Scientists Identify Mind-Body Nexus In Human Brain (reuters.com) 77
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Researchers said on Wednesday they have discovered that parts of the brain region called the motor cortex that govern body movement are connected with a network involved in thinking, planning, mental arousal, pain, and control of internal organs, as well as functions such as blood pressure and heart rate. They identified a previously unknown system within the motor cortex manifested in multiple nodes that are located in between areas of the brain already known to be responsible for movement of specific body parts -- hands, feet and face -- and are engaged when many different body movements are performed together.
The researchers called this system the somato-cognitive action network, or SCAN, and documented its connections to brain regions known to help set goals and plan actions. This network also was found to correspond with brain regions that, as shown in studies involving monkeys, are connected to internal organs including the stomach and adrenal glands, allowing these organs to change activity levels in anticipation of performing a certain action. That may explain physical responses like sweating or increased heart rate caused by merely pondering a difficult future task, they said. "Basically, we now have shown that the human motor system is not unitary. Instead, we believe there are two separate systems that control movement," said radiology professor Evan Gordon of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, lead author of the study.
"One is for isolated movement of your hands, feet and face. This system is important, for example, for writing or speaking -movements that need to involve only the one body part. A second system, the SCAN, is more important for integrated, whole body movements, and is more connected to high-level planning regions of your brain," Gordon said.
"Modern neuroscience does not include any kind of mind-body dualism. It's not compatible with being a serious neuroscientist nowadays. I'm not a philosopher, but one succinct statement I like is saying, 'The mind is what the brain does.' The sum of the bio-computational functions of the brain makes up 'the mind,'" said study senior author Nico Dosenbach, a neurology professor at Washington University School of Medicine. "Since this system, the SCAN, seems to integrate abstract plans-thoughts-motivations with actual movements and physiology, it provides additional neuroanatomical explanation for why 'the body' and 'the mind' aren't separate or separable."
The findings have been published in the journal Nature.
The researchers called this system the somato-cognitive action network, or SCAN, and documented its connections to brain regions known to help set goals and plan actions. This network also was found to correspond with brain regions that, as shown in studies involving monkeys, are connected to internal organs including the stomach and adrenal glands, allowing these organs to change activity levels in anticipation of performing a certain action. That may explain physical responses like sweating or increased heart rate caused by merely pondering a difficult future task, they said. "Basically, we now have shown that the human motor system is not unitary. Instead, we believe there are two separate systems that control movement," said radiology professor Evan Gordon of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, lead author of the study.
"One is for isolated movement of your hands, feet and face. This system is important, for example, for writing or speaking -movements that need to involve only the one body part. A second system, the SCAN, is more important for integrated, whole body movements, and is more connected to high-level planning regions of your brain," Gordon said.
"Modern neuroscience does not include any kind of mind-body dualism. It's not compatible with being a serious neuroscientist nowadays. I'm not a philosopher, but one succinct statement I like is saying, 'The mind is what the brain does.' The sum of the bio-computational functions of the brain makes up 'the mind,'" said study senior author Nico Dosenbach, a neurology professor at Washington University School of Medicine. "Since this system, the SCAN, seems to integrate abstract plans-thoughts-motivations with actual movements and physiology, it provides additional neuroanatomical explanation for why 'the body' and 'the mind' aren't separate or separable."
The findings have been published in the journal Nature.
Re:Radiology professor? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Radiology professor? (Score:4)
Radiology is the medical discipline that uses medical imaging to diagnose diseases and guide their treatment and has noting to do with radioactive medicine used in Oncology https://www.acr.org/Practice-M... [acr.org]
More to the point, it doesn't necessarily even involve radiation, unless you consider magnetic fields to be radiation. For example, MRIs are considered radiology.
Re: (Score:2)
unless you consider magnetic fields to be radiation.
This isn't really a matter of opinion. What on earth do you think radiation is anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Magnetic fields are radiation in the same way that the strong force is radiation. That is to say:
They're not.
Radiation is something that... ahem... radiates. Magnetic fields are a fundamental force of nature. Force, not radiation. Radiation involves the emission or transmission of energy, as waves and/or particles. A magnetic field is a constant energy state. It does not travel through space, but remains fixed, and simply has an influence on things that travel through it. There is a term for electromagnet
Re:Radiology professor? (Score:4, Insightful)
At least you're confident. We should call you ChatGPT.
I guess it's Basic Science Time! (tm): Electricity and magnetism are not separate forces, but two halves of the unified electromagnetic force. You can't separate them. Changes to the electromagnetic field propagate outward. (Oh, if there was only a word for that...) Wave a magnet around and you'll get electromagnetic waves. If you can wave it at ~10^15Hz, it'll visibly glow.
