Welcome to Factonista.org

Factonista is an online freethought advocacy organization that relies on its users for content. Through international broad-based collaboration with its users, and other groups and organizations, it strives to provide timely and comprehensive news, views, reviews, and creative multimedia on issues at the forefront of everything under the umbrella of freethought

Not a member? Register | Lost your password?
Hi and welcome to Factonista. Please keep in mind we're still in BETA. We'll be fully functional very very soon. In the mean while feel free to browse around, read our articles, and participate in our discussions. If you note any bugs and feel like helping us out, forward a quick message to us here. Thanks! [close]

Posts Tagged ‘neuroscience’

What makes us Human?

Thursday, October 30th, 2008

Update: I learned only recently that some of the information in this article is outdated, and that plasticity is not what it immediately appeared to be. It is still something awesome, but some experiments have showed that it is not as powerful as it initially seemed. You can read about one of these in Karn Stromswold’s article found here. Original article follows ->

The brain is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside.

The brain is deeper than the sea,
For, hold them, blue to blue,
The one the other will absorb,
As sponges, buckets do.

The brain is just the weight of God,
For, lift them, pound for pound,
And they will differ, if they do,
As syllable from sound.
~ Emily Dickinson

For centuries we have tried to search for a homonculus within us, that center within our brains that makes us human. Traditionally, we expect this part to transcend all chemicals, and fall in the realm of infinite.

What makes us human? Several factors interacting in complex ways. But if there was one that played the primary role in making us “us”, it would be ‘Neuroplasticity’.

Plasticity allows our brain to break and reconstruct neural pathways. As we go through different experiences and learn new things, new synaptic connections are formed at the expense of old, unused ones. This process is not just limited to the memory organs of the brain, but even the functional ones. For example, if your visual cortex does not do any “learning” or is not exposed to the correct type of information during a critical period, your anatomically perfect eyes may never develop vision. Most likely in this case, your visual cortex which has so far gone unused would break with it’s quasi-predetermined circuitry, and reform to be used by a neighboring part of the brain.

Perhaps more amazingly, in recent decades, the brain has also been observed making recoveries after structural damage. People who suffer from any kind of mental injuries were thought to have completely and permanently lost those abilities. But with the help of MRIs and CAT-scans, researchers noticed that the injured or dead part of the brain can come back to life. It is a tragedy that this information is not yet widespread. Stroke patients who are left paralyzed or are unable to speak after their accident often never try to repeat those lost activities. However, recent cases have shown that often the “broken” part of their brain can recover in full, but since the activity previously assigned to it is no longer performed, it gives up it’s original function and becomes involved in something else.

People who undergo hemispherectomies can make amazing recoveries if their new minds are given the right exercises. It was until the early 1990s considered that the left hemisphere, primarily Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas were solely and exclusively responsible for language. The theory seemed shaky from day one. Not only could we not explain how these functioned (as we can’t yet), but perhaps more importantly, we were unable to recreate any disorders that seemed to emerge from them. But when patients left with only the right hemisphere of their brains defied current theory and produced from single worded to multi-phrased cogent sentences, the theory was just as well out the door.

It is now understood that this ability stays with us for our lifetimes. There are a few known critical periods during which specific functions are favoured. As babies, our mind’s first priority is to develop the key abilities  we use to navigate the world. After the age of two and a half or three, our brain devotes great attention to language learning, as well to sharpening the previously learned skills. After about six, we learn a tremendous amount of things about the world around us…how and why our parents behave, why the sky is blue, and in general how the world works. After about 10 – 12 we turn our attention to sexual maturity and of course the social concerns that come with it.

From this point on, the two sexes begin to differ. But now these changes are very relative, and hardly as crucial. The mind has fully developed, and the rest are the stages of our lives. Missing even one of these critical steps can tremendously change our lives. I personally know of no case where postponing something like language learning has eventually led to “normal” efficacy of that skill, and I can’t imagine it would ever happen. But again, as stated above, some recovery is still possible. It has been observed though that as we get older, neurogenesis occurs in fewer and fewer parts of the brain, being eventually left only in the hippocampus (short-term memory functions). So it is possible to understand why we eventually pass away.

