What can anthropologists offer on this matter?

February 14, 2006 11:52 PM

How can anthropologists contribute to the answering of questions about the brain and consciousness in the 21st century?

I'm wondering if the field has the right tools and techniques and potential to talk about the neural level and how neural events result in consciousness. For example, if neurons function the same way in New Zealand 2006 as they did in Norway 1006 (across time and across culture) does that mean cross-cultural analysis won't be fruitful? And since neurons aren't preserved like bones, what can archaeologists say on this matter?

posted by eighth_excerpt to science & nature (8 comments total)

If you can, by collecting cross-cultural evidence, demonstrate that something is a universal, that suggests it's hard-wired and genetic. Even better if you can tie the human behavior to an animal precursor. If something is not universal, it's less likely to be hard-wired and genetic.
posted by orthogonality at 11:56 PM on February 14, 2006

Why would they? Isn't this the job of cognitive scientists and/or evolutionary biologists?
posted by maxreax at 12:44 AM on February 15, 2006

IMHO the problem with this question (and the entire field of cognitive science) is that we assume that it is possible to meaningfully understand neural events (and assign cognitive properties to these events). It's easy to stimulate a neuron in the motor cortex and conclude "well, that neuron is responsible for moving my toe when it twitches." Or to study people with a missing piece of cortex and conclude that they are not capable of, for example, REM sleep.

But what if our neural patterns told us more about our environment and culture than we assumed in the first place? Or more precisely, what if our cognition is a function of what happens in our environments AND brains?

I'm not saying that cognition is outside of the brain (a la BF Skinner), but rather that we should consider the possibility that some parts of it are! Yes, maybe visual and memory systems are similar in New Zealand 2006 and Norway 1006, but maybe that's just because the environments and culture are so similar that we can't tell the difference with our current tools. Or maybe there are differences that we could tell if we decided to isolate environmental or cultural variables rather than cortical ones (yep, that's the job of archaeologists and anthropologists). The possibility still remains that culture and environments help shape our cognition as much as our brain does.

So to answer your question... what if studying environments and cultures could tell us MORE about cognition than studying neural circuitry could? Then wouldn't we need anthropologists, archaeologists to work with our cognitive scientists to give us a clear picture of consciousness?
posted by |n$eCur3 at 1:28 AM on February 15, 2006

universals of that nature are nearly impossible to prove, but nonetheless worth looking for. that said, what you lust after are universal human behaviors that can be extrapolated from what i'll call the 'human filter,' including all the errors, idiosyncracies and infirmaties of the person, the family, the clan, the culture and on up the scale. Anthropology is the study of the human filter. As In$eCur3 points out, simply knowing that neurons were the same in 1006 as they are in 2006 doesn't contribute to meaningful understanding of neural events.

If we were in a situatation where neural events were easily interpretable phenomena, I'd imagine one would still ask the question 'so all of humanity has the same brain function. then why is X different between here and there, that culture and this one?'

this topic pokes at a rather sticky possibility as neuroscience really starts to speed up--what if we find there are neurlogical differences between peoples and cultures? do we land squarely back atop the 'sapir-whorf hypothesis?' If the conclusion is the opposite, I think the first people to consult about understanding the human condition will be anthropologists.
posted by markovitch at 8:47 AM on February 15, 2006

Well, I'd say that cognition can't be uniquely situated in the brain, and includes body morphology and whatever tools we happen to have on hand. So there is a strong argument that can be made that the change in tools seen with the neolithic reflects a change in cognition.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:54 AM on February 15, 2006

This, for example, is an area where anthropology can contribute to consciousness studies.

And since neurons aren't preserved like bones, what can archaeologists say on this matter?

Signs (produced by neurons) in the cultural sphere have often more to tell than bones.
There is still huge work to be done analyzing the relationships between the production of signs and consciousness, whether in paleolithic or modern times, and in contemporary urban or so called "primitive" tribes.

I don't share the usual fatalism about "we'll never know the meaning of parietal art". It's all about consciousness, the relationship between the inner and the outer worlds. I would bet that consciousness has as much to do with culture as with neurology, in which case anthropology has a lot to contribute.
posted by bru at 9:01 AM on February 15, 2006

Hrm, something that bothers me. I don't think that archaeologists are primarily concerned about human remains, except possibly as a tool for answering questions about the culture in which those humans lived.

Also, while there is considerable evidence for a genetic human nature, there is also overwhelming evidence that the human brain develops and adapts to it's physical and cultural environment. The most radical changes happen in the first 15 years, but environmental factors appear to be able to modify brain function throughout the entire lifespan.

Just as an example, around the time children learn to speak, they have mastered the ability to produce all the phones or sounds in what will be their "mother tongue" and have lost to some degree the ability to produce phones not found in their native language. An interesting theory is that music is linked to speech. So, the obvious question that anthropologists could answer is to what degree are the properties of music in a culture congruent with the properties of speech in that culture. I have read one article that proposed a weak correlation, but it was flawed because of its focus on classical music which has had strong international collaboration for about 500 years.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:33 AM on February 15, 2006

Thanks. These answers have given me better understanding. (Pardon me if my question sounded disparaging toward anthro. It wasn't mean to be. I'm a big fan of the field actually.)
posted by eighth_excerpt at 12:43 PM on February 15, 2006