[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 291 KB, 1117x1280, dbs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5674960 No.5674960 [Reply] [Original]

Why are there never any threads about neuroscience?

>> No.5674962

>>5674960

someone will use the word consciousness and it turns into a shitstorm

>> No.5674964

>>5674962
That's still going on?

>> No.5674965

>>5674964

It seems to happen every time.

>> No.5674966

>>5674965
So that one faggot that started that shit has really turned neuroscience into a taboo topic altogether? As I remember though there weren't a whole lot of neuroscience threads on this board before all that.

>> No.5674968

probably becuase it is a ridiculously difficult subject and no one who understands it is going to be on 4 chan anyway.

>> No.5674974

>>5674968
CNS made a few god tier threads about neuroscience but he's gone now. You're right, there's no one ;_;

>> No.5674987

>>5674960
Basically because of rampant trolling. Also, very few people here actually know anything about neuroscience. Most treads are about transhumanism and such. Stuff that's very removed from actual ongoing research. If you're interested in neuroscience, please change that. I'd be more than happy to participate in discussions.
>>5674974
>CNS made a few god tier threads about neuroscience
Thanks.
>but he's gone now.
I'm still very much here.

>> No.5674991

>>5674960

Can I hijack this thread?

So the PFC's outputs are inhibitory but what are they actually inhibiting? Do they inhibit neurons in the frontal lobe thus allowing others to lead to a specific set of actions or do they inhibit the limbic neurons causing innervation of the excitatory PFC inputs (which would be something like stop thinking we've got a solution)? This would then require a secondary signal to carry out motor planning. Does this come from the PFC as a secondary output or does it come from another limbic pathway? Are both pathways occurring in tandem? Any ideas?

Hao u executive function /sci/?

>> No.5675027

>>5674991
>So the PFC's outputs are inhibitory but what are they actually inhibiting?
They're not just inhibitory. It's a bit simplistic to just generalize across the whole PFC, because it's such a complex system. Keeping that in mind, I'm going to go ahead and disregard what I just wrote for the sake of argument.

PFC inhibits diverse regions (pretty much every cortical region), but its main targets of action are sensory cortices, directly and via inhibition of sensory gating in thalamus. These connections are a prominent mechanism for attentional selection (i.e. inhibiting irrelevant information) and deficits in this inhibitory drive due to lesions result in distractibility. Additionally, posterior association areas are heavily innervated by the PFC, and this is thought to be the mechanism by which and adequate signal-to-noise ratio is established in these regions which is necessary to maintain items in working memory. Motor cortex is also innervated by the PFC, and deficits in this inhibition can result in impulsivity due to e.g. reduced motor threshold.

>> No.5675033

>>5674960

Because autistic /sci/entists don't believe that medicine is a science, therefore every sub-specialty isn't actually a science


"muh maths."

top autist lel

>> No.5675034

>>5675027
Is there an objective evaluation of cognitive skill?

>> No.5675035

>>5674991
Also, you might want to read
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15518930

Slightly dated, but still relevant.

>> No.5675039

>>5675034
>cognitive skill
I can't answer unless you clarify what you mean by that.

>> No.5675041

>>5675027
>>5674987
I love you.

>>5675033
>medicine
neuroscience isn't medicine though...

>> No.5675046

>>5674960
>consciousness
science my ass

>> No.5675047

>>5675046
Fuck off faggot.

>> No.5675052
File: 80 KB, 500x377, 1364395899912.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5675052

>>5675047
No, really. All this funding of neuroscience and you still don't know why we are we.
Wasted money, if you ask me.

>> No.5675050

>>5675046

Shut up. No one has used the word consciousness yet.

>> No.5675055

>>5675052

Good thing nobody asked you.

>> No.5675056

>>5675052
>you still don't know why we are we.
You stupid shit. That would be all the more reason to study it.
>still
>implying neuroscience is an old field
Bitch we're just getting started.

>> No.5675057

>>5675052


we've gone to the moon but nobody lives there yet and we don't have any resources from space yet..

Waste of money if you ask me..

"But muh Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Muh Garl Tsagan."

lel again

>> No.5675060

>>5675055
nice strawman faggot. that's not what he meant.
Why do you have control over your actions? How does it work?

>> No.5675064

>>5675052
>>5675060
>we don't know how it works
>therefore it's not science and we shouldn't fund it
You fail at logic.

