The Tell-Tale Brain

“Cases of prefrontal damage are especially distressing to relatives. Such a patient seems to lose all interest in his own future and he shows no moral compunctions of any kind. He may laugh at a funeral or urinate in public. The great paradox is that he seems normal in most respects: his language, his memory, and even his IQ are unaffected.”

In the Introduction, Ramachandran highlights his approach to neuroscience, in particular his interest in The Impact of Neurological Disorders. He studies patients with damage to a single structure of the human brain that causes them to have unique and sometimes bizarre experiences. In the passage above, Ramachandran describes how damage to the left prefrontal lobe causes a person to lose the quintessential attributes that define them as human, including empathy, ambition, and a sense of dignity. Nothing else changes about the person. Neural disorders help researchers, like Ramachandran, understand the origin, function, and structures of normal, healthy brains.

“I remember a patient named Victor on whom I conducted nearly a month of frenzied experiments. He came to see me because his left arm had been amputated below the elbow about three weeks prior to his visit. I first verified that there was nothing wrong with him neurologically: His brain was intact, his mind was normal. Based on a hunch I blind-folded him and started touching various parts of his body with a Q-tip, asking him to report what he felt, and where. His answers were all very normal and correct until I started touching the left side of his face. Then something very odd happened.”

The above example highlights one method of popular science writing (See: Background). Ramachandran is using a specific story to show how he uncovered one mystery of the brain. Through Victor’s story, Ramachandran demystifies the scientific process for readers by showing readers how he conducts experiments to help people with neurological disorders. Ramachandran also shows that scientists can make incredible discoveries with simple, low-cost methods. Here, Ramachandran uncovered human brain plasticity using Q-tips and water.

“Our observations flatly contradicted this dogma by showing, for the first time, that even the basic sensory maps in the adult human brain can change over distances of several centimeters.”

Throughout the book, Ramachandran busts widely-held dogmas about the human brain. As one example, neuroscientists believed that the brain’s neural connections did not change throughout a person’s life. Ramachandran’s work with phantom limbs demonstrated the fallacy of this belief. He showed that neural connections could be reshaped and modeled after traumatic injuries. Brain plasticity is one hallmark of humankind. Humans are the only species that use plasticity in brain refinement, reflecting The Nature of Human Uniqueness.

“Lastly, consider the universal greeting gesture in humans: the smile. When an ape is approached by another ape, the default assumption is that it is being approached by a potentially dangerous stranger, so it signals its readiness to fight by protruding its canines in a grimace. This evolved further and became ritualized into a mock threat expression, an aggressive gesture warning the intruder of potential retaliation. But if the approaching ape is recognized as a friend, the threat expression (baring canines) is aborted halfway, and this halfway grimace (partly hiding the canines) becomes an expression of appeasement and friendliness. Once again a potential threat (attack) is abruptly aborted—the key ingredients for laughter. No wonder a smile has the same subjective feeling as laughter. It incorporates the same logic and may piggyback on the same neural circuits.”

In The Tell-Tale Brain, Ramachandran uses both scientific evidence as well as hypotheses and speculation to help readers understand the structure and functions of the human brain. Ramachandran has received criticism for some of his speculations, with some critics suggesting that it is not always clear when Ramachandran is discussing a topic grounded in peer-reviewed science or speculation. The discussion above about the origin of human laughter and smiles is one such example. While the discussion is interesting, it is a hypothesis. However, Ramachandran’s tone of authority here, which is a key ingredient in popular science writing, makes it seem as if his hypothesis is a scientific fact. We still do not understand the origin of human laughter and smiles.

“John emphasized repeatedly that there was nothing wrong with his eyesight. ‘My vision is fine, Doctor. Things are out of focus in my mind, not in my eye.’”

One of Ramachandran’s central tenets in Chapter 2 is that vision occurs in the brain rather than the eyes. He supports this assertion using several clinical studies. John, a 60-year-old former fighter pilot in World War II, represents the first example. After complications from his appendix removal caused a stroke, John lost the ability to know what he was looking at, including recognizing faces, and suffered from tunnel vision. This disorder is called agnosia. Here, the stroke caused damage to the fusiform gyrus which helps trigger recognition, memory, and feelings in visual processing. In the above passage, John emphasizes to his doctor that his eyes are fine, but things are out of focus in his mind. Ramachandran notes throughout the book that an important part of clinical work is listening to patients. Here, John correctly identifies that something has gone wrong in his mind and not with his eyes.

