Understanding the human brain

[Tres Juicy]

Hi all,

 

My question is this:

 

Can we ever hope to fully understand the brain when the most powerful tool in our possesion is the brain itself?

 

Also, much of the brain is inaccessable to us consciously.

 

Can a system (such as the brain) be "pointed" at itself?

 

I'm struggling to phrase this correctly... but you guys are intelligent enough to get my gist.

[iNow]

Can we ever hope to fully understand the brain when the most powerful tool in our possesion is the brain itself?

I think your premise is false. The most powerful tool in our possession is not just one brain. It's the collective power of all brains combined, itself supplemented with amazing technology, reference information, and past understandings. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and the whole in this instance is the collective thinking and technology of everyone considering the issue in different ways.

[Tres Juicy]

I think your premise is false. The most powerful tool in our possession is not just one brain. It's the collective power of all brains combined, itself supplemented with amazing technology, reference information, and past understandings. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and the whole in this instance is the collective thinking and technology of everyone considering the issue in different ways.

 

 

"It's the collective power of all brains combined, itself supplemented with amazing technology, reference information, and past understandings"

 

All of which are products of the brain -

 

My question is complex and difficult for me to articulate nicely...

 

A quick rephrase:

Since all technology and thought is a product of the brain, can this product accurately describe the thing that created it?

 

The brain is more complex than the thoughts it produces and since thoughts are our tools for examining the brain, will they always fall short?

 

What does an egg know of chickens??

[Rilx]

Can we ever hope to fully understand the brain when the most powerful tool in our possesion is the brain itself?

 

Also, much of the brain is inaccessable to us consciously.

 

Can a system (such as the brain) be "pointed" at itself?

For everyone of us there are 7 billion objective brains and one subjective brain. As if you'd ask, "Can a unique subjective brain understand itself by itself?". No, but the question is irrelevant. We create hypothetical models of brains and test objectively how they work. It's standard science and I don't see why brain research would need other methods.

 

Another thing is that we have strong intuitive beliefs about how brains work. Those beliefs are our current models, they originate from phenomena which we see resembling brains (like computers), and they are generally wrong. Our brains are a biological organ; the biggest barrier to understand it is our logical mind.

[Tres Juicy]

For everyone of us there are 7 billion objective brains and one subjective brain. As if you'd ask, "Can a unique subjective brain understand itself by itself?". No, but the question is irrelevant. We create hypothetical models of brains and test objectively how they work. It's standard science and I don't see why brain research would need other methods.

 

Another thing is that we have strong intuitive beliefs about how brains work. Those beliefs are our current models, they originate from phenomena which we see resembling brains (like computers), and they are generally wrong. Our brains are a biological organ; the biggest barrier to understand it is our logical mind.

 

"the biggest barrier to understand it is our logical mind."

 

This is sort of what I mean, how much can you understand about the thing doing the understanding?

[Rilx]

It's not understanding, it's transcending the old beliefs. As soon as some new Einstein or Darwin does it, it will be no problem most people to understand it.

 

Beliefs, most weird and irreal, prevent us seeing what's real. That's the barrier. The question "how much can you understand about the thing doing the understanding?" is barking up the wrong tree, IMO.

[Tres Juicy]

It's not understanding, it's transcending the old beliefs. As soon as some new Einstein or Darwin does it, it will be no problem most people to understand it.

 

Beliefs, most weird and irreal, prevent us seeing what's real. That's the barrier. The question "how much can you understand about the thing doing the understanding?" is barking up the wrong tree, IMO.

 

 

"It's not understanding, it's transcending the old beliefs"

I have to disagree with this, science doesn't run on "old beliefs", it runs on observable evidence

 

"The question "how much can you understand about the thing doing the understanding?" is barking up the wrong tree, IMO."

 

Again I'd have to disagree, I think it's a perfectly valid question considering the tool of our understanding is what we're examining. In a different context, asking myself if my tools were appropriate for the job at hand is not only reasonable but necassary

[iNow]

My question is complex and difficult for me to articulate nicely...

 

A quick rephrase:

Since all technology and thought is a product of the brain, can this product accurately describe the thing that created it?

Yes, and I personally think it's rather silly to assume it cannot.

[Tres Juicy]

Yes, and I personally think it's rather silly to assume it cannot.

 

Would you care to elaborate? I'm a little in the dark as to your reasoning...

[iNow]

I don't think I need to elaborate, no. You expressed an opinion which I found silly. Your opinion seems to suggest that you have simply never spent much time studying neuroscience or psychology, and so it seems all big and scary and impossible to understand. For those who have, however, spent time studying those things, I think it's clear that... Yes, we can use our brains to help understand brains.

[Tres Juicy]

I don't think I need to elaborate, no. You expressed an opinion which I found silly. Your opinion seems to suggest that you have simply never spent much time studying neuroscience or psychology, and so it seems all big and scary and impossible to understand. For those who have, however, spent time studying those things, I think it's clear that... Yes, we can use our brains to help understand brains.

 

"I don't think I need to elaborate, no."

 

It is simple courtesy to give your reasoning in a discussion such as this, correct me if I'm wrong but wading in with "No, that's silly" is not only rude but also not conducive to a good debate.

 

"You expressed an opinion which I found silly."

 

Really? I am given to understand that there are no silly questions, only silly answers...

 

Also, it's not really an opinion, I quite clearly phrased it as a question. What is silly about questioning things? Isn't that what drives progress and understanding?

 

"Your opinion seems to suggest that you have simply never spent much time studying neuroscience or psychology..."

 

Well, excuse me for not being a neuroscientist...

 

My Question suggests the possibilty that we have a limited capacity for understanding and that the brain, particularly things like consiousness and the formation of thoughts, may be beyond this capability. Can we ever hope to fully understand consiousness using our consiousness to examine it?

"...and so it seems all big and scary and impossible to understand."

 

I find this a little patronising and expected better responses, particularly from experienced members.

 

Nevermind, you seem to have misconstrued my question. I am not saying its impossible, only that there may be a limit to what we can do with the tools available (our brains), and was interested in getting the opinions of the other members.

 

"For those who have, however, spent time studying those things, I think it's clear that... Yes, we can use our brains to help understand brains."

 

This is stating the obvious I feel. The key word you've used here is "help".

 

Again, my question is not so simple as you have made it out to be and I feel that your argument is based on "reductio ad absurdum" to some extent and certainly not a fair reflection of the validity of the original post in which I mention that it may not be articulated in the best way and credit readers with the intelligence to discern my meaning, a stategy which until now has worked well on this forum due to the quality of its members.

[Rilx]

"The question "how much can you understand about the thing doing the understanding?" is barking up the wrong tree, IMO."

 

Again I'd have to disagree, I think it's a perfectly valid question considering the tool of our understanding is what we're examining. In a different context, asking myself if my tools were appropriate for the job at hand is not only reasonable but necassary

TJ, I think you should tell about the logic, causality or anything which you think prevents brains understanding how it works. General comments about tools doesn't help. Surgeons operate hands using their hands.

 

I understand the intuitive idea which you have explained being the premise of your question. But your question cannot be answered - anyway not in the way that would satisfy you (as we have seen) - if you don't give us more details about the intuitive process. Yes, you asked for that kind of responses but no one else can crawl into your brains and check what you think.

[Tres Juicy]

TJ, I think you should tell about the logic, causality or anything which you think prevents brains understanding how it works. General comments about tools doesn't help. Surgeons operate hands using their hands.

 

I understand the intuitive idea which you have explained being the premise of your question. But your question cannot be answered - anyway not in the way that would satisfy you (as we have seen) - if you don't give us more details about the intuitive process. Yes, you asked for that kind of responses but no one else can crawl into your brains and check what you think.

 

"Surgeons operate hands using their hands."

 

Surgeons operate their own hands using their brains - surgeons use their hands to operate on other peoples hands

 

I don't see your point here

 

 

 

"no one else can crawl into your brains and check what you think."

 

Fair point - I'm not able to put this as clearly as I would like to

 

I think my question is better phrased:

"Can we ever hope to fully understand consiousness using our consiousness to examine it?"

 

Can consiousness understand itself?

[Rilx]

I think my question is better phrased:

"Can we ever hope to fully understand consiousness using our consiousness to examine it?"

 

Can consiousness understand itself?

Hmm... let's take a step backwards. Do you mean understanding our own consciousness solely using our own consciousness? Without using any scientific or other acquired external knowledge?

[Tres Juicy]

Hmm... let's take a step backwards. Do you mean understanding our own consciousness solely using our own consciousness? Without using any scientific or other acquired external knowledge?

 

Another good point.

 

But when you think about it anything we do or create to help us in this task is a product of our brain/consiousness, including scientific/technological aids.

 

Also, external knowledge will have come from someone elses brain/consiousness and will have similar limitations as our own.

[iNow]

"I don't think I need to elaborate, no."

 

It is simple courtesy to give your reasoning in a discussion such as this

So?

 

"You expressed an opinion which I found silly."

 

Really? I am given to understand that there are no silly questions, only silly answers...

Well, that's not only silly, but ridiculous.

 

Also, it's not really an opinion, I quite clearly phrased it as a question. What is silly about questioning things?

Fair enough, but let's first review something here since you're misrepresenting me. I didn't say that questioning things is silly, so you're now basically strawmanning my position.

 

You asked a question, and replied with an affirmative answer. To paraphrase I said, "Yes, I we can use brains to understand brains and I think it would be silly to assume otherwise." You asked me if I'd care to elaborate (and I said I really didn't want to, but I did anyway), and you said you were unclear about my reasoning. I noted that this implied you had not bothered to put forth much study into the domain about which you are pontificating.

 

To summarize... Even a remedial review of the most basic research in neuroscience and psychology immediately answers your question in the affirmative and supports my response about same.

 

"Your opinion seems to suggest that you have simply never spent much time studying neuroscience or psychology..."

 

Well, excuse me for not being a neuroscientist...

Ok.

 

My Question suggests the possibilty that we have a limited capacity for understanding and that the brain, particularly things like consiousness and the formation of thoughts, may be beyond this capability.

I agree we have limited capacities, but it does not follow from this agreed upon limit that things like understanding the formation of thoughts and consciousness is "beyond" them.

 

Can we ever hope to fully understand consiousness using our consiousness to examine it?

Sure, and I think it's silly to assume otherwise. Haven't we already covered this?

 

"...and so it seems all big and scary and impossible to understand."

 

I find this a little patronising and expected better responses, particularly from experienced members.

So? You should know that I was seeking to cut you some slack with that comment. It's okay not to know something, and pointing to a lack of knowledge is not necessarily patronizing or insulting. It could very well be an objective and true observation, which in this case it was.

 

 

Nevermind, you seem to have misconstrued my question.

Not at all. Your question was quite clear. I answered it, and answered it clearly. It was the nature of your probing that I found strange, and it is that to which I've been replying since putting forth that affirmative response in my first reply.

 

I am not saying its impossible, only that there may be a limit to what we can do with the tools available (our brains), and was interested in getting the opinions of the other members.

And, I shared my opinion, so what's the problem? I agree there are limits to the abilities of the human brain. I don't agree that one of those limits is the ability to probe and understand the functioning of the brain or to explore the nature of consciousness.

 

"For those who have, however, spent time studying those things, I think it's clear that... Yes, we can use our brains to help understand brains."

 

This is stating the obvious I feel.

Me, too. However, it didn't appear that way at all given your responses.

 

Again, my question is not so simple as you have made it out to be and I feel that your argument is based on "reductio ad absurdum" to some extent and certainly not a fair reflection of the validity of the original post in which I mention that it may not be articulated in the best way and credit readers with the intelligence to discern my meaning, a stategy which until now has worked well on this forum due to the quality of its members.

Your question is, actually, quite simple. We already do use our brains to understand our brains, to probe the nature of consciousness, and to discover the underlying mechanisms of thought generation. Whatever your feelings about me, the members here, or the clarity and precision of your question... The answer to that question is quite plainly, yes... And I personally think it's silly to assume that we cannot use our brains to understand brains... Exactly as I said the first time.

 

.

 

 

 

[/b]Fair point - I'm not able to put this as clearly as I would like to

 

I think my question is better phrased:

"Can we ever hope to fully understand consiousness using our consiousness to examine it?"

 

Can consiousness understand itself?

Yes, why wouldn't it?

[Tres Juicy]

"I don't think I need to elaborate, no."

 

It is simple courtesy to give your reasoning in a discussion such as this

 

So?

Ok, lets ignore common coutesy, if you have a differing view it is customary to explain it for the benefit of the other party - they may well agree with you.

 

"You expressed an opinion which I found silly."

 

Really? I am given to understand that there are no silly questions, only silly answers...

 

Well, that's not only silly, but ridiculous.

 

Not really, it's certainly an over statement but questions are important - as I said, questions drive progress and understanding (you left that part out by the way along with the fact that it wasn't an opinion it was a question).

 

Also, it's not really an opinion, I quite clearly phrased it as a question. What is silly about questioning things?

 

Fair enough, but let's first review something here since you're misrepresenting me. I didn't say that questioning things is silly, so you're now basically strawmanning my position.

 

You asked a question, and replied with an affirmative answer. To paraphrase I said, "Yes, I we can use brains to understand brains and I think it would be silly to assume otherwise." You asked me if I'd care to elaborate (and I said I really didn't want to, but I did anyway), and you said you were unclear about my reasoning. I noted that this implied you had not bothered to put forth much study into the domain about which you are pontificating.

 

To summarize... Even a remedial review of the most basic research in neuroscience and psychology immediately answers your question in the affirmative and supports my response about same.

 

I'm certainly not misrepresenting or straw-manning you. I am merely pointing out that it is neither "silly" or an opinion.

 

As for "not bothering to put forth study..." How could any amount of study on my part enlighten me as to your reasoning? When I asked you to elaborate it was out of genuine interest, an attempt to gather information so as to form an opinion. That's natural in any converstion where there may be differing points of view, particularly if one party is undecided on the matter.

 

I also think that the section I have highlighted red is massively exaggerated.

 

"Your opinion seems to suggest that you have simply never spent much time studying neuroscience or psychology..."

 

Well, excuse me for not being a neuroscientist...

 

Ok.

 

This was intended as sarcasm but nevermind...

 

My Question suggests the possibilty that we have a limited capacity for understanding and that the brain, particularly things like consiousness and the formation of thoughts, may be beyond this capability.

 

I agree we have limited capacities, but it does not follow from this agreed upon limit that things like understanding the formation of thoughts and consciousness is "beyond" them.

 

I certainly didn't say that it does, again I asked if that may be the case due to the complex nature of the brain/consiousness. It is not fair to cry strawman and then put words in my mouth. Play fair.

 

 

Can we ever hope to fully understand consiousness using our consiousness to examine it?

 

Sure, and I think it's silly to assume otherwise. Haven't we already covered this?

 

We have, sort of.... I wanted to make the distinction between brain and consiousness here to clarify my point. And still no real reasoning as to why you feel this way.

 

"...and so it seems all big and scary and impossible to understand."

 

I find this a little patronising and expected better responses, particularly from experienced members.

 

So? You should know that I was seeking to cut you some slack with that comment. It's okay not to know something, and pointing to a lack of knowledge is not necessarily patronizing or insulting. It could very well be an objective and true observation, which in this case it was.

 

While it is true that I do lack knowledge on the subject, the point of the thread was to learn something. A goal that could not be acheived from your "bare bones" response, which is why I asked for your continued input in the form of your reasoning, not a big ask I feel - if you know more about a subject than I do is there any reason why I can't pick your brain? Especially in an environment such as this where you chose to enter the conversation - it's not like I came to your house and pestered you for information, if that were the case feel free to tell me where to go....

 

Nevermind, you seem to have misconstrued my question.

 

Not at all. Your question was quite clear. I answered it, and answered it clearly. It was the nature of your probing that I found strange, and it is that to which I've been replying since putting forth that affirmative response in my first reply.

 

Yes, while I have to agree that your answer was very clear, it tells me nothing (other than I am apparently "silly"), and does not add much to the general thread.

 

I am not saying its impossible, only that there may be a limit to what we can do with the tools available (our brains), and was interested in getting the opinions of the other members.

 

And, I shared my opinion, so what's the problem? I agree there are limits to the abilities of the human brain. I don't agree that one of those limits is the ability to probe and understand the functioning of the brain or to explore the nature of consciousness.

 

Yes you shared your opinion, but in general you back it up with some reasoning, again this could be common courtesy or just to make things clear for the other parties involved.

 

"For those who have, however, spent time studying those things, I think it's clear that... Yes, we can use our brains to help understand brains."

 

This is stating the obvious I feel.

Me, too. However, it didn't appear that way at all given your responses.

 

Again, for someone who was very quick to cry strawman you've only quoted part of what I said....

 

Again, my question is not so simple as you have made it out to be and I feel that your argument is based on "reductio ad absurdum" to some extent and certainly not a fair reflection of the validity of the original post in which I mention that it may not be articulated in the best way and credit readers with the intelligence to discern my meaning, a stategy which until now has worked well on this forum due to the quality of its members.

 

Your question is, actually, quite simple. We already do use our brains to understand our brains, to probe the nature of consciousness, and to discover the underlying mechanisms of thought generation. Whatever your feelings about me, the members here, or the clarity and precision of your question... The answer to that question is quite plainly, yes... And I personally think it's silly to assume that we cannot use our brains to understand brains... Exactly as I said the first time.

 

 

I disagree that it's a simple question to answer. Yes we use our brains to understand our brains (what else would we use?). I would suggest a quick review of the OP - The placement of the word "Fully" is the key here.

 

My feeling are not the issue, I dont have a problem with you or anyone else. My problem is that without any reason for your comments how do I go about gaining anything from the discussion?

 

Fair point - I'm not able to put this as clearly as I would like to

 

I think my question is better phrased:

"Can we ever hope to fully understand consiousness using our consiousness to examine it?"

 

Can consiousness understand itself?

 

Yes, why wouldn't it?

 

So, you think that we are capable of FULLY understanding the brain and consiousness? Can you provide your reasoning for this?

Edited December 22, 2011 by Tres Juicy

[iNow]

Do you think we can ever FULLY understand anything? The addition of the term "fully" as a qualifier could be added to just about anything. Do you think we can ever FULLY understand evolution? Do you think we can ever FULLY understand how insulation keeps one warm, or how food provides energy? Do you think we can ever FULLY understand the relationship between a child and their parents, or the way terms combine in an equation?

 

This has become an incredibly strange thread in a very short time. It's unclear where you drawing the line between "fully understanding" and "not fully understanding."

 

It's unclear why you would have any reason to doubt that we can understand the brain and consciousness with our collective brains and shared consciousness (supplemented by our technologies and other resources) as our tools in this endeavor.

[Ahsan Iqbal]

Since all technology and thought is a product of the brain, can this product accurately describe the thing that created it?

The brain is more complex than the thoughts it produces and since thoughts are our tools for examining the brain, will they always fall short?

What does an egg know of chickens??

It is not like what you are trying to make it. No matter how complex a thing becomes, it will still be composed of some basic components and all we need to do is find out those basic components and their arrangement. It is very common for an artist to break complex structures and illustrations into simple basic forms and then make proper arrangements to correctly express the original illustration. I might sound a little strange but think of complex organic molecules. Think of DNA. We have uncoded their mysteries because we found out the basic elements that make them and then we found the proper arrangement.

 

The same applies to brain. We are not limited by thoughts because every complex thought can be broken down into simple components, most of which we know. The most important hinderance in brain research is the access to it. No other living being has nearly as complex forebrain as human beings and because we cannot perform brain experiments directly on humans, we are limited to under-developed brain samples, which can never provide sufficient information.

 

So in my opinion, to understand something, you first need to have access to it, which in this case is not going to happen as brain experiments are fatal. That is why brain research lags so much behind.

[DrmDoc]

It is not like what you are trying to make it. No matter how complex a thing becomes, it will still be composed of some basic components and all we need to do is find out those basic components and their arrangement. It is very common for an artist to break complex structures and illustrations into simple basic forms and then make proper arrangements to correctly express the original illustration. I might sound a little strange but think of complex organic molecules. Think of DNA. We have uncoded their mysteries because we found out the basic elements that make them and then we found the proper arrangement.

 

The same applies to brain. We are not limited by thoughts because every complex thought can be broken down into simple components, most of which we know. The most important hinderance in brain research is the access to it. No other living being has nearly as complex forebrain as human beings and because we cannot perform brain experiments directly on humans, we are limited to under-developed brain samples, which can never provide sufficient information.

 

So in my opinion, to understand something, you first need to have access to it, which in this case is not going to happen as brain experiments are fatal. That is why brain research lags so much behind.

In fact, we do have access to human brain study via brain injury, anormality, surgical intervention, and equilvalent animal studies. We've learned a great deal about the nature of human brain function from animal studies in particular. For example, luocotomy (lobotomy), which earned a Noble for its founder and continues to be in limited use today, originated from primate behavioral studies. There isn't very much we can't or don't understand about our brain given our continued access to the types of brain studies I've cited. Also, I agree that our overall understanding of the brain relies on understanding of its basic components beginning from its most primitive to its most recent --relative to how our brain likely evolved to its present state.

[Greg Boyles]

"It's the collective power of all brains combined, itself supplemented with amazing technology, reference information, and past understandings"

 

All of which are products of the brain -

 

My question is complex and difficult for me to articulate nicely...

 

A quick rephrase:

Since all technology and thought is a product of the brain, can this product accurately describe the thing that created it?

 

The brain is more complex than the thoughts it produces and since thoughts are our tools for examining the brain, will they always fall short?

 

What does an egg know of chickens??

 

You could widen your perspective say exactly the same about quantum mechanics and relativity etc. How can biologicial construct, generated by the cosmos possibly undertand the cosmos that created it?

 

But we can and have begun to understand the secrets of quantum mechanics and relativity at the heart of cosmos as the success of of various technologies, based on those secrets we have discovered, attest.

 

It is the scientific discipline that will, theoretically at least allow, us to understand how the brain works in full eventually. It is this discipline that has and does allow us to overcome the biases and other limitations of our brains that would otherwise stand in the way of us understanding our own brains.

[Ahsan Iqbal]

In fact, we do have access to human brain study via brain injury, anormality, surgical intervention, and equilvalent animal studies. We've learned a great deal about the nature of human brain function from animal studies in particular. For example, luocotomy (lobotomy), which earned a Noble for its founder and continues to be in limited use today, originated from primate behavioral studies. There isn't very much we can't or don't understand about our brain given our continued access to the types of brain studies I've cited. Also, I agree that our overall understanding of the brain relies on understanding of its basic components beginning from its most primitive to its most recent --relative to how our brain likely evolved to its present state.

 

You are absolutely right about different brain researches conducted on animals that have proved to be fruitful for humans as well. The point I wanted to make was that for researches on areas of brain like the frontal lobes of cerebrum, we need to have some samples available. We cannot perform such researches on a Chimp's brain. They might provide ideas but never solid results.

Yes we do have access to human brain in cases of brain injury or other disorders, but the real question is that can we experiment on them. The answer would be no, because we would never want to damage someone's brain just for our research.

The most important part of brain research is the loss of a specific type of function because of injury to a specific area. And most of the ideas and conclusions about human bran have come thorough this route.

[calabi]

I think there is a word for what you are talking about, its Qualia. Its the way our brain make sense of the world. Colours. Wavelengths somehow are translated in our minds into the redness of an apple. Two flat 2D images are somehow made into the 3D world that we can see and even guess distances, even though this information isnt exactly transmitted to us.

 

Studying purely the brain in its functional manner the firing of neurons and chemical reactions. Will it somehow give us the answer to qualia I'm doubtfull, other disciplines may be required. Or perhaps they will find the redness neurons and the distance neurons and this chemical reaction results in anger and so on. Thinking about that, they might be able to experiment with monkeys and try changing their perception of colours as a start.

 

 

I dont see how any questions can be silly some great truths can come from some seeming very silly straightforward questions.

Edited January 4, 2012 by calabi

[DrmDoc]

You are absolutely right about different brain researches conducted on animals that have proved to be fruitful for humans as well. The point I wanted to make was that for researches on areas of brain like the frontal lobes of cerebrum, we need to have some samples available. We cannot perform such researches on a Chimp's brain. They might provide ideas but never solid results.

Yes we do have access to human brain in cases of brain injury or other disorders, but the real question is that can we experiment on them. The answer would be no, because we would never want to damage someone's brain just for our research.

The most important part of brain research is the loss of a specific type of function because of injury to a specific area. And most of the ideas and conclusions about human bran have come thorough this route.

If I understand correctly, you are referring to the limitation of direct surgical experimentation on a healthy human brain and subject. If so, then I agree; however, I disagree with the notion that animal brain research hasn't produced solid results. The example I gave earlier (luocotomy)was indeed a solid result--for our understanding of frontal function in human psychosis--from direct experimentation on the frontal lobe of chimps. What brain injury in humans and concurrent comparative studies of the healthy brain of other species provide is a well-defined picture of the functional nature of nearly every intricacy of the human brain. Although normal human brain study may be beyond the boundaries of some surgical experimentation, non-surgical experimentation via drug studies and comparative non-invasive technologies have and continue to produce remarkable insights on the nature of human brain function.

[calabi]

Here's a video which explains it better and exactly why we may never solve it.