/sci/ - Science & Math

Free will? y/n

>>5792732
Depends on how you define it.

Does anyone have some decent literature about the mirror neuron system?

>>5792769
This should keep you busy for a while.
http://psych.colorado.edu/~kimlab/Rizzolatti.annurev.neuro.2004.pdf

How can people stand the taste ol lima beans?
Is it a neurological deficiency?

>>5792778
Probably. They're fucking disgusting.

Our time has come

captcha: lackLab ejectors

Sometimes captcha can be brutally wise

>>5792774
Cool, thanks.

>>5792803
No worries.

>>5792713
Stuff you never learn in high school bio: Men have 20% more neurons in the brain per cubic inch and 33% more synapses per neuron than women. This means men process things and think on an entirely different level than women. IQ tests have been designed to give the same average for males and females; because gender equity in intelligence had been accepted decades ago for the sake of political correctness.

"Gender differences in human cortical synaptic density"
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14615.long

"Gender differences in the human cerebral cortex"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10073431

"The human brain in numbers"
http://www.frontiersin.org/human_neuroscience/10.3389/neuro.09.031.2009/abstract

>>5792828
>iq tests have been designed to
>iq tests
Good one. Also, if anything it's the opposite. Back when they were first designed, girls ended up having a higher average.
There's a reason science is a girl thing.

>>5792840
lel wut? Citation pls.

Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/51/2/77.html
>"Most standard tests of intelligence have been constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males."

>>5792828
Things you don't get from simply readin wikipedia.

Men have on average a larger proportion of muscle mass. The majority of neurons in the brain are devoted to motor coordination (e.g. most of the brain's neurons are in the cerebellum). It follows trivially that men have more neurons because muscles need lots of neurons to control them.

>This means men process things and think on an entirely different level than women
>on an entirely different level
Sure there are gender differences in cognitive abilities, but they are very limited. Men are not as superior as you make it seem (if they can be called superior at all).

I'm out of neuroscience picture, so have this chinchilla. Interesting truefact, these cute fuckers are used a lot for research on auditory processing because of their excellent hearing.

>>5792883
Implications of your reasoning:
>more muscle mass requires more neurons in the brain
Why? One effector neuron can deliver impulses to many muscle cells. More importantly, one relay cell can deliver impulse to many effectors. Men don't have additional muscles that women lack, therefore while there may be differences in effector neuron counts, this has nothing to do with cerebral neuron count and synaptic density.
>majority of neurons in the brain are devoted to motor coordination
citation pls. Even the nematode with all its 302 neurons is capable of motor function.

My data is regarding neocortex and cerebral cortex where hierarchical thinking occurs and higher functions like problem solving, troubleshooting, etc take place. You've fallaciously created a story in your head so that your politically correct model of intelligence is remains intact, undamaged by peer-reviewed research saying it's wrong. This is called cognitive dissonance.

>>5792880
Exactly, most tests are conducted so the male average is increased to match the females, as they were then. I'm glad we agree.

Anyhow, you seem awfully worked up considering the studies you linked in your own first post go along the lines of 'women are better at x and men are better at y'.

Not to mention the fact that IQ tests are a shoddy joke if you want to map them to neuroscience, unless you want to fall back to the 'indicator of income' /pol/ topics. I mean, you can practice for one and increase your 'intelligence' by one whole standard deviation. That should make you doubt any study about them.

>>5792918
Read them closely. That's not what they say at all. One of them has a politically correct title involving women are better at x, but x wasn't tested for, only a posteriori inferred from the fact that since our data shows that men are better at y, and that IQ tests give same results for the two genders, women must be better at x. This is the case with all of them.

Men score on average about 3 points higher in IQ tests. Men simply have superior arithmetic, spatial and formal reasoning due to higher synaptic density. This remains true regardless of how many verbal reasoning questions you add to the IQ tests.