“In the late 1970s a woman in Zurich, whom I’ll call Ingrid, suffered a stroke that damaged the MT areas on both sides of her brain but left the rest of her brain intact. Ingrid’s vision was normal in most respects: She could read newspapers and recognize objects and people. But she had great difficulty seeing movement. When she looked at a moving car, it appeared like a long succession of static snapshots, as if seen under a strobe.”

Ramachandran uses Ingrid’s story to show how researchers uncover mysteries of the brain. Prior to the stroke, Ingrid did not have issues with her vision or perception. After the stroke, Ingrid struggled to gauge movement. Ramachandran came up with a hypothesis that might explain Ingrid’s situation. He hypothesized that the middle temporal (MT) area dealt with seeing movement, given Ingrid’s experience post-stroke. Neuroscientists then conducted other studies of MT areas in monkey brains and healthy human brains using brain images and microelectrodes to determine the veracity of the hypothesis. Findings from the studies supported the hypothesis.

“Science traffics in objective evidence, so any ‘observations’ we make about people’s subjective sensory experiences are necessarily indirect or secondhand. I would point out though that subjective impressions and single-subject case studies can often provide strong clues toward designing more formal experiments.”

Ramachandran is a unique scientist. While he strongly defends the scientific process, he also understands that ideas sometimes come from non-standard approaches. In his own work, hunches or initial one-off observations have led him down paths of discovery. Ramachandran believes science needs a variety of perspectives and methods. His method is just one among many that scientists can use as they begin to ponder how to explain human phenomena and how to test their hypotheses.

“To find out if Robert was being truthful we did a simple experiment. I asked him to stare at the nose of a photograph of another college student and asked Robert what color he saw around the face. Robert said the student’s halo was red. I then briefly flashed either red or green dots on different locations in the halo. Robert’s gaze immediately darted toward a green spot but only rarely toward a red one; in fact, he claimed not to have seen the red spots at all.”

Robert’s story is another example of how Ramachandran approaches science. Ramachandran begins with an anomaly. In Robert’s case, Robert claimed to see color as a halo around faces. This ability became even stronger when Robert drank alcohol. Ramachandran then conducts experiments to demonstrate the truthfulness of an individual’s unique (and sometimes bizarre) perception. Through the experiment described in the above passage, Ramachandran showed Robert was being truthful. Finally, Ramachandran hypothesizes or tests what he thinks is going on in the brain that explains the symptom’s origin. Ramachandran suggested that Robert might have stronger connections between the insula and higher brain regions devoted to color. By breaking down his approach to science with real case studies, Ramachandran helps demystify the process for readers.

“Many a student has asked the seemingly naïve question, ‘how do I know that your red isn’t my blue?’ Synesthesia reminds us that this question may not be that naïve after all.”

Conscious experience is subjective. This reality partly explains why some scientists still do not accept the veracity of synesthesia as a sensory phenomenon, despite overwhelming proof from experiments and tests (including done by Ramachandran himself). Ramachandran believes synesthesia might be a window into humans better understanding consciousness, which remains one of humankind’s most elusive attributes. Neurons are selectively activating and bypassing some visual areas of the brain with this phenomenon. If scientists can figure out how to do this on the normal, healthy human brain, then we would be able to study consciousness. Ramachandran believes we are close to being able to conduct such experiments.

“We would be nothing without our savant-like ability to imitate others.”

A central argument in this chapter is that the development of a sophisticated mirror neuron system enabled humans to imitate others far beyond what we see in primates. Ramachandran believes this ability was key to humankind’s creation of culture, reflecting Evolution and Brain Development. Imitation enabled humans to move evolution from genes to culture. Cultural evolution allows for knowledge to be spread more quickly than gene-based evolution. Humans dominate Earth because of culture.

“Some of the neurons fired not only when the monkey performed an action, but also when it watched another monkey performing the same action!”

Ramachandran is describing the key study by several neuroscientists that uncovered mirror neurons in monkeys. Mirror neurons are important because they allow primates to mimic the actions of others. Mirror neurons also appear in humans, but are far more sophisticated than in apes. Ramachandran considers the discovery of mirror neurons to be revolutionary. For him, it changed our understanding of the evolution of human culture. Mirror neurons drove our imitation and language abilities. Culture only emerged after the advent of language and imitation. Without sophisticated mirror neurons, Ramachandran believes that human culture would not exist.