Some recent experiments demonstrate the extreme ways is which our brain can change if subject to abnormal stimulus. One group of researchers cross-connected the audial and visual cortexes of the brain of a Ferret fetus. The experiment’s purpose was to test the permanence of these structures. The experiment’s hypothesis was that they are both very plastic. Indeed this was found to be the case. Visual signal being carried from the retina to the audial cortex produced very similar patterns to what the visual cortex of a normal Ferret would later produce. This implied that the modified audial cortex was now capable of “seeing” and the modified visual cortex was now capable of “hearing”.

One comfort I take from these flurry of discoveries is that they fit in perfectly and beautifully with the modern evolutionary theory. It is very difficult to explain how the brain got to be so complex if all parts evolved by individual selection. But if we understand that these parts are developed as much from their enviornment as from their genes, we see a much more reasonable and explicable world. Understanding neuroplasticity has opened a whole new field of medical care, and has revolutionzed the world of so many. Some have also found applications of it in the so-called Brain-Computer Interface technolgy. But perhaps the greatest reward this discovery holds for us is the secret of how the brain actually works.

Move Over Evolution

Sunday, August 17th, 2008

Poor evolution.

Evolution, which is as sound a scientific theory as we have ever had has been in the cross hairs of religion far longer than any of us have been alive.

Politicians court entire voting blocks by proclaiming their doubts about the theory of evolution, and the faithful cheer.

Why?

What is it about evolution so terrifying to so many? Is it because it gives a natural explanation for the appearance of design as Daniel Dennet the author of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea says? Why not, that seems like a good explanation to me. Nothing is more fascinating or elegant to me in nature, than living beings, especially us: homo sapien.

The appearance of design in organisms is real. But the mechanism of this design is well understood, that mechanism is natural selection. The elegance of this system yields countless complexity, that whatever reproduces with variation will yield different adaptive complexities over time. Its beautiful, it really is.

According to Dennet evolution as an idea is so “dangerous” because it explains that nature is enough to produce all of the marvelous things we see around us.

I do not disagree with Dennet about evolution offering a marvelous explanation about there not being a need for a designer, but I think Daniel Dennet does not fully understand what is at play in the minds of the believers who are so vitriolic against evolution.

We tend to assume that what is most important to the religious is where we come from, but I will argue that what matters most to the religious is where we are going. Which almost all of them are hoping, banking, and betting on is an eternal life, hopefully in some transcendental paradise.

There is one branch of science which has almost nothing to say about where we come from, but a whole lot to say about where we are going. It is my beloved neuroscience.

In the development of neuroscience we have found increasingly more and more evidence for the very real fact that everything we are is produced, contained, maintained, and experienced by the human brain.

Daniel Dennet once eloquently put it, “Yes there is a soul, and it is made of millions of little robots.”

Those little robots are called neurons, and it is the class of cell which your brain and nervous system are made from.

But being somewhat of a bastard, I find Dennet’s “Yes there is a soul…” comment to be reminiscent of the also famous “Yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus…” comment.

There is no soul.

That means that there is no afterlife.

When your brain dies, you die, every ability you have to experience life, passion, love, suffering, enjoyment ceases.

That means there are no 72 virgins for the martyrs of Allah, and no eternity of praises in the throne room of the lamb for the martyrs of Jesus.

It is the end of all experience.

What I can’t seem to get around my head is why don’t we have pseudoscience movements trying to teach the old Aristotelean idea that the brain is just a cooling system for the body, and nothing more.

I don’t see why neuroscience is not under perpetual attack by the religious extremists of this world, it deals a blow to the only thing they have to offer their followers: eternal life.

I wish to change this. I want to pick a fight.

Religious people of the world, there is no afterlife, and neuroscience is the reason why!

Perhaps unwisely. I want the religious to know that if neuroscience is right about how memory works, how experience works, how these things tshut off and turned on by the activities of specific chemical processes in specific physiological structures in the nervous system, then that means that their religion is false.

At least its promise of pie in the sky is false.

I want them to know the truth as I have come to understand it, the life you are living now is the only one you’ve got.

I want the Kirk Camerons of the world to demand that their followers refuse all neurology as witchcraft.

I want the Discovery Institute to try to create an “alternative theory” for the source of cognition, trying to come up with imaginative hogwash for the idea that personality, thought, dreams, and passion is happening somewhere independently of the brain.

I mean, really what motivates more people to believe in these ancient religions?

Is it really that they are just dying to have a solid explanation for where the earth and its diverse flora and fauna come from?

Or is it that they are dying to have a reassurance that they aren’t dying?