Breakthrough in Alzheimer's

[Bonam]

You think so? You think researchers, who want to be the one to make a major breakthrough, who are in competition for grants, are willingly routinely sharing their research results on the internet with other researchers who are working on the same projects?

I really question that.

Most large science projects are collaborations between researchers from a variety of universities and labs. In such situations they routinely share information.

[August1991]

You think so? You think researchers, who want to be the one to make a major breakthrough, who are in competition for grants, are willingly routinely sharing their research results on the internet with other researchers who are working on the same projects?

AW, how do you think they exchange their views - by DHL?

From what they tell me, my university friends have been using the Internet since about 1985 to exchange data.

I really question that.

Wise approach, but in 2010 probably not germane.

----

As to your suggestion that scientific people compete for discoveries, AW, I can only respond: "You have no idea!" And thank Heavens.

Edited August 3, 2010 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

Most large science projects are collaborations between researchers from a variety of universities and labs. In such situations they routinely share information.

I'm not so sure about that. I think there are a lot of large companies/research organizations working independently of one another, all hoping to be the one to make a major breakthrough/find a cure. I don't think they are willing to give information to outsiders who might then beat them to the punch. All scientific research isn't altruistic with nothing but the best interest of others in mind.

You think if a research team gets a grant to find a cure for whatever for X pharmaceutical corp. they are going to be willing to share their findings with someone who got a grant from Y pharmaceutical corp., for example? Or do you think they are, perhaps, in competition with one another?

[Bonam]

I'm not so sure about that. I think there are a lot of large companies/research organizations working independently of one another, all hoping to be the one to make a major breakthrough/find a cure. I don't think they are willing to give information to outsiders who might then beat them to the punch. All scientific research isn't altruistic with nothing but the best interest of others in mind.

You think if a research team gets a grant to find a cure for whatever for X pharmaceutical corp. they are going to be willing to share their findings with someone who got a grant from Y pharmaceutical corp., for example? Or do you think they are, perhaps, in competition with one another?

Research conducted by corporations, and research conducted at universities, are two very different things. In this case, we are talking about universities. Scientists at universities very frequently work in collaboration with scientists from other universities. Intellectual property that arises from such collaborative research is usually shared in some way, or, in more formal arrangements, governed by a memorandum of understanding.

[Pliny]

My grandmother, who was my hero, was afficted as well. It's a heartbreaking condition, just terrible.

If it's any consolation, she strangely regained a lot of clarity in her last couple of days, which was wonderful.

I wonder how it is possible to regain any clarity when brain cells are not renewed or atrophied brain segments remain atrophied?

Bonam? Any answers?

[Bonam]

I wonder how it is possible to regain any clarity when brain cells are not renewed or atrophied brain segments remain atrophied?

Bonam? Any answers?

I am not aware of the neurological mechanisms that underlie the phenomenon of lucid moments during Alzheimer's.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Bonam

[bloodyminded]

I wonder how it is possible to regain any clarity when brain cells are not renewed or atrophied brain segments remain atrophied?

Bonam? Any answers?

A good question, one you were (perhaps intuitively) correct not to aim towards me.

My guess (and it is only that) is that her temporary renewed clarity was far from complete, and did not involve that which was...well, no longer there. This sounds obvious enough.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I wonder how it is possible to regain any clarity when brain cells are not renewed or atrophied brain segments remain atrophied?

Bonam? Any answers?

My totally random and not at all supported guess is maybe her brain re-wired itself through parts of her brain that still worked. Which would only work as long as those parts remained functional.

[Pliny]

My totally random and not at all supported guess is maybe her brain re-wired itself through parts of her brain that still worked. Which would only work as long as those parts remained functional.

You would think then, a brain rewiring being true - problem solved.

Unfortunately, another flaw with that hypothesis is that memories are supposed to be stored in the brain cells. Rewiring should not produce more clarity but suggests perhaps learning may be improved. It could be that the theory of memories being stored in brain cells is not valid?

[Guest TrueMetis]

You would think then, a brain rewiring being true - problem solved.

Unfortunately, another flaw with that hypothesis is that memories are supposed to be stored in the brain cells. Rewiring should not produce more clarity but suggests perhaps learning may be improved. It could be that the theory of memories being stored in brain cells is not valid?

I said unsupported.

[Pliny]

I am not aware of the neurological mechanisms that underlie the phenomenon of lucid moments during Alzheimer's.

Are you aware of the neurological mechanisms that underlie the phenomenon of lucid moments?

