Many people have asked this basic neuroscience question; many answers have been given, usually in complicated ways. Some people attempt to model the brain in simplified, some in realistic ways, some develop neural network theory. Some talk about neurophysics, other about neurobiology, neurophysiology, neurochemistry or neurophilosophy, some about the mind or even awareness. Some answers are trivial or not specific to the brain: 1) It is just atoms and molecules moving around according to the laws of physics (not specific to the brain and not very informative); 2) It is cellular physiology (yes, it is, but this is not specific to the brain); 3) The brain processes information, it is a computational machinery (yes, it is, but so is the digital computer and the brain is not one of those); etc. etc. I would like to see simple and elegant answers to the question or pointers to excellent papers or texts on the topic. The answers can (and should) be on different spatial, temporal, or information-processing scales or they could be overarching in nature.
First I think we need to put back the brain into the body and the body into the environment and then ask the same question in that extended context. Studying the brain in isolation may not be enough to understand its function.
Second, we need to pose these questions from the brain's own point of view: What are the problems faced by the brain itself (e.g., is encoding/decoding necessary?) and what information is internally available to the brain itself (e.g., just the spikes are available without direct access to the external stimuli)?
Finally, in studying phenomena as complex as the mind, an effective strategy would be to investigate the necessary conditions for the emergence of such a phenomenon, which could be simpler and easier to grasp (e.g., prediction as a precursor of consciousness).
Based on some of these ideas, I think some of the (tentative) principles would be:
1. Meaning and semantics: Understanding the external environment solely based on internal spike patterns through sensorimotor interaction.
2. Prediction: Remembering the past as a means to predict the future and guide action.
3. Recognizing and posing problems in the environment, not just solving problems.
A good question—or is it? What would we learn if we would ask how the forest and the ocean work? I guess that we should narrow the question. Maybe a good start would be to consider evolution and the benefits (such as prediction of future) the nervous system has provided for the organism.
I admit that this may be a stupid question to ask, but as Linus said: "Even stupid questions have answers" (C.M. Schulz, Peanuts 2/21/68).
There may be a lot of answers, especilly from philosophic, or medical points of view or even based on computational neuroscience theories. E.g. very generally we can assume, that there is causal chain:
genes->proteins->single neurons->neuronal fields interconnection and dynamics->functions (cognitive, motor)->behaviour
Thus very general models of brain activity are possible - and thus formulation of some basic rules may be posible. Our aim is improved understanding. Of course there is need for interdisciplinary studies. Each two brains (or rather maybe CNSs?) are differrent from each other. Activity of each brain depends from many factors:
- individual features (genetic, developemental, behavioral, environmental),
- possible deficis, damages, neuroplastical changes, degenerative (e.g. age-related) changes,
- stimulus, its processing (time, and space sumation) and baisin of possible reactions,
- level of processing (cortex, subcortical areas, brain stem, or lover),
- and many more.
Models without scaling are impossible, so we have to simplify. So general model cannot be exact, and exact model cannot be multipurpose as real brain. There is a lot to do toward further understanding of brain processes.
Links between scientific theories of brain/CNS and clinical practice may be regarded as weak or even incomplete. Some current concepts are still heuristic. Moreover in selected cases we have a lot of various theories concerning the same problem (see e.g. disorders of consciousness), but our knowledge is not deeper. But current and further research on brain bring hope for quick development in this area.
First I think we need to put back the brain into the body and the body into the environment and then ask the same question in that extended context. Studying the brain in isolation may not be enough to understand its function.
Second, we need to pose these questions from the brain's own point of view: What are the problems faced by the brain itself (e.g., is encoding/decoding necessary?) and what information is internally available to the brain itself (e.g., just the spikes are available without direct access to the external stimuli)?
Finally, in studying phenomena as complex as the mind, an effective strategy would be to investigate the necessary conditions for the emergence of such a phenomenon, which could be simpler and easier to grasp (e.g., prediction as a precursor of consciousness).
Based on some of these ideas, I think some of the (tentative) principles would be:
1. Meaning and semantics: Understanding the external environment solely based on internal spike patterns through sensorimotor interaction.
2. Prediction: Remembering the past as a means to predict the future and guide action.
3. Recognizing and posing problems in the environment, not just solving problems.
From my point of view (health sciences, clinician, neurorehabilitation) of course studying brain in isolation (absence of environment, external stimuli and activities) may be useless, excluding e.g. locked-in syndrome. But there is question to neurophysiologists or biocybernetics, if in selected cases such "theoretical" state may help in simplifying and refelecting particular mechanisms, next developed within more sophisticated (= real-life closer) simulations/esperiments/research.
Yoonsuck Choe: In 2. "Prediction" or "Prediction and classification"? It may be important to distinguish it. Of course your point 1-3 may be one of possible approaches, but from point of view of my specialty it is to general: I need movement control system, (bio)feedback, etc.
Or information is converted to Maxwellian consciousness demons by sugar.
Seriously, though, if you are making a list, I think the Law of Effect (Thorndike) would be one of the prime suspects.
The brain should be primarily considered as an excitable medium that is structured historically and in real -time by the senses. The medium is constantly re-energized as a consequence of energy being supplied by glucose.
Conscious corresponds to a coherent solitonic travelling wave that releases energy stored in the medium as a process of catalysis. The structure of the soliton is determined in real time by the structure of the medium.
Chapter Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media: A Dynamic Systems Appro...
Data Minds, Brains & Catalysis: A theory of cognition grounded in...
- Badges
- Science topic