Bears and a whale, and where bad ideas come from
by Rob Tiller
I finally finished going through the pictures I took at Katmai National Park and the Alaska coast, and I wanted to share a few more that I liked. Katmai has one of the densest concentrations of brown bears in the world, but there aren’t really very many there — about 2,200. Each one is unique.
Along with bears, I am particularly interested in whales. I’ve had the privilege of seeing them in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, and I’ve been learning more about them in recent books by Carl Safina and Rebecca Giggs. Humans have just started understanding the intelligence, social structures, and cultures of whales, but for centuries, we’ve been mindlessly killing them.
So during my Alaska trip, I had mixed feelings about seeing a fin whale that had died from unknown causes and washed up on the beach. The poor creature had been there for a few days, decomposing, and had become food for other animals, including a lot of brown bears. Despite feeling sad for the whale, I was glad it could provide calories for the bears and other creatures.
David Brooks is a NY Times columnist I generally respect without getting particularly excited. He’s a sensible conservative who loathes Trump — a nice but usually predictable guy. However, last week in his column on contemporary currents in neuroscience, he briefly pulled together some powerful ideas that I’ve been mulling over but hadn’t imagined he’d ever entertain.
According to Brooks (and various scholars), we’ve all learned to think of seeing and imagining as entirely separate things. But they aren’t. Neuroscientists are finding that the brain structures and processes involved are much the same for both. That is, from the perspective of the internal physical operation, we can’t reliably distinguish between seeing and imagining. Seeing may be believing, but believing may also be seeing.
Similarly, the distinctions that we draw between brain and body, between memory and experience, and between reason and emotion are nowhere near as clear and clean as most of us have assumed. Indeed, it may not be possible to box off any half of these pairs as independent. Like yin and yang, they are starting to look interdependent.
Even starting to think about these ideas may be disorienting, since we’ve long understood these distinctions to be rock solid. But they may explain some widespread-but-wrong notions. With this new perspective, we can start to understand how some people can truly believe that covid vaccines are dangerous, a newly fertilized egg is fully human, scientists are lying about climate change, and a liberal cabal is trying to take away personal firearms and legalize child abuse.
It’s probable that we all have sincere beliefs that have no basis in reality, though some of us seem to have a bigger collection. When we’re part of communities with extreme views and bombarded with media that confirms our biases, we can dig into some sad and dangerous positions.
There’s no simple solution here, I’m afraid. But I find it helpful to remember that we’ve all got imperfect brains, and even the kookiest of us is not entirely personally responsible for his or her terrible ideas. Also, people do sometimes change, and might one day be grateful for our helping them to change.