Some researchers believe that our diet led to a larger brain but they differ as to which food was the ultimate brain booster. Are we missing something here?
Okay, so nuts did it. The thing is, fat, meat, and starch have all been blamed for the big human brain. When do we get round to spices and salt? They’ve been unjustly neglected.
Zeiger: These brain-like entities lack some very important neurological cell types that would make them truly “brains.” But many wonder whether we can make brains with human-like consciousness in a dish. Unfortunately, some conflate the mind with the brain and consciousness with brain activity, which creates confusion …
Contrary to what psychologists had supposed, the ability to seek meaning is built in, not taught.
Note: “these virus-like entities that have been remodeling our ancestral genome since the dawn of times,” says Didier Trono.” Right. We are told that many of the French have no use for lumpen-Darwinism. One can see why not.
Atheist neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran claims in a video at You Tube (Beyond Belief Conference, 2006) that brain hemispheres can have different opinions on the existence of God. Perhaps it is relevant, in assessing such a bizarre claim, that Dr. Ramachandran also makes a statement about brain surgery that is false.
Egnor: It’s sobering to note that neuroscience has utterly failed to explain how the brain and mind relate. It is as if cosmology had failed to tell us anything meaningful about the universe; or medical science failed to tell us anything about health and disease; or geology failed to tell us anything about rocks.
Modern brain imaging studies show that very often they can. And, with help from new technology, they can answer us too. Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor explains.
Roger Sperry’s Nobel Prize-winning split-brain research convinced him that the mind and free will are real.
Egnor: Mental activity always has meaning—every thought is about something. Computation always lacks meaning in itself. A word processing program doesn’t care about the opinion that you’re expressing when you use it.
In the sense of “There. That’s that.” It’s just too big. Machine learning might help but machines don’t explain their decisions very well. If the brain is immensely complex, it may elude complete understanding in detail. Deep Learning may survey it but that won’t convey understanding to us. We may need to look at more comprehensive ways of knowing
Egnor: Thoughts have emotional states; matter doesn’t have emotional states, just matter. So it’s not clear that you can get an emergent property when there is no connection whatsoever between that property and the thing it supposedly emerges from.
Many true tales of science are not the subjects of lectern oratory. Here’s one: brain localization. How did the idea develop? Originally via phrenology.
At Mind Matters News: A major consequence of the advance of modern neuroscience is that we now “know” so much less than we used to. But what we do know points us in promising research directions.
Not from Darwinism? A technique to reveal cells’ epigenetic features is detailed