User Tag List

Results 1 to 2 of 2

  1. #1
    Symbolic Herald Vasilisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010

    Post The Story of the Brain's Cacophony of Competing Voices

    Decoding the Brain’s Cacophony
    Profiles in Science | Michael S. Gazzaniga
    October 31, 2011
    The New York Times

    ST. HELENA, Calif. — The scientists exchanged one last look and held their breath.

    Everything was ready. The electrode was in place, threaded between the two hemispheres of a living cat’s brain; the instruments were tuned to pick up the chatter passing from one half to the other. The only thing left was to listen for that electronic whisper, the brain’s own internal code.

    The amplifier hissed — the three scientists expectantly leaning closer — and out it came, loud and clear.

    “We all live in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine, yellow submarine ....”

    “The Beatles’ song! We somehow picked up the frequency of a radio station,” recalled Michael S. Gazzaniga, chuckling at the 45-year-old memory. “The brain’s secret code. Yeah, right!”

    Dr. Gazzaniga, 71, now a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is best known for a dazzling series of studies that revealed the brain’s split personality, the division of labor between its left and right hemispheres. But he is perhaps next best known for telling stories, many of them about blown experiments, dumb questions and other blunders during his nearly half-century career at the top of his field.

    Now, in lectures and a new book, he is spelling out another kind of cautionary tale — a serious one, about the uses of neuroscience in society, particularly in the courtroom.

    Brain science “will eventually begin to influence how the public views justice and responsibility,” Dr. Gazzaniga said at a recent conference here sponsored by the Edge Foundation.

    And there is no guarantee, he added, that its influence will be a good one.

    For one thing, brain-scanning technology is not ready for prime time in the legal system; it provides less information than people presume.

    For another, new knowledge about neural processes is raising important questions about human responsibility. Scientists now know that the brain runs largely on autopilot; it acts first and asks questions later, often explaining behavior after the fact. So if much of behavior is automatic, then how responsible are people for their actions?

    Who’s driving this submarine, anyway?

    In his new book, “Who’s in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain,” being published this month by Ecco/HarperCollins, Dr. Gazzaniga (pronounced ga-ZAHN-a-ga) argues that the answer is hidden in plain sight. It’s a matter of knowing where to look.
    The Split Brain
    He began thinking seriously about the nature of responsibility only after many years of goofing off.

    Mike Gazzaniga grew up in Glendale, Calif., exploring the open country east of Los Angeles and running occasional experiments in his garage, often with the help of his father, a prominent surgeon. It was fun; the experiments were real attempts to understand biochemistry; and even after joining the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity at Dartmouth (inspiration for the movie “Animal House”), he made time between parties and pranks to track who was doing what in his chosen field, brain science.

    In particular, he began to follow studies at the California Institute of Technology suggesting that in animals, developing nerve cells are coded to congregate in specific areas in the brain. This work was captivating for two reasons.

    First, it seemed to contradict common wisdom at the time, which held that specific brain functions like memory were widely — and uniformly — distributed in the brain, not concentrated in discrete regions.

    Second, his girlfriend was due to take a summer job right there near Caltech.

    He decided to write a letter to the director of the program, the eminent neurobiologist Roger Wolcott Sperry (emphasizing reason No. 1). Could Dr. Sperry use a summer intern? “He said sure,” Dr. Gazzaniga said. “I always tell students, ‘Go ahead and write directly to the person you want to study with; you just never know.’ ”

    At Caltech that summer after his junior year, he glimpsed his future. He learned about so-called split-brain patients, people with severe epilepsy who had surgery cutting the connections between their left and right hemispheres. The surgery drastically reduced seizures but seemed to leave people otherwise unaffected.

    Back at Dartmouth, he couldn’t stop thinking about it: Totally unaffected? Combing the literature, he found that the best attempt to detect an effect had found no changes in thinking or perception among 26 patients who had had the surgery at the University of Rochester.

    Could that be possible? Mr. Gazzaniga was so eager to test the patients’ perceptions himself that he wrote another letter, this time to the surgeon — and got permission to do so.

    “It’s spring break, I get all my gear together, I get all the way over there, and the guy changes his mind,” Dr. Gazzaniga said. “Like, ‘Hey, buddy, go home!’ ”

    After graduating, he headed straight for Caltech.

    “It wasn’t just ambition, it was something else — he was gutsy,” said Mitch Glickstein, who was in Dr. Sperry’s lab at the time and is completing a book, “Neuroscience: A Historical Introduction.” “Here’s this junior in college, he knows all about the split-brain patients, and he’s ready to do original research. At 20 years old.”

