Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

MindBrain · Mind and Brain

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 10449 - 10478 of 47358   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#10449 From: Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...>
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2007 5:43 am
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] What does "ABC" stand for?
leonmaurer1
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi John,

In contrast to some others who have responded to this query with ridicule, and similar ad hominem rhetoric -- possibly because my hypothesis and its initial premises contradicts their pet theories of consciousness and they can't or won't dare refute it rationally -- I appreciate your comments and concerns that deal directly with the ABC theory itself with specific questions... Even if only rhetorical. 

However, these are important questions to answer publicly... Since they point out possible misconceptions that may cause others to misunderstand the fundamental propositional basis and the subsequent deductive electrodynamic and geometric logic underlying the ABC model.  

Unfortunately, the hasty wording of my response to David's inquiry seems to have led to your misunderstanding of what I actually meant.  

I did NOT intend to infer that the *THEORY* was holographic, but that it refers to the nature of the COSMOS as being holographic, right from the FIRST CAUSE (i.e. the infinite spin momentum of Primal SPACE carrying potentially infinite holographic information) -- preceding, during, and after the Big Bang.

According to this theory and its fundamental propositions -- the COSMOS itself, as it appears in this cycle of its manifestation, would necessarily have a forerunner in its previous cycle of life (i.e., coming in and out of physical being).  Also, since, the COSMOS is spherically formed on three *individual* perpendicular axes of the spin momentum of Primal SPACE -- which is eternal -- its manifestation as it coadunately appears on each of those three axes, would have no beginning or end... Although the total information contained in each such manifestation or subsequent part (each of whose analogous coenergetic fields would arise from their particular localized ZPE center) would be finite -- depending on the information accumulated at each such ZPE during all previous Cosmic "manifestations."  This is pretty much analogous to the genesis of a zygote to a fetus that is still attached to its mother, with the DNA analogous to each Cosmic ZPE field's similarly (holographically encoded) structural information.   

In addition, the Quantum particles that appear after the third fractal field iteration on the "physical plane" (see <http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-colo_F.jpg>) arise from and are energized by the analogous ZPE fields in the sub quantum Planck vacuum (ref: Casimir effect verifying those ZPE fields <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy#History>)

Also, the ZPE is NOT "inside" the Primal SPACE but IS the abstract motion (infinite spin momentum) of the primal space itself.  This ZPE is in addition to the pure "I AM" or witness consciousness (potential awareness and will) at its (Primal SPACE) stationary center of spin.  

These dual aspects of the Primal SPACE is the fundamental premise or proposition on which the entire ABC theory of cosmogenesis rests.  This can be either accepted or not, since it is an unfalsifiable premise -- without which, however, the theory would have no logical basis.

But, if such premise is accepted, even tentatively, the resulting geometric and electrodynamic rationale, besides eliminating the hard problem of consciousness, can explain...
•  the binding of mind to brain;
•  the basis of the holographic nature of the Cosmos;
•  where the inner light we actually "see" originates from;
•  why and how the holographic visual and aural images in the mind is detected by consciousness at a single point in the head;
•  how the moving body positions can be located exactly in 3-D space-time relative to that point of consciousness -- without computation;
•  why the different sensory qualia's are experienced at separate remote points throughout the body; 
•  why such non local awareness and global "I" consciousness are inseparable and simultaneous;
•  the electrodynamic informational and energetic interconnections between consciousness (awareness + will) and the fractally involved radiant fields of mind, memory, brain, body, neuromuscular system, senses, etc.;
• all other fundamental questions of consciousness, matter and their interrelationships, that conventional reductive science currently has no answers for.  

Therefore, since each of the above explanations would have to be either accepted, or argued against based on their logical merits, or by offering an incontrovertibly proven contradictory theory -- unfounded denials, or counter arguments based on ridicule or other ad hominem rhetoric are nothing more than meaningless hand waving.  

Naturally, without referring to the initial cosmogenesis field diagrams, and keeping in mind that the Primal SPACE and its dual aspects of potential consciousness and matter is the eternal rootless root of the entire COSMOS, I understand the difficulty one may have trying to intuitively grasp the consistent metaphysical and physical reality of this theory of both consciousness and matter.

As for your assumption that I "'correlate' several (what [you] call: reductionist) theorems, secondary products of the human mind (as a probable product of this universe)" ...  This is a misconception... Since, I only implied that the ABC theory "predicts" whatever  conditions of those theorems are "proven" (i.e., observed) to be true.  However, the theory in no way contradicts the fundamental laws of physical nature upon which all those "scientific" theorems are based.

But, so long as scientists or others say or even believe the Brain thinks, sees, knows, or interprets whatever sensory images, thoughts or willful intents it receives, processes, and transmits -- the ABC theory will forever remain mystical nonsense to them.  I can live with that until the day when ABC theory is proven wrong -- or right (as I'm confident it will be, eventually. :-)  

In the meantime, whether considered philosophical, scientific, or pure speculation, I'll continue to offer it as a reasonable solution to all the hard problems, etc. ...  Since, based on my initial propositions, there is nothing wrong with my subsequent bottom up deductive logic or reasoning that seem to mesh perfectly with the "proven" (and other speculative) mathematical predictions and observations of leading edge, top down reductive physics.  Including, incidentally, thENDOGENOUS LIGHT NEXUS THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS of Karl Simanonok -- whose humorous parody of my necessary convoluted ABC jargon even gave me a chuckle.

I thank you again for your warning and questions... And, I hope you might now find the theory somewhat more believable... That is, if you can accept the possibility of its fundamental propositions being true, even tentatively. 

Please don't hesitate to question me further if I have (due, possibly to my thinking more like an engineer than a scientist) inadvertently again scrambled these visionary ideas (requiring some imaginative intuition of one degree or another) beyond scientific comprehension. ;-) 

Sincerely,

Leon Maurer    

On Sep 26, 2007, at 9/26/0712:01 PM, John wrote:

Leon:
CAUTION!
How can a *THEORY* be holographic?
You assume a 'genesis' for *cosmos*? (in which case it must have 
forerunners)
Is ZPE "situated" in the (inside?) of the Primal Space? then what ELSE is in 
it, to make ZPE within?
What is that "string" the 'physix of which you talk?
Are Q-particles (already) there to be 'empowered' by ZPE, or are they 
arising by such 'empowerment?
You seem to .

Leon, i was jumping on your post hoping to 'get' something of your ABC.
Please, do not reply to my questions, I just wanted to indicate what kind of
uncertainties have arisen by reading your wording.
I don't think I turn into a 'believer' of ABC.

Have a good day

John M
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Leon Maurer" <leonmaurer@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] What does "ABC" stand for?


Hello David,

In a nutshell... ABC is the acronym for "Astro-Biological
Coenergetics."  It identifies a holographic theory of cosmogenesis,
explaining the origin of both phenomenal consciousness and matter, as
well as the informational transformation-transmission mechanisms
between consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.) and the fields
of mind, memory, brain, body, senses, world, etc.  It is based on the
proposition that potential consciousness and noumenal matter are
fundamental aspects of pre-cosmic absolute primal SPACE that
underlies the entire post Big Bang space time continuum, and still is
ubiquitously expressed as the nonlocal zero-point center of
consciousness and the source of spin-momentum of the fractally
involved Zero Point Energy fields (ZPE) empowering all quantum
particles, and holographically linking together everything in the
universe ... While correlating relativity, sub quantum and quantum
physics with string physics, M physics, etc., and offering a rational
basis for quantum entanglement, both attractive and repulsive
gravity, the source of Dark matter-energy and their combined effect
on the recently observed acceleration of universal expansion.

For the fine details, you will have to read some of my recent posts
and their referenced illustrations, or ask specific questions --
since the theory is still in process of development and hasn't been
fully correlated into a definitive paper that requires the
collaboration of at least one accredited peer reviewable theoretical
physicist... Unfortunately (or fortunately, since he was also an
initiated Tibetan Buddhist Lama), my original collaborator, Dr.
P.S.P, passed away about twenty years ago -- after teaching me as
much theoretical physics as he thought I needed -- (which was not
quite enough;-).

I hope this information is sufficient to satisfy your inquiry.

Leon Maurer


On Sep 25, 2007, at 9/25/071:58 PM, Dr. David Deal wrote:

so i do not have to read or scan these posts or scan back to the
original source message....could someone please tell me what ABC is an
acronym for? thanks. i will not step into the midst of this exchange
but i am as curious Schrodinger's cat? in my home state it stands for
Alcohol Control Board....i am a physicist but currently am not hitting
on all cylinders.
thx!
davideal




Yahoo! Groups Links







Yahoo! Groups Links





-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1025 - Release Date: 
9/23/2007 1:53 PM






Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:



=

#10450 From: "John" <jamikes@...>
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2007 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] What does "ABC" stand for?
janosapu
Send Email Send Email
 
Leon,
here we go again. I did not want to enter into topical discussion about ABC,
because my 'worldview' is different and contradictory belief-systems - (yes,
these 'positions' ARE belief systems, ALL based on assumptions with
consequences) -
cannot argue: the meanings and values are diverse, preventing any
intelligent comparison, the basis of a meaningful discussion.
So all I can do now is spend some time with your text (appreciated...) and
point out the assumptions I find in it. I will truncate your post to make
this one shorter.
To begin with: I have NO theory (or even concept) of consciousness. I know
some elements people combine into such noumena, (plural: differentlyy, as
one needs it) and I prefer to talk about those 'elements', - processes not
'things', a bit in my gbeneralization from the early 90s: acknowledgement of
and response to info.
Apologies for the pun: holographic theory. I edited lots of texts.
*
So here come your assumptions as I see it:
*
"deductive electrodynamic and geometric logic underlying the ABC model."
I find them figments of human thinking, not applicable as a basis.
*
"...COSMOS as being holographic, right
from the FIRST CAUSE (i.e. the infinite spin momentum of Primal SPACE
carrying potentially infinite holographic information)..."
Holography IMO is an ingenious viewing technique, not a characteristic of a
system - your explanation (spin) is imaginary, nothing 'spins' in "spin", it
is some mathematical resemblance put into some unrelated vision.
PRIMAL SPACE: IMO space and time are attributes applied to ordering thei OUR
universe. If you postulate any 'space' as precedent, you need information on
it. Not the 'holographic...'.
*
"... preceding,  during, and after the Big Bang."
postulating some B-B as with duration, weven if short, as: people came
together and decided to have a B-B (celebration?).  Then it was over
(after...).
*
"COSMOS itself, as it appears in this cycle of its manifestation,
would necessarily have a forerunner in its previous cycle of life "
So there is something like COSMOS? what? it has a "life"? in cycles?
Forerunner with geometry and (Earthly) physical concepts?
This is some arrangement of a system, organized into an anachronistic(?)
history. (implied some mathematician-physicist-geometer Organizator?)
*
"...the COSMOS  is spherically formed..."
here comes your pre-B-B geometry. I started with a view of someone who
called the origination of a B-B as 'pre-geometrical existence' and found
even that unteneble.
*
"...the COSMOS is spherically formed on three *individual* perpendicular
axes of the spin momentum of Primal SPACE --..."
ex cathedra. So the 'primal' is a 3D coordinated (humanly visioned) system?
*
"the spin momentum of Primal SPACE -- which is eternal -- its manifestation
as it coadunately appears on each of those three axes, would have no
beginning or end... "
Ontology shoved under the rug - whichis OK, just confess to it.
*
"...coenergetic(?) fields would arise from their particular localized ZPE
center),,,"
"...each such ZPE during all previous(?) Cosmic "manifestations."
"...analogous to the genesis of a zygote to a fetus that is still attached
to its mother, with the DNA analogous to each Cosmic ZPE field's similarly
(holographically encoded) structural information."
----Helloooo????----
*
I ventured into Google 'around' ZPE and swiftly escaped from the many Z-s.
The only reasonable one was 'fusion reworking' the rest had a "con" in the
beginning. US-DOE included.
I am still puzzled by the 'zero-point' as 'fields'. Does this point have
extension?
*
"Also, the ZPE is NOT "inside" the Primal SPACE but IS the abstract
motion (infinite spin momentum) of the primal space itself."
IN WHAT does this 'primal space' move? in an even more primal space?
'Abstract motion'??? 'Infinite momentum'??? 'ZPE plus "I AM"? and where is
the center of the infinite (spin)?
*
"These dual aspects of the Primal SPACE is the fundamental premise or
proposition on which the entire ABC theory of cosmogenesis rests.
This can be either accepted or not, since it is an unfalsifiable
premise -- without which, however, the theory would have no logical
basis."
-----Amen.-----
"But, if such premise is accepted, even tentatively, the resulting
geometric and electrodynamic rationale, besides eliminating the hard
problem of consciousness, can explain..(among others)"

""•  the binding of mind to brain;""
----Or: brain to mind?, there are no TWO separate "things": mind and brain,
it is ONE complexity in which the brain is a 'partner-tool' - within the
complexity of mentality (life?). We figure the brain as material (tissue?)
and study its physical aspects. The function, however, goes beyond that -
still undiscovered, shoved under the rug by Chalmers as "hard problem".
Memory ditto, included. Conflict: spatio-temporal brain working in
a-spatial, a-temporal mind. Restricting action.
*
"....•  the electrodynamic informational and energetic interconnections
between consciousness (awareness + will)..."
--so this is to what you reduce 'consciousness'? meager...--
•
"... all other fundamental questions of consciousness, matter and their
interrelationships, that conventional reductive science currently has
no answers for."
---Agreed--
*
Regards
John Mikes
----





----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon Maurer" <leonmaurer@...>
To: <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] What does "ABC" stand for?


