
The Strange Similarity of Neuron and Galaxy Networks - prostoalex
http://nautil.us/issue/50/emergence/the-strange-similarity-of-neuron-and-galaxy-networks
======
AngrySkillzz
It's not that profound. Both networks form through "preferential attachment."
Large networks of galaxies form because gravity causes the largest
conglomerations to get larger. Similarly, neurons are more likely to connect
to other neurons that already have a large number of connections. It's the
same principle exhibited by different mechanisms; also the reason social
networks look the way they do. See Barabasi-Albert model, preferential
attachment, and scale-free networks.

~~~
keymone
> neurons are more likely to connect to other neurons that already have a
> large number of connections

how do neurons "know" which neurons have large number of connections?

~~~
yladiz
The neurons with larger numbers of connections likely have higher electrical
activity in the body.

------
dvt
The argument here is a bit forced. In fact, the entire _universe_ seems to be
self-similar. My point is only that there's nothing special, mysterious, or
spooky about brain matter (as the article kind of implies). In fact, you can
draw similarities between atoms (and their electron clouds) and solar systems.

The self-similarity and fractal nature of our world is indeed puzzling and
fascinating, but it goes far beyond brains.

------
QAPereo
"The map is not the territory."

This is a similarity between _models_ of neuron and galactic networks, not the
actual networks themselves.

~~~
JBorrow
What's the difference? If both systems can be modelled in a similar way, how
does that not make them similar?

I don't think anyone is trying to make an argument that they are the same
'thing' ("hey, maybe the observable Universe is a 'thought' inside a cosmic
brain!"), just that there are striking similarities in structure - which can
only easily be seen by a comparison of models.

~~~
olegkikin
The differences are major. One is made of unconnected stars, largely governed
by the laws of gravity, the other one is made of connected cells, governed by
the laws of chemistry, electricity (and maybe quantum effects).

The only rough similarity is the looks, and only if you dye the brain tissue
in a special way.

~~~
ianai
I have a little hypothesis that I dreamed up a couple nights ago:

Life is exogenous to the universe. That gives life it's meaning-to define what
it is through it's impact on the universe. This is because the universe is in
average empty and lifeless. The inanimate universe vastly outweighs the
animate. Life could not ever overcome the average emptiness of the universe.
But still it must try. It must try because if it ceases it becomes the
inanimate. Life is that exogenous influence on the universe not attributable
to any other physical or chemical process. If you simply cannot explain it
then it may be life.

Brain evolution over time is definitely dependent upon physics/chemistry - but
it's also dependent on conditions at higher levels of abstraction. We know
neurons change their associations every day based on many factors at the
conscious and subconscious levels (observations/thoughts).

~~~
losteric
"Life" is just a particular arrangement of inanimate matter riding the wave of
entropy, a complicated fire simmering away on the Earth's surface...

------
gedankespiel
This article seems quite silly, or at least, can easily lead to silly
conclusions. There was a brief paragraph at the end that half-heartedly
admitted that the evidence wasn't conclusive, but it seems most people didn't
read it.

Further, only one paper was referenced - and it was written by the author of
the article! Guess what? It has 1 (one) citation.

>Is the apparent similarity just the human tendency to perceive meaningful
patterns in random data (apophenia)? Remarkably enough, the answer seems to be
no: Statistical analysis shows these systems do indeed present quantitative
similarities.

This is not a good argument. The similarity of images is not the similarity of
systems.

Also,

>In other words, it tells us how many high-frequency and low-frequency notes
make the peculiar spatial melody of each image.

.. come on, man. Come on.

>Based on the latest analysis of the connectivity of the brain network,
independent studies have concluded that the total memory capacity of the adult
human brain should be around 2.5 petabytes, not far from the 1-10 petabyte
range estimated for the cosmic web!

So if I make a 3-petabyte hard drive, it's self-aware? There are a few things
wrong with this passage. The first is that no citations are given. The second
is that connectivity is not the only important aspect of brain function. The
third is that 2.5 petabytes falls firmly WITHIN the 1-10 pb range given. The
fourth is that a 1-10 pb range hardly seems to tell us anything.

>Roughly speaking, this similarity in memory capacity means that the entire
body of information that is stored in a human brain (for instance, the entire
life experience of a person) can also be encoded into the distribution of
galaxies in our universe.

No. Galaxies don't fire action potentials. The data points could be mapped to
each other, perhaps, but this doesn't mean that the information is the same,
given that the information depends on the way the data is read.

>It is truly a remarkable fact that the cosmic web is more similar to the
human brain than it is to the interior of a galaxy; or that the neuronal
network is more similar to the cosmic web than it is to the interior of a
neuronal body

Is it really? Seems like apophenia is taking hold again. Of course we want to
recognise ourselves in the universe. God made man in his image blah blah blah
blah. People should be wary of this way of thinking.

------
anotheryou
milk I mixed with orange juice:
[http://i.imgur.com/8wj0l3J.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/8wj0l3J.jpg)

surface of the sun:
[https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/thesun-4...](https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/thesun-454657.jpg)

------
grondilu
> Programs like the Human Brain Project, designed to simulate an entire human
> neuronal network

I'm not sure but it is my understanding the HBP plans on studying the human
brain from a static measurements of adult specimens. That seems at odd with
the cosmological models used here, which are dynamical, building a structure
from an initial conditions.

Is there an accurate model for the dynamics of brain during the development of
the embryo? If not couldn't we start from the cosmological model and tweak it
until it produces a structure that matches the brain even better?

------
KasianFranks
2 more relevant refigures:

[http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/016c28958aab.j...](http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/016c28958aab.jpg)

[http://wwwmpa.mpa-
garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/poster_...](http://wwwmpa.mpa-
garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/poster_large.jpg)

------
givan
As Above, So Below

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrocosm_and_microcosm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrocosm_and_microcosm)

~~~
api
Yes, ancient thinkers were starting to notice self similarity at different
scales.

------
tokai
Articles like this is why I stay clear of nautilus.

------
1024core
Imagine if the "big bang" was actually conception, and the universe as we know
it is actually a being...

~~~
tomrod
An interesting allegorical approach that begs deeper questions.

Does that mean our solar system is Oxygen or Fluorine? Or are gas giants
neutrons?

Are galaxies cells? Do the orders of magnitude map?

Are we then still the universe experiencing itself?

~~~
api
You got downvoted by the boring universe police. No speculation allowed,
especially if it is grand or contains any hint of the poetic.

