New stuff in neuroscience

On a related note...

Retention of Memory through Metamorphosis: Can a Moth Remember What It Learned As a Caterpillar?

Abstract said:
Insects that undergo complete metamorphosis experience enormous changes in both morphology and lifestyle. The current study examines whether larval experience can persist through pupation into adulthood in Lepidoptera, and assesses two possible mechanisms that could underlie such behavior: exposure of emerging adults to chemicals from the larval environment, or associative learning transferred to adulthood via maintenance of intact synaptic connections. Fifth instar Manduca sexta caterpillars received an electrical shock associatively paired with a specific odor in order to create a conditioned odor aversion, and were assayed for learning in a Y choice apparatus as larvae and again as adult moths. We show that larvae learned to avoid the training odor, and that this aversion was still present in the adults. The adult aversion did not result from carryover of chemicals from the larval environment, as neither applying odorants to naïve pupae nor washing the pupae of trained caterpillars resulted in a change in behavior. In addition, we report that larvae trained at third instar still showed odor aversion after two molts, as fifth instars, but did not avoid the odor as adults, consistent with the idea that post-metamorphic recall involves regions of the brain that are not produced until later in larval development. The present study, the first to demonstrate conclusively that associative memory survives metamorphosis in Lepidoptera, provokes intriguing new questions about the organization and persistence of the central nervous system during metamorphosis. Our results have both ecological and evolutionary implications, as retention of memory through metamorphosis could influence host choice by polyphagous insects, shape habitat selection, and lead to eventual sympatric speciation.

Again there's this impressive capacity for living things to retain aspects of their organisation through radical changes.
 
Last edited:
a) and b) are a false dichotomy
c) Information is real -- as a separate level of natural interaction.

b) is "magic matter" with "properties" like emergence and "weird" quantum behavior.
a) is perfectly acceptable as a level of abstraction defined by empirical measurements of physics, with informational transformations at another separate level of abstraction measuring order and organization.

My impression is that matter is magic*.



*mysterious and poorly understood.
 
My impression is that matter is magic*.

*mysterious and poorly understood.
Since charge, heat, luminosity, molarity/concentration, mass and extension are the primary variables in the study of natural physical substance - the term matter refers to sense impressions in the history of human consciousness of substance. (such as wet and bright) It has utility in philosophy - not physics. I think that the math relations of mass, extension and force are wonderfully and effectively understood. The Mysterian approach is a last hidey-hole for Physicalism.
 
Since charge, heat, luminosity, molarity/concentration, mass and extension are the primary variables in the study of natural physical substance - the term matter refers to sense impressions in the history of human consciousness of substance. (such as wet and bright) It has utility in philosophy - not physics. I think that the math relations of mass, extension and force are wonderfully and effectively understood. The Mysterian approach is a last hidey-hole for Physicalism.
Every -ism ends up knee deep in mystery as far as I can tell. Where does mystery begin and the limits of our monkey brains end?
 
Every -ism ends up knee deep in mystery as far as I can tell. Where does mystery begin and the limits of our monkey brains end?

I think that there are people who maintain that science can and will provide all the answers and those who say that science cannot, with its present limitations, approach some mysteries. As I understand it, science is considered to be the study of natural things and many believe its purpose is to explain everything in terms of what is considered to be natural. Some of the things we talk about here are considered to be supernatural and so outside of the scope of science and - as they might say - belonging to theology.

I watched a video debate between Darwinist and ID scientists and the point was made by someone on the Darwinist side that ID is not science because it introduces the supernatural. Therefore ID is, by definition, not science and is thus dismissed with a hand wave. Psi is likewise considered to be within the realm of the supernatural and is likewise dismissed.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#Sci

The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).

So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.

As indicated by the above characterization of the mid-twentieth-century American movement, naturalism can be separated into an ontological and a methodological component. The ontological component is concerned with the contents of reality, asserting that reality has no place for “supernatural” or other “spooky” kinds of entity.
 
I think that there are people who maintain that science can and will provide all the answers and those who say that science cannot, with its present limitations, approach some mysteries. As I understand it, science is considered to be the study of natural things and many believe its purpose is to explain everything in terms of what is considered to be natural. Some of the things we talk about here are considered to be supernatural and so outside of the scope of science and - as they might say - belonging to theology.

I watched a video debate between Darwinist and ID scientists and the point was made by someone on the Darwinist side that ID is not science because it introduces the supernatural. Therefore ID is, by definition, not science and is thus dismissed with a hand wave. Psi is likewise considered to be within the realm of the supernatural and is likewise dismissed.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#Sci
I get your point, but I'm not sure saying something is 'outside the scope' is the same as 'dismissing with a hand wave'. Alternatively, the ID crowd could always do some actual hypothesis testing.
 
Every -ism ends up knee deep in mystery as far as I can tell. Where does mystery begin and the limits of our monkey brains end?
Realism and logical understanding of nature have come a long way. Our ever growing knowledgebase enables very competent manipulation of physical and informational methods.

I think that realm of mystery is only valid when things of the "heart" are parsed. It's our monkey brains facing our moral imperatives where we need to admit our fuzzy view.
 
Therefore ID is, by definition, not science and is thus dismissed with a hand wave. Psi is likewise considered to be within the realm of the supernatural and is likewise dismissed.
ID s a philosophical stance about an analysis of data. It's implications for natural laws is not direct and it can be true or false with the current data.

Psi is ether happening as phenomenological data -- or it isn't. Calling it supernatural - is just name calling from an analytical philosophy or a theological worldview that contradicts natural data. If Psi is naturally occurring, and I am in the "no doubt" category that it is, analysis of the data as being from a supernatural source will have no effect on reality's presentation of Psi. Assertions for analysis -no matter how smart or clever - are butter in the face of the hot knife of empirical facts.
 
Some lectures by neuroscientists:


Julia Mossbridge, M.A., Ph.D. speaks on Mystical Insights from Mainstream Neuroscience at Greenheart Transforms' Envisioneers.

Julia is a visiting Scholar at the Department of Psychology, Northwestern University; Founder and Research Director at Mossbridge Institute, LLC; and Visiting Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS)

=-=-=


This video is about Marjorie Woollacott's presentation on her book "Infinite Awareness: The Awakening of a Scientific Mind" at the University of Oregon in Portland, Oregon, Nov. 2015.

On the book:

As a neuroscientist, Marjorie Woollacott had no doubts that the brain was a purely physical entity controlled by chemicals and electrical pulses. When she experimented with meditation for the first time, however, her entire world changed. Woollacott’s journey through years of meditation has made her question the reality she built her career upon and has forced her to ask what human consciousness really is. Infinite Awareness pairs Woollacott’s research as a neuroscientist with her self-revelations about the mind’s spiritual power. Between the scientific and spiritual worlds, she breaks open the definition of human consciousness to investigate the existence of a non-physical and infinitely powerful mind.
 
Back
Top