[ajani]

This is just tedious. The electro-chemical map of the brain that is built and used to study it, is so primitive.

Almost certainly, "the brain" tunes itself to its environment and inner states from a preformed inner structure through evolution. A lot of what is in the brain, is not actually to be found in the brain, or by studying it materially. The "formwork" that formed it, is lost in evolutionary time.

Unfortunately there is no way to impute the formwork from the form, like say it would be possible to (mostly accurately) impute what formwork created a square column or cast a piece of iron.

"The brain" is not in any way shaped like a physical object, and the formwork that formed it is infinitely complex.

[otikik]

The brain is absolutely physical.

> A lot of what is in the brain, is not actually to be found in the brain, or by studying it materially.

You are talking about consciousness (and perhaps the non-conscious processing that the brain does as well). That is indeed a non-physical phenomenon, but it still has physical underpinnings.

> The "formwork" that formed it, is lost in evolutionary time.

You can't lose something that you never had in the first place :). It will take that as a figure of speech.

The good news are: we are very familiar with some things that "exist" but don't have a physical presence. On this forum, "software" is the most obvious one. "Math" is probably the second. There's many others, like all the emotions, entropy, and so forth. We can, to a certain degree, reverse-engineer some of these processes by looking at the physical imprint that they leave. It's true that we never get a full picture - the same way that just looking at the source code might not give you a good idea of how the RAM will look like when the program is executing. But it can give you some insight. And then, if you are lucky, you may be able to fill in the gaps.

The bad news: this is the most imbricated and complex piece of "code" that the humanity has ever faced. Our brains might simply not be capable of understanding their own complexity by themselves. Most of us have a "cache" of 7 items, after all. Barely good enough to swing to the next tree branch.

But then again some good news: the complexity is definitely not infinite- just very big. And we keep improving our tools. The same way some of them expand the limits of what we can physically do with our bodies, some of them expand what we can mentally do with our brains. Wether or not that will be enough for us to understand ourselves, to a certain definition of "understand", is still up in the air as far as I'm concerned. I'm agnostic about it.

[ajani]

"The brain" is made up of matter, yes.

"The brain" is not physical like columns or iron. Those are simple objects. The kind physics likes to deal with. Things that are easily measured to describe its properties quantitatively and the relations of these properties as a placeholder for qualitative aspects (equations). Physics can't deal with the brain. No equation can be written.

If a bud's seeds were to sprout in place, instead of in the ground, you would have every single ancestor plant in a very long chain. Every brain is the result of this kind of structure. A mother buds and sprouts a new human. If the umbilical cords remain attached, we have a very similar kind of long chain of human brains. Not like any other physical object.

Physics is inadequate at studying "the brain". So, "the brain" is not a physical object.

[otikik]

> Physics can't deal with the brain. No equation can be written.

There are many many many physics simulations out there that cannot be "written with an equation". Climate Modelling, for example. You cannot write a single equation to model all that. You need a big complex piece of software, made of many equations, a lot of hardware, and a lot of processing time. Any of those was simply inconceivable mere decades ago.

It's possible that it's as you say, and the brain is inscrutable if we attack the problem from the physics point of view alone.

I think that you may be right. With what we have now. But decades from now? I'm not so sure.

[ajani]

All climate models are based on mathematical physics models. I don't know the specifics, so I asked chatGPT and here is what it said:

'''

Climate modeling is a multifaceted field rooted in physics that relies on a complex set of equations to describe various atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial processes. Here's an overview of the key equations that form the foundation of climate models:

Navier-Stokes Equations: Governing the flow of fluids like the atmosphere and oceans, these equations capture how the velocity of a fluid changes over time.

Radiative Transfer Equations: Essential for understanding how sunlight and other forms of radiation interact with the atmosphere, including scattering, absorption, and emission.

Energy Balance Models: These equations describe the balance between incoming solar energy and outgoing heat, fundamental for capturing the planet's energy dynamics.

Equations of State: Linking density, pressure, and temperature, these equations are critical for understanding the behavior of the atmosphere and ocean.

Continuity Equations: Representing the conservation of mass in the atmosphere and oceans.

Moist Processes Equations: Capturing phase changes between water vapor, liquid water, and ice, along with latent heat exchange.

Boundary Layer Equations: Describing the complex dynamics near Earth's surface where the atmosphere interacts with the land or ocean.

Chemical and Aerosol Equations: Governing the reactions and interactions between different chemical species and particles, which can affect both weather and climate.

Sea Ice and Glacial Equations: Modeling the flow and melting of ice, essential for understanding the cryosphere.

