From what I've read there isn't a huge difference between the relative size of a human being to the entire Universe, compared to the relative size of a planck-length particle to the size of a human being. That is: as small as a human is to the Universe, the human is roughly as large to a subatomic particle.
So, I'm very skeptical that neuroscientists can map "the brain" purely through interactions with cells, neurons and such. Much less predict outcomes. If they can then I'd assume astronomers could now exactly map every single larger-than-human body in the Universe (from stars, to 2000 pound boulders, everywhere). Since it's roughly the same scale of either complex, or simple interactions.
Skepticism of my admittedly ignorant stance: Perhaps neurons and axons are so larger than planck length that they'll tend to exhibit such usual outcomes from same stimuli that subatomic variations should be ignored? But does that mean axons and neurons are NEVER affected/changed by smaller things, including planck-length things, perhaps?
Basically my question is: Does a neuroscientist have to demonstrate that their model is correct from a subatomic particle on up? If not, why not? If not, from what larger-than-planck-length physics do they have to demonstrate it?
So, I'm very skeptical that neuroscientists can map "the brain" purely through interactions with cells, neurons and such. Much less predict outcomes. If they can then I'd assume astronomers could now exactly map every single larger-than-human body in the Universe (from stars, to 2000 pound boulders, everywhere). Since it's roughly the same scale of either complex, or simple interactions.
Skepticism of my admittedly ignorant stance: Perhaps neurons and axons are so larger than planck length that they'll tend to exhibit such usual outcomes from same stimuli that subatomic variations should be ignored? But does that mean axons and neurons are NEVER affected/changed by smaller things, including planck-length things, perhaps?
Basically my question is: Does a neuroscientist have to demonstrate that their model is correct from a subatomic particle on up? If not, why not? If not, from what larger-than-planck-length physics do they have to demonstrate it?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1MfYpOB
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire