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.
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?
