> scientists have revealed highly detailed atlases of the brain - published in a suite of 21 papers on October 12 [link at the bottom of this post] [...] These new studies ... part of the US-led BRAIN Initiative ... connecting brain anatomy with cell function ... tackle how our brains operate at a cellular level ... at various scales - from genes, to cells, to cellular structures, to larger brain regions, and finally the brain as a whole [Content found as sparse in the submitted article]
> The BRAIN Initiative aims to present its first complete atlas of the mouse brain in early 2024, with the human brain to follow in later years
> Researchers have created the largest atlas of human brain cells so far, revealing more than 3,000 cell types — many of which are new to science [...] this is the first atlas of the whole human brain at the single-cell level, showing its intricate molecular interactions
> Researchers ... analyzed more than half a million brain cells from three human brains to assemble an atlas of hundreds of cell types that make up a human brain in unprecedented detail
> Every cell in a human brain contains the same sequence of DNA, but in different cell types different genes are copied onto strands of RNA for use as protein blueprints. This ultimate variation in which proteins are found in which cells—and at what levels—allows the vast diversity in types of brain cells and the complexity of the brain. Knowing which cells rely on which DNA sequences to function is critical not only to understanding how the brain works, but also how mutations in DNA can cause brain disorders and, relatedly, how to treat those disorders
> In 2021, Ecker and Behrens led the Salk team that profiled 161 types of cells in the mouse brain, based on methyl chemical markers along DNA that specify when genes are turned on or off. This kind of DNA regulation, called methylation, is one level of cellular identity. // In the new paper, the researchers used the same tools to determine the methylation patterns of DNA in more than 500,000 brain cells from 46 regions in the brains of three healthy adult male organ donors. While mouse brains are largely the same from animal to animal, and contain about 80 million neurons, human brains vary much more and contain about 80 billion neurons
> At the same time, the researchers also used a second technique, which analyzed the three-dimensional structure of DNA molecules in each cell to get additional information about what DNA sequences are being actively used. Areas of DNA that are exposed are more likely to be accessed by cells than stretches of DNA that are tightly folded up
Would you say to someone they really don't understand what is happening in an Internal Combustion Engine, thus the manual/schematics to their Car is completely pointless. Wont help them understand things at all.
"You dweeb, it is completely pointless, but here is a manual and blue-print for your car, but you just wont understand it until you can solve for the fluid turbulence in the cylinder. Man, why are they even trying"
Perhaps a problem is that we're trying to understand brains using (our) brains. And if our brains were powerful enough to do that, then maybe they'd be too hard for us to understand.
Obviously I'm equating "power" with comprehensibility. and that's probaly not completely valid. But I wonder if there's still some truth in it.
Also, while we can use abstraction to understand complex things, brains seeem to be such a mess of evolutionary shortcuts and cludges that I'm not sure how far abstraction gets us.
Those ones who do not understand the brain is not a dweeb someone.
I would rather say that the claim that new brain atlases will unlock the secrets of the human mind is just as pretentious as the claim that the James Webb Telescope will unlock the secrets of what happens beyond the observable universe. I don't believe the mind problem is unsolvable but also I don't believe we have some crucial data missing. I believe we have collected too much noise and new data makes the situation worse in some sense.
You are falling prey to the 'mystical' problem, that the brain is unfathomable, and it is completely un-realistic to even try.
>" beyond the observable universe."
Equating understanding something that is actually physically impossible, to understanding something that is physically right in front of us? We can map brains, dissect them, model them.
It's engineering.
If we followed these arguments, then ancient man would have just thrown up their hands "what, everything is composed of little particles, you're crazy, it's beyond our understanding, stop trying".
Maybe the magazine used some hyperbole in the title of an article, that doesn't mean this isn't doable or that this isn't valuable step.
But - you do say, it isn't unsolvable. SO maybe we are agreeing in general, but not about the way articles hype things up.
Equating understanding something that is actually physically impossible, to understanding something that is physically right in front of us?
Seeing beyond the observable radius is indeed impossible but getting through the tremendous amount of data is next to impossible. I believe this is a content for neurosurgeons but not for AI world.
What’s your point? The human genome is also too complex to comprehend but we still make us of it. Without technology to interpret it, having it would be useless. How is the brain any different?