“You can make two columns side by side, one for the known characteristics of mirror neurons and one for the clinical symptoms of autism, and there is an almost precise match. It seemed reasonable, therefore, to suggest that the main cause of autism is a dysfunctional mirror-neuron system.”

This passage is another example where Ramachandran’s authoritative tone, which is an important method in popular science writing, potentially misleads readers. Ramachandran states that mirror neurons help explain some of the symptoms associated with autism, invoking The Impact of Neurological Disorders. However, he fails to mention that this theory at the time of writing his book was still controversial. In fact, even today, the role mirror neurons play in the development and treatment of autism remains unclear. This is one drawback of popular science writing: The valid intention to make science more interesting for a lay audience sometimes means important nuances are left out of an argument (See: Background).

“Despite its vehement tendency to assert its privacy and independence, the self actually emerges from a reciprocity of interactions with others and with the body it is embedded in. When it withdraws from society and retreats from its own body it barely exists; at least not in the sense of a mature self that defines our existence as human beings.”

In addition to mirror neurons, Ramachandran suggests that a distorted salience landscape caused by scrambled connections in the brain might explain the development of autism. Salience landscape is how a person defines their existence (or, essentially, their consciousness). Autistic individuals struggle with differentiating between the pronouns “I” and “you” in conversations, suggesting they also struggle with their own sense of being a person. Ramachandran implies that autism might be a disorder of self-consciousness. Thus, studying this disorder is another way that researchers might better understand consciousness through assessing The Impact of Neurological Disorders.

“The seemingly infinite flexibility and open-endedness of our language is one of the hallmarks of the human species.”

The key argument in Chapter 6 is that language is unique to humankind, forming part of The Nature of Human Uniqueness. While chimpanzees can be taught to sign simple sentences, they cannot form complex sentences on their own. While language is one of our most incredible attributes, its origin remains shrouded in mystery and debate. Ramachandran proposes a novel theory to explain its origin. He believes language did not evolve for communication, but as a byproduct of cross-wiring, like synesthesia. While aspects of his theory are difficult to test, Ramachandran believes we need to incorporate findings from neuroscience into theories of language evolution (which linguists have rarely done).

“The answer comes, once again, from the expectation principle—the notion that adaptation to a specific function becomes assimilated into another, entirely different function. One intriguing possibility is that the hierarchical tree structure of syntax may have evolved from a more primitive neural circuit that was already in place for tool use in the brains of our early hominin ancestors.”

One of the theories in this chapter is that syntax evolved as a byproduct for selection of other abilities, specifically tool use, reflecting the theme of Evolution and Brain Development. Ramachandran suggests the logical sequence of tool cracking is like the subject-verb-object sequence that is part of language. Creating tools involves cracking a stone (the verb). The tool user performs this action (subject) on the stone in their hand (object). If the brain was already wired for manual actions in this sequence, then it might have helped fuel language evolution. As tools became more sophisticated, they might have laid down the circuitry necessary for humans to be able to use nouns in sentences. While this theory is tantalizing and creative, it also remains extremely difficult to test. Ramachandran believes creativity with theories will be key to understanding language evolution.

“The males of the genus are drab little fellows but, perhaps as a Freudian compensation, they build enormous gorgeously decorated bowers—bachelor pads—to attract mates. One species builds a bower that is eight feet tall with elaborately constructed entrances, archways, and even lawns in front of the entryway. On different parts of the bower, he arranges clusters of flowers into bouquets, sorts berries of various types by color, and forms gleaming white hillocks out of bits of bone and eggshell. Smooth shiny pebbles arranged into elaborate designs are often part of the display.”

This passage illustrates two key points. First, the principles of aesthetics are universal across species. Male bowerbirds use groupings by contrast, color, and symmetry in their nests or bowers to attract females. These same groupings are attractive to humans. Ramachandran does underscore that art is unique to humans. Second, the author tries to include humor, which is an important aspect of popular science writing. Male bowerbirds are not colorful. Ramachandran plays on Freud’s obsession with sex to add humor to why male bowerbirds spend so much time building such elaborate nests (i.e., it is to overcompensate for their drab appearance).

