Bioethics and the Impact of Human Genome Research in the 21st Century

9.4. Evolution of the Brain and the System of Value - Origin of Morality
pp. 161-169 in Bioethics and the Impact of Human Genome Research in the 21st Century

Author: Setsuya Fujita (Louis Pasteur Center for Medical Research)

Editors: Norio Fujiki, Masakatu Sudo, and Darryl R. J. Macer
Eubios Ethics Institute

Copyright 2001, Eubios Ethics Institute All commercial rights reserved. This publication may be reproduced for limited educational or academic use, however please enquire with the author.

The following stories appeared in the " Tensei Jingo" column of the Asahi Newspaper of the 24^th September. A boy in the lower grades of elementary school and his father were in a train. An elderly person got on. The father soon gave up his seat. The child asked," Do you know that person?" and the father replied " Just an elder in the walk of life". A baby started crying on a crowded train. The mother got dirty looks. Then an elder woman started to talk to her, "Must be sleepy". The mother apologized, "I'm sorry about the din". The woman continued, "Don't worry, you're having to put up with the most. It's always mum who has the hardest time". The atmosphere in the carriage softened. A girl was being bullied at school. All around her just sat by and watched. One day there was a letter in her desk. "Don't think you're alone. It's just we don't know what to say". There was a memo with the words "Fight!". The thought that someone understood her predicament helped keep her going.

These experiences are just a small part of those sent in to the " Small Kindnesses" movement's headquarters. Whoever the listener might be, they transmit the warmth of the human heart. People naturally want to do good, and when they hear or see a good deed it warms their hearts. They think, " Yes, I'd like to do good too". If morality is above all the pursuit of good, then we can probably conclude that the root of the morality that arises spontaneously within, and is held to by society is in the steady accumulation of this kind of good.

Morality (=Ethics)
But when we start to tackle directly "morality" or "ethics" then somehow something seems not quite right. Probably this is because of a past in which what we call morality has undergone various changes over history, most of them decided at the convenience of the powerful of the age, and then forced onto people.

On reflection there seem to be two extreme views on the establishment of "morality", though we way admit the possibility of a third, intermediate viewpoint. One extreme is that coming from the ideological standpoint originating with Plato, which we could call the theological or religious model. God has decided what is good, and as humanity was originally created by God, and so shares in some part in divinity, the correct way of life is to strive to pursue the good that this supreme God has ordained. The other extreme is the theory of natural logic originating in Aristotle, which we can think of as measures to achieve the greatest happiness of humanity. Intermediate between these is the viewpoint, derived from the first of the two extremes, that morality is established from the drawing up of norms by the body politic to facilitate the smooth running of the society, and fixed so as to control at convenience peoples' actions. This is the policy morality of those in power. The Japanese feudal ordinances were a typical example of this. It is not so long ago that it was not permitted to question a morality handed down to those "below" from their "superiors", a morality meeting the intentions of the powerful, those often equating themselves with the divine, not seen as human but as holy rulers, claiming for themselves a divine dispensation to rule. The reason we feel so uneasy when we hear the word "morality" is the that fact that this intermediate path has until recently, and maybe somewhere in the world is, still lording it over people and causing misery is still fresh and raw in our memories. But this is not the true face of morality. In this age of the flowering of Science the myth that God created Humankind is no longer to be openly espoused. And, in this age of respect for human rights it has become difficult to push through the obeying-your-betters " morality " of the powerful. We must see these as out-dated, historical forms of morality. It is a fact that morality is not eternal and unchanging, but rather may change with the times.

However, as I exemplified in the introduction, it is also a fact that a morality based on a general sense of values, that supercedes age or era, that while we are human we can all equate with without need for reason exists. To think that love, righteousness, faithfulness, bravery, honesty, perseverance, tolerance, moderation, reaching out a hand to the weak etc. are desirable, and of betrayal, malice, lying, unfaithfulness, baseness, arrogance and the such as undesirable is a generally accepted value judgment. We can probably call this a natural morality, based on our humanity.

