Peace of Mind

Readers marveled at what cognitive neuroscientists are uncovering about the biology of the brain and its impact on human feelings, part of our HEALTH FOR LIFE package. One pointed to the intangible, transcendent "dimensions of consciousness." Another stated simply: "Science reveals more mysteries than it explains."

The Biology Behind Our Feelings
In "Sad Brain, Happy Brain" (HEALTH FOR LIFE, Oct. 6) Michael Craig Miller, editor in chief of the Harvard Mental Health Letter, shares the mental myopia of so many of his colleagues: that the whole can be understood by observing the parts. In dismissing the intelligence of a brain cell as no smarter than an amoeba, he dismisses one of the greatest wonders nature has come up with in 3 billion years of evolution—that a single human cell can simultaneously manage 10,000 chemical reactions while coordinating this activity with the other 10 trillion cells in our body. When Miller can explain how the cell manages to do this, then he and his colleagues may be ready to discuss faith, love and understanding.
Michel Mortier
Zug, Switzerland

It is, of course, in the best interests of neuroscience to declare the physical brain to be the origin of all behavior. For myself and others, something intangible (call it mind or spirit) is nevertheless at our disposal, overriding fear with insights and peace of mind that transcend the "fully engaged" brain. Ironically, it is only when the brain becomes quiet that this additional dimension of consciousness is discovered.
Robert Maurice
Covington, Louisiana

While I enjoyed the article "Sad Brain, Happy Brain," I fear it may engender antipathy toward cognitive neuroscience. The author allows that many people are "put off by the notion that such rich experiences could be reduced to mechanical or chemical bits," but he does not adequately address these fears. Research has shown that these "chemical bits" are as mysterious as consciousness and, indeed, history has shown that science generally reveals more mysteries than it explains.
Shannon Synan
Belchertown, Massachusetts

That human consciousness and emotion arise from billions of interconnected cells is not the least bit surprising given our experience with computer technology. A page on a screen was created from hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of interconnected cells each indistinguishable from the other. What is important is that the cells in a computer are organized in such a way that when stimulated as a group by an external signal, they produce a hopefully intended result. It's not surprising at all that the brain might function in a similar manner. Given that looking at individual cells (bits) in a computer yields no information about the macroscopic behavior of a computer program, it seems hardly imaginable that looking at individual brain cells in a human being would give us any insight into human behavior. To understand how the brain "works" to produce consciousness, intelligence and emotion, we need to do a little reverse engineering. What appears important to study are the stimuli that trigger the related aggregates of cells in the brain, and the networked structure of those interconnections. If we can reproduce the networked structure of human cells with a computer network of cells, and apply the appropriate stimuli, we will be looking at a truly intelligent machine.
Garrett A. Hughes
Honeoye Falls, New York

Michael Craig Miller's "Sad Brain, Happy Brain" claims that there is consensus among philosophers and scientists that "all mental processes derive from operations in the brain." But it is not true that mental states are just brain processes. If I am angry that I lost the softball game, it must be true that there was a softball game and that I lost it: my anger is a relation between me and the game, and a softball game is not a brain process, nor does the softball game happen in my brain. Furthermore, if I say, "We lost the game," the meaning of my words is established by the community of English-language speakers, not by the neurotransmitters swishing in my head. Killing off the old notion of soul does not suffice to show that the mind and the brain are the same thing.
Douglas P. Lackey
Chair, Department of Philosophy
Baruch College
New York, New York