Autograph: "In Search of Memory", "Brain and Soul"

Books about neuroscience. You can be sure that "In Search of Memory" Eric Kandel deserves no less attention than the previous book on neuroscience, published in a beautiful "black", "CORPUS" series of the publishing house. This volume and endlessly interesting text in which the intertwined study of Nobel laureate and his fate. Previously published "The brain and the soul" of the British neuropsychologist Chris Frith did not differ similar literary component and bluntly penetrate the consciousness and so shone through him that was breathtaking. Books that you translated, dedicated to neuroscience, but the authors did not start with it. Kandel first sought itself in the humanitarian sphere, for Frith's starting point was psychology. As there was a shift from those of their subjects that they did initially, to a natural science?

In the case of Frith, probably, to answer this question is more difficult because his book is not autobiographical, but purely scientific and popular. One suspects that he was bored some disdain for psychologists, which is observed in the scientific community. The impression in his book that he was from complexes and wanted to do that for this reason the field of psychology, which is associated with the experiments and verifiable, more reliable knowledge. Psychology was considered by many people, and partly considered as a second-rate science, something akin to, perhaps, astrology, palmistry ... All in all, not real science.

To improve brain functions I recommend to buy: Phenotropil, Peptides Pinealon ,Cogitum,  Phenibut, Semax, Picamilon, Neuromidine.

How do you think this is true?

I think this is largely true of many areas of psychology, which were once. For example, with respect to phrenology - Gall's doctrine, about which wrote in some detail Kandel. But this, of course, unfair to the field of psychology, which is now engaged himself Frith. And I think more and more it is unfair to psychology in general. Because psychology is more and increasingly on the basis of natural science. And, being in nature science, though, and humanitarian, but dealing with the processes studied experimentally, it is, in my opinion, clearly and should be developed in this direction.

What about Kandel?

In the case of Candel’s impression that the process was more gradual. Initially, he was interested in history, much of history, which was for him personally - the history of the Second World War and its perception of European society, and then, once in the United States - already in exile - in the circle of people close to psychoanalysis, he became interested in psychoanalysis. But in this area it was fascinated by the idea to find a biological basis for psychoanalytic functions in the brain (which Freud himself has said, especially in the early, early years of its activity). And Kandel turned to a good man, Harry Grundfest, who helped him find his way in this direction. Although, of course, its application at first, as he himself admits, were excessive. He would immediately solve the fundamental problem - which are located in the brain, "I", "It" and "superego." But later put a more specific and more tasks to be solved and, as we see from his book, they decided quite successfully. At least to the extent to which they can be resolved at this stage.

Can we now assume that the natural science disciplines who are engaged in Kandel and Frith?

I think yes. And I believe in the so-called human sciences there are quite pronounced tendency to "scientific" if you can call it. Without trial and error is not development, so I'm pretty optimistic about this process. I, like many naturalists, belong to the humanities, can be somewhat critical of it in terms of narrative - in terms of what you can head and share a lot of things, and verifiability of these notions in many disciplines and areas of relatively low. But it seems to me that the natural development of science as such, helps to ensure that checks were carried out as far as possible, check the direction deepened and developed, and gradually unchecked - in varying degrees - or transformed into a more testable, or discarded.

You mentioned psychoanalysis. Interestingly, both authors speak about Freud at the beginning, but in a completely different attitude to it. Frith believes that Freud was "a swindler", and Kandel, on the contrary, from it comes and saves him respect. How do you think the reason for this difference in relation to the authors?

I suspect that the reason is largely in the medium. I think it is important that from the very beginning Frith brought up, grew up in an environment of British psychologists, quite critical of psychoanalysis. Then he was younger. And in any case, probably not experienced the direct influence of the circle of English friends of Freud. A Kandel in his youth was among the people, even those who knew Freud personally, and for the environment in which he was, Freud was an unquestionable authority. And Kandel was by no means inclined to reject this authority. My own acquaintance with the book Kandel convinced me that Freud was not as bad as commonly believed among naturalists. Another reason may be due to the fact that Kandel best known works of Freud and better imagined that, despite the enthusiasm unverifiable and often apparently erroneous concepts that were undoubtedly Freud, its roots did not grow out of palmistry or phrenology and of the science of neurobiology. Only he can be tried too boldly to solve the problems he faced at that stage of development of science, on which he worked. But I was struck by a quotation from Freud, candela Present, as I read and translated this book. Freud wrote in black and white that biology - a "kingdom of unlimited possibilities" and maybe ever answers it will give to our questions, as the wind will blow all the "artificial building hypotheses," which we have built. I think it is very clearly indicates that Freud was not as bad as he is painted. And, in particular, as it draws Frith.

Do you think after reading these books a person is changing picture of themselves and their own minds?

I think this is highly dependent on the person. On how the person is ready to accept what he read in those books. These topics are related to us the fundamental question of philosophy - "know thyself," that we are, our psyche, our soul, if we use this term - the theme is quite painful. The man who is set categorically that the content of these books - it's kind of heresy, even though they both read from beginning to end, and remains convinced that it is heresy. Is that if his conviction is not so deep, then maybe he will be able to change their point of view. But the person or persons unbiased moderately biased, of course, if he is not familiar with all the facts set out in these books, to some extent change their world by reading them.

Which side do you think?

In the case of book Frith important thing is that it seems to me, the author would like the readers to have learned from it and what readers can of bear it - is the idea that our perception of reality is not so much shoot camera, it seems to us (when we look around you, we think that we're shooting the film and perceive it) as a kind of intricate model that is created by our brain constantly doctored, and in accordance with what our senses take off, but our consciousness is not directly transmitted. The perception of our consciousness - this is not a film, which is removed our senses, and spectacle that play out of our brain simulation system in accordance with this film. This is something that concerns Frith.

As for Kandel, I think the main point, which can and should be drawn from his book - is that in spite of, perhaps, popular opinion and, in any case, contrary to the views that have been valid for some time ago, memory mechanisms are already in varying degrees, clear. At least the basic mechanisms of memory. And, consequently, what they are. Moreover, in some degree fundamental mechanisms clear of the memory is not only cellular but also at the molecular level. Although, of course, this is only the first steps in the direction of research in this area.

That is clear principles, but details are not yet clear?

Yes, but the devil is in the details, as you know ... I think that the fundamental mechanisms is rather apparent than not, on the basis of these fundamental mechanisms occur very complex processes, and to understand these processes in detail is still good if we succeed in this century!

In Kandel in the book of two lines: one personal, biographical, and the other - the story of his scientific research. Do you think any of these lines is more important and why Kandel weaves into the text so much personal history?

I think he decided to write the book in the original genre (in this interweaving of the two lines is precisely its meaning). Given that he was one of the key figures of memory research and the emergence of what he calls "a new science of the human psyche", can be quite consistently explain the origins of this science and its main results in parallel with the story of his own life. And by this unusual and unconventional genre - not too many have known books in this genre! - He tried to twist organically history of science and the history of his own life. In addition, he stressed that his interest in the memory associated with living memories of his childhood. His childhood was rich in very bright, though sad events (unfortunately) associated with the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria by Germany, with the persecution of Jews in Vienna and forced emigration of his family. He emphasizes that his interest in the memory has been largely due to the fact that his memories were an essential element of his life, an important part of his self-image ...

And Frith, and Kandel used in certain books of literary devices. About Kandel we have said, and Frith includes the text of such a fun character, as a professor of English. How much do you think these elements are useful and relevant to the scientific and popular literature?

I think that in principle, of course, they have a right to exist, if we talk about it quite generally. It is better to consider them individually, the more so in the case in Frith is an element of fiction, as in the case of Candela - a combination of memoirs with the scientific and popular literature.
I will explain for those who have not read the book, Chris Frith, her canvas is a kind of "party", which gather teachers of various disciplines, and in the course of this event, they discuss their ideas about the world, and those areas of science in which they are engaged. And this dialogue element woven into them can be quite artificial, but it seems to me that aims primarily humorous purposes animates the narrative. Although the character he portrays in accordance with stereotypes - this is not some imposition of stereotypes, but just kind of humorous scene, in the spirit, you know, sketches "Monty Python" or anything else from the area of English humor. So, on the one hand, it is this technique several animates the narrative, on the other hand, allows the reader to hear arguments that usually lead people standing on very different platforms, namely the so-called humanitarian platforms. And to demonstrate to the reader, perhaps not as well received in disagreement between scientists, are quite traditional fundamental dispute between the "physicists and lyricists," between natural scientists and humanities. Although this character, Professor of English, satirical shows, we must pay tribute to Frith, it's still not quite so blackens the humanities.

If the story Frith I see some artificiality, it can be quite justified, then Kandel is likely to attempt to consistently explain what really worries the author. And so is this author that it really is quite concerned about different things. Partly related to the history of the Second World War, in part related to the science which he did, and with his personal fate, and even personal life.

You are enthusiastic about translating books about neuroscience - why?

A second reason is just due to the fact why, it seems to me, many readers probably will not be ready to accept what is contained in these books. This reason stems from the fact that these modern neuropsychology and molecular, so to speak, of the science of the human mind, about which wrote Kandel, quite dramatically transform our perception of ourselves. And such ideas are changing slowly, reluctantly, but nevertheless, according to probably all the people close to science, truth is better than a lie, and knowledge is better than ignorance. Therefore, the spread of the knowledge gained in these areas - it is good. Because "Scientists - light, ignorance - darkness', because" knowledge - force "and therefore that" know thyself "!