Hi John,

In contrast to some others who have responded to this query with
ridicule,....SKIP

Sincerely,
Leon Maurer

On Sep 26, 2007, at 9/26/0712:01 PM, John wrote:

> Leon:
> CAUTION!
> How can a *THEORY* be holographic?
> You assume a 'genesis' for *cosmos*? (in which case it must have
> forerunners)
> Is ZPE "situated" in the (inside?) of the Primal Space? then what
> ELSE is in
> it, to make ZPE within?
> What is that "string" the 'physix of which you talk?
> Are Q-particles (already) there to be 'empowered' by ZPE, or are they
> arising by such 'empowerment?
> You seem to .
>
> Leon, i was jumping on your post hoping to 'get' something of your
> ABC.
> Please, do not reply to my questions, I just wanted to indicate
> what kind of
> uncertainties have arisen by reading your wording.
> I don't think I turn into a 'believer' of ABC.
>
> Have a good day
>
> John M

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leon Maurer" <leonmaurer@...>
> To: <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] What does "ABC" stand for?
>
>> Hello David,
>>
>> In a nutshell... ABC is the acronym for "Astro-Biological
>> Coenergetics."
skip
>> Leon Maurer
>>
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9/25/071:58 PM, Dr. David Deal wrote:
>>
skip

#10451 From: "John" <jamikes@...>
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2007 3:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Article: Neuroscientists connect neural activity and blood flow in new brain stimulation technique
janosapu
Send Email Send Email
 
Is there some relation to possible effects of MRI?
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
To: "Psychiatry-Research" <psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com>; "Mind and
Brain" <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 8:19 PM
Subject: [Mind and Brain] Article: Neuroscientists connect neural activity
and blood flow in new brain stimulation technique


Neuroscientists connect neural activity and blood flow in new brain
stimulation technique



Illustration of the visual cortex during transcranial magnetic stimulation
(TMS). In this non-invasive brain stimulation technique, pulses of current
(arrows) are passed through a figure-eight shaped coil placed above the
scalp. The induced electric field elicits long-lasting alterations in neural
activity which can be measured with blood flow-based imaging methods. (Elena
Allen/UC Berkeley)


Neuroscientists at the University of California, Berkeley, have for the
first time measured the electrical activity of nerve cells and correlated it
to changes in blood flow in response to transcranial magnetic stimulation
(TMS), a noninvasive method to stimulate neurons in the brain.

Their findings, reported in the Sept. 28 issue of the journal Science, could
substantially improve the effectiveness of brain stimulation as a
therapeutic and research tool.

With technological advances over the past decade, TMS has emerged as a
promising new tool in neuroscience to treat various clinical disorders,
including depression, and to help researchers better understand how the
brain functions and is organized.

TMS works by generating magnetic pulses via a wire coil placed on top of the
scalp. The pulses pass harmlessly through the skull and induce short, weak
electrical currents that alter neural activity. Yet the relative scarcity of
data describing the basic effects of TMS, and the uncertainty in how the
method achieves its effects, prompted the researchers to conduct their own
study.

"There are potentially limitless applications in both the treatment of
clinical disorders as well as in fundamental research in neuroscience," said
Elena Allen, a graduate student at UC Berkeley's Helen Wills Neuroscience
Institute (HWNI) and co-lead author of the study. "For example, TMS could be
used to help determine what parts of the brain are used in object
recognition or speech comprehension. However, to develop effective
applications of TMS, it is first necessary to determine basic information
about how the technique works."

Other techniques for studying neural activity in humans, such as functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or electroencephalogram (EEG), only
measure ongoing activity. TMS, on the other hand, offers the opportunity to
non-invasively and reversibly manipulate neural activity in a specific brain
area.

In a set of experiments, the researchers used TMS to generate weak,
electrical currents in the brain with quick 2- to 4-second bursts of
magnetic pulses to the visual cortex of cats. Direct measurements of the
electrical discharge of nerve cells in the region in response to the pulses
revealed that TMS predictably caused an initial flurry of neural activity,
significantly increasing cell firing rates. This increased activity lasted
30 to 60 seconds, followed by a relatively lengthy 5 to 10 minutes of
decreased activity.

What the researchers were able to determine for the first time was that the
neural response to TMS correlated directly to changes in blood flow to the
region. Using oxygen sensors and optical imaging, the researchers found that
an initial increase in blood flow was followed by a longer period of
decreased activity after the magnetic pulses were applied.

"This long-lasting suppression of activity was surprising," said Brian
Pasley, a graduate student at HWNI and co-lead author of the study. "We're
still trying to understand the physiological mechanisms underlying this
effect, but it has implications for how TMS could be used in clinical
applications."

The critical confirmation of the connection between blood flow and neural
activity means that researchers can use TMS to alter neural activity, and
then use fMRI, which tracks blood flow changes, to assess how the nerve
cells respond over time.

"One of the most exciting applications of TMS is the ability to
non-invasively modify neural activity in specific ways," said Pasley. "The
brain is malleable, so brain stimulation may be used to alter and promote
specific functions, like learning and memory, or suppress abnormal activity
that underlies neurological disorders. If we can figure out the right ways
to stimulate the brain, TMS will likely be useful in attempts to improve
neural function."

The researchers noted that one of the difficulties in using TMS for specific
applications is the fact that its effects vary in different brain regions
and individuals.

"Using TMS is inherently challenging because its neural effects can be so
variable," said Ralph Freeman, UC Berkeley professor of vision science and
optometry and principal investigator of the study. "Fortunately, we can
determine empirically what the end result is by making measurements with
fMRI. This should be valuable to clinicians who must evaluate the
effectiveness of a stimulation treatment. In turn, fMRI may serve as a guide
to determine adjustments in treatment parameters."

The study was also co-authored by Thang Duong, a UC Berkeley graduate
student in vision science. The National Eye Institute of the National
Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation helped support this
research.

Source: UC Berkeley
http://www.physorg.com/news110205193.html

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1040 - Release Date: 9/30/2007
9:01 PM

#10452 From: yanniru@...
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2007 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Quantum Aspects of Consciousness
yanniru
Send Email Send Email
 
Well I have been rather critical of Leon's ABC thinking. So to make amends I wish to correlate the ABC model to recent discoveries in string physics, including a few that string physicists have not made yet, but ones that I expect will be made.

In that sense Leon will someday be validated by string phenomenology.

I do not have Leon's termonology down pat, but he is suggesting that besides our physical 4-D universe that seemingly began with a big bang, there also exists a background, larger 4-D universe in which all ordinary universes are embedded and that the larger universe posseses consciousness. There is nothing about consciousness in string theory. But it looks like string phenomenologists will eventually arrive at that picture of reality. At the present time they have justified the existance of our universe being embedded in a 2-D space in conjunction with a nearby supersymmetric ss universe that pervades our broken symmetry bs universe.

I have cricized Leon's thinking that space itself is somehow singular. Yet there are black holes in every galaxy that comes as close to a pure singularity as can be expected. The maximum density that matter/energy can attain is inside what is commonly called the black hole singularity...... Some physicists think that the 26 dimensions of string theory are completely deflated and of equal size in the black hole singularity, in which exists the so-called unified field where the four forces of nature are replaced by one force mathematically represented by closed loop 26-D string theory...... Our universe is strongly connected to the background universe at such points. In fact, baby universes are spawned in such singularities and go off into the background space. A black hole singularity BHS is the origin of our universe.

So to complete this picture let's assume that consciousness exists inside the black hole singularity (BHS). As baby universes expand and inflate out of the BHS, the new universes would carry bits of the mother consciousness with it and those bits would be preserved in black holes in the new universe. But that could only be true if all particles in the new universe had some bit of consciousness themselves. Sobeit.

However, I disagree with the thinking that the BHS contains the unified field. If the so-called megaverse is already extant, the BHS need contain only 22 dimensions. In fact out whole universe needs only 22 dimensions, a string theory that does not yet exist. The unified field has two time dimensions, one for each ordinary universe and one for the background space or megaverse. So the megaverse has three space and one time dimension, just like ordinary universes. Therefore 18 of the 22 dimensions of our universe are compactified. We know from 10-d superstring that dimensions may be compactified in groups of six, which is because they are folded up in the three directions of 3-D space plus the three opposite directions.

So the 18 compactified dimensions must be in three groups of six. Now each compactification is associated in theory with inflation. In fact there are papers that predict that the big bang needed two periods of inflation, one for our physical bs universe and another for the hypothetical supersymmetric ss unverse we are coupled to. This of course suggests (in a leap of faith) a 6-D compactification is associated with the bs universe and another 6-D compactification is associated with the coupled ss universe. The bs and ss universes were highly coupled in the big bang to allow the creation of fermions, but perhaps not now.

And that leaves a 6-D compactification associated with the background space, the megaverse. That is, perhaps the megaverse itself expanded from some prior unified field state using the 6-D compactification process. If so, we live in a 10-d universe associated with a companion supersymmetric 10-D space with a different 6-D compactification but a 4-D shared space. 

And so if we separate off the now 10-D megaspace for the megaverse, we only need a 16-D string theory to make predictions in our combined universe. Even simpler, the 16-D theory for the combined universe needs two rather than one of the known 6-D compactification models. That number is 3*6^3=324 ways 6 dimensions can fold up, first order. The resulting theory is close to GUT theory that unifies the strong and electroweak forces but not gravity which is separated off in the megaverse, just as Leon seems to have said. I would be interested if he agrees.

yanniru 

-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...>
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Quantum Aspects of Consciousness

On Sep 28, 2007, at 9/28/0710:34 AM, Richard Ruiquist <yanniru@...> wrote:

That's completely unscientific. Dark matter only has positive gravitation.
And stop calling your ABC a theory. It's just a bunch of words
And it does not include biology

Richard,
You may call the ABC hypothetical model "unscientific" according to the accepted paradigm of falsifiability... But, nevertheless, it makes valid predictions that are scientific. Therefore I will still call it a scientifically philosophical or philosophically scientific *theory*.   

Where's the scientific proof that Dark matter has "only" positive gravitation?  If that were so, then how do you account for the observed *added* acceleration of the Universe's expansion observed by cosmologists and attributed, speculatively, to the "repulsive gravity" of dark matter -- which, so far, is only indirectly inferred to exist?

As I see it, "positive (attractive) gravity" is just one aspect of the balanced positive and negative G-force or infinite CW & CCW spin-momentum (Spinergy) that is a fundamental objective aspect of absolute SPACE at the cosmic singularity prior to the Big Bang... And which is still expressed at the dimensionless zero-point origin of ZPE within each mass (from a fundamental particle to a superstar) everywhere in the universe.  It is the negative or repulsive aspect of that G-force that would have initiated the metaphysical radiation, inflation and continued physical expansion of the universe right from the start of cosmogenesis ... And which is still expressed in the singularity of every black hole or center of mass in the universe -- consisting of the "light" matter along with the two forms of "dark" matter -- that the ABC model predicts.  See: <http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-colo_F.jpg

However, although each accumulation of mass increases the local positive (attractive) gravity -- the negative gravity empowering the continually accelerating expansion of the entire cosmos still remains potent in the ZPE of each zero-point in the much greater volume of absolute or primal SPACE, between the quantum particles, as well as in the near °K relatively empty space between the larger concentrations of mass (whether galaxies, stars, planets, or black holes).  Thus, the global universal volume of SPACE, having many more zero-point centers of ZPE negative gravity, greatly overpowers the higher positive gravity of local compressions of mass -- by expanding the space between them.

As I see it -- its this universally distributed negative G-force of both light and dark matter in their noumenal or ZPE state that causes the continued acceleration of universal expansion.  According to the ABC prediction, this expansion will continue until all quantum and sub quantum particles decay back to absolute zero °K, and the Absolute SPACE returns to its singular ZPE condition (like a BEC) that it had prior to the big bang... Which, from our metric POV would appear *as if* it were a "singularity" -- with all its potential mass apparently concentrated in a single point of almost infinite spinergy -- and with each potential source of ZPE in subsequent configuration spacetime being a lesser finite (Cantor) subset of that initial infinite spinergy.  Thus, from an informational point of view, this universe would always remain completely interconnected and unitarily intact whether metaphysically and physically expanding or not.

Therefore, theoretically, according to ABC -- after symmetry breaking, all of the ZPE centers of the lower order asymmetrical physical spacetime fields are of lesser (but still near infinite) force, relative to the ZPE centers of the initial higher order symmetrical metaphysical fields.  This is why quantum physicists have to renormalize their GR equations "as a means of making sense of the infinite results of various calculations and extracting finite answers to properly posed physical questions"... Thus, avoiding an infinite "singularity"... That, nevertheless must exist, according to ABC theory's proposition that there has to be a non metric, eternal Absolute Primal SPACE underlying metric space-time.  If not, then we'd have to assume that the physical universe originated out of nothing -- which is impossible. 

Therefore, we have the right to conclude that the physical universe has a metaphysical base that directly links consciousness to matter, both before and after the big bang. 

As for your assertion that ABC is not a biological science...  
(And, to continue my reasoning based on the ABC proposition that consciousness is the subjective aspect of absolute SPACE -- with the word, "Biology," defined as "the science that studies living organisms".)

If the Universe is an inherently conscious being in itself, and therefore -- as the ABC theory deduces from fundamental principles, as well as its fundamental triple axes spin-momentum and subsequent holographic spherical fractal geometry -- a "living being" having a *mind* and *body* of its own... Then its cosmogenesis and its coenergetic field's involution's and evolution's are the fundamental roots of its universal "biology" -- which is analogous to the biology of all similarly 'living organisms' evolved within it... 

As ABC also considers the electrodynamic interrelationship of consciousness, mind, memory, brain, body, senses, etc, in human beings -- which includes their physiological, biochemical and biological interfaces... The ABC model is a theory of physics as well as biology in all their aspects... Which includes the metaphysics and metabiology of primal SPACE and its initial fractally involved coenergetic fields prior to the breaking of symmetry on the physical plane -- where conventional observational physics and biology can take over and try to unsuccessfully explain the hard problems. ;-) 

I don't know why I continue to waste my time explaining ABC to you... (although much of it is useful, since many of my dialogues are scheduled for publication in a forthcoming book soon to be correlated and edited by one or more trained physicists.)

Since you, apparently, can only see this theory as a "bunch of words" (which many others of unquestionable intelligence seem to understand completely, whether or not they agree with it) -- you are just confirming my previous observation that you are sadly lacking in imagination and the ability to follow logical reasoning, or engage in reasonable counter argument without resorting to authoritative assertions of denial based on questionable scientific speculations made by others ... That, so far, you have never indicated that you really understand, either intuitively or figuratively.  

Perhaps, that tendency to accept the jargon of quantum physics with their fixed definitions related to symbolic mathematical equations, that have no relationship to actual reality, is why Feynman implied that no *trained* physicist can really say they understand quantum physics (without either "being crazy or lying.";-)

So. maybe you should start looking at and thinking about groups of many words put together in sentences and paragraphs, and consider the logical and reasonable descriptive meaning behind them, figuratively, as a whole -- rather than literally pick each word apart separately and labeling them with the single definition you've accepted as their only meaning.  It would help also if you referred to the diagrams that picture my attempt to explain the ABC field's origin as well, as their fractal involution and subsequent evolution, both physically and biologically, based on fundamental principles or propositions. 

Best wishes,
Leon Maurer


-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...>
Sent: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 4:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Quantum Aspects of Consciousness

Again you insist on nit picking.  Or, are you just emotionally  
attempting to deny my ABC field theory by inference and innuendo?

Where in that statement did I claim that "Dark matter" (per se) was  
"responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe"?   
And where did I use the "jargon of physics" without understanding  
"what it means"?

