Charlie Rose

jordanhawk  01/10/2012 02:46 PM Report

We know that changing electric field creates magnetic field and vice versa. And now we also know that neurons in our brains are constantly firing electrical signals. <a href="http://www.buy-dissertation-online.com/">Purchase Dissertation</a>

Tigoti  01/26/2011 12:27 AM Report

Brian science is a complex topic but the roundtable conversation has presented it in straightforward, simple terms that can be understood by everyone, well, at least myself. Now I have a general idea about the core reason why brain imaging studies have become so popular and also how much we now know about the brain. So I think this is an excellent intro to brain science, or should I say sciences that concern the brain.

Now I have a little wish that these roundtable conversations would also include some physicists. Because physics is about how we understand the world and brain science is about why we understand the world the way we do. There have to be some interesting connections between the two sciences, which might be revealed during conversation between physicists and neuroscientists. P.S. I have a personal hypothesis connected with electromagnetism. We know that changing electric field creates magnetic field and vice versa. And now we also know that neurons in our brains are constantly firing electrical signals, which means there is changing electric field in the brain, which in turn should generate magnetic field. Isn’t this just like the “soul” suspending above our firing neurons? Or should I say the “mind”? This is just a thought. But I think it’s interesting.

clarkjames9  07/21/2010 12:29 AM Report

which series deals with epileptic seizures and pnes. thanks jim clark

tc420691  05/19/2010 07:10 PM Report

How do you prove the brain is a single sheet of cells?

museumoftechno  04/26/2010 06:52 AM Report

@Ouria78 - why is it a conundrum that the mind can affect the brain?

Atoms exist in configurations that we call molecules, and molecular chemical reactions affect the fate of the molecules' component atoms. EG as a sugar molecule is metabolised in an animal cell, one of its carbon atoms might be released as part of a carbon dioxide molecule.

The fate of the molecule, which is an entity that emerges from the interaction of atoms, constrains and affects the fate of the atoms of which it is composed.

The same's true of the mind: mental processes emerge from biological processes in the brain, and their fate affects the fate of the biological brain.

Ouria78  04/23/2010 09:23 PM Report

I would have to disagree that "neuroscience" (whoever that is) does not simply say "the mind is the activity of the brain."

The conundrum within the field of neuroscience is that, in fact, we can use our minds to change our brain. So, if the mind is only the by-product of brain activity, how is it that the mind then appears to exert an influence over the brain?

I think the whole "mind is the activity of the brain" proponents are seriously underestimating the complexity of a field that is in its infancy.

geneoh  04/12/2010 09:47 PM Report

Please excuse my poor choice of words. The question should have read: Is there even a shred of credible empirical evidence that all thoughts etc. (what we call the mind) are not solely the product of the brain? Or, is there any credible empirical evidence for any source of thought other than the brain?

geneoh  04/12/2010 08:41 PM Report

Is there even a shred of credible evidence that all thoughts, etc. (what we call the mind)are not the sole product of the brain?

LoomingEnchantment  03/20/2010 02:17 PM Report

Dualism, the theory that the mind and brain are separate entities, seems to me incoherent: how do they connect? Descartes talks about the pineal gland as being the connection but that is just part of the brain.

Neuroscience has a much more plausible account: the mind is the activity of the brain.

tele---  03/05/2010 12:13 PM Report

REMant seems correct. I think we or rather i would say the mind is the driver of the machine called our body (chemical/electrical/mechanical device).

The brain is like a multi modular computer that both drives and responds to internal and external stimuli; as a means of making the body animate and sustaining life force.

Quantum Mechanics as mentioned in the series, should be considered, as to why and how the body exists. There are external stimuli that although not consciously noted, effect the operation of the body and thus the brain.

A simple example may be the barometric pressure or the moon and the tides (liquids of the body).

One cannot fully understand "Life" without both the operation of body and the philosophies that affect thought as an internal stimulus.

Simply put: as one thinks so too does one change.

Mr. Kandal is brilliant, but less than fully correct as i see it.

N-diggity  02/09/2010 08:50 PM Report

REMant, he never said we have learned more about the MIND in the last 5 years...He said we learned more about the BRAIN in the last 5 years. I think you were confusing the introductory comments regarding how philosophers, religious figures, etc. pondered the mind with the actual point of the series: "THE BRAIN." We most certainly have learned more about the BRAIN in the past 5 years than in the entirety of human history in my opinion; this makes logical sense if you consider the advancement of technology, and the advancement of cellular and molecular biology.

todd  01/24/2010 01:36 AM Report

All do respect Mr.REMant: Please read and re-evaluate your post/thought process. To be quite honest I'm embarrassed for you.

kylewallace69  01/21/2010 02:49 PM Report

Mant's rant is embarrassing.

kylewallace69  01/21/2010 02:47 PM Report

Read Searle's most recentbook on Neurobiology.He is not as sloppy as portrayed!

ShalomFreedman  01/19/2010 01:18 PM Report

I do not agree with Eric Kandel's opening statement to the effect that Mind is Brain. I believe John Searle corrected it when he spoke about 'subjectivity' as one of the basic elements of 'consciousness'. The other panelists also made significant contributions. A good introduction to what I believe is going to be an especially fine series.

tonycohenster  01/15/2010 10:28 PM Report

Charlie...Sorry, forgot to include the references:

Dr. Bob Jahn, plasma physics,School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Princeton.

Dr. Roger Nelson, Director of the Global Conscienceness Project at Princeton.

Dr. Ed May, Professor of Physics, Stamford University.

tonycohenster  01/15/2010 10:08 PM Report

Charlie...when you get a chance, ask about the work being done at Princeton and Stamford referencing neuronal synapses as Bioquantal Interfaces (BQI's).

REMant  01/13/2010 12:55 AM Report

We certainly have NOT learned more about the MIND in the last 5 yrs than in the history of mankind. Mind is certainly NOT a FUNCTION of the brain, anymore than ppl are a function of society, or vice versa. Neither can physiology or psychology say much about it, nor have they, Nobelists notwithstanding. I could tell in the first 5 mins that Prof Kandel has neither idea of science nor the history of psychology, and in the last 5 mins that he has little idea of politics and ethics either. It seems he is interested in what makes men Nazis, while I am interested in what makes seemingly bright ppl so often so completely wrong. In this case, the error seems to be the notion that somehow "objectifying" thought would make it possible to better understand it, which is not a significant improvement on phrenology, Darwin or behaviorism. All of the positions taken by scientists in this debate were long ago identified and discussed by philosophers and theologians, and with a very great deal more sophistication. I began my career with these very same notions, but when I realized the latter, I moved on, and even after nearly half a century I've seen nothing to change my mind. The way to understand thought is to study the various permutations of thought, by the use of sheer logic. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that genes represent a method of learning, the basis of free will, just as do those brain events that contribute to an even freer will, but this free will is fraught with danger of maladaptation, simply, the existential question.