The Idea of the Brain: A History: SHORTLISTED FOR THE BAILLIE GIFFORD PRIZE 2020
- Downloads：6516
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-04-04 13:51:43
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Matthew Cobb
- ISBN：1781255903
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Shortlisted for the 2020 Baillie Gifford Prize
This is the story of our quest to understand the most mysterious object in the universe: the human brain。
Today we tend to picture it as a computer。 Earlier scientists thought about it in their own technological terms: as a telephone switchboard， or a clock， or all manner of fantastic mechanical or hydraulic devices。 Could the right metaphor unlock the its deepest secrets once and for all？
Galloping through centuries of wild speculation and ingenious， sometimes macabre anatomical investigations， scientist and historian Matthew Cobb reveals how we came to our present state of knowledge。 Our latest theories allow us to create artificial memories in the brain of a mouse， and to build AI programmes capable of extraordinary cognitive feats。 A complete understanding seems within our grasp。
But to make that final breakthrough， we may need a radical new approach。 At every step of our quest， Cobb shows that it was new ideas that brought illumination。 Where， he asks， might the next one come from？ What will it be？
This is the story of our quest to understand the most mysterious object in the universe: the human brain。
Today we tend to picture it as a computer。 Earlier scientists thought about it in their own technological terms: as a telephone switchboard， or a clock， or all manner of fantastic mechanical or hydraulic devices。 Could the right metaphor unlock the its deepest secrets once and for all？
Galloping through centuries of wild speculation and ingenious， sometimes macabre anatomical investigations， scientist and historian Matthew Cobb reveals how we came to our present state of knowledge。 Our latest theories allow us to create artificial memories in the brain of a mouse， and to build AI programmes capable of extraordinary cognitive feats。 A complete understanding seems within our grasp。
But to make that final breakthrough， we may need a radical new approach。 At every step of our quest， Cobb shows that it was new ideas that brought illumination。 Where， he asks， might the next one come from？ What will it be？
Reviews
Richard
，
Great book。 Technical concepts written in English - "in other words"。 The dude knows a lot about technology and AI as well as neuroscience。 Very objective about the current state of the art。 Great book。 Technical concepts written in English - "in other words"。 The dude knows a lot about technology and AI as well as neuroscience。 Very objective about the current state of the art。 。。。more
Jeannie
，
A wonderfully accessible introduction to this topic。 Enough detail to so as not to feel it had been completely 'dumbed down'， but it still felt like a comprehensive and comprehensible introduction to Neuroscience。 A wonderfully accessible introduction to this topic。 Enough detail to so as not to feel it had been completely 'dumbed down'， but it still felt like a comprehensive and comprehensible introduction to Neuroscience。 。。。more
Mohsen
，
A comprehensive yet page-turning history of brain research。 More importantly， it shed light on the biggest mistake made along the way: relying too much on metaphors。
Barry Karlsson
，
Jag har just läst den här fantastiska boken The Idea of the Brain av Matthew Cobb， som med ett hissnande intressant perspektiv sätter in dagens spjutspetsforskning i ett historiskt sammanhang。 Detta genom att sätta ihop en rad kunskapsfragment i ett nytt ljus och med denna genom-lysning anar vi att vi med dagens kunskapsnivå bara ser konturer och att vi egentligen bara har vag uppfattning hur hjärnan egentligen fungerar。 Matthew Cobb gör en exposé över hur uppfattningen och teorierna om hjärnan Jag har just läst den här fantastiska boken The Idea of the Brain av Matthew Cobb， som med ett hissnande intressant perspektiv sätter in dagens spjutspetsforskning i ett historiskt sammanhang。 Detta genom att sätta ihop en rad kunskapsfragment i ett nytt ljus och med denna genom-lysning anar vi att vi med dagens kunskapsnivå bara ser konturer och att vi egentligen bara har vag uppfattning hur hjärnan egentligen fungerar。 Matthew Cobb gör en exposé över hur uppfattningen och teorierna om hjärnan har utvecklats genom århundradena。 Och vilka metaforer som använts och som ofta kopplats till sin tids mest avancerade teknik: typ eld och vatten och ångmaskiner， hydraler och telegrafer; till idag när hjärnan ofta jämförs med superdatorer eller tvärtom。 Cobb uppdaterar i varje sammanhang dåtidens syn med dess tids rationalitet och relativa irrationalitet på lokalisationsteorier， medvetande och minnesteorier。 Snyggt och riktigt bra skrivet， som ger en slags sammanfattande förståelse över hur kunskapshorisonten så sakteliga förflyttar sig även idag。 Boken är uppdelad i tre större delar: The Past， The Present och The Future。 I avsnittet "The Past" återfinns historiska förklaringsmodeller som kopplas och sammanflätas med vår tids förklaringsmodeller och hur de gamla modellerna ibland envist hänger kvar även i modern tid。I avsnittet "The Present" beskriver Cobb till exempel hur de nuvarande minnesmodeller och teorierna funkar， hur kunskapen av "neurala kretsar" har en begränsad förklaringsmöjlighet och som både liknar och särskiljer från till exempel digitala modeller à la datorer med dess hittillsvarande digitala kretsar och matematiska modeller。 Han beskriver aktionspotentialen， de kemiska grunderna för neurala fenomen。 Han beskriver kontrasterna mellan lokalisationsteorier och globalistteorier och därmed hur vår tids helhetsivrare arbetar med sina metaforer som om dessa vore dagsens sanning – inget ont sagt （vi vill alla väl och förstå helheter！）。 Till exempel gör han rent hus med MacLeans metafor om reptilhjärnan som snarare borde karakteriseras som "neuromythology" （enligt ref av Ray Guillery）。 