Can Cognitive Neuroscience Tell Us Anything About the Mind?

[DuB]

[Note: This is an article written by Jeremy Dean for his blog PsyBlog. I have copied the content here in the hope that doing so will engender more discussion than simply posting a link.] Cognitive neuroscience - essentially brain scanning - has become all the rage in psychology and related fields. Given the headlong rush by, well, practically everyone, into cognitive neuroscience I still entertain a quaintly unfashionable stance: I'm sceptical. My scepticism is not total though, many cognitive neuroscientists claim that there are many exciting findings to come. They're probably right, but while neuroimaging can certainly tell us much about the brain, there's reason to believe it hasn't told us much about the mind. To understand what I mean by this we need to go back to basics by asking what research is for. Like all scientists, psychologists are continually knocking out new theories to explain the way we think and behave. One of the most important functions of research is its ability to differentiate between two theories. If research doesn't at least provide a clue one way or the other then theoretically, and so practically, it's a waste of time. Does cognitive neuroscience really have the power to distinguish between psychological theories? Is it any use to a cognitive psychologist? A critic's view Max Coltheart is Professor of Psychology at Macquarie University in Australia and in a recent journal article he wonders whether cognitive neuroscience has really told us anything useful about the mind so far (Coltheart, 2006). It's important to realise that his emphasis is on the mind, as in cognitive processes, as distinct from the brain, as in physiological processes. There's no doubt the mind's cognitive processes are a function of the brain's physiological activity but these two things are nevertheless (currently) separate questions. Cognitive neuroscience's strength is in physiological processes, and as imaging technology improves, so will the importance of its findings in this area. But, again, why should a psychologist care that much which part of the brain lights up in a scanner, if the mind's functioning is still so far removed from our understanding of its physiology? An example All this can be difficult to grasp in abstract. Take one of Coltheart's examples. Suppose you're a psychologist interested in how people work out what other people are going to do. Their intentions. Suppose there are only two competing theories that you've got to choose between: 'Simulation theory': I literally run a crude simulation of your mental state in my own mind. From this I try and work out what you're going to do next. 'Theory theory': I create a theory about you, then try to work out what you're going to do from that. A recent neuroimaging study claimed to be able to distinguish between these two theories. Ramnani and Miall (2004) put people in the brain scanner, got them to carry out certain tasks and predicted that if a particular part of the brain was activated it supported the first theory, and if another, then it supported the second. What actually happened was nowhere near this simple. Despite the claims of the study's authors, Coltheart argues that actually neither theory was substantially supported or refuted by the findings. This is just two theories and one study - not exactly a scathing criticism of the whole of cognitive neuroscience. But Coltheart does run through four other examples where evidence from cognitive neuroscience fails to distinguish between theories. Again, remember that we're talking about relatively high level psychological theories here, not low-level physiological processes. Coltheart goes on to pull quotes from a range of people who argue that, in principle, neuroimaging is useless for psychological theory and understanding of the mind. Here's a good computing metaphor: "No amount of knowledge about the hardware of a computer will tell you anything serious about the nature of the software that the computer runs. In the same way, no facts about the activity of the brain could be used to confirm or refute some information-processing model of cognition." (Coltheart, 2004, p.22) I personally don't know enough about cognitive neuroscience to argue whether or not this statement is true, but it certainly has intuitive appeal. Considering the enormous quantity of money going into cognitive neuroscience right now, it seems unlikely this would be a majority view amongst psychologists. Not that scientist are slaves to money, of course...Ahem... What's your view? Spoiler for References: Coltheart, M. (2004) Brain imaging, connectionism and cognitive neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2, 21-25. Coltheart, M. (2006). What has functional neuroimaging told us about the mind (so far)? Cortex, 42(3), 323-31. Ramnani, N., & Miall, R. C. (2004). A circuit in the human brain for predicting the actions of others. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 85-90.

[Xei]

It's all nonsense until somebody cracks the neural code. It's like trying to come up with a model of how proteins are made before Watson and Crick came along. Or trying to get insight into how computers work by messing about on Windows XP.

