HN Books @HNBooksMonth

> if you took the optic nerve and attached it to another part of the neocortex, that part would become the visual region.

FYI, that is super hand-wavey and covers over a lot about how the path of the information from the cones/rods gets into V1. The chain of neurons that pass infomation from your eyes to V1 is well studied [0]. Interruptions in that path cause a lot of sightedness issues and are not fun diseases to have. The musician, Stevie Wonder, among others, aledgedly has a form of blindness known as blindsight [1] where relfexes to motion are perserved, but information is not passed into the conscious mind.

In the end, though neuroscience is a facinating subject, we're just in the beginning of our understanding of the brain. More research is needed.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_chiasm a good place to start learning about the chain of information transfer.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

EDIT: Additionally, if you want to learn more about neuroscience, the best place to look is at Kandel's Principals of Neural Science [2]. It is a tome of a book, but is the best place to get a deep dive into the brain and our understanding of it. I've not yet seen anything else that is somewhat accessible to the general public but also gets into all the issues with any particular experiment. Most pop-sci book brush over a lot of the very important and thorny issues that each experiment has. I'd also love to know of a good book that is more accessible than Kandel.

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Fifth-Kande...

⬐ outworlder

Incidentally, Blindsight is the name of a science fiction novel which I really like. The name is inspired by that phenomenom, but it covers a lot of ground, from neurological processes to how aliens would look like (and how they would think), chinese room, etc.

https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm

In neuroscience:

Principles of Neural Science, Fifth Edition (Principles of Neural Science (Kandel)) 5th Edition

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Fifth-Kande...

Also relevant, though maybe deviating a bit from engineering: Principles of Neural Science by Kandel and Schwartz https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Fifth-Kande...

>It's what the majority of the world believes

This has never been a good proxy for truth. It is also completely irrelevant given that the majority of the world has never studied neuroscience.

>science has no idea what consciousness is

Not true. Neuroscience has discovered a lot about consciousness. I recommend Principles of Neural Science if you're interested: https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Fifth-Kande...

>Plus, there are all kinds of problems and contradictions if the mind reduces to matter.

Such as?

⬐ yters

Most of our life is lived off of beliefs the majority of the world believes. It is only an extremely small subset that we've reduced to science and technology.

Perhaps you can explain what science has discovered about consciousness. As far as I know, the closest is a network analysis metric used to signify whether something is conscious. But that does not tell us what consciousness is, only some of the necessary conditions, if that.

Here is a list of problems off the top of my head regarding material minds:

- Math is inherently immaterial. I cannot destroy the number 1. Infinity cannot physically exist. Negative numbers, zero, imaginary numbers, the real number line do not correspond to physical objects.

- If our mind is material, there is no way we can know any kind of truth. Truth doesn't really have meaning. Yet we do know some degree of truth.

- If consciousness is a particular configuration, then the same configuration is the same consciousness, which would imply instantaneous awareness of two completely distinct parts of the universe by the same consciousness with two copies of the configuration.

- Free will and qualia have no meaning in a materialistic worldview, yet are essential to just about everything we do everyday.

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Fifth-Kande...

This is a good text, at an upper-div/grad level, of fundamental neuroscience with all sources cited.

That particular connection is straightforward to do in humans. A Golgi stain to the rector muscles/ON and dissection in cadavers would be sufficient to trace the reflex to the SC and then another Golgi stain to that area to get back to the optic nerve. I'm unfamiliar with the toxicity of Golgi stains, but it may be able to be done alive.

Also, the visual systems to the brain-stem are remarkably conserved through evolution. I would not be surprised to see this connection in lampreys. That any significant percent of humans lack it would be a hell of paper.

Blind individuals usually have these reflexes too (like Stevie Wonder): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

⬐ nonbel

>"This is a good text, at an upper-div/grad level, of fundamental neuroscience with all sources cited."

I was able to check a bit and see no citations: "The human brain contains a huge number of these cells, on the order of 10^11 neurons, that can be classified into at least a thousand different types." https://neurology.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=1049&sec...

That 10^11 number is out of thin air. How was it determined? That is what a citation is for.

>"I'm unfamiliar with the toxicity of Golgi stains, but it may be able to be done alive."

No, the gogli stain is very toxic. It depends on a precipitate forming in "random" (no one knows why) cells. Also I see no reason it couldn't spread from cell to cell (via gap junctions, etc) so that method isn't too convincing.

>"Also, the visual systems to the brain-stem are remarkably conserved through evolution."

You can remove a rat's cerebrum and have it stay alive and keep doing stuff: "Cage climbing, resistance to gravity, suspension and muscle tone reactions, rhythmic vibrissae movements and examination of objects with snout and mandible were difficult to distinguish from controls." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/630411

Rodents are much more reliant on their brainstem than humans, I wouldn't be at all surprised that there are large differences. In fact, there's been a long debate about a similar claim regarding the cortico-spinal tract:

"Direct connections between corticospinal (CS) axons and motoneurons (MNs) appear to be present only in higher primates, where they are essential for discrete movement of the digits. Their presence in adult rodents was once claimed but is now questioned." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4704511/

⬐ Balgair

I don't know what to tell you then. My copy of Kandel is pretty robust on the citations, IMO. Like, yeah, they don't cite any papers on who discovered the brain, but like, you know you have one. Remember, bio is squishy, especially neuro. We just discovered that the immune system is actually in the brain too, like, 3 years ago.

