3 ms·

> What we need is a Newtonian model of the brain. This seems like an odd take on Newton to me. What made his contributions important is that they were correct

> What we need is a Newtonian model of the brain. This seems like an odd take on Newton to me. What made his contributions important is that they were correct up to the precision we could measure for centuries. We are nowhere near that for a subject like neuroscience. There have been models adopted by scientests who at the time knew they were wrong and incomplete. For example ancient astronomy or medicine or logic. but their adherents tended to hold back science when new discoveries were made. So they are double edged swords.

dr_dshiv 7y ago
It's a great point. And I agree that precision in stars or mechanics seems much simpler than neuroscience -- but I do actually think that there will be some laws akin to f=ma. Ok, maybe not quite to that level. But consider this paper, by great neuroscientists and cited over 1000 times, that models brain wave bands as harmonics, with band widths as the golden mean. [1, see figure 4] My money is on some synthesis of the many theories in oscillatory neurodynamics. Neural resonance, dissonance, harmonics and entrainment... So many of the theories* have borne out empirically, but there has hardly been an attempt at synthesis. * Theories like "Communication through coherence", "binding by synchrony", "phase amplitude coupling" + "working memory", etc etc etc. [1] Klimesch, W. (2012). Alpha-band oscillations, attention, and controlled access to stored information. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(12), 606-617.