![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 21:39:25
Bob brought up the interesting problem of models above. I often wonder how progress is
advancing on modeling the human brain. It seems the reductionist approach that is
becoming de rigeur in the study of the brain and its function has left us with so many
different transmitters, receptors, foci and stimuli, that it's virtually impossible to
keep it all straight. We may progress from specialists in neuroanatomy to specialists
in the cingulate gyrus or the or the anterior thalamic nucleus, if we are not at or
beyond that point already. It is conceivable that the separation between such specialists
might produce an unwieldy and unrealistic conceptual separation between the actual
structures and phenomena being studied.So, what is a scientist to do when he or she wants to know what tweaking neuron A in
region X does to neuron B in region Y, if anything, without having to spend endless
hours combing through the reams of information that might pertain to the actual question?
Maybe all the information from the study of anatomy, functional imaging, signal
transduction, genetics, psychology and pharmacology could be consistantly incorporated
into a model of the brain that would simulate physiological processes based on what we
know and thus give us some predictive information on which to base hypotheses. I'm sure
someone out there in the artificial intelligence or psychobiology fields might be trying
to do something similar. But are they, for instance, trying to make a model that would
tell them what, if I have a drug that interacts in a certain way with some-or-other
receptor(s), is the most accurate and comprehensive picture of what might happen if I
administered said drug to a human being?
Posted by Lurker on May 31, 2000, at 22:29:15
In reply to Esoterica, Part I, posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 21:39:25
Who needs to build models for experiments, I think we should use prisoners on death row.
> Bob brought up the interesting problem of models above. I often wonder how progress is
> advancing on modeling the human brain. It seems the reductionist approach that is
> becoming de rigeur in the study of the brain and its function has left us with so many
> different transmitters, receptors, foci and stimuli, that it's virtually impossible to
> keep it all straight. We may progress from specialists in neuroanatomy to specialists
> in the cingulate gyrus or the or the anterior thalamic nucleus, if we are not at or
> beyond that point already. It is conceivable that the separation between such specialists
> might produce an unwieldy and unrealistic conceptual separation between the actual
> structures and phenomena being studied.
>
> So, what is a scientist to do when he or she wants to know what tweaking neuron A in
> region X does to neuron B in region Y, if anything, without having to spend endless
> hours combing through the reams of information that might pertain to the actual question?
> Maybe all the information from the study of anatomy, functional imaging, signal
> transduction, genetics, psychology and pharmacology could be consistantly incorporated
> into a model of the brain that would simulate physiological processes based on what we
> know and thus give us some predictive information on which to base hypotheses. I'm sure
> someone out there in the artificial intelligence or psychobiology fields might be trying
> to do something similar. But are they, for instance, trying to make a model that would
> tell them what, if I have a drug that interacts in a certain way with some-or-other
> receptor(s), is the most accurate and comprehensive picture of what might happen if I
> administered said drug to a human being?
Posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 23:10:35
In reply to Re: Esoterica, Part I, posted by Lurker on May 31, 2000, at 22:29:15
Such experiments are widely regarded as unethical, and are also illegal. That's
not a viable approach.The purpose of such a model would be to augment other established protocols, not
to supplant them. That means it probably wouldn't take the place of animal models
or human trials. It might save time and money by making some experiments
superfluous. It might give us information that cannot be attained any other way
than the kind of horrific abuse of human life that you have suggested.> Who needs to build models for experiments, I think we should use prisoners on death row.
>
Posted by Noa on June 1, 2000, at 8:35:16
In reply to Esoterica, Part I, posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 21:39:25
I think this is an area of inquiry in the field of computational neuroscience. It uses mathematical computer models. I have read a bit about it, and have a sister who has done some work in it, but believe me, I don't pretend to understand it.
Posted by Noa on June 1, 2000, at 8:36:46
In reply to Re: Esoterica, Part I, posted by Adam on May 31, 2000, at 23:10:35
BTW, there is a book called Wet Mind, by Kozlin (I think that is the name) and someone else, that deals with this stuff.
Posted by Adam on June 1, 2000, at 14:34:09
In reply to Re: Esoterica, Part I, posted by Noa on June 1, 2000, at 8:36:46
Thanks, Noa!
> BTW, there is a book called Wet Mind, by Kozlin (I think that is the name) and someone else, that deals with this stuff.
Posted by Noa on June 1, 2000, at 17:21:51
In reply to Re: Esoterica, Part I, posted by Adam on June 1, 2000, at 14:34:09
Adam, the author's name is Kosslyn, and he is the second author listed. The first is Koenig.
