The human brain

[jay gw]

Is there any reason why so little is known about the brain, or is it my imagination that more is known about other fields of science/areas of study than is known about psychology?

It appears to me like there's alot of speculation when the subject of "how the brain works" comes up.

Maybe it's not the the mechanics that are a mystery, but how to deal with them when they don't work.

Also, kind of philosophical - if the brain is a type of machine, isn't it correct to say that there's an optimal functioning? Have you ever heard someone say, "well, everybody's heart is different, there's no 'normal' or better heart".

You don't hear it. You don't hear, "Oh the kidneys. Each person has their own. There's no better or worse."

But people make those statements about the brain. Postmodern philosophy says, "There's no such thing as human nature." People will stand around and talk about so and so's cancer, but will they stand around talking about their paranoia?

Is that because to categorize people by their pancreas or lungs is fine, but by their personality or mental health is "wrong"?

Just wondering.

 

[The Don]

well to quote a very old saying "If the human brain were simple enough to understand we'd be so stupid we wouldn't be able to"

 

[El Greco]

The brain is much more complex than other organs. This is the first obstacle in determining with absolute certainty what is healthy and what is not. But generally speaking, the absence of a classified mental disease is "health".

Beyond that, we encounter the same problems as with other organs. Which is healthier, a muscle with more strength or one with more endurance ? Which is healthier, a happier mind or a more creative one ?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by jay gw

Is there any reason why so little is known about the brain, or is it my imagination that more is known about other fields of science/areas of study than is known about psychology?

We could learn a lot more in a hurry if it weren't for the ethical limitations on the use of live humans as experimental test subjects.

if the brain is a type of machine, isn't it correct to say that there's an optimal functioning?

No more than it would be possible to talk about an optimal functioning for any other machine, say an automobile. You want power on acceleration? Payload capacity? Fuel economy? Durability? Everything is a tradeoff.

 

[Chris Haynes]

...Also, kind of philosophical - if the brain is a type of machine, isn't it correct to say that there's an optimal functioning? Have you ever heard someone say, "well, everybody's heart is different, there's no 'normal' or better heart".
....

This is a great place to learn about neurology:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/introb.html

Funny, you should mention the heart. Some hearts are different... There are some amazingly common structural differences (one of my kids has hypertrophic cardiomyopathy). Fortunately the fairly recent introduction of echocardiograms makes it easier to find these structual anomalies.

Unfortunately, probing the human brain is not quite so easy.

 

[Dr. Imago]

One of my neuroscience professors (who loved to regularly drop the fact that he was Harvard trained... ) during my first year of medical school called your question, jay gw, one posing potentially the penultimate paradox: can the brain use itself to understand itself? Interesting question. I don't see as much of a dilemma as he did, though.

First, I think the big philosophical step we have to collective make is to do away with, once and for good, the spurious "mind-body" dichotomy. The brain, and the "mind" as a process of it, is every bit unisonous, and attempting to hang onto such an artificial distinction into two separate ideas hampers our grasping the inseparability, and indeed full confluence, of the biochemical process and their resultant effects. This isn't speculation; there is ample evidence from individuals who've had parts of their brain injured or destroyed by trauma, tumors, strokes, infections (etc.) that subsequently and irrevocably alter their "mind". Taken collectively, these 'models' prove powerfully the fact that the brain is separated into distinct functional zones, and each zone is additively and separately important in establishing and maintaining what we perceive to be consciousness.

Secondly, we've made huge steps in the past 20 years in even better understanding the brain. Newer imaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) scanning have helped to further pinpoint and quantify thought processes, both "normal" and "abnormal", between cohorts of individuals.

Lastly, we will continue to learn more and more at the molecular level about how the brain works by continuing to understand and build better models of the brain based on what we learn from the human genome project, more elaborate computer modeling of neural processes, and the continued and growing scientific body of knowledge in the currently established and traditional neuroscience field. These things working together will further advance knowledge forming a sort of "scientific seredipity" as we march forward learning more and more.

