More and more research shows not only that brains are not massively modular, but that the whole old functional diagram of brains, including the alleged primary function not only of the cerebral cortex's different surface areas, but also separate portions like the cerebellum and amygdala, is so out of whack it's probably at Paul's Not.EvenWrong. stage. As part of this, just as we know that "one gene ≠ one phenotypic expression" in both that some expressions need multiple genes coding for them, but more to the case, one gene can be part of coding for several expressions in combo with other genes, so, those functional areas of the brain can express multiple mental workings. This Quanta piece has plenty more.
Some of the "more" is that, as we already know that analogizing a brain to a computer is wrong (at least those of us who know it's wrong know it's wrong), but that trying to describe the functioning of the brain in terms of how it APPEARS to function in producing human consciousness versions of phenotypic expressions is probably ALSO wrong.
In short, to stand Dan Dennett on his head, and who doesn't love that? A lot of past descriptive neuroscience is probably now best categorized as folk neuroscience.
From the piece, here's a good example of what that means.
“I don’t think any of us would want to tell people: Don’t use the word ‘memory’ anymore,” he said. But to understand the brain, we might need to challenge our intuitions about how it works — “in the same way that quantum mechanics is challenging to comport with our understanding of physical phenomena in the world.”
In short, we're been barking up the wrong tree. We need to find a new one that's not only not the same species, but a different genus and probably even a different family. Conifers instead of deciduous trees.
At the same time, per quantum theory and beyond, any new tree-barking must have some insight relevant to us as conscious human beings.
No comments:
Post a Comment