Although brain science has amassed a great deal of valuable knowledge, theoretical understanding is lacking. There is no brain theory. How does the brain function in relation to the mind? How does it create, compute, mediate or process not only sensation and perception, but recognition, identification, meaning, thought, emotion, executive control, goals, attention, intention, motor control and learning? A theory of how the brain enables our mental states and processes remains elusive. As Jeff Hawkins says, “neuroscience is data rich and theory poor.”
A brain theory would be of great value. It would be useful for any applied neuroscience research group. I argue understanding the brain’s relationship to the mind is the foundation of neural decoding, signal classification, and neuroimaging. CNS medicine and biomarkers, neurorobotics, BCI, neuroprosthetics, knowledge representation, AGI, NLP and many other fields would benefit greatly.
Were a viable theory or model to emerge, it would first need to be understood. Then it could be evaluated, and tested experimentally. One area of evaluation would be the terminology it uses. The expectation would be it would use standard cognitive neuroscience terms like perceptual processing, semantic & working memory, executive function, the reward system etc. It’s reasonable to assume this given the current knowledge of the system is expressed (in academia) using these terms. Most of what is known about the system is categorized using specialized cognitive neuroscience terms, as listed in Russell Poldrack’s cognitive atlas.
However a new theory would include many new ideas. These would require at least some new terminology. Current terms are a reflection of its current ideas and underlying assumptions. A new theory would likely upend many of these. New terms would be needed to reflect this change in thinking.
For example, a foundational pillar of brain science is materialism. This includes the idea the subjective mind is actually “the brain” and can be “reduced” to it. However what if materialism were only half right? What if the brain and the subjective both were critical components of the system. What if the mind needed scrutiny as a subjective or experiential phenomenon to understand not only it, but the brain? In that case, established terminology would not be the best way to categorize the system — since these terms reflects the materialist view.
To play devil’s advocate, there are good reasons for a new brain theory to use standard cognitive neuroscience terms. All academic knowledge of the system is reflected by them. They are the repository of what is currently known about the brain in relation to the mind. Our understanding derives from (animal and human) lab experiments, neuroimaging data and its analysis. Terms such as “executive control, reward system, visual processing, cognitive workload” etc. are a reflection of these experiments and the concepts underlying them. The brain is said to mediate cognition, process short term and semantic memory, trigger the reward system, and engage in executive functions. These terms, and hundreds more, represent the knowledge uncovered about the mind/brain system.
Despite the vast amount of knowledge they represent, however, I argue these categories are far from optimal. The mind is vastly larger than cognitive neuroscience categories allow for. The conscious mind includes all types, specific instances, and aspects of experience. It includes all of human knowledge, understanding and meaning. It also encompasses moment by moment experience. We continually see, hear, feel, think, understand, imagine, attend to, intend and so on. This incredibly large body of information is flexibly expressed on demand to meet one’s goals in a given circumstance.
Cognitive neuroscience terms can be very useful, and represent valuable information about the mind/brain connection. At the same time, they unnaturally restrict it. I argue less than 5% of the system is represented by these terms. The other 95% is represented by everyday language reflecting world knowledge (including “people,” and “self”).
Consider the reward system. Rewarding thoughts and feelings are constantly taking place. Every few seconds a number of rewards occur. Many are subtle, such as “I understood that sentence,” “that point I agree with,” “a mild sense of relief to be nearing the end of this essay,” or “feeling excited about idea x, and interested in researching it.”
Rewards are not only omnipresent, but what feels rewarding changes through time. What one thinks of or finds rewarding one day might change tomorrow, and be completely different next week. One’s mind, body and world are constantly evolving. Many other variables — culture, life circumstances, career, family…– change continually as well. Two rewarding experiences are never exactly the same.
The point is, it’s simplistic to conceive of “the reward system” in the brain as a single feature. The term “reward,” though interesting and useful, represents a very small % of what is really going on in the mind, and the brain, as a reward occurs. Terms are needed that not only represent reward generally but in all of its manifestations.
Overall, any viable brain theory will be supported by a body of terminology that reflects a whole new way of thinking about the system. Given how far we are from a brain theory, any proposal — if correct — would have to be a radical departure from current thinking. And the terminology it uses would reflect this.