The implication in the paper is that measuring every spike will better enable the discovery of collective phenomena for brains. That is the precise opposite of the discovery and study of collective phenomena in physics. The study of macroscopic behavior, e.g. thermodynamics, came before a detailed understanding of the microscopic dynamics. Statistical mechanics provides bridges to microscopic dynamics in terms of statistical descriptions, not detailed dynamical descriptions. This same is true for other collective phenomena like magnetism, superconductivity and superfluidity, as exemplified by the famous Landau theories. In each case, the phenomena were first discovered at the macroscopic level, studied at the macroscopic level, and even the theoretical framework was established at the macroscopic level; the microscopic measurements and statistical mechanical theories entered at a later stage to refine the understanding already established.
It is unlikely that we will discover analogs of superconductivity or superfluidity in the brain by measuring every spike from every neuron. Analogs already exist and are being already studied at multiple scales of analysis. Animal behavior provides a close analog of the macroscopic behaviors of physical systems, reflecting the collective output of brains that actually matter for the survival of the organism. The study of psychological phenomena in terms of constructs such as memory, attention, language and affect also get at macroscopic properties of nervous system dynamics, and can be studied in their own right somewhat like the Landau theories in physics, although admittedly without the mathematical precision. Collective dynamics of neurons has long been studied in the form of electroencephalography (EEG). Over the last two decades many labs have gathered spiking data simultaneously from dozens to hundreds of neurons. This has not yet led to any tremendous new insight: in fact, much of the dynamics can be captured by the study of correlations between pairs of neurons.
Collective behavior in physics is associated with symmetry principles and conservation laws. For example, sound is a collective motion of fluid molecules. The macroscopic equations of motion of a fluid (the Navier Stokes equations) may be written down as consequences of the conservation of mass and of momentum. Linearization of these equations, gives rise to the wave equation, which describes sound. Note that one does not need to start from the microscopic dynamics of the fluid molecules. What is the nervous system equivalent? Not the symmetry principles important in physics (those still apply, but give you back physical phenomena, for example sound), but so called functional constraints – what the organism must be able to do in order to survive, and what shapes the nervous system through the evolutionary process.
This is related to the “computationalist” perspective, spelled out for the visual system by David Marr among others. This research program starts from the requirements the nervous system faces in order for the organism to survive, and tries to understand the neural circuits and activity from this perspective. “Function shapes form”; the deep principles to understand in physics are the symmetry laws, and in biology they are perhaps engineering principles and evolution. In addition to mapping nervous system architecture, one wants to understand what these principles are as they apply to brains. In order to understand brain dysfunction, one wants to understand the laws of normal function.
Will we get there faster by mapping circuits and physiology or by working on new multi-electrode technology? Ideally, one should not have to choose, as long as effort doesn’t get narrowly focused on conceptually ill-formed goals such as measuring every spike of every neuron (or simulating the human brain without adequate data). Much of this is not news to the practicing neuroscientist, but worth reminding ourselves as we navigate the new landscape of billion-dollar brain projects. Otherwise we risk the fate of naturalist Mr Stapleton as he rushed across the great Grimpen Mire at the conclusion of the Hound of the Baskervilles: even with all his knowledge and expertise, he stepped into a bog, and was not heard of again.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
25 Comments
Add CommentThis fascinating paper conclusion sounds: "It gets worse: there will be individual variation among animals, and each animal will have a different environmental history. The “comprehensive” measurement exercise would extend ad infinitum". Firstly, I like to emphasise the Single Patient Based Medicine (1). Secondly, we have to know that Quantum Biophysica Semeiotics allows physicians to bedside evaluate every biological system functions, including those of brain (2-4). Thirdly, we can recognize from birth Inherited Rael Risk of neurodegenerative disorders 5,6), and heal them with the Blue Therapy (7). To conclude, We can, If we want it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Stagnaro Sergio. Single Patient Based Medicine: its paramount role in Future Medicine. Public Library of Science. http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=read-response