Accounting for the observed expansion, speculatively by the  
cosmologists, could also refer to the negative gravitation or initial  
repulsive G-force added by that dark matter.  From a theoretical  
physics POV, what's so unscientific about that?


=

Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

#10453 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2007 1:14 am
Subject: Article: Chemical compound found in tree bark stimulates growth, survival of brain cells
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 
Chemical compound found in tree bark stimulates growth, survival of brain cells

Researchers have identified a compound in tree bark that mimics the chemical reactions of a naturally occurring molecule in the brain responsible for stimulating neuronal cell signaling. Neuronal cell signaling plays a crucial role in the growth, plasticity and survival of brain cells.

The tree bark compound, known as gambogic amide, behaves much like Nerve Growth Factor (NGF), a molecule found in the brain. NGF binds to TrkA, a neuronal receptor, and activates neuronal signaling. It is known that the loss of TrkA density correlates with neuronal atrophy and severe cognitive impairment such as that associated with Alzheimer's disease.

Because gambogic amide also binds to TrKA and activates neuronal signaling, the researchers believe it may have potential as a therapeutic treatment in people affected by neurodegenerative disease, such as stroke, AlzheimerÕs disease and peripheral diabetic neuropathies.

Results of the study are published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and will be published in a future print edition.

The research was conducted by Emory University scientists Keqiang Ye, PhD, associate professor of pathology and laboratory medicine; first author Sung-Wuk Jang, PhD, and Masashi Okada, PhD, post-doctoral fellows in Dr. Ye's lab; Iqbal Sayeed, PhD, instructor; Donald Stein, PhD, Asa G. Candler Professor of Medicine; and Peng Jin, PhD, assistant professor of human genetics; and Dr. Ge Xiao at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Gambogic amide is derived from gambogic acid, a major ingredient of gamboges, a brownish-orange resin exuded from the Southeast Asian Garcinia hanburryi tree. The resin has been used in that area of the world for thousands of years to treat cancers without any reported toxicity to noncancerous cells.

"Humans actually have a naturally occurring molecule in the body, Nerve Growth Factor (NGF), which stimulates the growth and differentiation of certain types of nerve cells. However, NGF has poor pharmocokinetics and bioavailability when synthetically manufactured and used therapeutically, and it is also expensive to produce," Dr. Ye says.

"Previous research had focused on copying the chemical structure of NGF, but the cyclopeptide mimetics are not potent enough to use as a therapeutic agent. Instead, we decided that we needed to identify a more robust molecule that would pharmacologically mimic NGF's effect on brain cells by binding to TrkA. What we came up with was gambogic amide." Dr. Ye says.

The researchers are now conducting further pre-clinical research to investigate how the body processes gambogic amide and to confirm that it is in fact non-toxic.

Source: Emory University
 
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#10454 From: "Chris Lofting" <chrislofting@...>
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2007 3:02 am
Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] Quantum Aspects of Consciousness
ddiamondaus
Send Email Send Email
 
Some 'lite' reading covering the holographic perspective:

http://www.sciam.com/issue.cfm?issuedate=Aug-03

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/physics-21/detail/9812561315

...Note that Leonard Susskind is the 'inventor' of String Theory...

Issues with string theory are that it is all imagination and as such is to
Physics what ID is to Darwinian Evolution Theory.

See, for example:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465092756

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/10/31/161746/39

An essential point made by IDM is that all specialisations can cover the
imagined as well as the real and it is heuristics that determines the
reality. Pure Mathematics does not mean something is 'real' since pure
mathematics reflects working within a specialisation derived from
self-referencing and so covering all that is POSSIBLE given self-referencing
of differentiating/integrating. Thus if something is 'mathematical' that
does not mean it is 'real' since the properties/methods of mathematics are
present in all other specialisations (e.g. Tarot or Astrology or basic
Theology! - all real for some minds, rubbish for other minds)

The filter we use to process reality is that of our neurology and it
reflects the dynamics of self-referencing. In that dynamic is included
'wave/particle' dualities due to the methodology of using self-referencing -
also included is the compression of all points into one, or more so the
ability to use all points as sources of analogy in describing one point -
this being a property of using self-referencing as the foundations for all
languages (and specialisations are languages). As such the 'holographic'
perspective is valid given the methodology we use to interpret reality - but
that means the methodology elicits holographic dynamics that are not
necessarily 'embedded' in reality - and so we have to be careful when we
observe reality in that we can project properties of the method on 'out
there' - e.g. all of the EPR experiments on reality are in fact the
manifestation of self-referencing a dichotomy and as such will give results
consistent with that self-referencing and that includes the perception of
'wave/particle' duality and so that property of self-referencing is then
considered representing reality when it represents more the filtering
process used - self-referencing of a dichotomy.

If we combine self-referencing with a degree of indeterminacy (as in where
we intent to record results) then we will get degrees of 'wave interference'
regardless of what scale we are working with (covered in:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/bits.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/WaveStructure.html )

That FACT needs to be taken into consideration before we start to wander off
into the realm of imaginative interpretations of reality.

Chris
-----------------------------
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html

#10455 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2007 11:07 am
Subject: Climate Change Forum
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 
Dear Members,
find all the latest news on Climate Change at Climate Change Forum.
 
This forum concentrates more on news than debate (The News is posted by me).
 
Hope to see all those interested in climate change there :)
 
Recent News Messages Posted:-
 
Global Corporate Climate Change Report Released
Ancient Records Help Test Climate Change
Global-warming skeptics: Might warming be 'normal'?
Ocean pipes could help the Earth to cure itself
Lovelock urges ocean climate fix
Could Iron Fertilization Of Oceans Combat Global Warming?
Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
North America's Northernmost Lake Affected By Global Warming
'Remarkable' Drop In Arctic Sea Ice Raises Questions
Scientists Call For 80 Percent Drop In U.S. Emissions By 2050 To Avoid Dangerous Warming
Mixing the oceans proposed to reduce global warming
Are sunspots prime suspects in global warming?
Man causing climate change - poll
 
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek
 

#10456 From: yanniru@...
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2007 11:43 am
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Quantum Aspects of Consciousness
yanniru
Send Email Send Email
 
Max Green and Schwarz invented 10-D superstring theory which made string theory what it is today.


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lofting <chrislofting@...>
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:02 pm
Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] Quantum Aspects of Consciousness

Some 'lite' reading covering the holographic perspective:
http://www.sciam.com/issue.cfm?issuedate=Aug-03
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/physics-21/detail/9812561315
...Note that Leonard Susskind is the 'inventor' of String Theory...
Issues with string theory are that it is all imagination and as such is to
Physics what ID is to Darwinian Evolution Theory.
See, for example:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465092756
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/10/31/161746/39
An essential point made by IDM is that all specialisations can cover the
imagined as well as the real and it is heuristics that determines the
reality. Pure Mathematics does not mean something is 'real' since pure
mathematics reflects working within a specialisation derived from
self-referencing and so covering all that is POSSIBLE given self-referencing
of differentiating/integrating. Thus if something is 'mathematical' that
does not mean it is 'real' since the properties/methods of mathematics are
present in all other specialisations (e.g. Tarot or Astrology or basic
Theology! - all real for some minds, rubbish for other minds)
The filter we use to process reality is that of our neurology and it
reflects the dynamics of self-referencing. In that dynamic is included
'wave/particle' dualities due to the methodology of using self-referencing -
also included is the compression of all points into one, or more so the
ability to use all points as sources of analogy in describing one point -
this being a property of using self-referencing as the foundations for all
languages (and specialisations are languages). As such the 'holographic'
perspective is valid given the methodology we use to interpret reality - but
that means the methodology elicits holographic dynamics that are not
necessarily 'embedded' in reality - and so we have to be careful when we
observe reality in that we can project properties of the method on 'out
there' - e.g. all of the EPR experiments on reality are in fact the
manifestation of self-referencing a dichotomy and as such will give results
consistent with that self-referencing and that includes the perception of
'wave/particle' duality and so that property of self-referencing is then
considered representing reality when it represents more the filtering
process used - self-referencing of a dichotomy.
If we combine self-referencing with a degree of indeterminacy (as in where
we intent to record results) then we will get degrees of 'wave interference'
regardless of what scale we are working with (covered in:
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/bits.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/WaveStructure.html )
That FACT needs to be taken into consideration before we start to wander off
into the realm of imaginative interpretations of reality.
Chris
-----------------------------
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:MindBrain-digest@yahoogroups.com mailto:MindBrain-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MindBrain-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

#10457 From: Pay_the_Piper <pay_the_piper@...>
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2007 11:59 pm
Subject: PK at MIT?
pay_the_piper@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Is this PK? The article refers to "intentions". If the intentions are
metaphysical and the rest is hardware and software, both of which are
physical, then it is PK.

PtP

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hughes, James J." <James.Hughes@...>
To: <tt@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:52 AM
Subject: [tt] MIT develops better algorithms for neural prosthetics


http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/mit-aids-creation-neural-prosthetic-devices-14389\
.html

MIT aids creation of neural prosthetic devices

MIT researchers have developed a new algorithm to help create prosthetic devices
that convert brain signals into action in patients who have been paralyzed or
had limbs amputated.

The technique, described in a paper published as the cover article in the
October edition of the Journal of Neurophysiology, unifies seemingly disparate
approaches taken by experimental groups that prototype these neural prosthetic
devices in animals or humans.

"The work represents an important advance in our understanding of how to
construct algorithms in neural prosthetic devices for people who cannot move to
act or speak," said Lakshminarayan "Ram" Srinivasan (MIT S.M., Ph.D. '06), lead
author of the paper.

Srinivasan, currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Nervous System
Repair at Massachusetts General Hospital and a medical student in the
Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology (HST), began working on
the algorithm while a graduate student in MIT's Department of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science (EECS).

Both trauma and disease can lead to paralysis or amputation, reducing the
ability to move or talk despite the capacity to think and form intentions. In
spinal cord injuries, strokes, and diseases such as amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease), the neurons that carry commands from the brain
to muscle can be injured. In amputation, both nerves and muscle are lost.

Neural prosthetic devices represent an engineer's approach to treating paralysis
and amputation. Here, electronics are used to monitor the neural signals that
reflect an individual's intentions for the prosthesis or computer they are
trying to use. Algorithms form the link between neural signals that are
recorded, and the user's intentions that are decoded to drive the prosthetic
device.

Over the past decade, efforts at prototyping these devices have divided along
various boundaries related to brain regions, recording modalities, and
applications. The MIT technique provides a common framework that underlies all
these various efforts.

The research uses a method called graphical models that has been widely applied
to problems in computer science like speech-to-text or automated video analysis.
The graphical models used by the MIT team are diagrams composed of circles and
arrows that represent how neural activity results from a person's intentions for
the prosthetic device they are using.

The diagrams represent the mathematical relationship between the person's
intentions and the neural manifestation of that intention, whether the intention
is measured by an electoencephalography (EEG), intracranial electrode arrays or
optical imaging. These signals could come from a number of brain regions,
including cortical or subcortical structures.

Until now, researchers working on brain prosthetics have used different
algorithms depending on what method they were using to measure brain activity.
The new model is applicable no matter what measurement technique is used,
according to Srinivasan. "We don't need to reinvent a new paradigm for each
modality or brain region," he said.

Srinivasan is quick to underscore that many challenges remain in designing
neural prosthetic algorithms before they are available for people to use. While
the algorithm is unifying, it is not universal: the algorithm consolidates
multiple avenues of development in prostheses, but it isn't the final and only
approach these researchers expect to see in the years to come. Moreover, energy
efficiency and robustness are key considerations for any portable, implantible
bio-electronic device.

Through a better quantitative understanding of how the brain normally controls
movement and the mechanisms of disease, he hopes these devices could one day
allow for a level of dexterity depicted in movies, such as actor Will Smith's
mechanical arm in the movie I Robot.

The gap between existing prototypes and that final goal is wide. Translating an
algorithm into a fully functioning clinical device will require a great deal of
work, but also represents an intriguing road of scientific and engineering
development for the years to come.

Other authors on the paper are Uri Eden (Ph.D. '05), assistant professor in
Mathematics and Statistics at Boston University, Sanjoy Mitter, professor in
EECS and MIT's Engineering Systems Division, and Emery Brown, professor in Brain
and Cognitive Sciences, HST, and Anesthesia & Critical Care at Massachusetts
General Hospital. The cover image for the October issue of Journal of
Neurophysiology that depicts this research was designed by Rene Chen (B.S. '07)
and Eric Pesanelli (J. Neurophysiol.).

This work was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the National
Science Foundation.

http://www.lmu.edu

#10458 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2007 1:35 am
Subject: Article: Brain's 'social enforcer' centers identified
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 
Brain's 'social enforcer' centers identified

Researchers have identified brain structures that process the threat of punishment for violating social norms. They said that their findings suggest a neural basis for treating children, adolescents, and even immature adults differently in the criminal justice system, since the neural circuitry for processing the threat of such punishment is not as developed in younger individuals as it is in adults. The researchers also said that their identification of the brain’s “social norm compliance” structures also opens the way to exploring whether psychopaths have deficiencies in these structures’ circuitry.

Manfred Spitzer, Ernst Fehr, and colleagues published their findings in the October 4, 2007 issue of the journal Neuron, published by Cell Press.

“In this study, we sought to uncover the neural circuits involved in forced norm compliance,” wrote the researchers. “This question touches the very foundations of human sociality because the establishment of large-scale cooperation through social norms is a unique feature of the human species. Norm compliance among humans is either based on people’s voluntary compliance with standards of behavior that are viewed as normatively legitimate or on the enforcement of compliance through punishment. Although much compliance is voluntary, there can be little doubt that social order would quickly break down in the absence of punishment threats because a minority of noncompliers can trigger a process that leads to widespread noncompliance due to the conditional nature of many people’s compliance.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study that examines the brain processes involved in humans’ behavioral response to the threat of punishment for social norm violations,” wrote the researchers.

In their experiments, the researchers instructed one person to decide how much money from a shared pot to give to a second recipient. In a control condition, the second person was merely a passive recipient of whatever amount the first person decided. However, in the punishment condition, the recipient could decide to punish the first person by spending all or part of another pot of money, which would reduce the first person’s earnings.

During the control and punishment conditions, the first person’s brain was scanned using functional magnetic resonance imaging. This widely used scanning technique involves using harmless magnetic fields and radio signals to measure blood flow in brain regions, which reflects brain activity.

The researchers found that the scanned subjects showed activation of specific areas of the prefrontal cortex while they were making decisions that they knew could bring punishment. The areas that were activated were known to be involved in control of decision-making related to fairness and evaluation of punishing stimuli.

