 |
Originally a physics
researcher, Group Director Dr. Gen Matsumoto has adopted a physical approach to
brain science. However, according to him traditional rules of physics often cannot
be applied to real life. We spent a few moments with him discussing scientific
thought, society and the future of research.
Int: The 21st century has been dubbed "the age of the brain". What does this
mean for research?
GM: The 20th century was called the "age of physics," but what physics
in that age dealt with was a "closed system" where things moved toward disorder.
The objects of research that physics dealt with at that time were "lifeless things."
It was this closed system that provided the grounds for the development of relativity
and quantum theories.
Life, however, is an open system in which things move in an orderly form. The
eyes, nose and mouth take shape where they are supposed to be positioned. This
process is a mystery beyond the reach of traditional science. Traditional science
can deal with the decaying process after the end of life, but has great difficulty
explaining the processes within an open system.
Int: Could you elaborate on the this open system?
An open system is a system that borders simultaneously on two different types
of environments. LetŐs take the planet earth, for instance. Our planet is placed
in between two different environments - the sun and outer space. The earth manages
to live in the flow of heat energy that comes from the sun and then passes it
on to outer space. There is a similar flow for human beings as well. We sustain
life on food intake and pass it on in the form of excretion.
Int: So to sustain life, then, it is just a matter of taking in materials and
energy?
Not really. There is a third element: information. As an open system organ, the
brain receives a variety of signals from the sensory organs. Brains could not
sustain life unless these signals were processed into output in the form of information
or, in other words, actions. If brains failed to develop their own information-processing
systems that continually adjusted to the environment, they would remain unconfigured
and less able to assist us in sustaining life.
Suppose a cup of tea is placed in front of you, for example. At first, the solution
and its color may not make any sense. However, when you take a sip of water before
seeing the tea, the action helps to form an essential concept that can be applied
throughout life. The signals received by your brain become meaningful when they
are processed into output or information.
Int: How does this configuring of the brain actually take place?
The configuring that takes place in our brains is identical to programming a mechanism
to process information. In order to sort out the effective signals a decision
about a definite target must be made. Ensuing actions then help to confirm whether
the selected signals are really effective in attaining the objective. Without
a definite purpose, active brainwork cannot really take place.
A simple example of this is getting up in the morning. Some people complain of
trouble waking up early in the morning. This is not really surprising if you consider
that they may have no motivation such as, "I want to do this or that first
thing in the morning."
I think that one of the reasons it may be difficult in present society to generate
daily purposes before waking is the emergence of a particular social environment
that emphasizes "quantitative achievement," which is undoubtedly detrimental
to the growth of healthy brains. The fundamental functioning of the brain system
is to identify objectives and bring forth output in order to attain objectives.
The growth of our brains depends on how they can develop such objectives by themselves.
Int: How does this negative social environment actually play out in our lives?
Unfortunately, we have been raised since childhood to adapt our brains forcefully
to parental and social rules. Brains are imprinted with notions, such as obedience
to parents and society, from a very young age in order to ensure our survival.
The result is a strong sense of dependence on other people. Dependent brains are
unable to fix their own objectives. Brains have no other choice than pursuing
the prevailing social norm. People tend to believe that they can decide their
own objectives based on their own will, but all they are doing is creating effective
systems to attain objectives that have in a sense already been laid out for them.
If they fail in such attempts, their dependent psychology comes into play and
they start putting blame on other people or circumstances.
Int: But failure is a natural occurrence in the progress towards an objective,
so isnŐt it at some level a good thing?
It can be if people can decide on their own objectives and approaches to a target.
For these people failure can be viewed as a good opportunity to reflect on the
method of their approach. Failure becomes failure only when they admit the failure.
Today's society, however, lays a greater emphasis on achievement appraisal. In
terms of the brain system, achievement is synonymous with information output.
The aim of our brains should be to create internal processes that challenge the
development of the program in order to assess the output. The output is no more
than a process.
I think today's society makes a fundamental mistake in giving good marks for methods
rather than objectives. In any society where challenge is suppressed, the healthy
development of brains is going to be an issue.
Int: In the world of research, researchers continually challenge themselves
and the norms of their fields. Does this equal "healthy development" of science?
Under the present assessment system, results are important factors in research
appraisals. Any research that produces quick results can be conducted through
a smart combination of known facts. Such research, though, may not be research
in the true sense of the word.
Suppose a researcher picks his own research target but fails in his initial approach,
for example. He tries all the other possible means according to his knowledge
without success. Faced with such a seemingly insurmountable problem, he questions
what is wrong with his target and approach. His distress is a signal that he is
really at the beginning of genuine research.
Natural science must be a science such that any encounters with unexplainable
phenomena result in a change in traditional scientific perceptions and the creation
of a new philosophy. We cannot create a new science if such phenomena can be explained
by a mere change in the approach method while sticking to the traditional philosophy.
Int: Which then brings us back to "the age of the brain".
Yes, with regards to life science, we may very well be in an age marked by the
end of one science and the beginning of another. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
