New stuff in neuroscience

Brian_the_bard

Lost Pilgrim
Member
I hope to never hear again k9 say read the literature and to hear the names of Sheldrake, Parnia, Eben Alexander, Radin. When your side stops referring to these experts I'll stop trusting the scientific consensus.
Scientific breakthroughs are made not by consensus, which only stagnates, but by those who are willing to think outside the box a little.
 
New Study Suggests Our Understanding of Brain Cells Is Flawed, and Here's Why

http://www.sciencealert.com/new-stu...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

"A fundamental belief in neuroscience has been that neurons are digital devices. They either generate a spike or not. These results show that the dendrites do not behave purely like a digital device," said Mehta.

"Dendrites do generate digital, all-or-none spikes, but they also show large analogue fluctuations that are not all or none. This is a major departure from what neuroscientists have believed for about 60 years."

So how much more processing power do we suddenly have in our brains?

Mehta explains that because dendrites are nearly 100 times larger in volume than somas, the large number of dendritic spikes means we could have over 100 times the processing capacity than we thought.

And, they haven't even gotten to micro-tubules yet ;-)
 
Last edited:

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
Scientific breakthroughs are made not by consensus, which only stagnates, but by those who are willing to think outside the box a little.
That may sound nice to a lot of people on this forum, but i doubt it is that simple.

Breakthroughs are usually made when the field is "ripe" for them. The information to make a scientific discovery, slowly accumulates within the "box" of the relevant field.
Although a genius scientist may be able to put the pieces together earlier than anybody else, i still think that most important discoveries were unavoidable, considering the way the field was progressing.

Besides that, once certain research has passed scientific mustard, it becomes part of the consensus, that is inherent to the scientific method.
 
That may sound nice to a lot of people on this forum, but i doubt it is that simple.

Breakthroughs are usually made when the field is "ripe" for them. The information to make a scientific discovery, slowly accumulates within the "box" of the relevant field.
Although a genius scientist may be able to put the pieces together earlier than anybody else, i still think that most important discoveries were unavoidable, considering the way the field was progressing.
As part of my physics undergrad I had to take a History of Physics course, where I was asked to write a paper on whether Physics happens by revolution OR evolution. I spent many pages arguing it was both, as you seem to be here. I received: "Excellent Paper!! But, B+, since you did not take a stance on one side, or the other" Still pisses me off, lol.
 

Brian_the_bard

Lost Pilgrim
Member
That may sound nice to a lot of people on this forum, but i doubt it is that simple.

Breakthroughs are usually made when the field is "ripe" for them. The information to make a scientific discovery, slowly accumulates within the "box" of the relevant field.
Although a genius scientist may be able to put the pieces together earlier than anybody else, i still think that most important discoveries were unavoidable, considering the way the field was progressing.

Besides that, once certain research has passed scientific mustard, it becomes part of the consensus, that is inherent to the scientific method.
Do you know of any good links I can read on this? When I google anything on science I am aware that there are junk pages around so I need help finding good science websites. Especially sites related to the study of perception disorders and conditions.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

Do you know of any good links I can read on this? When I google anything on science I am aware that there are junk pages around so I need help finding good science websites. Especially sites related to the study of perception disorders and conditions.
Here's a thread to get a sense of where the practice of science is at right now.

I think we can trust longstanding tech/medicine, but a lot of bold claims that don't have applications and never got thoroughly tested may be suspect.
 
Scientific breakthroughs are made not by consensus, which only stagnates, but by those who are willing to think outside the box a little.
I think you misunderstand how I'm using the word"consensus". In my usage of the word "consensus" is based upon scientific facts which leads to a consensus of learned opinion. It's not a poll or a popular vote.

I believe you are making another error. You appear to be lumping all scientists as being one and the same when in actuality there are two types, one type does pure science, the other applied science.
 

Brian_the_bard

Lost Pilgrim
Member
I think you misunderstand how I'm using the word"consensus". In my usage of the word "consensus" is based upon scientific facts which leads to a consensus of learned opinion.
The history of science and knowledge in general shows that the majority are often wrong so why is a consensus of learned opinion any superior to the learned opinion of other scientists? It strikes me that consesus is nothing more than the shared bias of the average.
 