Cobb´s text knackas ibland fram på ett keyboard med vassa anslag！ En lång text diskuterar hur fMRI kan vara vilseledande och risk att vara övervärderad; eftersom även här finns staplar av nybakade metaforer som kanske är omoderna innan de ens hunnit lämna labbet - eller hur forskarna skruvar på de T1- och T2-viktade sensitivitetsskruvarna för att oavsiktligt passa prediktionerna。 Ett rimligt krav är att forskarna presenterar en tydlig hypotes var man förväntar sig en effekt innan man genomför studien！ Cobb diskuterar också lokalisationproblemen med fynd som kanske är distribuerade över stora neurala nätverk， eller att även en litet aktiverat område， med kanske bara en enda voxel， inrymmer ett hav av neuroner och synapser。Present-delen avslutas med ett långt intressant neurofilosofiskt kapitel om Consciousness; men allt är vad jag förstår inte helt uppdaterat， t ex saknas Daniel Dennetts ytterligare uppdaterade kritik av Crick’s och Koch’s medvetandefilosofi – men diskussionen är där och den är fylld till bredden av intressanta ingångar om medvetandet gränser och med en utvikning om kvantbiologi där Roger Penrose förstås nästan parantetiskt referas， men också hur det kvantbegreppet implicit letar sig in neuropsykologiskt via Gazzaniga & Co - det är kort， intressant och metaforiskt kärnfyllt！ I den sista kortare delen "The Future" spanar Cobb varthän neurovetenskapen skenar iväg och vilka nya metaforer och tekniker som kan tänkas bidra till utveckling och förståelse。 "The Future" är den kortaste delen och jag tror Cobb har vinnlagt sig att inte bli alltför spekulativ， men jag saknar ändå en del av visionerna från t ex Max Tegmark （läs Life 3。0） och Nick Boströms resonemang om transhumanism。 Även om dessa inte direkt är om hjärnan så tangerar det medvetandeteorins och neurovetenskapens utposter och om självmedvetande ”singulariteter”， självlärande robotar och just den maskin-människa-diskussion som Cobb ändå ger sig in。 Men det riskerar bli många nya metaforer som är än mer spekulativa， och kanske gör han helt rätt i att begränsa sig en aning… （inhibition är en bra grej - som han inom parantes sagt ägnar ett helt kapitel åt） han vurmar ändå för fakta， kunskap och empiri – i den mån man nu kan lita på vetenskapteori när vi egentligen vet hur begrepp snurrar runt och tautologiskt bara bekräftar sig självt。 Matthew Cobb´s bok sätter sprätt på de grå cellerna och uppdaterar gamla förutfattade slutsatser。 。。。more
Jesús
，
Initially， I was totally absorbed by this book。 Its first half uses an incredible framing device for the history of neuroscience: its guiding metaphors （hydraulics， telegraphy， automatons， cybernetics， information networks， etc）。 Cobb tells the history of the study of the brain by way of the analogies and comparisons that researchers and theorists have relied upon throughout the discipline's history。 The first half of the book is excellent。The second half， however， is a structural mess and has n Initially， I was totally absorbed by this book。 Its first half uses an incredible framing device for the history of neuroscience: its guiding metaphors （hydraulics， telegraphy， automatons， cybernetics， information networks， etc）。 Cobb tells the history of the study of the brain by way of the analogies and comparisons that researchers and theorists have relied upon throughout the discipline's history。 The first half of the book is excellent。The second half， however， is a structural mess and has none of the first half's sense of urgency （which is surprising because the second half is focused entirely on present-day research）。 This second half loses the thread of the tale it had been telling up to that point。 Instead， it reads like a series of reports on various lines of brain research （most of which led to dead-ends）。 This part of the book could use some critical thought and deeper introspection; I have no doubt that our present-day neuroscience continues to produce many of the same errors-of-comparison that the first half talks about so brilliantly， but Cobb loses his critical eye as well as his storyteller's caution， and therefore， he also loses his sense of the histories that are， of course， deeply embedded in our present。Nevertheless， the first half is remarkable and absolutely worth reading。 Skim the rest。 。。。more
Rizwan
，
A history of the different ways that people have tried to understand the brain， from electrical network， hormonal， telegraphic， computer， chemical etc。 Each time the analogy has failed and the brain has become more mysterious， fantastic and unfathomable。 A few scientists have understood the implication of this that a non-material substance must interact with the brain but far too few。
Steve
，
Superb book about the history of our understanding of the mind， from classical times until scientific investigations in the last 300 years， until now。 Also as a bonus， a clear-eyed review about his expectations for the future of this inquiry。 Great science writing with a subtle， wry sense of humor。
Andy Mitchell
，
Definitely one of the best books I've read recently， I've always loved reading about the history of discovery and the fact that this book describes a chronological history of discovery in the realms of neuroscience， philosophy and psychology was just fascinating to me。 I was introduced to some experiments and discoveries that I hadn't heard about before that really were quite mind-blowing。 It really is impressive the amount of information and history crammed into this book and really showed how Definitely one of the best books I've read recently， I've always loved reading about the history of discovery and the fact that this book describes a chronological history of discovery in the realms of neuroscience， philosophy and psychology was just fascinating to me。 I was introduced to some experiments and discoveries that I hadn't heard about before that really were quite mind-blowing。 It really is impressive the amount of information and history crammed into this book and really showed how even today， understanding how the brain and the mind work are still quite a mystery。 。。。more
