Skip Navigation

Brain 2005 128(1):1-2; doi:10.1093/brain/awh360
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Compston, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Compston, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Brain Vol. 128 No. 1 © Guarantors of Brain 2005; all rights reserved

Editorial

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Last year, William Feindel and Valerie Grosvenor Myer reviewed medical and social attitudes to the physical basis and nature of the soul; and Ray Tallis tackled the thorny issue of consciousness. But if these arguments were eventually settled in favour of an anatomical locus of mind, how then does the brain work? Leonardo da Vinci first moved neurological attention from functions dependent on the contents of the ventricles to the brain substance itself. But in 1543, Andreas Vesalius doubted whether anatomy would ever explain function and, as late as 1633, Kenelme Digby was still advancing Platonic ideas on the function of the nervous system. In ‘Impulses, good and . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Alastair Compston, Editor


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?