘sad’,
according to the definitions which other people have in mind when they talk
about these classes of feelings. This leads to the notion that feelings are
objective phenomena, common to all humans and even some animals, rather than
subjective phenomena that are unique to the individual, conscious human. And if
feelings are objective phenomena, than perhaps they can be fully explained by
the existence of certain neurochemicals, different for every feeling, produced
by all humans.
The
problem with this story is that it impermissibly ignores the subjective element
in all human feelings: the context in which they are felt. I could say that I
was ‘sad’ on March 11, 2014 at 4:00 PM, and also that I was ‘sad’ on March 29,
2014, at 11:00 PM. But in actual fact, there is no way that I could possibly be
talking about the same feeling in both of those instances, even though I
express them in common language using the same word. Feelings never repeat
themselves over time because the intellectual context is constantly changing,
nor do they repeat themselves across different individuals. Feelings are as
unique as each individual, and as fleeting as each person’s momentary state of
mind. Even if scientists could reproduce the exact same chemical reaction in
someone’s brain at different points of their existence, there is no way that
the resulting feeling would be the same in both instances. How could it be when
different intellectual contexts result in differing personalities and general
states of mind at the two moments when these supposedly ‘identical’ feelings
are produced?
Neuroscientists,
in their quest to find objective, universalizable causes of all human feelings,
have attempted to explain one of the most mysterious and revered feelings of
humanity using the science of neurochemistry: romantic love. Neuroscientist
Helen Fisher, of Rutgers University in New Jersey, divides love into three
stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. She suggests that the lust stage is
driven by the sex hormones, testosterone and oestrogen. The attraction stage is
driven by Dopamine, Norepinephrine (adrenaline), and Serotonin. The attachment
stage is driven by Oxytocin (released during sexual orgasm) and Vasopressin[1].
Now, I am not qualified to criticize the neuroscience performed by and reported
by Dr. Fisher, I will assume that it is quite sound. I merely want to ensure
that this science does not lead to unsound conclusions on the subject.
One unsound
conclusion that could be drawn from this material is that the sum and substance
of human feelings of romantic love can be explained by different combinations
of neurochemicals produced. I need not descend into the hazy world of ‘spirituality’
in order to assert that this extreme reductionist conclusion is horribly,
grievously wrong. All I must insist on is the fact that love, like any other
human feeling, does not occur in a vacuum; it always arises in a definite
intellectual context. As explained above, this intellectual context differs for
each individual person, and differs for the same person at every moment of
their lives. This is not to say that the chemicals identified by Dr. Fisher and
others don’t play a role in human feelings of romantic love: they probably do.
But the fact is that they are not the only ingredient, and probably not even
the most important ingredient, in the recipe that produces human feelings of
romantic love.
When
entering into a romantic relationship, the two people bring with them their
unique genetic make-ups, past experiences, values, preferences, and world views.
During the course of the relationship, the experiences of the relationship
itself will be partially shaped by, and will result in a modification of, what
was brought into the relationship by the two people (except for genetic
make-ups which aren’t modifiable). This process will be incredibly complex, and
will be influenced by an almost infinite variety of factors. The ‘love
neurochemicals’ could certainly play a role in influencing these vital
experiences, but so could many other things, from what was said by one person
to the other at a certain point in time, to how well one person supported the
other during a time of difficulty, to even something as seemingly trivial as
what the characters in one person’s favorite romantic movie ended up doing with
their relationship, and what the portrayed results of these actions were.
It is
understandable why scientists aren’t keen to take on this kind of mind boggling
complexity, and instead choose to focus on more objective, reductionist factors
instead. However, the complexity of a set of factors is not a justifiable
reason to ignore these factors when trying to explain a phenomenon. Much to the
dismay of some scientists, it is likely that due to the extreme complexity and
subjectivity of these important factors, love will remain a mysterious
phenomenon for the foreseeable future. Perhaps, ultimately, it is better that
way anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment