RE: Psychology Addict # 55 | The Role Biology Plays in Defining Who We Are - A Critical Discussion.
A great read - as always. And a ground for discussion. ;-)
I think what you miss is that EVERYTHING, also social and psychological phenomena, result from biochemical reactions. Our brain, our nerves works through biochemical reactions.
Biochemistry is not only affecting our moods through hormones and neurotransmitters, but also the manifestations of moods are biochemical, even if for us, they "feel" social or psychological.
The only problem is that most molecular-biologic systems involved are much too complex and tiny to be understood (and I doubt science will ever do). Thus, we have to move several steps away and look at the big picture, we have to abstract those processes to the point that we don't even think about them in order to understand anything. This is called Psychology. It is the extension of biology with different methods to explain human behavior.
Of consequence, all phenomena have two sorts of causes:
a) biological causes that we can already explain, e.g. the X/Y chromosome
b) biological causes that we (yet) cannot explain at the biological level, but only by abstraction (i.e. psychology), e.g. adoption of social norms.
Hey @sco :D , how nice to see you here ! It pleases me very much that this post has provided you with an enjoyable read.
I have been mulling your comment over for a little while now. I was particularly drawn to how you described psychology here:
What an interesting perspective. Thank you for presenting it to me.
And then, of course, you also pointed out the following (which struck me a bit to begin with, as I first interpreted as a “one-way-road” perspective of addressing the human condition):
You see, psychologists tend to adopt a more back and forth approach. You know, brain/mind, mind/brain – psychological phenomenon/society – society/psychological phenomenon. You get it. One of the reasons for this being the way with which, for instance, it has been seen that not only our neurobiological mechanisms yield certain moods and their corresponding behaviours, but also how behaviour also changes neural networks, consequently changing how we feel and so forth.ref.,ref.. A two way-way road, if you will.
Had you made the above remark about non-human animals I wouldn’t have blinked. But, I assumed you’re talking about us, humans (or, at least about also us! 😊). Then, I thought of higher-order cognitive processes, and even metacognition. Still, what are these processes if not the manifestation of a synaptic self? As LeDoux puts it. And it is because of such functions that for us, humans, these “feel” psychological and social, as you suggest. Rhum …
Yet, I believe we aren’t prepared to abandon this categorical breakdown: biological, psychological, social. For the very reason you pointed out here: “molecular-biologic systems involved are much too complex and tiny to be understood (and I doubt science will ever do).”
Then, the way I see this is, while all that encompasses the human condition might depart from one single point : biochemical reactions. It does so intertwining all the multi-dimensions that give rise to who we are, those that can be explained, and those that can not. To and fro, to and fro.
Thank you for taking the time to write this comment here @sco. You definitely intrigued me, and got me thinking today.
With Respect,
Abigail
PS: Thank you for the re-esteem! :)
You got me thinking first! ;-)
Exactly what I meant. In the end, the question is almost philosophical, right? Does it even matter that everything departs from biochemistry if we cannot solve the biochemical puzzles and thus never fully understand the multi-dimensional connections and interactions that define us?
Philosophical indeed. It's beautiful 💗 :)
greatly put.
It does not matter very much, if you ask me :) It's almost always enough to be aware that we do not fully understand. And knowing that everyone can choose to be sensible within interactions with others.