Shuaib Choudhry
，
This is a book where the author goes through a historical arc of how humans understood the brain throughout history; how that thinking evolved， dependent on the prevailing paradigm， and shaped the current understanding。 This book is very much built on an understanding that humans think through metaphors， as explained by George Lakoff's famous book Metaphors we live by， and how that impacts the contemporary scientific paradigm and thus the understanding and thinking behind how the brain functions This is a book where the author goes through a historical arc of how humans understood the brain throughout history; how that thinking evolved， dependent on the prevailing paradigm， and shaped the current understanding。 This book is very much built on an understanding that humans think through metaphors， as explained by George Lakoff's famous book Metaphors we live by， and how that impacts the contemporary scientific paradigm and thus the understanding and thinking behind how the brain functions。 For most of history up until recently， the prominent view about where thought originates from was the heart and not the brain。 This was logically consistent with experience by the nature of the fact the heart reacts physically to many situations where thought is required such as decision making， reflexive actions or emotion。 This still pervades our language today particularly with the common phrase "think through your head， not your heart"。 Then at the start of the renaissance， the brain was determined to hold the seat of thought and since then this assumption has held up until recently。 Scientists are now saying we can’t just study the brain independently but have to take into account it's interaction with the environment and other parts of the body。 At the start of the 17th century a mechanistic view of the brain started to take hold as scientists viewing the brain as a mechanical object became more commonplace。 Descartes was inspired by a fountain in a park and drew the analogy to how the brain functions through forces and pressure and valves controlling this interplay。 Then electricity was discovered and it was subsequently discovered that there was electric potential flowing through the nerves of humans。 This then provided the new paradigm， that of the brain as an electrical object， inspired by telegraphic networks。 And then from middle of the 20th century and beyond the computer has now taken this place， where the brain is viewed as carrying out a logical set of instructions and storing them in memory。 Obviously throughout time there has been varying perspectives on these metaphors， some have used them loosely as a way of framing how one understands the brain whereas others have used them more strongly and deem them congruent to the brain。 Now the complexity of the brain is much more nuanced than these reductive analogies and the author does really well to consistently highlight this as well as display it through some of the most informative experiments in the history of neuroscience。 These have often come about because of pure happenstance， while others from the courage and sacrifice of patients who were searching for any cure/relief from the difficulties certain mental afflictions were causing them。 One of the most fascinating experiments is the one where the corpus callosum， the structure of the brain which connects the left hemisphere to the right， has been severed for patients yearning for relief from severe epileptic fits。 What has been discovered is truly extraordinary， this severing may produce two minds。 The left and the right hemisphere display a good degree of independence from each other。 Now they're not completely dependent as the left hemisphere is believed to be the location of the vocalisation of language and this is nicely illustrated in the experiments。 This also touches upon another debate around the brain which has been raging for centuries。 Is function in the brain localised in specific regions？ It's something scientists project onto limited empirical evidence but usually there is something more complex lurking in the background activity in other parts of the brain that strongly suggests the is very much an integrated system。 Another key problem facing the scientific community in trying to understand the brain is that there is no viable theoretical framework in which they can frame their problems。 The approach currently is just to collect a deluge of big data which some neuroscientists are very dismissive of because there is no overarching goal or hypothesis in which to guide this collection of experimental data。 One major crux of this issue is whether the mind is material and thus the provenance/origin of consciousness。 Like most debates within this space materialism is often taken as an implicit assumption and thereby slanting the debate。 The author also makes the erroneous statement that no empirical evidence collected so far gives us a non-material explanation。 Well duh that's the whole point of it being immaterial and so one needs a framework which can take into this account but obviously that is not the current prevailing paradigm。 I do think one really good logical argument out there against the material nature of the brain is by John Lucas in his work titled Mind， Machines and Godel where he ingeniously utilises Godel's incompleteness theorems to show that the brain is not a logical object and therefore not a computer。 This is obviously a logical， not an empirical， argument but I think it was a strong one and perhaps further exploration is warranted to take this perspective further and see how it could be used to develop an innovative framework for neuroscience to use as a theoretical basis。 The current two opposite ends of the metaphysical spectrum in framing how we understand the brain are， Descarte's dualistic philosophy where a part of the brain is immaterial and this is what gives rise to consciousness or the pure mechanistic conception that the brain as an information machine and thus replicable through experiment。 