BIOLOGY | NEUROLOGY

Your Brain Is On the Brink of

Chaos
Neurological evidence for chaos in the nervous system is growing.
d
BY KELLY CLANCY
ILLUSTRATION BY JOSH COCHRAN
JULY 10, 2014
ADD A COMMENT FACEBOOK TWI TTER EMAI L
c f t m
n one important way, the recipient of a heart transplant ignores its new organ: Its nervous system usually doesnt
rewire to communicate with it. The 40,000 neurons controlling a heart operate so perfectly, and are so self-
contained, that a heart can be cut out of one body, placed into another, and continue to function perfectly, even in
the absence of external control, for a decade or more. This seems necessary: The parts of our nervous system managing our
most essential functions behave like a Swiss watch, precisely timed and impervious to perturbations. Chaotic behavior has been
throttled out.
Or has it? Two simple pendulums that swing with perfect regularity can, when yoked together, move in a chaotic trajectory. Given
that the billions of neurons in our brain are each like a pendulum, oscillating back and forth between resting and firing, and
connected to 10,000 other neurons, isnt chaos in our nervous system unavoidable?
The prospect is terrifying to imagine. Chaos is extremely sensitive to initial conditionsjust think of the butterfly effect. What if
the wrong perturbation plunged us into irrevocable madness? Among many scientists, too, there is a great deal of resistance to
the idea that chaos is at work in biological systems. Many intentionally preclude it from their models. It subverts
computationalism, which is the idea that the brain is nothing more than a complicated, but fundamentally rule-based, computer.
Chaos seems unqualified as a mechanism of biological information processing, as it allows noise to propagate without bounds,
corrupting information transmission and storage.
I
The brains main function is to protect us, like an umbrella, from chaos.
At the same time, chaos has its advantages. On a behavioral level, the arms race between predator and prey has wired erratic
strategies into our nervous system. A moth sensing an echolocating bat, for example, immediately directs itself away from the
ultrasound source. The neurons controlling its flight fire in an increasingly erratic manner as the bat draws closer, until the moth,
darting in fits, appears to be nothing but a tumble of wings and legs. More generally, chaos could grant our brains a great deal of
computational power, by exploring many possibilities at great speed.
Motivated by these and other potential advantages, and with an accumulation of evidence in hand, neuroscientists are gradually
accepting the potential importance of chaos in the brain.
haos is not the same as disorder. While disordered systems cannot be predicted, chaos is actually deterministic: The
present state of the system determines its future. Yet even so, its behavior is only predictable on short time scales:
Tiny differences in inputs result in vastly different outcomes. Chaotic systems can also exhibit stable patterns called
attractors that emerge to the patient observer. Over time, chaotic trajectories will gravitate toward them. Because chaos can
be controlled, it strikes a fine balance between reliability and exploration. Yet because its unpredictable, its a strong candidate
for the dynamical substrate of free will.
The similarity to random disorder (or stochasticity) has been a thorn in the side of formal studies of chaos. It can be
mathematically tricky to distinguish between the twoespecially in biological systems. There are no definite tests for chaos
when dealing with multi-dimensional, fluctuating biological data. Walter Freeman and his colleagues spearheaded some of the
earliest studies attempting to prove the existence of chaos in the brain, but came to extreme conclusions on limited data. Hes
argued, for example, that neuropil, the extracellular mix of axons and dendrites, is the organ of consciousnessa strong
assertion in any light. Philosophers soon latched onto these ideas, taking even the earliest studies at face value. Articles by
philosophers and scientists alike can be as apt to quote Jiddu Krishnamurti as Henri Poincar, and chaos is often handled with a
semi-mystical reverence.
As a result, researchers must tread carefully to be taken seriously. But the search for chaos is not purely poetic. The strongest
current evidence comes from single cells. The squid giant axon, for example, operates in a resting mode or a repetitive firing
mode, depending on the external sodium concentration. Between these extremes, it exhibits unpredictable bursting that
resembles the wandering behavior of a chaotic trajectory before it settles into an attractor. When a periodic input is applied, the
squid giant axon responds with a mixture of both oscillating and chaotic activity. There is chaos in networks of cells, too. The
neurons in a patch of rat skin can distinguish between chaotic and disordered patterns of skin stretching.