>>5792910
>more muscle mass requires more neurons in the brain
That's a simple fact, which you could have easily looked up. If you're too lazy, here's a citation

http://benthamscience.com/open/toanatj/articles/V002/37TOANATJ.pdf
>Male’s larger muscle mass and larger body size requires more neurons to control them. The brain weight is related to the body weight partly because it increases with increasing height [3]. This difference is also present at birth. A boy’s brain is between 12-20% larger than that of a girl. The head circumference of boys is also larger (2%) than that of girls. However, when the size of the brain is compared to body weight at this age, there is almost no difference between boys and girls.

>citation pls. Even the nematode with all its 302 neurons is capable of motor function
Google cerebellum.
>The cerebellum (Latin for little brain) is a region of the brain that plays an important role in motor control.
>it contributes to coordination, precision, and accurate timing
>There are about 3.6 times as many neurons in the cerebellum as in neocortex, a number that is conserved across many different mammalian species
That's not even taking into account motor cortices and basal ganglia and such.

>>5792944
>due to higher synaptic density
You do know that people with autism also have higher synaptic density than healthy humans, right? The mistake you make is that you generalize the finding of increased synaptic density to increased cognitive function. That link has yet to be demonstrated.

Bump

>>5792962
>autism
>a real disorder
Pick one

Would /sci/ recommend going with a spiking neural network library in Python or creating my own library/code in a more efficient language (I know Matlab, C, and C++, in addition to Python). The library I'd use would be Brian.

Hi guys.

I often see neuroscientists use the word "consciousness". What does it mean and how is it observed?

>>5793105
Buzz word.

>>5793105

By what mechanism does subjective experience arise from the brain?

>>5793115
>>5793105
Samefag?

>>5793101
In fact I pick both. You stupid faggot.

Bump..

What types of neuroscience grad programs will be big in the future?

>>5794435
the one that figures out how to survive with no food or water

>>5792732
n

>>5793105
>neuroscientists
>consciousness
Instant shitstorm.

>>5793119
I think this was the weirdest deduction of facts I've ever seen ever.

>>5793105
systematic feedback

>>5794435
hello anon, i wrote this post (see line 3)
>>5794529
i apologize
i was being cynical
please forgive me

>>5794582
No deduction there. Just a statement and an insult.

>>5794572
Given that that post was made yesterday, and there has yet to be a proverbial shit-storm, that post seems a little bit unwarranted.

>>5792883
muscle mass does not equal greater innervation. the cerebellum does not innervate muscles but is rather involved in in correct sequnce of movement and coincidence detection between desired movement and actual movement allowing adjustment.

I do agree with your overall point though that there is no reason to assume that more neurons with greater innervation= higher IQ or greater intelligence.

>more muscles = more iq
>all body builders are mentally deficient

>>5794644
I meant everything leading up to that statement.

Deductive reasoning

>>5794653
>muscle mass does not equal greater innervation
I never claimed that this was the case. All I said was that more muscle mass requires more neurons for coordination. The cerebellum orchestrates muscle coordination, hence, it contains the largest amount of neurons.

>>5794660
>>more muscles = more iq
You're confused. No one here claimed that.

B to the UMP

>tfw actually do neuroscience
>tfw thread full of popsci highschoolers who have no idea what it's actually about

>>5794900

how much do we know about the exact storage mechanism of memory?

>>5794908
little. Lots of theories. LTP is our best bet

>>5794900
Idiot. I'm one of the people in that discussion about neuron numbers / motor systems. I'll bet I know more about neuroscience than you do.

>>5794911
>mfw you're a high schooler

>>5794919
k

>>5794957
mfw i'm not

>hurr i read it in a $8 popsci paperback, it must be true

we don't know shit about memory

You* don't know shit about memory. In neuroscience however, it's one of the most studied topics. You didn't even bother to point out the fact that we know extremely much about conditioning etc. Kandel didn't get the fucking Nobel for nothing, faggot.

