Radiolab

Navigate
Return Home

The Unconscious Toscanini of the Brain

Back to Episode

How does the brain produce a thought? Or experience a unitary, whole, synchronized perception of a cup of coffee? For neuroscientists, this is the Mount Everest of questions. We have a look at one possible theory (that a thought is like lots of little neurons singing together in harmony) and then visit neurologist Christof Koch to ask: who conducts the brain chorus? Koch thinks he knows, and he tells us of the cutting edge work of one of science’' great thinkers, Francis Crick...an inquiry which lasted until his dying day.

Comments [5]

Charlie from Ann Arbor, MI

This episode is one of the best I've heard. It takes the study of brain to its logical conclusion, to "consciousness" which is only in the past 5 or 10 years becoming accessible to modern scientific methods. I do not accept the contention that consciousness can't arise from "just the brain." The brain has about 100,000,000,000,000 connections between neurons, a truly vast number. Why can't all those connections working together at the same time (the brain is very active even when we are daydreaming) make something as magical as consciousness?

Nov. 08 2013 06:26 PM
JTM from near 60 North

@I_e_Cox "Don't they know that their cousins in psychiatry have already discovered that memory survives body death? "

Care to provide reliable references ?

Nov. 07 2013 05:19 PM
Christian M from PA

I'm surprised that there was no mention of the Buddhist idea of "no soul." A foundational Buddhist belief is that who/what we think we are arises from the interactions of the phenomena of the "world"--none of which is permanent. There is no "I" or in Koch's phrase, inner conductor, behind/beneath the conditions of existence. The Buddha's insight through meditation (the analysis of consciousness as experienced as consciousness) was that there was no "me" there. It was the letting go of ego in the deepest sense that extinguished (nirvana) the causes of suffering (dukkha). Koch and Susan Greenfield had an article in Scientific American a few years ago where they disagreed about a bunch of things but I think they agreed that the "hard problem of consciousness"--that a physical body (3-4 lb. brain) has "immaterial" thoughts--can't really be explained. What neuroscience can do is describe the physical correlates (whether through specialized neurons in certain regions, or synchronicity, or emergence) to thought--but that doesn't explain "thought" itself.

Nov. 14 2012 09:35 PM

I'm listening to this episode right now. I am so frustrated! They refuse to leave the bounds of neuroscience to solve this problem. Why? Why should neuroscience know about the higher levels of consciousness when they specialize in studying the brain? Don't they know that their cousins in psychiatry have already discovered that memory survives body death? And that thousands of people knew this before anyway? So it can't all be in the brain. It just can't. They'll never solve it with a brain-only model of consciousness. Never.

Jul. 16 2011 05:04 PM
Ellie

Being a person who is listenign to the podcasts with out any bend whether religous or no, i believe they have every right to say if they think its "holy" or not. it isn't like they were saying hey you atheists out there its all God, no there were two sides on the pod cast, one said they thought it was holy and they other said he didn't think so. there was no reason to say hey you doing the pod cast you can't say what you think.

Jan. 29 2011 11:43 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.