The Idea of the Brain: The Past and Future of Neuroscience

Product Information

Galloping through centuries of wild speculation and ingenious, sometimes macabre anatomical investigations, scientist and historian Matthew Cobb reveals how we came to our present state of knowledge. Our latest theories allow us to create artificial memories in the brain of a mouse, and to build AI programmes capable of extraordinary cognitive feats. A complete understanding seems within our grasp. It is history, but it’s modern “we don’t know” science history. It’s about brain connections and how we actually still don’t know anything about them. Nielsen, J. A., et al. (2013). An evaluation of the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging. Brain a machine. This philosophy is now boring. It’s not the cool creative philosophy of the past. Rather people are trying to actually explain how the brain works. So it’s largely statements like: the brain is like a computer, the brain calculates things, the brain reacts but can also be made to not react. A powerful examination of what we think we know about the brain and why -- despite technological advances -- the workings of our most essential organ remain a mystery.

Goldie J. The implications of brain lateralisation for modern general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(642):44-5. doi: 10.3399/bjgp16X683341 This morning I read an op-ed in the New York Times by Lisa Feldman Barrett titled “Your Brain is Not for Thinking”. Her argument was that the primary function of the brain is to keep the body going, not to think. From an evolutionary perspective this is obviously true, however surprising we find it. Throughout most of evolutionary history the brain’s only function was to monitor and control the body. Thinking is a relatively recent thing that humans do, and humans are a very young species. Most brains in the world, of course are non-human, and we hesitate to say they “think” in the same way humans do. This reminded me that I hadn’t yet written a review of Matthew Cobb’s splendid “The Idea of the Brain”. Let’s remedy that. Of course in a work such as this there is a section on consciousness. And once again, I am glad to see that no one has a coherent definition of this, studies of the brain's relation to consciousness are thus fraught with issues based purely on arbitrary definitions (mostly from non-scientists), and as a result, providing any satisfactory universal answer to this question is like trying to hit a bullet, with another bullet, fired from two passing trains so that each bullet deflects onto a nail and piece of jello, respectively, and nails them to a wall on a third passing train. I tend to the materialist side of things here and think that woo-woo idiots keep making the definition more mysterious in the face of mounting physical evidence, just my two cents, and Cobb does everything he can to make this Mississippi mud pie of an issue as intellectually healthy as possible. Striking research showing the immense complexity of ordinary thought and revealing the identities of the gatekeepers in our minds. It seems that we need a Newton, Darwin or Einstein to come into brain and cognition research. We need new ideas and new metaphors. We probably need more advanced technology.

main job is to process information. But some experts argue that because brains are biological — they evolved within the vagaries of a body — they operate in ways that a machine doesn’t ( SN: 8/23/16). Aghjayan, S. L., et al. (2022). Aerobic exercise improves episodic memory in late adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Joseph R. The right cerebral hemisphere: emotion, music, visual-spatial skills, body-image, dreams, and awareness. J Clin Psychol. 1988;44(5):630-73. We may not answer very basic questions regarding brain function until a new organizing principal emerges. Baxter MG, Croxson PL. Facing the role of the amygdala in emotional information processing. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2012;109(52):21180-21181. doi:10.1073/pnas.1219167110

Memory. Very basic stuff. A bit of a letdown, it's this basic. He goes over some of the big new experiments, but we don’t learn much about what memory is or how it works. In the 19th century, the electrical paradigm became less spark-like, and more like that modern miracle, the telegraph. Brain studies shifted from mechanism to function. Phrenologists measured lumps in the skull, on the theory that specific functions and capabilities arose from specific parts of the brain, so that talents and deficiencies could be explained by having excess or deficient brain matter, which one could discover by measuring lumps and dips in the skull. Thus one could “prove” that someone was a natural criminal, laborer, or intellectual by measuring the skull. For example, the fact that men’s brains are bigger than women’s was taken to prove that men are more intelligent than women. Phrenology was eventually discredited when scientists began looking at the actual brain, rather than the skull. Parts of the brain were indeed sometimes associated with mental abilities, but these were not enlarged nor did they lie beneath lumps. Still, some capabilities such as “intelligence” did not have seem to be localized. A surprisingly acrimonious debate emerged over whether specific mental activities were localized in the brain or whether they arose from the brain as a whole. This is an active debate, even today. Predictions about future computer and human interaction. Kinda pointless and shallow. It’s the typical floofy guesswork that doesn’t really explain much. In the ancient western world the seat of emotion, perception, consciousness, and thought was the heart, not the brain. If you think of it, with whatever organ you choose, this makes sense. The brain just sits there. But the heart is always moving. You can’t ignore the heart. But you can’t feel the brain at all. All of that is from the “Past” section of the book. In the “Present” section Cobb describes our current understanding of how memory works, how circuits have limited explanatory power, and how brains are similar to but different from digital computers. He describes the chemical basis for neural and mental phenomena. He describes the current view, that mental functions are both local and global; though some regions must be present for specific functions, those function may still require the whole brain. I was surprised to learn that fMRI “brain scans” are misleading, and that results from fMRI data are often over-hyped.To start with: I did not like it. I did not like the unchallenged focus on the western history of neuroscience. There were so many other stories worth telling!