Sep 10, 2026 10:40 PM
A neuroscientist just challenged one of the brain's biggest assumptions
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-neuroscie...-decisions
EXCERPT: In a new study published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, neuroscientist Tom James from Indiana University challenges the conventional 'sense-think-act' view of how the brain makes decisions, also known as the 'sandwich model'.
The core idea is that our feeling of deliberation (which pizza topping to have, for example) and the physical choice itself (opting for ham and pineapple) are actually happening together, triggered by the same neural activity in the brain. n other words, there's no middle step between sense and act, just the illusion of one, the argument goes.
"Explaining that the brain works by way of a central controller suggests that you haven't figured out how the brain works, because you've just put a person inside your brain," says James. "That person inside your brain would need another person inside its brain, which would need a person inside its brain and so on, in an infinite regress. So the problem is never solved. It's just passed on."
The idea of decision making may be an illusion, the study argues. (James, J. Cogn. Neurosci., 2026) There are several layers to the hypothesis put forward by James.
One is that while sensory and motor mechanisms are connected to physical, biological machinery – like eyes to see an apple and a hand to grab it – decision-making doesn't have a physical link. So while we might have the sense of making decisions, and decisions are actually being made, the neuroscience behind them needs a rethink.
"The leap, I think, is to say that the brain works by having decision-making or control processes," says James. "It produces behavior that is well described in that way. But it doesn't need a process that does that to make it look that way."
James puts forward several analogies to make his point. One is saying "the university took certain actions."
For example, we might say "the university decided to close early." The phrase can be useful shorthand, of course, but that's an abstraction of the different meetings, calls, and other interactions that went into that decision. It does not identify the physical people and events that produced the outcome. Similarly, the neuroscientist argues, the idea of the brain having a separate decision-making moment is also an abstraction.
Another analogy involves robots. If a robot is programmed to turn towards its targets and avoid collisions, those simple rules might lead it to follow along the walls of a room to find what it's after. That strategy might appear to be a decision made by the robot – but actually, it's simpler than that. It's a result of more basic programming.
"It looks intentional. It looks strategic. It looks like the robot is making decisions. And yet, it is not," says James. "The reason we know it is not is that there are no systems built into it to do that." (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Most of the acts we perform in a day are habitual or automatic (via practice and conditioning) rather than something lengthily mulled over in our thoughts. But to contend that there are never situations that demand critical attention and an internal debate and considering evidence and consequences to decide what to do is ridiculous.
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-neuroscie...-decisions
EXCERPT: In a new study published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, neuroscientist Tom James from Indiana University challenges the conventional 'sense-think-act' view of how the brain makes decisions, also known as the 'sandwich model'.
The core idea is that our feeling of deliberation (which pizza topping to have, for example) and the physical choice itself (opting for ham and pineapple) are actually happening together, triggered by the same neural activity in the brain. n other words, there's no middle step between sense and act, just the illusion of one, the argument goes.
"Explaining that the brain works by way of a central controller suggests that you haven't figured out how the brain works, because you've just put a person inside your brain," says James. "That person inside your brain would need another person inside its brain, which would need a person inside its brain and so on, in an infinite regress. So the problem is never solved. It's just passed on."
The idea of decision making may be an illusion, the study argues. (James, J. Cogn. Neurosci., 2026) There are several layers to the hypothesis put forward by James.
One is that while sensory and motor mechanisms are connected to physical, biological machinery – like eyes to see an apple and a hand to grab it – decision-making doesn't have a physical link. So while we might have the sense of making decisions, and decisions are actually being made, the neuroscience behind them needs a rethink.
"The leap, I think, is to say that the brain works by having decision-making or control processes," says James. "It produces behavior that is well described in that way. But it doesn't need a process that does that to make it look that way."
James puts forward several analogies to make his point. One is saying "the university took certain actions."
For example, we might say "the university decided to close early." The phrase can be useful shorthand, of course, but that's an abstraction of the different meetings, calls, and other interactions that went into that decision. It does not identify the physical people and events that produced the outcome. Similarly, the neuroscientist argues, the idea of the brain having a separate decision-making moment is also an abstraction.
Another analogy involves robots. If a robot is programmed to turn towards its targets and avoid collisions, those simple rules might lead it to follow along the walls of a room to find what it's after. That strategy might appear to be a decision made by the robot – but actually, it's simpler than that. It's a result of more basic programming.
"It looks intentional. It looks strategic. It looks like the robot is making decisions. And yet, it is not," says James. "The reason we know it is not is that there are no systems built into it to do that." (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Most of the acts we perform in a day are habitual or automatic (via practice and conditioning) rather than something lengthily mulled over in our thoughts. But to contend that there are never situations that demand critical attention and an internal debate and considering evidence and consequences to decide what to do is ridiculous.
