Neale Cohen interview – What is thought
Michael Bennett [00:00:08] I’m Michael Bennett, and I’m here today with Neale Cohen, who is a doctor of medicine. Has a background in medical research and an interest in philosophy. We’re here today to discuss the basis of thought. Let’s get into it. And with the first question, Neil, what is thought?
Neale Cohen [00:00:28] So thought is a fundamental process that separates us from all other life forms that we recognize, and it is responsible for our ability to reason, to problem solve our emotions and really all of our actions. But what is this process? Where does it happen? Where does it come from? Do we actually control it? Is it purely biological and can we reproduce artificial thought? And there is really little known about the nature of thought. And philosophers have argued for many centuries about this, famously with quotes such as I think, therefore I am. But we’re now in an era where science has progressed to the point where we can start to definitively answer this, these questions with some scientific evidence.
Michael Bennett [00:01:30] And so you, uh, raised the question of where does it happen? Perhaps you could, um, answer that from your perspective where this thought happens.
Neale Cohen [00:01:40] So thought happens in the head. I think we’d all agree. And, uh, I think we’d agree. It happens in the brain. Um, so I don’t think anyone’s going to argue with that.
Michael Bennett [00:01:49]
Neale Cohen [00:01:50] Now, the brain is an incredibly complex circuit. Giant circuit, uh, full of brain cells. And brain cells. Cells like any other part of the body. But for those of you that are not familiar with the biology of neurons or brain cells, they are basically living cells that, um, have long axons, which are, uh, basically like wires that depolarize or conduct electrical currents. And in doing so, they communicate with other neurons or brain cells in the circuitry of the brain is incredibly complex. There’s there’s, um, something like 100 billion neurons, and each neuron has thousands of connections. And these connections are made on the basis of what we call neurotransmitters, the little chemicals that come out the end of the nerve cell and interact with the next cell, a number of cells, and either inhibit or excite those cells. So that’s where I guess thought is happening.
Michael Bennett [00:03:00] And we we are all tempted to use, the computers that we’re familiar with as, analogous to this process where whereas computers tend to do their processes serially, whereas, the human brain is obviously doing a lot of at once with, with the interconnectedness of all these cells. And what are those processes of thought then, that are layered over the top of the chemical processes you’ve described?
Neale Cohen [00:03:32] So this is very poorly defined. So we have um, the ability now to do a lot of complex scans of the brain. And while people are thinking, and there are certain parts of the brain that do light up, if you like, with activity during quiet times, thought times. So we know there’s certain parts of the brain that are active for emotional type thoughts and, um, or creative type thoughts. But the question is, where do these actually begin? Where do they arise from? So the studies that have been done to date can show that certain areas of the brain are impacted with certain types of thoughts. But I guess the real question in my mind is that’s all fine, because we know that. if we think about moving our arm, then the part of the brain that activates the arms will light up and will move the arm. That’s that’s fine. That’s that’s obvious. Um, but where does that thought actually begin with? So where does that come from? Uh, where does it start? And is it something that is, uh, is voluntary or something that is triggered by another part of the brain that’s triggered by another part of the brain, etc., etc..
Michael Bennett [00:04:52] So this can take us to the idea of, um, is it purely a biological process or is it independent in some sense of biology? And um, tempted then to say and talk about a soul which, which people for time immemorial have used as a way of describing, you know, the true person within that? Uh.
Neale Cohen [00:05:16] Exactly. So I think there’s two possibilities here. Either this is a purely biological process or there is something else, a soul, a central part of you that is not biological, that you control, that feeds into the biology, biology of the brain. And so I think we have to consider both of these as being possibilities. So one. Uh, if we go down the biology path, we can explore that a little bit. But if you if you go down the other pathway. Let’s explore the soul as a possibility. So if we consider that we have a soul, then it’s an autonomous, autonomously functioning part of us. That’s fine, but we have to then consider are we the only creations with the sole? So if that’s the case, we have to ask the question as to where in the chain of evolutionary happenings that this suddenly occurred. It seems very unlikely to my mind that this is something that, at a particular point in time of evolution, that we suddenly have a soul. Um, we could take the other view that every creature has a soul, perhaps, and then we would be considering that animals, sure, maybe they have souls, maybe lesser animals. Insects have souls. Uh, trees, perhaps, uh, single celled organisms. This all seems, I think, to most of us, fairly unlikely. So these are the sorts of questions, if we’re serious about an autonomous soul that I think we need to ask.
Michael Bennett [00:06:50] And there is a lot of evidence to support the biological processes of thought that you’ve described, uh, imaging, uh, thermal imaging of the brain or other techniques of imaging. Um, but that that just gives us very broad assessment of the processes. It must be almost impossible to get to the heart of what’s going on.
Neale Cohen [00:07:14] That’s true. But but I think a few things about the biology. There is pretty good evidence, when we think about it, that the brain is behaving like any other organ and is victim to its environment like any other organ. Now, for example, medication, uh, we have a range of psychiatric medications nowadays that work on very simple principles around brain biology, altering the chemical environment of the brain. So most of these acts on these neurotransmitters that we talk about. And, um, by altering the quantity or the ratios of various neurotransmitters, it’s clear that. Certain parts of the brain react in a different way. And antipsychotic medications for somebody. So the basis of modern psychiatry works around this notion. The brain function can be altered chemically. Now similarly drugs, toxins, alcohol, recreational drugs, uh, things that quite markedly alter the function of the brain that you can’t will that away in any way, shape or form. Um, hypoxia, low oxygen levels, low glucose levels. Again, people lose their minds and you can’t voluntarily alter that. And that’s pretty solid evidence that there’s a biological process here that is, is, uh, changeable in quite a scientific manner, which will lead to completely different thinking processes.
Michael Bennett [00:08:47] That certainly sounds very reasonable to my ears. Um, and if we’re accepting that it’s a biological process, thought is a biological process. Um, what level of control do we have over this? Uh, do we even, um, control or even generate our own thoughts?
Neale Cohen [00:09:10] So I think that’s a really, really important question. So at the moment it appears that we do because thought is a very complicated. Thing. I mean, when you’ve got hundreds of billions of neurons and inputs, it’s really difficult to see how you could possibly predict any sort of outcome. So if I can take you back to some simpler examples, let’s say a simpler neurological reflex of which we have absolutely no control over would be, uh, the traditional knee reflex. So you, you know, you hit your knee with a hammer and your knee bounces and you have no control, absolutely no control over that whatsoever. No. That’s a very simple circuit. And what happens is the knee, um, ligament gets extended. That sends a signal back to your spinal cord that comes back and that innervates the muscle and the muscle jerks. Now, that’s a very simple, um, reflex that you have absolutely no life changing zero one. And there are other examples of more complicated things. For example, if you touch a really hot thing and you pull your hand away and you’re screaming, you know, that’s something that you have very limited control over. So the pulling reflex is pretty much hardwired, and you can’t control now your expletive afterwards, for example, may be something that’s a bit more difficult to predict, and your reaction subsequently may involve a whole lot of other issues that are stored away in your brain. For example, memories you might become, uh, you might burst into tears, you might become violent. You. So all these things might have, uh, you might have had a bad day. And so your brain is very plastic, and we don’t have any way of predicting exactly how you will behave immediately afterwards. But I guess you can see that some of these neurological events are completely unchangeable. And it may be that all of them are unchangeable. If indeed you knew the exact state of your brain at the time of an event.
Michael Bennett [00:11:09] And that that notion is a natural extension of believing that these, uh, thoughts have, uh, biological process and, uh, understanding the state they’re in would predict the outcome of, uh, uh, uh, perfectly exact if you understood the inputs. Perfectly.
Neale Cohen [00:11:30] Exactly right. Just like any other organ. Let’s say we’ve got the liver, and the liver has inputs of various chemicals, and the liver behaves in a certain way or or like the pancreas producing insulin, for example. Um, it, it behaves in very specific ways to its inputs. So why should the brain, um, react in any different way. And indeed, if you believe that every neuron depolarize for a reason, it must follow logically that every brain function is a reaction to what has gone on.
Michael Bennett [00:12:01] Before, because we have to think of the implications of this. Um uh uh, this makes me feel uneasy because, uh, maybe, uh, maybe I don’t have the control. I thought over my own thought process.
Neale Cohen [00:12:16] So the implications are quite profound. And this is where this becomes difficult, I guess, to accept the implications of this is firstly, with regard to free will, is that you don’t have any. Um, everything you think, everything you feel, everything you say. And everything you do is explainable. Predetermined according to your environment and the state of your brain function at the time. And that’s a very difficult thing for people to accept. I mean, this discussion we’re having right now, um, may be completely predictable, and people’s reaction to it may be completely predictable.
Michael Bennett [00:12:58] This is, uh, the, uh, reminds me of the Truman Show, where the environment was set up so perfectly so that Truman could act out his life. Uh, but he was being completely controlled by those circumstances and those circumstances by others. Because in this case, we’re not necessarily imagining that it’s other people who are providing this or other entities. It could just be natural biological processes, as it is in the case of the other organs.
Neale Cohen [00:13:27] And one famous philosopher was asked, do you believe in free will? And he said, yes, I do. But of course I have no choice.
Michael Bennett [00:13:35] Uh. Uh, and, uh, so there are there, uh, uh, worrying implications or, uh, uh, large implications of this idea. Um, but does this.
Neale Cohen [00:13:48] Matter? Yeah. So why does this matter? That’s a really good question. Why are we having this discussion? Does it really matter to anyone? And I think it does. And so I’ll give you a couple of points. I think firstly knowledge is important. So the knowledge about science is tremendously important. And every step we make in discovery is built on previous knowledge. So I think as a general point, this AI this drives ideas, this drives exploration. Now let me give you an example of that. So, uh, the theory of evolution, the classic theory, which we all take for granted now, came out of ideas of things that were observed. It was just evidence observed. And there was no absolute proof of this. But from a series of observations, there was this notion that everything wasn’t created by evolved. Now, why did that matter? People would probably have said at the time, why did this matter is very controversial at the time. And what it didn’t matter because the theory of evolution led to the concept of of genetics. And so the whole field of genetics comes out of a notion that we are reproduced in, uh, each generation is reproduced, etc.. So a tremendously important theory, which has contributed enormously to the scientific discovery and understanding of how biology came out of such a thing. So I’d make that point very first. So I think this could drive a lot of, um, research, a lot of ideas, a lot of understanding into intelligence, artificial intelligence, emotions, manipulation of um, with pharmaceuticals, etc., etc.. I think it has, um, other implications for, uh, uh, philosophy. And, uh, this whole concept of free will is important. So if we conclude that we don’t have free will and we’re simply victims of our environment, then this concept of fault in society becomes completely irrelevant. Nothing is anybody’s fault. Now, that has significant implications. And it’s, uh, uh, in the way that we deal with things, uh, you know, on a legal basis as a society as in terms of religious developments. Um, and it’s a really a new way of thinking in that regard. So, uh, if nothing is anyone’s fault, we may, um, the whole concept of fault in legal circles becomes completely, um, moot, I suppose, and it becomes more dealing with, um, how we remove people who are of poor behavior or have done things that are illegal rather than working out if it was or wasn’t their fault.
Michael Bennett [00:16:45] So you’ve mentioned about artificial intelligence, and I suppose if things become sophisticated enough, the natural outcome may be that machines could think.
Neale Cohen [00:16:57] Yes, the artificial intelligence is already here, and we already have machines that in some capacity can think in ism inasmuch as we can think. And I think the point to make is it’s developing so quickly that we need to develop some ideas around this concepts and the sort of questions we need to ask. Uh, can these machines, computers have emotions? Can they have feelings? What does that mean to us? What does that mean for? For ethics. And in my view, there’s no reason to think that they cannot.
Michael Bennett [00:17:36] And what then would the implications for the future be? Uh.
Neale Cohen [00:17:42] Well, I think this could open up the whole area of research into intelligence and how to manipulate that, um, and into artificial intelligence. So I can certainly see in the future, as I say, artificial intelligence is here. Uh, it’s progressing extremely rapidly. And, um, I think, you know, I can certainly see a day where we have interwoven into our society, uh, range of, uh, machines, if you like, robots that, uh, are as conversant with everyday life and as productive, uh, in everyday life, uh, and in fact, to the even to the fields of science and philosophy and religion as we are. And that’s fascinating thought.
Michael Bennett [00:18:30] There’s been, uh, dreams of technology and hopes for technology for decades now, um, with artificial intelligence. And, um, I might suggest that that has been constrained by the deterministic nature of, uh, the stored program logic computer, which is the basic, uh, machine that, um, Alan Turing first pioneered in the middle of last century. And, uh, we haven’t moved much beyond that. They’ve just got faster and smaller and, uh, uh, they, they’re very much reliant in their response, uh, uh, to, to, uh, the intelligence of their programmers and the rules in the algorithms that they represent. And, uh, but perhaps we’re getting near, um, uh, defining moment, uh, on the cusp of change with the, uh, development of quantum computers, which have much more, um, interactions with their qubits in a more analogous way to the neurons in our brains. Uh, although I think we’re only up to 16 qubits, uh, so far. So there’s a little bit further to go for the, the 100 billion or so. But, um, it is fascinating to talk about this, uh, and what the future might hold because, um, without discussing it, uh, we hardly likely to make the world a better place based on the the important ideas that, uh, um, we’re discussing here today.
Speaker 2 [00:20:00] Yes. So I think you’re right. I think we’re constrained by technology to some degree with with what we have. But the real wonder of the human brain is its plasticity. So we tend change and it constantly changes. And that’s where I think technology’s lagging. Uh, I understand and I know a little, little bit about quantum computers that they have the ability to do this. And I think what we’ll see over time is this plasticity. And that’s where, um, things become less predictable, I guess, uh, but also much more sophisticated and, um, and apparently acting, um, on their own, if you like, for, for want of a better term. And that’s where I think the future is going to be incredibly fascinating. If we can develop machines that have this sort of capacity, speed and plasticity of the human brain and then then who knows what that might bring.
Michael Bennett [00:20:49] So where do we go from here? Can we prove any of this?
Neale Cohen [00:20:54] I think proof is a strong word. I think we can continue to gather evidence that this is the case. Um, and, um, it’s probably not entirely possible to prove, as with many theories, that we have, uh, that this is the case. I mean, I think as with the theory of evolution, for example, there is a lot of evidence now that that is the case without absolute definitive proof. But, um, I think we have a lot of evidence, based on our discussion so far, that that this is the case, as unpalatable as it may sound. And I also think a lot of the evidence is going to come, in fact, from artificial intelligence and. Really seeing what the future holds with with robots, if you like, that can be apparently autonomous or as autonomous as we are. So I think the proof will come in form of that evidence. It may also come in the development of science. As we progress, we’re getting better at, if you like, imaging and analyzing brain function. And that certainly may provide experimental evidence that we can, in a systematic way, predict or understand people’s thought processes and manipulate thought processes. I think if this is correct, that in our lifetimes we will see as part of integrated into our society robots, machines that are productive in their thought processes and integrated into our lives. And, uh, and I, I think that we really do need to think about this and be prepared for this possibility.
Michael Bennett [00:22:41] Well, thank you for this very interesting discussion today, Neil.
Neale Cohen [00:22:45] Thank you Michael.