1
C
2, 3
4
5
More evidence for chaos in the nervous system can be found at the level of global brain activity. Bizarrely, an apt metaphor for
this behavior is an iron slab. The electrons it contains can each point in different directions (more precisely, their spins can
point). Like tiny magnets, neighboring spins influence each other. When the slab is cold, there is not enough energy to overcome
the influence of neighboring spins, and all spins align in the same direction, forming one solid magnet. When the slab is hot, each
spin has so much energy that it can shrug off the influence of its neighbor, and the slabs spins are disordered. When the slab is
halfway between hot and cold, it is in the so-called critical regime. This is characterized by fluctuating domains of same-spin
regions which exhibit the highest possible dynamic correlationsthat is, the best balance between a spins ability to influence its
neighbors, and its ability to be changed.
The critical state can be quite useful for the brain, allowing it to exploit both order and disorder in its computationsemploying
a redundant network with rich, rapid chaotic dynamics, and an orderly readout function to stably map the network state to
outputs. The critical state would be maintained not by temperature, but the balance of neural excitation and inhibition. If the
balance is tipped in favor of more inhibition, the brain is frozen and nothing happens. If there is too much excitation, it will
descend into chaos. The critical point is analogous to an attractor.
6
But how can we tell whether the brain operates at the critical point? One clue is the structure of the signals generated by the
activity of its billions of neurons. We can measure the power of the brains electrical activity at different oscillation frequencies.
It turns out that the power of activity falls off as the inverse of the frequency of that activity. Once referred to as 1/f noise, this
relationship is actually a hallmark of systems balanced at their critical point. The spatial extent of regions of coordinated
neuronal activity also depend inversely on frequency, another hallmark of criticality. When the brain is pushed away from its
usual operating regime using pharmacological agents, it usually loses both these hallmarks, and the efficiency of its
information encoding and transmission is reduced.
he philosopher Gilles Deleuze and psychiatrist Felix Guattari contended that the brains main function is to protect
us, like an umbrella, from chaos. It seems to have done so by exploiting chaos itself. At the same time, neural
networks are also capable of near-perfect reliability, as with the beating heart. Order and disorder enjoy a symbiotic
relationship, and a neurons firing may wander chaotically until a memory or perception propels it into an attractor. Sensory
input would then serve to stabilize chaos. Indeed, the presentation of a stimulus reduces variability in neuronal firing across a
surprising number of different species and systems, as if a high-dimensional chaotic trajectory fell into an attractor. By
taming chaos, attractors may represent a strategy for maintaining reliability in a sensitive system. Recent theoretical and
experimental studies of large networks of independent oscillators have also shown that order and chaos can co-exist in
surprising harmony, in so-called chimera states.
The current research paradigm in neuroscience, which considers neurons in a snapshot of time as stationary computational
units, and not as members of a shifting dynamical entity, might be missing the mark entirely. If chaos plays an important role in
the brain, then neural computations do not operate as a static read-out, a lockstep march from the transduction of photons to
the experience of light, but a high-dimensional dynamic trajectory as spikes dance across the brain in self-choreographed
cadence.
While hundreds of millions of dollars are being funneled into building the connectomea neuron-by-neuron map of the brain
scientists like Eve Marder have argued that, due to the complexity of these circuits, a structural map alone will not get us very far.
Functional connections can flicker in and out of existence in milliseconds. Individual neurons appear to change their tuning
properties over time and thus may not be byte-addressablethat is, stably represent some piece of informationbut
instead operate within a dynamic dictionary that constantly shifts to make room for new meaning. Chaos encourages us to think
of certain disorders as dynamical diseases, epileptic seizures being the most dramatic example of the potential failure of chaos.
Chaos might also serve as a signature of brain health: For example, researchers reported less chaotic dynamics in the dopamine-
producing cells of rodents with brain lesions, as opposed to healthy rodents, which could have implications in diagnosing and
treating Parkinsons and other dopamine-related disorders.
Economist Murray Rothbard described chaos theory as destroying math from within. It usurps the human impulse to simplify,
replacing the clear linear relationships we seek in nature with the messy and unpredictable. Similarly, chaos in the brain
undermines glib caricatures of human behavior. Economists often model humans as rational agents: hedonistic calculators
who act for their future good. But we cant really act out of self-interestthough that would be a reasonable thing to do
because we are terrible at predicting what that is. After all, how could we? Its precisely this failure that makes us what we are.