I look forward to the day that discussions of the brain and the mind are fully considered to be tautologous and interchangeable, both scientifically and philosophically. We still have a ways to go, but I think we'll get there eventually. And, though we may never be able to predict exactly what an individual will do, we will be able to better understand, based on all of the above, what an individual is predisposed to do. It will give us a better understanding of why we think what we do, and how we interact with our environment based on those predispositions. It will, however, demystify a lot of what is now considered to be extrinisic to the body. And, there will be many people who just will never accept the fact that the "mind" (a.k.a., for some which equals the soul) is not a separate, discrete entity from the body.

-TT

 

[Earthborn]

if the brain is a type of machine, isn't it correct to say that there's an optimal functioning? Have you ever heard someone say, "well, everybody's heart is different, there's no 'normal' or better heart".

The problem is the brain has many different functions and can have different skills in any of them. For example there are people who suffer from a disorder that makes totally incapable with numbers, but they have truly amazing social skills. And there are people who are amazing with maths, but can't deal with other people at all. Most of us are somewhat average in both. Now, which is better?

 

[jay gw]

No more than it would be possible to talk about an optimal functioning for any other machine, say an automobile.

People always talk about automobile engines in terms of optimal functioning and performance.

And there are people who are amazing with maths, but can't deal with other people at all. Most of us are somewhat average in both. Now, which is better?

No offense, but do you believe in tarot cards? How about angels? Why do people who ordinarily sound down to earth and scientifcally informed, sound so "woo woo" when it comes to the brain?

Since when do kidneys that piss blood or have stones act as a "just as good" alternative?

What I'm trying to say is, before anyone knew what the heart, liver or anything else did, they used to talk about it just like this. Like it's something metaphysical. It's not. It's mechanical.

It's just that there's not enough known to take away that "mystical" attitude that surrounds it.

I'll use this illustration: It's the year 2250 AD. In malls across the country, you can go into a store, next door to the "pet cloning" store, and get a new brain. You can pick and choose any features you want.

Tell me with a straight face, that someone would choose the "bad with people" or "occasional psychotic episode" brain model.

Those kinds of brains would never even be manufactured. People want to succeed, not to make their lives harder, so why choose something that makes everything more difficult? People are stuck with some things. I think people are just being nice when they say, "well, just because your a neurotic obsessive, doesn't mean that's not better."

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by jay gw

People always talk about automobile engines in terms of optimal functioning and performance.

They talk about optimizing for specific types of performance. You don't get maximum fuel economy out of an engine optimized for maximum power output.

Why do people who ordinarily sound down to earth and scientifcally informed, sound so "woo woo" when it comes to the brain?

I think to understand why that is requires really getting down and dirty with the details regarding what it is that is being claimed. Some of the things the brain does are not easily explained as the functioning of a rigidly deterministic system (which is what is implied by the word 'machine'). In fact, some decidedly non-woowoo people have presented strong arguments that some of the things the brain does with apparent ease are proveably impossible for a machine. If that is true, any proposed explanation for how that might work is bound to sound a bit metaphysical, at least until it is better understood.

 

[drkitten]

Tell me with a straight face, that someone would choose the "bad with people" brain model.

You mean the Asperger's model that gives you a numerical and spacial IQ of 175? I suspect that people would be waiting in line for that one.

(Quote from MedicalPost.com: `Asperger's children are supposed to have lucid speech before four years of age and to have IQs above normal....Asperger's syndrome may be just a fancy way of calling the class genius a geek or freak.... The saddest symptoms are the social symptoms. These children are supposed to show socially inappropriate reciprocal interactions. They are "socially odd."')

Brains, like engines, have many different types of functions; the Rolls Royce Griffin engine that drives a race vehicle is a total garage queen and needs a major overhaul every few hours, and burns fuel like it's going out of style. It's fast, and powerful, but I don't want to use it in a municipal bus.

