>>13709422Understanding of brain physiology is not at the level needed for practical applications.
The brain is complicated and hard to study. It's one of those popsci subjects along with fusion. There's an article every other month talking about a new breakthrough that in actuality means nothing.
We'll probably crack fusion or immortality before we get a detailed understanding of the brain.
The reason for this is that studying the brain in any meaningful way is more about understanding function than form. As you can probably guess there is some ethical qualms about experimenting on the brain of live subjects. Most other organs retain a degree of systemic activity after extraction or can be induced to maintain function. Needless to say this doesn't apply to the brain. Our understanding of other organs are built, in large part, on vivisection and study of live animals. There is no analog to the human brain in animal testing, and nervous system analysis is therefore restricted to universal basic functions. Your specific question of memory is one that might be plausibly studied, but even that requires very complicated and difficult experimental setups. When an experimental result is difficult and expensive to produce, it results in very few data points. Furthermore complex and difficult experimental procedure, coupled with the naturally diversity of living test animals produce data with a large margin of error.
TL;DR: Brains are complicated and we don't understand trmttjhem.
