5 ms·
Disclaimer: I'm a mathematician, well versed in algebraic topology & also have a PhD in biology. This is one of the most disingenuous papers I've read in a whi
by dkural 9y ago
Disclaimer: I'm a mathematician, well versed in algebraic topology & also have a PhD in biology.
This is one of the most disingenuous papers I've read in a while, indeed my first reaction was "wow, what a load of horse shit".
The editorial on the journal's main "selling point" is that it applies algebraic topology "in a novel way, never before seen" to neuroscience. There is absolutely no reason to use algebraic topology in this context.
They're basically counting in a variety of ways network motifs - which Uri Alon & others have been doing for years. This is entirely possible to do using directed graphs, basic combinatorics, and elementary probability.
As other commenters have pointed out, there's at best a weak correlation to actual brain activity, and the amount of data is not actually that large and within reach of off-the-shelf graph software to process (or a python script).
This is also not the first time the senior author of the paper has hyped otherwise lackluster results. It's easier to impress a TED audience than your peers. Here's a critical review on Nature:
https://www.nature.com/news/rethinking-the-brain-1.17168 https://www.nature.com/news/rethinking-the-brain-1.17168
- pizza 9y agoYup. They're treating in silico statistics as faithful to real "brain activity", because the network layout the scientists used was a detailed representation of a snapshot of a part of a real mouse brain. Don't worry if the neurons would behave differently than the simulated neurons, or if that could lead to totally different spikes globally, or if the hype irreversibly makes the story go viral and people still believe claims that were never even part of the original test years later because the story was good enough.. Also... "2.3. Topology Organizes Spike Correlations" <- "Energy makes it go!" @neuroskeptic on twitter is a good source for examples of questionable neuroscience, their blog is http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/
- gfody 9y agoYes, total hogwash. How could their model simulate the quantum effects taking place in the microtubules of the neurons?
- pizza 9y agoMicrotubules? Hah! Such an outmoded and unfashionable quantum model of cognition. Here, let me introduce you to the lithium-7 spin-based phosphate-calcium ion-ball entanglement hypothesis of quantum mentation; https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-spin-on-the-quantum-brain-20161102/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-spin-on-the-quantum-bra...
- gfody 9y agoTIL, thanks! unfortunately I think I see where they're going with it: “I believe that if phosphorus nuclear spin is not being used for quantum processing, then quantum mechanics is not operative in longtime scales in cognition,” Fisher said. “Ruling that out is important scientifically. It would be good for science to know.”
- gfody 9y ago> It's easier to impress a TED audience than your peers. this seems like a perspective on a problem with pure theoretical research. like why print "Cycles of Time" instead of publishing in a peer reviewed journal? is Penrose being disingenuous or is he just trying to share an idea he finds interesting even if reasonably speculative? the EPFL result is interesting even if they wanted to analyze it as network motifs in a directed graph, but that wouldn't account for the symmetry they presumably observed in the "higher dimensional polyhedrons" would it?