Reflections: Flowers for Algernon

Such a classic book. It’s a shame I took so long to read it. Thanks to my good friend for recommending it for so many years! Upon reading, I understand how well she knows me :).

Charlie Gordon is a young man with an IQ of 68. Classified as mentally retarded, he is cast away by his parents. A kind gesture gets him a job at a bakery where he does a few menial jobs. Every evening he attends a special school for mentally challenged adults, where he tries really really hard to become smart. His motivation to learn catches the interest of a psychology professor and neurosurgeon who needs an experimental human-subject to test a new groundbreaking technique that can artificially induce intelligence by changing the biochemistry of parts of the brain. Having tested this procedure on numerous animals (lab mice), they are bristling to try it on a human being. Charlie eagerly consents, for becoming smart is his ultimate goal and yearning in life. What follows is Charlie’s recounts of the changes that push and pull his identity as his intelligence explodes. This is an enormously powerful (if a little disturbing) book on the power and fragility of the human mind. It’s a brilliant and extremely moving read.

Although I didn’t know anything much of the story or the ending, I could predict the path this book would take from the very first chapter. But despite knowing the course and eventuality of the overall story, the book couldn’t have been more gripping. Since the book is framed as a collection of Charlie’s journal entries, it is extremely personal, direct, and honest. The ascent, descent, and changes in Charlie’s personality, or rather identity, is realistically written with clarity and psychological acuity.

The question of what constitutes intelligence is one of the underlying themes. Intelligence is tricky to define and measure. As one’s intellect grows, how does their identity change? Are you the same person if you can approach calculus like it’s child’s play today, and then completely lose the ability to even count properly, the day after? As Charlie’s intellect shoots rapidly, he grapples with his emotional growth (or lack thereof) and battles with some basic psychological dissonance. Is there an old Charlie and a new Charlie now? Is he the same Charlie? Can he be both Charlies? What does it mean to know and have such competing identities within you. It’s one thing to lose your mind and memories completely (such as with amnesia or Alzheimer's), but it’s another to live within two different and conflicting worlds and identities. Charlie’s story unearths all of the basic philosophical questions on identity and “self”. It’s heart-wrenching to witness the transformations within him that drive him to the edge. His nightmares leap from the pages and hold you down with the same terror as Charlie faces.

Identity is usually defined as continuity of consciousness along time. It is so intriguing that one’s consciousness is nothing but a result of one’s neural activity in the brain. As this neural firing changes, consciousness changes, and identity morphs as well. Does it mean the “self” is  also different? Then, isn’t there anything of permanence within a human-being to make him/ his self, consistent? Maybe there isn’t. And that’s the most disturbing aspect. 

The question that bugs the reader is - Was the procedure worthwhile to Charlie, in any sense? Was he better in his shroud of ignorance than in his torturous but enlightening state of intelligence? Was the fleeting, if painful, process of self-awareness worth it? Reminds me of a psychiatrist's quote from some book I read a long time ago. The patient was a woman who was seriously delusional. She had lost her entire family in an accident and was living in an institution. But in her delusional state, she was extremely happy. She wore a big smile every morning and told everyone that she had just sent her kids to school and that she and her husband were planning an exotic vacation, etc. The psychiatrist says to people who ask him why he hadn't "cured" her - "Even if I could magically touch  her head to "cure" her, I wouldn't. She is happiest in her state, and it's a punishment to return her to reality." I know this is a bit of a stretch, but I often think of this quote.

The other overarching theme of the book is the morality and philosophical ethics behind inflicting such drastic procedures on humans and animals when the risks and consequences are high. This was the era during which the Milgram experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment and other disturbing and cruel psychological and physical experiments were conducted in the name of science. Things have changed dramatically (or rather, over-dramatically) today. Now, even a simple experiment or research study involving human subjects needs to pass through a tight and merciless review board. We jump through multiple hoops before we can ask people to estimate colors and play simple video games. I guess it’s better to err on the side of safety. Participant rights, safety and well-being are given wholesome consideration before even a simple research experiment can be put into place. Although human-subjects are treated with more respect and consideration, I can’t say the same thing about animal experimentation. But things are probably a little more humane than they used to be. At the very least, there is awareness.

I could relate to Charlie’s frustrations and complete eagerness to be smart so that he is loved and accepted in society. The world is doubly cruel to a challenged person. At least the physically challenged have their mind as a tool. The mentally challenged are bereft of the one tool that is inimitably essential for survival. Charlie's story is an example of the callousness of earlier generations that didn't even regard the mentally-challenged as human beings, or even beings worth existing.