Morality as Life's Guiding Principle
When people take action, then what they use as the basis for the choice of direction they'll take, and what it is that they are trying to achieve, are in fact the most important factors in their decision to act. In other words, we can see these factors, based on a persons values, as from an individual, religious, philosophical standpoint being universal factors in decision-making, involved in all such processes for an individual. Values are what establish aims, and of those values "morality" is the system that relates to the actual relationship between the individual and society. They tell you what kind of aims you should hold. In contrast it has been thought that Science teaches us nothing more than how to achieve those aims.

Here I would like to discuss the biological basis of how human value systems, the fountain-head of morality, came into creation, and of how they have developed, from the standpoint of evolution of the brain.

The Dilemma of Human Value Systems and Brain Physiology
In order for human values systems to function as morality firstly they must put into practice in autonomous, conscious acts. One must have a clear self-awareness of what one is trying to do. Secondly, this must be accompanied by a definite, conscious intention, a "conscience", to aim to do good, based on ability to judge between right and wrong. We cannot call unconscious, reflexive actions moral acts. Thirdly, action must be taken out of free will. Passive or enforced action cannot be seen as moral action.

Here I have listed three conditions but these are simply the fundamental requirements for ethics, and without these the concept of morality itself no longer holds. In contrast, study of the physiology of the brain has been built up on theoretical foundations completely incompatible with these conditions. The theoretical system of modern physiology is established on Claude Bernard's "Introduction to Experimental Medicine", derived from Descartes' theory of the human as a machine. Although Descartes developed his arguments at the level of the individual, and Bernard his at the cellular level, the import was the same. That is, organisms (both cells and people too) are machines, all movement is reflexive, and autonomy is impossible, the philosophy that the person is understandable in the terms of absolute determinism. There is no leeway. Descartes' theory of dualism provided a clear answer to the problem of where an individual's self, their autonomy, thoughts and will came from, and as to how they function. That is to say, the body is a machine, but the heart is spirit, created by God, and the origin of judgment of right and wrong, of morality, that is no more than a provisional lending to humanity by God, is a reflection of transferred divinity in the heart.

This conclusion is in complete accord with the divine explanation of morality's source, and is nothing else but an extension of the ideas that have ruled over feudal societies and dictatorial states over the past several thousand years.

Recently our research on brain evolution has shown that we need to adopt a standpoint fundamentally different to classical brain science. I'll try and clarify this process below.

The Spontaneous Nature of Life
Looking without prejudice at organisms we cannot doubt that they act spontaneously, voluntarily. The problem is, from where do these voluntary actions originate? Thinking about it, the molecular system that first enabled self-replication appeared not as something built up by external efforts, but through the collision in the natural state of spontaneously moving molecules, through automatic adhesion, polymerization and separation mediated by molecular recognition. Nucleic acid and protein molecules were also built up in this spontaneous fashion. This spontaneity is intrinsic to life. The next problem that arises is the concept of "aim, purpose". This has continued to be the greatest philosophical problem Western Civilization has struggled with since the Middle Ages. Let us consider then how this phenomenon of "purpose", not present in the inanimate world, came to appear on the Earth.

The Making of The Organism's Teleonomy and Autonomy
All organisms have teleonomy. Looking back here, purposive or goal-oriented actions that form the basis of teleonomy mean working ceaselessly to realize with high probability a specific result (this being the objective definition of purpose or aim) that has an extremely low chance of occurring naturally, that left to the laws of cause-and-effect and thermodynamics would not naturally take place. On the primitive Earth the self-replicating molecular machinery consisting of nucleic acids, protein etc spontaneously evolved to act with the aim of continuing the existence of self and of descendants. In the first place, the lasting existence on Earth of an organism not possessing internally a priori this kind of "aim" is inconceivable, such a thing could not be. It is thought that through this obtention of teleonomy that Life, ensured of its existence, was born on Earth. That is to say purpose is an indispensable principle, essential for the existence of living organisms on the Earth.

According to scientific research up until now on the process of Life's creation living beings first appeared in an RNP world, an assembly of RNA and protein, and in the course of time come to utilize DNA as a stable recording medium, and to envelop the necessary molecular networks within a membrane, 3.5 billion years ago giving rise to the system we call a cell (Ref 9). These cells could select the direction of actions to be taken based upon an internal self reference-frame within they themselves. Will, intention, inherent in self, had been created. This space in which voluntary action is started, based on "the will" is not an external, world frame of reference, but a self reference-frame, whose starting point is the center of self. In this way the distinction between the world centered on self, and the external world and the objects around one, within it, comes to be established.

This means that in the cell a principle completely different to the inanimate has been obtained. That is to say the cell has given rise to the property in itself that from the moment it is given birth by cell-fission, it already, a priori moves autonomously. Also this movement is certainly not fixed, but has a wide degree of freedom. Living creatures, with the highest efficiency, tuned over the process of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, out of the degree of freedom they have, select actions directed at the aim of carrying out their own self-reproduction. This is an a priori, specific characteristic of living creatures, but, it is in truth nothing but the utilization of a posteriori characteristics, obtained as the result of a chain of cause-and-effect in previous existences, of choices, of selection (in other words evolution), all recorded in DNA. If we overlook the existence of this principle then we will be unable to understand correctly living organisms.

In this way, as E. Mayr (Ref 5) and F. J. Ayala (Ref 3) have also stated, the phenomenon called Life inevitably came to possess internally teleonomy. In short, something possessing a priori teleonomy came into creation. These were living organisms. All this happened about 3.6 billion years ago.

In this way, with the establishment of the cell, enveloped within the cell membrane, self and other were distinguished, and the distinction between subject, self, and object came into being. Simply put, living creatures, acting spontaneously, in accord with teleonomy and independently, and possessing autonomy made their appearance. They possessed the principle (of Life), consisting of the three characteristics, and not present in the inanimate.

The Coming of Multi-Cellular Organisms and the Recognition of External Autonomy
As more time passed, at about one billion years before the present, when cells had collected together, established intimate communication between themselves and multi-cellular organisms come into existence, it is thought that of these multi-cellular organisms only those able to take unified action as a single entity could pass through the filter of evolution and persist. For an individual to possess a single autonomy, an identity, means that the information required for the organism to undertake an action must be under a unified system of control. It is obvious that those unable to take unified action will be unable to adapt correctly to the environment. The fate off them all was to be selected against. This principle, that the individual acts as a single entity, has been the most strongly conserved during the process of evolution of multi-cellular organisms. The innate foundations of human cognitive ability that Kant named "apperception" (Ref 4), what Avicenna and Descartes the ego, these find their basis nowhere else but in this principle.

For an organism possessing autonomy, taking active steps of itself, with the aim of survival, information on the outside world that controls those actions is indispensable, and its method of processing such information translates directly into its chances of achieving its aim. Even an organism that would originally move autonomously will, should it be completely unable to obtain information about its internal and external environments (this including all sensory data on the state of its body), be unable to act. Only when movement is matched to perception of the environment does it take on the meaning of action. In this way, in both uni- and multi-cellular organisms the collection and processing of information on the environment (the system of awareness of information concerning the external world and one's own body) is linked to the effectors of movement functions, and this link has appeared and evolved as an inevitable, high-level and significant apparatus, resulting in the development of the animal nervous system.

Differences in Design Principles for the Brain between Invertebrates and Vertebrates
The fundamental principle of actively incorporating information from the outside world directly related to survival into the control of voluntary action has been selected for during the normal processes of evolution, and is common to all animals. Hence it is a matter of course that in both invertebrates and vertebrates the nervous system specialized to perform this function share characteristics with regard to data transmission and processing. However, starting with the appearance of the central nervous system, invertebrates and vertebrates have pursued slightly different courses. In the former, the system of massing of nerve cells has become established, while in the latter a method passing through a step of rolling up a sheet of stem cell to form a neural tube has been adopted. From the point of view of creating the fundamental functions of a nervous system able to support life, both of these methods have been successful.

However, speaking from the point of view of prospective data processing abilities the gap between them has clearly opened, from the Cambrian period when the two methods were first established, over the several hundred million years to the appearance of the mammals. Let us first take a look at the differences between the vertebrates' neural tubes and the nervous system of the invertebrates that forms the basis of this gap.

The System Design of the Neural Tube and Neural Plate
In the vertebrates the nervous system develops almost without exception from the ectodermal epithelium that covers the surface of the embryo. In the development of the nervous system of the invertebrates as exemplified by insects, some of the abdominal ectoderm cells fall into the interior where they become nerve stem cells, these form a mass, the origin of the imaginal nervous system, and go on to form a dumpling-shaped clump called the ganglion on the abdominal side. The two-dimensional lateral and vertical links between them become the central nervous system. In contrast, all members of the vertebrates, from the most primitive ascidian larva to the human, go through a process in which at an extremely early stage in the development of the embryo, the back side of the ectoderm thickens and differentiation to stem cells of the nervous system becomes fixed, an oval-shaped slab called the neural plate forms, and this rolls up to form a tube.

Matrix cells, stem cells that form the neural tube, for a while repeat an up-and-down movement like an elevator within the wall of the neural tube, continue to divide, and repeat their doubling. For this reason each part of the neural tube develops rapidly. However, because that speed varies by region, some parts very rapidly swell up, while some only enlarge relatively slowly, and the prototypical brain comes into shape. This is just like sugar candy being blown into shape at a fair, the difference being that while air is blown into sugar candy from the outside, it expands and then is nipped and pinched and shaped, the wall of the neural tube itself grows and so thickens, the whole becoming larger.

That vertebrates adopted as the starting point of brain formation the neural tube structure, formed from the rolling up of matrix cells arrayed in the shape of a sheet in the epidermal tissue, was, from the standpoint of prospective development, a marvelous choice. To achieve complicated brain functions, to form many neurons or glia in one particular place, it was simply necessary first to multiply sufficiently the matrix cells in that portion. Should one portion of the neural tube grow to a high degree, only that portion would swell up, with almost no influence on other parts, and so should the evolutionary need arise, the freedom to obtain a brain enlarged in parts had been obtained.

The Evolutionary Distinctive Traits of the Fish, Amphibian, Reptile and Mammal Brains
Comparing the brain of a human, at the forefront of the mammals, the latest to appear on the evolutionary stage, with those of the fishes, who appeared during the Ordovician period, the amphibians, who appeared after a further 55 million years of evolution, or the reptiles of the Carboniferous age, we find that in essence the layout of the whole is almost identical. Beginning at the front we have the rhinencephalon, concerned with smell, the cerebrum (except that up to the reptiles this is small and is known as the telencephalon), the diencephalon, the mesencephalon, the cerebellum sitting on the rear brain, the medulla oblongata and finally, the spinal cord. The patterns of cerebrospinal nerves running from the various parts of the brain stem also correspond perfectly. This demonstrates how action within the brain and the construction of the sensory center has maintained its homology. Of course there are differences, the first big difference one notices is that the brains of fish, amphibians and reptiles are small (Ref 3). On a weight-to-weight comparison there are only about one hundred and fiftieth the size of the human brain. This means that once the neurons necessary for perception and movement etc have been subtracted, the number left that can be used in information control is extremely small, so that it is hardly surprising they are not to smart, in the sense of intelligent. Also the sense of smell plays the main role in the information that arrives from the external world, and the greater part of the telencephelon and diencephelon have their emphasis on processing olfactory data and reflecting it in action. Secondly, the neocortex that covers the human cerebral hemispheres has hardly emerged in the fish, amphibian or reptile. This is why they are lacking in general memory abilities. The limbic system also, which in the mammals is the center enabling them to feel the full gamut of emotions, while it is present in reptiles is underdeveloped, and only the portion sensing smell and linking it to reflex action is fully complete.

The system of matrix cells that go on to form the cerebral neocortex came into existence just before the mammals separated from the reptiles and began to evolve. The nerve cells formed in this region formed by the new matrix cells have obtained the property of linking intimately with many kinds of nerve fiber unrelated to smell. In the mammals this network of nerve cells is expanded and enriched. Accordingly a wide amount of information is transmitted by senses other than smell to the cerebrum, and so it became possible to obtain the data from sight etc that guides the quick movement of the mammals on land. The limbic system too, while belonging to the paleocortex, has been reorganized to deal with mainly the senses other than smell, its functions have been enriched, and it has not just become the center of emotions, but its ability to remember the outside world and events there has been increased. The mammalian emotions of anger, fear, aggression, love, dislike etc appeared. When, in response to a specific pattern of information from the environment, not just the functions of innate circuitry, but also the memory circuits that are the accumulation of experience link, and an internal feeling starting movement in the direction of positively and voluntarily seeking out that experience occurs we call that emotion "pleasure", while when evasive action is selected internally this is the emotion of "displeasure" or "discomfort". Various patterns of memory match these sensations of "pleasant" or "unpleasant", and so the varied emotions of anger, fear, aggression, love, dislike etc appear.

The Characteristics of the Monkey and Human Brains from an Evolutionary Perspective
The human brain evolved from the monkey (primate) brain, and this legacy remains deeply ingrained. For monkeys living in trees, clasping onto branches and swinging from one to another motile ability is vital. Individuals with highly developed neocortex regions (in the central portions of the right and left cerebral hemispheres) governing the movement and sensation in the arm, and in particular the fingers of the hand and the palm, were able to survive better. Furthermore, an acute sense of sight to support those movements, in particular accurate stereopsis, became a powerful weapon. Monkeys with a substantial visual cortex occupying the occipital lobe of the cerebrum came out on top. The highly-developed neocortical, neuronal circuitry of the primates promoted in them the ability to abstract from natural events the meaning and characteristics of objects having particular significance for their own actions, the ultimate result of this in humans being the obtention of the innate concept of "category".

Furthermore the judgment "true or false" has as its criteria examination of coordination concerning whether or not inconsistencies have arisen. For example, coordination of the provisional judgment of the state of an object visually sensed in space (for monkeys in particular the shape and position of tree branches, and the prediction of strength and suppleness of an object to be grasped) with all the judgments made at the time of flight concerning movement and sensory information to see if inconsistencies have occurred, are without doubt vital. Without such coordination the monkey would always fall to earth, and to be selected against would be its fate. An object (the state of something, an hypothesis etc) providing perfectly coordinated multiple inputs can be judged to be "true". The guarantee of survival that if one acts based on that judgment one won't be betrayed can be obtained. The human brain has become able to generalize this kind of judgment, and so logic, the discernment of true or false, was given birth. Even now, whether some phenomenon, judgment or hypothesis is scientifically true or not is judged on whether or not its description conflicts with other sensory input (experience), knowledge or inherent judgment. Something that can be logically rebutted by another descriptive object (i.e. that is refutable) is not true.

The enrichment of the neocortex with evolution was brought about by the stepping up of proliferation of matrix cells of the cerebral hemispheres. Evolution from chimpanzees, gorillas etc to the human, has proceeded in a short space of time that is absolutely inexplicable in terms of alterations in genes or proteins. It is inferred that gestation period lengthened, and that through the division of cerebral hemisphere matrix cells occurring on average an extra once or twice (with some difference according to position), the rapid development from monkey brain to human brain size took place (Ref 3). That the motor cortex including the association cortex, and the visual cortex also grew rapidly during evolution from monkey to human indicates that to greater or lesser extent other, neighboring regions of the neocortex were drawn along in the enrichment. In fact, the neocortex of the human cerebral hemispheres, while being subjected to such evolutionary pressure has become enriched overall at a speed hitherto unseen in evolutionary history. Looking too at the ratio of body surface area to brain weight, the growth in the brain from when the primates split off from the primitive original mammals, 65 million years ago, to Neanderthal man to Cro-Magnon man has proceeded at an unprecedented speed.

That this explosive enlargement of the neocortex caused the expansion and tuning of the visual cortex of the occipital lobe, the auditory area of the temporal lobe, and the motor and sensory areas of the arm, in particular the fingers and palm, that spread over the frontal and parietal lobes may be seen as a matter of course, but the concomitant extraordinary expansion in the neighbouring association cortex brought about a completely unexpected result in brain function.

As a result of the motor and sensory cortices controlling the movement of the facial muscles, tongue, lips etc and neighbouring the neocortex responsible for the fingers, palm etc, also being drawn along with the latter region into expansion, not only was facial expression enriched, but the surrounding area was also particularly blessed with the opportunity to expand, and became the motor speech center known as Broca's area. This region becomes conspicuous from the era of Homo habilis, and in Peking man had already grown to a size thought sufficient to encode for speech. Meaningful concepts and their associations, in a complicated spatiotemporal pattern drove the vocal muscles, and made possible the conversion to spoken language. Furthermore the region next to the auditory area of the temporal lobe also enlarged, and later developed into the sensory speech center known as Wernicke's area. The brain's faculty for analysing in real-time the sequence of vibrations in the air entering the ear, and combining the result rapidly with the neural circuits for various concepts stored in various parts of the cerebral neocortex was completed. Since the time of Homo habilis 2 million years ago, speech had been acquired, and the ability to grasp the world around one in conceptual terms, express these ideas objectively, and transmit one's thoughts accurately to another person, had appeared. This is the really unique faculty of the human brain, and could be said to be the biological foundation of the appearance of the human "heart".

The Acquisition of Language and Objectification of the Subjective
I have related how communication through language had become possible as a unique function of the human brain. Language can describe condition. A specific situation can be objectively transmitted to a second party. Through this description one can make a second party understand one's self-awareness, and a subjective world that had only existed within one's self. That is to say, one can objectify a subjective world, if not perfectly, then at least with considerable concreteness. If we think how hard and how inaccurate are attempts to convey a handful of facts, or some phenomenon, by hand-waving and gesticulating, as in a game of charades, then we can well understand the importance of this fact. With language a very precise and accurate portrayal becomes possible. Examples have been reported showing that chimpanzees too can use Ameslan, gesticulative language or cards written with symbols to express subjective phenomena such as a desire like "I want to eat a banana". However, one could hardly hope for a meaningful, descriptive statement when interviewing a chimpanzee. For wealth and permanent preservation of significant, true language and imagery concerning the external world for such objectified actions to be achieved, the development in the cerebrum's association cortex seen from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens was essential. In the Homo sapiens brain these had reached the level of a virtual image of the world. Furthermore, in order that this kind of content-containing internal world be converted into a series of concepts and linguistically stated, the development of the speech centers, and in particular the two-way language interpreting Wernicke's area, and the speech motor center, Broka's area, was of decisive importance. It is not simply because the structure of their mouth and vocal chords are imperfect that a chimpanzee raised in exactly the same way as a human child will never be able to utter a word of speech. For a human, even if the vocal chords are lost it is possible to speak well by vibrating the oesophagus, and myna birds and parrots can speak using the trachea. It is known that they have a well-developed center for speech mimicry in the base of the telencephalon. But without a Wernicke's center they cannot understand the meaning of language. Also for the mammals, dependent as they are on a neocortex, those animals which have no Broca's center cannot speak.

Awareness of Self
The linguistic faculty is not solely used for communicating with others. The function of dialogue with oneself is, in fact, extremely important. Through it the subject can become the object. In the human brain of an individual with a developed association cortex an image of the external world is formed, within which the self is oriented as an object (the other self, alter ego), and moves, conducting a dialogue with the self as subject, and it becomes possible to state descriptively you, yourself, as seen by the other, as well as the opinions of your "other self". The alter ego object has a certain degree of independence, is aware of the existence of the original self, and it states this situation objectively then definite awareness of existence of self is realized on the subject side. At the same time the difference between self and other is clearly perceived. The distinction between oneself, controlling movement of the self, and other, that can only move transitively, becomes clear. One can also perceive that external sensations are directly linked to oneself, and not to others. This self-awareness is linked, in a tie very difficult to sever, to a lasting (historical) world image remembered through experience. This is the highly distinct self, awareness of self.