[Pliny]

I said unsupported.

OK, well - nice try.

[Bonam]

Are you aware of the neurological mechanisms that underlie the phenomenon of lucid moments?

You mean normal neural function, not in the context of Alzheimer's? I mean, I know a little bit about brain function but am by no means any kind of expert on the subject.

[Remiel]

My wild guess is that rather than the brain being rewired the resources may have been freed up to carry on with those operations. Depending on how much of a role the brain plays in the normal function of the body, if something is about to give, it may be the brain does not keep wasting computing power on it.

[Wild Bill]

You would think then, a brain rewiring being true - problem solved.

Unfortunately, another flaw with that hypothesis is that memories are supposed to be stored in the brain cells. Rewiring should not produce more clarity but suggests perhaps learning may be improved. It could be that the theory of memories being stored in brain cells is not valid?

Perhaps you missed my previous post, #10 in this thread.

[Pliny]

Perhaps you missed my previous post, #10 in this thread.

I didn't miss it Wild Bill. It is an interesting concept and much more plausible, in my view, than storing memories in the brain, which is my main objection. On pondering it, I could possibly see that copies of the physical universe (memories) are invoked by stimulating sensory perceptions with current stimuli or secondly, as a refreshing of past stimuli.

Much like a mirror that doesn't hold an image. It only reflects an image. Memories that are refreshed by the individual are done so, not by recalling the memory but by re-creating the stimulus that invokes the memory. So, in the case of an Alzheimer's patient perhaps we should look at why a particular stimulus is not approximating a past particular stimulus and invoking the memory resulting in making the connection between the past and present.

The problem could have more to do with perceptics and sensory channels than not being able to simply recall a memory stored in the brain.

Someone could write a book about that I guess.

[Pliny]

You mean normal neural function, not in the context of Alzheimer's? I mean, I know a little bit about brain function but am by no means any kind of expert on the subject.

Me neither. Just throwing things out there.

Science seems to be arriving at a consensus regarding the theory of brain function and it is an unfortunate circumstance that in Science a consensus appears to be enough to make a theory a fact.

[Wild Bill]

Me neither. Just throwing things out there.

Science seems to be arriving at a consensus regarding the theory of brain function and it is an unfortunate circumstance that in Science a consensus appears to be enough to make a theory a fact.

Tried to send you a PM but got a msg 'the member cannot use the msg function'.

Anyhow, here's a link you might find interesting:

http://twm.co.nz/pribram.htm

"MISHLOVE: You're very well known in psychology and in neuropsychology as the developer of the holographic or holonomic model of the brain. Can you talk about that a little bit, and how it relates to the mind -- or rather, to the mind-body process? I have to be on my toes with you today.

PRIBRAM: Yes. The holonomic brain theory is based on some insights that Dennis Gabor had. He was the inventor of the hologram, and he obtained the Nobel Prize for his many contributions. He was a mathematician, and what he was trying to do was develop a better way of making electron micrographs, improve the resolution of the micrographs. And so for electron microscopy he suggested that instead of making a photograph -- essentially, with electron microscopes we make photographs using electrons instead of photons. He thought maybe instead of making ordinary photographs, that what he would do is get the interference patterns. Now what is an interference pattern? When light strikes, or when electrons strike any object, they scatter. But the scatter is a funny kind of scatter. It's a very well regulated scatter. For instance, if you defocus the lens on a camera so that you don't get the image falling on the image plane and you have a blur, that blur essentially is a hologram, because all you have to do is refocus it. "

[Yesterday]

My Uncle suffers from this. It is truly a sad effect for such a strong man...I miss him already. A couple of years ago I was kind of looking into this and came across some interesting theories about semantic memory and its function in the recall of traumatic memories in post-traumatic syndrome. That perhaps beyond being simply storage for body function information that it can actually map memories. Whether or not those memories are actually stored in the semantic membrane or just mapped it had no answer. In terms of rewiring though, building new synapses...new neural pathways, it would be interesting to see if in this advent, how many would concentrate themselves to this membrane if other parts of the brain were indeed dysfunctioning.

[Pliny]

Tried to send you a PM but got a msg 'the member cannot use the msg function'.

Anyhow, here's a link you might find interesting:

http://twm.co.nz/pribram.htm

I fixed my PM options now.

Well thanks for the read on that.

Because the descriptions you get with spiritual experiences seem to parallel the descriptions of quantum physics.

It's a coming together of physics and psychology and neurology.

Soon God will be resurrected.