To establish that the activated brain areas were specifically involved in social punishment, the researchers also tested the subjects’ brain responses when a computer and not a person meted out the punishment. The researchers found that such nonsocial punishment produced significantly less activation in the brain areas.

The researchers also tested whether “Machiavellian” personality traits—selfishness and opportunism—affected people’s responses on the tests. To assess the subjects’ Machiavellian leanings, the researchers gave them a questionnaire that determined those tendencies.

The researchers found that people who scored higher on Machiavellism transferred less money during the control condition and more during the threat of punishment. The Machiavellians also showed higher activation of key brain areas involved in social norm compliance, found the researchers.

“Therefore, Machiavellian subjects earned the highest incomes because they earned most in the control condition and were best at escaping punishment in the social punishment condition,” they wrote.

The researchers said their findings could have implications for understanding the basis of psychopathic behavior, since people with lesions in the prefrontal areas show an inability to behave in appropriate ways, even though they understand social norms.

Thus, a dysfunction in the areas involved “might also underlie certain psychopathological disorders characterized by excessively selfish tendencies and a failure to obey basic social norms,” they wrote.

Identification of the brain’s social norm compliance circuitry “might have implications for the criminal justice system,” concluded the researchers. “As these brain areas are not yet fully developed in children, adolescents, or even young adults, our results are consistent with the view that these groups may be less able to activate the evaluative and inhibitory neural circuitry necessary for the appropriate processing of punishment threats. Thus, our results might provide support for the view that the criminal justice system should treat children, adolescents, and immature adults differently from adults,” they wrote.

Source: Cell Press
 
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#10459 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2007 1:39 am
Subject: Article: Brain needs perfection in synapse number
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 
Brain needs perfection in synapse number

Like Goldilocks, the brain seeks proportions that are just right. The proper number of synapses or communication between nerve cells, determined early in life, is crucial to having a healthy brain that can learn and retain information.

Now, researchers at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston have determined that the protein MeCP2 (methyl-CpG binding protein 2), is critical to fine-tuning the number of synapses. In a report that appears in today’s issue of the journal Neuron, they said that too little MeCP2, as in the neurodevelopmental disorder Rett syndrome, or too much MeCP2, can result in mental retardation, problems with gait or spasticity and symptoms of autism.

In fact, a common underlying theme in the autism spectrum disorders could be a disruption in neuron-to-neuron communication caused by abnormal amounts of MeCP2, said Hsiao-Tuan Chao, an M.D./Ph.D. graduate student, who worked under the co-mentorship of BCM investigators Drs. Huda Y. Zoghbi and Christian Rosenmund and is first author of the report. Zoghbi is a professor of molecular and human genetics, pediatrics, neurology and neuroscience at BCM and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator, and Rosenmund is an associate professor of molecular and human genetics and neuroscience.

As infants, girls with Rett syndrome seem normal for at least six months. Between the ages of 6 and 18 months, however, their development stops and they begin to regress, losing the ability to talk. Then they begin to have problems walking and keeping their balance and develop typical hand-wringing behavior. Many of their symptoms mirror those of autism. Zoghbi’s laboratory was the first to identify a mutation in the MeCP2 gene that results in too little of this protein, causing girls to develop Rett. Boys who suffer from a disorder linked to too much MeCP2 have spasticity and mental retardation with autism-like behavior.

“MeCP2 has an important role in fine-tuning the amount of synaptic responses,” said Chao. Having just the right amount of MeCP2 and the right number of synapses drives healthy brain development.

“Starting life with the right amount of synapses is critical,” said Zoghbi. “What determines that and how do we know that we have the right number?”

Chao unraveled that mystery using two different sets of mice – one with too little MeCP2 and one with too much – and asking what was wrong with their neurons.

“We wanted to know if there were changes within the neuron itself or is this a question of the overall network and the way the neurons communicate?” she said.

In Rosenmund’s laboratory, she was able to use his assays to look at synaptic communication in individual neurons to find out that loss of MeCP2 caused the neurons to “talk on a lower level, releasing less neurotransmitter per neuron,” she said. On the contrary, doubling MeCP2 caused the opposite, an increase in communication between neurons or synapses. Most importantly, she found that synapses were functioning normally, but that too little MeCP2 meant that fewer synapses were formed, while too much MeCP2 meant too many synapses were formed.

“The beauty of this result is that this critical process in the development of synaptic connectivity in the brain is tightly regulated by the amount of MeCP2,” said Rosenmund. “It is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that mental retardation and autism-like diseases originate with problems in synapse formation.”

Chao said, “It suggests that the pathways in which MeCP2 is involved and the proteins it regulates are probably critical for how the brain can determine how many synapses to make as it’s developing.”

“This determination of how many synapses to make happens early in life,” said Zoghbi. “If it’s not right, then the brain undergoes secondary changes to try to compensate. This is a big important observation and opens up ways to think about adult diseases that involve loss of synaptic function. It is also interesting that patients who lack this protein or have too much have features of autism. More and more, data point to the possiblity that autism is a disorder of abnormal function of the synapse.”

“This is important because this is the basic foundation for how we refine our learning,” Chao said. “Understanding how MeCP2 is involved in our neurological development is another piece of the puzzle in understanding autism and other neurological disorders.”

Source: Baylor College of Medicine
 
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#10460 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2007 1:38 am
Subject: Article: Study dissects the anatomy of social conformity
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 
Study dissects the anatomy of social conformity

Researchers have identified the part of the brain that processes the threat of punishment for flouting social rules, a finding that could have implications for understanding the behaviour of psychopaths, a study released Wednesday said.

In a series of experiments, investigators used brain scans to monitor the mental activity of volunteers as they thought about how to respond to a challenge involving a social norm -- in this case the principle of fairness.

The challenge was configured two ways: one involving sanctions for behaviour that violated accepted standards of fairness, and one which didn't involve sanctions of any kind.

In the first scenario, the researchers instructed one person (person A) to decide how much money from a shared pot to give to a second person (person B).

The recipient was later informed of how much money the first person had withheld for themselves, and given the option of spending all or part of another pot of money which would reduce the first person's earnings.

In the second scenario, the second person was a passive recipient of the first person's largesse, without the power to reward or punish their actions.

Brain scans performed on the principal actors in the challenges, or person A, showed that areas of their prefrontal cortex lit up when they were making decisions they knew could bring punishment.

Those parts of the brain are known to be involved in control of decision-making related to issues of fairness and also evaluation of punishing stimuli.

Interestingly enough, when person B was taken out of the equation, and substituted by a a computer, the threat of punishment produced much less intense activity in the minds of person A as shown by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

The researchers also tested whether volunteers with Machiavellian personality traits -- selfishness and opportunism -- affected their responses on the tests.

They found that these individuals had the strongest response to the threat of sanctions, with a corresponding increase in brain activity, compared to the other people doing the challenges.

The findings could have implications for understanding psychopathic behaviour, since people with lesions in the prefrontal areas of the brain show an inability to behave in appropriate ways, even though they understand social norms.

Thus, a dysfunction in the areas involved "might also underlie certain psychopathological disorders characterized by excessively selfish tendencies and a failure to obey basic social norms," they wrote.

The authors suggested their findings also support the notion that the criminal justice system should hold juveniles, children and young adults to a different standard than adults, because the brain systems involved in processing what is socially acceptable are not fully mature yet in younger individuals.

The paper was written by researchers at the University of Ulm in Germany, and the University of Zurich in Switzerland and appears in the journal Neuron.

© 2007 AFP
 
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#10461 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2007 1:34 am
Subject: Article: Research helps convert brain signals into action
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 
Research helps convert brain signals into action

Lakshminarayan Srinivasan (S.M. Ph.D. 2006) is part of a team that develops standardizing math equations to allow neural prostheses to work better. He is currently a medical student in the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology and a ...
Lakshminarayan Srinivasan (S.M., Ph.D. 2006) is part of a team that develops standardizing math equations to allow neural prostheses to work better. He is currently a medical student in the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology and a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Nervous System Repair at Massachusetts General Hospital.

MIT researchers have developed a new algorithm to help create prosthetic devices that convert brain signals into action in patients who have been paralyzed or had limbs amputated.

The technique, described in a paper published as the cover article in the October edition of the Journal of Neurophysiology, unifies seemingly disparate approaches taken by experimental groups that prototype these neural prosthetic devices in animals or humans.

“The work represents an important advance in our understanding of how to construct algorithms in neural prosthetic devices for people who cannot move to act or speak,” said Lakshminarayan “Ram” Srinivasan (MIT S.M., Ph.D. '06), lead author of the paper.

Srinivasan, currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Nervous System Repair at Massachusetts General Hospital and a medical student in the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology (HST), began working on the algorithm while a graduate student in MIT's Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS).

Both trauma and disease can lead to paralysis or amputation, reducing the ability to move or talk despite the capacity to think and form intentions. In spinal cord injuries, strokes, and diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease), the neurons that carry commands from the brain to muscle can be injured. In amputation, both nerves and muscle are lost.

Neural prosthetic devices represent an engineer's approach to treating paralysis and amputation. Here, electronics are used to monitor the neural signals that reflect an individual's intentions for the prosthesis or computer they are trying to use. Algorithms form the link between neural signals that are recorded, and the user's intentions that are decoded to drive the prosthetic device.

Over the past decade, efforts at prototyping these devices have divided along various boundaries related to brain regions, recording modalities, and applications. The MIT technique provides a common framework that underlies all these various efforts.

The research uses a method called graphical models that has been widely applied to problems in computer science like speech-to-text or automated video analysis. The graphical models used by the MIT team are diagrams composed of circles and arrows that represent how neural activity results from a person's intentions for the prosthetic device they are using.

The diagrams represent the mathematical relationship between the person's intentions and the neural manifestation of that intention, whether the intention is measured by an electoencephalography (EEG), intracranial electrode arrays or optical imaging. These signals could come from a number of brain regions, including cortical or subcortical structures.

Until now, researchers working on brain prosthetics have used different algorithms depending on what method they were using to measure brain activity. The new model is applicable no matter what measurement technique is used, according to Srinivasan. “We don't need to reinvent a new paradigm for each modality or brain region,” he said.

Srinivasan is quick to underscore that many challenges remain in designing neural prosthetic algorithms before they are available for people to use. While the algorithm is unifying, it is not universal: the algorithm consolidates multiple avenues of development in prostheses, but it isn't the final and only approach these researchers expect to see in the years to come. Moreover, energy efficiency and robustness are key considerations for any portable, implantible bio-electronic device.

Through a better quantitative understanding of how the brain normally controls movement and the mechanisms of disease, he hopes these devices could one day allow for a level of dexterity depicted in movies, such as actor Will Smith's mechanical arm in the movie I Robot.

The gap between existing prototypes and that final goal is wide. Translating an algorithm into a fully functioning clinical device will require a great deal of work, but also represents an intriguing road of scientific and engineering development for the years to come.

Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#10462 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2007 3:03 am
Subject: Article: Converging roads in a yellow wood
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 

Converging roads in a yellow wood

Neuroscience Gateway (October 2007) | doi:10.1038/aba1783

Two independent limbs of the same signaling pathway are important in memory reconsolidation.

What would Robert Frost have done if his diverging roads ultimately led to the same destination? Some signaling molecules are important in several pathways, which presumably mediate different physiological endpoints. However, Lubin and Sweatt report that both pathways activated by inhibitor kappa B (IkappaB) kinase (IKK) are important in regulating associative memory in a recent article in Neuron.

The transcription factor nuclear-factor kappa B (NF-kappaB) is important in synaptic plasticity and memory. IkappaB binds NF-kappaB, preventing its entry into the nucleus and blocking its ability to bind DNA. The IKK complex, including the catalytic subunits IKKalpha and IKKbeta and the regulatory subunit IKKgamma, phosphorylates IkappaB, marking it for degradation. Therefore, IKK releases NF-kappaB, allowing it to bind kappaB promoter elements and induce transcription. The IkappaB pathway also regulates chromatin structure, which is important in memory. IkappaBalpha interacts with histone deacetylases and IKKalpha induces histone phosphorylation. The authors aimed to determine which of these pathways is important in memory.

Mice freeze with fear when re-exposed to a chamber in which they have been shocked. The authors treated mice with the NF-kappaB pathway inhibitor diethyl-dithiocarbamate (DDTC) immediately after re-exposure to the shock chamber. Days later, the shock context induced less freezing behavior in DDTC- than in vehicle-treated mice. In the hippocampus, DDTC also reduced IKKalpha phosphorylation, the DNA-binding capacity of NF-kappaB, and histone H3 phosphorylation relative to vehicle treatment. Relative to baseline, IKKalpha phosphorylation and NF-kappaB-DNA binding activity increased only after context re-exposure, suggesting that the NF-kappaB pathway is specifically involved in memory recall.

Directly inhibiting IKKalpha with sulfasalazine reduced context-dependent freezing, IKKalpha phosphorylation, NF-kappaB-DNA binding and the phosphorylation and acetylation of histone H3, suggesting that the IKK complex may mediate NF-kappaB pathway's role in memory recall. Does IKK regulate memory and histone H3 directly or through NF-kappaB? SN50, which inhibits the association of NF-kappaB and kappaB DNA promoter elements, reduced context-dependent freezing but did not affect histone H3 phosphorylation and acetylation, suggesting that NF-kappaB is important in memory but not chromatin structure and that IKKalpha regulates chromatin structure independently of NF-kappaB.

Is the IKK-mediated alteration in chromatin important in memory? Zif268 is an immediate early gene important in associative memory. Relative to baseline, the acetylation and phosphorylation of histone H3 associated with Zif268 increased following re-exposure to the shock context, and this increase was blocked by DDTC. The HDAC inhibitor sodium butyrate rescued the DDTC-induced reduction in context-dependent freezing, suggesting that the NF-kappaB pathway regulates memory through histone acetylation.

Therefore both NF-kappaB-DNA binding and histone acetylation are important in memory reconsolidation. Why would both pathways be involved in memory? According to the authors, although NF-kappaB may specifically be important in memory, IKK's induction of histone acetylation may open up DNA to allow the binding of multiple transcription factors.

Debra Speert

  1. Lubin, F. D. & Sweatt, J. D. The IkappaB kinase regulates chromatin structure during reconsolidation of conditioned fear memories. Neuron 55, 942–957 (2007). | Article |
 
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#10463 From: Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...>
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2007 3:16 am
Subject: Re: non-locality in perception
leonmaurer1
Send Email Send Email
 
Hello Bob,

Thank you for alerting me to information about your new methodology describing the same holographic Cosmos that my ABC theory of cosmogenesis also does -- including the relationships between consciousness, mind, memory, brain, body, senses, etc, (which I have only more or less fully explained in posts to the various scientific forums such as Mind-brain, jcs-online, PSYCHE-D, etc.).  

Interestingly, my background is also in Chemical Engineering, although I have professionally used it only with reference to certain technical aspects of the various visual communications industries I worked in for many years -- from color photography and printing, to motion picture film, video, and computer graphics animation.  This work had given me an insight into the nature of visual consciousness and its relationship to the radiant field aspects of all phenomenal existence -- with each universe of the potential multiverse, periodically arising as fractal involved spherical electrodynamic fields... Starting from fundamental infinite angular momentum or "SPIN" (of absolute unified primal SPACE, having no attributes other than the dual qualities or aspects of potential CONSCIOUSNESS, i.e., awareness, will, etc., and noumenal MATTER) on infinite potentially spherical axes crossing at the all present zero-point energy source (Einstein's "Singularity") of that SPACE... Which is ubiquitous at every center of the ZPE fields (ref: Casimir effect) in the Planck vacuum, or supposedly "empty" space between the Q particles, as well as between the stars, and all other forms of matter. Thus, logically proving that everything IS *substantially* interconnected -- including the fundamental source of non-local consciousness.

Since our holographic COSMOS' (whose circumference is nowhere and its center everywhere) begins at the zero-point center of three perpendicular axes of that fundamental SPIN -- this naturally leads to all the subsequent linear geometries that appear to be the basis of the most scientifically consistent models, including, I presume, your model.  Although, the ABC cosmological model starts at the initial ultimate simplicity of the triple nature of the first linear lines of positive and negative radiant energy emanating from the poles on each of the triple axis, that generates the further fractally involved fields, like bubbles within bubbles, etc, of the three forms of matter , "light", "dark 1" and "dark 2" (that modern cosmologists have begun to observe and measure the cumulative visible effects of).  See: 


From this primal spherical fractal geometric and spiral vortex Mobius-Klien topological beginning -- all linear geometries and mathematics as well as all the dynamic laws of physics can be simply derived.  See: 

And, further, all the hard problems, paradoxes, and anomalies resulting from the incompatibilities between quantum and relativity physics, as well as their conjunction with string, axion, holographic paradigm, etc., theories can be easily resolved... While fully explaining attractive and repulsive gravity as the primal G-force or spinergy, and offering the basis of a fully consistent Unified field theory of everything.  

While I haven't fully delved into your cosmology in detail, I do see the common holistic thread that ties our two models together.  I will study it further as best I can, and hopefully we both can benefit from each others concepts -- which seem to be looking at the same overall reality and explaining it from different points of view... Although. you seem to go much deeper into physiology and neurology -- which I can only skim over while seeing all the connections.  

However, neither of us have come up with anything really new -- since we can see it all in Blavatsky, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and all the ancient theosophical philosophers and their teachings... Although our correlations with observational science could be very useful in eventually arriving at a new scientific paradigm that, hopefully, will be understandable and acceptable to everyone.

BTW, have you examined the books and articles of another Canadian whose work is along similar lines (although he has managed to stay away from the online controversies that prevents me from finishing my first book, started over twenty years ago ;-)?  If not, Check out: 

Best wishes,

Leon  


On Oct 3, 2007, at 10/3/0711:25 PM, bob campbell wrote:

Hello Leon,
 
The moderators don't seem to think me worthy to post, so I hope you won't mind if I send you a private email. From some of your comments you may be very interested in some of the articles on my website at www.cosmic-mindreach.com . It introduces a new methodology that has never been explored before, and that can complement traditional approaches to great advantage.
 
Best regards,
Bob

=

#10464 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2007 3:42 am
Subject: Article: Negativity is contagious, study finds
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 
Negativity is contagious, study finds

Though we may not care to admit it, what other people think about something can affect what we think about it. This is how critics become influential and why our parents’ opinions about our life choices continue to matter, long after we’ve moved out. But what kind of opinions have the most effect" An important new study in the Journal of Consumer Research reveals that negative opinions cause the greatest attitude shifts, not just from good to bad, but also from bad to worse.

“Consumer attitudes toward products and services are frequently influenced by others around them. Social networks, such as those found on Myspace and Facebook suggest that these influences will continue to be significant drivers of individual consumer attitudes as society becomes more inter-connected,” explain Adam Duhachek, Shuoyang Zhang, and Shanker Krishnan (all of Indiana University). “Our research seeks to understand the conditions where group influence is strongest.”

Consumers were presented with information about a new product and allowed to independently form their evaluations. As would be normally expected with many products, some of these evaluations were positive and others negative. The researchers then revealed to participants whether their peers evaluated the product negatively or positively. They found that the opinions of others exert especially strong influence on individual attitudes when these opinions are negative. Additionally, consumers that privately held positive attitudes toward the product were more susceptible to influence from group opinion than those who initially held negative opinions.

Furthermore, the researchers also found that those with negative opinions of the product were likely to become even more negative if asked to participate in a group discussion: “When consumers expect to interact with other consumers through these forums, learning the views of these other consumers may reinforce and even polarize their opinions, making them more negative,” the researchers reveal.

“This research has several interesting implications. First, given the strong influence of negative information, marketers may need to expend extra resources to counter-act the effects of negative word of mouth in online chatrooms, blogs and in offline media. Conversely, companies could damage the reputations of competitors by disseminating negative information online,” the researchers explain. “Consumers should be aware that these social influence biases exist and are capable of significantly impacting their perceptions.”

Source: University of Chicago
 
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#10465 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2007 3:47 am
Subject: Article: How emotionally charged events leave their mark on memory
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 
How emotionally charged events leave their mark on memory

Image showing phosphorylated GluR1 receptors congregating around sites of neuronal synapses. Credit: Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Image showing phosphorylated GluR1 receptors congregating around sites of neuronal synapses.
Credit: Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions

Researchers have uncovered new evidence in mice that may explain how emotionally charged situations can leave such a powerful mark on our memories. Surges of the stress hormone norepinephrine (also known as noradrenaline) that often accompany strong emotions spark a series of molecular events that ultimately strengthen the connections between neurons, the team reports in the October 5, 2007, issue of the journal Cell.

“This phenomenon is something everyone can identify with,” said Roberto Malinow of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York. “You can probably remember where you were when you heard about 9/11, but you probably don’t know where you were on 9/10. We've identified one mechanism that may underlie this effect.”

The parts of the brain where memories are stored need to distinguish between significant experiences and those that carry less importance, giving priority to the transformation of the former into long-term memory, the researchers explained. One factor that scientists believe to be critical in that process is the emotional load of an event. Indeed, studies have shown that heightened states of emotion can facilitate learning and memory. In some situations, this process can even become pathological, Malinow said, as occurs in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a condition characterized by persistent vivid memories of traumatic events.

The stress hormone norepinephrine was known to play a central role in the emotional control of memory through its effect on receptors in the brain. During emotional arousal, the stress hormone is released by neurons that project widely to many brain regions, including the hippocampus and the amygdala, which are involved in the formation of emotional memory.

Brain stimulation by norepinephrine had also been found to induce a phenomenon known as long-term potentiation (LTP). LTP involves a lasting increase in the strength of nerve connections, or synapses. That process is considered to be the cellular basis for learning and memory.

“There were all these potential ways in which excitability or transmission might be enhanced by norepinephrine,” said Manilow. Yet, exactly how the stress hormone influences the processes involved in memory formation remained mysterious.

One way to strengthen synapses is to increase the number of so-called GluR1 receptors at neurons’ receiving ends, he added. Malinow’s group now shows that norepinephrine can do just that.

In studies of mice, they revealed that norepinephrine, as well as emotional stress, leads to the addition of a chemical phosphate group to GluR1 receptors at sites that play an important role in their delivery to nerve synapses. That chemical modification is both “necessary and sufficient” to lower the threshold for the receptors’ incorporation during LTP—thereby boosting memory, they showed.

In behavioral tests of the animals, the group found that norepinephrine exposure can make normal mice remember events more clearly. By contrast, mice carrying mutations in their GluR1 receptors, specifically at the sites where phosphates would be added, didn’t respond to norepinephrine with sharper recall.

The brains of mice have “all the same parts” found in the human brain, Malinow said, and tests of emotional memory in people have shown that blocking the receptors for norepinephrine reduce the effects of emotion on learning and memory. “We expect that the molecular mechanisms are the same, as well,” he said.

He emphasized, however, that the current study is just one piece of a much larger puzzle of how emotion influences memory. It also remains unclear whether the newly identified mechanism plays a direct role in conditions such as PTSD. Nonetheless, he said, “we’ve identified one potential therapeutic target. It may be possible to develop drugs that could prevent too many brain receptors from being added or that might remove them once they are there.”

Source: Cell Press
 
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#10466 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2007 2:37 am
Subject: Article: Natural selections?
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 

NEWS

Natural selections?

A guide to the weird, wonderful, and (in many cases) troubling implications of modern evolutionary science


[Published 5th October 2007 04:31 PM GMT]




Tycho Brahe, renowned 16th century astronomer, had a problem. He made some of the earliest accurate measurements of planetary movement, and was deeply committed to the primacy of science and empirical data. So far, so good. But Brahe was also committed to the primacy of the Earth, partly out of religious conviction and partly because — well, just because. So what was he to do when his measurements kept showing the same unwelcome results: the five known planets of his day — Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn — all revolved around the sun!

So Brahe came up with a brilliant solution: He devised an astronomic system whereby those five planets indeed circled the sun, but the whole shebang (sun + planets) obediently revolved around the Earth. Ta Daa! Problem solved (sort of).

Brahe's blunder speaks to a tendency that persists in the minds of many: Give ground in response to undeniable facts, but if those facts conflict with your more cherished beliefs, hold fast to the latter. For a 21st century example, consider that essentially every scientifically literate (non-Bible-beating) person accepts the basic truths of evolution by natural selection, when applied to, say, the evolution of antibiotic resistance, the reality of dinosaurs, even the animal ancestry of our own species. But even among these enlightened folks, relatively few have been willing to explore the often-discomfiting realizations that come from following the insights offered by evolution. In other words, Brahe-ism still lives.

For example:

Suddenly, the neurobiology of consciousness is "in." But even as this new field has begun to rival genomics and stem cell research, hardly anyone has looked at consciousness as the evolutionary conundrum that it is. Thus, aside from the "how" of neurobiology, what about the "why"? What's the adaptive significance of consciousness? Think of the metabolic costs of a conscious brain, as well as its vulnerability, and even the behavioral downsides of excessive "self-consciousness."

Here's a possibility: Insofar as consciousness means not just awareness, but awareness of awareness, then maybe its evolutionary explanation derives from what we might call the "Robert Burns phenomenon," namely the payoff of being able to "see ourselves as others see us." And why might that be adaptive? Perhaps because it enables us to engage in a kind of Machiavellian sociality, adjusting our behavior so as to appear better, nicer, more worthwhile than we really are! In short, what if the evolutionary basis of one of our most cherished traits is, in fact, dishonesty and deception?

Then there is the matter of "seeing" and "believing." The cliché goes "seeing is believing," but in fact, much of science in general and biology in particular works the other way around: Believing is seeing. To a remarkable degree, we see things only after we can explain them, as a result of which we expect to find these things; then, sure enough, we do! For example, contrary to what evolutionary biologists often claim — that altruism was long considered a major puzzle, until W. D. Hamilton pretty much solved it with inclusive fitness theory — the reality is that it is only after Hamilton's insights became common currency that we began observing altruism in nature — and then, of course, explaining it!

Not only is there no tiny homunculus residing inside the human brain, pulling the levers of consciousness and free will, but there are lots of pathogens inducing us to behave in ways that help them. Many of the most important insights of evolutionary psychologists point unavoidably to the conclusion that it's not "us" but our genes that often call the shots, even (maybe especially) when it comes to some of our more admirable actions, such as altruism.

Even as biology has begun to unravel the wellsprings of self-sacrificial, other-beneficial behavior, how many of us are willing to consider that just as beneficence toward kin (nepotism) is "natural," so, too, might be hatred and intolerance toward non-kin? Thus, some of our worst traits, such as racism, may be an unfortunate legacy of evolution.

Tycho Brahe, were he alive today, would probably find a way out of confronting these and other dilemmas. But if so, he'd miss out on a heckuvalot of fun.

David P. Barash
mail@...

David P. Barash is the author of Natural Selections: Selfish altruists, honest liars, and other realities of evolution, published this month by Bellevue Literary Press. He is a professor of psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Image: courtesy of Bellevue Literary Press. Jacket design: Nicky Lindeman.


Links within this article:

C. Koch, "The inchoate science of consciousness," The Scientist, September 12, 2005.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15704/

C. Holding, "Kin selection in bacteria," The Scientist, August 26, 2004.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22365/

S. Blackman, "Spite: Evolution finally gets nasty," The Scientist, December 20, 2004.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15154/

David Barash
http://faculty.washington.edu/dpbarash/

Natural Selections: Selfish altruists, honest liars, and other realities of evolution
http://tinyurl.com/2c748w
 
 
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#10467 From: "Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq." <Dr.d@...>
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2007 7:08 pm
Subject: Re: Article: Natural selections?
ydelasie
Send Email Send Email
 


--- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...> quoted David Barash thus: "....Insofar as consciousness means not just awareness, but awareness of awareness, then maybe its evolutionary explanation derives from what we might call the "Robert Burns phenomenon," namely the payoff of being able to "see ourselves as others see us." And why might that be adaptive?...." 