[DuB]

It's all nonsense until somebody cracks the neural code. Pinning down the neural code would certainly do wonders for our understanding of the brain on the physiological level, but what of the mind? Not to imply, of course, that the two are separable entities - I think we both agree that what we know as the mind is the result of processes within the brain - but it nevertheless remains a useful distinction to make. The idea seems to be that the key to understanding a complex system like the human mind is to reduce it to its most basic components; take it apart and put it back together again, like a pocket watch. Consider the genetic code. As you alluded to, Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of DNA and paved the way for a much greater understanding of protein synthesis, etc. But 50 years later we are still struggling to figure out how these correlate to phenotypes. We are making progress - it seems like nearly every week we identify some gene that is "associated with" a certain characteristic - but when it comes to the bigger picture of how the genome interacts with itself to produce the astonishingly complex system of the human being, we have miles to go. Back to neural coding. In relation to cognitive neuroscience, this is even lower-level. What happens when we "crack the neural code?" In reality, probably not much. It will certainly be invaluable for understanding the lowest levels of the system, but in terms of a holistic understanding of the mind and human behavior, we will have miles to go before we can put this information to good use. Which is not to say, of course, that we will be unable to apply that information eventually to achieve holistic understanding; only that I don't think it's going to be the revolution that you think it will be. Let's consider the example that you gave about understanding computers by tinkering with Windows XP. Clearly the insight one could gain from doing this would be limited. But let's turn the analogy on its head: what happens when we take a strictly bottom-up approach? Incidentally, we can explain the working of Windows XP in terms of bits and even electrons. However, most people do not find this to be a particularly useful explanation. Without the contexts of the higher levels of understanding, explaining Windows XP in terms of electron movements is essentially meaningless. What's the lesson? Is reductionism bad? The answer is, of course, a resounding no - this approach is responsible for much of our understanding of the world as we know it, and it will continue to be an invaluable philosophical tool. The lesson is that we can't completely rely on reductionist explanations - we get the most utility from taking a middle-ground approach between that and holism. We have to study the system at every level, from the top to the bottom and back up again. With this in mind, to say that all study of the mind/behavior is "nonsense" until we have "cracked the neural code" is, at best, overly dismissive.

[juroara]

the brain is the most complicated organ to understand, the mind is even more complicated. its like comparing a computer, its programming (DNA) and form. which is finite. to the boundless information that is held in it (the internet), which we could say is virtually infinite. I imagine that the internet exists in a computer in the same way a mind exists in a brain. how can a scientist claim to understand the mind? how can a stranger claim to understand your mind? they would first have to understand their own mind. what profession is better suited to understand the self, except the man who is self reflective? spirituality is the self reflective practice, not science. I'm not saying science has no place in this field, it does. but science currently only cares to talk about the objective. its too chicken to get into the subjective, as things can no longer be as easily defined. problem is, our minds are experiencing a subjective reality! how much can science tell us then??? the 'science' that talks about the subjective reality is eastern practices. I called it a science because like science, it has defined things and has defined how those things relate to each other and maybe in the future, we will recognize the science of the subjective reality a screwed up computer doesn't damage the internet. as the internet exists outside of the computer. but a screwed up computer can't process the internet correctly. for the sake of the internet, you need a functioning, up to date, virus free computer!

[DuB]

the brain is the most complicated organ to understand, the mind is even more complicated. its like comparing a computer, its programming (DNA) and form. which is finite. to the boundless information that is held in it (the internet), which we could say is virtually infinite. I imagine that the internet exists in a computer in the same way a mind exists in a brain. ... a screwed up computer doesn't damage the internet. as the internet exists outside of the computer. but a screwed up computer can't process the internet correctly. for the sake of the internet, you need a functioning, up to date, virus free computer! I'm not sure that I like this analogy. It seems to imply that much of what we know is not physically located in our brain, but rather in some outside entity. This dualist perspective flies in the face of science. I'm not sure if this is the position you were intending to take in positing this analogy, but that's how I interpreted it. (It is also important to note that just because something flies in the face of science doesn't necessarily mean that it is not true - but that is perhaps a discussion for another day.) I'm not saying science has no place in this field, it does. but science currently only cares to talk about the objective. its too chicken to get into the subjective, as things can no longer be as easily defined. problem is, our minds are experiencing a subjective reality! how much can science tell us then??? Give me some specific examples of issues that science is "too chicken" to address.