    Caltech in those days was like a frat house for Nobel Prize contenders. Here’s Richard Feynman, the physicist, parking himself in the lab unannounced and making wisecracks about the experiments. There’s Dr. Sperry, annoyed, wondering how to one-up Dr. Feynman. One afternoon Dr. Sperry’s young student scrambled out into the hallway on all fours after an escaped lab animal and nearly kneecapped Linus Pauling, the eminent chemist. (“Why don’t you try anesthetizing a bowl of jelly instead?” Dr. Pauling remarked icily.)

    And then there were the experiments, each one a snapshot into the dark box of the brain. In the early 1960s, Dr. Gazzaniga, then a graduate student, teamed with Dr. Sperry and Dr. Joseph Bogen, a brain surgeon, to publish a string of reports that dramatically demonstrated hemispheric specialization in humans.

    The researchers devised a way to flash a picture of a bicycle to the right hemisphere alone. When split-brain patients were asked what they saw, they replied, “Nothing”: Because of the severed connection, the left hemisphere, where language is centered, got no visual input and no information from the right hemisphere. So the right hemisphere — which “saw” the bike — had no language to name it.

    But here was the kicker: The right hemisphere could direct the hand it controls to draw the bicycle.

    In other studies, the three scientists showed that the right hemisphere could also identify objects by touch, correctly selecting, say, a toothbrush or a spoon by feel after seeing the image of one.

    The implications were soon clear. The left hemisphere was the intellectual, the wordsmith; it could be severed from the right without loss of I.Q. The right side was the artist, the visual-spatial expert.

    The findings demolished the theory that specific functions were widely and uniformly supported in the brain. It also put “left brain/right brain” into the common language, as shorthand for types of skills and types of people. Still, in a field defined by incremental, often arcane advances, the Caltech team had achieved a moon shot.

    Dr. Gazzaniga, now all of 25, could write his own ticket. He soon had a grant for a study to record the electronic chatter between the two hemispheres in the brain of a cat.
    The Interpreter
    The Beatles song that surged through the receiver in that experiment provided Dr. Gazzaniga with something almost as valuable as insight: a good story. Yet it also served as a rude reminder that he and his colleagues were missing something important in their assumptions about the brain.

    “The question, ultimately, was why?” Dr. Gazzaniga said. “Why, if we have these separate systems, is it that the brain has a sense of unity?”

    Even as he built his early triumph into a career, moving from Caltech to U.C. Santa Barbara and eventually to Dartmouth, with several stops along the way, the same question hung in the air, without a satisfactory answer. In the late 1970s, with the psychologist and linguist George A. Miller, he founded the field of cognitive neuroscience, a marriage of psychology and biology aimed at solving just such puzzles.

    It didn’t happen, at least not quickly. In the decades to follow, brain scientists found that the left brain-right brain split is only the most obvious division of labor; in fact, the brain contains a swarm of specialized modules, each performing a special skill — calculating a distance, parsing a voice tone — and all of them running at the same time, communicating in widely distributed networks, often across hemispheres.

    In short, the brain sustains a sense of unity not just in the presence of its left and right co-pilots. It does so amid a cacophony of competing voices, the neural equivalent of open outcry at the Chicago Board of Trade.


    It turned out, yet again, that people who’d had the split-brain surgery helped provide an answer. Dr. Gazzaniga, now at Dartmouth, performed more of his signature experiments — this time with an added twist. In one study, for instance, he and Joseph LeDoux, then a graduate student, showed a patient two pictures: The man’s left hemisphere saw a chicken claw; his right saw a snow scene. Afterward, the man chose the most appropriate matches from an array of pictures visible to both hemispheres. He chose a chicken to go with the claw, and a shovel to go with the snow. So far, so good.

    But then Dr. Gazzaniga asked him why he chose those items — and struck gold. The man had a ready answer for one choice: The chicken goes with the claw. His left hemisphere had seen the claw, after all. Yet it had not seen the picture of the snow, only the shovel. Looking down at the picture of the shovel, the man said, “And you need a shovel to clean out the chicken shed.”

    The left hemisphere was just concocting an explanation, Dr. Gazzaniga said. In studies in the 1980s and ’90s, he and others showed that the pattern was consistent: The left hemisphere takes what information it has and delivers a coherent tale to conscious awareness. It happens continually in daily life, and most everyone has caught himself or herself in the act — overhearing a fragment of gossip, for instance, and filling in the blanks with assumptions.

