Scientists are far from a comprehensive explanation of how the brain works.

The trouble with science - Comment on 2014 July 13

Website: countdown4us.com
Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period | Miscellaneous
Home > Comments > 2014 > Comment on 2014 July 13
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012  |  2013 | 2014 |
End: Go to the end of this webpage.

In spite of the many remarkable advances in neuroscience, you might get the sinking feeling that we are not always going about brain science in the best possible way. Read more:

Today I read an article in the major propaganda medium for Obama, The New York Times, which very nicely demonstrates the helplessness of the atheists and the materialists.

The writer for example has this to say: biology is the product of historical accidents.

They are full of illusions and religious fanaticism.

These guys want to be scientist but want to leave the only important thing out of science, the spiritual side of life. They for example think they can investigate the brain and by this tackle related diseases and can do this by completely ignoring the mind, that aspect of the human being that creates and runs all physical parts of a human being. There is not one single physical ailment that does not come from a shortcoming in the spirit of man and to want to fight physical problems without first curing the mind is simply quackery.

I now bring extracts from that article:

 

The trouble with brain science

Are we ever going to figure out how the brain works?

After decades of research, diseases like schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s still resist treatment. Despite countless investigations into serotonin and other neurotransmitters, there is still no method to cure clinical depression. And for all the excitement about brain-imaging techniques, the limitations of fMRI studies are, as evidenced by popular books like “Brainwashed” and “Neuromania,” by now well known. In spite of the many remarkable advances in neuroscience, you might get the sinking feeling that we are not always going about brain science in the best possible way.

This feeling was given prominent public expression on Monday, when hundreds of neuroscientists from all over the world issued an indignant open letter to the European Commission, which is funding the Human Brain Project, an approximately $1.6 billion effort that aims to build a complete computer simulation of the human brain. The letter charges that the project is “overly narrow” in approach and not “well conceived.” While no neuroscientist doubts that a faithful-to-life brain simulation would ultimately be tremendously useful, some have called the project “radically premature.” The controversy serves as a reminder that we scientists are not only far from a comprehensive explanation of how the brain works; we’re also not even in agreement about the best way to study it, or what questions we should be asking.

Different kinds of sciences call for different kinds of theories. Physicists, for example, are searching for a “grand unified theory” that integrates gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces into a neat package of equations. Whether or not they will get there, they have made considerable progress, in part because they know what they are looking for.

Biologists — neuroscientists included — can’t hope for that kind of theory. Biology isn’t elegant the way physics appears to be. The living world is bursting with variety and unpredictable complexity, because biology is the product of historical accidents, with species solving problems based on happenstance that leads them down one evolutionary road rather than another. No overarching theory of neuroscience could predict, for example, that the cerebellum (which is involved in timing and motor control) would have vastly more neurons than the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain most associated with our advanced intelligence).

But biological complexity is only part of the challenge in figuring out what kind of theory of the brain we’re seeking. What we are really looking for is a bridge, some way of connecting two separate scientific languages — those of neuroscience and psychology.

Such bridges don’t come easily or often, maybe once in a generation, but when they do arrive, they can change everything. An example is the discovery of DNA, which allowed us to understand how genetic information could be represented and replicated in a physical structure. In one stroke, this bridge transformed biology from a mystery — in which the physical basis of life was almost entirely unknown — into a tractable if challenging set of problems, such as sequencing genes, working out the proteins that they encode and discerning the circumstances that govern their distribution in the body.

Neuroscience awaits a similar breakthrough. We know that there must be some lawful relation between assemblies of neurons and the elements of thought, but we are currently at a loss to describe those laws. We don’t know, for example, whether our memories for individual words inhere in individual neurons or in sets of neurons, or in what way sets of neurons might underwrite our memories for words, if in fact they do.

The problem with both of the big brain projects is that too few of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent are devoted to spanning this conceptual chasm.

The success of both the Human Brain Project and the Brain Initiative will ultimately rest not just on the data to be collected but also on what can be done with those data once they are collected. On that, too little has been said.

 

The writer thinks there is a big difference between the challenges of the physicists and those of the biologists. But actually they have the same problem. The physicist know that everything depends on the observer, therefore on consciousness, and the biologist want to know how thinking is connected to brain activity, and thinking is being conscious. And both study everything but consciousness.

Instead of studying consciousness they build gigantic apparatus like the LHC, the IceCube and the Human Brain Project. They run in the wrong direction and blow tax money to the billions.

 

Back to: 2014 July 13
Top: Go to the top of this webpage.
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012  |  2013 | 2014 |
Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period | Miscellaneous
Site Map: For an overview of this website and for access to the individual webpages.
The web address of this webpage is:
http://www.countdown4us.com/en022014/en022014142.htm