As part of editing my book manuscript and starting my Substack posts, I turned my attention to being a better communicator at this intersection of neuroscience, philosophy and self-help. It’s really complex and many of the ideas are radical because they peer behind the illusion that the brain presents us through awareness.
As part of that effort, I’m been reading some of the recently published books on brain and consciousness like Anil Seth’s Being You and Donald Hoffman’s The Case Against Reality. By the way, I can recommend the former with reservations, but avoid Hoffman at all costs. In their efforts, these philosophers of mind are hopelessly trapped in what I’ve started calling “Mentalism”, the explanation of brain function not through neurophysiology but through metaphor and theory all of which is untestable and without consequences in the real world.
I was so happy to hear a real neuroscientist discuss our understanding of the brain on Sean Carroll’s podcast: Jeff Lichtman on the Wiring Diagram of the Brain – Sean Carroll. Jeff Lichtman is a contemporary of mine, an MD, PhD who stuck with basic research on brain connections through a very productive career.
Like Jeff, I’m astounded both at how far we’ve come in understanding the brain compared to where we started, but in awe of how far we are from a real understanding of how the brain functions as a complex system of networked neurons.
it’s an enormous amount of effort. And I don’t want to make fun of this, because this is the field I’ve been in for my entire professional career, and I’m old. And we have learned an enormous amount. The question is, if you’re climbing Mount Everest and you’ve gone three feet, have you made a lot of progress? You have made an infinite amount of progress relative when you started and you had gone zero. But we are still very far from having a deep understanding of how the brain works. And I will probably say at some point, I’m not sure that is what we should be aiming for anyway.
It’s also interesting to hear Sean Carrol, a physicist as smart questions about the brain from what for us is a very naive perspective. He’s had some of those Philosophers on his podcast over the years and they’ve given him some wrong ideas about what’s represented in the brain and our understanding of encoding. But Jeff put it perfectly:
I think of a nerve cell as a living creature. It’s a single celled organism, like a paramecium or an amoeba, but it’s living in a very weird pond, which is your head. It doesn’t know that it’s inside your head. It doesn’t care about whether you’re eating a sandwich or listening to a podcast. It’s just there. And it has to do certain things to stay alive. And so all the things it does are for its own survival because it’s a single celled organism with a will to survive. And those things end up generating learned based wiring diagrams. That from their perspective, they don’t know that that’s what they’re doing. They just know that if they don’t do that, they’re going to be punished and die.
This is a point I’ve been working on presenting more clearly. We have an introspective sense that I call awareness that provides some access to brain function. But outside of what we’re presented through this limited mechanism, we have no access to the functioning of the brain at all. And when we use our tools to look inside, we don’t understand at a fundamental level what these neurons are doing and how they’re organized. They’ve been assembled into networks through developmental programs to process sensory input through channels of sight, sound, position, etc and produce purposeful behavior.
And Jeff makes a great point about the difference between describing the structure of the brain and understanding it in the sense of predicting behavior.
I think even simulating a worm in a computer is a challenge, though, with only 300 cells, so I’m not too worried. I think, as I said, the best we may be able to do is describe in complete detail what’s there, but it’s a big difference from saying, I now can predict its behavior, I understand it. No human being, honestly, no human being could hold this amount of information. The analogy I give is like, do you understand New York City? And you’d say, that’s a stupid question. What do you mean? There’s so many things happening at the same time, and there’s so much complexity, and I would say if you can’t understand New York City, forget about the brain. It’s way more complicated than New York City.
I agree that if we can’t understand a 300 neuron worm brain, understanding the complex biological system of the human brain with its billions of neurons is beyond reduction down to understanding. So we describe. Make general statements about regions of brain, their connections, their participation in aspects of awareness and behavior, but the goal is better and better description.
This is what David Chalmers famously termed “The easy question”, which is describing the mechanisms of brain function that underly cognition and behavior. I think Jeff underestimates our progress. I think we’ve come more than just a few steps, but I agree there is much more to learn. I’m confident that the understanding gained will provide insight into human problems like depression, schizophrenia and, ultimately, allowing each of us to attain our potential. Because even though the mechanisms are an ad hoc, tangled mess, their purpose is emergent functions like optimism about the environment or fear. And we have already found a number of levers to shift the system toward a more desirable state. I think we just need to be a bit more sophisticated and realistic in how to accomplish change in a complex system we can describe but never truly understand.
