3 ms·

So? Fundamental physics is done by smashing particles together and seeing what happens. We've gotten tremendously far with this approach. Do you have a better

• alex_doom 12y ago
  I find that talking a problem to death usually solves things.
• canjobear 12y ago
  Before smashing particles together, physicists use mathematical models to predict exactly what they will see given different assumptions, usually with incredibly high degrees of accuracy. There are no such models of higher-level cognitive processes in neuroscience. They are very different.
  • macspoofing 12y ago
    >Before smashing particles together, physicists use mathematical models to predict exactly what they will see given different assumptions, usually with incredibly high degrees of accuracy. Not necessarily. In the 1950s and 1960s when we started exploring higher energy levels, we didn't really have a model or theory that predicted all the particles we ended up seeing. That came after.
• quick111 12y ago
  I often think about exactly both these points. We are so far behind in terms of research compared to particle physics because we don't have the ability to destructively smash consciousness apart just to see what falls out over and over again. "Zapping" very low number of brains is going to be slow going, and unfortunately is not far from the best we have to work with.