the dungeon has...

“If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we could not.” (Emerson Pugh)
Discuss the dilemma in relation to advances made in Cognitive Science

The human brain is a very complex thing, that much is undeniable. However, there is always the question of whether it is possible to ever understand the workings of the human brain, whether it is conceivable that we may one day fully understand it. I have been told that within the brain there are approximately 10 to the 13 neurons, which is approximately equivalent to the number of galaxies in the universe. It has been considered that although all these galaxies can all be seen to work under the same laws, e.g. the law of gravity, we still have no way of mapping the human brain in such a way. The brain’s complexity would require a computer far more powerful than anything that we have at the moment to fully contain such a mapping. This sheer amount of information has meant that people need to work with simplified models of the brain in order to break it down into some form of functional imaging. If thought is simply an aspect of physical matter, a by-product of nerves being stimulated in the brain, then in theory (using a Physicalist view of the mind-body problem), it should be possible to give an entirely physical description of any mental event. The brain may be an incredibly complex thing but we have made many advances in the neural sciences to come to understand some of its functions, and it is not inconceivable that one day we may consider that we do fully understand it.

The brain itself has already been broken down into parts: The Central Nervous System, the Autonomous Nervous System, the Neo-Cortex (which is more developed in humans), the Brain-Stem and the Thalamus. The link between mind and brain first developed into a scientific study in 1861 when Broca first noticed that there was a link between aphasia[1] and damage to certain areas of the brain. S. Zeke in the 1970’s found that there was functional localisation in the Neo-cortex. This has led to mapping of the activity of the brain; of which there are two major types, Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging[2] and Positron Emission Topography[3]. Neural nets are mappings of ‘spacing's’, which means that they are generalisations as opposed to representations. This can lead to difficulties, but as that is not currently the issue we shall leave it for the time being.

Neuroscience and imaging have recently been concerned with the brain’s ability to form ideas. It has been considered that the brain’s form describes itself, however the question could be raised of whether a description of a thing could be the same as the thing itself. For example, a sentence which fully describes its contents could be said to describe itself, but the description could not be considered the same as the sentence. This sort of concept could be classified under Type-Identity theories which denote that each thought we have is a particular function of the brain, and that these states of the brain could in theory be measured. However, there is debate as to whether specific thoughts could be linked to specific areas of the brain, for example my thinking about Paris. Thus it could be considered that there must be a specific part of my brain just primarily for the task of thinking about Paris, and so on.

Below you can see a model of the development of the brain in humans:

As can be seen from the above diagram (taken from the Oxford Companion to Mind) specific areas of the brain have already been correlated to different functions in a human. Once the Aborigines of Australia, and people in medieval England, used to bore holes into the skulls of ailing contemporaries to release evil spirits. It was known as trepanning, and sometimes it worked and sometimes it did not. We have come very far since in our understanding of the mechanics of the brain, and could perhaps one day hope to solve any ailments related to damage to the brain.

However there are still areas that we cannot begin to understand at the moment. One example being autism which is generally thought to be the result of a genetic disorder. It was first diagnosed by Leo Kanner in 1943. Although we can build up a representation of how the disorder can be examined or perhaps understood, but we are still a long way from understanding the connection between the biological and cognitive side of the disorder. Many theories have been put forward as to the cause, including cortical atrophy of the left temporal lobe, abnormalities in the limbic system, psychological origins, and epilepsy. The sciences need to find a way to unite both the psychological and the biological functions of humans. As can be seen in the diagram below[4], the different views have been united in order to attempt a representation of how autism presents itself in behaviour:

Thus with the various sciences joining forces, even allowing for their different views we can learn so much about the human brain. There is nothing to say that eventually we could not have a comprehensive model of the brain. The only problem being that at the moment our technology is not sophisticated enough to fully understand all of its functions. At the moment all that we can manage is generalisations. We can examine different parts of the brain whilst functioning, but only to a precision of approximately 3mm square. But the advances that have been made recently in cognitive science can lead us to the opinion that there is nothing stopping us from learning far more about the operation of the human brain. One day the models and generalisations that we have now may seem as crude as trepanning, but that is yet to be seen. Once computers that could play chess were the stuff of fiction, but now they are real.

In answer to the given quote, I could say that the brain is at the moment not too complex for us to understand, it just may take awhile for us to fully understand the workings or for us to build a machine powerful enough to do it for us. Nothing is impossible, and if the brain were simpler, we would be simpler also. However, although we may progress more slowly, we may still achieve the same eventual result.

- - - - - - - -

Bibliography:

· Richard Gregory (ed.), Oxford Companion to The Mind, ‘Brain Development’, p101-110, Oxford University Press, 1987.
· Oliver Sachs, The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat, ‘Part 1:Losses’, p1-5, Picador, 1985.
· Nigel Warburton (ed.), Philosophy: The Basics, ‘Mind’, p131-136, Routledge, 1996.
· Steven Pinker, How The Mind Works, The Softback Preview, 1998.
· Stephen Priest, Theories Of The Mind, ‘Materialism’, p98-133, Penguin Books, 1991.
· Philip Johnson-Laird, The Computer and The Mind, ‘Computation and the Mind’, p13-57, Fontana Press, 1993.
· D.W.Green (et. al.), Cognitive Science An Introduction, ‘Chapter 1: Introduction’, p1-22, Blackwell, 1996.
· John Searle, 1984 Reith Lectures – Minds Brains and Science, ‘Beer Cans and Meat Machines’, The Listener, 15^th November 1984.
· Douglas Hofstader (et al.), The Mind’s I, Penguin Books, 1982.
· URL: http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/

- - - - - - - -

[1] A neurological condition that produces difficulty in the expressive use of speech.
[2] Also known as MRI this looks at the changes in blood flow in the brain, as this has been shown to have a correlation with activity in different parts of the brain.
[3]In this an isotope of oxygen is introduced into the brain, and from activity in the brain eventually decays into a photon, which can easily be mapped.
[4] Taken from Cognitive Science An Introduction (see bibliography)

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://bluejoh.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/391