On day 8 of #ScienceAdvent, we ponder whether we will ever be able to explain the brain in simple terms. It's a trainee's take, so would love to hear what the experts think:
@chiasm What do you think would be a better premise for this?
That's a fair point, there will always be different levels of "simplicity", so to say, or abstraction, at which things can be explained, based on the level of expertise and the purpose of the explanation. In this context, I used "explainable in simple terms" as I see it used by physicists. Basically being able to reduce the dimensionality of a complex system and to describe it using a reduced set of equations.
One approach borrowed from statistical mechanics in neuroscience is the mean-field approximation, in which the activity of the neurons in a population is represented as the mean of the activity of that population. But depending on the dimensionality of the system, this might not be a good approximation, so simplification might not work. Going beyond that, I would also see as a “simple” explanation of the brain one where, for example, we can use the same model to describe different regions of the brain or different neurons, instead of needing different models with different parameters for each of them. But to me it’s unclear whether this will ever be a good enough representation of the brain at some level or whether it’s something that will be abandoned at some point. (I am, however, not a physicist, and I am still very much fleshing out my understanding and thoughts on the topic, so I might be missing the mark here. If so, please do let me know what I’m misinterpreting/missing.)
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.