Here's the neat part: electromagnetic fields are frame-dependent! A field that is completely magnetic in one reference frame might be completely electric in another or some combination of the two in a third.
Re: (Score:3)
Many forces are unifiedin the standard model. They're still considered individually because they behave distinctly in the real world. E.g., a static-charged balloon isn't going to stick to a bar magnet. It doesn't matter that they're both mediated by the photon. Electromagnetism is unified with the weak force into the electroweak force - are we going to insist on not making a distinction there too, just because they'r
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.cancer.gov/about-c... [cancer.gov]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Go back to school kid.
You're one of those poor pukes who has been infected with the "Nookyoulur Bombz!" school of non-thought.
Re:Radiology professor? (Score:4, Interesting)
A photon is not "a magnetic field". A bar magnet on your desk is not giving off photons (beyond blackbody radiation). Which is why you literally don't see it glowing.
Radiation involves a transfer of energy. Magnetic fields are not an energy source. They don't sit there just giving off energy. Just like gravity is not an energy source. Only the act of changing a magnetic field involves changing energy states.
A magnetic field, like a gravitational field, exists as a static potential well. An object coupled to the field entering or leaving the well can transition to a higher or lower energy state, and this change in potential can lead to doing work. But within the well at a static potential, it does not do work on the object - only exerts a force. Work = force x distance. With no "distance", there is no work (change in energy), only force. Just like no work is done by gravity when you're just lying on the ground, even though it exerts force.
Re: (Score:2)
MRI does not use _ionizing_ radiation, nor does it carry the tissue damage risks of X-Ray or CT or PET scan. But it's radiation, it deposits energy in the tissue that can cause damage and has maximum exposure limits for safety of both patients and medical staff.
Re: (Score:2)
Does working around the electromagnetic fields of an MRI scanner carry any health risks? [mriquestions.com]
Exposure levels of radiofrequency magnetic fields and static magnetic fields in 1.5 and 3.0 T MRI units [springer.com]
TL/DR: Moving around a high-strength magnetic field can lead to effects like vertigo, nausea, and dizziness (shifting magnetic fields affect brain activity), but has not been linked to physical conditions (the greatest risk of physical harm is an increased rate of occupational accidents [wiley.com]), and does not deposit meaningful
Re: (Score:2)
The "RF component of an MRI" is really just to perturb atoms (heat them up).
After they're perturbed, they interact with the big magnetic field, and then fire off their own photons as a response to their motion against that field (which of course requires the exchange of many photons with that "static" field, which the excited atoms then re-emit)
Still all quite harmless, but there's more radiation involved than just the perturbation EMF.
Static field
Re: (Score:2)
MRI above 12T supposedly causes hallucinations in patients. Not sure if it's linked to anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
In a strong static field (reactive near field- fair to say non-radiation), you throw actual radiation (photons) into an object. Those are absorbed by certain atoms, and as their spin aligns with the static field, they exchange actual radiation with it (their reference frame is now moving, so that field isn't static to them), and they relax and fire them off at a frequency dependent upon how they moved.
Radiation all over the place.
Granted, it's non-ionizing, but it ver
Re: (Score:2)
Bohr, Skinner, and a dog walk into a bar... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's questionable the conscious mind has anything to do with planning, given evidence the brain seems to decide actions briefly before the conscious mind "thinks" of it. It may be some review virtual space involved in generating emotional impact for storage emphasis, but nevermind that.
This story just seems to suggest an NCC location, the neural correlates of consciousness, but then bails and takes an almost B.F. Skinner approach (observe behaviors, not mental states) or Neils Borh take on quantum mechanic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the sake of the argument, science cannot really prove anything, it just shows that some observations are consistent with the current theoretical understanding about an issue. Proofs are only really available in math.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
given evidence the brain seems to decide actions briefly before the conscious mind "thinks" of it.
I'm sorry. You've been the victim of bad science reporting.
Re:Bohr, Skinner, and a dog walk into a bar... (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess it depends on your definition. A lot of people think of "their mind" and "their thoughts" as the voice they hear inside their head. Not understanding that that's just linguistic translation circuitry translating everything you think (which is why multilingual people - myself included - get the "voice inside the head" in different languages depending on who we're picturing speaking with). Also does next-word probability prediction on what other people are saying (rather reminiscent of a LLM), to aid in interpretation of noisy inputs and to call attention to unexpected words.
The thoughts come first. The translation to "the voice in your head" comes shortly after that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Non-sequitur (to the topic of whether the brain decides actions before the conscious mind thinks of them) noted.
Re: (Score:2)
And many never manage to access the thoughts that the language centers don't know how to translate.
It seems to me that what they are looking at is more like the body half of the mind-body nexus.
But there is a lot of sloppy logic going on. Many scientists mistake not within the realm of science with does not exist when in reality, science simply has nothing to say on the subject. To say that something is not in the realm of science is not an accusation nor is it a denigration.
Re: (Score:2)
And many never manage to access the thoughts that the language centers don't know how to translate.
This is why giving a name to a concept is so powerful
Re: (Score:2)
True, but difficult sometimes if you can't point at it or somehow describe it.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not disagreeing with your broader point, but thoughts and language are that separable. Language shapes thought, which in turn drives language. They are fairly interconnected, not a clean separation with higher and lower layers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
given evidence the brain seems to decide actions briefly before the conscious mind "thinks" of it.
I'm sorry. You've been the victim of bad science reporting.
I'm actually curious why you say that.
I don't have any real expertise in the field, but I've heard university lecturers recount that several decades ago a series of experiments were done to measure the time it took from when your conscious mind made a decision (such as to turn left) to when the portion of your brain that controls motor function executed it. What they found was extremely counterintuitively the opposite: the decision you thought you made consciously had been made well before those regions of
Re: (Score:2)
> So... is there some kind of misunderstanding
There are many (some I think solid) reasons why Libet's measurements don't show what some people are implying they are:
"How a Flawed Experiment “Proved” That Free Will Doesn’t Exist" - https://blogs.scientificameric... [scientificamerican.com]
Here's some more criticisms and more studies on the "Neuroscience of free will" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Very interesting, thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many (some I think solid) reasons why Libet's measurements don't show what some people are implying they are:
There are good reasons to suggest that Libet's results have been... worded stronger than they should of.
And there have also been some very shoddy arguments against them. Which leads us to...
"How a Flawed Experiment “Proved” That Free Will Doesn’t Exist" - https://blogs.scientificameric... [blogs.scie...cameric...] [scientificamerican.com]
Author has an agenda. Read his book.
I find any claims that free will must be a unique human trait to be infected by religion somewhere, and the author unwilling to admit it.
A small minority of criticisms are good, but don't come anywhere close to formally contesting the weaker formed argument of Libet- that the decis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> The real, valid criticism is that human reporting is subjective, based on a notably flawed perception. The hypothesis that free will does not exist may in fact be completely untestable. But there is evidence suggesting it.
Yes on human reporting. And yes on a lot of things happen outside our train of thoughts. I also don't think we have or don't have free will. I can't even start down that path without a clear definition of what the claim is. Not surprised about your comments on the author, the articles
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's right. Some of the process for sure, but not the whole decision process happens outside and before your're aware of it. I don't mean you're saying it does but I'm having issue with what the 'whole decision process' encompasses.
Fair- I worded that stronger than I meant to.
Re: (Score:2)
When they fall onto the losing side of the argument from self-authority, they'll respond by saying they don't need to read your links to the science that supports your position, because they know better. And then they'll call you names. I was actually disappointed to see that they didn't respond to you.
Re: Bohr, Skinner, and a dog walk into a bar... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love your comment!
My meta-argument about why 'nutrition' as a science is largely useless is as follows: science, by necessity, can only measure the effect of one independent variable on a system at a time. Experiments by design control everything but the one test variable. This leads to scientists, in this case nutrition scientists, becoming tunnel-vision obsessed with observations and conclusions based on single variables.
Yet a simple slice of lemon has dozens, if not hundreds of compounds containe
A picture (Score:2)
Old and new homunculus - https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If one thinks of DNA as a miniature antennae, and the physical brain as a receiver/sender
That's an interesting hypothesis. Next step is to devise an experiment to test it.
Re:ass backwards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine if everything you knew about people was what you could observe from the behavior of machines. You might know all about the loss of inhibition that comes from damage to brake lines and how an engine malfunction seems to result in a profound loss of motivation. You might wonder at the operation of the doors and how it relates to moving between states of quiescence and activity and that somehow, the ignition switch seems to be central to entering a wakeful state.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like you can provide a clear cut definition of either.
So most questions about those always end up in pointless discussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Studying damaged brains (a.k.a. lesion research) has also led to huge mistakes about how brains work. Scientists assume that if damage to region A causes the loss of function B, then function B must be localized in region A. That's an unjustified conclusion. Region A might simply connect 5 other regions that work together to generate function B, but the connectivity is damaged so function B can't be implemented.