     Can David expand on the evolutionary aspect of altruism other than its classical connection with the preservation of the group beneficiary (as opposed to the sacrificed individual)? I have always argued (and published) that self-consciousness is a strategy for biological, psychic and social survival of the human species; all of which can be arguably reduced to an inherited biological imperative geared to guarantee the biological and reproductive integrity of the species.. BUT, altruism is an act 'contra natura' in that it violates the genetic default machinery of self-preservation in favor of ...... the social group? In my BPS model altruism is the best example of how 'free will' act overcomes the biological self-preservation default leaving out an explanation of the 'why' the sacrificial act which IMHO goes beyond the species protection, as argued. Evolution has not yet explained life and/or self-consciousness. The organization of life as a negentropic, self-perpetuating system defying all natural laws is self-evident historical fact that transcends the relative simplicity of blind random processes like evolution as experimentally tested in the mathematical statistical conclusions from Intelligent Design. Hope this does not revive the old prejudices..... unless there is new light....                                                                  Dr.d

 


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> NEWS
> Natural selections?
> A guide to the weird, wonderful, and (in many cases) troubling implications of modern evolutionary science
>
>
> [Published 5th October 2007 04:31 PM GMT]
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Tycho Brahe, renowned 16th century astronomer, had a problem. He made some of the earliest accurate measurements of planetary movement, and was deeply committed to the primacy of science and empirical data. So far, so good. But Brahe was also committed to the primacy of the Earth, partly out of religious conviction and partly because - well, just because. So what was he to do when his measurements kept showing the same unwelcome results: the five known planets of his day - Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn - all revolved around the sun!
>
> So Brahe came up with a brilliant solution: He devised an astronomic system whereby those five planets indeed circled the sun, but the whole shebang (sun + planets) obediently revolved around the Earth. Ta Daa! Problem solved (sort of).
>
> Brahe's blunder speaks to a tendency that persists in the minds of many: Give ground in response to undeniable facts, but if those facts conflict with your more cherished beliefs, hold fast to the latter. For a 21st century example, consider that essentially every scientifically literate (non-Bible-beating) person accepts the basic truths of evolution by natural selection, when applied to, say, the evolution of antibiotic resistance, the reality of dinosaurs, even the animal ancestry of our own species. But even among these enlightened folks, relatively few have been willing to explore the often-discomfiting realizations that come from following the insights offered by evolution. In other words, Brahe-ism still lives.
>
> For example:
>
> Suddenly, the neurobiology of consciousness is "in." But even as this new field has begun to rival genomics and stem cell research, hardly anyone has looked at consciousness as the evolutionary conundrum that it is. Thus, aside from the "how" of neurobiology, what about the "why"? What's the adaptive significance of consciousness? Think of the metabolic costs of a conscious brain, as well as its vulnerability, and even the behavioral downsides of excessive "self-consciousness."
>
> Here's a possibility: Insofar as consciousness means not just awareness, but awareness of awareness, then maybe its evolutionary explanation derives from what we might call the "Robert Burns phenomenon," namely the payoff of being able to "see ourselves as others see us." And why might that be adaptive? Perhaps because it enables us to engage in a kind of Machiavellian sociality, adjusting our behavior so as to appear better, nicer, more worthwhile than we really are! In short, what if the evolutionary basis of one of our most cherished traits is, in fact, dishonesty and deception?
>
> Then there is the matter of "seeing" and "believing." The cliché goes "seeing is believing," but in fact, much of science in general and biology in particular works the other way around: Believing is seeing. To a remarkable degree, we see things only after we can explain them, as a result of which we expect to find these things; then, sure enough, we do! For example, contrary to what evolutionary biologists often claim - that altruism was long considered a major puzzle, until W. D. Hamilton pretty much solved it with inclusive fitness theory - the reality is that it is only after Hamilton's insights became common currency that we began observing altruism in nature - and then, of course, explaining it!
>
> Not only is there no tiny homunculus residing inside the human brain, pulling the levers of consciousness and free will, but there are lots of pathogens inducing us to behave in ways that help them. Many of the most important insights of evolutionary psychologists point unavoidably to the conclusion that it's not "us" but our genes that often call the shots, even (maybe especially) when it comes to some of our more admirable actions, such as altruism.
>
> Even as biology has begun to unravel the wellsprings of self-sacrificial, other-beneficial behavior, how many of us are willing to consider that just as beneficence toward kin (nepotism) is "natural," so, too, might be hatred and intolerance toward non-kin? Thus, some of our worst traits, such as racism, may be an unfortunate legacy of evolution.
>
> Tycho Brahe, were he alive today, would probably find a way out of confronting these and other dilemmas. But if so, he'd miss out on a heckuvalot of fun.
>
> David P. Barash
> mail@...
>
> David P. Barash is the author of Natural Selections: Selfish altruists, honest liars, and other realities of evolution, published this month by Bellevue Literary Press. He is a professor of psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle.
>
> Image: courtesy of Bellevue Literary Press. Jacket design: Nicky Lindeman.
>
>
> Links within this article:
>
> C. Koch, "The inchoate science of consciousness," The Scientist, September 12, 2005.
> http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15704/
>
> C. Holding, "Kin selection in bacteria," The Scientist, August 26, 2004.
> http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22365/
>
> S. Blackman, "Spite: Evolution finally gets nasty," The Scientist, December 20, 2004.
> http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15154/
>
> David Barash
> http://faculty.washington.edu/dpbarash/
>
> Natural Selections: Selfish altruists, honest liars, and other realities of evolution
> http://tinyurl.com/2c748w
>
>
> Source: TheScientist
> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53682/
>
> Posted by
> Robert Karl Stonjek
>


#10468 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Sun Oct 7, 2007 1:48 am
Subject: Article: Be Good Now, Or Else
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 
Picture of brain

Social centers.
Neuroscientists have identified particular areas in the brain that fire up when subjects consider social norms before acting.

Credit: Ernst Fehr/University of Zürich

Be Good Now, Or Else

By Steve Mitchell
ScienceNOW Daily News
3 October 2007

Neuroscientists have taken a step closer to a physiological explanation of why some people work and play well with others. Two areas in the brain appear to have key roles in how people conform with social norms. These parts of the brain mature slowly, which may help explain why adolescents are less easily cowed by the threat of punishment than are adults.

All societies have social norms or widely shared beliefs about how people should behave in a given situation. But little is known about how the brain processes the possibility of punishment for violating these norms. To gain insight into this phenomena, a team led by Manfred Spitzer of the University of Ulm in Germany used a technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging to determine which areas in the brain were most active in 23 men making decisions that could result in social punishment.

The men were given money and asked to decide how much of it to share with someone else. The men knew that the other person could punish them by reducing some or all of their money if they decided the initial shared amount was unfair. Several areas of the men's brains were active, but the regions that seemed to be the most involved in how the men made their decisions included the lateral orbitofrontal cortex and the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the researchers report in the 4 October issue of Neuron. These areas, which reside near the front of the brain, have previously been associated with social moral judgments.

The brain regions showed less activity when a computer was meting out the punishment, indicating the prospect of disappointing or angering the other person may be more important than the fear of the punishment itself in activating these areas. "It's very convincing," says Daniel Hommer, a neuroscientist at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

The findings could have implications for how children are handled by the criminal justice system because the identified brain regions do not fully develop until adulthood, Spitzer says. "This implies that the threat of punishment may not work in these younger people as it supposedly does in people with fully matured brains," he says. "It appears to be a bit like punishing the blind for not seeing." The results also could lead to a better understanding of psychopathic behavior. Spitzer plans to study prison inmates with various types and degrees of personality disorders to find out if they have less activation in these brain regions in response to potential punishments.

Marcus Raichle, a neurologist at Washington University in St. Louis, says the study suggests it may one day be possible to predict how a particular person might behave by scanning his or her brain. "We may not be able to pull out individuals now," Raichle says, "but the mere suggestion that you might be able to do that is important."

Source: Science
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1003/3?etoc

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek


#10469 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 12:03 am
Subject: Article: Scientists search for brain center responsible for tinnitus
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 
Scientists search for brain center responsible for tinnitus

For the more than 50 million Americans who experience the phantom sounds of tinnitus -- ringing in the ears that can range from annoying to debilitating -- certain well-trained rats may be their best hope for finding relief.

Researchers at the University at Buffalo have studied the condition for more than 10 years and have developed these animal models, which can “tell” the researchers if they are experiencing tinnitus.

These scientists now have received a $2.9 million five-year grant from the National Institutes of Health to study the brain signals responsible for creating the phantom sounds, using the animal models, and to test potential therapies to quiet the noise.

The research will take place at the Center for Hearing and Deafness, part of the Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences in the university’s College of Arts and Sciences. Richard Salvi, Ph.D., director of the center, is principal investigator. Scientists from UB’s Department of Nuclear Medicine and from Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo are major collaborators on portions of the project.

Tinnitus is caused by continued exposure to loud noise, by normal aging and, to a much lesser extent, as a side effect of taking certain anti-cancer drugs. It is a major concern in the military: 30 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans suffer from the condition.

“For many years it was thought that the buzzing or ringing sounds heard by people with tinnitus originated in the ear,” Salvi said. “But by using positron emission tomography [known as PET scanning] to view the brain activity of people with tinnitus at UB, we’ve been able to show that these phantom auditory sensations originated somewhere in brain, not in the ear. That changed the whole research approach.”

Salvi and colleagues discovered that when the brain’s auditory cortex begins receiving diminished neural signals from the cochlea, the hearing organ, due to injury or age, the auditory cortex “turns up the volume,” increasing weak neural signals from the cochlea. Increasing the volume of these weak signals may be experienced as the buzzing, ringing, or hissing characteristic of tinnitus. Currently there is no drug or treatment that can abolish these phantom sounds.

Over the past decade, Salvi’s team has developed the animal models, allowing the researchers to explore the neurophysiological and biological mechanisms associated with tinnitus, the major focus of this new study. Ed Lobarinas, Ph.D., and Wei Sun, Ph.D., in the Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences, developed the models.

One of the major goals of the project is to try to identify the neural signature of tinnitus -- what aberrant pattern of neural activity in the auditory cortex is associated with the onset of tinnitus. In another study phase, the researchers will assess neural activity throughout the entire brain using a radioactive tracer, fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), which is taken up preferentially into regions of the brain that are highly active metabolically.

The third phase of the study involves the use of potential therapeutic drugs to suppress salicylate- or noise-induced tinnitus. In early studies, the researchers have been able to modulate some ion channels with one unique compound, and have been able to completely eliminate aspirin-induced tinnitus using the highest doses of the compound. This phase involves collaboration with scientists at NeuroSearch Pharmaceuticals in Denmark.

Source: University at Buffalo
 
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#10470 From: Ronald C Blue <ronblue2@...>
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 2:41 am
Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] Article: Scientists search for brain center responsible for tinnitus
paradox137
Send Email Send Email
 
Tinnitus is a resultant from wavelet anaylsis.  The brain has more nerve cells
going to the hearing system than there are nerve cells going from the hearing
system to the brain.

The hearing system is an opponent process or wavelet interference.  With hearing
lost the frequencies lost are heard as an opponent process because they were not
cancelled out and are a resultant from standard reference data sent from memory.

Ron Blue

#10471 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 10:53 am
Subject: Article: Brain Images Make Cognitive Research More Believable
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 

Brain Images Make Cognitive Research More Believable

Science Daily People are more likely to believe findings from a neuroscience study when the report is paired with a colored image of a brain as opposed to other representational images of data such as bar graphs, according to a new Colorado State University study.


People are more likely to believe findings from a neuroscience study when the report is paired with a colored image of a brain as opposed to other representational images of data such as bar graphs, according to a new Colorado State University study. (Credit: iStockphoto/Aaron Kondziela)

Persuasive influence on public perception

Scientists and journalists have recently suggested that brain images have a persuasive influence on the public perception of research on cognition. This idea was tested directly in a series of experiments reported by David McCabe, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Colorado State, and his colleague Alan Castel, an assistant professor at University of California-Los Angeles. The forthcoming paper, to be published in the journal Cognition, was recently published online.

"We found the use of brain images to represent the level of brain activity associated with cognitive processes clearly influenced ratings of scientific merit," McCabe said. "This sort of visual evidence of physical systems at work is typical in areas of science like chemistry and physics, but has not traditionally been associated with research on cognition.

"We think this is the reason people find brain images compelling. The images provide a physical basis for thinking."

Brain images compelling

In a series of three experiments, undergraduate students were either asked to read brief articles that made fictitious and unsubstantiated claims such as "watching television increases math skills," or they read a real article describing research showing that brain imaging can be used as a lie detector.

When the research participants were asked to rate their agreement with the conclusions reached in the article, ratings were higher when a brain image had accompanied the article, compared to when it did not include a brain image or included a bar graph representing the data.

This effect occurred regardless of whether the article described a fictitious, implausible finding or realistic research.

Conclusions often oversimplified and misrepresented

"Cognitive neuroscience studies which appear in mainstream media are often oversimplified and conclusions can be misrepresented," McCabe said. "We hope that our findings get people thinking more before making sensational claims based on brain imaging data, such as when they claim there is a 'God spot' in the brain."

Article: "Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments and scientific reasoning."

Source: Colorado State University
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071002151837.htm

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek


#10472 From: jamikes@...
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 12:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Article: Scientists search for brain center responsible for tinnitus
janosapu
Send Email Send Email
 
Ron:

Do you really mean that a "phenomenon" is the result of an analysis?
Don't do the analysis and you get no tinitus? Just joking.
*
Your explanatory image looks like a setup of a telephone-system of the early
20th c.: 1 wire go in, 1 wire attached and out to receiving.
Even as the 'late' 20th c. imaging (computer - AI) is more elaborate,  this is
still a childish presentation of the 'unknown' as only and by the 'known'.
I have tinitus and a partial loss of certain hearing frequencies, so as an
interested party I gave some thoughts to the topic.
I accept a view that tinitus is an 'overload'(?) of the audiocomplex -(since it
can be suspended while accepting louder sensations.)
The primitive, rather mechanical view of the audio is not likely:
just give it some thought how fast the differences have to be registered and
handled when listening e.g. to quarreling people, all identified in the
nanosec(?) variations of frequency AND amplitude combinations in concert. The
speed of such variability exceeds the functional physics of nerve-cell electrix.
Add to it the rest of the connectivity in 'meaning detection' and 'memory
addition (both recall and store) and it seems our interpretation of the 'audio'
is primitive, like the rest of the Newtonian clockwork universe.
I have similar doubts for the visual domain, more details recognised and
manipulated than a nerve-to-nerve physical connectivity may handle (include the
conscious part to it).
Even more deficient seems to be the organoleptic fable  of the sensor-molecular
hole-fitting and its electrical switching - by similar odor-sensations e.g. upon
quite different molecular shapes 'fitted'.
(Not even to mention our best friend, the doggy...)
I read somewhere a physicist's analysis why it is impossible to play base-ball:
the connectivity times of recognizing the thrown ball, and activating the muscle
movements are longer than the result: swinging the bat. Some do it...
Is there a chance that we don't know something?

John M



----- Original Message ----
From: Ronald C Blue <ronblue2@...>
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2007 10:41:29 PM
Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] Article: Scientists search for brain center
responsible for tinnitus


Tinnitus is a resultant from wavelet anaylsis.  The brain has more nerve cells
going to the hearing system than there are nerve cells going from the hearing
system to the brain.

The hearing system is an opponent process or wavelet interference.  With hearing
lost the frequencies lost are heard as an opponent process because they were not
cancelled out and are a resultant from standard reference data sent from memory.

