Neuroscience article in The New Yorker

CSGnet Archive CSG2012
1

From Dag Forssell (2012.12.29.1745 PST)

On December 3, I spotted a link to the attached article.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/what-neuroscience-really-teaches-us-and-what-it-doesnt.html?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true#commentAnchor_nyr_2000000002063619

At the time, I could not post to CSGnet, but now that I found that I
can, I want to forward it.

The link points to some 22 comments on the article.

Tom Bourbon told me years ago about the massaging going on to
standardize and tweak the pictures of brain scans so it appears they
say something. This article sheds light that casts doubt on the
entire enterprise.

Best, Dag

Neuroscience fiction.pdf (75.3 KB)

2

[From Fred Nickols (2012.12.29.1907 AZ)]

Thanks for the link, Dag.

It's all in the timing. In 1870, the neuroscientists would have been on the
back of a horse-drawn wagon holding up small bottles of neuro-curo. They
would have had lots of takers. Today, they're on the back of a
computer-drawn wagon but they're still holding up small bottles of what we
finally came to call "snake oil." And, from the looks of it, they still
have plenty of takers. If they had really unraveled the mysteries of the
brain do you think they would publish their findings? I don't think so.

Fred (Read my mind if you can) Nickols

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Dag Forssell
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 6:40 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Neuroscience article in The New Yorker

From Dag Forssell (2012.12.29.1745 PST)

On December 3, I spotted a link to the attached article.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/what-
neuroscience-really-teaches-us-and-what-it-
doesnt.html?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true#commentAnchor_nyr
_2000000002063619

At the time, I could not post to CSGnet, but now that I found that I can,

I

want to forward it.

The link points to some 22 comments on the article.

Tom Bourbon told me years ago about the massaging going on to standardize
and tweak the pictures of brain scans so it appears they say something.

This

···

-----Original Message-----
article sheds light that casts doubt on the entire enterprise.

Best, Dag

3

[from Ted Cloak (2012.12.29 2017 MST)]

Steven Pinker (How the Mind Works) uses the term "neophrenology" for the
kind of study criticized in this article. He's not being ironic.

As the article indicates, we can't understand how the brain mediates
behavior until we get from the magnifying glass to the electron microscope
level. As far as I know, HPCT is the only hypothesis going at that level.
It's too bad we have to wait for neuroscience to catch up.

Happy New Year, All!
Ted

[From Fred Nickols (2012.12.29.1907 AZ)]

Thanks for the link, Dag.

It's all in the timing. In 1870, the neuroscientists would have been on the
back of a horse-drawn wagon holding up small bottles of neuro-curo. They
would have had lots of takers. Today, they're on the back of a
computer-drawn wagon but they're still holding up small bottles of what we
finally came to call "snake oil." And, from the looks of it, they still
have plenty of takers. If they had really unraveled the mysteries of the
brain do you think they would publish their findings? I don't think so.

Fred (Read my mind if you can) Nickols

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Dag Forssell
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 6:40 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Neuroscience article in The New Yorker

From Dag Forssell (2012.12.29.1745 PST)

On December 3, I spotted a link to the attached article.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/what-
neuroscience-really-teaches-us-and-what-it-
doesnt.html?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true#commentAnchor_nyr
_2000000002063619

At the time, I could not post to CSGnet, but now that I found that I
can,

I

want to forward it.

The link points to some 22 comments on the article.

Tom Bourbon told me years ago about the massaging going on to
standardize and tweak the pictures of brain scans so it appears they say

something.
This

···

-----Original Message-----
article sheds light that casts doubt on the entire enterprise.

Best, Dag

4

[From Rick Marken (2012.12.30.1815)]

Ted Cloak (2012.12.29 2017 MST)--

TC: Steven Pinker (How the Mind Works) uses the term "neophrenology" for the
kind of study criticized in this article. He's not being ironic.

RM: If only we could get Pinker on our team. He's a wonderful writer.
I read "How the Mind Works" and thought it was a terrific book, even
though it is based on what I think is an incorrect model of mind
(indeed, I used used a quote from "How the Mind Works" in my
"Revolution" paper to describe that model). But I do agree with
Pinker's description of the fMRI type studies as "neophrenology".
When I went back into teaching at Ucla I was surprised by the
prevalence of fMRI research; everyone was doing it. And nearly every
talk I went to was based on fMRI research. The cynic in me thinks
there are two reasons for this: 1) behavioral research based on an
open-loop causal model has hit a dead end so it's not sexy anymore and
2) fMRI research is very high tech and thus provides a nice patina of
"scientism" to the psychological research enterprise.

TC: As the article indicates, we can't understand how the brain mediates
behavior until we get from the magnifying glass to the electron microscope
level. As far as I know, HPCT is the only hypothesis going at that level.
It's too bad we have to wait for neuroscience to catch up.

RM: I thought the article's criticisms of fMRI research were
misplaced. I don't think the problem is "too little magnification"; I
think the problem is "too little model". The model of the brain on
which this research is based is very simplistic; the assumption is
that certain areas of the brain -- the one's that light up in an fMRI
when one is doing some task -- are the cause of those mental or
behavioral events. This is what makes Pinker's comparison of the fMRI
work to phrenology so apropos: both use the same "model" of the brain.

What is needed in neurophysiology is research based on correct
functional analysis of the system under study: the kind of systems
analysis that Bill said was needed in order to understand the causal
relationships between the variables involved in an informational
analysis of behavior. Such an analysis would have to identify all
observable causal relationships between variables as well as the
variables that are under control; controlled variable.

I agree that HPCT would be a good hypothesis regarding what is going
on inside the organism between the observable causal variable. The
neurophysiological studies would then be aimed at seeing whether one
can find evidence for functional organization in the nervous system
that corresponds to the functional organization predicted by HPCT. So
I would think that the first step in this kind of neurophysiological
research would be to test the HPCT model of the behavior under study
and then, assuming that the model accounts for the behavior nearly
perfectly, start looking for the neurophysiological correlates of the
functions assumed by the model. And there is quite a bit of functional
neurophysiology assumed by HPCT, much of it described in the early
chapters of B:CP.

TC: Happy New Year, All!

RM: Same to you!

Best

Rick

···

Ted

[From Fred Nickols (2012.12.29.1907 AZ)]

Thanks for the link, Dag.

It's all in the timing. In 1870, the neuroscientists would have been on the
back of a horse-drawn wagon holding up small bottles of neuro-curo. They
would have had lots of takers. Today, they're on the back of a
computer-drawn wagon but they're still holding up small bottles of what we
finally came to call "snake oil." And, from the looks of it, they still
have plenty of takers. If they had really unraveled the mysteries of the
brain do you think they would publish their findings? I don't think so.

Fred (Read my mind if you can) Nickols

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Dag Forssell
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 6:40 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Neuroscience article in The New Yorker

From Dag Forssell (2012.12.29.1745 PST)

On December 3, I spotted a link to the attached article.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/what-
neuroscience-really-teaches-us-and-what-it-
doesnt.html?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true#commentAnchor_nyr
_2000000002063619

At the time, I could not post to CSGnet, but now that I found that I
can,

I

want to forward it.

The link points to some 22 comments on the article.

Tom Bourbon told me years ago about the massaging going on to
standardize and tweak the pictures of brain scans so it appears they say

something.
This

article sheds light that casts doubt on the entire enterprise.

Best, Dag

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com