Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Myths about how the brain works

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 129 posts

Re: Myths about how the brain works

#71

Post by andyxor »

lycopodiopsida wrote: post #58
MrDrDr wrote: post #3

There are lots of popular tropes of how our brain works and I'd agree with this author that they are oversimplified and generally incorrect - I'd add the left brain right brain divide to the list. However the author appears to be arguing from a position that they (or someone) actually know how the brain works - having done a neuroscience degree, my one take home was that when it comes to modelling the brain against o…

Having done a neuroscience degree myself, I would double on your conclusion — I still have no clue how a brain works, apart of some simpler systems, like visual pattern recognition. I am out of the field for a single-digit number of years already, but in retrospective it is hilarious how all the literature in neuroscience is gently moving around the question of «guys, bit how all of it works»? People are happy to hac…

Now is the perfect time to build models of 'how all of it works', just like Kepler did with Tycho Brahe' astronomical observations.

There is plenty, more than enough, data to work with, and many promising/proven models to build upon, need more good theorists in the field.

Saying "but we don't know much" is just being lazy.

Re: Myths about how the brain works

#72

Post by devindotcom »

40four wrote: post #43

Great article, as usual from Nautilus! I would like to add one more myth the list. The idea that we all have a finite amount of brains cells. They used to teach that we’re all born with a certain amount of brain cells, and over time from aging, or getting a concussion, or if you ‘do drugs’, you would lose said cells. And that’s that. No more new brain cells :) We know this to be false now. I don’t know how much this…

I believe there is at least one prominent exception in the hair cells in the inner ear. These are not replaced once they rupture - producing the distinctive tinnitus sound at the frequency they monitor. Or perhaps I'm mistaken in this — it's been a while since my studies!

Re: Myths about how the brain works

#73

Post by lycopodiopsida »

hn_asker wrote: post #61
lycopodiopsida wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having done a neuroscience degree myself, I would double on your conclusion — I still have no clue how a brain works, apart of some simpler systems, like visual pattern recognition. I am out of the field for a single-digit number of years already, but in retrospective it is hilarious how all the literature in neuroscience is gently moving around the question of «guys, bit how all of it works»? People are happy to hac…

Yet somehow Pharma can prescribe drugs that affect the brain's functions. How do they get away with that knowing so little about the brain?

I am by no means an expert in pharmaceutical studies, but I suppose they can afford a huge number of dead ends in the initial phase of research due to the massive wealth and in the end, they have to test only for two variables: efficiency and side-effects. An explanation on how it actually works, is a very nice extra, but is not required. The problem for Pharma is that at some point you require tests on human subjects, which is very expensive and dangerous.

Re: Myths about how the brain works

#74

Post by orhmeh09 »

Geee wrote: post #38

I wouldn't say that the Triune brain theory is a 'myth'. It's just not accurate, but it's not a complete lie either. There certainly are different parts of the brain that have evolved at different times, and have different functions. The older parts have evolved to specific functions, while neocortex, which is found in mammals, has a uniform structure and is capable of learning and adapting to different tasks. 75% of…

Barrett's views are not the only ones there are, and they are still debated in the field, however much she may insist to the media that her view is the only correct one and that all else are myths. Things are not nearly as settled as she claims.

  Panksepp, J. (2007). Neurologizing the Psychology of Affects: How Appraisal-Based Constructivism and Basic Emotion Theory Can Coexist. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(3), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00045.x

  Panksepp, J. (2008). Cognitive Conceptualism—Where Have All the Affects Gone? Additional Corrections for Barrett et al. (2007). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(4), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00081.x

Re: Myths about how the brain works

#75

Post by adolph »

devindotcom wrote: post #69
hn_asker wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet somehow Pharma can prescribe drugs that affect the brain's functions. How do they get away with that knowing so little about the brain?

Psychiatrists are doctors who prescribe substances that have been closely studied - but their effects may be easily and specifically understood, their mechanisms may not be. Lithium is a great example - very effective treatment for bipolar. No one really knows why. Prescribed for decades as they've tried to figure it out because tests showed it was effective and relatively safe, just no one knew exactly what it was d…

The discovery of it is pretty interesting.

Lithium-rich mineral springs have historically been touted for their healing properties. It was first used for mania in the late 1800s, with Denmark leading the way, but little was published about the medication for more than half a century.

https://www.verywellmind.com/lithium-the-first-mood-stabiliz...

Re: Myths about how the brain works

#76

Post by tgv »

Geee wrote: post #38

I wouldn't say that the Triune brain theory is a 'myth'. It's just not accurate, but it's not a complete lie either. There certainly are different parts of the brain that have evolved at different times, and have different functions. The older parts have evolved to specific functions, while neocortex, which is found in mammals, has a uniform structure and is capable of learning and adapting to different tasks. 75% of…

Brodmann distinguishes 47 or so different areas in the cortex. Idk how many are exclusive to the neocortex, but it's not a uniform structure.