The author says evidence so far points somewhere in the middle of these two， so we won’t be getting conscious AI anytime soon。 What we find out by the end is that the brain， which is the most confounding object in the universe known to us， is very much still a mystery。 Does the brain only represent information it receives from stimuli or actively construct it？ How does consciousness arise？ Is the brain purely acting on it's own or is the whole nervous system fundamentally interconnected such that the the constant interaction that the brain has with various parts of the body is vital？ Although we have made progress in a historical sense， we're still very much in the dark。 Overall this book is quite a detailed look at the most influential perspectives on the brain provided by scientists and what you will at the very least take away from this book is that the brain is truly an astonishing object without any comparison in the known universe。 The structural connectome， a neuronal network with a mind boggling amount of neurons that synchronise in never ending ways， illustrating firing patterns of incredible complexity， form the main processes of the brain。 Beyond the maze of the structural connectome you have a plethora of neurohormones which are modulated in their release and thus aid the brain's neurons in constructing ever more complex signals subsequently aiding human perception; the chemistry underlying this is only starting to be explored。 Humanity is still very much at the early stages of the exploration of the enigma that is the brain。 。。。more
Eva Filoramo
，
This is a very deep， informative book， which I would recommend to anyone curious about the story of what we have （or not） found out about the brain（s） - plural is recommended， as there are no two brains strictly identical。Cobb succeeded in telling an entangled story in a welcoming way， although more than once I felt the need of a recap， or of a time line， because the story of the discoveries of neuroscience （that began well before neuroloscience was even a proper word） is a very complicated one。 This is a very deep， informative book， which I would recommend to anyone curious about the story of what we have （or not） found out about the brain（s） - plural is recommended， as there are no two brains strictly identical。Cobb succeeded in telling an entangled story in a welcoming way， although more than once I felt the need of a recap， or of a time line， because the story of the discoveries of neuroscience （that began well before neuroloscience was even a proper word） is a very complicated one。In addition， the author conveys the overarching principles of state-of-the-art brain science， and does so with the help of metaphors and a good sense of humor。 。。。more
Mark Broadhead
，
Good overview。 The usual ignorance of Freud， as usual for psychologists。
Alfredo Manzano
，
El mejor libro que he leído sobre el tema。 Es un extraordinario viaje por la historia de cómo hemos entendido a nuestro cerebro， desde tiempos remotos hasta los experimentos e hipótesis más actuales。 Es una lectura obligada para aquellos que nos dedicamos a las neurociencias。
Chandler Lane
，
A look into the history of thought on the brain and how it functions。 This book was such a crazy insight into how far we have come in our thinking about the brain and how little we still know。 While the future is unknown it is also incredibly promising but for the moment we have seemed to stall out in our ability to further understand the complex nature of the brain。
Aljoša
，
This is a book about the metaphors we use to understand the brain。 Descartes was impressed by the hydraulic figures in the royal gardens and developed a hydraulic theory of the action of the brain。 As technology progressed， we looked at the brain as a kind of clockwork mechanism， a steam engine， a telegraphic network， electrical field - leading up to the metaphors of neuroscience。 Computers， coding， wiring diagrams， and so on。Metaphors are rich and allow insight and discovery。 There comes a time This is a book about the metaphors we use to understand the brain。 Descartes was impressed by the hydraulic figures in the royal gardens and developed a hydraulic theory of the action of the brain。 As technology progressed， we looked at the brain as a kind of clockwork mechanism， a steam engine， a telegraphic network， electrical field - leading up to the metaphors of neuroscience。 Computers， coding， wiring diagrams， and so on。Metaphors are rich and allow insight and discovery。 There comes a time when the understanding they allow outweights the limits they impose and we move on to a new picture of the world。 We do not know what will come next， but the value of our current framworks seem to be running out。 It's exciting to think about what new insights about the brain could lay ahead！ 。。。more
Agne
，
3。5 because I remember very little of it some months later。 BUT there is one thing for sure。 This book scared me。 I thought we were so much further in brain science， but it turns out that we really don't even know why some common drugs work。 Some of the middle part was too difficult for the lay person （me）， but I did enjoy or at least understand the first part about the history of how different peoples and then scientists have viewed the brain （or the heart， for that matter） and the parts about 3。5 because I remember very little of it some months later。 BUT there is one thing for sure。 This book scared me。 I thought we were so much further in brain science， but it turns out that we really don't even know why some common drugs work。 Some of the middle part was too difficult for the lay person （me）， but I did enjoy or at least understand the first part about the history of how different peoples and then scientists have viewed the brain （or the heart， for that matter） and the parts about the different metaphors we have used for making sense of the brain。 Would recommend to people who are a bit closer to the field than I。 I definitely appreciate the effort that has been put into making it more approachable and creating an overarching narrative。 。。。more