If you really have a problem with Kandel, use email. Most authors of these types of book NEVER get any email about them and would be thrilled to have some interaction with a reader.

⬐ nonbel

It's nothing specific to Kandel, I just find the standards of scholarship practiced by textbooks to be poor. Like I said, the book will be filled with claims like:

"The optic nerve is directly connected to the superior colliculus"

It seems very factual and set in stone but I bet if you read the primary literature there will be variation and doubt. If you read my last ref you will see they claim direct connections between CST and motorneurons in rats of some ages but not others. Perhaps this optic nerve claim was made based on using animals of a certain age, so it won't generalize. Who knows? That's why there should be a citation.

tl;dr Current textbook practices promote false certainty, and I don't think it is helpful for learning about a topic.

⬐ goldenkey

Thats what I love about mathematics. Its entirely proof based. And yet the good books strive to give intuition too and show how new ideas and structures can be used.

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Fifth-Kande...

⬐ return0

That and Larry Squire's Fundamental https://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Neuroscience-Fourth-Squir... are the bibles. Don't be intimidated by the size of the books they are actually easy to read.

Yes, 'taste' is incredibly complicated and there are many elements to it, from texture, to smell, to temperature, to emotional state, to blood pressure, etc. We are still discovering what tastes humans actually possess and where they possess them in their bodies. What you are classifying as 'taste' is many things other than the definition of taste; you include smell and texture in the lists above. Especially on the bitter part, human sensation of bitter is highly variable from person to person. What you may consider bitter may not be able to be sensed by your customers and what you cannot sense may be tasted by your customers, hence why many confectioners tend towards a similar mean taste profile (pepsi/coke). You mention that things may 'taste like wood', this is a cultural association that you may want to be aware of. Try getting other people from other cultures/environments to drink your stuff and see if they also report these sensations. As far as 'drying out your mouth', this is again highly variable depending on hydration, humidity, personal preference, etc. For example, a friend of mine loves seltzer water for 'the burn', while I hate it for the exact same reason. I also drink my coffee black these days, but I will change my taste from time to time. Mostly I am just addicted to caffeine and coffee is the cheapest way to get the fix.

For more information on the sensation of taste and all it's myriad complexities, you may want to check out these resources:

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/dep... Sue is a world expert on taste, along with Tom Finger, and her work is excellent in every way.

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Fifth-Kande... The bible of neural sciences, though thick and dense, the sections on gustation and olfaction may prove useful to your endeavors.

Edit: Here are some other resources on how to modify your taste sensation to better understand how your taste buds work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Taste_modifiers

There is also a supplement that you can take that will elliminate your sensation of sweet for a few hours, but I forget the name

Lastly, to understand umami, try getting a few bags of chips of similar salt content and hold your nose the entire time. One of just regular Lays potato chips, one of something like Doritos, and one of those baked Parmesan cheese ships from whole foods. While eating them with your nose held close, try to recognize the changes in the umami taste.

Please pick up a neuroscience textbook such as this one : http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Edition-Kand... (here is the camel camel camel page for price comparison: http://camelcamelcamel.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Edition... )

Much of what you say is correct on the first pass, and is better than that of the typical citizen, however, some important details are missing. It seems like you are actually interested in the subject and would benefit from learning in depth about the subjects.

The mind does indeed work in parallel, but you cannot focus on 2 things at once. I think you are referring to reflexes, which are subtlety different than cerebellar functioning and 'automatic' movements. You are very much in control of your own mind, how else would you define what a mind is? However, you are correct in thinking that certain neural processes are outside of our control and that our mind is conditioned by experience to perceive things in a schema.

Really though, the book I linked is great for you, as it seems you have an interest in the subject and want to learn more.

⬐ sebkomianos

"You are very much in control of your own mind, how else would you define what a mind is?"

Immediately after I read this I tried to think about it. After only a few seconds I closed my eyes in the fashion we close our eyes when thinking about a concept "hurts" (I am very tired, been on the front of the laptop screen pretty much the whole day). Which led me to consider "tiredness": I can define what it is but I can definitely not control it - it happens or it doesn't. Care to elaborate a bit more on your thought?

⬐ Balgair

The way to figure out that you are your mind and are in control of it is to look at people who cannot do so. Are feelings a part of your mind? Are intrusive thoughts your fault or your brains? When you do something that you do not want to, who is doing that? Is that you?

The mind body problem is not really a problem, we are our bodies and minds at the same time. Any patient with an aphasia or neural defect will tell you they just cannot think in a way that they used to. Stoke victims are the same, or people that grew up mute and deaf and now use sign language. The mind is so very complicated, quite the understatement.

In the end, you are your mind, there can be not other definition, you are the person in it, who it is. Therefore, you are in control, or you lack the control to use it, you are the driver of the car and the car itself.