“Picasso’s Cubist pictures were anything but realistic. His women—with two eyes on one side of the face, hunchbacks, misplaced limbs, and so on—were considerably more distorted than Chola bronzes or Mogul miniatures. Yet the Western response to Picasso was that he was a genius who liberated us from the tyranny of realism by showing us that art doesn’t have to be realistic. I do not mean to detract from Picasso’s brilliance, but he was doing what Indian artists had done a millennium earlier.”

Ramachandran provides several examples of art from India, his home country. In doing so, he calls out Western bias against non-Western art. Picasso is hailed in the West as one of the best artists of all time because of his creativity and exaggeration. However, many people in the West find Indian art to be too grotesque, even though Indian artists are doing exactly what Picasso did (although they did it first). While Ramachandran does not focus on differences in artistic styles, he clearly wants to convey to readers that Indian art and art by Picasso follow the same universal laws of aesthetics.

“There is a widespread fear among scholars in the humanities and arts that science may someday take over their discipline and deprive them of employment, a syndrome I dubbed ‘neuron envy.’ Nothing could be further from the truth.”

In interviews, Ramachandran addresses this concern that scientific methods are too reductive when trying to explain art. Ramachandran does not disagree that culture influences art. However, he notes that science is not trying to explain art but the aesthetics that underpin art. Aesthetics clearly have a universal basis considering it transcends culture and species. Scientists must study aesthetics to better understand what is going on in the brain to cause this universality. Scientists and art historians can thus both study art and aesthetics together.

“To say that the wiring in your visual centers embodies universal laws does not negate the critical role of culture and experience in shaping your brain and mind.”

Ramachandran believes that both nature (evolution) and nurture (culture) have shaped humankind. Evolution has shaped the brain and mind; however, it only explains so much in humans. Culture, which is learned, is also critical to what makes us human. This combination of nature and nurture makes the human brain unique among all other species on Earth.

“Figure 8.3 shows the famous illusory triangle described by Italian psychologist Gaetano Kanizsa. There really isn’t a triangle. It’s just three black Pac-Man-like figures facing one another. But you perceive an opaque white triangle whose three corners partially occlude three black circular discs. Your brains says (in effect), ‘What’s the likelihood that these three Pac-Men are lined up exactly like this simply by chance? It’s too much of a suspicious coincidence. A more plausible explanation is that it depicts an opaque white triangle occluding three black discs.’”

In Chapters 7 and 8, Ramachandran includes figures to help illustrate his nine laws of aesthetics. These figures, like Figure 8.3, help readers more easily understand the laws. While Ramachandran provides interesting and engaging discussions, he often meanders from his thesis for each law, which might get confusing to lay readers. The incorporation of figures helps readers pull out the key argument for each law.

“As we shall see, a variety of neurological conditions show us that the self is not the monolithic entity it believes itself to be. This conclusion flies directly in the face of some of our most deep-seated intuitions about ourselves—but data are data.”

In Chapter 9, Ramachandran refutes the notion that we have a single self. Instead, the notion of self includes seven key components. Ramachandran understands that this revelation might shock readers, since it goes against conventional wisdom about how we view the human self. As a result, he meticulously documents a number of different neurological disorders that disrupt one aspect of self but not the others. These disorders fragment a person’s sense of self.

“By studying patients such as those in this chapter, who have deficits and disturbances in the unity of self, we can gain deeper insights into what it means to be human.”

Ramachandran succinctly summarizes his approach to studying the brain and the concept of self through exploring The Impact of Neurological Disorders. He focuses on neurological disorders (or anomalies) in order to better understand a healthy, normal brain. For his discussion on self-awareness, Ramachandran examines neurological disorders that impact a person’s perception of their self. Ramachandran does not just discuss behavioral changes, but also provides theories and evidence for what is going on in the brain. This combination of behavioral and neurological evidence allows for a more holistic understanding of the human self.

“As I said in my BBC Reith Lectures, ‘Science tells us we are merely beasts, but we don’t feel like that. We feel like angels trapped inside the bodies of beasts, forever craving transcendence.’”

This sentence summarizes the human predicament in a nutshell, reflecting The Nature of Human Uniqueness. Humans are mammals. We share certain biological characteristics with other mammals that have been hard-wired into us due to evolution. We are also so much more largely due to our own self-awareness. This self-awareness is what makes us human, but what also drives humankind’s desire to be more than human.