Charlie’s story also brings to light the intimidation that intelligence brings with it. It’s ironic that people move away from him because of their feelings of inferiority. I have never considered this aspect of human psychology - that people could (and would) scorn and move away from those who are more intelligent than them. I have always been in awe of people with high intelligence and try to be around them like a puppy, hoping their intellect would rub a little on me. Another aspect that comes from this story is the apparent disproportion between intelligence and compassion. The higher the intelligence, the more self-absorbed one is likely to be in their quest for knowledge and self-awareness, and the more compassion and humanness one potentially loses. I guess it’s rare for high intelligence and compassion to exist in equal measures in a human-being; another ironical and unsettling observation. Intelligence without compassion is dangerous. But I have definitely had the privilege to know and interact with many who break this stereotype. 
 
Finally, all the characters are sharply and accurately portrayed. Charlie’s memories and relationships with his parents are terribly moving and realistic.  Charlie’s mom is probably the most intense character in this book. And as flawed as she is, one can still sympathize with her motives and perspectives. Parents have no idea how much power they possess to break and damage their children for life.

I will end with the quote that the book begins with. It says it all.

“Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees anyone whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other...” Plato’s, The Republic

Reflections: The Dragons of Eden

Any book on the human brain/mind is sure to light up my... well, figurative antennae. To top it, an award winning book on the evolution of human intelligence, written by a renowned scientist, was simply screeching to be read. Carl Sagan has carefully arranged his thoughts and his speculations on the evolution of the human brain, trying to pin-point the turn when intelligence made its entry and propelled Homosapiens to the the top of the food chain.

Not sure if I’m hovering on the brink of a “Writer’s-block”, or some form of lapse in the Broca’s region of my brain, but lately I have been struggling to pull out words from vague puffs of thoughts. I take longer than usual to speak, and wrestle with my mind to put down intelligent (or even sensible) sounding words on paper. So, my thoughts on this book are going to sound quite inadequate. And honestly, I’m quite surprised that I am not practically oozing with things to discuss and reflect on after reading such a book.

One of the things I was disappointed with the book was that, Sagan dwells on the evolution of the human brain - the physical mass itself, while I pointedly wanted to read about the progression of intelligence. I guess it goes back to the philosophical implication - there is no mind without the brain. And yes, I understand that it’s not easy to define intelligence without discussing the numerous cognitive regions of the brain. But, since I was quite familiar with the regions of the brain, the localized and non-localized cognitive functions, the extremely cool experiments with people and monkeys concerning language, the mind-blowing experiments with “split-brained” people, the significance of the corpus-callosum and the interaction between the left and right hemispheres etc.... the book didn’t hold enough insights or surprises for me. I was looking for a few missing pieces in my puzzle, and it sadly didn’t hand me those. Nevertheless, it’s an intelligent and engaging read. And for an astrophysicist to gather so much research evidence and glean wonderful and precise insights into the complexities of the human brain is testament to Sagan’s mind-blowing intelligence.

However, I am not omniscient. I did learn quite a few things. It was quite fascinating to learn that our brain-mass as well as our body to brain mass ratio, have been rapidly increasing, relative to other animals on the planet. So bigger brains do, in a sense, mean more intelligence! In a nut-shell, intelligence or higher-order reasoning abilities are attributed to the development of the neocortex, the part of the brain specific to mammals. I was impressed with the archaeological and anthropological evidences of the progression of the brain and the development of the temporal and frontal lobes, all of which are also associated with intelligence. Haven’t we heard our grand-moms say, a  broader forehead marks intelligence? And ahem, that is Sagan’s hypothesis on why human childbirth is so painful - our pelvic bones haven’t evolved at the rate at which the human head has “grown” or changed in shape (wish I could paste pictures of the skulls of Neanderthals versus homo-sapiens). Besides, given the structure of our bodies, apparently the pelvic bones cannot become wider without damaging our gait and balance. So well, all the science-fiction movies about babies with gigantic heads with brain tentacles waving about as they traumatize their moms don’t seem too unrealistic in the future ;)

Sagan also has an interesting take on the abortion issue. He defines the beginning of human life to the start of neocortical development. For, according to him, that’s what sets us humans apart, and if we are to value human life, the neocortical development seems to be a reasonable cut-off point for him. I don’t really agree. What if one’s neocortex is poorly developed, or gets damaged? Does the person lose their human label, and all the dignities that go with it? Besides, as the book reiterates, intelligence arises from numerous complex cognitive activities, spanning several regions of the brain. The issue of the start of life is far too ambiguous and philosophical still. But I enjoyed reading such extrapolations on the topic, including the future that awaits us, Artificial Intelligence, and the intelligent aliens we might have to encounter at some point.

The title of the book might intrigue a few - why dragons, and why Eden? The R-complex of the brain, the deeply buried repressed Unconscious (as Freud might say) harbors our primordial fears, desires and instincts. It’s called the reptilian part of the brain - the one that still instills fear and loathing of reptiles, our early deadly predators. Our brain seems to have evolved to combat the predators - for example, the reason why we sleep at nights and dream of dinosaurs and dragons. So in a convoluted way, our brain’s growth is due to the fear of reptiles (or, by natural selection, the brains that could survive such predators have sustained). It has given rise to various cultural beliefs and myths surrounding reptiles and snakes (such as in India). Even in the genesis, it’s because of a reptile, mankind gets thrown into a world of sins. But we progressed because of our well developing neocortex and seamless interaction between the left and right hemispheres (one pattern matches to form rudimentary hypotheses about the world, and the other critically and rationally weeds out the illogical hypotheses). Sadly, even in this state of evolution, many left hemispheres don’t work as rationally, and myths still abound. Sagan goes on to talk about the importance of rationality in our civilization.