    The brain’s cacophony of competing voices feels coherent because some module or network somewhere in the left hemisphere is providing a running narration. “It only took me 25 years to ask the right question to figure it out,” Dr. Gazzaniga said.

    “One of the toughest things in any science, but especially in neuroscience, is to weed out the ideas that are really pleasing but unencumbered by truth,” said Thomas Carew, former president of the Society for Neuroscience and dean of the New York University School of Arts and Sciences. “Mike Gazzaniga is one of those in the field who’s been able to do that.”

    Dr. Gazzaniga decided to call the left-brain narrating system “the interpreter.” The storyteller found the storyteller.
    Emergent Properties
    Knowing the breed well, he also understood its power. The interpreter creates the illusion of a meaningful script, as well as a coherent self. Working on the fly, it furiously reconstructs not only what happened but why, inserting motives here, intentions there — based on limited, sometimes flawed information.

    One implication of this is a familiar staple of psychotherapy and literature: We are not who we think we are. We narrate our lives, shading every last detail, and even changing the script retrospectively, depending on the event, most of the time subconsciously. The storyteller never stops, except perhaps during deep sleep.

    But another implication has to do with responsibility. If our sense of control is built on an unreliable account from automatic brain processes, how much control do we really have? Are there thresholds of responsibility, for instance, that can be determined by studying neural circuits?

    < follow the link for the full article + video >

    I remember seeing experiments conducted on patients with corpus callosotomies, such as Dr. Gazzaniga pioneered, and being amazed. This was at the same time I also learned about the horror-film sounding condition, that can affect these patients, called autonomous or alien hand syndrome. I think this article and his body of work and findings is fascinating. Brain science, narration, interpretation of images, and responsibility - all things that I am very interested in, and hopefully others here are, too.
    the formless thing which gives things form!
    Found Forum Haiku Project

    Positive Spin | your feedback welcomed | Darker Criticism

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008


    Hopefully, eventually, work by people like Gazzaniga will put the adage "We only use X% of our brain" to the swift, painful death it deserves. It shows our brains are incredibly complex networks and that whilst severing some of the physical connections the brain can still cope with an inherently reduced ability to transmit signals from one part of the brain to another.

    The scariest part of this work seems to be the potential legal ramifications. As the article touched on defence lawyers have already used brain scans to try to excuse their clients' behaviours as a result of some sort of neurological defect. A lack of personal responsibility being explained away as a physiological condition is... disturbing.

    I read this article in National Geographic last month about the development of the 'teenage' brain (I might have shared this article somewhere else, I can't remember at the moment). It discusses research that correlates the risky behaviours teenagers engage in with a lack of (neurological) communication to the centres of the brain that calculate risk. So for instance a teenager is more likely to speed excessively while driving or have unprotected sex with a partner with no thoughts as to the ramifications of these activities because the lines of communication between the creative centres that think up these behaviours and the pragmatic centres that instinctually tell an adult "that's really stupid..." aren't formed yet. By the time a person reaches 25 years of age the researchers found they had developed the instincts to filter out these stupid behaviours before engaging in them.

    Eventually I suspect this will lead an ambitious researcher to conclude that criminal activities can, in part, be explained away as physical defects or deficiencies in the brain, thus absolving the criminal from legal responsibility.

    That aside, I think it's interesting to note that "The left hemisphere takes what information it has and delivers a coherent tale to conscious awareness. It happens continually in daily life, and most everyone has caught himself or herself in the act — overhearing a fragment of gossip, for instance, and filling in the blanks with assumptions." It's so true and obvious you would think we would have learned this decades ago. Is this a neurological expression of 'intuition'? Intuitive reasoning is most often attributed to the right hemisphere, not the left (deductive reasoning is usually attributed to the left).

    I just wish my left hemisphere made more pragmatic assumptions. It's usually working on overdrive, filling in the blanks of the blanks, and is almost always incorrect. If the left is where deductive reasoning is centered why is the fill-in-the-blanks narrative usually so wildly inaccurate?

    Maybe my powers of deduction are just very poor. :/

Similar Threads

  1. Is the brain the source of faith?
    By JAVO in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 02-05-2009, 05:08 AM
  2. The Story of Your Life: What is the Title?
    By Synarch in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 12-15-2008, 05:49 PM
  3. society, a big image of the brain
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-20-2008, 05:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO