This question is mainly about neurochemistry and molecular neuroscience! Clarification supposedly suggested by Arnon Weinberg.

I thoroughly and extensively read Philosophy, Neuroscience, Psychology, Neurobiology and Molecular Biology textbooks along with much existentialist, liberalist and classic literature and ncbi, pubmed regarding them https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104996/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16166028 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5871756/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1804747/

My problem is that only senses(particularly taste and smell) are explained in my textbooks by molecular biology and physical movements(Heart Beats, Respiration, Blinking, Voluntary Movements)

What I often see is Neuroanatomy, Neurophysiology, Neuroimmunology, Neurogenetics(this one quitte uninformative like simply stating X gene is linked with Y symptom). Nonetheless Molecular Biology is a distinct textbook. How( including which) chemical reactions explain desires.


closed as too broad by Bryan Krause, Arnon Weinberg Apr 10 at 5:44

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ Last time you were here asking about these similar broad topics I suggested you try a basic textbook on neuroscience. Have you considered taking my suggestion? $\endgroup$ – Bryan Krause Apr 9 at 23:44
  • $\begingroup$ @BryanKrause Yes earnestly I did so. I tried Professor Purves' et al which you yourself suggested. But it only analized emotions and memory. And it was not a functional(chemical reactions) study but mainly an anatomical and pathological one. It also was really big and had many nuisances. I am interested in a functional(molecular biology) alone study(textbook) on solely cognitive function( only cognitive function but all of it mainly the thought process and learning) $\endgroup$ – George Ntoulos Apr 10 at 0:31
  • $\begingroup$ You're asking about a very complex topic. You are only going to get complex answers. You need to stop looking for an easy way out, and stop ignoring the fact that all of the processes described reduce to chemical reactions and interactions if you want to learn something in this area. $\endgroup$ – Bryan Krause Apr 10 at 0:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You would like cognitive function comprehensively explained down to the molecular biology level in detail sufficient to be clear of confusion or doubt, in the length of a StackExchange answer? This is absolutely impossible. Do you realize that there are thousands of scientists studying minute details of this question for decades? How is that to be explained according to the parameters you request? $\endgroup$ – Bryan Krause Apr 10 at 0:59
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If you want to understand how cognitive function can be just a chemical system, to a sufficient level to convince yourself, you'd either need to take someone's word for it or study neuroscience very seriously, though the answer is not straight forward, it is referred to as the hard problem. But your second part about "responsibility" is completely different and not even answerable by science but rather by philosophy. $\endgroup$ – Bryan Krause Apr 11 at 16:25