2) Stagnaro Sergio. Inherited Real Risk of Brain Disorders. www.plos.org, 24 July 2009. http://www.plosone.org/article/comments/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006354;jsessionid=9AC82C42FA9F57C913844806BF96DDC1
3) Sergio Stagnaro. Functional Decline in Aging , Brain Inherited Real Risk, and Co Q10 Deficiency Syndrome. 15 May, 2011. http://wwwshiphusemeioticscom-stagnaro.blogspot.com/2011/05/functional-decline-in-aging-brain.html;
4) Simone Caramel and Sergio Stagnaro. Clinical QBS Diagnosis and Primary Prevention of Brain Disorder ‘Inherited Real Risk’ and Alzheimer Disease. Journal of Quantum Biophysical Semeiotics. 5 August, 2011. http://www.sisbq.org/uploads/5/6/8/7/5687930/alzheimer_primaryprevention.pdf
5) Sergio Stagnaro. Quantum biophysical semeiotics. NeuroQuantology | September 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 3 | Page 459‐467. http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/issue/current/showToc ;
6) Sergio Stagnaro and Simone Caramel (2012) New ways in physical Diagnostics: Brain Sensor Bedside Evaluation. The Gandolfo's Sign. January, 2012. Journal of Quantum Biophysical Semeiotics. http://www.sisbq.org/uploads/5/6/8/7/5687930/bsbe.pdf;
7)Marco Marchionni, Simone Caramel, Sergio Stagnaro (2013). Inherited Real Risk of Alzheimer’s Disease: bedside diagnosis and primary prevention. Opinion, Front. Aging Neurosci., http://www.frontiersin.org/Aging_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnagi.2013.00013/full
Professor Mitra makes many excellent points, but perhaps his message could be more clear if he had chosen the title “What COULD GO wrong with the Brain Activity Map Proposal.” Because the proposal is in its early stages of definition, his critique addresses a straw man of what the final proposal COULD BE. A more constructive approach would be to emphasize how much neurosciences needs a comprehensive approach that goes beyond the individual laboratory, and participate in structuring that approach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with brains is that their work is done at the level of synapses and cells, but their most interesting functions emerge from the interactions of thousands or millions or perhaps billions of neurons distributed across the brain. Thus, neither studying any part in isolation, nor the brain as a whole, can lead to anything more than correlations. In order to move forward, neurosciences needs detailed maps of the brains of selected species: c. elegans, fruitflies, mice, rhesus, and to the degree possible, humans. These maps need to be both anatomical and physiological. They need to be shared and computational, far beyond the capacity of a single laboratory to produce. We should work synergistically with the EU project.
As Professor Mitra points out, our approach needs to be multiscale, finding properties at one level that are the building blocks of the next. Action potentials and synaptic currents result from trans-membrane channels; we can use the resulting equations rather than include details of protein biology in our models. EEG, MEG, fMRI and PET are also very useful but they all lack the neural resolution to infer or define information processing. Thus, we lack an intermediate level of building blocks. It may be that they do not exist, because the computer may be a better analogy than wave motion. What recordings would we need in order to understand information-processing in a massively parallel computer? We do understand the transistor, but measuring the heat of different units will not get us far; understanding information processing as a whole would require not only analyses of individual circuits but massively parallel recordings.
In conclusion, neuroscientists desperately need the tools and maps that BAM could provide: let’s tell that to the world, and work together to do it right.
Indeed, we need to approach the brain at multiple levels of analysis in a concerted manner, and this is part of what is argued in the post. We all hope a more well rounded proposal will eventually result from the current discussions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs part of that discussion, it is important to understand the theoretical rationale that has been presented for recording from all (or many neurons). That is what is being analyzed here.
"Because the proposal is in its early stages of definition, his critique addresses a straw man of what the final proposal COULD BE."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a lay observer, IMO the fundamental problem is that the President is promoting a multi-billion dollar public investment in a 'straw man' proposal...
Methinks the cart's before the horse!
