The World in 2012
The human brain
Is uniqueness all in the mind?
Jan 6th 2012, 16:44 by J.A.
THERE is a fascinating article in The World in 2012 on how scientists will this year begin mapping the human brain. The author, Alun Anderson (one of Britain's most distinguished science writers) asserts that the brain is the most complex object in the universe—and who is Cassandra, whose knowledge of science is abysmal, to disagree? However, one of our readers does disagree, hence this very well argued letter.
Sirs -
In your "The World in 2012" issue, the statement is made (in "Brain work," Alun Anderson, p. 153) that "[h]uman brains are the most complex objects in the known universe."
With due respect, this statement is silly - for two reasons. First, we lack any rigorous definition of "complexity," rendering comparisons by that measure meaningless. Second (even if we ignore the lack of quantitative measures) there are countless examples of systems which surpass the putative "complexity" of the human mind. From the quantum interactions of the constituents of even a small protein molecule - which are sufficiently computationally intractable to be essentially incomputable by any known human technologies - to the deeply enchained interactions amongst living amongst the vast numbers of living beings in, say, a 10-liter bucket of living seawater - and through the fluid dynamical behavior of superheated gases at the surface of our Sun, the "visible universe" is in fact replete with exquisitely "complex" systems at all scales and groupings.
Instead, what the assumption that our primate brains are the apex of complexity in the known universe tells us, perhaps, is something much less proud (though perhaps all the more important): the one thing at which humanity unquestionably excels is a solipsistic worship of its own, self-declared primacy in the universe (and on our living planet). In other words, we're exquisitely good at coming up with metrics by which we can claim ourselves to be the most, greatest, or biggest inhabitant of our perceived surroundings. That's a far cry from being, in fact, any of these things; self-delusion is not equivalent to genuine primacy.
Respectfully,
D.B. LeConte-Spink(Douglas Bryan LeConte-Spink
founder, Deep Symbiosis Institute)
And here is Alun's elegant riposte:
From: Alun Anderson
To: World InEditor <WorldInEditor@economist.com>
Subject: Re: Letter (on behalf of Douglas Spink)Thanks for this letter from the Deep Symbiosis Institute.
I understand the purpose of his argument, which is to get away from human "exceptionalism" by arguing that on some measure, a bucket of sea water is as complex as a human brain (maybe you would measure the number of viruses it contains or something). This kind of argument leads you to respect all things as somehow equal, which is a nice enough sentiment, and perhaps even to believe that everything is conscious.
I think the bucket of sea water is not an "object" in the same way a brain is, nor is it as complex in terms of "interconnectedness" as used as the measure in the article. So although I don't t think his argument is correct I don't mind at all to see it aired in Cassandra, as there are lots of people aruging for oness with everything in the Universe!
(NB The Deep Symbiosis Institute works towards expanded awareness and appreciation of truly bidirectional, reciprocal, respectful relationships between Homo sapiens and other sentient, self-aware species)
Best,
Alun
This blog accompanies The World in 2012, our almanac of predictions for the year ahead. The blog is named after the mythological Cassandra, who was cursed by Apollo to make prophecies that were accurate, but disbelieved.
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Russia and NATO: Rethink the reset
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Nationalism online: Backfired
- Politics and private equity: Bringing the Bain
- Turkey’s cultural ambitions: Of marbles and men
- India-China relations and the media: Blame the messenger
- Greece and the euro: Exodus, chapter 1
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- Jacob Zuma: Portrait of a president
- Rival versions of capitalism: The endangered public company
- Bo Xilai v Chen Guangcheng: Who is the mightier?
- Facebook goes public: Not top of the pops
- Global Zero: Fewer nukes, more security
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
It is astonishing how the brain is a powerful tool that can do so many things in this world. Ofcourse that many people uses it for wrong things, this world would be to a greater advancement if people really take time to realize how incredible life could be if our most complex and strongest tool can be used in our humanity, there are no limits only the ones people create.
Regards,
sciatic nerve pain
I think that you do not brush aside deeply questions about the reality of the universe and of existence with some disparate arguments. Leconte-Spink misses the point of Anderson. You cannot in just one article describe the possible complexities of intricate systems like the brain. Actually my views about the brain since a few years are very similar to those of Anderson and I intend to detail out my views by next year. No definitely the quantum complexities are just fractions of those of the brain. The problem with quantum observation like the double slit expt so much publicised by S. Hawking in his latest novel is probably
explainable by some mathematical reasoning. I agree that the brain is the most complex thing in the universe and I have reasons to say so.
