The Brain Alone Cannot Carry Out the Work that the Mind Does

"(A)after years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier to be logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does not consist of two fundamental elements . . . (T)here is no good evidence, in spite of new methods, such as the employment of stimulating electrodes, the study of conscious patients and the analysis of epileptic attacks, that the brain alone can carry out the work that the mind does."

Wilder Graves Penfield stands among the most influential neurosurgeons of all time. He developed a wide range of surgical technics, was the first to map various regions of the brain, and expanded the use of neural stimulation into an array of areas including hallucinations, illusions, dissociation, and déjà vu. In many ways, his work laid the foundation for our current blossoming of neuroscientific research and discovery.

The field has moved forward dramatically since the middle of the last century, yet Penfield's conclusion that the brain alone cannot carry out the work of the mind continues to stand, even as we learn more and more about how brains work. And not for a lack of trying. The world is still firmly convinced that our brains do the real work and our bodies just follow orders and our schools continue to double down on it.

Scientists do what scientists do, which is to propose and test theories, publish their findings and conclusions so that other scientists can attempt to pick them apart, then use that feedback to re-think their theory and the methods used to test it. This isn't to say that things don't get acrimonious and personal, like all human things, but having one's theories attacked by those with differing perspectives stands at the heart of the scientific method and any scientist worthy of the name accepts this as the only way to approach scientific truth. Nothing in science is sacred, not even the idea that our brains are in charge.

This attitude, however, doesn't generally transcend the ivory tower into the real world in which rewards come to those who can "win" arguments and persuade others. Whenever I hear the word "neuroscience" these days I'm both attracted and repelled. As an educator, I'm deeply concerned with our minds and how they work, and brains likely have something to do with that. I'm compelled by the fact that the deeper one looks into the human mind, the more one knows, the more profound the mystery. In that way, it's very much like space exploration. Indeed, not long ago astrophysicist Franco Vazza and neurosurgeon Alberto Feletti published a well-read paper that investigated the resemblances between what they call the "two of the most challenging and complex systems in nature" -- the human brain (approximately 69 billion neurons) and the cosmic web of galaxies (approximately 100 billion galaxies) that make up the universe, neither of which can be fully, or even mostly, explained by those elements alone.

I'm repelled by the fact that most of what that comes my way is via popularizers who have taken their layman's understanding of "neuroscience" and use it to sell something. They take a single finding or study, treat it like it's irrefutable (because it's has the word "science" in it), then tell the rest of us we're not following the science if we don't buy their snake oil. In the education field that is often some kind of curriculum or technology or tutoring method that is said to be the product "neuroscience." And almost all of it is based on the (probably) false assumption that there is a brain-body divide, with the brain representing all that is "the mind" (or "the person") and the body being a mere tool of the mind.

Penrose's insight that the brain alone cannot explain the existence of the human mind leads me to assume that the body is at least as important to thinking and learning and creating as the brain. The problem with all this popularizing is that it leads many to assume that the best way to improve education is to enforce a still body while subjecting children, even very young ones, to more and more "seat time," more lectures, more drills . . .

The research on learning and thinking, however, time-and-again demonstrates that our brains work more effectively while our bodies are moving, while our hands are engaged, while our heart rates are slightly elevated. Our minds learn more and think more clearly when we engage all of our senses, not just the seeing and hearing that a standard classroom offers. We learn through smell, through taste, through scent, through touch, through interception (the sense of our internal state), through proprioception (the sense of our bodies in space), through nociception (the sense of damage usually indicated by pain), equilibrioception (the sense of balance), optical flow (the sense of the stream of information our eyes receive as we move), and even, probably, through senses we don't think we have like echolocation and the ability to sense electromagnetism, vibration, and pheromones. There are undoubtedly more. Most of these senses are shut down when we are made to be still and quiet.

Our senses are, in fact, where thinking begins and when schools narrow our sensory world, they narrow our ability to learn, completely or mostly excluding children who may not be equipped for sitting and listening (and that's most of them). Play-based learning, a method that is almost universally supported by actual neuroscientists and disdained by the popularizers, is the only "system" of learning that allows the learner to choose, not only what they will learn, but how they will learn it.

The child who stomps around the playground with shortened arms is using all of his senses to teach themself about the T-Rex, and probably a lot more besides . . .

The child who takes orders, cooks, and "sells" playdough cookies is teaching themself about serving others, food preparation, commerce, and probably a lot more besides . . .

The child who wallows in a puddle is teaching themself about the elements, the quality of their clothing, the patience of the adults, and probably a lot more besides . . .

A child at play is not using half their mind to stifle the movement of their bodies or to silence their enthusiasm or to ignore the scent of autumn that wafts through the window. They are engaging the world with their full mind. No other method of learning can make this claim.

Even as we learn more about our brains, we still know very little about human consciousness, so I offer up these thoughts in the spirit of a scientific paper. Please feel free to pick it apart.

The fact is that there is scant evidence that our bodies create our minds any more than our brains do. It's just as likely that our bodies (including our brains) merely interact with a greater "consciousness" (for want of a better word) and this thing we call self is nothing more than an accidental bi-product of that. Maybe this is nothing more than sound and fury signifying nothing. But it sure is fun stuff to think about.

******

Hi, I'm Teacher Tom and this is my podcast! If you're an early childhood educator, parent of preschoolers, or otherwise have young children in your life, I think you'll find my conversations with early childhood experts and thought-leaders useful, inspiring, and eye-opening. You might even come away transformed by the ideas and perspectives we share. Please give us a listen. You can find Teacher Tom's Podcast on the Mirasee FM Podcast Network or anywhere you download your podcasts.

I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!