Goals and Strategies in Brain Research: The Place of Comparative Neurology
Scientific explanation amounts to describing a mystery in the language of a lower, more basic level, usually the next one down. The mystery is simply pushed down to become phenomenology at the lower level, and now requires “explanation” in a still more basic language. Applied to the brain and to its organizational or system aspects, the goals here addressed, out of the many possible, are much like asking “How does a university work?” Answers at different levels are compared.
The brain presents formidable obstacles to understanding and neuroscientists take a leap of faith—or make a large bet—in acting on the assumption that it is indeed understandable to us. The choice of strategies, in the face of the difficulties, leads me to operate on several fronts, especially the relatively neglected one of comparative neurology and the search for differences among taxa, beyond their commonalities. Accounting in large degree for the neglect is an asymmetry of two kinds of search: one for universal or general mechanisms and one for significant differences, especially those relevant to behavior. Comparative physiology lags behind anatomy in discerning rules and trends; the same is true of comparative behavioral biology.
Pointing to the great span of complexity between the nervous systems of simple invertebrates and those of mammals, primates and humans, my claim is that to understand the nervous system we have to know something about how it has evolved. The amazing distance from a nearly aganglionic net to a simple ganglionic system and then an elaborately centralized brain mediating the vast behavioral repertoires of higher animals is not just an increase in size or numbers.
KeywordsBrain Research Dorsal Cochlear Nucleus Comparative Neurology System Aspect Squid Giant Axon
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Churchland PS, Sejnowski TJ (1992): The Computational Brain. Cambridge MA: Bradford Books/MIT PressGoogle Scholar
- Ewert 1-P, Arbib MA (1989): Visuomotor Coordination—Amphibians, Comparisons, Models, and Robots. New York: Plenum PressGoogle Scholar
- Gerard RW (1942): Higher levels of integration. In: Biological Symposia, Vol 8: Levels of Integration in Biological and Social Systems, Redfield R, ed. Lancaster PA: The Jaques Cattell Press, pp 67–87Google Scholar
- Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1962): Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. J Physiol 160: 106–154Google Scholar
- Josephson RK, Reiss RF, Worthy RM (1961): A simulation study of a diffuse conducting system based on coelenterate nerve nets. J Theor Biol 1: 460–487Google Scholar
- Kryukov VI, Borisyuk GN, Borisyuk RM, Kirillov AB, Kovalenko YI (1990): Metastable and unstable states in the brain. In: Stochastic Cellular Systems: Ergodicity, Memory, Morphogenesis. Part III, Dobrushin RL, Kryukov VI, Toom AL, eds. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp 225–357Google Scholar
- Lettvin JY, Maturana HR, McCulloch WS, Pitts WH (1959): What the frog’s eye tells the frog’s brain. Proc /nst Radio Engr 47: 1940–1951Google Scholar