Can't wait until they get into string theory. I know a few people that seem to have strings attached..... Could be some truth there too!

In all seriousness, we may be making some headway in understanding ourselves. This may be the century we reach that goal.

Waldo can continue worrying about AGW while we head for the stars.

[Pliny]

My Uncle suffers from this. It is truly a sad effect for such a strong man...I miss him already. A couple of years ago I was kind of looking into this and came across some interesting theories about semantic memory and its function in the recall of traumatic memories in post-traumatic syndrome. That perhaps beyond being simply storage for body function information that it can actually map memories. Whether or not those memories are actually stored in the semantic membrane or just mapped it had no answer. In terms of rewiring though, building new synapses...new neural pathways, it would be interesting to see if in this advent, how many would concentrate themselves to this membrane if other parts of the brain were indeed dysfunctioning.

If we can build new brain cells perhaps we will be at long last able to answer the age old question of whether size matters.

[Bonam]

If we can build new brain cells perhaps we will be at long last able to answer the age old question of whether size matters.

I think we already have a good idea of just how "size matters" in regards to brain function. Brains of more intelligent species tend to have larger numbers of neurons, but more importantly, a greater level of interconnectedness. That is, each neuron is connected to more other neurons. Additionally, the whole structure can often be packed tighter, in more clever three dimensional geometries, reducing transmission time and thus increasing computation rates in the neural network. So making a brain bigger adds somewhat to its capabilities, but it is actually making it denser, more complex, and more interconnected, that seems to make the most dramatic differences.

For example, elephants have about 2x the number of neurons as humans (elephants have 200 billion, humans 100 billion). However, the mass of an elephant brain is ~6 kg, while the mass of a human brain is about 1.5 kg. While our brains are smaller and have a lesser number of neurons, they have about double the neuron density (elephant: 33 billion/kg, human: 67 billion/kg), leading to humans' greater intelligence.

This is obviously a very simplified argument, just using the above example for illustration of the concept.

[Wild Bill]

In all seriousness, we may be making some headway in understanding ourselves. This may be the century we reach that goal.

Waldo can continue worrying about AGW while we head for the stars.

Shouldn't we send him out first on the 'B' Ark?

[Yesterday]

I think we already have a good idea of just how "size matters" in regards to brain function. Brains of more intelligent species tend to have larger numbers of neurons, but more importantly, a greater level of interconnectedness. That is, each neuron is connected to more other neurons. Additionally, the whole structure can often be packed tighter, in more clever three dimensional geometries, reducing transmission time and thus increasing computation rates in the neural network. So making a brain bigger adds somewhat to its capabilities, but it is actually making it denser, more complex, and more interconnected, that seems to make the most dramatic differences.

For example, elephants have about 2x the number of neurons as humans (elephants have 200 billion, humans 100 billion). However, the mass of an elephant brain is ~6 kg, while the mass of a human brain is about 1.5 kg. While our brains are smaller and have a lesser number of neurons, they have about double the neuron density (elephant: 33 billion/kg, human: 67 billion/kg), leading to humans' greater intelligence.

This is obviously a very simplified argument, just using the above example for illustration of the concept.

Glory be to the pachyderm (spelling?) who shows us size is not the best measurement! TeeHee...

This is very interesting. I have a book called Bio-Mimicry by Janus Benus which is rather old now, 10-12 years anyway...which might as well be a century, but I really found the section on how we store information in the brain to be quite fascinating. It talks about quantum mechanics and the function of the electron that sits in the hydrophobic pocket of a micro-tublin. There was an earlier post that talked about someone being interested in the electron (photon versus electron for photography)in memory processes and also one I believe about how memory could be a separate layer of film, it got me thinking of this.

The one theory I have read about this suggests that thought consists of waves (picture football fans in a stadium doing the wave) that travel across micro-tublin. (loosely explained) These waves are propagated by reactions of the electron which causes different chemical releases-reactions across the brain. Each one of these waves could perhaps be an individual layer of film. The signature of the memory.

I did watch a very short expose once that showed promise in coma patients regarding the building of new neuro-pathways by attaching a machine to a finger that sends electrical pulse through the brain at regular intervals.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Yesterday

[waldo]

In all seriousness, we may be making some headway in understanding ourselves. This may be the century we reach that goal.

Waldo can continue worrying about AGW while we head for the stars.

yuk, yuk... Pliny, sorry - I've only been skimming this thread... your playing a MLW neurologist was certainly 'heady stuff'

and, of course, your star projections certainly belie your luddite self - but, uhhh... carry on!