Take your brain and mine for comparison. It's quite obvious that they differ in terms of actual number of neurons, the number and complexity of synapses, the loci of brain cells, etc. Yet, we can both talk, walk, eat, think in, factoring these variations, extremely similar ways. Had these variations any effect on the way our brains operate/function, it would show in the areas of brain function I mentioned. We wouldn't have generic abilities like walking, talking, eating, thinking, etc. — TheMadFool

I don't see why microstructure needs to impact the function in the way you describe. It's like the example I gave of the hard disk. Two hard disks have the same function despite widely different microstructure, and its the microstructure that matter for what is stored in memory. Another example would be like two animals, a llama and tiger. They have brains with similar parts, visual cortex, amygdalas, etc. What makes them different in behavior is the microstructure. The difference in microstructure doesn't need to imply different functions for it to be important for minds or for determining specific behaviors in specific contexts.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Of course our mental states would differ between a delicious burger and a spider crawling up our arm. However, if both of us were exposed to the same stimulus, we would experience comparable mental states. If my mouth waters in gustatory anticipation when I see a burger, it's highly unlikely that you would retch and vomit in disgust. This similarity in responses to the physical environment and ideas bespeak the reality of what I've referred to as generic brain functions, something that would be impossible if the fine structure of brains mattered to mental states. — TheMadFool

Are you implying every part of two different brains, respond in similar ways to a stimulus? But this is clearly false; just read any comparative brain study. Presented with that burger, I could just not have a watering response or I could have a different set of thoughts triggered by that stimulus. Two people don't have similar microstructural, behavioral emotional or cognitive responses to the same events. These are what form the basis for differences in personalities, emotional sensitivity, behaviors etc.

Even simple neural networks are chaotic systems. This has been shown experimentally since the 1980s and is now a well established fact. See here and here. What this means is that very small differences in the initial state of the network will give rise to significant unpredictable differences in the final state. Apart from that, the anatomical and the biochemical arrangement of the nervous system in craniopagus twins are not identical. At the very basic level, their heart rate and blood pressures are not identical, hence their CNS state will not be identical.

Take your brain and mine for comparison. It's quite obvious that they differ in terms of actual number of neurons, the number and complexity of synapses, the loci of brain cells, etc. Yet, we can both talk, walk, eat, think in, factoring these variations, extremely similar ways. Had these variations any effect on the way our brains operate/function, it would show in the areas of brain function I mentioned. We wouldn't have generic abilities like walking, talking, eating, thinking, etc — TheMadFool

Even if our way of walking is similar, it is as different between individuals as are fingerprints. Individual gait is different and you can identify a person by his/her gait only. Prosapagnosic patients (who are unable to recognize faces) can readily recognize persons by watching how they walk. It is the same for the way we talk. This shows the opposite of what you are trying to say - gross structures in our brains are the same, hence we walk similarly, but there are differences in the little things, thus each of us has individual gait, out own individual way of talking.

Even simple neural networks are chaotic systems — debd

What this means is that very small differences in the initial state of the network will give rise to significant unpredictable differences in the final state — debd

Do you see people behaving chaotically?

it is as different between individuals as are fingerprints. Individual gait is different and you can identify a person by his/her gait only. — debd

You're focusing on minor differences and ignoring major similarities. What you're doing here is like taking two humans and concluding that one of them isn't human because fae has a differently shaped nose.

My argument is simple, if the brain is a chaotic system there should be zero similarities between people which is clearly false.

What makes them different in behavior is the microstructure. The difference in microstructure doesn't need to imply different functions — aporiap

:chin: You're contradicting yourself.

Are you implying every part of two different brains, respond in similar ways to a stimulus? — aporiap

Each gross anatomical structure of the brain has a function that's different from other gross anatomical structures but each one of them has a function that's identical to all brains.

:chin: You're contradicting yourself. — TheMadFool

No it isn't. You are not reading it in context of the example, see the sentence preceding the quoted ones. Behavior and function are decoupled in that post, so there is no contradiction. Functions denote activity of a given brain tissue - e.g. amygdala. Behavior denotes things like walking, grabbing, any action. Llamas and tigers have different behaviors despite having the same brain functions [amygdala function, visual cortex function]. How would you explain why they have these different behaviors given the identical functionality of their brain tissues? How are he microarchitectures relevant?

Each gross anatomical structure of the brain has a function that's different from other gross anatomical structures but each one of them has a function that's identical to all brains. — TheMadFool

Do you distinguish between output and function of a given brain structure? By output I mean the spiking rates of efferent neurons exiting the brain structure.

Llamas and tigers have different behaviors despite having the same brain functions [amygdala function, visual cortex function]. — aporiap

This is a good point but...

First things first, tigers behave quite differently from llamas. This seems to bespeak a correlation between brain and behavior especially in terms of fine structure: the differences between a llama and a tiger are due to differences in fine structure of their brains. Your theory explains interspecies differences. So far, so good.

However, how would you explain interspecies similarities? I mean both tigers and llamas walk, eat, mate, etc. If it all depended on fine structure of brains, and given that they're not the same in these two species of animals, tigers and llamas should have nothing in common and yet they do in the aforementioned ways.

Do you see people behaving chaotically? — TheMadFool

Chaotic systems are mathematically defined systems, it does not mean people will behave chaotically. You are confusing chaotic systems with the common use of the word chaos.

Gross brain structures are similar across individuals of a species -> that's what makes them a member of the same species. However, there are demonstrable differences between the gross and microscopic structure, physiology and biochemistry between individuals, that is what separates you from me. Gross brain structure allows us both to speak but its the differences that make your speech utterly unique and different from mine.

Chaotic systems are mathematically defined systems, it does not mean people will behave chaotically. You are confusing chaotic systems with the common use of the word chaos. — debd

I don't mean to be rude but you're trying to eat the cake and have it too. Firstly, you and some others are trying to explain differences between individuals, whether belonging to the same species or not, with chaos theory. Clearly, in such a theory, the input are the differences in environment, minute ones as per chaos theory, that's causing large variations in output. Put simply, the chaos is in the output - the mental and bodily aspects of a person. In other words, you're saying these very differences - mental and physical - are the chaos. Then you go on to deny this is so. :chin:.

However, what explains the similarities then? If chaos theory is applicable to brain-mind there should be absolutely zero similarities between individuals, same species or not. Yet, animals share a sizeable chunk of their biology with other animals.

I think we are talking past each other. What do you mean when you say people should exhibit chaotic behavior?

If chaos theory is applicable to brain-mind... — TheMadFool

It is not a question of if, experiments have shown that neural networks exhibit chaotic dynamics. However, this does not mean it cannot be analyzed or predictions cannot be made.

You're focusing on minor differences and ignoring major similarities. — TheMadFool

Weather and climate again.

It’s very hard to tell exactly what the weather will be like on a particular day even one month away, but I can guarantee you there will be no rain in my hometown on any day in July ten years from now.

I think we are talking past each other. What do you mean when you say people should exhibit chaotic behavior? — debd

It is not a question of if, experiments have shown that neural networks exhibit chaotic dynamics. However, this does not mean it cannot be analyzed or predictions cannot be made. — debd

In keeping with your theory, the chaos manifests at the level of behavior (mental AND physical) but there are similarities at those levels which should be impossible (in your chaos theory).

Weather and climate again. — Pfhorrest

You mean to say you can predict the climate and not the weather? Any references to support your claim? Also, kindly explain the analogy in more detail. What aspect of our minds is the climate and what aspect of our mind is weather?

You mean to say you can predict the climate and not the weather? Any references to support your claim? — TheMadFool

Some top Google results:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/weather-vs-climate

Also, kindly explain the analogy in more detail. What aspect of our minds is the climate and what aspect of our mind is weather? — TheMadFool

Someone else already gave a great illustration with regards to a hard drive earlier. The magnetization of individual bits on a hard drive can be completely different, but the whole structure of the hard drive remains that of a hard drive. The magnetization of individual bits can change drastically and unpredictably over time, like weather, but still the general overall structure of the drive remains the same, or only changes very slowly, like climate.

So I can't know what the microstructure of my hard drive will be like tomorrow, what with all the many crazy processes always changing that; but I can be pretty sure it will still be a hard drive a year from now. Likewise, I don't know for sure it won't rain here tomorrow -- this is the time of year when it starts to rain around here, but exactly when the first rain will be is hard to predict -- but I can be virtually certain that it will not rain at all next July, or the July after that, etc, because raining in July is just not something that can happen here.

And likewise, brains have a general structure to them that is going to be the same no matter what, barring traumatic injuries. But the microscopic brain states can change radically and unpredictably, and with them the mental states that they encode. Yet there are limits on the kinds of mental states that be had too -- you can scarcely more be "a little bit theist" than you can be "a little bit pregnant" -- so all those variations on brain microstates just influence how likely you are to end up in one of the fewer possible mental states, in such cases.