What’s wrong with collecting the data? And why would you think technology couldn’t help us make sense of it?
Sapolsky's book Behave reads like a kind of map of the human brain, and gives really clear articulations of the function of parts and the behaviour that results. I read that book and ever since I think about it when I'm having a hard time with a UI problem or a relationship problem. It's like an operating manual for your own human self. If there was visuals alongside, that would be wonderful.
This approach is really interesting as it connects to function, since the mapping is done molecularly (ie, which genes are activated in any given cell). Previous methods to categorise cells by morphology and electrical activity patterns also roughly correlate to function, but this should be able to give us better insights about which pathways to manipulate.
14 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 41.4 ms ] thread> The BRAIN Initiative aims to present its first complete atlas of the mouse brain in early 2024, with the human brain to follow in later years
Further (much more detailed and organic) information at https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03192-2
> Researchers have created the largest atlas of human brain cells so far, revealing more than 3,000 cell types — many of which are new to science [...] this is the first atlas of the whole human brain at the single-cell level, showing its intricate molecular interactions
Press release from Salk Institute at https://www.salk.edu/news-release/a-new-era-in-brain-science...
> Researchers ... analyzed more than half a million brain cells from three human brains to assemble an atlas of hundreds of cell types that make up a human brain in unprecedented detail
> Every cell in a human brain contains the same sequence of DNA, but in different cell types different genes are copied onto strands of RNA for use as protein blueprints. This ultimate variation in which proteins are found in which cells—and at what levels—allows the vast diversity in types of brain cells and the complexity of the brain. Knowing which cells rely on which DNA sequences to function is critical not only to understanding how the brain works, but also how mutations in DNA can cause brain disorders and, relatedly, how to treat those disorders
> In 2021, Ecker and Behrens led the Salk team that profiled 161 types of cells in the mouse brain, based on methyl chemical markers along DNA that specify when genes are turned on or off. This kind of DNA regulation, called methylation, is one level of cellular identity. // In the new paper, the researchers used the same tools to determine the methylation patterns of DNA in more than 500,000 brain cells from 46 regions in the brains of three healthy adult male organ donors. While mouse brains are largely the same from animal to animal, and contain about 80 million neurons, human brains vary much more and contain about 80 billion neurons
> At the same time, the researchers also used a second technique, which analyzed the three-dimensional structure of DNA molecules in each cell to get additional information about what DNA sequences are being actively used. Areas of DNA that are exposed are more likely to be accessed by cells than stretches of DNA that are tightly folded up
Original package of articles at https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl0913
Would you say to someone they really don't understand what is happening in an Internal Combustion Engine, thus the manual/schematics to their Car is completely pointless. Wont help them understand things at all.
"You dweeb, it is completely pointless, but here is a manual and blue-print for your car, but you just wont understand it until you can solve for the fluid turbulence in the cylinder. Man, why are they even trying"
Obviously I'm equating "power" with comprehensibility. and that's probaly not completely valid. But I wonder if there's still some truth in it.
Also, while we can use abstraction to understand complex things, brains seeem to be such a mess of evolutionary shortcuts and cludges that I'm not sure how far abstraction gets us.
Just musings.
I would rather say that the claim that new brain atlases will unlock the secrets of the human mind is just as pretentious as the claim that the James Webb Telescope will unlock the secrets of what happens beyond the observable universe. I don't believe the mind problem is unsolvable but also I don't believe we have some crucial data missing. I believe we have collected too much noise and new data makes the situation worse in some sense.
>" beyond the observable universe."
Equating understanding something that is actually physically impossible, to understanding something that is physically right in front of us? We can map brains, dissect them, model them.
It's engineering.
If we followed these arguments, then ancient man would have just thrown up their hands "what, everything is composed of little particles, you're crazy, it's beyond our understanding, stop trying".
Maybe the magazine used some hyperbole in the title of an article, that doesn't mean this isn't doable or that this isn't valuable step.
But - you do say, it isn't unsolvable. SO maybe we are agreeing in general, but not about the way articles hype things up.
Seeing beyond the observable radius is indeed impossible but getting through the tremendous amount of data is next to impossible. I believe this is a content for neurosurgeons but not for AI world.
What’s wrong with collecting the data? And why would you think technology couldn’t help us make sense of it?