Its an amazing piece of work- a hundred billion tiny units packed tight and finely orchestrated to work in the space the size of a small watermelon. The human brain. We’ve all heard the clichés- its the most complex form of functional matter on the planet, the secret behind Handel’s "Messiah" and Beethoven’s Fifth, that magical organ that landed its captive on the moon. Been there and done but think about it- in a tissue sample the size of a grain of sand there are already some 100 thousand neurons, two million axons (long data channels), and a billion some odd synapses all ‘talking’ to each other at birth. In a slice the size of a slimy buger there are some 50 thousand more neurons and millions more in axons. Insanities. An entry in some highbrow science journal would read something like this: "The radioactive phosphorous content of the rat’s cerebrum decreases to one half per cubed mm in the period of two weeks" But behind the jargon, do you really know what this means? This means that the phosphorous in that rat’s brain today is not the same as that of two weeks ago- these conscious atoms milling about in the brain are getting thrown out and replaced and yet the new phosphorous atoms of now can remember everything that happened 20 years ago despite not having been there. Almost miraculously the brain can stop, rewind, rehash, and throw out billions and billions of atoms all talking to each other over a lifetime without the slightest hint of a break in what we call our mind or individuality. Cliché or not, when I think of this I’m just as amazed as I was long ago when right before my eyes, with the teeniest electrical spark, a slice of cardiac tissue came alive on a petri dish. Imagine a pork chop wriggling to life on your plate without the pig. And when you consider the complexity, you obsess about how things know where to go in what reads like a madhouse. Where is memory located? Laughter? Depression? Religion? Music or math? Tap my knee and it jerks- the pathways are fairly easy to trace back through the spinal cord, up somatosensory pathways to the cortical mantle and all the way back down motor pathways to the muscles that would have me kicking you in the groin. But all those abstractions of love, God, individuality- all those hypothetical goodies that go into memory- where does the brain put them? I also fell in this habit of wondering where and how but the answer is simple: we don’t know. Yet where is the show "Baywatch" located? Is it the glowing phosphor on the screen? Is it the electromagnetic stream of electrons in the cathode tube or the celluloid film the show is taped on? The questions are anal when you realize that the show does exist and those are real people behind the images. There’s nothing keeping you from understanding what a television show really is, so the day when some unified theory in neurology becomes real is not the impossibility these whiny philosophers have sanctified. Or not? I don't know. Memory seems something elusive and has been for epochs, despite the advance in technology trying to tame her.
I just noticd that you have "itchyologist" under your name, and along with this thread, it seems to suggest that you have this itch to understanding, knowing, and even intellectualising, and it needs scratched. I would submit this thread as evidence. Its more of an explanation of an itch that needs scratched than an actual viewpoint. Or else you could just ignore the itch and it will go away, like midge bites.
No- Itchyologist is a play on words. Goofyfish, and let us pray that the man is bent over in some dark alley in horrible pain, is the reason for it. He's a fish, ichtyologists torture fish, but this one is a fucking pain in one's side so he itches. Itchyologist.
Sure, thats what you mean by it. Maybe my definition makes you seem too nice? Whats goofyfish ever done to you?
Ok. First of all, for those who are just joining us, this thread is (in a way) a continuation of a discussion elsewhere about how Planaria flatworms are able to eat the neurons of their fellows and learn what their fellows knew. [post=687307]Here[/post]'s the link to Gendanken's original mention of this in the relevant thread for those interested. As I was saying in that thread, I still think that you're getting stuck on mechanics. The phosphorous atoms are not the vessel of memory. They are merely the messengers that instigate the neuronal pathways. As you say, memory is elusive and it is unknown exactly how it works, but it is a generally safe bet that it lies somehow in neuronal structure. In the delicate web. Not in the chemicals being used as neurotransmitters. The chemicals are the equivalent of several people standing in a field with a complex interweaving of arms and fingers so that one touches the others in just the right way so that when one person taps another on the shoulder, that person taps the next, and then he taps the next and so on. Neurons are more complicated, of course, with various neurotransmitters and receptor sites. With potentiation levels and so on. With feedback both from within a neuronal group and from without (the hippocampus is thought to be key in memory development. And, glial cells are now thought to be the master of which synapses fire and when through their subsidiary network.) But, the phosphorous (and other neurotransmitters) doesn't remember. It doesn't care. It doesn't think. It doesn't direct its own actions. It is directed by the neurons. By the pre-existing pathways. However, in the case of the planaria neurons, there must be some type of chemical memory. Because the neuronal structure is being destroyed by digestion (I should think). Therefore the memory must be based on chemical reactions of some sort. In the example you gave in the other thread, the "trick" learned was an aversion to light. Now, I can easily think of a chemical means of "learning" this trick. Light sensitive chemicals. If a light sensitive chemical were somehow incorporated into the neuron then the presence of light might very well generate an aversion or attraction behavior, depending. I ought to try to look more in-depth into these planaria experiments. Anyone reading this know anything about them? Surely there must be some simple mechanism to explain the "memory" of these simple organisms through chemical means. If this is so, then the neurons wouldn't have to be consumed, just the ingestion of a certain chemical would teach the trick. Brings to mind the holographic memory theory which I am not well versed in enough to mention at this time. So... You say this like it's a bad thing. Or amusing. Nothing to say on the topic at hand? I take it that you don't share the itch then? Too bad for you, I say.
Hey Guthrie. Why don't you start a thread entitled Gendanken's title: Itchyologist. And discuss it there? Got anything to say on neurons? Planaria? Cannabalism?
hey starfish. Cannibalism? Not my style. As for the holographic memory thing, I dont know enough about it, but what i ahve read seems to make some sort of sense. But then I dont see a need for a unified theory in neurology, unles sit is definitely related to how things work, to some decimal places or not. I think with regarsd to the P, gendanken is getting a little overawed at how our brains keep the same structure, despite replacing the members of that structure. Like the completely new body every 7 years due to the atomic turnover. So what can you tell us about bits of the brain that change rapidly? Are they learning centres? "However, in the case of the planaria neurons, there must be some type of chemical memory. Because the neuronal structure is being destroyed by digestion (I should think)." maybe. But at this point I want more than an I should think. Dammit, I want full access to every scientific journal on the planet. But yes, it seems plausiblethat the neuronal structure should be destroyed by digestion. Is there any way it can avoid the digestive tract? Has anyone fed worms neurons from other worms, perhaps radioactively tagged, and watched what happened? "Therefore the memory must be based on chemical reactions of some sort." Must be according to my hypothesis, you mean. "In the example you gave in the other thread, the "trick" learned was an aversion to light. Now, I can easily think of a chemical means of "learning" this trick. Light sensitive chemicals. If a light sensitive chemical were somehow incorporated into the neuron then the presence of light might very well generate an aversion or attraction behavior, depending." But why should the receiving worm respond to the chemical related to light sensitivity at all? It surely assumes that the worms are identical in all respects, especially in potential. PLus, it suggests that there is something in or adhering to the neurons that is different in one worm simply because it has a phobia for light, therefore, can it be isolated by chemical means? (probably not, but theres some funky kit out there in biology that I know nothing about.) "You say this like it's a bad thing. Or amusing. Nothing to say on the topic at hand? I take it that you don't share the itch then? Too bad for you, I say. " No, its a good thing, except when it takes over your life. I have many other itches, and not enough energy or brain power to scratch them. Or time. gendanken: "I'd eat your children, brother. Muhahhahahah..." I'll use you as the bogeywoman to frighten them with (when i actually have children that is.) "The pleb banned me. " Oh yes. That was a while ago. did you learn anything from it?
This, just as a meta-observation: I quote Quine: The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections -- the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole. This said, the problems with explaining how he brain works is one of those grand examples of humans being stuck in their thinking systems.
Concerning the memory storage: It sure seems elusive where exactly all the information is stored, alas, I recently read some articles about a theory that essentially says that the information contained in the brain is always circulated. It is not stored in a fixed place, resultin in a constant flow of data through the brain. This could enable the brain to renew parts of its body without losing any information. Also, it seems that memories are not stored together, a text for example could be taken apart and stored in different parts of the brain, but could still be put together if the need arises. But makinf it also easier to store since the bits and pieces could fit in smaller memory spaces, plastically speaking. I will try to find the links again. Ok, found some of my links, look here: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Warren.html
Guthrie: Its not about keeping the structure moron. Its about keeping the story whole. There is nothing to somatic cells being shed only to be replaced by exact replicas. Simple biology. Those minerals and atoms making the cerebral structures like neurons and dendrites in your brain get tossed out constantly, yet the newcomers are still able to maintain whatever piece of story the other one was responsible for. How does it do it? Which is why I called you a lazy cocksucker or some such once, yes? Some thread where you had the gall to call yourself a writer. Vert: ::groan:: But still though. Allright, we both agree that no one yet knows exactly how memory even works, right? The holographic theory is nice, but it doesn’t answer much. At all. However, this 'delicate web' you're talking about- the neuronal structure. Its made up of all the minerals (and phosphorous is a mineral, not a neurotransmitter) that align together to make brain matter. One of them being phosphorous. Right? So, I'm seeing these events we live out in our lives stamped onto our brains like a Polaroid, with each pixel being an atom of mineral. When each pixel gets shed, it has to do so as if it never went anywhere. See what I'm getting at? Neurotransmitters are the vehicles- its the minerals and chemicals keeping things up I'm concerned with.