Someone else already gave a great illustration with regards to a hard drive earlier. The magnetization of individual bits on a hard drive can be completely different, but the whole structure of the hard drive remains that of a hard drive. The magnetization of individual bits can change drastically and unpredictably over time, like weather, but still the general overall structure of the drive remains the same, or only changes very slowly, like climate. — Pfhorrest

This analogy doesn't work for the simple reason that it doesn't include a functional aspect. The brain is the hard drive, ok. However, the brain has a function which is expressed in the form of thoughts and behavior. The analogy of the hard drive doesn't have a corresponding attribute. If we do attempt to complete the analogy, the content of the hard drive should stand for brain function but any changes in the fine structure of the hard drive will produce a corresponding change in the contents of the hard drive.

If we do attempt to complete the analogy, the content of the hard drive should stand for brain function but any changes in the fine structure of the hard drive will produce a corresponding change in the contents of the hard drive. — TheMadFool

The content of the hard drives is analogous to mental content — your thoughts, beliefs, feelings, etc. That stuff can and does change, which is the whole point here, accounting for origins of that change. The overall function of the brain though, like the overall function of the hard drive,
remains the same; those big features are relatively fixed and not easily altered.

The content of the hard drives is analogous to mental content — your thoughts, beliefs, feelings, etc. That stuff can and does change, which is the whole point here, accounting for origins of that change. The overall function of the brain though, like the overall function of the hard drive,remains the same; those big features are relatively fixed and not easily altered. — Pfhorrest

Ok, the contents of the hard drive are mental content. Changes in the fine structure of the hard drive alters the contents of the hard drive just like differences in the fine structure of the brain alters the mental content. What, in all of this is the "overall function of the brain" that has remained "relatively fixed"? If I alter one single bit on the hard drive, the content will change dramatically - this is the chaos you're referring to. I fail to see what has remained "relatively fixed"? Remember we're not discussing the function of the hard drive as a memory device. You were so kind to point out that "the contents of the hard drives is analogous to mental content - your thoughts, beliefs, feelings, etc."

What do you mean by "chaos manifests"? I reiterate again that the neural networks exhibit chaotic dynamics, this has a precise mathematical formulation which is quite different than how you are using the term chaos. Also, chaotic dynamics in neural networks doesnot mean any output is possible. The outputs have a state space over which they vary. What this means is that although our neural networks may exhibit chaotic dynamics we suddenly won't be able hear megahertz frequency sounds or see x-rays.

What do you mean by "chaos manifests"? I reiterate again that the neural networks exhibit chaotic dynamics, this has a precise mathematical formulation which is quite different than how you are using the term chaos. Also, chaotic dynamics in neural networks doesnot mean any output is possible. The outputs have a state space over which they vary. What this means is that although our neural networks may exhibit chaotic dynamics we suddenly won't be able hear megahertz frequency sounds or see x-rays. — debd

My issue with your theory of "chaotic dynamics" in re the brain is very simple. Your chaotic brain idea explains the differences. In fact it's express purpose is to demonstrate how two brains, despite being exposed to the same enviroment in a broad sense, will diverge in mental qualities such as beliefs, attitudes, desires, likes and dislikes, etc. for the reason that brains are sensitive to tiny differences in the environment. In essence, your theory is meant to explain differences between individuals. How can you use a theory that's primary objective is to account for differences as a explanatory basis for similarities? It's like using using Darwin's theory to explain Creation science. It makes zero sense [to me].

All of us humans have a Broca's area in our brain. Its gross macrostructure is similar across all humans and it bestows each one of us with the capacity of speech (speech is a complicated cognitive function and this is oversimplified, but the basic fact is correct). The microstructural and microenvironmental differences in our Broca's area makes my speech different from yours. Other animals don't have Broca's area so they are incapable of human speech (microstructural differences doesn't even come into play, their brains are macrostructurally different than ours). Is it clear now?

It's like using using Darwin's theory — TheMadFool

That’s another good analogy.

There are a lot of mutations that are possible, caused by tiny random environmental factors, but most mutations either do nothing of note, or cause the mutated cell to die. If they don’t, the mutated cells usually malfunction and get killed off by other cells. It’s a very rare mutation that produces a lasting genetic difference... and most of those make no noticeable phenotypic difference. Those that do, again, are usually detrimental to the organism, and are quickly weeded out of the gene pool. So out of all the chaotic mutations that could happen, there is a very limited selection of phenotypic changes that can be introduced into the population; it’s not like a stray cosmic ray can just cause a horse to give birth to a pegasus.