The outcome of research is always uncertain, because it is discovering new knowledge. I am sure that Professor Mithra and I agree much more than we disagree, and I would also venture that with the open vigorous discussion which we both support, a proposal could be crafted that a consensus of neuroscientists would agree is highly likely to produce a highly valuable outcome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether that outcome would be worth its cost is a matter of opinion. Total government spending in the US is over $6 trillion, of which the proposed $300million is <1/20,000th. It's hard for me to think of anything more important than understanding how the brain works. Maybe if we could leave that to our children it will make up a little bit for the pile of pollution and debt that they will have to clean up.
I don't follow Prof Mitra's arguments. The original paper which proposed this study does not talk of "every" neuron, but every neuron within a particularly functional area. I think this is quite difficult on its own, but certainly more feasible than "every" neuron.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf all the challenges facing the survival of humanity, I for one would not, without some need more pressing than the increasing overpopulation of the planet and its affect on climate and the depletion of Earth's resources, wish my tax funds to be allocated to a "multi-billion dollar brain project", no matter the consensus of neuroscientists. At this point I'm far more concerned about the quality of my grandchildren's future life on the planet we bequeath them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs someone conducting research on the fringes of neuroscience, I think Prof. Mitra is premature in his judgement of the agenda proposed by Pres. Obama. There is a layer of peer review (for better or worse) that stands between most of us and the brain funding. Peer review is not going to fund research that is not well grounded. There is, in fact, an almost impenetrable bog between policy statements and what the agencies eventually craft as initiatives. I can't imagine any initiatives emerging without widespread inputs from the neuroscience community. The fact that the President mentioned the brain, and is keen on explorations, is long overdue, and we are behind the Europeans in large-scale projects. We should push for this funding with all positivity, and shape it as funding emerges to do the best science possible. While the White House science advisers have a hand in science (my uncle was one long ago), they have both hands in policy matters. The science will be done by the brilliant neuroscience researchers whose research I follow, and I celebrate every penny targeted to their research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Mitra has many valid objections, including that the project is being framed in too-grandiose of terms, and that the motivations (as to emergent properties) may be fuzzy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut his objection to the scientific goals - to recording from as many neurons as possible - is misplaced and surprising. I've written a point-by-point reaction that explores this at my blog:
http://empiricalplanet.blogspot.com/2013/03/partha-mitra-makes-no-sense-to-me.html
Your perceived quality of life is a direct product of your brain activity. Most of the variation between people in how happy they are arises from how their brains are put together.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe proposed project may be the most cost-effective path to our shared goals.
12 percent (roughly) of the population has serious mental health issues that cost billions in support or treatment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe brain research in recent years has shown directions that may impact future generations. Think of brain monitoring technology development as the metrology that supports brain function improvements, cost reductions in health care, and a myriad of spin-off efforts.
There is a lot of physics and mechanics in brain enabling non-linear and linear processes and multi modal phenomena for mind like substrate underlying consciousness ,and the brain biology and physiology facilitates and complements this for meta material optical behaviour and optomechanical coupling for quantum like brain information functions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll this would eventually translate as conscious states-it is not just an emergent pheneomena of brain states though it may correlate.
Mind may finally be experienced as a special kind of material with a physicalism that differs from bulk state of summing up neuronal activity.
The pure consciousness states of eastern meditation may provide empirical accounts of the phenomenology of such non linear,meta material and quantum like states enabled by physics and physiology
some of these links of my theoretic papers might be of help
Prof SURESHKUMAR.S,CHIEF SCIENTIST AND TECH.ADVISER,CSIR-NIIST,TRIVANDRUM
Bliss will be difficult to achieve without adequate food and water!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy, everyone, should we spend billions on brain research to the exclusion of potentially more critical issues?????
It seems to me that public funding is being committed without adequate justification and I refuse to trust the expert neurologists to spend whatever money they're given in the best interest of the taxpaying public - as long as it's for neurological research. Perhaps it's more critical for us to develop some other technological capability!
