I am, of course, an enthusiast for the amazing things coming out of the neuroscience labs nowadays, but it is always wise to put these things in context. Much of my enthusiasm derives from the fact that when I was a young undergraduate over 20 years ago, our knowledge of what actually went on in the brain was, basically, almost entirely guess-work. And, being of an analytical persuasion, I was an eager reductionist, always wanting to tie cognitive theory to the nuts and bolts of what happens in the brain. I am a little (just a little) less of a reductionist nowadays, perhaps - or perhaps not. I was also always a big fan of emergent properties - the idea that putting two things together can create attributes that were not predictable from their component parts.

All of which is a lead-up to an article I read recently, commenting on the findings of neuroscience, and suggesting the research has been over-hyped. It's a good article, and I think it makes a good point, although (of course) I still think neuroscience has taught, and will teach, us a great deal about ourselves. And I do in fact agree with Bloom's suggestion that this research will lead to a greater revolution than the idea of evolution (see earlier blog item). And I do think we will solve all these mysteries, including that of consciousness. But not necessarily solely from the research of neuroscience labs.