Brain knowledge is essential to its understanding. This includes the structure and function of neurons, neurochemicals, dendrites, synapses, neural networks and ensembles, large scale neural synchrony, and coordinated neural oscillation.
But the physical is only half the story. The other half is the subjective. Somehow, in some form, the mind resides and operates within the physical brain. Any type or instance of perception, recognition, thought & thinking (understanding, analyzing, synthesizing, constructing counter-arguments, planning…), the self, executive control, goals, attention, prediction and learning occurs within it. The brain is the organ that enables all of our mental states and processes.
The mind is a very real phenomenon. It’s active every moment of the day. With any task (mundane & routine, or new & exciting) perception, identification, motivation, working memory, intention and many other aspects of it are active; continually or intermittently.
What does the existence of the mind, inside the brain, have to do with brain understanding? It provides a pathway to that understanding. Given the brain’s main function is to create or enable mind, and the mind operates from inside the brain, a model of the mind (its function through space and time) allows the brain’s activity to be modeled as well.
In other words brain activity can’t be encoded or decoded absent subjective categories of mind that confer meaning to it.
The lack of attention given to the mind is reflected by the current state of brain signal decoding. It’s well known decoding is in many respects in its infancy. This is no surprise. How could a given brain signal, or its underlying neural activity, be understood without an accurate listing of the components of the mind it corresponds to? How could it be understood without not just listing, weighing and connecting these mental components?
Unfortunately for brain science, a myth has developed that the subjective isn’t necessary to understand the brain. Being able to define the mind’s components and their function during a task is not given much attention. After all, isn’t the (conscious & unconscious) mind an immaterial entity? Does it even exist in the first place?
The neurophilosophy of materialism supports the idea the mind can be safely ignored. The immaterial isn’t “real.” Because the brain is physical and the mind immaterial, the latter doesn’t really exist. The (unreal) subjective can be “reduced” to the (real) brain. Once reduced, it can now be ignored altogether. Good riddance. How can a mental state or process exist anywhere in the physical universe, including the brain? How could it connect to neurons, neural synchrony or any other aspect of it?
In short, the brain is physical and therefore real; the mind is non-physical and therefore an illusion, hallucination or epiphenomenon. Some even argue human consciousness doesn’t exist at all!
Materialism is compelling — until the focus is shifted from the brain to the mind. First, subjectivity, experience and the mind do in fact exist. The sound of a dog barking, smell and taste of coffee, or decision to reconsider an idea are well-documented, understood and widely-agreed upon subjective phenomena. Everyone who is awake and conscious sees, hears, feels, thinks etc. We do so every moment of the day. (The only people who might disagree with this, ironically, are brain scientists excessively focused on the brain).
For example without visual perception, or unconscious sensation, the activity of reading would be impossible. Recognition of letters and words depends on perception. Meaning, related thoughts and thinking, questions, counter arguments etc. could not be evoked by word percepts, without intellectual states and processes. The reader could neither read nor understand anything read without the mind.
It’s easy to test the hypothesis consciousness doesn’t exist. Grasp a heavy object, place your other hand flat on a hard surface, and strike as hard as you can. Do you feel anything? Or a more pleasant experiment: try biting into a delicious piece of chocolate cake. Do you feel or taste anything?
I argue both the subjective and the physical are critical to the brain. This is good news for the quest to understand how brains work. If mind and brain are very closely connected, the activity of the former can then be used to functionally map, label, and understand the latter.
For example, say a person thinks “lift my right hand, slowly, about six inches diagonally to the right, then straight up.” This intention creates the exact neural activity, and efferent brain, signal necessary to cause that action. How could the intention to move in a particular way cause a corresponding movement — other than it being connected to corresponding brain activity? The motor signal mirrors a person’s movement intentions, and can do so with incredible accuracy and precision.
How might mind and brain mirror one another? Dual aspect monism elegantly explains this. Mind and brain are essentially the same phenomenon, seen from two different perspectives. The intention “reach my left hand to my chin” is the first person subjective view. The (coordinated, large scale, synchronous) neural ensemble activity corresponding to this is the third person objective view of that same thought/imagination/intention.
This bias against the mind creates a mind neglect in the brain sciences. Mind study takes a back seat to brain study. This actually makes some sense. If the mind is not well-understood or defined, then why study “it”? Also, the physical characteristics of the brain are an essential aspect of the mind. In some sense when we study the brain we study the mind, simultaneously. Moreover, the vast reservoir of accumulated brain data and knowledge is of great value.
However, what if the mind were understandable? What if there was a viable path toward a mind model? And using it, what if clear, precise and accurate definitions of the mind could be obtained? Then, it would make a lot of sense to focus on the mind.
That the subjective or experiential is poorly understood and minimized is actually great news. It represents tremendous potential. Once defined accurately, “it” can then be connected to the brain. This enables accurate labeling of the corresponding coordinated neural activity (functional neural networks).
Great work is currently being done in the brain sciences. Valuable experimental data, knowledge, skills and technology are being developed rapidly. The missing piece of the puzzle is the subjective mind — taken seriously, and defined in light of an accurate mind model. This enables a significantly more accurate mind-to-brain (and brain-to-mind) mapping. Right now the focus is 95% brain study; then extrapolating from brain activity (during a task) back to the mind, in order to define “it” in neural terms. I argue this approach is extremely limiting, and unnecessary. A more fruitful one is to look to the mind first — to understand both it, and the brain. Applied neuroscience – CNS medicine, BCI, neuroprosthetics, AGI, knowledge representation etc. — and brain science generally would benefit greatly.