Initial Evidence Brain is a Filter/Receiver?

#1
Bernardo just posted this up on his Facebook account.

Sounds like they're still working under the assumption it's all happening in the brain from what I take on it. At least it shows that perhaps it's possible to detect whether, or not, the brain really does function in this manner, regardless of where the source is. I've never heard of the University and who knows if it will hold up, though.

As far as what the brain is tuning into, this all sounds like standard EM (Electromagnetic) "signals" here (well, electrochemical anyhow). We really need something else (or at least in addition to this) to explain the psi evidence.

(However, most people aren't aware that EM does have two solutons for the potential - one propagating forward in time and one backwards in time. The latter has largely been ignored as it is regarded as an unphysical solution, but I can't help but compare it to TSQM, which does take backwards propagating influences seriously. That said, I personally don't think there is anything to this in the case of EM, but I think TSQM is compelling on several fronts, like recent evidence and its explanatory power.)

Initial evidence is found that the brain has a ‘tuning knob’ that is actually influencing behaviour. Brain circuits can tune into the frequency of other brain parts relevant at the time. The famous scientific magazine Neuron is publishing the results of researchers at Radboud University the Netherlands on January 22.
Meticulous analyses of the brain data revealed that when the mice used their memory the place field cells oscillated in the same frequency as the memory cells (at 35 Hz), but tuned into the vibe of the sensory cells when they appeared to be using landmarks (60 Hz).
Direct measurements in the brain of mice, looking for their way in a maze, show that memory information is sent with another frequency to the mental map than sensory information is. The brain area representing the mental map synchronizes with these frequencies like a radio receiver: it is only tuning into the information that is important at a given time, an international team of researchers led by Francesco Battaglia from the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour at Radboud University Nijmegen show. This research sheds light on the intriguing question how brain parts choose relevant information from the constant scattering of neurons going on in the brain.
http://www.ru.nl/english/@930644/pagina/
 
Last edited:
#2
Looks like this might be the paper referenced above:

Oscillatory dynamics and place field maps reflect hippocampal ensemble processing of sequence and place memory under NMDA receptor control.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24462101?dopt=Citation

Place coding in the hippocampus requires flexible combination of sensory inputs (e.g., environmental and self-motion information) with memory of past events. We show that mouse CA1 hippocampal spatial representations may either be anchored to external landmarks (place memory) or reflect memorized sequences of cell assemblies depending on the behavioral strategy spontaneously selected. These computational modalities correspond to different CA1 dynamical states, as expressed by theta and low- and high-frequency gamma oscillations, when switching from place to sequence memory-based processing. These changes are consistent with a shift from entorhinal to CA3 input dominance on CA1. In mice with a deletion of forebrain NMDA receptors, the ability of place cells to maintain a map based on sequence memory is selectively impaired and oscillatory dynamics are correspondingly altered, suggesting that oscillations contribute to selecting behaviorally appropriate computations in the hippocampus and that NMDA receptors are crucial for this function.
Clear as mud, right? ;-)
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#3
Thanks Ethan!

Seems rather complex. I don't know if including field effects is necessarily proof of filter/transmission. My understanding is such inclusion has been part of at least some materialists' expectations for some time?
 
#4
Thanks Ethan!

Seems rather complex. I don't know if including field effects is necessarily proof of filter/transmission. My understanding is such inclusion has been part of at least some materialists' expectations for some time?
No problem! I agree - this can definitely be included within a mind=brain type model too, which wouldn't be terribly surprising. But, it could also be a baby step on our way to a filter/receiver-like model that ultimately gets more acceptance due to initial groundwork like this.

Only time will tell ;-)
 
#5
No problem! I agree - this can definitely be included within a mind=brain type model too, which wouldn't be terribly surprising. But, it could also be a baby step on our way to a filter/receiver-like model that ultimately gets more acceptance due to initial groundwork like this.

Only time will tell ;-)
How?
 
Last edited:
Top