Sand in the Brain: A Fundamental Theory To Model the Mind 105
An anonymous reader writes "In 1999, the Danish physicist Per Bak proclaimed to a group of neuroscientists that it had taken him only 10 minutes to determine where the field had gone wrong. Perhaps the brain was less complicated than they thought, he said. Perhaps, he said, the brain worked on the same fundamental principles as a simple sand pile, in which avalanches of various sizes help keep the entire system stable overall — a process he dubbed 'self-organized criticality.'"
As a physicist: (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear fellow scientists, admire us for the 1% of the cases when things like "oh i have a very simple theory about this" are brilliant and dont hate us for the 99% of the cases where this is just idiotic and arrogant.
oblig xkcd (Score:5, Insightful)
The really interesting thing will be when Randall does a comic about how you can get easy upvotes for "oblig xkcd" posts.
Re:oblig xkcd (Score:4, Insightful)
This comes from the fact physicists are used to working with differential equations that they can't prove existence or uniqueness of a solution for.
So they simplify, i.e. 'assume a spherical cow' as a way of living.
Of course that almost never works for a real system so they go off and try to understand the universe one particle at a time.
As an observer (Score:4, Insightful)
The objective reality is that this process has been observed to happen in the brain. Repeatedly; consensually; experientially.
The open question, at least for me, is, is there any reason to think that this is the only, or even the primary, mode of neural operation?
Sand will indeed avalanche following the power law when it's poured on top of itself. But it does something completely different when it is suspended in turbulent water, or melted into glass, or just sitting there on the beach (seems to have an affinity for the inside of bathing suits as I recall, though it's been a while.)
Perhaps avalanche at criticality is "the" answer. But I think we're quite some distance from declaring that particular win. I'm all for the exploration, though.
This is more like what's going on. (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556
Re:oblig xkcd (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this SMBC comic is very appropriate as well: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id... [smbc-comics.com]
Re:oblig xkcd (Score:2, Insightful)
a) neurons while not necessarily geniuses are actually not that stupid, and that the real problem a brain solved was not "thinking" but that a single thinking neuron can't be used to control a multicellular body because of connectivity and redundancy reasons (can't have a whole body wasted just because one neuron died).
b) The brain is like a bunch of Bingo halls each filled with neurons that yell Bingo when something they recognize is "read out". The fancy trick is some of them are supposed to recognize and announce the future before it happens...
Now move along and figure out how a neuron or single celled creature actually thinks.