What does a smell or sight or touch trigger in the brain? Does the smell of a particular food or dish signal to the brain that it is hungry, disgusted, or maybe indifferent? Or perhaps the food triggers different thoughts related to others, or memories from the past, or expectations about the future, and so on? The science of the neuron and how it relates to everything the brain does - from thinking, moving, sensing, interpreting, deciding - is still very much a mystery. Our 86 billion neurons embody a vast and indeterminably large ocean of varying shapes and configurations, but what about just 302 neurons? In a recent study, scientists aimed to study a microscopic worm with said 302 neurons to understand how the worm's neurons responded to different chemicals via smell. The research revealed that the worm distinctly responded to the smell of salt (i.e. potential worm food) based on collective interactions between cells. What the study reveals is that brain activity may be better represented by the interactive patterns that occur according to different stimuli versus a more static "light bulb" moment of activity within a certain set of neurons.
In a separate study on the computational power of a single biological neuron in mice, researchers discovered that to predict the behavior of a single biological neuron's "input-output function", the deep neural network required five to eight artificial layers that consisted of up to 256 artificial neurons per layer (about 1,000 total artificial neurons) to complete the sequence. The numbers are not indicative of a 1,000 neuron to one neuron interaction, but rather the study offers insights into how the brain may be understanding, interpreting, and classifying stimuli. In other words, the 86 billion neurons that make up our everyday existence and functioning are most certainly performing massively complex computations at all times.
What then to take away from these two studies on activity within the brain via the engagement and interactivity of neurons? Not only does it show that there is so much yet to learn about the brain and how it makes determinations on what we do every day, but the studies show that there is definitive power in considering the interconnectivity of the brain's functioning rather than the product that represents its final output. A recent archeological discovery in the ancient Roman city of Pompeii unearthed how the city's slaves may have lived before the tragedy that destroyed the city in A.D. 79. The room is full of different objects in size and function, revealing an environment showcasing an everyday reality of work and life. But it is the composition of the space (revealing life as it may have been lived versus life as a product of its perceivably more 'valuable' objects) and the interconnectivity of the things found within that space that can illuminate much more about a lived experience than anyone object may demonstrate. What can be discerned from different objects and patterns found within a space? How do different elements add up to a holistic interpretation of an environment? Uncovering the mysteries of the brain is not entirely dissimilar from uncovering an archeological site full of perceivably ordinary objects that can unveil extraordinary insights.
What are some key points to deduce from brain studies and archeological discoveries? That the elements and composition of an environment are far more complex than what is perceived. The path to understanding is a continuous and evolving process that requires endless questions, hypotheses, and ideas. Data is found not only in the objects that are recognized through a lens of prior knowledge and experience, but data that is observed and studied through a lens that can accept inherent gaps in knowledge can then offer far more expansive and exciting revelations in return. By constantly asking the question "what else?" with a curious and open mind, even the great mysteries of the world may one day be better understood and appreciated.
The power of the endlessly curious question is important in the academic context, but within the context of everyday and present-day life, it can have a formidable impact. In an environment, there are the objects and interpretations that are known based on a lifetime of learning and comprehension, but are the things that are seen as definitively correct really…correct? If the environment can be seen from as many angles and perspectives as possible, does that not offer a better foundation for making decisions? And to see those angles and perspectives, perhaps they are not found through individual attention alone, but rather through a collective effort involving collaboration and of course many, many questions.
留言