As I understand, one of the intended purposes of the legislative branch of the U.S. government is to allocate the nation's resources. Yes, I know that a similar approach was taken when President Kennedy mandated the space program, but at that time we were literally on the brink of nuclear war. IMHO, our limited understanding of the brain is not likely to be the determining factor in our survival as a nation or a species.
As pointed out in the article, neuroscience is in the need of integration, and will without doubt benefit from the funding and communal excitement associated with a big brain initiative. All neuroscientists including myself applaud the renewed interest and focus on brain research. The article above is directed towards a specific proposal, which has featured prominently in the public space (not behind the walls of peer reviewed research) and therefore also bears discussion in a public forum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt goes without saying that critical discussion of ideas is central to scientific progress. It should strengthen, not weaken, the formulation of a well thought out proposal to address our common goal of understanding how the brain works.
consciousness in terms of Self Awareness have been believed to occur within higher regions of the brain. The idea of where self awareness resides has recently been overturned by a study. In a recent case study (Philippi et al., 2012) the possibility of diminished self- awareness was challenged.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisself-awareness may be more widely distributed than previously thought. The nature of consciousness perhaps may depend on processes which as yet we do not have the paradigmatic models or comprehensive theories or means and technology to measure
Theoretic possibilites for non linearities and quantum computational and communication effects in brain cannot be overlooked as I have indicated in some of my conceptual papers
Meta material brain biology,and optomechanical coupling for cortical communication are possible as theoretically discussed in these working papers ,deriving concepts from literature and observed data.
Moreover the role of astrocyte end feet in brain highlights a material substrate function which helps to couple the astroglial and neuronal networks and function of nanoconfined water in a special phase in biological water channels in brain,and the endogenous electromagentic fields with their complementary ephaptic coupling roles--they combine multimodally for mind like phenomena in brain,facilitating quantum functionality for memory and communication.
I have dwelt on some of these in my working papers/conference presentations/publications[abstract in the links-[1.ssrn.com/abstract=2181327] ;as well as
[2. ssrn.com/abstract=2165140] ---[3.ssrn.com/abstract=2165139] ;
For more funding, work the sports medicine angle for head injury research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProf. Mitra's reference to the "computationalist approach" is important. Gallistel and King have recently published an important book: "Memory and the Computational Brain: Why Cognitive Science will Transform Neuroscience." Their message is very simple: Brains (including those of insects, for example) are computational devices and should be studied as such. Closely paraphrasing from the preface, brains must have addressable read/write mechanisms, look-up procedures than can transport information to computational systems, and modules that can process that information in ways useful to the organism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeparting from the preface now, suppose we discovered a computational device that had fallen from an alien spaceship and we were trying to understand it. Which approach would make more sense: to measure and record the electrical activity of each of the tiniest parts of this machine, or to first conduct experiments to understand its computational properties? The former approach would hope that emergent properties would, well, emerge; it's like saying that if you wanted to understand the physics of wind, you'd measure and record the motion of leaves as they flutter, the behavior of clouds as they move across the sky, and everything else that wind sets in motion, all in hopes that you might be able to draw some generalizations from such an incredible morass of data. The latter approach, on the other hand, stands a chance of providing some insights that might provide guidance; if you understand the functions of the computational device, then you can formulate testable hypotheses about how the parts of the computational mechanisms are physically instantiated.
The "measure everything" approach would be like characterizing the physical sciences as the sciences of reading laboratory equipment like meters, etc., with not even a hypothesis about how it all works. Science is about testing hypotheses, not measuring the physical world.
This proposal is deeply conceptually flawed. Read Gallistel and his colleagues!
Its all given on whatismind.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFascinating read. BAM struck me as problematic from the beginning; not that it shouldn't be done, necessarily, but it seemed like the wrong choice for a Big Science project, especially one with an ostensible public health goal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd argue that BAM proceeds from the possibly faulty assumption that it's possible to understand mind by partitioning brain at ever more discrete levels. Not that "mind" and "brain" are separate, but the distance between them is filled by as-yet-undetermined processes more likely to be understood by looking at circuitry and psychology.
