ABSTRACT

The idea that we are our brains is a primary assumption in the brain sciences and in the public understanding of neuroscience. The nature/nurture distinction has become suspect and even eliminated in the thinking of many contemporary scientists. The idea that the brain is a logical machine and must be explained logically is still alive and well in contemporary neuroscience. The idea that there is a general-purpose algorithm underlying the computational logic of the brain is not inherently misguided. The existence of evolutionarily conserved cell-assemblies in the brain is not implausible. What is implausible is that such assemblies alone could account for the complexities of human thought and behavior. Computational thinking about the brain even in a limited sense feeds the idea that we are our brains. This sort of brain-centrism is nourished by the myth of individualism. There is, nonetheless, a robust movement aimed at demonstrating that we are not our brains, notably among such philosophers as Andy Clark and Alva Noë. I have approached the brain by adopting with modifications Geertz’s conception of “culture/mind/brain-brain/mind/culture.”