I think that you do not brush aside deeply questions about the reality of the universe and of existence with some disparate arguments. Leconte-Spink misses the point of Anderson. You cannot in just one article describe the possible complexities of intricate systems like the brain. Actually my views about the brain since a few years are very similar to those of Anderson and I intend to detail out my views by next year. No definitely the quantum complexities are just fractions of those of the brain. The problem with quantum observation like the double slit expt so much publicised by S. Hawking in his latest novel is probably
explainable by some mathematical reasoning. I agree that the brain is the most complex thing in the universe and I have reasons to say so.
hahahaha
I take exception to Anderson's exceptionalism. The comment said nothing about exceptionalism -that's Alun's conceit. The statement was that complexity is not itself a measure of the uniqueness of the brain.
To be fair, the poster gets a bit mixed up. We have plenty of rigorous definitions of complexity - the mapping of the brain itself being one. The problem is the Anderson doesn't bother applying any definition to his statement. Therefore the poster is correct in his criticism - with out a definition of the kind of complexity that the brain possesses Anderson's statement is useless.
The poster makes a second error by contradicting his first statement and by his use of the word "putative" which means nothing here. What he means, roughly, is that if you use the number of atomic interactions of any kind as a measure of complexity, then anything with more of them is more complex than anything with less of them. A pot of boiling water has much more complexity than a pot of cold water. Likewise the sun is billions of times more complex by this measure than any human brain. Again, the poster is right in the spirit of his post.
Anderson comes off as a complete fool in his response. He misses the chance to see his mistake, and never bothers to define his terms. Instead he refines his statement to sound more exact when in fact he simply express the same vague assumptions again. The brain is not more "interconnected" than the bucket of seawater - because he hasn't defined "interconnected" any better than he defined "complex". The meaning is the same as in his previous statement, and just as dumb.
Instead Alun hides behind a truly stupid modern argument: the idea that humans exceptional. Why is this argument stupid when it sounds so good? Because it is trite. Of course humans are exceptional. And of course you are exceptional, Mr Anderson. No one argued that. The problem is that you conflate your own sense of how exceptional you are with a good objective argument. I could easily argue that the earth is flat, due to the fact that it looks flat to me when I wake up in the morning. But that sensation doesn't alter the fact that the earth is a sphere when you are trying to navigate to New England from Spain. Just so, your argument is mired and confused by the subjective in an arena that worships the highly objective perspective.
A classification of complexity as a measure of "consciousness" might very well include the brain at the universal apex - however unlikely it may be, we just don't know the answer. One thing we do know: Anderson is undoubtedly a poor science thinker, although possibly a good writer, who knows.
hahahaha
I take exception to Anderson's exceptionalism. The comment said nothing about exceptionalism -that's Alun's conceit. The statement was that complexity is not itself a measure of the uniqueness of the brain.
To be fair, the poster gets a bit mixed up. We have plenty of rigorous definitions of complexity - the mapping of the brain itself being one. The problem is the Anderson doesn't bother applying any definition to his statement. Therefore the poster is correct in his criticism - with out a definition of the kind of complexity that the brain possesses Anderson's statement is useless.
The poster makes a second error by contradicting his first statement and by his use of the word "putative" which means nothing here. What he means, roughly, is that if you use the number of atomic interactions of any kind as a measure of complexity, then anything with more of them is more complex than anything with less of them. A pot of boiling water has much more complexity than a pot of cold water. Likewise the sun is billions of times more complex by this measure than any human brain. Again, the poster is right in the spirit of his post.
Anderson comes off as a complete fool in his response. He misses the chance to see his mistake, and never bothers to define his terms. Instead he refines his statement to sound more exact when in fact he simply express the same vague assumptions again. The brain is not more "interconnected" than the bucket of seawater - because he hasn't defined "interconnected" any better than he defined "complex". The meaning is the same as in his previous statement.
Instead he relies on tha
Anderson is undoubtedly a poor science thinker, although possibly a good writer, who knows.
A classification of complexity as a measure of "consciousness" might very well include the brain at the universal apex - however unlikely it may be, we just don't know the answer.
Aaaaaah, reductio ad absurdum: my FAVOURITE rhetorical technique.
Thanks for the demonstration; most entertaining.
this might need some clarification:
Anderson's argument started with ambigous terms: brain is most "complex" object of all! when given an example of something more complex, he declares: ah, but the brain is more "interconnected" therefore it is more "complex", without defining the word "interconnected". thus he has used a second word that means approximately the same thing as complex to define his first use of the word complex: an absurd reduction or his original argument, since it adds nothing but the impression of having made a more exact statement. A fools argument.
Bananas are the most curved object in the universe, nothing could be more curved! But here, this stick is more curved than that banana. Nice try, but that stick isn't a fruit. As I said, this banana is the most curved fruit in the universe!
Nice take.
I always understood that the reason for the (oft-made) comment that the brain is the most complex phenomenon in the universe is the number of possible interactions between brain cells. There are one hundred billion neurons (similar magnitude to the number of trees in the Amazon rainforest). As far as I remember, the number of possible brain states that result from the interaction of all those neurons is more than the number of atoms in the universe.
hmm nice try, but think again.
consider the number of atoms in the sun, and the various interactions that take place with all the other atoms in the sun. The possible sun-states of these interactions is farm more than the possible mind-states that result from the interaction of the neurons in the human brain. That's just math.
