Entangled Brain

Studies using fMRI of the brain have been based on the idea of brain localization theory or functional anatomy, in which specific cognitive functions are associated with specific brain regions (clusters of voxels). Recently, however, the prevailing view is that since cognitive function is a complex of various abilities and modalities, the functional network of the brain must first be captured. In functional anatomy, a cognitive function is considered to have a definite area of responsibility that is exclusively responsible for it as an element that cannot be further decomposed, but this idea is becoming less and less popular. In other words, the network view, like Pessoa's entangled brain, which considers the neural basis of even basic cognitive functions that cannot be further reduced to a network that is distributed throughout the brain, is becoming the mainstream view. My question is, how can such contradictory ideas be reconciled with each other in advanced science? And what is the deep epistemological background that determines the superiority or inferiority of these two fundamental positions?

ChatGPT

The transition from a strictly localized view of brain function to a more network-oriented perspective is a natural progression in neuroscience as we learn more about the complexities of the brain. While the localization theory had its uses, it was limited by the fact that it oversimplified the relationship between brain regions and cognitive functions, which are actually highly interconnected and interdependent.

The network view of brain function acknowledges the distributed nature of cognitive processing, and the fact that even seemingly simple functions involve multiple regions of the brain. However, this does not necessarily mean that the localization theory is completely obsolete. Instead, it can be seen as a useful approximation of brain function, particularly when it comes to studying specific brain regions and their interactions with other regions.

The reconciliation of these two perspectives lies in recognizing that they are both valid, but they are addressing different levels of analysis. The localization theory provides a useful framework for understanding the function of specific brain regions, while the network view offers a more comprehensive perspective on how different regions work together to support cognitive functions. Both perspectives are essential for advancing our understanding of the brain.

The superiority or inferiority of these perspectives is not a matter of deep epistemology, but rather a matter of context and application. The localization theory may be more appropriate in certain research contexts, while the network view may be more suitable in others. Ultimately, what matters is that researchers are aware of the limitations and strengths of both approaches and use them appropriately in their research.

In your earlier answer, you stated that the drawback and limitation of functional anatomy is oversimplification, but with regard to functional network theory, you simply state "limitations" and do not concretely mention any of them. What are its limitations? If you think it has the same drawbacks and limitations as functional anatomy, doesn't that contradict your earlier answer that thepperspectives of the two views are different?

ChatGPT

I apologize for any confusion my earlier response may have caused. You are correct in pointing out that I did not provide concrete examples of the limitations of functional network theory.

One limitation of the network view is that it can be difficult to identify which regions of the brain are truly important for a given cognitive function, as many regions may show some level of activation or connectivity during a particular task. Additionally, the network view may not capture the fine-grained details of local neural activity that are critical for understanding the neural mechanisms underlying cognition.

To clarify, the perspectives of the two views are indeed different. The localization theory focuses on identifying specific brain regions that are responsible for particular cognitive functions, while the network view emphasizes the interactions and connections between brain regions that support these functions. However, both approaches can be seen as complementary, rather than contradictory.

Overall, the goal of neuroscience research is to use a variety of approaches to gain a deeper understanding of the brain and how it supports cognition. While both functional anatomy and functional network theory have their limitations, they offer valuable insights into different aspects of brain function and can be used together to create a more comprehensive understanding of the brain.

You told: "One limitation of the network view is that it can be difficult to identify which regions of the brain are truly important for a given cognitive function, as many regions may show some level of activation or connectivity during a particular task. " However, even in functional network theory, can't the importance of each region as a node be evaluated using network indices such as centrality in the tie structure, comparisons with other experiments examining functional connectivity (e.g., at rest), or interpretation of weight changes in hidden layers when a graph neural network is introduced in a deep learning model? In addition, you told: "the network view may not capture the fine-grained details of local neural activity that are critical for understanding the neural mechanisms underlying cognition." However, if there are neurons with different functions inside each voxel, this limit is identical for both functional anatomy and functional network theory. After all, the limitations of functional anatomy and functional network theory are the same, yet the latter may overcome its shortcomings on its own without the support of the former. Then isn't the point of your earlier answer, i.e., the idea that the two are complementary because their limitations are different, fundamentally wrong?

ChatGPT

You make valid points, and I apologize for any confusion. You are correct in pointing out that functional network theory does offer methods for evaluating the importance of each region as a node, such as network centrality measures or comparisons with other experiments examining functional connectivity. Additionally, as you noted, the limitation of not capturing the fine-grained details of local neural activity applies to both functional anatomy and functional network theory.

However, it is important to note that the strengths and limitations of each approach are not mutually exclusive. While both functional anatomy and functional network theory have some overlap in their limitations, they also have unique strengths that make them complementary. For example, functional anatomy can provide more detailed information about the neural activity within a specific region, while functional network theory can offer insights into how multiple regions work together to support a cognitive function.

In short, while there may be some overlap in the limitations of functional anatomy and functional network theory, they are still distinct approaches that offer unique insights into the functioning of the brain. Researchers can use both approaches together to gain a more complete understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying cognition.