Ron Blue



Yahoo! Groups Links

#10473 From: Mark Peaty <mpeaty@...>
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Article: Natural selections?
markpeaty
Send Email Send Email
 
Hello Dr d'
This became longer than I anticipated [so what's new :-].

You provoked me, not so much because I agree and disagree with
what you yourself have written, which is the case however, but
more that the issue is important philosophically.

Since the time of Darwin and the less well known
Russell-Wallace, the inherent simplicity and aptness of the
basic Darwinian thesis has become apparent to ever greater
numbers of people. Evolution through natural selection was and
still is one of those 'Ideas whose time has come'. I think it is
and always will be a pivotal insight concerning the natural world.

I also think that Richard Dawkins's interpretation of genetic
evolution in terms of the 'Selfish gene' is an extremely useful
complementary insight, as long as the concept of 'selfish' is
seen as a metaphor. There is after all no inherent necessity for
thinking that anything going on in the natural world is
_intended_ to happen, except if one of the creatures involved
has taken aim, so to speak. It is perfectly valid _and_
reasonable to see all that transpires as natural consequences of
the expansion of the universe wherein energy [or simply
'motion'] spreads to fill the space-time available.

The selfish gene idea allows us to understand how it comes about
that genes form partnerships: each sequence of DNA base pairs
that can affect the rest of the world enough to cause itself to
be replicated consistently and repeatedly through many
iterations [a simple definition of 'gene', good for many
purposes] can obviously make only a limited number of things
happen. A cohort of different genes, if all their products can
harmonise appropriately, has potentially far more options
available for dealing with challenges from the environment. In
so far as each particular manifestation of a gene is just one
instance of what may be a quite vast population of identical
items, the survival of each such particular instance is not as
'important', in populations survival terms, as is the survival
of sufficient numbers of instances to ensure replication over
the long term.

Furthermore, if there is enough conservation of ability to
achieve the necessary outcomes for maintaining viable
populations of partnerships [ie enough of the creatures are
breeding true and are spread over a
wide enough area], some variation amongst the individual
instances of particular genes is advantageous in the long
term, why? Because things change that's why. The world does not
stay the same but changes occur to habitats over geological time
scales if not faster. If the environment changes enough, and
environment for a gene means anything which is not actually the
gene itself, then the majority conserved form may cease to be
the best form.

This may seem just an aside but really I think it
is of the very essence. To put it starkly so all the
macho types can get the point: there is no gain in killing off
all your rivals if your descendants need others to breed with
who are NOT ONLY your descendants. Think about that for long
enough and you will realise that YOU - in the sense of each one
of us - NEED there to be plenty of con-specifics who are not
closely related. There is no point trying to argue about a
general case for the lack of utility for altruism. Just as with
economics and all the pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo about
'self-interest is all' [and competition is the source of all
righteousness], the fact is that each case must be looked at on
its own individual merits, because nobody knows the future, and
things which seem perfectly obvious now may look totally
different in hindsight.

This has always been the case, although obviously 'know the
future' applies only to the delusions of us humans. Survival for
every species has entailed versatility which has manifested as
diversity of genome. Those species not able to support
sufficient diversity died out.

The forgoing was only about genetic replication. Us humans are
not just genetically determined however. We are cultural beings
who come to adult competence  by means of copying the useful
behaviours of others. The mode of replication of patterns of
behaviour is very different from the chemistry and physiology of
genetic replication. There are significant similarities however:
amongst the members of a cultural community words, for example,
must be reproduced accurately for communication to occur. It is
of the essence in linguistic communication that there must be a
core vocabulary which everybody shares and also a core set of
syntax patterns. These can all change over time but NOT all at
once! I believe this is true also of the other types of
construct which, taken together, constitute the culture of the
community. As with genetic replication and evolution, diversity
in culture [memetic variation] is also absolutely necessary, and
once again because nobody knows the future, tolerance of
'exotic' and/or radical ideas and behaviours is an absolute
necessity, so long as those behaviours are not obviously harmful.

Furthermore, there are various reasons why cooperation with
strangers and acting on the basis of fairness rather than short
term self-interest are much more beneficial for the
protagonists. Perhaps the simplest formulation of how to do this
is the 'Tit for Tat' strategy, which involves letting people
know that the first time you interact with a new protagonist,
you will try to act towards that person in the way that you
yourself would wish to be treated. Each time thereafter you will
treat that person in the same way they treated you on the
previous interaction. Tit for tat in this form is easy to
remember,  and to the extent that it can be tested through
simulations it gives results at least as good as any other
strategy. It thus turns out to be that *kindness* is neither a
sign nor a source of weakness. Therefore it is perfectly
reasonable to ask of a bully or a doctrinaire 'free-marketeer':
"If you are so smart as you think you are, how come you are not
kind?


Regards

Mark Peaty  CDES

mpeaty@...

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/





Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq. wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
> quoted David Barash thus: "....Insofar as consciousness means not just
> awareness, but awareness of awareness, then maybe its evolutionary
> explanation derives from what we might call the "Robert Burns
> phenomenon," namely the payoff of being able to "see ourselves as others
> see us." And why might that be adaptive?...."
>
>      Can David expand on the evolutionary aspect of altruism other than
> its classical connection with the preservation of the group beneficiary
> (as opposed to the sacrificed individual)? I have always argued (and
> published) that self-consciousness is a strategy for biological, psychic
> and social survival of the human species; all of which can be arguably
> reduced to an inherited biological imperative geared to guarantee the
> biological and reproductive integrity of the species.. BUT, altruism is
> an act 'contra natura' in that it violates the genetic default machinery
> of self-preservation in favor of ...... the social group? In my BPS
> model altruism is the best example of how 'free will' act overcomes the
> biological self-preservation default leaving out an explanation of the
> 'why' the sacrificial act which IMHO goes beyond the species protection,
> as argued. Evolution has not yet explained life and/or
> self-consciousness. The organization of life as a
> negentropic, self-perpetuating system defying all natural laws is
> self-evident historical fact that transcends the relative simplicity of
> blind random processes like evolution as experimentally tested in the
> mathematical statistical conclusions from Intelligent Design. Hope this
> does not revive the old prejudices..... unless there is new
> light....

> Dr.d
>

   <<snip>>

>>  [Published 5th October 2007 04:31 PM GMT]
>>
>>  Tycho Brahe, renowned 16th century astronomer, had a problem. He made
> some of the earliest accurate measurements of planetary movement, and
> was deeply committed to the primacy of science and empirical data. So
> far, so good. But Brahe was also committed to the primacy of the Earth,
> partly out of religious conviction and partly because - well, just
> because. So what was he to do when his measurements kept showing the
> same unwelcome results: the five known planets of his day - Mercury,
> Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn - all revolved around the sun!
>>
>>  So Brahe came up with a brilliant solution: He devised an astronomic
> system whereby those five planets indeed circled the sun, but the whole
> shebang (sun + planets) obediently revolved around the Earth. Ta Daa!
> Problem solved (sort of).
>>
>>  Brahe's blunder speaks to a tendency that persists in the minds of
> many: Give ground in response to undeniable facts, but if those facts
> conflict with your more cherished beliefs, hold fast to the latter. For
> a 21st century example, consider that essentially every scientifically
> literate (non-Bible-beating) person accepts the basic truths of
> evolution by natural selection, when applied to, say, the evolution of
> antibiotic resistance, the reality of dinosaurs, even the animal
> ancestry of our own species. But even among these enlightened folks,
> relatively few have been willing to explore the often-discomfiting
> realizations that come from following the insights offered by evolution.
> In other words, Brahe-ism still lives.
>>
>>  For example:
>>
>>  Suddenly, the neurobiology of consciousness is "in." But even as this
> new field has begun to rival genomics and stem cell research, hardly
> anyone has looked at consciousness as the evolutionary conundrum that it
> is. Thus, aside from the "how" of neurobiology, what about the "why"?
> What's the adaptive significance of consciousness? Think of the
> metabolic costs of a conscious brain, as well as its vulnerability, and
> even the behavioral downsides of excessive "self-consciousness."
>>
>>  Here's a possibility: Insofar as consciousness means not just
> awareness, but awareness of awareness, then maybe its evolutionary
> explanation derives from what we might call the "Robert Burns
> phenomenon," namely the payoff of being able to "see ourselves as others
> see us." And why might that be adaptive? Perhaps because it enables us
> to engage in a kind of Machiavellian sociality, adjusting our behavior
> so as to appear better, nicer, more worthwhile than we really are! In
> short, what if the evolutionary basis of one of our most cherished
> traits is, in fact, dishonesty and deception?
>>
>>  Then there is the matter of "seeing" and "believing." The cliché goes
> "seeing is believing," but in fact, much of science in general and
> biology in particular works the other way around: Believing is seeing.
> To a remarkable degree, we see things only after we can explain them, as
> a result of which we expect to find these things; then, sure enough, we
> do! For example, contrary to what evolutionary biologists often claim -
> that altruism was long considered a major puzzle, until W. D. Hamilton
> pretty much solved it with inclusive fitness theory - the reality is
> that it is only after Hamilton's insights became common currency that we
> began observing altruism in nature - and then, of course, explaining it!
>>
>>  Not only is there no tiny homunculus residing inside the human brain,
> pulling the levers of consciousness and free will, but there are lots of
> pathogens inducing us to behave in ways that help them. Many of the most
> important insights of evolutionary psychologists point unavoidably to
> the conclusion that it's not "us" but our genes that often call the
> shots, even (maybe especially) when it comes to some of our more
> admirable actions, such as altruism.
>>
>>  Even as biology has begun to unravel the wellsprings of
> self-sacrificial, other-beneficial behavior, how many of us are willing
> to consider that just as beneficence toward kin (nepotism) is "natural,"
> so, too, might be hatred and intolerance toward non-kin? Thus, some of
> our worst traits, such as racism, may be an unfortunate legacy of
> evolution.
>>
>>  Tycho Brahe, were he alive today, would probably find a way out of
> confronting these and other dilemmas. But if so, he'd miss out on a
> heckuvalot of fun.
>>
>>  David P. Barash
>>  mail@...
>>
>>  David P. Barash is the author of Natural Selections: Selfish
> altruists, honest liars, and other realities of evolution, published
> this month by Bellevue Literary Press. He is a professor of psychology
> at the University of Washington in Seattle.
>>
>>  Image: courtesy of Bellevue Literary Press. Jacket design: Nicky
> Lindeman.
>>
>>
>>  Links within this article:
>>
>>  C. Koch, "The inchoate science of consciousness," The Scientist,
> September 12, 2005.
>>  http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15704/
>>
>>  C. Holding, "Kin selection in bacteria," The Scientist, August 26, 2004.
>>  http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22365/
>>
>>  S. Blackman, "Spite: Evolution finally gets nasty," The Scientist,
> December 20, 2004.
>>  http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15154/
>>
>>  David Barash
>>  http://faculty.washington.edu/dpbarash/
>>
>>  Natural Selections: Selfish altruists, honest liars, and other
> realities of evolution
>>  http://tinyurl.com/2c748w
>>
>>
>>  Source: TheScientist
>>  http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53682/
>>
>>  Posted by
>>  Robert Karl Stonjek
>>
>

#10474 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:17 am
Subject: Article: Memory shuts down as you doze off
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 

Published online 8 October 2007 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2007.151

Memory shuts down as you doze off

Sleepy people may have a harder time comprehending speech.

Next time you whisper sweet nothings to the object of your affections as they peacefully doze off, don't be surprised if they can't remember a word of it the next morning. Neuroscientists have shown that the brain's pathways for deciphering speech, and forming memories of it, switch off as anaesthetized patients begin to nod off. They suspect the same holds true for normal, non-drug-induced sleep.

boy falling asleep
He may not remember a thing you say...Getty

Researchers led by Matt Davis of the Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit in Cambridge, UK, studied 12 volunteers under the influence of varying amounts of an anaesthetic called propofol, which induced varying levels of drowsiness. They played them recordings of speech or other sounds, and monitored their brains using a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging.

The volunteers' brains were more active in response to speech than to generic noise, suggesting that they still recognised spoken words. But the part of the brain involved with the more subtle job of untangling words that can have alternative meanings depending on context or spelling (such as 'bark', or 'pear/pair') showed no activity in the drowsiest volunteers. Neither did the part involved with forming memories of speech.

This suggests that the brain simply shuts down higher-level aspects of speech recognition as sleep starts to set in, making it hard to remember or understand what was said in the moments before sleep. The results appear in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1.

The results also show that speech comprehension can suffer even when only lightly sedated, or when slightly sleepy, says anaesthetist David Menon of the University of Cambridge, who also worked on the study. This, he adds, would explain why "when you're falling asleep when your wife is telling you something, sometimes you don't remember it".

brains
Brain activity when listening to language (left) and ambiguous words (right), when awake (top) or sleepy (bottom).MRC

Asleep or awake

Menon and his colleagues hope that this type of work might one day help them to discover more about the degree of awareness experienced by patients in operating theatres.

Data on how many people are aware of, or have memories of, their operations, are sketchy. But the overall figure is estimated at as much as 0.2% of patients. That incidence may be even higher in certain procedures in which anaesthetists err on the side of caution and administer less anaesthetic, such as caesarian sections, heart surgeries and operations on elderly people.

So researchers are keen for improved methods for gauging the level of awareness among people under anaesthetic. "We don't want to overdose but we want to provide a measure of how much is 'enough' anaesthetic," Menon says.

Mind readers

Menon admits that it is difficult to know, simply by scanning the brain, exactly what the patient is experiencing. But he hopes that more studies of lightly sedated healthy volunteers will yield accurate descriptions of their cognitive experience to go with their brain readings. "This has to be seen as a first step, where we try and calibrate brain responses," Menon says.

He notes that because memory seems to be impaired before other functions relating to awareness, patients may be aware of their operations but have no explicit memories of them afterwards. This could potentially lead to post-traumatic stress disorder or a worse recovery without the patient knowing why or being able to tell doctors what had happened. "They might be aware of ongoing events but we'd never know about it," Menon says.

Another area in which such work could be useful is in measuring the cognitive experience of people in vegetative or minimally conscious states. Although these conditions feature little or no outward signs of consciousness, previous research has shown that patients can potentially achieve remarkable feats, such as mentally walking around a house or even imagining themselves playing tennis (see Thoughts of woman in 'waking coma' revealed)

  • References

    1. DavisM. H., et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sc
 
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#10475 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:32 am
Subject: Article: Small is beautiful - Incredible shrinking memory drives new IT
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 
Small is beautiful: Incredible shrinking memory drives new IT

German co-laureate for the 2007 Nobel prize for Physics Peter Gruenberg holds a hard disk as he poses in his laboratory. Over the past decade hard drives have shrunk to the size of postage stamps while their storage capacity has improved fifty-fold a ...
German co-laureate for the 2007 Nobel prize for Physics Peter Gruenberg holds a hard disk as he poses in his laboratory. Over the past decade, hard drives have shrunk to the size of postage stamps while their storage capacity has improved fifty-fold, a feat that can be traced to two men who won the 2007 Nobel Prize for Physics on Tuesday.

