Neuroscientists have often argued "the mind is nothing more than a pattern of electrical activity in the brain” and have sought to explain how the brain works based on scans of brain activity. These claims are seemingly confirmed by the success of technology such as Neuralink that enables individuals to control robots with their thoughts. But critics argue such claims are profoundly mistaken. Scans of blood flow in the brain or PET scans do not provide an account of how the brain thinks. While Neuralink relies on trial and error and pattern matching, rather than an explanation of how the brain works. Furthermore, neuroscience has not yielded medical breakthroughs in the treatment of brain disease, and some argue this is because it fundamentally does not explain brain function.

Were we mistaken to imagine that neuroscience can explain how the brain works? Are maps of physical brain function in principle incapable of explaining how we think? Or will neuroscience prove to enable powerful technology even if it does not explain thought?

One of the world's most cited neuroscientists Karl Friston, philosopher of time Victoria Trumbull, and Cambridge autism researcher Simon Baron-Cohen debate the mind and the brain.