Posted by Todd on June 1, 2000, at 18:38:31
In reply to Re: Esoterica, Part I » Adam, posted by Noa on June 1, 2000, at 17:21:51
Hey y'all. I just looked up the word "esoteric" in the dictionary, just to be sure of the meaning. It is defined as "designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone," or "limited to a small circle." Is that the kind of approach to mental health you would like to see taken? How about a model that we can ALL understand, at least on a basic level?
Just wondering...
Posted by Adam on June 2, 2000, at 9:52:04
In reply to Esoteric: Defined, posted by Todd on June 1, 2000, at 18:38:31
Actually, I meant the title to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and I think the label is often placed on intellectual or philosophical discussions, even though such discussions might or should have a wider audience and "participancy".
In the case of brain modeling, I was wondering what, if any, real progress was being made in the area, and my hope for such models is that they would make study of the brain LESS esoteric. Often researchers, when they dream up experiments, or pose hypotheses, have to do a great deal of reading and sifting to make reasonable predictions about what the outcome of an experiment might be. Only by doing so can they hope to design rational experiments, or interpret their results, whether or not the results are what one would expect. It seems to me that one could spend their life studying one walnut-sized chunk of the brain, with all the information that is now available in the literature. If such information could be compiled into a reasonably accurate model, it might streamline the research and design process. It could be nothing more than a kind of interactive database.
> Hey y'all. I just looked up the word "esoteric" in the dictionary, just to be sure of the meaning. It is defined as "designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone," or "limited to a small circle." Is that the kind of approach to mental health you would like to see taken? How about a model that we can ALL understand, at least on a basic level?
>
> Just wondering...
Posted by boBB on June 2, 2000, at 19:30:54
In reply to Re: Esoteric: Defined, posted by Adam on June 2, 2000, at 9:52:04
Try "The Invisible Brain" available at most hobby shops.
Kidding, sort of. It amazes me how much coherant information is available about the various structures and functions of the brain mind, yet a concise, accurate, accessible compilation is still not widely available. Seems there is still no replacement for a medical degree and several years of specialized research if someone really wants to get a handle on human physiology.
There is a project that sliced the bodies of two individuals into thin segments and is using the photgraphic data from those bodies to create a virtual anatomy. I think it is called the virtual anatomy project. Not much is available on-line so far, but I think that is the goal.
University of Colorado has some interesting lifelike MPEG animation of various muscles, bone structures and organs, but it is not like you can just click your way into any part of the body and explore any organ you choose right down to the microbiological level, assisted by accessible text linked so as to cascade from the most elementary summaries into the most recent esoteric research about that part of the body.
But then, the internet is really still in its infancy.
I understand some medical schools have done away with their cadaver labs in favor of virtual anatomy, but I'm not sure. There is quite a lot out on CD that I have not reviewed, including some virtual anatomy and physiology stuff. It really needs to be more accessible if it is true that a wider public understanding of human physiology would benifit the overall public health.
The CIA/NSA can call up 3-D maps for anywhere in the world, and probably has plans for buildings in many areas (though they claim they can't keep track of foreign embassies listed in public phone books when they select bombing targets). Municipalities have for more than a decade used some interesting software that interfaces geographic data with maps of various utilities and such. Fire departmens and police departments are trying to get building plans entered into their servers so they will have virtual floorplans available when they are called to an emergency.
Historical societies would do well to use that interactive mapping software to keep up with old pictures and data about local communities, and maybe to create virtual histories of some areas. The best we can get on the internet so far is the likes of Maps.com.
If the public was as interested in learning as they seem to be in Rambo, WWF and Jerry Springer, their might be a better market for interactive virtual biological models. But then if there were better interactive virtual models available at reasonable cost, (Web TV in every home, with encyclopedic virtual anatomy available for free, with easy access reference to medical data) people might be more interested in educational media.
boBB wants a job producing educational media.
> Actually, I meant the title to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and I think the label is often placed on intellectual or philosophical discussions, even though such discussions might or should have a wider audience and "participancy".
>
> In the case of brain modeling, I was wondering what, if any, real progress was being made in the area, and my hope for such models is that they would make study of the brain LESS esoteric. Often researchers, when they dream up experiments, or pose hypotheses, have to do a great deal of reading and sifting to make reasonable predictions about what the outcome of an experiment might be. Only by doing so can they hope to design rational experiments, or interpret their results, whether or not the results are what one would expect. It seems to me that one could spend their life studying one walnut-sized chunk of the brain, with all the information that is now available in the literature. If such information could be compiled into a reasonably accurate model, it might streamline the research and design process. It could be nothing more than a kind of interactive database.
>
> > Hey y'all. I just looked up the word "esoteric" in the dictionary, just to be sure of the meaning. It is defined as "designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone," or "limited to a small circle." Is that the kind of approach to mental health you would like to see taken? How about a model that we can ALL understand, at least on a basic level?
> >
> > Just wondering...
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.