The history of science and knowledge in general shows that the majority are often wrong so why is a consensus of learned opinion any superior to the learned opinion of other scientists? It strikes me that consesus is nothing more than the shared bias of the average.
It all depends on how robust the alternative scientists evidence is. If it becomes more robust then it becomes the learned opinion of scientists once again.
Which majority?
 
Brain is 10 times more active than previously measured, researchers find
A new UCLA study could change scientists' understanding of how the brain works—and could lead to new approaches for treating neurological disorders and for developing computers that "think" more like humans.


The research focused on the structure and function of dendrites, which are components of neurons, the nerve cells in the brain. Neurons are large, tree-like structures made up of a body, the soma, with numerous branches called dendrites extending outward. Somas generate brief electrical pulses called "spikes" in order to connect and communicate with each other. Scientists had generally believed that the somatic spikes activate the dendrites, which passively send currents to other neurons' somas, but this had never been directly tested before. This process is the basis for how memories are formed and stored.

Scientists have believed that this was dendrites' primary role.

But the UCLA team discovered that dendrites are not just passive conduits. Their research showed that dendrites are electrically active in animals that are moving around freely, generating nearly 10 times more spikes than somas. The finding challenges the long-held belief that spikes in the soma are the primary way in which perception, learning and memory formation occur.



Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-03-brain-previously.html#jCp
 
Astrocytes found to keep time for brain, behavior
Until recently, work on biological clocks that dictate daily fluctuations in most body functions, including core body temperature and alertness, focused on neurons, those electrically excitable cells that are the divas of the central nervous system.


Asked to define the body's master clock, biologists would say it is two small spheres—the suprachiasmatic nuclei, or SCN—in the brain that consist of 20,000 neurons. They likely wouldn't even mention the 6,000 astroglia mixed in with the neurons, said Erik Herzog, a neuroscientist in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. In a March 23 advance online publication from Current Biology, Herzog and his collaborators show that the astroglia help to set the pace of the SCN to schedule a mouse's day.

The astroglia, or astrocytes, were passed over in silence partly because they weren't considered to be important. Often called "support cells," they were supposed to be gap fillers or place holders. Their Latin name, after all, means "starry glue."

Then two things happened. Scientists discovered that almost all the cells in the body keep time, with few exceptions like stem cells. And they also began to realize that the astrocytes do a lot more than they had thought. Among other things, they secrete and slurp neurotransmitters and help neurons to form strengthened synapses to consolidate what we've learned. In fact, scientists began to speak of the tripartite synapse, emphasizing the role of astrocyte in communication between two neurons.



Read more at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-03-astrocytes-brain-behavior.html#jCp
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

The Genius of Pinheads: When Little Brains Rule

'Bigger brains are not always better'

For generations scientists have wondered how intelligent creatures developed large brains to perform complicated tasks. But Wcislo is part of a small community of scientists less interested in how brains have grown than how they have shrunk and yet shockingly still perform tasks as well or better than similar species that are much larger in size. In other words, it’s what scientists call brain miniaturization, not unlike the scaling down in size of the transistors in a computer chip. This research, in fact, may hold clues to innovative design strategies that engineers might incorporate in future generations of computers.
Older article in the same vein:

Fact or Fiction: When It Comes to Intelligence, Does Brain Size Matter?
 
I think you misunderstand how I'm using the word"consensus". In my usage of the word "consensus" is based upon scientific facts which leads to a consensus of learned opinion. It's not a poll or a popular vote.

I believe you are making another error. You appear to be lumping all scientists as being one and the same when in actuality there are two types, one type does pure science, the other applied science.
In the 19th century there was absolutely zero evidence for anything quantum, or anything for relativity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck

The Munich physics professor Philipp von Jolly advised Planck against going into physics, saying, "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes."[9] Planck replied that he did not wish to discover new things, but only to understand the known fundamentals of the field, and so began his studies in 1874 at the University of Munich.
Max Born:
physics as we know it will be over in 6 month
Given the seemingly impossible problem of consciousness for materialism, and the various veridical perception in NDEs, i find it quite hilarious you are dismissing NDEs and its researchers like Parnia as crackpots. I guess even on a forum like this the arrogant dismissal from dogmatic materialists still persist. It's so rare to see a materialist actually discuss this topic without making snide remarks (hence my username, I was very warm at first but slowly got sick of materialists).
 
Top