Over the past decade, hard drives have shrunk to the size of postage stamps while their storage capacity has improved fifty-fold, a feat that can be traced to two men who won the 2007 Nobel Prize for Physics on Tuesday.

From MP3 players to cameras to laptops, most of the gadgets that store the digital threads from which our daily lives are increasingly woven owe their enhanced power to this hard-disk breakthrough.

"It has revolutionized everything from iPods to mobile phones," said Matin Durrani, editor of Physics World, a journal published by Britain's Institute of Physics.

Along with people in the trillion-dollar hard-drive industry, Durrani was delighted that the physics Nobel -- usually given for highly theoretical work with scant practical application -- recognized research that had tangibly changed lives.

"It shows that physics has a real relevance not just to understanding natural phenomena but to real products in everyday life," he said.

Albert Fert of France and Peter Gruenberg of Germany have been lauded for discovering the principle, called giant magnetoresistance (GMR), that led to this breakthrough.

Working at the atomic scale of nanotechnology, they independently discovered in 1988 that tiny changes in magnetic fields can yield a large electric output, something physicists at the time did not think possible.

These differences in turn cause changes in the current in the readout head which scans a hard disk to spot the ones and zeroes in which the data is stored.

"The real payoff is being able to use smaller and smaller magnetic domains. This translated directly into greater density of data," said Phil Schewe of the American Institute of Physics.

In a quarter-century, a computer of comparable computing power shrank from the size of a large room, to a fridge and then a laptop, he said.

"And now you can fit more than a trillion bits of data onto a tiny handheld device, such as an iPod or an Blackberry," Schewe said.

The information revolution has long obeyed "Moore's Law," which says advances in the miniaturization of electronic circuitry enable silicon chips to double in power roughly every 18 months.

In the mid-1990s, though, it looked as if that blistering pace of evolution would be braked by the limitations of hard-disk technology.

Hard disks could not store enough data relative to their size and the induction coil, used for extracting the data, was a bad choke point.

Fert and Gruenberg were able to prove that their concept of packing more information into less space worked. But they could not find a way to ramp up to industrial-scale production.

That breakthrough came from the laboratory of Stuart Parkin, an experimental physicist at IBM who applied something called "sputtering" techniques to create GMR structures, which are thin magnetic layers separated by non-magnetic metals.

IBM introduced the new technology in its disk-drive products in 1997 and was quickly followed by the rest of the industry.

Technology based on GMR "may be regarded as the first step in developing a completely new type of electronics, dubbed 'spintronics'," the Nobel jury said in announcing the award.

Unlike traditional electronics, spintronics uses not only an electrical charge but the spin of electrons in individual atoms.

This quantum mechanical effect, the jury predicts, will be the basis of a new kind of computer memory -- MRAM, or magnetic working memory -- that will be as fast as today's temporary memory but will be permanent at the same time.

"People keep saying there are limits to how small we can make things," said Schewe. "But clever physicists keep finding ways to cheat Moore's Law and cram more information in."

© 2007 AFP
 
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#10476 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:58 am
Subject: Article: Body-mind meditation boosts performance, reduces stress
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 
Body-mind meditation boosts performance, reduces stress

A team of researchers from China and the University of Oregon have developed an approach for neuroscientists to study how meditation might provide improvements in a person's attention and response to stress.

The study, done in China, randomly assigned college undergraduate students to 40-person experimental or control groups. The experimental group received five days of meditation training using a technique called the integrative body-mind training (IBMT). The control group got five days of relaxation training. Before and after training both groups took tests involving attention and reaction to mental stress. The findings appear online this week ahead of publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The experimental group showed greater improvement than the control in an attention test designed to measure the subjects' abilities to resolve conflict among stimuli. Stress was induced by mental arithmetic. Both groups initially showed elevated release of the stress hormone cortisol following the math task, but after training the experimental group showed less cortisol release, indicating a greater improvement stress regulation. The experimental group also showed lower levels of anxiety, depression, anger and fatigue than was the case in the control group.

"This study improves the prospect for examining brain mechanisms involved in the changes in attention and self-regulation that occur following meditation training," said co-author Michael I. Posner, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Oregon. "The study took only five days, so it was possible to randomly assign the subjects and do a thorough before-and-after analysis of the training effects."

The IBMT approach was developed in the 1990s. Its effects have been studied in China since 1995. The technique avoids struggles to control thought, relying instead on a state of restful alertness, allowing for a high degree of body-mind awareness while receiving instructions from a coach, who provides breath-adjustment guidance and mental imagery while soothing music plays in the background. Thought control is achieved gradually through posture, relaxation, body-mind harmony and balanced breathing. The authors noted in the study that IBMT may be effective during short-term application because of its integrative use of these components.

IBMT has been found to improve emotional and cognitive performance, as well as social behavior, in people, said lead author Yi-Yuan Tang, a professor in the Institute of Neuroinformatics and Laboratory for Body and Mind at Dalian University of Technology in Dalian, China. Tang currently is a visiting scholar at the University of Oregon, where he is working with Posner on a new and larger study to be conducted in the United States.

The current study did not include direct measures of brain changes, although previous studies have suggested alterations have occurred in brain networks. Posner said the planned studies in the United States will include functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine any brain network changes induced by training.

In summary, the 11-member team wrote: "IBMT is an easy, effective way for improvement in self-regulation in cognition, emotion and social behavior. Our study is consistent with the idea that attention, affective processes and the quality of moment-to-moment awareness are flexible skills that can be trained."

At this point, the findings suggest a measurable benefit that people could achieve through body-mind meditation, especially involving an effective training regimen, but larger studies are needed to fully test the findings of this small, short-term study, Posner said.

The project was supported by the grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Ministry of Education of China and the UO's Brain, Biology and Machine Initiative.

Co-authors with Tang and Posner were: Yinghua Ma, Junhong Wang, Yaxin Fan, Shigang Feng, Qilin Lu, Qingbao Yu and Danni Sui, all of the Institute of Neuroinformatics and Laboratory for Body and Mind at Dalian University of Technology, Ming Fan of the Institute of Basic Medical Sciences in Beijing, and Mary K. Rothbart, professor emerita of psychology at the University of Oregon. Tang also is affiliated with the Key Laboratory for Mental Health and Center for Social & Organizational Behavior, both located in the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing.

Source: University of Oregon
 
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#10477 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:56 am
Subject: Paper: Genetic Dissection of Behavioural and Autonomic Effects of Tetrahydrocannabinol in Mice
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 

Genetic Dissection of Behavioural and Autonomic Effects of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol in Mice

Krisztina Monory1,2, Heike Blaudzun2, Federico Massa1,2, Nadine Kaiser1, Thomas Lemberger3, Günther Schütz3, Carsten T. Wotjak2, Beat Lutz1,2*, Giovanni Marsicano1,4*

1 Department of Physiological Chemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany, 2 Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Munich, Germany, 3 Department of Molecular Biology of the Cell I, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany, 4 U862 Institute F. Magendie, University Bordeaux 2, INSERM, Avenir Group 4, Bordeaux, France

Marijuana and its main psychotropic ingredient Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) exert a plethora of psychoactive effects through the activation of the neuronal cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1), which is expressed by different neuronal subpopulations in the central nervous system. The exact neuroanatomical substrates underlying each effect of THC are, however, not known. We tested locomotor, hypothermic, analgesic, and cataleptic effects of THC in conditional knockout mouse lines, which lack the expression of CB1 in different neuronal subpopulations, including principal brain neurons, GABAergic neurons (those that release γ aminobutyric acid), cortical glutamatergic neurons, and neurons expressing the dopamine receptor D1, respectively. Surprisingly, mice lacking CB1 in GABAergic neurons responded to THC similarly as wild-type littermates did, whereas deletion of the receptor in all principal neurons abolished or strongly reduced the behavioural and autonomic responses to the drug. Moreover, locomotor and hypothermic effects of THC depend on cortical glutamatergic neurons, whereas the deletion of CB1 from the majority of striatal neurons and a subpopulation of cortical glutamatergic neurons blocked the cataleptic effect of the drug. These data show that several important pharmacological actions of THC do not depend on functional expression of CB1 on GABAergic interneurons, but on other neuronal populations, and pave the way to a refined interpretation of the pharmacological effects of cannabinoids on neuronal functions.

Source: PLoS Biology [Open Access]
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050269

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek


#10478 From: "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...>
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:51 am
Subject: Article: Putting a Lid on Bad Memories -The Mechanics of Memory Suppression
r_karl_s
Send Email Send Email
 

Taking the Bad Out of Bad Memories

_____


Introduction

by David Dobbs

Editor, Mind Matters

Bad memories can seem to have their own power, as if they are independent agents infecting our thoughts and moods. Yet memories are creations of mind and brain, and the organ that makes them can also temper their power. A new study, reviewed here by Daniel Weissman and Clare Porter of the University of Michigan, sheds light on how we accomplish this vital and welcome feat.

_____


Putting a Lid on Bad Memories:The Mechanics of Memory Suppression


by Clare Porter & Daniel Weissman

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Memories provide us a personal history and a sense of identity. There are times, however, when we'd like to forget a social blunder or other embarrassing incident -- or in some cases, a memory so traumatic that it is painful to recall. Soldiers who have experienced horrific events may suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), emotional distress stemming from an inability to stop recalling traumatic events. Our comfort, and sometimes our mental health, can depend on suppressing such memories. How do our brains manage this task?

The Past in Many Parts

An emotional memory has many components. For example, the memory of a car accident might be associated with the sound of tires squealing, the sight of two cars colliding, the smell of gasoline, and feelings of fear and panic that build as the accident unfolds. One might imagine that suppressing such a memory would require suppressing each of the individual components.

Brendan Depue, Tim Curran and Marie Banich, all of the University of Colorado, explored this hypothesis in their study entitled "Prefrontal Regions Orchestrate Suppression of Emotional Memories via a Two-Phase Process." Human participants were trained to associate each of several female faces with a distinct photograph of an emotionally distressing event (such as a car crash). Later, they were shown each of the faces in turn and asked either to think or to not think about the associated photograph. While participants were performing this task, the authors used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure their brain activity. (Functional MRI reveals where blood flows in the brain when a stimulus is presented, thereby indirectly indicating which regions become active). After the fMRI scan was completed, participants were given a memory test in which they were shown each face and asked to describe the photograph it had been paired with.

Block That Memory

The results suggested that participants did indeed suppress the face-photograph pairings that they were told not to think about during the fMRI scan. Specifically, when they were tested later, the participants remembered these pairings least accurately. They remembered with intermediate accuracy pairings they had been trained to associate but that were not shown during the fMRI scan. And they remembered most accurately pairings they had been asked to think about in the scanner. Consciously trying not to think about the association between a face and a photograph, then, seemed to weaken the association.

With those behavioral indications of memory suppression in hand, the researchers examined the fMRI data to determine which parts of the brain were involved in squelching the associations.

The fMRI data showed that a number of brain regions participate in suppressing emotional memories. First, there was increased activity in multiple regions of the frontal lobes. The frontal lobes are thought to underlie higher cognitive abilities --like attention, memory and inhibition -- that require coordination with other brain regions to be carried out. One of the activated frontal regions, the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, is thought to control the retrieval of information from memory. A second, the right inferior frontal gyrus, seems to play an important role in inhibition. A third, the frontopolar cortex, is relatively unexplored but may help to coordinate the activity of other brain regions. These findings appear to extend the established role of frontal lobe structures in higher cognitive abilities to suppressing emotional memories.

The researchers also found that suppressing emotional memories reduces activity in brain regions that process sensory information (the thalamus and the visual cortex) and emotional/memory information (the amygdala and the hippocampus). This reduction in activity was measured relative to activity when subjects fixated on a dot in the middle of a blank screen -- an important baseline not included in previous studies. These results agree nicely with the conceptual picture of active suppression: when we are told to inhibit a memory, our brains shut down emotional and sensory processing that relates to the memory.

A Timing Thing

Given that frontal regions frequently coordinate other brain regions to accomplish a goal, frontal regions activated during memory suppression might be inhibiting activity in emotional and sensory regions in order to suppress these distinct components of emotional memories. How might one measure such an inhibitory effect?

When brain regions communicate, their activity becomes correlated. Thus if one region is working to curb another, then whenever the first region's activity increases, the second's should decrease. Consistent with such inhibition, the authors found that greater activity in the right inferior frontal gyrus was associated with reduced activity in the visual cortex and the thalamus, which process sensory information. Furthermore, greater activity in the right middle frontal gyrus was associated with reduced activity in the hippocampus and the amygdala, which underlie memory and emotion. Finally, these restricting effects occurred earlier in the sensory regions than in the emotional/memory regions, suggesting that emotional memories are suppressed via a two-phase process -- first the relevant sensory information, then the emotional reaction to it.

How is the timing of these two phases controlled? The authors found evidence to suggest that the frontopolar cortex boosted activity in the right inferior frontal gyrus just before the right inferior frontal gyrus suppressed activity in sensory regions. Slightly later, the frontopolar cortex boosted activity in the right middle frontal gyrus just before the right middle frontal gyrus suppressed activity in emotional/memory regions. Thus, the frontopolar cortex appears to control the order in which different components of emotional memories are suppressed.

This study by Depue and colleagues raises several fascinating questions. First, might the sequence in which different components of emotional memories are suppressed change in various clinical disorders? For example, might patients with post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) suppress the emotional aspects of traumatic memories earlier than healthy participants because their memories are so disturbing? Would treatment for PTSD be more effective before or after the emotional aspects of traumatic memories are suppressed?

And how much specialization is there? Given that distinct subregions of the sensory cortex process different types of sensory information, can we suppress some sensory components of an emotional memory more easily than others -- visions or sound, for instance, more easily than odor? Finally, since different brain regions process emotional as opposed to nonemotional information, are different brain mechanisms involved in suppressing emotional versus nonemotional memories? The questions framed by this study open the way to a much more nuanced picture of how we contain and temper the power of the past.

Clare Porter is an undergraduate and Daniel Weissman an assistant professor in the psychology department at the University of Michigan, where Weissman heads the Attention and Cognitive Control Lab.

Source: Scientific American
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=squelching_the_dark_past_the_mechanics_o&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&sc=WR_20071009

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek


Messages 10449 - 10478 of 47358   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help