>>5794990
>sensitisation is memory
get a load of this guy

>>5794572

>Something comes up they can't answer
>Dismiss it and cause a shitstorm instead

>scientists

>>5795000
In fact it is.

>>5795003
>comes up
Where?

>>5792713
-How many terabytes/petabytes/exabytes can an average human brain hold?
-How many can it process per second?
-How far are we to making a computer that can surpass our own cognitive skills?
-When will we make a computer that can receive and understand the neuron's electric "language" between each other in the part of the brain dedicated to imagination, thus allowing humans to imagine something, and that idea is modeled with pixels in a screen?

>>5795011
No it isn't. Not in its entirety. Sensitisation is just altering individual neurons' responses to the same stimuli. How that translates into actually forming a memory is still unclear. Also if you weren't a sperg you'd notice I originally said that this is pretty much all we know about it: "little. Lots of theories. LTP is our best bet"

>>5795018
>meaningless popsci question with no available answer
>meaningless popsci question with no available answer
>meaningless popsci question with no available answer
>meaningless popsci question with no available answer

>>5795018

>>5795020
>muh popsci

>>5795020
>Extremely important question
>Extremely important question
>Extremely important question
>Extremely important question

Fixed. If you can't think beyond popsci then I have nothing but pity for your parents

is repetition really the key to learning?
why?

I just found this. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/neurologist-markam-human-brain/
Check it out. I'm >>5795018

>>5795033

because your brain has an inclination to resist putting useless information into long term memory.

>>5795036

how does the brain determine whats important?
what if I keep telling myself "this is important"

>>5793096
shut up.

>>5795015

Try looking at the post I linked, and the one before that

>>5795034
That's where
>>5795024
comes from.

do we learn because there is more myelin produced or because synapsis get bigger? or both?

>>5795044
>more myelin -> learning
...............................

>>5795024
>spurious estimate
>comparing things that are entirely different

>>5795034
Anyone who knows anything knows this is infeasible and idiotic. We can't simulate c.elegans, because we don't have the simple biological data to model it yet. Our understanding of neuronal networks is far too limited to simulate a few hundred, let alone millions.

>>5795019
Holy fuck you're retarded. You clearly don't even know what memory is. I'll bet you think 'memory' is something like recollecting what you had for breakfast yesterday. No, it's much more than that. Memory is retaining evironmental variables to influence behavior or perception at a later moment. That definition is the one used commonly in neuroscience, and ironically doesn't agree with the conflated notions you seem to have, or the ones you read in pop sci books, regarding the phenomenon. Anyway, by that definition sensitization is most certainly a form of memory. Allow me to make explicit what I hinted at earlier by mentioning Kandel:
>Starting in 1966 James Schwartz collaborated with Kandel on a biochemical analysis of changes in neurons associated with learning and memory storage. By this time it was known that long-term memory, unlike short-term memory, involved the synthesis of new proteins. By 1972 they had evidence that the second messenger molecule cyclic AMP (cAMP) was produced in Aplysia ganglia under conditions that cause short-term memory formation (sensitization)
Kandel et al charted the neurochemical, neurophysiological and anatomical pathways from sensation to recall in Aplysia, for which they later got the Nobel. They did that in the fucking 70's. Note also that short-term memory is used as synonymous with sensitization. Go suck a cock.

>>5795060
>short term memory in GANGLIA
I literally cannot stress how retarded you are being right now. Sensitization is a property of individual neurons. It is not the same as memory in a conventional sense. Sensitisation is an innate property thought to be due to altering the makeup/conductivy of certain charge-carrying membrane proteins. At its simplest, it is not thought to be under any higher neural control.

They demonstrated that individual neurons can alter their own physiology in response to certain stimuli to alter subsequent responses to it.

What does this mean? It provides a possible biochemical mechanism which could underpin memory formation. However, it says nothing about how specific memories are transmuted into a neuronal signal, stored, and then later recalled.

Go back to highschool.

>>5795075
>I literally cannot stress how retarded you are being right now.
>It is not the same as memory in a conventional sense.
Oh sweet irony. If you can just go ahead and read my previous post again, you'll see that I pointed out to you that <span class="math">\underline{\rm memory~does~not~mean~what~you~think~it~means}[/spoiler] you dumb faggot. You're talking about episodic memories, of which by the way, we also know a great deal. Do I really have to break everything down and chew it up into nice easily digestible chuncks for you so that you can finally get the point? Because frankly, it's getting very tiresome trying to argue with a moron who ironically tells other people to go back to high school when they obviously don't know their shit to begin with.

>What does this mean?
That means they showed the entire biochemical cascade underlying this form of memory.

>>5795024

Fucking lol, your brain operates in the megahurtz level, and not very many of them either

Itt: neuroscience

hahahah
this is even better than 0.9=1

I am normal?

>>5795107
Can't really say without knowing what contrast is used there.

>>5795107
Am I normal? lol

>>5795107
Red means presence of AIDS, blue/purple means a little bit less AIDS in your brain. So yeah, that looks pretty normal for a rampant homosexual.

>>5795111
ECD-99mTc?

>>5795107

You look to be hydrocephalic idiot to me.

But I'm actually a stone carver, not a radiologist.

>>5795087
>this form of memory
>this form of memory

tissue memory =/= memory

>Cognitive neuroscientists consider memory as the retention, reactivation, and reconstruction of the experience-independent internal representation. The term of internal representation implies that such definition of memory contains two components: the expression of memory at the behavioral or conscious level, and the underpinning physical neural changes (Dudai 2007). The latter component is also called engram or memory traces (Semon 1904). Some neuroscientists and psychologists mistakenly equate the concept of engram and memory, broadly conceiving all persisting after-effects of experiences as memory; others argue against this notion that memory does not exist until it is revealed in behavior or thought (Moscovitch 2007).

Would you consider Memory B cell's as falling into yourr definition of memory?

>>5795123
>tissue memory =/= memory
Holy fuck, you really hadn't ever heard of Kandel, had you? They didn't simply show synaptic or chemical effects <span class="math">by~themselves[/spoiler] but in relation to conditioning behavior. Goddamn.

>Would you consider Memory B cell's as falling into yourr definition of memory?
No, I would not. As you could have deduced from my condition without asking, because they don't influence future behavior or perception.

>>5795130
>condition
definition*

>>5795130
Ok so they demonstrate that a simple conditioned behaviour has biochemical effects on some neurones. These changes are mediated by pka and alter the conductive properties of the neurone.

So, does this mean we know how memories work. No. Is this applicable to higher order behaviours? Not readily.

So the original question: how does memory work? Fuck knows, but it appears to have something to do with LTP and similar mechanisms. We know something about the physical changes undergone by the neurones involved but little definitively beyond that.

>>5795144
I'm in the middle of something. I'll reply later.

>>5795150
Fair. I have an exam tomorrow and should be revising anyway.

Subjective experience.

Explain

>>5795192

simple.
some people claim lima beans don't taste like shit

>>5795144
>Ok so they demonstrate that a simple conditioned behaviour has biochemical effects on some neurones.
No, and I resent that gross misrepresentation of brilliant work. They demonstrated that when conditioning a gill withdraw reflex, electrochemical changes occurred (serotonin release of the sensory neuron leading to a cascade of cAMP, PKA, CREB, which regulates potassium channels in the motor neuron causing <span class="math">behavioral[/spoiler] habituation to repeated stimulation, and thus, memory. They charted the entire process, from sense to recall behavior. And again, that was back in the fucking 70's.

As an interesting side note, the discovery of the involvement of CREB later also lead to the discovery of LTP.