Awareness and Self-Consciousness given birth by the Brain
Awareness does not just arise from the senses. Kant repeatedly emphasized that awareness and experience are made possible through a "form" existing in the individual ahead of time (transcendentally), with experience providing the raw material. However, should information from the external world merely surface in the brain as a characteristic pattern of neuron function, only matter-of-fact information, a shape has been seen, a sound heard, a certain kind of sensation arisen on the skin, would be transmitted into the brain. We can say that this kind of simple information only forms a distinct experience as a meaningful cognitive event when it has passed through specific filter circuits, been given weight as a value function from the standpoint of survival value, and been instantaneously linked to various images (there are cases where these are matters of reason, such as the image held of the outside world and oneself within it or knowledge, while they may also be complicated emotions or include practical matters such as the intention that was the cause of a search or inquiry, and the impulse to take action based on that intention) within the brain that the individual possesses in advance. As the result of evolution the structures necessary for this are already naturally built into the brain (Ref 3). The internal sensation of the individual trying to move autonomously based on actions and impulses controlled through this information, is, in fact, the substance of self-consciousness. Through these internal impulses the subject of these sensations clearly feels that they are completely different to other existing parties. I must emphasize this most important and indispensable point for deciphering the true substance of both the self-consciousness that the subject is continuously ready to take spontaneous action and apperception (Ref 4). It is at this stage that awareness clearly rises to self-consciousness. The actions and impulses central to this have continued to exist as a fundamental principle of living creatures since the time Life first created the brain.

Furthermore, just as patterns are important to sensations and actions, so it is clear that the association of concepts occurring in awareness is completely dependent on the structure (circuits, that is to say "form") of links between neurons in the brain. This is because were the various groups of neurons storing their respective concepts and mental images not linked beforehand either directly or indirectly to the neurons that at a given time are excited on receiving en masse externally-originating sensory information, there would be no reason to think that at that moment in time they would be able to combine with these and become excited. If asked how these teleonomic circuits exist, taking the form of "apperception" within "me", then as I have related in the paragraphs above one would probably have to say that it is the result of selection through evolution.

The Brain Spontaneously Collects Information and Creates a World Model
That the inborn structures and functions of the brain are able spontaneously to investigate the present state of the real world, and, from the data obtained, with a fairly high probability forecast accurately, albeit in outline, the next state, originates in the sieve of evolutionary selection, could they not do so (should the forecast's rate of success be low) the organism would have become unable to survive. This expression "forecast" may, for an intelligent organism ceaselessly seeking to act voluntarily, be better put as "a world model for purpose of one's actions". Without such forecasts or hypotheses about changes in the world it would be impossible to be confident in making choices about effective action. The choices actually made are determined by internal value functions (value systems). By having such world models it becomes possible, without entailing risk, to perform effective imaginary tests of the most effective decisions controlling one's actions in the world. If, when faced by the necessity of urgent action, it were impossible to generate such suitable world models or to forecast actions within them, appropriate choices could not be made, unease would heighten, and frustration would occur. Anti-teleonomic, random actions would follow. The result of all this would be a heightened risk of the individual concerned facing death. Forecasting of the next state of the world around one and hypotheses about the ways of the world have a positive survival value.

The Functions of the Brain Giving Rise to Morality
When the brain is working, the environmental data that enters it does not just update the brain's world model from moment to moment; it continuously interacts with the value functions within the brain to determine the value of actions to be taken. In this way, the value systems concerning interpersonal relationships and society have a function, with the self as subject, freely and unconsciously selecting and determining the order of value of matters relating to these. People act guided by this function. The major part of this value function is dominated by the innate faculties of the brain as formed by evolutionary history, and it is here that the patterns of behaviour called instinct or personality appear. However, in the case of humans, the value systems that are factors in self-determination have the plasticity to be greatly influenced and altered by the memories stored up over a lifetime and the data obtained through the cultural environment. Value systems are modified by all kinds of workings of the heart, sensibility, wisdom, reason, and so raised to higher levels of rationality. We could call this process of modification pursuing rationality "Science". I myself think that this process is the very substance of Science. As the human heart is not deterministic but has spontaneous autonomy and a free will to make decisions how to act, it should be possible to control one's actions, rationally modify one's own value systems and cease being, as humanity once was, passive and blindly obedient to value systems (morality) imposed unilaterally by the powerful or transcendent, or ruled by instinctive passions. This is a task that will only be made possible by wisdom, moderation and study on our part, but this will be the creation of a new morality to build a truly human society.

Please send comments to Email < asianbioethics@yahoo.co.nz >.

To contents page
To Eubios book list
To Eubios Ethics Institute home page