Thread: What is the current general consensus on brain theory?

I mean a theory that gets to the fundamentals that can be used as a framework to explain all functions of the brain. This theory would explain the connection between psychology, sociology, and neuroscience. What is the most prominent theory on this topic, if any? I ask because I have a theory that I have never heard in the scientific world that could change the way we look at the brain.

May I ask you how you were able to come up with this 'theory' without being familiar with at least some of the extensive research on brain function? Clearly you are not familiar with this body of work, for if you were it would be uneccessary for you to ask the question. I have serious reservations that your 'theory' can be of any great value if it has been arrived at while being ignorant of the currently established facts regarding the brain. You will therefore have a difficult, but not impossible, task convincing this brain that there is any merit in your 'theory'.

You are right to be skeptical of a kid with such a bold claim and I have to say your response shows how institutionalized science is in this day and age, but I can assure you that the traditional method is not the only method to making discoveries or forming a theory. Sometimes all a scientific mind needs is an epiphany, or a connection between two bodies of thought, e.g., electromagnetism. We also know that newton didn't get his theory from researching it, he got it because an event sparked an idea or hunch. I am simply asserting that ideas can come from anywhere. As far as the validity of my 'theory' or any other valid theory, it is self-meriting because it will create the same light bulb effect to anyone who hears and understands it much like the theory of evolution, it just makes logical sense. However, I am wary of sharing my theory in its entirety because I don't know much about intellectual property laws and I am trying to use this potential nugget of knowledge to get a place to live and possibly college enrollment.

Google Scholar is your friend.

Read the research. Just because you've not heard it doesn't mean that someone hasn't done work in that area - whether supporting your idea or something essential / related to it (or eliminating it because another explanation works better).

And there's a lot to read.

Im not sure exactly what to research, that is the problem. That blog comment explains it perfectly.

Originally Posted by 2ndRebelution

Im not sure exactly what to research, that is the problem. That blog comment explains it perfectly.

well, now would be a good time to start putting together a list of key words and/ or phrases that relate to your thinking.

After all, you'll never get anyone to pay you anything for something you can't describe.

Try a couple of those key words for an initial search. Keep a record of your search terms - to save reinventing your own wheel, and make sure you have a good system of naming and sorting the items that you think are worth a second look. And follow the citations.

Originally Posted by 2ndRebelution

You are right to be skeptical of a kid with such a bold claim and I have to say your response shows how institutionalized science is in this day and age, but I can assure you that the traditional method is not the only method to making discoveries or forming a theory. Sometimes all a scientific mind needs is an epiphany, or a connection between two bodies of thought, e.g., electromagnetism. We also know that newton didn't get his theory from researching it, he got it because an event sparked an idea or hunch. I am simply asserting that ideas can come from anywhere.

And this, I'm afraid, is the usual nonsense trotted out by every pseudo-scientist to justify their arbitrary, made-up "theories".

As you don't seem to know much about the relevant science, perhaps you should do a degree in the appropriate subjects and then use your idea (if it still seems sensible at that point) as the basis of a PhD.

it just makes logical sense.

Sadly, that doesn't say anything about its correctness. It also has to match observational and other evidence. And not be in contradiction other well-established theory.

There are an infinite number of theories that "just make logical sense"; nearly all of them are wrong.

However, I am wary of sharing my theory in its entirety because I don't know much about intellectual property laws and I am trying to use this potential nugget of knowledge to get a place to live and possibly college enrollment.

There are no intellectual property laws which will protect an idea. If you write the idea down, then copyright will protect that exact expression of the idea. If you can use it to make a practical device or product, then that can be protected by a patent.

Ha.


I'm notr mocking you. I find it interesting that such interest exists.

Originally Posted by 2ndRebelution

However, I am wary of sharing my theory in its entirety because I don't know much about intellectual property laws and I am trying to use this potential nugget of knowledge to get a place to live and possibly college enrollment.

If your idea actually has merit then this is a valid concern. The problem is that to protect your 'right' to the theory you need to publish it. And to publish it you need to be able to do several things: present it in the language of the subject; support it with reference to other research; demonstrate how it offers superior insights to current theory. And all of those require an intimate knowledge of the present state of the art.

Originally Posted by 2ndRebelution

You are right to be skeptical of a kid with such a bold claim and I have to say your response shows how institutionalized science is in this day and age,

I am at a loss to see how scepticism, which embodies a suspicion of the routine and the mundane, can be offered as evidence of institutionalization. I would be interested to have you expand on this point. I know it's not central, but it is peculiar.

Originally Posted by 2ndRebelution

but I can assure you that the traditional method is not the only method to making discoveries or forming a theory.

Although that is arguably the case if you want the discoveries to be geunine and the theory to be valid.

Originally Posted by 2ndRebelution

. We also know that newton didn't get his theory from researching it, he got it because an event sparked an idea or hunch.

You really need to improve your education in this area to avoid making such silly statements. Newton was very well aware of the considerable body of observation and hypothesis relating to motion when he evolved his theory of gravitation. Although he was taught the more generally accepted concepts of Aristotle he also studied the theoretical and experimental work of Galileo and Kepler and others. He was likely as well versed in theories of mechanics and motion as anyone on the planet at the time he conceived his gravitational theory. It is true that he had a sudden insight from which the theory evolved, but this insight was built upon a clear understanding of the work of many others. He himself said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

I am simply asserting that ideas can come from anywhere.

However, give me a single valid example of where a meaningful theory has emerged without being cognisant of existing theory. I doubt this has happened, but am quite prepared to be persauded, by demonstration, that I am wrong.

it is self-meriting because it will create the same light bulb effect to anyone who hears and understands it much like the theory of evolution, it just makes logical sense.

Darwin developed his theory of evolution taking full account of all current theories and supplementing it with intensive observation and experimentation spanning decades. Keep in mind that two books he took with him on the Beagle, that held pride of place in his estimates, were Lyell's Principles of Geology and Payley's Natural Theology, works that stood at the opposite end of the spectrum of current thought.

You may have a true breakthrough concept. I continue to doubt it. The solution certainly lies in extensive study. If you are in the UK you may wish to consider taking some of the courses available through the Open University. I believe these are also available in some other countries. I suggest the OU because their entry requirements are minimal, but their courses are of a very high standard.

I suspect that as you familiarise yourself with current theory you will either discover your idea is already developed, or has been falsified by observation. Of course, you could take a risk and present the idea here to see if it can be shot down before you invest that time and effort.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by 2ndRebelution

However, I am wary of sharing my theory in its entirety because I don't know much about intellectual property laws and I am trying to use this potential nugget of knowledge to get a place to live and possibly college enrollment.

If your idea actually has merit then this is a valid concern. The problem is that to protect your 'right' to the theory you need to publish it. And to publish it you need to be able to do several things: present it in the language of the subject; support it with reference to other research; demonstrate how it offers superior insights to current theory. And all of those require an intimate knowledge of the present state of the art.

The issue is I have no credentials or connections to the academic world. I would love to start that process you describe but I am finding it hard to find a medium to get my ideas to the people that need to hear them.

Originally Posted by 2ndRebelution
You are right to be skeptical of a kid with such a bold claim and I have to say your response shows how institutionalized science is in this day and age,

I am at a loss to see how scepticism, which embodies a suspicion of the routine and the mundane, can be offered as evidence of institutionalization. I would be interested to have you expand on this point. I know it's not central, but it is peculiar.

That was a grammatical error on my part. I meant to address your skepticism and your response as evidence to the institutionalization of science as two different ideas.

Originally Posted by 2ndRebelution

but I can assure you that the traditional method is not the only method to making discoveries or forming a theory.

Although that is arguably the case if you want the discoveries to be geunine and the theory to be valid.[/quote]

I am referring to process at which you arrive at a discovery or theory. Getting it validated would require a traditional process as you say.

Originally Posted by 2ndRebelution

. We also know that newton didn't get his theory from researching it, he got it because an event sparked an idea or hunch.

You really need to improve your education in this area to avoid making such silly statements. Newton was very well aware of the considerable body of observation and hypothesis relating to motion when he evolved his theory of gravitation. Although he was taught the more generally accepted concepts of Aristotle he also studied the theoretical and experimental work of Galileo and Kepler and others. He was likely as well versed in theories of mechanics and motion as anyone on the planet at the time he conceived his gravitational theory. It is true that he had a sudden insight from which the theory evolved, but this insight was built upon a clear understanding of the work of many others. He himself said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Improve my education is exactly what I am trying to do. And for every unanswered question I have related to my ideas, I am always quick to find the answer if it has already been established, Albeit in an unprofessional manner. I am not saying that I just dreamed up this theory after a long night of drinking with no other concepts to criticize it against. It has just fit with current knowledge(that I have found) thus far.

I am simply asserting that ideas can come from anywhere.

However, give me a single valid example of where a meaningful theory has emerged without being cognisant of existing theory. I doubt this has happened, but am quite prepared to be persauded, by demonstration, that I am wrong.

I am definitely not making that claim. However, I would say that from the right perspective, and with the mind clear of any false preconceptions, a holistic theory could emerge through curiosity and systems thinking. In my case, it involved looking at several patterns in human nature and human thought and trying to get to the bottom of all of them and find the thing that connects them all. I think that I have gathered enough information to say that I have gotten very close to the root process that that gives way for all of the variety that we see in the human brain. But, as you say, it means nothing until I can get it reviewed and validated, which is the next step I am trying to make.

it is self-meriting because it will create the same light bulb effect to anyone who hears and understands it much like the theory of evolution, it just makes logical sense.

Darwin developed his theory of evolution taking full account of all current theories and supplementing it with intensive observation and experimentation spanning decades. Keep in mind that two books he took with him on the Beagle, that held pride of place in his estimates, were Lyell's Principles of Geology and Payley's Natural Theology, works that stood at the opposite end of the spectrum of current thought.

Everything Darwin did had to have stemmed from a hunch that lead to all of his research and experimentation, or even his passion for biology. A hunch is all I claim to have. I would love to start doing experiments to try and prove my theory. I have already thought of a couple that would be particularly telling.

You may have a true breakthrough concept. I continue to doubt it. The solution certainly lies in extensive study. If you are in the UK you may wish to consider taking some of the courses available through the Open University. I believe these are also available in some other countries. I suggest the OU because their entry requirements are minimal, but their courses are of a very high standard.

Unfortunately I am in Washington, USA.

I suspect that as you familiarise yourself with current theory you will either discover your idea is already developed, or has been falsified by observation. Of course, you could take a risk and present the idea here to see if it can be shot down before you invest that time and effort.

I would only be willing to share it with people that have credentials or connections with someone that could help better my situation. After it is proven worthy of course.

Clearly, you're just starting out on this path. Might I point out that science - and academia generally - are arenas where ideas get a very, very thorough examination before getting out there.

This is how it works: you put your model out there in the coliseum, and a bunch of guys in white coats kick the shit out of it. If it’s still alive when the dust clears, your brainchild receives conditional acceptance. It does not get rejected. This time. . . .

That's a reference to science. See others at ClimateBites - Science drags us 'kicking and screaming' toward truth

My experience is that philosophy journals are no kinder.

You really have no option but to get your thoughts clear and get them down in some sort of coherent order. Then look for journals, papers, textbooks that deal with these various areas. When you've put it together, gather up your courage and talk to someone who knows (part of) the topic. Pick yourself up off the floor. Think about whether you want to continue. Rinse and repeat.

2ndRebelution, <correct me if I am wrong>, you have an idea of brain theory that you believe links everything, a perception of everything seemingly relevant to the world we live in, and you are cautious of sharing this "code" of thought with your fellow primates. You fear perhaps either giving your mind itself away, the way you perceive and calculate the world, much like a Messiah having second thoughts about saving such nice people as the one's who make the world what it is today, already, without your theory.......or, you want to do the right thing by people, and not ruin the very surprise of life?

But you nonetheless want to be honoured for your great find, as a bottom line endeavor you have decided to find yourself in. Right?

Why bore others with your stance? Use the theory to play the stock market, right? Let it be it's own reward, surely? Or maybe you have a message of peace? Or, if I may..........Love?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

You fear perhaps either giving your mind itself away, the way you perceive and calculate the world, much like Messiah having second thoughts about saving such nice people as the one's who make the world what it is today, already, without your theory.......or, you want to do the right thing by people, and not ruin the very surprise of life?

I am keeping the theory to myself is mostly because I am relying on it solely to get me somewhere in life and so I can start the research myself, at some point. I don't want it to get taken over by other people just because they have sway. It is true that if its concepts and far reaching implications were studied than I would take a lot of the magic away from the way we look at ourselves as people, but to me, true is the most important thing and you can't progress without facing it. I am still contemplating how I should put it out.

Do you Love it, May I ask? Does it Love you? Is it Intelligent?