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?
poster:Adam
thread:35445
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000526/msgs/35445.html