I don't think I'm understanding you. I had been under the impression that you were referring to neurotransmitters. I think I had phosphorus confused with potassium. It is potassium and calcium that conduct electric currents through neurons, right? I'm afraid I'm a bit rusty on this base functioning of the neurons. I've been delving into the brain at higher levels and this basic neuronal functioning has slipped my mind. Care to expand? I have been searching on the web to reacquaint myself with this but am having a tough time sorting through garbage. I do know that phosphorus is a key element in ATP which transports chemical energy between cells. But, I had been thinking more of ions. Isn't ATP also used by glial cells? I don't have that article I typed up for you so long ago handy. Do you remember? I seem to remember the glial cells actually using it for signalling purposes rather than just transporting energy. Speaking of glial cells, it is glial cells that provide the pathway for severed neurons to reconnect. That too was mentioned in that article. Anyway, care to elaborate? You're saying that phosphorus somehow organizes the neuronal network? That the minerals and their properties are somehow forming the network? Do tell.
Today it is commonplace to compare the human brain to a computer, and the human mind to a program running on that computer. Once seen as just a poetic metaphor, this viewpoint is now supported by most philosophers of human consciousness and most researchers in artificial intelligence. If we take this view literally, then just as we can ask how many megabytes of RAM a PC has we should be able to ask how many megabytes (or gigabytes, or terabytes, or whatever) of memory the human brain has. Several approximations to this number have already appeared in the literature based on "hardware" considerations (though in the case of the human brain perhaps the term "wetware" is more appropriate). One estimate of 1020 bits is actually an early estimate (by Von Neumann in The Computer and the Brain) of all the neural impulses conducted in the brain during a lifetime. This number is almost certainly larger than the true answer. Another method is to estimate the total number of synapses, and then presume that each synapse can hold a few bits. Estimates of the number of synapses have been made in the range from 1013 to 1015, with corresponding estimates of memory capacity. A fundamental problem with these approaches is that they rely on rather poor estimates of the raw hardware in the system. The brain is highly redundant and not well understood: the mere fact that a great mass of synapses exists does not imply that they are in fact all contributing to memory capacity. This makes the work of Thomas K. Landauer very interesting, for he has entirely avoided this hardware guessing game by measuring the actual functional capacity of human memory directly (See "How Much Do People Remember? Some Estimates of the Quantity of Learned Information in Long-term Memory", in Cognitive Science 10, 477-493, 1986). More at: http://www.merkle.com/humanMemory.html
Cosmictraveler: Who, pray tell, is comparing the brain to a computer? If anything it resemble an orchestra with madmen at the piano. Fugues, not printouts. Invert: Which is why I can only wish to know everything. Godamnit, the conundrum in philosophy about being unsure of the things we cannot see behind trees and things. Let's see if we, as poor laymen (fuck the world), can expand for ourselves. Think of the neurotransmitters as something like bees transporting the pollen. The pollen had to come from somewhere, and it can only be from the flowers embedded in the background. Its those flowers I think of being what the cerebral mantle is made of- which would be the minerals and chemicals that give it flesh. Those flowers are what contains what the bees will carry to and fro, because it is they that store the stuff of memories. These "flowers" are the phosphorous and calcium and whatever other mineral or chemical the fabric the brain is made of. Its like you are thinking about the container of a neuron cell where things pass through and I'm thinking of its skin where things are stored. Each of those components, like body cells, gets shed but cannot do so without communicating the piece of memory its holding so that a memory is transported whole. A body cell is hacked to bits and thrown away to be replaced by another one just like it- kind of like two zombies going through revolving doors, one in and the other out without either even seeing each other. But the cerebral components have the odd task of having to stop and actually ...draw the component that will replace it. I always picture this absurdity: http://artseek.barewalls.com/product/artwork.exe?ArtworkID=1696 Can you picture a phosphorous molecule telling another phosphorous molecule about a vacation you took ten years ago? Insanities. YES!!
No, the whole reason memory works is because neurons are one of the few body cell types (along with cardiac cells) which DO NOT get replaced. Ever.
I am simply pointing out that u are wrong in saying that the cell is replaced by another one just like it. Memory doesn't necessarily need to be transported as u say. It can stay within that neuron all your life.
