Show Notes for Episode 9
This episode is a discussion of The Future of the Brain: The Promise and Perils of Tomorrow’s Neuroscience by British neuroscientist, Steven Rose. Unlike most episodes of the Brain Science Podcast, the emphasis of this episode is on asking what kind of ethical dilemmas might be posed by our increased knowledge of how the brain works.
Topics discussed:
- why the Mind is more than the Brain
- why the Mind is more than genetics and biochemistry
- how we still have a long way to go before we can fully understand how the brain-body generates the mind
- problems and dangers of reductionism
- implications for freedom and personal responsibility
- examples from the history of science that demonstrate why these concerns are valid
- the “Paradox of Memory”
- some email from listeners
One issue I only mention briefly on the podcast is Rose’s attack on evolutionary psychology. If you are interested in learning more about this you might want to read the transcript of a debate between Steven Rose and Stephen Pinker, which was held in 1998. It is on the Edge website, which is an interesting website even though it lacks an RSS feed.
The Brain Science Podcast feed is available here.
Subscribe to Brain Science Podcast with Dr. Ginger Campbell by Email
Filed under: Neuroscience, Podcast Show Notes, brain science, philosophy of mind
Excellent podcast. In the hopes of tipping the scales a bit, I am definitely in favor of shorter podcasts; while I do listen to longer ones, they are usually not monothematic – the Best of Ideas (CBC One podcast) is perhaps the only podcast longer than 30 minutes that usually deals with only one topic, among those I subscribe to. So for me, shorter podcast are usually better than longer ones; interviews or shows with multiple topics can go longer. But since I listen to the podcasts usually in a single go, an hour of a single voice is hard to keep focused on, and with scientifically complex topics even more so.
Patrick,
Thanks for your comment. You are the first one to admit what I already suspected. I agree that it is hard to listen to a complex topic for a prolonged period.
My goal is for the average episode to be 20-30 minutes long. They will only be longer when the material demands it. I didn’t want to break the episode about neuronal communication into parts because I knew that would frustrate people who wanted to listen to the whole thing. I tried to put music in as cues where you could take a break if you wanted to.
Did that work for you?
Hi Ginger.
I have just listened to this episode, and i’ve found it of great interest!
First, while in my lab I study mainly vision and perception, I am also very interested in the more “philosophycal” topics underlying the relationship between mind and brain.
So the first part of the podcast was really provoking for my reflections, thanks a lot.
Another issue I am very interested in is reductionism: I must admit that, in my circle, almost everyone is a reductionist, but, because I haven’t formed a my own idea yet, I was very interested to have new material on which to discuss.
I am about to listen also to the other episodies.
Bye for now.
Francesca
Some of the issues that came up in this episode appear again in episode 10. I hope the Brain Science Podcast will be as much about asking questions as supplying answers, since the scientific method provides answers that are provisional, and by definition, subject to being disproved in the future (Popper’s principle of “falsification”)
The issue of reductionism is one that I have pondered for many years and I am glad to hear that you are keeping an open mind because it is definitely the dominant attitude in neuroscience today. I think that a good principle to keep in mind is that sometimes “the whole is more than the sum of the parts.” Consider the simple example of water or H2O. Obviously the behavior of water can’t really be predicted by considering only hydrogen and oxygen, since water’s properties are entirely different from either of these elements.
The Mind is a much more complex example of this principle. One key factor that is often ignored is that, at the very least, the Mind must include the Brain plus its interaction with the Body. That is why those who prefer a non-reductionist viewpoint tend to refer to the Mind-Body. However, this terminology includes the implication that there might be something non-physical (Descartes’ dualism). As I have stated in the last few podcasts, my own opinion is that something like Roger Sperry’s emergent materialism because I don’t think acknowledging the limits of reductionism requires dualism or mysticism.
However, I would very much encourage you to explore these questions for yourself. I for one have held different world views at different times in my life.
Did you say in this episode that you were signing up for the Public Radio Talent Quest? If so, I haven’t found your submission, yet. Please provide us a link so we can vote for you directly.
I have been having some problems getting my submission uploaded. When it is up I will post a link. I appreciate everyone’s vote.