Beyond the Brain

I'm going to need your help with this one, guys. As usual, I wasn't sure what to blog about from our notes, so I decided to use an article. (This time I had to look one up; I hadn't already found it.) (Oh, also, it's not that our notes aren't interesting, it's just difficult to ask questions about them.)

Right. About the article. I read this article by David Brooks from NY Times (duh) June 17,2013 called "Beyond the Brain". Click here to read the article. And please do, because I need you all to help me out and comment! This one is similar to the article from last week but is perhaps a little bolder. 

Brooks starts off by saying that when scientific breakthroughs are made, people get excited and rush to conclusions/try to use this breakthrough to explain everything. According to Brooks, this is exactly what's happening in neuroscience. People are taking "pretty brain-scan images" and claiming they can use them to predict everything about a person: what somebody will buy, what party they will vote for, whether a criminal should be responsible for a crime, and so on. 

Then there are the "nothing buttists" who claim that human beings are "nothing but neurons". If we come to understand the brain completely, we will be able to understand behavior. Brooks says that the "nothing buttist" philosophy will lead to the claim that "people don't really possess free will; their actions are caused by material processes emerging directly out of nature." 

He then goes on to make this powerful assertion: "The brain is not the mind. It is probably impossible to look at a map of brain activity and predict or even understand the emotions, reactions, hopes and desires of the mind." 

"It's as hard to study neurons and understand the flavors of meaning as it is to study Shakespeare's spelling and understand the passions aroused by Macbeth." 

Brooks concludes by saying that we must "harvest the exciting gains made by science and data while understanding the limits of science and data."

With mixed feelings about the article, I went on to read the comments, and I suggest you do the same. Here are some blurbs from comments to get you thinking:

• Syfredrick: Even Freud said that ultimately all psychology will boil down to chemistry. In other words, the thing that we call the mind is a result of the activities in the brain. The perception of self, the perception of the world, and the perception of supernatural are all results of what's going on in our heads. Free will? It's a perception.[...]  in general, it is the sum total of brain activities that make up an individual, and they're always changing. One thing our brains are very good at is changing behavior as soon as we perceive that behavior can be predicted. But don't fool yourself into thinking that it's happening somewhere outside of the physical world.
• Mom: To extend his comments, another problem with interpreting fMRI scans and PET scans is that the beautiful images are made by summing signals over time, or taking readings over time, when we all know that neuronal activity happens faster than an eyeblink. So what indeed is being measured? It is not that the quest is misguided but rather the temptation to over-conclude. To understand the brain involves the mystery of the cerebellum and how we remember how to ride a bike, throw a curve ball, knit a sweater.To understand the brain will not just involve neurons either. It is going to be glial cells and the responsiveness of brain blood vessels in inflammation and cytokines. 

 What do you guys think of this? Is there a difference between the "brain" and the "mind"? Why or why not? How would you define "mind"? Do you agree or disagree with the claims made in this article? How do you feel about free will?