"Where in the brain is the mind?" is a poor scientific question that assumes functions are locali
Re: (Score:2)
The analogy with radio does highlight that we do make a big assumption when we say the brain itself generates consciousness. And whilst it may seem like the obvious and most simple answer, that brain causes consciousness, it isn't simple, and that's the problem. The difficulty is that, whilst the brain processes information, there's also this "inner movie" effect, where a "you" experiences your life. And as you sit here reading this screen, "you" are experiencing life, and the question is, where is that exp
Re: (Score:2)
There are boatloads of evidence to support that the "mind" is an emergent property of the brain. There is none suggesting that it's a fundamental property of reality.
I enjoy the philosophical ruminations, but they're just that.
Re: (Score:3)
If the brain is an antenna, why doesn't it behave like one?
What about H.M., who couldn't commit to long term memory? How is an antenna able to communicate successfully back and forth, but only long term storage fails to work, while retrieval is still okay?
Why is there a whole bunch of drugs that cause all manners of odd effects?
Why don't we ever switch minds with somebody else?
Why can't brains be jammed? We've created everything from immensely strong transmitters (Duga radar), to immensely strong magnets (M
Re: (Score:2)
Thorazine seems to jam it pretty well.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do some toddlers briefly seem to have the memories of a deceased person?
Why do separated twins seem to emotionally share a traumatic episode when only one actually experiences it?
Why do some think of person they haven't seen in decades, only to bump into them the next day?
How can the physical brain store every single moment of someone's decades-long life, as with hyperthymesia?
An antenna conce
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I don't blame you for posting this AC. These ideas will get you branded a heretic on this site.
The only allowed view here is mind/brain identity. It doesn't make an sense, but that's what the people here believe. Brain states are mental states. Full stop. Never mind the how, that's just what they are. There is no room for debate. This will be on the test.
There's just one tiny little problem ... if mental states are nothing more than brain states, then it stands to reason that while the brain creates
Re: (Score:3)
I'm honestly confused about what's the big deal here. The materialist view is roughly "brain = CPU, mind = Linux running on the CPU".
Ob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's an analogy. And who knows how long it'll take to catch up, that doesn't really make any difference for this particular subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just not seeing what this has to do with anything, and why it matters.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just not seeing what this has to do with anything, and why it matters.
Strangely, I think that is the topic of this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What possible advantage could there be to the organism? If brain states are mental states, then there isn't any reason why we'd need to know anything about the subjective experience of any of our senses as long as they work, providing our brain with the necessary information. (The subjective feeling of pain isn't necessary as long as your brain gets the appropriate sense data and reacts accordingly.) No, such a strange, complex and metabolically expensive neural structure couldn't possibly have evolved as it's completely unnecessary. It's beyond reason, not unlike the materialist position.
Irreducible complexity argument. We've got ourselves a creationist.
Except ... the mind must affect the brain. We know this is true because we can talk about the mind.
Solid reasoning. I always knew software I write that is able to communicate its state and alter its state based on those communications had a mind of its own.
No one brands you a heretic. You're just not very intelligent.
Re:ass backwards. (Score:5, Informative)
"If one thinks of DNA as a miniature antennae, and the physical brain as a receiver/sender, one starts to get a better picture."
A picture of what, a lunatic conspiracy theorist?
DNA is a molecule that contains information, coded as a series of base pairs, that is used to build proteins. Not "to function as an antenna". It does not receive EMF with any meaningful gain. It has no means to process EMF, no "circuitry". It's not a bloody computer, it's just a long molecule on which mRNA can be templated. Your conception is like the notion that a blueprints for a computer is the actual computer, and that the computer that was built based around it is merely an antenna transmitting to the blueprints. It's lunacy.
"Thought" requires chained, self-assembling classifiers that build off each other to form ever-more-complex motifs, and we already have such a thing, and it's called "the brain". And it's bandwidth is many, many orders of magnitude higher than could be transmitted over EMF even if it were a transmitting antenna and DNA a receiving antenna, which as mentioned, they're not. Indeed, one of the main challenges to studying the brain through EMF is that the inadvertent, very weak EMF given off by synapses is a jumbled, noisy mess with an awful SNR, with individual synapses fading to indistinguishable static just a short distance from the neuron in question, making it only possible to study the activity of broad collective regions of the brain via EMF (unless you have inserted a probe into the brain, wherein it can directly observe individual synapses of neurons, but only in its immediate vicinity)
New discovery (Score:2)