3 ms·

I mean, we can't really completely inspect a working brain to see what's happening. To get that level of inspection, we'd need to dig into the brain while it is

by bena 5y ago

I mean, we can't really completely inspect a working brain to see what's happening. To get that level of inspection, we'd need to dig into the brain while it is functioning. Unfortunately, this kills the patient. And then the brain stops working. It's a black box essentially. We have tools that allow us some degree of insight, but honestly, it is incredibly difficult and progress is slow and staggered.

nosianu 5y ago
You might want to ask Google about two-photon microscopy links. Example papers: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25391792/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25391792/ -- "Two-photon excitation microscopy and its applications in neuroscience" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26326-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26326-3 -- "Three dimensional two-photon brain imaging in freely moving mice using a miniature fiber coupled microscope with active axial-scanning" Sure, it's localized and you cannot go deep, but there is so much to learn that that is plenty at this point.
- bena 5y ago
  So my point remains. I'm not saying there's nothing to learn. I'm saying that we cannot go deep. That we currently cannot understand the brain to the degree we understand other systems. And that there are fundamental difficulties because we're dealing with living beings.
stinos 5y ago
I mean, we can't really completely inspect a working brain to see what's happening. To get that level of inspection, we'd need to dig into the brain while it is functioning. Unfortunately, this kills the patient Leave out the completely and it's a different story though: it's perfectly possible to 'dig in while functioning' i.e. inspect small parts using electrode arrays and that will not kill the patient and only do minimal damage (the couple of cells killed by that are nothing in comparison with the entirety). Non-invasive fMRI techniques also have come a long way but temporal resolution is low. But as you say: difficult, slow, and by no means a 'complete' view. On the other hand: no idea how one would even begin to handle the insane amount of data which would come from inspecting a complete brain. So what goes on now, tackling smaller areas/connections thereof one by one, is not even that bad of an approach.
- bena 5y ago
  That's kind of why I said completely. Our ability to know how a brain works on the level of how well we know, say, the combustion engine works is severely limited by the fact that we're dealing with living beings and that the state of consciousness of the subject matters.
  - stinos 5y ago
    That's kind of why I said completely. Sort of, but to people not knowing anything about it it might sound as if it's impossible to do anything at all in vivo so I added some information about what is possible if you do not want a 'complete' recording.
  - smegger001 5y ago
    yup to understand it we would have to take apart and experiment distructively on working one which woud be un ethical. reminds me of a argument i had with my sister a psych major about whether psychology is a actually a science. her answer was it could be but it would break to many laws, violate human rights and ethics boards would frown at you for cloning hundreds of humans to raise in identical situations to do a/b testing on.
HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
That's what rats are for. For some experiments the research animal will be immediately "sacrificed" then have it's brain sliced and diced for inspection. Brings a whole new meaning to "thank you for your service".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by bena 5y ago

I mean, we can't really completely inspect a working brain to see what's happening. To get that level of inspection, we'd need to dig into the brain while it is functioning. Unfortunately, this kills the patient. And then the brain stops working. It's a black box essentially. We have tools that allow us some degree of insight, but honestly, it is incredibly difficult and progress is slow and staggered.

nosianu 5y ago

You might want to ask Google about two-photon microscopy links. Example papers: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25391792/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25391792/ -- "Two-photon excitation microscopy and its applications in neuroscience" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26326-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26326-3 -- "Three dimensional two-photon brain imaging in freely moving mice using a miniature fiber coupled microscope with active axial-scanning" Sure, it's localized and you cannot go deep, but there is so much to learn that that is plenty at this point.

bena 5y ago
So my point remains. I'm not saying there's nothing to learn. I'm saying that we cannot go deep. That we currently cannot understand the brain to the degree we understand other systems. And that there are fundamental difficulties because we're dealing with living beings.

stinos 5y ago

I mean, we can't really completely inspect a working brain to see what's happening. To get that level of inspection, we'd need to dig into the brain while it is functioning. Unfortunately, this kills the patient Leave out the completely and it's a different story though: it's perfectly possible to 'dig in while functioning' i.e. inspect small parts using electrode arrays and that will not kill the patient and only do minimal damage (the couple of cells killed by that are nothing in comparison with the entirety). Non-invasive fMRI techniques also have come a long way but temporal resolution is low. But as you say: difficult, slow, and by no means a 'complete' view. On the other hand: no idea how one would even begin to handle the insane amount of data which would come from inspecting a complete brain. So what goes on now, tackling smaller areas/connections thereof one by one, is not even that bad of an approach.

bena 5y ago
That's kind of why I said completely. Our ability to know how a brain works on the level of how well we know, say, the combustion engine works is severely limited by the fact that we're dealing with living beings and that the state of consciousness of the subject matters.
- stinos 5y ago
  That's kind of why I said completely. Sort of, but to people not knowing anything about it it might sound as if it's impossible to do anything at all in vivo so I added some information about what is possible if you do not want a 'complete' recording.
- smegger001 5y ago
  yup to understand it we would have to take apart and experiment distructively on working one which woud be un ethical. reminds me of a argument i had with my sister a psych major about whether psychology is a actually a science. her answer was it could be but it would break to many laws, violate human rights and ethics boards would frown at you for cloning hundreds of humans to raise in identical situations to do a/b testing on.

HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago

That's what rats are for. For some experiments the research animal will be immediately "sacrificed" then have it's brain sliced and diced for inspection. Brings a whole new meaning to "thank you for your service".

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]