Something is changing, something will never change. “There are substantial differences between our brain and that of an ancient greek – explains psychobiologist Alberto Oliverio -, if anything is to change the so-called” extended mind “, ie the ability to project to the outside of the skull a set of skills ranging the articulation of the word to writing. It is the plane on which the innovations follow are with a seemingly dizzying speed, but we must not delude ourselves for a possible transformation of the human brain will take centuries, if not millennia. ” A scholar of international standing and author of numerous essays (including Imagination and memory, Mondadori University and The art of remembering, Rizzoli, both of 2013), Oliverio intervenes in the debate on cultural and anthropological changes promoted by “Avvenire”, it has through a number of forums, the last of which saw the participation of qualified representatives of the scientific community.
“It’s true – admitted Oliverio -, the research often ends up in the dock, even beyond its actual responsibilities. In each historical moment always existed people refractory to change. This tendency to conservatism, moreover, belongs to the human being from childhood, but units in a constant search for novelty. At one stage so delicate like the present, we must strive more than ever to find a balance between these opposing tensions. From the practical point of view, in fact, it is what is already happening. Few, even among those who complain about the leaps forward in science, would be willing to give up the speed in communications and transportation, guaranteed by technological development. ” No worries in sight, then? “On the contrary – says Oliverio – there are areas in which caution is more than appropriate, first of all of reproductive technologies. The specular risk than the resistance to the transformation is in fact made up of passive acceptance of any changes, in a kind of falling in love for the new that often hides a total lack of reflection. Even this attitude comes rapidity with which innovations follow one another and at least a part of the resistors can be ascribed to the simple fact that the thought requires longer times. But invoking a deeper reasoning does not, of itself, the rejection of progress. In general, I do not think that in our society there is a properly understood anti-scientific movement. ”
Among the issues that should be addressed with greater attention stands out, even for Oliverio, that of the consequences induced by new technological practices, especially in the context amsono reproductive. “It is taking root the prejudice that there is no problem that science can not solve. In reality the situation is quite different and in some cases would be already very able to handle highly complex, often painful, but unavoidable horizon of human experience. Illness, death, sterility continue to be objective limits. Even when we seem to be able to cross them, we can not help deal with the consequences that this entails overcoming. Take the pious esemdalla of a couple, maybe already advanced in years, and who wants to get a child at all costs. The desire of parents are satisfied, but at what cost to the child? What will be, in the future, the feelings of a generation that is likely to be deprived of the relationship with their biological origins? ». A significant role in this and other contexts, is played by the changed relationship with time. “Impatience is a factor now impossible to overlook – said Oliverio -. The almost instantaneous speed of the media has replaced the slow rhythms of nature, with consequences already found in educational headquarters. I bet a lot on strengthening skills, forgetting that these do not exhaust the richness of the human being.
We all compounds memory and experience: to what we experienced from the emotional point of view, as well as what we have learned to do. In our act it is always present an unaware component that prevents identification of the functioning of the brain with that of any other rational machine or computational, albeit highly advanced. Even someone who does not nourish a spiritual view of existence is now led to the finding that the explanation suggested by neuroscience are not, as far as we can guess, can never be entirely satisfactory. Of course, we are making great progress in the study of the brain. There are already forms of cognitive enhancement, sometimes questionable, and testing for the treatment of Parkinson’s is a significant phase. But this does not authorize the simplicity of those who argue that, from now on, everything will be repaired, including death. We are deadly biological beings, the final outcome of our existence is and will always remain beyond our reach. “
No comments:
Post a Comment