[juroara]

I'm not sure that I like this analogy. It seems to imply that much of what we know is not physically located in our brain, but rather in some outside entity. This dualist perspective flies in the face of science. I'm not sure if this is the position you were intending to take in positing this analogy, but that's how I interpreted it. (It is also important to note that just because something flies in the face of science doesn't necessarily mean that it is not true - but that is perhaps a discussion for another day.) Give me some specific examples of issues that science is "too chicken" to address. every night is living proof that we are dualistic creatures. do you realize who it is that you speak with when you speak with a character in a dream? how many times have you been fooled into thinking it someone other than you? what kind of creature speaks with itself? and doesn't even know its speaking with itself? but a dualistic creature? or even, why do we have to very different brain halves? that can act independently of each other? I didn't mean to imply an outside entity. I mean YOU exist outside of the brain as well as function within it. Even your concern is dualistic. You basically said there are two possibilities 1. either the information of our being is in the brain, we have no soul or 2. its not the brain because we have a soul why isn't it both at the same time? Why cant that information exist in the brain and without? Why does it have to be one or the other? what is science too chicken to address? anything that a scientist doesn't what to consider as being reality materialistic science in the past has tried to tell us that if you experience something other wordly that can't be proven, it was nothing more but a hallucination. just your brain for what ever illogical reason in the face of evolution, just decided to make things up arbitrarily, for no reason at all just because it can though they haven't given us any real explanation why people hallucinate the most meaningful life altering experiences. why an erronous brain fuck would do that??? thats the kind of crap that I am talking about scientists have had it written in stone..there is NOTHING outside of the physical world. not becuase their science has told them so.........oh no....they made this declaration even before they understood what a dream was! they made this declaration because religion caused them personal injury science is already talking about multiple dimensions, higher dimensions, that beings could exist in these dimensions, and we can't see them. even if they are right next to us. It has tried to describe this phenomenon in scientific terms. HELLO!! and people still argue science can't talk about spirits? what the fuck, seriously. the terminology may be different, but the definition is the same!! materialistic science doesnt even consider for a moment how ancient men could talk about things only science today can describe. how? they just use their second favorite word next to hallucination.........COINCIDENCE. just a bloody meaningless coincidence that a bunch of old meditating men just happened to be right about a few not so important things... so why is it that every time I read about this idea of there being multiple/higher dimensions in a scientific text, that the world spirit never comes up? and why do people try so hard to argue that these beings in other dimensions aren't the very same spirits religions world wide have spoken about since man has walked on the earth, when the understanding of the nature of these beings is the same? .........denial??? here is the big problem for our western, objective, material science. it decided to say what is reality and what isnt. Which was a mistake! Such a bold declaration! Not unlike christianity so sure of itself of what is and isn't. And that was until it came to this problem recently, which still has materialists pulling out their hairs And that was 1. we only percieve a tiny, tiny, tiny, TINY TINY TINY portion of reality 2. we KNOW our physical tools are inadequate to study a large large portion of reality 4. so we turn to math instead, which tells us that yes there are many dimensions of reality and.... 3. there is no universal law of how to percieve reality!!! Where is the universal law that says all beings must percieve blue the same way as the next being percieves blue? Suddenly when we realize the human being never percieves reality directly, that his reality is and always has been his own unique and special subjective understanding of reality....................that subjective reality is once again important and crucial to understanding what is reality!! no longer can we so boldy know, what is.......and isn't......... the objective study is slapped in the face! and all those meaningless experiences, could in fact be the most important Do you understand? It's not up for science to tell us what is real. It never was! Science is just a tool created by man to serve man. To enrich our lives. And for no other purpose. And if our lives were about meditating and dreaming, then thats what science studies..................... there is a greater holistic science thats emerging. this new science holds the human experience on a pedestal, unlike the old science which denies half of the human experience by calling it a meaningless and erronous hallucination. though it has no objective proof that is a hallucination, only that the experience did not fit their model of what is reality. maybe its not the experience that was wrong.......maybe it was their model of reality???? thanks to this new science, and its holistic approach, we have new ways to describe and talk about the supernatural. of which there is no supernatural. just another process of nature that is completely natural. and while the old science has things in little boxes where by quantum physics doesn't affect biology, this new science understands that yes...quantum fucking physics does fucking affect biology!! and the OLD biology class tells you, you are composed of mushy solid cells. end of story. the new science starts off the day right. YOU ARE ENERGY. Your thoughts are waves of energy. And everything is energy. And you only percieve it as solid.