To understand the human brain and how it works, knowledge is essential. Brain knowledge includes the structure and function of brain cells (neurons), dendrites, synapses, neurochemicals, neural networks and ensembles, large scale neural synchrony and oscillation etc.
But I argue it’s only half the story. The other half is the subjective. Somehow, the brain creates (or at least enables) our mind. This includes all mental states and processes. 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 the confines of the skull. The brain enables all of this and much more.
The mind is a very real phenomenon. It’s active every moment of the day. During any task (mundane & routine, or new & exciting) perception, identification, motivation, working memory, intention and many other aspects of it are active; continually or intermittently.
Why does this matter? Because the mind is critical to brain understanding. Given the brain’s main function is to create/enable mind, and the mind operates from inside the brain, how could the mind be ignored and the brain ever understood, or its signals decoded?
In other words brain activity can’t be understood absent subjective categories of mind to 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 its infancy. This is no surprise — how could a given brain signal, or its underlying neural activity, be labeled accurately or understood, without an accurate listing of the components of the mind it corresponds to? And a weighing and connecting of these components into the networks that they are?
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 consciousness and the 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 in a physical universe, or brain? How could it connect in any real (physical) way to neurons, neural synchrony or any other aspect of the brain?
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, 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 he or she has 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 currently takes a back seat to brain study. On one hand this makes a lot of sense. If consciousness and the mind are not well-understood or defined, then why study “it”? Also, the physical characteristics of the brain are an essential aspect of the mind. Moreover, this vast reservoir of 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 mind is poorly understood and tends to be 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.