Re: Myths about how the brain works

#77

Post by happy-go-lucky »

I'm no expert at all on neuroscience, but when I recently got the opportunity to read a transcript of the lecture titled The Value of Science by Richard Feynman, it filled me with awe and reverence. I can't but share a sizable quote from the same.

https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/1575/1/Science.pdf

“For instance, the scientific article may say, 'The radioactive phosphorus content of the cerebrum of the rat decreases to one- half in a period of two weeks.' Now what does that mean? It means that phosphorus that is in the brain of a rat—and also in mine, and yours—is not the same phosphorus as it was two weeks ago. It means the atoms that are in the brain are being replaced: the ones that were there before have gone away. So what is this mind of ours: what are these atoms with consciousness? Last week's potatoes! They now can remember what was going on in my mind a year ago—a mind which has long ago been replaced. To note that the thing I call my individuality is only a pattern or dance, that is what it means when one discovers how long it takes for the atoms of the brain to be replaced by other atoms. The atoms come into my brain, dance a dance, and then go out—there are always new atoms, but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday.”

Re: Myths about how the brain works

#78

Post by nvrspyx »

Retric wrote: post #41
the__alchemist wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same reaction to parts. This in particular: > So why does the myth of a compartmentalized brain persist? One reason is that brain-scanning studies are expensive. As a compromise, typical studies include only enough scanning to show the strongest, most robust brain activity. These underpowered studies produce pretty pictures that appear to show little islands of activity in a calm-looking brain. But they mis…

The issue here is the brain of test subjects aren’t simply doing exactly one thing at a time. Your ears don’t turn off because you’re doing a memory task in an MRI. As such it’s impossible to say what subset of brain activity is directly related to some activity rather than some related mental processes.

Not necessarily. For one, most fMRI studies will have a resting state scan to establish a baseline of what an individual's brain is doing in an MRI setting when it's not really doing anything in particular (typically having the subject stare at a fixation cross and letting their mind freely wander). Then, for the actual task, stimuli are presented and responses are recorded at very specific times with that fixation cross in between with enough time for the brain activity to return to that resting "baseline" before the next stimuli.

There's a lot of signal processing theory, regression analysis, etc. that goes in to it. With that said, the issue that arises is that only the strongest correlates may surface or be observed. There may be a lot of brain activity that overlaps or looks identical between that resting state (baseline) and the stimulation state, but can't really be included because a distinction can't be made, which goes back to your final point. That, however, doesn't mean that there aren't actual subsets of brain activity that we can attribute to a specific activity.

For example, if you're in an fMRI and I show you nothing but a fixation cross, then show you a sad image at a specific time for a specific interval, then went back to the fixation cross, and also showed you a scrambled version of that same image, I can (oversimplified) run a diff check to see what's different between the three. From there, I can remove the overlap between the three from normal baseline activity and activity specifically related to visual processing (scrambled image) to reveal what's specifically different with that sad image. If I see that the amygdala has much higher activity during that sad image compared to the fixation cross and the scrambled image, I can conclude that it has some role in emotional processing (well not really in this example because you'd also need a ton of images, including neutral images, with different orderings of each to really be confident; also really couldn't make that conclusion, just present the correlation because...science).

The point is that there are methods to isolate activity related to a specific activity/stimuli/response/etc. However, it's currently very difficult, if not impossible, to make distinctions in those overlapped areas.

Note: this is obviously an oversimplification of neuroimaging research and analysis

Re: Myths about how the brain works

#79

Post by cbsmith »

Geee wrote: post #38

I wouldn't say that the Triune brain theory is a 'myth'. It's just not accurate, but it's not a complete lie either. There certainly are different parts of the brain that have evolved at different times, and have different functions. The older parts have evolved to specific functions, while neocortex, which is found in mammals, has a uniform structure and is capable of learning and adapting to different tasks. 75% of…

The article also has this weird notion that the only source of evidence of the Triune brain theory are brain scans. We also have evidence Wilder Penfield's work stimulating parts of the brain. We also have evidence from damage to the brain, from physical injury, lesions, tumors, surgeries, strokes, etc.

While that data shows that brain functions aren't strictly fixed and neuroplasticity is a thing, it does show that locations in the brain do have disproportionate impact on certain functions.

Re: Myths about how the brain works

#80

Post by Blikkentrekker »

MrDrDr wrote: post #3

There are lots of popular tropes of how our brain works and I'd agree with this author that they are oversimplified and generally incorrect - I'd add the left brain right brain divide to the list. However the author appears to be arguing from a position that they (or someone) actually know how the brain works - having done a neuroscience degree, my one take home was that when it comes to modelling the brain against o…

What surprised me most about the replication crisis was that neurology actually seemed to be more affected than psychology in how non-reproducible it was.
Post reply on HN