Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whole human brain mapped in 3D

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Whole human brain mapped in 3D

#31

Post by Helianthus »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #24
SatvikBeri wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For proof that Wikipedia is more accurate than other encyclopedias, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia (Though seriously, Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, at least for science articles: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a... )

That applies well to en.wikipedia.org, not as much to simple.wikipedia.org. See my reply to andyhmltn about how the properly researched page disagrees with the grandparent's link. Don't trust a wikipedia page that has zero citations.

Flamewar: success! Pxtl wins!

Re: Whole human brain mapped in 3D

#32

Post by Dylan16807 »

Helianthus wrote: post #31
Dylan16807 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That applies well to en.wikipedia.org, not as much to simple.wikipedia.org. See my reply to andyhmltn about how the properly researched page disagrees with the grandparent's link. Don't trust a wikipedia page that has zero citations.

Flamewar: success! Pxtl wins!

Even though it's an argument about wikipedia and nobody has discussed the actual measurement system?

Re: Whole human brain mapped in 3D

#33

Post by Helianthus »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #32
Helianthus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flamewar: success! Pxtl wins!

Even though it's an argument about wikipedia and nobody has discussed the actual measurement system?

Eh, point. I count any thread with a buried comment (like yours) as a flamewar, is all ;)

Re: Whole human brain mapped in 3D

#34

Post by etrautmann »

alexjeffrey wrote: post #2

I'd love for a neuroscientist to weigh in on this - what is the possibility that something like this could be used to generate an artificial neural network which imitates, even crudely, the functions of the human brain?

Systems Neuroscientist here. I've only skimmed this paper so far, but it seems as though this dataset is limited to studying cytoarchitecture (what types of neurons are in what regions of the brain) as well as some tracing of major fiber pathways. This does not represent the successful conclusion to connectomics efforts to map every neuron and every connection in the brain (see Sebastian Seung's work and the eyewire project [1]). It's hard to tell exactly how useful this dataset and model are.

There are other exciting developments that map not just neuroanatomical structure but also the distribution of proteins and gene expression [2],[3]

[1] http://eyewire.org/ [2] http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2013/april/clarity.html [3] http://smithlab.stanford.edu/Smithlab/Array_Tomography.html

Re: Whole human brain mapped in 3D

#35

Post by SatvikBeri »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #24
SatvikBeri wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For proof that Wikipedia is more accurate than other encyclopedias, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia (Though seriously, Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, at least for science articles: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a... )

That applies well to en.wikipedia.org, not as much to simple.wikipedia.org. See my reply to andyhmltn about how the properly researched page disagrees with the grandparent's link. Don't trust a wikipedia page that has zero citations.

These are good points and it would be quite helpful if you put them in the comment next time. "The simple english wikipedia page has these specific flaws" is substantially more accurate and informative than "Wikipedia is not a source."

Re: Whole human brain mapped in 3D

#36

Post by Dylan16807 »

SatvikBeri wrote: post #35
Dylan16807 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That applies well to en.wikipedia.org, not as much to simple.wikipedia.org. See my reply to andyhmltn about how the properly researched page disagrees with the grandparent's link. Don't trust a wikipedia page that has zero citations.

These are good points and it would be quite helpful if you put them in the comment next time. "The simple english wikipedia page has these specific flaws" is substantially more accurate and informative than "Wikipedia is not a source."

Well, if you want to know, my original objection was toward using Wikipedia as the arbiter of correct stance on a political issue. Wikipedia itself tries to keep politics out, and for good reason with the way online communities can groupthink. Clearly I should have expanded on that in the first comment.

I was not aware at that time that Wikipedia actually contradicted itself, but that was a very easy way to demonstrate my point in a followup post. But the particular flaws in that article were never my main point.

Re: Whole human brain mapped in 3D

#38

Post by adrianhoward »

alexjeffrey wrote: post #2

I'd love for a neuroscientist to weigh in on this - what is the possibility that something like this could be used to generate an artificial neural network which imitates, even crudely, the functions of the human brain?

Another "not a neuroscientist" - but I do have a slightly-more-than-layperson knowledge and interest in the area, and a degree in AI if that matters.

"I'd love for a neuroscientist to weigh in on this - what is the possibility that something like this could be used to generate an artificial neural network which imitates, even crudely, the functions of the human brain?"

Pretty much zero. Because it really just focussed on the organisation of the neurons, and ignores the complexity of the neurons themselves and the chemical/electrical/etc. communication between 'em. Neurons themselves are pretty complex beasts, and we're still learning things about them and the level of "processing" that is happening within neurons, as opposed to between 'em.

For example as recently as ten years ago everybody knew that most of the computation was implicit in the neural connectivity of the synapses. We now know that there is significant computation within individual neurons - in the dendrites of all things (previously thought to be pretty much passive carriers of output from other cells - just wires basically).

(See http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.neuro.2... ).

Don't get me wrong - it's useful work. But nowhere close to the level of detail needed to run people-sims.

Post reply on HN