Suyash Jha
，
Finally a popular neurology book that touches on computational neuroscience as well ！ I do wish they went into some more detail on the McCollugh and Pitts model because it seemed to be doing a good job of explaining it without the math。
James Foster
，
This morning I read an op-ed in the New York Times by Lisa Feldman Barrett titled “Your Brain is Not for Thinking”。 Her argument was that the primary function of the brain is to keep the body going， not to think。 From an evolutionary perspective this is obviously true， however surprising we find it。 Throughout most of evolutionary history the brain’s only function was to monitor and control the body。 Thinking is a relatively recent thing that humans do， and humans are a very young species。 Most This morning I read an op-ed in the New York Times by Lisa Feldman Barrett titled “Your Brain is Not for Thinking”。 Her argument was that the primary function of the brain is to keep the body going， not to think。 From an evolutionary perspective this is obviously true， however surprising we find it。 Throughout most of evolutionary history the brain’s only function was to monitor and control the body。 Thinking is a relatively recent thing that humans do， and humans are a very young species。 Most brains in the world， of course are non-human， and we hesitate to say they “think” in the same way humans do。 This reminded me that I hadn’t yet written a review of Matthew Cobb’s splendid “The Idea of the Brain”。 Let’s remedy that。We tend to assume that our models of the brain are correct。 For example， we “instinctively” think of the brain as separate from the body， the seat of consciousness， as a computer， and as a collection of neurons; we “instinctively” think that what the brain does is think （Cobb’s argument）， or remember， or create consciousness。 Cobb documents that each of these ways of understanding the brain are relatively modern and incomplete—not instinctive or obvious at all。Cobb walks us through a history of models of the brain， then he surveys the state of brain science， and finally he speculates about where brain science is going。 He says “neuroscience” rather than “brain science”， apparently without realizing that the term itself begs the question， assuming the brain is best understood in the context of neurons which provide neural functions。 Cobb is a neuroscientist who studies olfaction and the neuronal basis of behavior。 So it is natural that his instinctive characterization of the brain is neuro-centric， even though he argues that this is just one among many models that humans have used to explain the squishy gray stuff we keep above our necks。In the ancient western world the seat of emotion， perception， consciousness， and thought was the heart， not the brain。 If you think of it， with whatever organ you choose， this makes sense。 The brain just sits there。 But the heart is always moving。 You can’t ignore the heart。 But you can’t feel the brain at all。 This changed in the 17th century。 This was an era of mechanical devices: clocks， music boxes， automata， and such。 Naturally （“instinctively”？） the body was considered to be a mechanism， and the brain the thing that drives it。 This was the time of René Descartes and “Cartesian dualism”， the idea that mind and body are distinct。 Most people still assume dualism is obviously true， though it is only a few hundred years old。 Thinkers in this era explained the interaction between mind and body in mechanical terms。 The mind “tugs” on strings and the body moves; you pull on the nerve in a frog’s leg and it twitches。 Nicolaus Steno was particularly forceful in advancing this view， using a new state-of-the-art instrument， the microscope。 He showed nerves to be hollow， like straws within which flows some vital substance。 In the 18th century a new phenomenon， electricity， captured the scientific and artistic imagination。 Witness Frankenstein animating his monster with a lightening bolt， or Galvani shocking a frog’s leg with a battery。 Scientists performed experiments on animal bodies， including humans， and not always dead， to show that electricity induces corporeal motion。 This is when Giovani Aldani， possibly the model for Dr。 Frankenstein， flogged a kind of freakish road show， stepping from from a table with just human heads， to one with a headless corpse， to a full body， connecting each in turn to a battery。 However， it was never clear what role electricity actually played in these demonstrations。 Merely tugging on nerves did produce motion， after all， and attaching a battery did not always work。 In the 19th century， the electrical paradigm became less spark-like， and more like that modern miracle， the telegraph。 Brain studies shifted from mechanism to function。 Phrenologists measured lumps in the skull， on the theory that specific functions and capabilities arose from specific parts of the brain， so that talents and deficiencies could be explained by having excess or deficient brain matter， which one could discover by measuring lumps and dips in the skull。 Thus one could “prove” that someone was a natural criminal， laborer， or intellectual by measuring the skull。 For example， the fact that men’s brains are bigger than women’s was taken to prove that men are more intelligent than women。 Phrenology was eventually discredited when scientists began looking at the actual brain， rather than the skull。 Parts of the brain were indeed sometimes associated with mental abilities， but these were not enlarged nor did they lie beneath lumps。 Still， some capabilities such as “intelligence” did not have seem to be localized。 A surprisingly acrimonious debate emerged over whether specific mental activities were localized in the brain or whether they arose from the brain as a whole。 This is an active debate， even today。In the latter part of the 19th century， evolution came into the picture。 The argument was that differences in mental capacities between species were a matter of degree， not kind， which was best explained by common ancestry。 Spiritualism also became popular， however， so that even some highly influential evolutionary biologists thought that at least some mental phenomena， such as consciousness， transcended the body， so that evolution was not a significant factor。 As the 19th century seeped into the 20th， neurons became the center of focus for “brain science”。 New tools， such as better microscopes and staining techniques， revealed a chemical basis to neural and brain function。 Ramón y Cajal showed that neurons had distinct， disconnected components such as axons and dendrites， which were linked in a specific orientation， head to tail。 Also， he found gaps， synapses， between neurons。 So， neural function could not be explained by parts that contacted each other， like mechanical switches， or by connected things like wires。 Something had to pass between neurons in one direction， rather than along them。 This led to a new conception of the neural system in the mid 20th century， a new kind of electronic machine built out of digital circuits。 The brain became a computer。 All of that is from the “Past” section of the book。 In the “Present” section Cobb describes our current understanding of how memory works， how circuits have limited explanatory power， and how brains are similar to but different from digital computers。 He describes the chemical basis for neural and mental phenomena。 He describes the current view， that mental functions are both local and global; though some regions must be present for specific functions， those function may still require the whole brain。 I was surprised to learn that fMRI “brain scans” are misleading， and that results from fMRI data are often over-hyped。In the “Future” section Cobb describes where brain science might be going， and which new metaphors and technologies may help。 This was the most exciting part of the book。 But to say too much would spoil the journey for you， dear reader。 And this review is long enough already。If you are at all curious， this book will help you understand how that curiosity can arise from your body and your brain。 This book is utterly engrossing and surprising。 Excellent read。 。。。more
Seb
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 How civilisation has perceived and understood the brain is a fascinating story。 The brain is the most complex object in the known universe， containing something in the region of 10 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses。 This complexity has resulted in the brain being compared with the most complex technologies of each era from hydraulic action of nerves to present day computers。 Cobb argues this has limited progress even to this day， where the brain is in many ways falsely thought of as a co How civilisation has perceived and understood the brain is a fascinating story。 The brain is the most complex object in the known universe， containing something in the region of 10 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses。 This complexity has resulted in the brain being compared with the most complex technologies of each era from hydraulic action of nerves to present day computers。 Cobb argues this has limited progress even to this day， where the brain is in many ways falsely thought of as a computer。The book is split into three parts: past， present and future。 The past chronicles how our ideas have slowly evolved from the ancients。 Inevitably Aristotle screwed us over here， as well as many others， who considered the heart to be the seat of the mind。 The philosophical debate of mind and matter enters the picture， while inevitably religion considers any kind of new ideas as blasphemous。 However some horrific scientific approaches almost save the day （Galen）。 Then there is quite a lot of bumbling around in the dark。 Finally， through careful anatomical studies of the brain and nerves， our understanding slowly evolves to its present form。 Steno emerges as a key figure， suggesting the brain should be thought of as a machine which should be disassembled to be understood。Part 2 is based on the present， which covers some key topics in neuroscience from memory to consciousness。 This part seems at first to be written a bit haphazard。 However， it quickly becomes clear how challenging it is to piece together a cohesive story of the brain; it simply does not yet exist。 We really don’t know much and still can’t agree on a broad range of topics。 One example is the localisation of brain function。 I particularly liked that the author doesn’t automatically go to the typical pop science topics， e。g。 the study of taxi drivers enlarged hippocampus is mentioned however the author informs us that this study has not been replicated。The final chapter is dedicated to the future， where Cobb favours the approach of starting small， studying brains of simpler organisms such as the fly and building up to human understanding。 This is following a similar approach to that of the developed genome understanding we have today。 Inevitably it seems that progress in understanding the brain may take many decades， even centuries。One thing not covered was the philosophical implications to having a complete brain understanding or simulation。 However， I think this shows that the author has indeed focused on the facts at hand and kept speculation to a minimum。 。。。more
Luke Mainwaring
，
I first read about the idea that how the brain works is often compared to the prevailing technology of the day in Rodney Brooks's essay， "We need a new metaphor"。 This book elucidates that idea and places it into a historical context。 Also， in my studies I learned all these concepts in isolation， such as The Neuron Doctrine。 I loved learning the stories behind these concepts as a sequential history。 It really makes me wonder what we'll compare the brain to next， and why we've fallen into this pa I first read about the idea that how the brain works is often compared to the prevailing technology of the day in Rodney Brooks's essay， "We need a new metaphor"。 This book elucidates that idea and places it into a historical context。 Also， in my studies I learned all these concepts in isolation， such as The Neuron Doctrine。 I loved learning the stories behind these concepts as a sequential history。 It really makes me wonder what we'll compare the brain to next， and why we've fallen into this pattern of metaphor throughout all of history。 。。。more