But it's easy to confuse abstraction with reality. I can say "infinity", but I haven't just created the most infinite thing in the universe. It's just a word on this page similar to any other. Likewise, having nearly infinite potential brain-states doesn't confer special status on the human mind - the potential states of the mind are something that you confer on the brain subjectively, after the fact, due to the fact that brain-states seem impressive to your mind. but underneath it's all just matter in various configurations.
What does complexity mean? "Many parts in intricate arrangement" seems a workable definition to me. My point about brain cells and brain cells was not simply quantitative. Of course, there are more cells in the sun than in the brain. But all of those cells (to the best of my admittedly inadequate knowledge) are doing the same thing. Sun physics of course is complex and poorly understood, but solar activity at micro or macro scale does not seem to comprise the diversity which characterises the human brain.
Doh, I mean atoms not cells.
"Many parts in intricate arrangement" describes any body of mass. The sun, an elephant, the brain - whatever. We're back to the definition of complexity that is tied to the number of atoms, and the amount of energy they contain. That definition doesn't add anything to the idea of complexity that would qualify the brain over any other hunk of matter.
"But all of those cells (to the best of my admittedly inadequate knowledge) are doing the same thing." Hmm, yes and no. They're all doing slightly different things, depending on what metric you consider. The sun makes and breaks atoms, and expresses energy in many more complex configurations than anywhere else in the solar system by virtue of the sheer power it generates. A solar storm, for example, is a massively more complex interaction of electrons, photons, and whatall EM radiation than is the brain. The comparison is laughable.
What Anderson means by complexity though is something else - and obviously he can't explain it himself. Ironically it is tied to the idea of "exceptionalism" in that the measure of complexity he wants to stake a claim to is a measure of what we call "consciousness". Anderson will deny this, simply because it weakens his argument: he's invested in the idea of human beings as some kind of ultimate universal force - a simpleton's point of view, but nevertheless very beguiling. But, were he to suddenly come off his high perch and restate his argument in a sensible way, it would be: "the human brain is the most complex consciousness-producing object in the universe".
It is an arguable assertion at best - there are a few simple rebuttals that sprint to mind, most salient being that one needs to produce a definition of consciousness in order for the argument to hold water - but it is a worthy one. An honest debate is worth having. Mr Anderson doesn't want that - he just wants to be right about something in his smug way.
The only possible argument is that the brain is *as* complex as anything else in the Universe(s) you care to think about - but then it's only a shared first. You'd still get a gold medal. ;)
Alun Anderson, when called upon for spewing a shallow fib, piles on further cheap shots by twice pointing to the letter writer's curious affiliation, while conveniently sidestepping a main point of contention - his lazy and fuzzy semantic for "complex".
So much for "one of Britain's most distinguished science writers".
Bravo to Alun Anderson's reply. And that is all it needs, including the N.B.
This is silliness. We still have no clue about how a brain creates a mind.
Which is better ? Up or green ?
Dear oh dear - the human brain in complexity competition with a single protein molecule or a bucket of sea water?
First of all, let's celebrate the mapping of the human, what a great inspiring project.
Secondly deep symbiosis is obviously not a road to essence understanding. As things stand - notwithstanding mind/brain debates - the only 'organism'/object capable of universal sentient process is the human brain. It's capabilities exist on the entire spectrum of visible, felt, abstract and conceptual existence in a way that nothing else can. So, if a scientist uses the term 'most complex object' to describe the brain, then why on earth attack them? Especially when the human race is still trying to figure out how to put this complex object to collective positive use.
Of course Mr LeConte-Spink is quite correct about exceptionalism. Indeed the human brain is not even the largest (and thus most complex) animal brain ever (but it is the largest in relation to body weight).
But it is not true that there is no definition of complexity - there is a fairly simple definition in terms of the number of ways an object can change and remain itself. This is closely related to the definition of entropy, which is more-or-less 'randomness'. So humans have exceptionally random brains. I cite Alun Anderson as proof.
The Brain is an Object.
The Mind is a Concept.
We have Einstein's Brain in a bucket of formaldehyde on a shelf.
We have sketches of Einstein's thoughts in his publications like the Theory of Relativity. And his philosophy in biographic insights and speeches and letters. And his unique Einstein gravity-defying hair which kept his brain warm.
These are all part of the Concept of the Character and Mind of Einstein. The Mind is a living complex circuit with neurons, networks, and bio-electrical impulses which form transient fleeting and sometimes profound thoughts. There is a serendipity and spontaneous inspiration. And the mind interacts with the world through the body, the hand and the voice. And it learns, unlearns and eventually regresses. Our minds are only temporary. The Brain can be mummified and preserved in a jar.
IT is not just the brain in the bucket.