These equations are solved numerically using computer algorithms, often over a grid representing the Earth's surface and atmosphere. Together, they form an interconnected system that allows scientists to simulate and analyze the climate system's behavior. This intricate mathematical framework underscores how the study of climate is fundamentally rooted in mathematical and physical principles.

'''

There are no such equations for the brain.

[otikik]

Well you should have asked ChatGPT directly then:

In the context of human behavior, consciousness and neurology, what are the mathematical equations that are relevant in order to model how a human brain works? Please highlight any equation that involves Physics in particular

ChatGPT:

Modeling the human brain is an extremely complex task, and it involves various levels of abstraction and different mathematical and computational approaches. While there are no specific equations that fully capture the intricacies of the brain's function, several mathematical and physics-related principles can be applied at different levels of analysis. Here are some relevant equations and concepts:

Neuron Modeling:

Hodgkin-Huxley Equations: These equations describe the behavior of ion channels in neuron membranes and are fundamental to understanding how neurons generate action potentials. Integrate-and-Fire Models: Simpler models like the Leaky Integrate-and-Fire model can describe the basic firing behavior of neurons using differential equations. Neural Networks:

Backpropagation:

This is a fundamental algorithm for training artificial neural networks. It involves the chain rule from calculus to update weights during training. Activation Functions: Functions like the sigmoid, ReLU (Rectified Linear Unit), and softmax are used to model the activation of neurons in artificial neural networks. Synaptic Plasticity:

Hebbian Learning:

Often described as "cells that fire together wire together," it's a principle used to model how synaptic connections strengthen or weaken based on correlated firing patterns.

Diffusion Equations:

Fick's Law of Diffusion: Relevant for modeling the diffusion of neurotransmitters across synapses. Information Theory:

Shannon's Information Theory:

While not an equation per se, concepts like entropy and mutual information are used to quantify information flow and coding in neural systems.

Quantum Mechanics:

While not directly related to classical neuroscience, there's ongoing research into whether quantum effects play a role in brain function. This would involve quantum mechanics equations such as the Schrödinger equation and the equations describing quantum states. Connectome Modeling:

Graph Theory:

Modeling the brain as a network involves concepts from graph theory, like adjacency matrices and graph algorithms. While not a direct physics equation, it's relevant for understanding brain connectivity. Functional Imaging:

Techniques like Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) rely on physics equations related to magnetism and nuclear magnetic resonance to measure brain activity indirectly. Biomechanics:

Equations from mechanics can be used to model the physical properties of the brain, like deformation during injury or the propagation of mechanical waves in brain tissue.

Electroencephalography (EEG):

Maxwell's Equations: EEG measures electrical potentials on the scalp, and the interpretation of these signals relies on Maxwell's equations describing the behavior of electric fields. It's important to note that modeling the human brain is still an active area of research, and there's no single mathematical framework that fully explains all aspects of brain function. Instead, a multi-disciplinary approach is used, combining mathematics, physics, biology, and computer science to gain a better understanding of the brain's complexity at various scales, from individual neurons to large-scale brain networks.

[ajani]

> While there are no specific equations that fully capture the intricacies of the brain's function..

That.

[meesterdude]

> "The brain" is not in any way shaped like a physical object

Our brains are physical object, and the connections it is composed of are also physical.

[dboreham]

Don't understand the downvotes because I get exactly what you're saying -- it's like poking around in the data for an LLM and expecting to find a written language algorithm. Taking things further -- I think it's unlikely that much of the brain's operating software came via DNA. It's mostly machine learned from the environment and other humans. We call this child development.

[ajani]

> It's mostly machine learned from the environment and other humans. We call this child development.

Yes, exactly. The software lies in humanity collectively. Not inside us, but in between us.

Which is why it cannot lie entirely in the brain. At least not entirely in one brain.

A new node born into the network, learns the network. Individual nodes perish, and new ones replace them. But the network doesn't go down. Or it hasn't yet.

Much of conscious experience is the network. Isolation is painful because it deregulates the connection to the network.

But even on the "hardware" side, there must be so many kinds of developments that must occur simultaneously. Some of it is as you say, environment based child development. Others that we may not quite be aware of, say patterns of neural firing, or growth patterns. Such developments probably get passed on in shape (DNA or X) to the next generation.

[ajani]

When a vortex forms in a pool of water, it is formed by the complex interplay of water, the pond made up of earth, rock, plants, its undulations perturbing the water, the wind etc.

The vortex appears and vanishes as conditions change. But is the vortex, the water? Is the water no longer water once the vortex dissipates?

Is the vortex the same as any physical object? Or it’s a form taken up by water?

What if the brain is just the form. And what if the water is itself just a river fed by ocean currents millions of miles away?

Standing by the river, you only experience the form, not the formwork, the substrate, or even the shaping force in time.

I may have made this a worse explanation… hard to tell.