>Is this applicable to higher order behaviours?
Oh yes it is. This principle is applicable to pretty much <span class="math">any[/spoiler] species. It's been demonstrated time and time again in mice, rats, and even monkeys. Even with learning complex motor tasks and spatial memory and such this cascade pops it's head up.

Getting back to the original question as well, 'Fuck knows' is the wrong answer. It's not like we know everything there is to know about memory, but we sure as shit know a lot about it.

>>5795227

Stored in synapse sensitivity seems plausible.
What is the total number of synapses in a human brain?

>>5795236
Not sure. In cortex alone it's about 60 trillion. Get to the point. If you're trying to argue that because of the sheer amount of synapses in the brain this knowledge is useless, I'll end the conversation right now because obviously it'll be useless to try to talk to you.

>>5795205
He's referring to how one can experience taste

Upvote for a half-way decent discussion.

>>5792730
I see CNS must've updated this from the last time I was here...

>>5794435
On the books? Alzheimer research.
Off the books? Neuro-enchanced super soldiers.

>>5792713

Isn't neuroscience less respectable than biology because it's so heavily tied into cognitive science?

>>5795333
That's a retarded thing to say.

>>5795335

Is it retarded because it's true and you're sensitive about it, or is it retarded for a reason which has yet to be established by you? Or is it just the case that the question was soooo stupid that you won't respond to it, because you're above that kind of stuff?

>>5795341
The last option. The question is so retarded that it shouldn't be dignified with an answer.

>>5795347

Of course that's the case. You had to make your point for all of /sci/ to see just so it was made. The point of the thread is to "ask and answer questions" and apparently "It's all allowed here." I am asking a genuine question that hasn't received a legitimate response on the grounds that it's "retarded."

Neuroscience is too interdisciplinary to be a science of the same caliber as biology. Investigating philosophy inquiries ultimately requires some speculation in itself. Any science which depends so heavily on the social sciences and humanities needs to be questioned to some extent, m8.

>>5795355
>Neuroscience is too interdisciplinary to be a science of the same caliber as biology.
See, this is why I think you're retarded. Let's set aside the fact that neuroscience consists of many different fields, some vastly removed from anything to do with philosophy. Now, you seem to think that there are 'calibers' of science, as if it's some competition. That's truly the mentality of someone who doesn't actually know anything about science. No one field is 'better' than any other. They all cover a certain phenomenon or layer of the natural world, and complement each other. It's a collaboration.

How much MDMA is needed to damage my brain?

Is it okay to take 200 mg once a month? What could I take besides vitamins to reduce neurotoxicity? Any way to enhance the effect?

What would be the results of taking, instead, 50 mg almost everyday?

what happens if each neuron is connected to all the other neurons. (eg. one neuron is connected to the other 26 billion neurons at the same time)

>>5795458
it is too big.
depends on channels on each dendrite
but probably just depol then repeated stimulus keeps it inactive as Na can never reset

>>5795458
It'd be the Rome of the neurons.

>>5795378

"caliber" doesn't mean "better." It means more well-grounded, intensive and rigorous. The problem is that neuroscience is speculative in too many respects to "cover a certain phenomenon or layer of the natural world." "some vastly removed...." The fact is that a lot are too interrelated with outside fields to be considered a science that satisfies the aforementioned definition. Sure, it's not a competition, but the social sciences aren't the life or natural sciences and neuroscience is somewhere in between. It's not a science of the same caliber as biology because it's not a life science in that it's too interdisciplinary.

>>5795472
The stupidity o you people never ceases to amaze me.

>>5795477

>defends neuroscience as a science
>calls other people stupid

>>5795477
who are "you people?"

>>5795482
>defends neuroscience as a science
>neuroscience
>science

>>5795477

>Calls other people stupid
>Calls their remarks stupid
>Doesn't address the points or explain why

I wish it was this easy to argue with people irl

>>5795458
Functionally, it centralizes every single neuron. Id est, you could inhibit or excite any neuron from this one particular neuron, what the implications of that are exactly I don't think anyone could tell you. I don't think it's a very exciting implication though. The closest analogy would be if every single phone connected to a single building where a single person in a single room could connect or disconnect any line. This is in contrast to the current method (both in the brain and in the real life analogy) of connecting to a line that connects to another line that connects you to another line until you're connected to the line you originally wanted to connect to.

So make of that what you will...

>>5795504

>social science
>science
QED

your argument is invalid. Suck a dick, faggot.

>>5792713
Do all objects have phenomenal consciousness? Does consciousness have to be an emergent property?

>>5795515
>it's all one word to me

>>5795515
Social sciences are sciences, as the name suggests.

>>5795521

>Does consciousness have to be an emergent property?

Everyone will say yes cause then they don't have to explain it, it's a really convenient answer

>>5795501
>>Doesn't address the points or explain why
I did explain why. Then he proceeded with saying pretty much the same thing as he did before. I'm not going to keep repeating myself if the idiot doesn't see why what he said is stupid, even though I clearly pointed it out.

>>5792713

For an insomniac, does intensive thinking damage the brain? Also does insomnia cause irreversible brain damage?

Do we see things in shapes or colours?

http://blog.eyewire.org/

>>5795549
I don't think emergent means what <span class="math">you[/spoiler] seem to think it means.

>>5795037
well, i remember all pokemans of first generation.
It was important to me when i was a kid.

Importance is mostly perceived rather than intrinsic.
But still, not quite that simple as to what's get stored long term and what's not.

>>5795227

How are you italicizing words?

>>5796053
when i type them i think in italian.

>>5796058
Does this look like italics?

>>5796081
Is it ιтαlι¢ѕ yet?

>>5795426
mdma is awesome

Should I major in neuroscience if I'm planning on becoming a neurosurgeon? I'm also interested in biochem and maths, but I don't know if it would be possible to do all three. Should I just specialize?

>>5796053
I'm a fucking <span class="math">wizard[/spoiler]. <span class="math">\underline{\bf get~on~my~level~bro.}[/spoiler]

Also, latex.

>>5792828
lrn2 neuroscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_pruning
Not to mention the human brain has been getting smaller for 50k years

>>5797076
Not that guy, but your post got me interested.
>Not to mention the human brain has been getting smaller for 50k years
Can I get a source on that? What could be the evolutionary reason for this happening?

Anyone care to give a good explanation for the hard problem of consciousness?

>>5797080
It's getting more efficient, computers are smaller now than 50 years ago

>>5796173

That doesn't answer anything, though.

Any neuroscientists still around?

hi people of /sci/
im currently studying psychology (please no hate) in a third world country, i recently came to know thanks to sci that psychologist can study neurscience 2 and im really interested in pursuing this posibility, the bad thing is that well... i live in the third world so i ve got no way to do that at home, and also i dont really know how to get info or if it is just a dream, so if anyone of you could help me getting info i would be grateful, tnx in advance, i would provide email if replies.

>>5798901
Spammers usually leave a site or ask us to forward them money mate.

>>5798936
srry if i seem like a spammer, english is not my main language and i did my message so it seemed respectful. apart from that if u have any info u could share i would be grateful

>>5798722

There are actually three problems. Prob of consciousness/qualia, prob of intentionality and prob of rationality. The problems stems from our definition and metaphysical description of matter. Basically, its due to the conflict between our subjective experiences and the definition of matter that we currently hold. You could either go the Dennett route and deny our experiences, or the Nagel route and deny our current definition of matter. Ed Feser's blog post "Fodor's trinity" is also a good short intro to the three problems.

>>5792778
>lima beans
They have almost no flavor to me, so they are easily edible.

>>5793096
I like to use others established code/software due to time-savings, plus if you have familiarity with some of them, then it opens more potential career/research avenues.

>>5795044
Neuron spikes/action potentials require fairly quick coordination in learning, so myelin, while not playing any direct role (afaik) does help in this regard because it allows for faster signal propagation. Synapses are deemed to play a huge role in learning, however. The size of the synapse (as far as dendritic spine bulbs are concerned) corresponds with stronger pathways being built by neurons. So essentially, with larger (dendritic) synapses, comes better learning.

>>5795052
>Our understanding of neuronal networks is far too limited to simulate a few hundred
Tens of thousands of artificial neurons and millions of connections between them have been simulated. I'm not sure about millions artificial neurons, though.

>>5795521
>Does consciousness have to be an emergent property?
Afaik, yes, but then again, I don't know much beyond the basics when it comes to the idea of emergent properties. I don't know what you are talking about in your first question, so I doubt that I can provide an answer for it.

>>5796204
Neuroscience seems like a very legit option. If you have yet to start undergrad then I would consider what to do if you never make it to grad school, and thus neuroscience as an undergrad major alone doesn't seem as good of a career choice. General biology with an emphasis in human physiology could better serve both purposes. If you are serious about med school, then I would also suggest that you look at picking up a second major. My friend did a theology/biology double major and was successful at grad school while many who did only biology were waitlisted or never accepted afaik. Research in undergrad (especially in neuroscience) will be very beneficial for you as well. Don't forget to volunteer in hospitals/clinics!

>>5798755
I really don't know much about the effects of mdma or other illicit drugs on the nervous system.

>>5798901
Neuroscience is a very broad field, so it kind of depends on what you want to do/what interests you. Cognitive psychology is probably one of the more "hard" areas of psychology, so that may interest you. If I were you then I would consider trying to get a position in a neuroscience-related lab, be it psychology, biology, chemistry, etc. Also, if you can find information (CV, resume, research) from neuroscientists/psychologists in your region, then you can determine what skills they consider to be important. For example, do they need programmers (SAS, SPSS, R, etc.), people with familiar with electrophysiology (EEG, EMG, ECG, etc.), people who have an understanding of chemical signalling (hormones, neurotransmitters, -crines, etc.)? There are many possibilities out there, including moving to a country/region with better options for you (if you have good enough grades/experience). Also, I would consider strongly working on improving your english (especially reading) so that you can read the scientific literature out there (because much of it is in English or translated to English).

>>5792828
LEL boyz r smarter than gurlz XDXDXD
>2013

So, how do I control someone's mind? Building trust and "pushing buttons"?

What is the significance of fixed action patterns to behavioral psychology and game theory

>>5795024
we're still ahead of computers...... for now

Is telepathy and mind reading possible?

Why the fuck would anyone deny their free will? We're experiencing it every day.

how do pharmacological and toxioclogical susbtances how can they physically and long term change brain!

Is the brain a computer? Can neuroscience help us build an AI? What are the ethical implications of strong AI?

What's your opinion on the singularity? When will it happen?

How does the strain of cannabis (cannabis sativa, I think) help ADHD patients?

Is there an inverse relationship to alertness and concentration, as in when ADHD use medication to concentrate they loe the awareness of their surroundings; when they're not medicating they can't concentrate because of the mentioned awareness?

How can we upload our consciousness into a computer?

What is the neuronal basis of self-awareness? Can the internet become self-aware?

>>5799480
>Can neuroscience help us build an AI?
I believe that's one of the avenues of artificial neural networks which is related to the study of biological neural networks.

>>5799483
>being on ADHD meds is a bad state
>not being on ADHD meds is a bad state
>there is no middle ground
pleb detected

Are we just a brain in a vat? Is this a plausible hypothesis?

Can the chinese room argument be applied to humans?

Why is the "Mary's room" though experiment flawed? I mean we all know qualia are religious garbage and don't exist. But where's the logical error?

>>5799490

I'm just asking whether there is a (negative) correlation and the exaggerated example is there to illustrate my question.

Has the possibility of p-zombies been confirmed or disproved yet?

Can we all agree that Daniel Dennett is the greatest neuroscientist of all times?

Neuroscientifically speaking, how can we show the the blue I experience is not the red you experience? I'm talking about SUBJECTIVE experience and not the wave length of light.

>>5799486
I believe that is currently outside of our range of knowledge.

>>5799491
>Are we just a brain in a vat?
You have to recognize that many parts of the brain may be rendered useless if they aren't in contact with their respective portions of the body for which they exert influence on. Therefore the brain may be dramatically different if we were just a "brain in a vat."

Many failed philosophers, spiritualists and similar /x/tards are abusing neuroscience by claiming their irrational hogwash to be proven neuroscientifically. How can we distinguish between actual neuroscientific research and the unjustified nonsense conclusions by pseudoscientists? Is there a way to tell them apart with certainty?

>>5799502
One could potentially go as far as taking the relevant portion of the neural pathway of one test subject and inserting it into another test subject. It's just an idea, however, as I know little-to-nothing about visual neuroscience.

>>5799509
>however, as I know little-to-nothing

Then why even bother replying, if your post consists of nothing but "lol I'm ignorant"? Leave the answer to the experts.

>>5799512
>Implying you're an expert
4chan pls

>>5799507
Have them publish their results which would then undergo peer-review?

>>5799502
because the input is uniquely identifiable and so must it's representation in the mind, this is very relative to each person but through statistical analysis and a large enough sample the experience differences in each cancel out, and general thoughts can be recognized, just as we can associate a generalized area with a particular function, patterns of neurons which are similar in structure will have similar meaning.

>>5799512
Because to me, it could be a semi-legit way to prove it.

>>5799517
>and so must it's representation in the mind

But different people's brains are structurally different. At least that's what qualia retards claim. Can you please explain how this argument is flawed?

>>5799518
So what? This is a science and math board. To a retard the "1/3=0.333..." argument might appear to be a "semi-legit way to prove" 0.999... = 1. That doesn't make it right though. A rigorous proof of 0.999... = 1 requires axiomatic math.

>>5799514
I didn't claim to be an expert. I was the one who asked the question and I expected an answer from an expert and not from someone who is even less knowledgable than me.

>>5799525
I figured my idea was sufficient enough for here. Sorry that it wasn't. I hope you can find a sufficient answer, however.

>>5799520
A lot of butterfly effects perhaps? The neural structures must have a similar interaction with the surrounding structures in order to generate the same internal representation, not neccesarily the same position, just same relative position to close/component ideas.

>>5799538
I think it would become more clear if you explained the exact mechanism by which subjective experience arises from the brain and how it doesn't depend on neuronal structure. Can you?

>>5799538
Are you saying that experience is not influenced by structural differences? What do you think experience is? Non-physical magic? Are you some kind of dualist?

Would it be possible to build in a switch somehow that will turn your pain perception on and off?

>>5792713
any idea for computational-behavioral-neuro-ecological research/study?

>>5799552
It seems plausible to me.

>>5799557
What? Like animal behavior out in the wild?

>>5794660
interesting
http://imsear.hellis.org/bitstream/123456789/134504/1/ijabms2010v12bi15p23.pdf

>>5799453
tnx for your answer! the thing is that when i said third world i wasnt kidding, so i wold probly need to go into othr countries in order to really get into neuroscience (since the facilities here for research are practiclly unexisting) so if you could provide me with a link that has info about the carrer, where to study it, requirements or any other information would really apreciate it

>>5799502
Horizon s50e01 Do you See What I see? About 45 min in gives definitive proof that different cultures see things differently

>>5795315
Wow, that one's pretty much the first version I made, I think.

Is neurotransmitter feedback legit for getting seriously smart?

>>5800814
>neurotransmitter feedback
What?

>>5800814
wat

>>5799552
nociception uses specific receptors with different pathways to the brain. there are assorted disorders that can cause pain loss. also, anaesthetics.

b-bump