> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19826586.100-is-this-a-unified...
> Is this a unified theory of the brain?
> 28 May 2008
> From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
> Gregory T. Huang
>
> The Bayesian Brain (MIT press)
> http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11106
>
> THE quest to understand the most complex object in the known universe has been a long and fruitful one. These days we know a good
> deal about how the human brain works - how our senses translate into electrical signals, how different parts of the brain process
> these signals, how memories form and how muscles are controlled. We know which brain regions are active when we listen to speech,
> look at paintings or barter over money. We are even starting to understand the deeper neural processes behind learning and
> decision-making.
>
> What we still don't have, though, is a way to bring all these pieces together to create an overarching theory of how the brain
> works. Despite decades of research, neuroscientists have never been able to produce their own equivalent of Schrödinger's equation
> in quantum mechanics or Einstein's E=mc2 - a powerful, concise, mathematical law that encapsulates how the brain works. Nor do they
> have a plausible road map towards a "theory of everything", like string theory in physics. Surely if we can get so close to ...

> The signs of quackery are always there with this sort of showy, populist
> exoteric science, but they are just ignored:
>
> These 'researchers' pepper their work with quaint anthropomorphisms -
> like the phrase "electrical signals".
>
> Catchy questions and contextless, empty tasks like "how does the brain
> work"  (compare the equally pointless "what is the meaning of life") try
> to rope in the easily impressed.
>
> We are introduced to the idea of a "unified brain theory". Unifying
> what? The idea of a "single equation" also sounds grand ... but these
> are empty metaphors, unlike the useful metaphors of materialist science
> from which they are borrowed. In this context the phrases don't even
> offer a target, yet presume...

> On May 29, 12:02 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>> The signs of quackery are always there with this sort of showy, populist
>> exoteric science, but they are just ignored:
>>
>> These 'researchers' pepper their work with quaint anthropomorphisms -
>> like the phrase "electrical signals".
>>
>> Catchy questions and contextless, empty tasks like "how does the brain
>> work" (compare the equally pointless "what is the meaning of life") try
>> to rope in the easily impressed.
>>
>> We are introduced to the idea of a "unified brain theory". Unifying
>> what? The idea of a "single equation" also sounds grand ... but these
>> are empty metaphors, unlike the useful metaphors of materialist science
>> from which they are borrowed. In this context the phrases don't even
>> offer a target, yet presume, and promise, to hit one.

>
> But I can say the same thing about your attempt to use words,
> sentences nd paragraphs to create such lofty theories as an argument ...

> The signs of quackery are always there with this sort of showy, populist
> exoteric science, but they are just ignored:
>
> These 'researchers' pepper their work with quaint anthropomorphisms -
> like the phrase "electrical signals".
>
> Catchy questions and contextless, empty tasks like "how does the brain
> work"  (compare the equally pointless "what is the meaning of life") try
> to rope in the easily impressed.
>
> We are introduced to the idea of a "unified brain theory". Unifying
> what? The idea of a "single equation" also sounds grand ... but these
> are empty metaphors, unlike the useful metaphors of materialist science
> from which they are borrowed. In this context the phrases don't even
> offer a target, yet presume...

> Immortalist wrote:

>> On May 29, 12:02 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>>> The signs of quackery are always there with this sort of showy, populist
>>> exoteric science, but they are just ignored:

>

>>> These 'researchers' pepper their work with quaint anthropomorphisms -
>>> like the phrase "electrical signals".

>

>>> Catchy questions and contextless, empty tasks like "how does the brain
>>> work"  (compare the equally pointless "what is the meaning of life") try
>>> to rope in the easily impressed.

>

>>> We are introduced to the idea of a "unified brain theory". Unifying
>>> what? The idea of a "single equation" also sounds grand ... but these
>>> are empty metaphors, unlike the useful metaphors of materialist science
>>> from which they are borrowed. In this context the phrases don't even
>>> offer a target, yet presume, and promise, to hit one.

>

>> But I can say the same thing about your attempt to use words, ...

> Immortalist wrote:

>> On May 29, 12:02 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>>> The signs of quackery are always there with this sort of showy, populist
>>> exoteric science, but they are just ignored:

>

>>> These 'researchers' pepper their work with quaint anthropomorphisms -
>>> like the phrase "electrical signals".

>

>>> Catchy questions and contextless, empty tasks like "how does the brain
>>> work"  (compare the equally pointless "what is the meaning of life") try
>>> to rope in the easily impressed.

>

>>> We are introduced to the idea of a "unified brain theory". Unifying
>>> what? The idea of a "single equation" also sounds grand ... but these
>>> are empty metaphors, unlike the useful metaphors of materialist science
>>> from which they are borrowed. In this context the phrases don't even
>>> offer a target, yet presume, and promise, to hit one.

>

>> But I can say the same thing about your attempt to use words, ...

> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19826586.100-is-thi...
> Is this a unified theory of the brain?
> 28 May 2008
> From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
> Gregory T. Huang
>
> The Bayesian Brain (MIT press)http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11106
>
> THE quest to understand the most complex object in the known universe has been a long and fruitful one. These days we know a good
> deal about how the human brain works - how our senses translate into electrical signals, how different parts of the brain process
> these signals, how memories form and how muscles are controlled. We know which brain regions are active when we listen to speech,
> look at paintings or barter over money. We are even starting to understand the deeper neural processes behind learning and
> decision-making.
>
> What we still don't have, though, is a way to bring all these pieces together to create an overarching theory of how the brain
> works. Despite decades of research, neuroscientists have never been able to produce their own equivalent of Schrödinger's equation
> in quantum mechanics or Einstein's E=mc2 - a powerful, concise, mathematical law that encapsulates how the brain works. Nor do they
> have a plausible road map towards a "theory of everything", like string theory in physics. Surely if we can get so close to
> explaining the universe, the human brain can't be that hard to crack? ...