(Mithra gets at that with "the authors imply that this correlated or collective behavior cannot be deduced from other levels of observation," though with some reservations about the troublesome nature of 'emergent.' FWIW, I'd embrace the idea; the problem is the fuzzy nature of emergence, but the idea of studying it at the wrong scales. You don't understand the forest by looking at each tree with ever-larger magnifying glasses.)
There are also just too many differences between the brains of model organisms and our own, especially when it's unlikely the BAM methods will ever be used in a human. Add the hype-machine circumstances -- billions of dollars, Presidential promotion -- and there will be enormous indirect pressure to skew the science, or at least its public communication.
Or, to make an analogy to the genome efforts, tagging every SNP won't teach you about network structures or chromosome geometry. Moving one scale up, epidemiology gives us far more meaningful information about common disease than GWAS have, and likely than even large-scale rare variant surveys will. But at least the genome efforts have been tremendously beneficial in many other ways. The BAM efforts are far more speculative.
And, again, there's nothing wrong with speculation. In an ideal world, we'd take our military budget and use it to fund speculations of all sorts. But putting an amount equivalent to nearly half the National Science Foundation's yearly budget into something like BAM should happen after, not before, an open and public discussion of the science.
Sleep experts say that most mental illness is due to little, or poor, sleep. To get the sleep you get at the coast when the wind blows in from the sea just heat salt water in an oil burner overnight. In just five nights insomnia is cured, and this takes with it all symptoms of mental illness. Spending $billions on mapping the brain is just going to produce the world's most accurate study of insomnia symptoms, when the cure is simple and almost free. This study will just be a 'catch all' to be abused by psychiatrists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with many of the points Partha makes about the inappropriateness of the “big science” approaches to brain research – but he does not go far enough in pointing out the disadvantages of such major projects. Modern science is becoming a rat race for funding and prestige and one can only justify putting vast resources into very big projects if thery are certain to work and if there is enough money “left over” to support genuine blue sky alternative approaches which deliberately look outside “the box”. What happens in practice is that anyone with original ideas who questions the establishment views is very likely to left out in the cold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this context I was interested when Partha uses an analogy with physics research - mentioning topics such as thermodynamics and statistical mechanics and the study of macroscopic behaviour. My own approach to brain research started many years ago with “macroscopic” observations of how sales staff thought about sales contract in a vast sales accounting system. Initially research was directed towards building inherently user friendly information processing systems – and recently I have started to look at the relevance of what I did to brain research. The result is a model which in some ways reflects the statistical dynamic models of gases. One starts with an infinite brain filled with identical neurons and each neuron is linked to a finite number of other neurons. Electrical pulses pass through the resulting network and the key is to find a set of “rules” to control the process. Because of the random elements in the model every brain (both human and animal) will end up with different connections – even when relating to the same external phenomena – and many of the connections will change with time. If such a statistical model is correct it is clear that trying to map individual pathway in an individual brain is about as meaningless as trying to understand gas mechanics by trying to plot the movements of every molecule in an individual gas-filled container.
The problem I face is that my current research is unfunded “blue sky” research and falls way outside the establishment box on a number of different counts (for instance “I am obviously too old to have original ideas”) – so will presumably my idea swill never be properly investigated.
Highly recommend reading relating to potential information processing beyond neuronal signaling:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/03/07/human-brain-cells-make-mice-smart
Boondoggle!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thot we Had the uncertainty principal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I read the proposal, I was reminded of what Russell Ackoff said: 'Systems thinking is holistic; it attempts to derive understanding of parts from the behavior and properties of wholes, rather than derive the behavior and properties of wholes from those of their parts.' Studying car parts, for example, is not likely to lead to insights on transportation. Is this applicable here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd also, just to throw this in, Ackoff also said: 'Effective research is not disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or multidisciplinary; it is transdisciplinary. Disciplines are taken by science to represent different parts of the reality we experience. In effect, science assumes that reality is structured and organized in the same way universities are.