Kelly Clancy studied physics at MIT, then worked as an itinerant astronomer for several years before serving with the Peace Corps
in Turkmenistan. As a National Science Foundation fellow, she recently finished her PhD in biophysics at the University of
7
8, 9
10
T
11
12
13
14, 15
16
17
California, Berkeley. She will begin her postdoctoral research at Biozentrum in Switzerland this fall.
References
1. Humphries, D.A. & Driver, P.M. Protean defence by prey animals. Oecologia 5, 285302 (1970).
2. Abraham, F.D. Chaos, bifurcations, and self-organization: dynamical extensions of neurological positivism. Psychoscience 1, 85-
118 (1992).
3. ONuallain, S. Zero power and selflessness: what meditation and conscious perception have in common. Cognitive Science 4,
49-64 (2008).
4. Korn, H. & Faure, P. Is there chaos in the brain? II. Experimental evidence and related models. Comptes Rendus Biologies 326,
787840 (2003).
5. Richardson, K.A., Imhoff, T.T., Grigg, P. & Collins, J.J. Encoding chaos in neural spike trains. Physical Review Letters 80, 2485
2488 (1998).
6. Beggs, J.M. & Timme, N. Being critical of criticality in the brain. Frontiers in Physiology 3, 114 (2012).
7. Bak, P., Tang, C. & Wiesenfeld, K. Self-organized criticality: an explanation of 1/f noise. Physical Review Letters 59, 381384
(1987).
8. Mazzoni, A. et al. On the dynamics of the spontaneous activity in neuronal networks. PLoS ONE 2 e439 (2007).
9. Beggs, J.M. & Plenz, D. Neuronal avalanches in neocortical circuits. Journal of Neuroscience 23, 1116711177 (2003).
10. Shew, W.L., Yang, H., Yu, S., Roy, R. & Plenz, D. Information capacity and transmission are maximized in balanced cortical
networks with neuronal avalanches. Journal of Neuroscience 31, 5563 (2011).
11. Churchland, M.M. et al. Stimulus onset quenches neural variability: a widespread cortical phenomenon. Nature Neuroscience
13, 369378 (2010).
12. Laje, R. & Buonomano, D.V. Robust timing and motor patterns by taming chaos in recurrent neural networks. Nature
Neuroscience 16, 925933 (2013).
13. Kuramoto, Y. & Battogtokh, D. Coexistence of coherence and incoherence in nonlocally coupled phase oscillators: a soluble
case. Nonlinearity 26, 2469-2498 (2002).
14. Margolis, D.J. et al. Reorganization of cortical population activity imaged throughout long-term sensory deprivation. Nature
Neuroscience 15, 15391546 (2012).
15. Ziv, Y. et al. Long-term dynamics of CA1 hippocampal place codes. Nature Neuroscience 16, 264266 (2013).
16. Schiff, S.J. et al. Controlling chaos in the brain. Nature 370, 615620 (1994).
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
17. di Mascio, M., di Giovanni, G., di Matteo, V. & Esposito, E. Decreased chaos of midbrain dopaminergic neurons after serotonin
denervation. Neuroscience 92, 237243 (1999).
NEXT ARTICLE:
BI OLOGY
Can You Die From a Broken
Heart?
By Kirsten Weir
CULTURE
How to Learn to Love Your
Doppleganger
By David Levine
BI OLOGY
Ants Swarm Like Brains
Think
By Carrie Arnold
NUMBERS
Safecracking the Brain
By Virginia Hughes
RELATED ARTICLES:
ABOUT NAUTI LUS PRI VACY POLI CY
ADVERTI SI NG AND SPONSORSHI P SUBSCRI BE
TERMS OF SERVI CE CONTACT NAUTI LUS
RSS AWARDS AND PRESS
NAUTILUS: SCIENCE CONNECTED
Nautilus is a different kind of science magazine. We deliver big-picture science by
reporting on a single monthly topic from multiple perspectives. Read a new chapter
in the story every Thursday.
2014 Nautilus, All rights reserved. Matter, Biology, Numbers, Ideas, Culture, Connected