PhilGoetz comments on Open Thread: April 2010 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Unnamed 01 April 2010 03:21PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (524)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 01 April 2010 09:21:12PM 1 point [-]

(I now see this answered in the first few comments on the link eliezer posted.)

Purely armchair neurology: To answer the question of why cow brains would need to be bigger than rat brains, I asked what would go wrong if we put a rat brain into a cow. (Ignoring organ rejection and cheese crazed, wall-eating cows)

We would need to connect the rat brain to the cow body, but there would not be a 1 to 1 correspondence of connections. I suspect that a cow has many more nerve endings throughout it's body. At least some of the brain/body correlation must be related to servicing the body nerves. (both sensory and motor)

Comment author: PhilGoetz 01 April 2010 09:46:30PM 4 points [-]

The cow needs more receptors, and more activators. However, this would lead one to expect the relationship of brain size to body size to follow a power-law with an exponent of 2/3 (for receptors, which are primarily on the skin); or of 1 (for activators, which might be in number proportional to volume). The actual exponent is 3/4. Scientists are still arguing over why.

Comment author: Erik 06 April 2010 07:34:17AM *  3 points [-]

West and Brown has done some work on this which seemed pretty solid to me when I read it a few months ago. The basic idea is that biological systems are designed in a fractal way which messes up the dimensional analysis.

From the abstract of http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/208/9/1575:

We have proposed a set of principles based on the observation that almost all life is sustained by hierarchical branching networks, which we assume have invariant terminal units, are space-filling and are optimised by the process of natural selection. We show how these general constraints explain quarter power scaling and lead to a quantitative, predictive theory that captures many of the essential features of diverse biological systems. Examples considered include animal circulatory systems, plant vascular systems, growth, mitochondrial densities, and the concept of a universal molecular clock. Temperature considerations, dimensionality and the role of invariants are discussed. Criticisms and controversies associated with this approach are also addressed.

A Science article of theirs containing similar ideas: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;284/5420/1677

Edit: A recent Nature article showing that there is systematic deviations from the power law, somewhat explainable with a modified version of the model of West and Brown:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/abs/nature08920.html

Comment author: [deleted] 02 April 2010 03:40:54PM *  -1 points [-]

.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 02 April 2010 04:44:37PM *  4 points [-]

Can something be mathematical and yet not strict?

Overly-simple mathematical models don't always work in the real world.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 April 2010 08:10:03PM *  1 point [-]

.