Sophie F
，
A thorough and readable history of brain science， which does not shy away from admitting how little is understood about brain function despite centuries of research。 However， cobb is quite dismissive of human/connectome/neuroimaging approaches in favour of his own field of simple model organisms - I felt more could have been done to explore future potential of the study of the human brain。
Akshay Srikar
，
A very comprehensive book on the idea of the brain， but it only offers a Western perspective of learnings on brain and it's activity。 However it was a intresting read。 A very comprehensive book on the idea of the brain， but it only offers a Western perspective of learnings on brain and it's activity。 However it was a intresting read。 。。。more
Csilla
，
I would have done without- the pretentious pronunciation of French titles （audiobook version）- learning about the private lives of modern scientists （yeah， he died at 40 from leukaemia？ tragic - and irrelevant）- the subtle contempt towards engineering。On the other hand， I am very happy for Jennifer Aniston。 I would have liked to learn more about brain chemistry， but apparently， we know precious little。 so。。。 there is that。
Mehtap exotiquetv
，
Dieses Buch vereint alle wichtigen Forschungen aus Neurowissenschaften und stellt einen Kontext her， der mir zuvor nicht bekannt war。 Von der historischen Bedeutung des Gehirns und dessen Wandel， lernt man geschichtlich viel über die Entwicklung des Feldes。Es hat mich sehr oft zum Nachdenken gebracht weil der Autor in vielen Aspekten was die Vergangenheit， das Jetzt und der Zukunft valide Kritik äußert。Wie weit ist dieses Hirn-Feld， was wissen wir und was wissen wir noch nicht？ Auf was sollten w Dieses Buch vereint alle wichtigen Forschungen aus Neurowissenschaften und stellt einen Kontext her， der mir zuvor nicht bekannt war。 Von der historischen Bedeutung des Gehirns und dessen Wandel， lernt man geschichtlich viel über die Entwicklung des Feldes。Es hat mich sehr oft zum Nachdenken gebracht weil der Autor in vielen Aspekten was die Vergangenheit， das Jetzt und der Zukunft valide Kritik äußert。Wie weit ist dieses Hirn-Feld， was wissen wir und was wissen wir noch nicht？ Auf was sollten wir in Zukunft einen Augenmerk werfen， damit wir beispielsweise Menschen mit ernsthaften Erkrankungen helfen können。Gerade das Kapitel mit Bewusstsein fand ich besonders gut weil er deutlich hervorbringt， dass NIEMAND Ahnung darüber hat， wie es funktioniert und wo es im Gehirn verankert ist。 Und überhaupt ob es wichtig ist， dass wir das wissen müssen。 Und ob es nicht besser ist diese Debatte wichtigerer Themen gegenüber zu opfern。Finde diese literarische Arbeit bemerkenswert und kann es jedem empfehlen， der sich für Neurowissenschaften grundsätzlich in seiner vollen Bandbreite interessiert。 。。。more
Scott Johnson
，
I probably should have gone into neuroscience， this just clicks with me。 I have an affinity for complex， intractable problems that others over-simplify。This is a solid overview of the history of this field and its current state。 It might go over a more casual， layperson audience's head at times， but for me this was ideal。 It's refreshing when an author doesn't dumb down complex topics and trusts their audience to keep up。 I probably should have gone into neuroscience， this just clicks with me。 I have an affinity for complex， intractable problems that others over-simplify。This is a solid overview of the history of this field and its current state。 It might go over a more casual， layperson audience's head at times， but for me this was ideal。 It's refreshing when an author doesn't dumb down complex topics and trusts their audience to keep up。 。。。more
Paul moved to LibraryThing
，
A superbly written history of metaphors surrounding the brain。 Due to its short length necessarily not very in-depth。 The best argument against the feasibility of uploading I've read。 A superbly written history of metaphors surrounding the brain。 Due to its short length necessarily not very in-depth。 The best argument against the feasibility of uploading I've read。 。。。more
AC
，
I picked this up because I've always had a fascination with the brain - how can this person understand rocket science， while this person is better at literature， and how do people view （and/or value） these rather divergent types of development through their own lenses？If you're after a very detailed， rather academic sort of book examining the ways people throughout history have viewed the brain， this is the book for you。 It comes across as a bit dry， as many overviews of anything do， but it does I picked this up because I've always had a fascination with the brain - how can this person understand rocket science， while this person is better at literature， and how do people view （and/or value） these rather divergent types of development through their own lenses？If you're after a very detailed， rather academic sort of book examining the ways people throughout history have viewed the brain， this is the book for you。 It comes across as a bit dry， as many overviews of anything do， but it does not stray into the weeds to become completely unreadable。 You do need to be ready and alert to read it in order to understand the transitions and shifts of thinking throughout history about the organ that allows us to think。If you're a citation kind of person， this is also for you: as with other academic type books of this nature， there are loads of materials one could go find and read， if one were interested in continuing to delve into neurology and the general history of how we view the rather precious blob that sits inside our skulls。Four stars。Thanks to NetGalley and Perseus/Basic Books for the reading copy。 。。。more
Piet
，
This book gives an overview of neuroscience， from the past to the present day。 If I took anything away from this book， it is how very little we know。 This is illustrated by many examples throughout the （second part of the） book， about our understanding of brain circuits， brain chemistry， brain localization， and so on。 The example that struck me most is the work that has been done to understand the neuronal circuits that produce the crunching of the lobster's stomach。 Decades of work have been de This book gives an overview of neuroscience， from the past to the present day。 If I took anything away from this book， it is how very little we know。 This is illustrated by many examples throughout the （second part of the） book， about our understanding of brain circuits， brain chemistry， brain localization， and so on。 The example that struck me most is the work that has been done to understand the neuronal circuits that produce the crunching of the lobster's stomach。 Decades of work have been dedicated to the functioning of this circuit of about 30 neurons， and we still lack a global understanding of how it works。 One of the more theoretical insights that stuck with me is that the brain is not a thing that was designed - it is a thing that was tinkered with over evolutionary time。 Therefore， we should not expect to uncover some overall governing principle or hope to devise some grand theory of the brain， but we should be happy with bits and pieces of understanding that can hopefully fit together in a coherent fashion some day， and provide us with an understanding that， if not general， would at least be more complete。 The book itself also struck me as 'bits and pieces' sometimes。 It felt like relatively small oases of insight divided by vast deserts of conceptual drought - even if the author has organized the book around a relatively small number of general themes。 But then it struck me that this is the state of neuroscience （and this is also what the author himself keeps emphasizing）: an integrated understanding is very， very， very far off。 To me， this was a valuable insight to take away， and it emphasized the importance of psychology rather than neuroscience to tell us more about human behaviour。 And overall， the book is pleasantly written and taught me about many （recent） advances that I did not know anything about。 。。。more
Luis Brudna
，
Senti falta de mais informações sobre o possível futuro da neurociência。
Dan Graser
，
This dense yet approachable tome from Matthew Cobb delivers exactly on the promise of its title， giving a complete history of how humans have attempted to understand the most complex thing in the universe， the human brain。 The dependence on metaphor with current technology is an interesting recurrence and though approaches a more accurate and graspable notion， never really does justice to the subject at hand。 The work is divided into three obvious sections， Past， Present， and Future。 The first s This dense yet approachable tome from Matthew Cobb delivers exactly on the promise of its title， giving a complete history of how humans have attempted to understand the most complex thing in the universe， the human brain。 The dependence on metaphor with current technology is an interesting recurrence and though approaches a more accurate and graspable notion， never really does justice to the subject at hand。 The work is divided into three obvious sections， Past， Present， and Future。 The first section is by far the largest and if you are not familiar with the many well-known and ridiculously obscure names associated with this field， this section will fill that gap in your knowledge but be advised that the names and experiments come at you fast and furious which makes for very dense reading。 "Present，" details much of the specialized work going on in the fields and sub-specialties that arose from the previous sections' studies。 Again this is wonderful material that will bring you up to date as well as dispel some of the common notions that get tossed around by gurus and pseudo-spiritual idiots （i。e。。。are you more right brained or left brained？） as well as providing some amusing anecdotes as to where studies using the latest technology have had to check themselves （the fMRI study on the dead salmon takes the cake here）。 Of course in a work such as this there is a section on consciousness。 And once again， I am glad to see that no one has a coherent definition of this， studies of the brain's relation to consciousness are thus fraught with issues based purely on arbitrary definitions （mostly from non-scientists）， and as a result， providing any satisfactory universal answer to this question is like trying to hit a bullet， with another bullet， fired from two passing trains so that each bullet deflects onto a nail and piece of jello， respectively， and nails them to a wall on a third passing train。 I tend to the materialist side of things here and think that woo-woo idiots keep making the definition more mysterious in the face of mounting physical evidence， just my two cents， and Cobb does everything he can to make this Mississippi mud pie of an issue as intellectually healthy as possible。 The final section deals with the future of brain study and though Cobb is modest and doesn't pretend to portend in any great detail， I still felt this section could have been longer without sacrificing intellectual modesty on his part。 Also， quite obviously this section is the one based mostly on opinion and avid readers in this area may find material with which to disagree here （I for one think he underplays the significance of connectome studies as well as Daniel Dennett's contributions as a philosopher of the mind）。 However this does not take away from the work's success at providing great historical context and bringing the lay reader up to date on humanity's studies of the brain。 This is a dense volume but one that those with a passing interest in the subject will greatly enjoy。 。。。more
Petter Wolff
，