To Be or Not to Be... Immortal

picture by Lauren Burgess
Have you ever heard the tale of Phineas Gage?  I have read about it in psychology.about.com by Kendra Cherry, and it made me think.

In 1848, a young man named Phineas Gage suffered a traumatic brain injury that astonished doctors and continues to fascinate scientists today.

On September 13, 1848, the then 25-year-old Gage was working as the foreman of a crew preparing a railroad bed near Cavendish, Vermont.  He was using an iron tamping rod to pack explosive powder into a hole.  Unfortunately, the powder detonated, sending the 43 inch long and 1.25 inch diameter rod hurtling upward. The rod penetrated Gage's left cheek, tore through his brain, and exited his skull before reportedly landing some 80 feet away.  Shockingly, Gage not only survived the initial injury but was able to speak and walk to a nearby cart so he could be taken into town to be seen by a doctor, Dr. Edward H. Williams.

Soon after, Dr. John Martyn Harlow, took over the case. It is through Harlow's observations of the injury and his later descriptions of Gage's mental changes that provide much of the primary information that we now know about the case.

In the months that followed, Gage returned to his parent's home in New Hampshire to recuperate.  Unable to return to his railroad job, Gage held a series of jobs including work in a livery stable, a stagecoach driver in Chile and farm work in California.  Popular reports of Gage often depict him as a hardworking, pleasant man prior to the accident.  Post-accident, these reports describe him as a changed man, suggesting that the injury had transformed him into a surly, aggressive drunkard who was unable to hold down a job.

Since there is little direct evidence of the exact extent of Gage's injuries aside from Harlow's report, it is difficult to know exactly how severely his brain was damaged. Harlow's accounts suggest that the injury did lead to a loss of social inhibition, leading Gage to behave in ways that were seen as inappropriate.

In 1968, Harlow presented the first account of the changes in Gage's behavior following the accident:

"The equilibrium or balance, so to speak, between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities, seems to have been destroyed. He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury, although untrained in the schools, he possessed a well-balanced mind, and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart businessman, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of operation. In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was 'no longer Gage.'"

All that you can read at Kendra’s blog, but Phineas’ tale is not what I wanted to talk about.

René Descartes (1596-1650) was a philosopher who believed in free will.  According to him, a person consists of two ingredients, a body and a soul.  While bodies are like machines made of matter and are subject to the laws of science, souls are immortals and the origin of free will.  We have to understand that it was in an age when mankind had to feel special about our position in the universe compared to all other living beings – we are better than animals and anything else (oh, maybe that still sounds familiar…?)  That is the base for, I think, most of the religions known to man.  We have souls – we are responsible for our decisions – our afterlife depends on how we live this life.  Basically, if you’re a good person you are going to seize the fruits of your behavior.  Now, I understand, someone has either a good or a bad soul and, therefore, tends to be either good or bad, morally speaking.  If our bodies are merely temples of the soul, our brains should not define our character.  So, what happens in a case like Phineas Gage’s?

There are two options.  First: the brain has important influence in our behavior in the way the soul connects to the physical world.  Second: our behavior is entirely defined by how our brain works, what means we are determined by matter – atoms together in the right combination, those forming cells and electric impulses – and possibly have no souls.

Where does morality stand?  In the first scenario, how do we know if someone is naturally good?  What would be the method to identify who deserves to go to Heaven or Hell, reborn as a king or as a cockroach?  Would that be fair if we are confined in our bodies and our judgment relies on our brain capacity, like a race between a Ferrari and a bicycle with, maybe, equally good drivers?  Do we get our brains at random or there are some criteria to determine who deserves which?  If so, how can that be fair?  If there is some superior force who decides the rules of morality, how can that be fair?

The second case scenario is simple; we are determined by chemical reactions, laws of physics and mere chance.  Doesn’t that make you feel special?