Source and Limits of Human Intellect

Leon N. Cooper

doi:10.1017/CBO9781107337879.015

13 - Source and Limits of Human Intellect

from Part Two - Thought and Consciousness

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2014

Leon N. Cooper

Show author details

Leon N. Cooper: Affiliation:
Brown University, Rhode Island

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The brain is believed to be the physical source of thought. But can the human brain understand itself? Are there limits to human intellect? If so, what are they and how will we know when we have reached them?

This essay is based on an article originally published in the journal Daedalus, 109(2), in the spring of 1980.

Not so long ago the eye was thought to be a somewhat miraculous organ functioning in a more prosaic body. We smile indulgently at the naïveté of our intellectual grandparents. Today, though we regard our eyes with great respect, few attribute magical properties to them. The same might be said for kidneys, the heart, and other organs. We appreciate their importance, we may understand how they work, we may not be able to build them as efficiently as nature does, yet we hardly regard them as mysterious.

The same calm does not seem to prevail when we consider the brain. Although the brain could be regarded in the same way we regard the heart, the eye, or a muscle, the functions associated with the physical entity “brain” such as thought, consciousness, and awareness of self – those most precious human characteristics – are not as easily attributed to the earthy material in which they may or may not originate, as the function of pumping might be attributed to the heart.

Type: Chapter
Information: Science and Human Experience
Values, Culture, and the Mind
, pp. 87 - 108

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107337879.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

In Cooper, L. N (1976). How Possible Becomes Actual in the Quantum Theory, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 120(1), 37–45, I have argued that this is not necessary.Google Scholar

Weisskopf, V. F. (1975). The Frontiers and Limits of Science, Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 28(6), 15–26.CrossRef Google Scholar

Anderson, J. A. (1970). Two Models for Memory Organization Using Interacting Traces, Mathematical Biosciences, 8, 137–160;CrossRef Google Scholar

Cooper, L. N (1974). A Possible Organization of Animal Memory and Learning, Proceedings of the Nobel Symposium on Collective Properties of Physical Systems, B., Lundquist and S., Lundquist (eds.), New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Kohonen, T. (1972). Correlation Matrix Memories, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Transactions on Computers, C-21, 353–359; Longuet-Higgins, H. C. (1965).Google Scholar

Holographic Model of Temporal Recall, Nature, 217(104); Pribram, K., Nuwcr, M., and Baron, R. (1974). The Holographic Hypothesis of Memory Structure in Brain Function and Perception, in Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology, vol. 2, D. H., Krantz, R. C., Atkinson, R. D., Luce, and P., Suppes (eds.), San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, pp. 416–457Google Scholar

Willshaw, D. J., Buneman, O. P., and Longuet-Higgins, H. C. (1969). Non-Holographic Associative Memory, Nature, 222, 960–982.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

A more detailed discussion of some of these ideas is given in two articles: Anderson

J. A. and Cooper, L. N (1978). Biological Organization of Memory, in Pluriscience, Paris: Encyclopaedia Universalis, pp. 168–175Google Scholar