And there are many more interesting cultural beliefs that tie with all this. Ever wondered why every human civilization insists on training the right hand? I won’t spoil this for you, if you really are contemplating on reading this book. How wondrous - your brain will seek out to learn more about itself.

Chips of Knowledge

Tom can finally be confident. Although he was unfortunate to have not attended college, he could now confidently partake in pompous, pseudo-intellectual talk that his colleagues often engaged in. He left his colleagues open-mouthed and in disbelief at how he gained so much knowledge within a matter of few weeks. Tom was gloating, happy that he finally got his ego-boost. His new implant was working miracles. He had a high-speed wireless chip that connected to the world-wide web and a powerful in-built encyclopaedia. Due to the limitless memory and knowledge space, Tom could choose to register new information effortlessly and could retrieve relevant information using basic keywords. A "Google" inside his brain. With this immense ability, Tom stopped caring what he registered and what he retrieved, as long as he could spew out the information to impress others to get his way through life. But he didn't care that he wasn't learning or acquiring knowledge in true spirit, all that he could think of was how omniscient he had become with no effort. (Original Source: The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten, by Julian Baggini)

I'm no new prophetess to argue that wisdom is different from knowledge. Knowledge talks, wisdom listens. Clearly Tom is only keen on talking and spilling out facts. Knowledge that isn't realized or experienced is vapid. Knowledge that doesn't help the individual grow from within, will soon become stale. But this scenario is not so far-fetched. It's quite plausible that within the next two generations, chips of such kind will surface. Schools and educational institutions will dwindle, given the already proliferating ideas on e-education, combined with the release of wireless chips that help one gain a limitless library of information all within one's head. Imagine knowledge chips being upgraded in toddlers as they develop, instead of school classes they progress to. What measure would be used to determine when a toddler's chip should be upgraded to newer versions? Does it matter at all? Or would everyone be given a unanimous chip of equal capabilities? Would that finally spell the meaning of being fair and equal, promising everyone equal opportunities for survival? Can someone be a good doctor just by consulting such a chip? Who decides what "knowledge" goes in the chip, and that all the information is validated and true? Would everyone be equally knowledgeable and smart? So many questions if we progress to such a realm. Such a chip cannot teach us how to apply knowledge, and when to apply which aspect appropriately. Intelligence still remains a slippery stone for scientists to hold and comprehend completely. But it sure is disconcerting if we are to enter an age wherein intelligence is confused with what people like Tom are capable of. Or with the optimism of AI scientists, maybe the chips would teach one to be "intelligent". But again, intelligence surely doesn't guarantee wisdom?

To a certain extent I appreciate the idea of technology augmenting the capabilities of the human brain, helping it overcome its limitations of memory and retrieval. But how different is a chip in the brain that helps us google, versus a hand-held device which helps us do the same thing today, with just a few clicks (or "touches"). We call it a "cognitive artifact" that helps with distributed cognition. In my field, we see technology as pieces of our mind, externalized, augmented and offloaded to be portable. So is this blog, that externalizes most of my thoughts. Haven't we then already progressed to Tom's state? We have already stepped into that smart age, although the mind is still physically disconnected from the device.

The fact that I know so many "exotic" recipes today, that my mom feels she can no longer suggest recipes to me, doesn't mean I'm smarter or more capable, but simply means I'm guided step by step through videos, pictures and precise measurements on how to make Tiramisu and souffles, when my mom had to improvise on what her grandmom taught her. Makes me wonder who the true "smart" one is. This age is designed to enable anyone to do almost anything. Despite churning out novel goodies, I still don't have the basic grasp or intuition of which spices go together with which ingredients, that my mom probably gained quite early on. She wasn't being a robot carrying out steps, she made mistakes, learned, realized her knowledge, experienced it and improvised. She had stashes of strategies and tips up her sleeves, all of which I can only google for today. I believe that this applies to even aspects that don't necessarily have an immediate, tangible practical component to them. A theory cannot be understood by merely reading or hearing about it. A book cannot be appreciated by reading its synopsis, reviews and popular quotes. Without sufficient independent thought processes applied, every iota of information just remains "raw". At a very basic neuro-scientific level, the mind cannot form any connections to new information if it is not processed. Rare are those who will persevere to gain wisdom even if knowledge is available at their finger-tips or neuron-tips.

The information loaded age needs to ensure a balance such that the meaning and import of wisdom and intelligence are not lost forever from the human race.