You're basically assuming that the various negative traits you cite are independent failures of brain function. We know little enough about detailed brain mechanics (and we're sensitive enough to the subtle differences in behavior) that we don't know which, if any, are genuine failure modes and which are simply tradeoffs of other functions.

 

[jay gw]

You're basically assuming that the various negative traits you cite are independent failures of brain function. We know little enough about detailed brain mechanics (and we're sensitive enough to the subtle differences in behavior) that we don't know which, if any, are genuine failure modes and which are simply tradeoffs of other functions.

If socializing or doing math is a vital function to get along, well, anywhere, why would someone choose not to have it? Because that person wants to be unique?

The idea of tradeoffs is coming from you. There's no evidence of that - except in people you mention who are abnormal.

The optimal brain would be one that does everything well.

 

[drkitten]

The optimal brain would be one that does everything well.

So would the optimal engine. Tell you what: if you build me an "optimal engine" -- which, I would like to point out, is a technology that we do understand -- I'll hand you an optimal brain the next week.

 

[Zombified]

If optimal means everything gets done well, said engine should be small enough to put into my radio-controlled model car, powerful enough to fly a 777, and free, and can be built out of spare parts in an afternoon.

See the problem?

Brains have these same constraints: how many calories does your optimal brain consume? How big is it? How long does it take to grow?

 

[jay gw]

Tell you what: if you build me an "optimal engine" -- which, I would like to point out, is a technology that we do understand -- I'll hand you an optimal brain the next week.

In other words, nobody willingly chooses one brain function to the neglect of others. It's genetic abnormality that causes it, or an accident in the case of head trauma etc. Nobody gets a choice. At least not yet.

What I mean to say is that thinking of the brain as anything but an organ of the body with an optimal functioning is misleading. Too little is known about how to correct deficiencies, or people would opt to do it, imo.

 

[drkitten]

If optimal means everything gets done well, said engine should be small enough to put into my radio-controlled model car, powerful enough to fly a 777, and free, and can be built out of spare parts in an afternoon.

Don't forget that it should also get good mileage, be able to run off any sort of fuel from jet fuel through corn oil, and generate enough torque to accelerate my battleship like a Formula 1 car.

And give milk. As long as we're listing requirements.

 

[sorgoth]

Go read How the Mind Works, by Steven Pinker. Now that I've said that, on the 'optimal function' question: How does being 'optimal' function with emotions? Someone that's always happy? How does that work?

 

[jay gw]

The human brain is a crap design.

Optimal doesn't mean doing everything perfectly. It means doing it in a balanced way.

The posts about, "why is worse for someone to have no social skills but do math very well" get right to the center. Because that's not balanced! It's not moderate.

The absolutely superior brain, designed by God (if such a thing existed) would take resources from what you're not doing and apply them to the task at hand.

Why do I need to have resources in the artistic part of my brain -- because, yes that's how it's designed, it's designed as compartments --when I'm doing math? Or driving a car? Is that useful?

Sometimes people forget where their brain came from. It comes from apes. I don't think you want to dwell on that.

 

[Chris Haynes]

So tell us exactly how you would design a brain. Include all the pertinent information on things like where each part should be and what they should do.

To keep us all on the same page, reference a simplified diagram and explanation like this:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/nsdivide.html

Should there be so much associated with vision? Should there only be two hemispheres... or is two too many? Should there be a specific spot where we could back up our memories --- or have the option to delete them?

 

[epepke]

Should there be so much associated with vision?

We should have Mollusc eyes anyway, requiring less processing.

Should there only be two hemispheres... or is two too many? Should there be a specific spot where we could back up our memories --- or have the option to delete them?

Well, whatever, the occuput is a really nice place to put a jack. Or a toggle switch.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Personally I wish I had a DVD backup to some of my memories. They seem to change everytime I get together with my sisters and gab about our sibling misadventures.