>> No.5675065

>>5675060

You might want to find a new hobby. Spewing shit at me isn't going to be fun for you.

>> No.5675068

>>5675039
>In science, cognition is a group of mental processes that includes attention, memory, producing and understanding language, learning, reasoning, problem solving, and decision making.
From wikipedia

I could use the word intelligence but it rings bells I do not want to ring

>> No.5675067
File: 8 KB, 173x160, 1364112930514.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5675067

>>5675056
>Bitch we're just getting started.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_neuroscience
>The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, written in the 17th century BC, contains the earliest recorded reference to the brain.
>17th century BC
>Just getting started

>> No.5675070

>>5675065
You're evading the questions you're asked. Nice going. Why don't you just admit you don't know?

>> No.5675074

>>5675067
>implying writing about the brain is science

>> No.5675075

>>5675067


>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics

> Math originated 20,000-35,000 years ago

>Still can't into primes

fucking master lel

>> No.5675078

>>5675074
>Implying it's not

>> No.5675083

>>5675078
>stars are pretty
I am now an astrophysicist.

>> No.5675092

>>5675083
>Opinion
>"I am now master on this field"
Nope. Having an opinion on something does not make you know about it.

>> No.5675105

>>5675092
By your logic if writing about the brain is neuroscience than writing about stars would make me an astrophysicist.

>> No.5675107

>>5675105
Oh, an autist.

The point is that he didn't just write about the brain. He studied it.
There were no "scientists" back then.

>> No.5675108

>>5675068
The 'skill' part is actually where the problem lies. I know what cognition means, but to me cognition isn't something that you can be 'good' or 'bad' at, or quantify that skill with a number*. Take something like attention: distractibility doesn't imply poor performance, because under certain conditions it pays off to explore other stimuli because they pose a long-term advantage even though current task performance might suffer. Interestingly you see the parallel with IQ here, because it is attempts to do exactly that: quantify a wide range of cognitive phenomena. Problems with IQ aside, it doesn't even encompass all facets of cognition, which is why a measure of 'cognitive skill' would be problematic. It would be more useful to quantify individual aspects of cognition, because they vary greatly and don't correlate one to one with each other. So I guess the short answer to your initial question would be no.

*some facets of cognition this applies more to than others, e.g. one can quantitatively model reinforcement learning or short term memory limits etc.

>> No.5675114 [DELETED] 

>>5675107
>Oh, an autist.
Do not make fun of people with illnesses or disorders.

>> No.5675115

>>5675107
>There were no "scientists" back then.
My point exactly you dumb faggot. There were no tools at that time to empirically study the brain. Neuroscience has only very recently started to gain traction. The 90's were dubbed the 'decade of the brain' because that's when shit started to get funding and big steps were made.

>> No.5675116

>>5675114
Can I make fun of people with poor reading comprehension, then?
I didn't mock. I merely pointed it out.

>> No.5675120

>>5675116
My reading comprehension is fine. Your logic comprehension is not, however. I point out a flaw in what you wrote, because what you wrote was fucking stupid, and that makes me autistic and gives me poor reading comprehension?

>> No.5675121 [DELETED] 

>>5675116
You only 'pointed it out', if it is actually true.
It probably is not.

You should just politely correct their post.

>> No.5675124

>>5675120
THE READING COMPREHENSION PART REFERS TO THE FACT YOU COMPREHENDED "OH AN AUTIST' AS MAKING FUN OF SOMEONE.

THE AUTIST PART WAS MERELY AN OBSERVANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE PERSON DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE ANCIENT STUDIERS OF THINGS AS PRIMITIVE SCIENTISTS, BECAUSE HURRR EMPIRICAL.

Does this penetrate the white noise better?

>> No.5675129

>>5675124
Let's get back to the point. To wit, you don't know what science is.
>BECAUSE HURRR EMPIRICAL.
Correct. Hurr durr empirical.

>> No.5675130

>>5675129
sci·ence
noun/ˈsīəns/
sciences, plural

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

>> No.5675137

>>5675130
>systematic study
>through observation and experiment
Bingo! In short, the application of the scientific method. Simply providing a descriptive framework does not qualify as science.

Anyway, all of this is besides the point. Even if this was in fact the first neuroscientist, that doesn't mean that neuroscience has a long standing history. One person can only do so much. What matters is the size of the field, and general productivity of the community. As I pointed out earlier, we only just got started in the 90's.

>> No.5675144

>>5675137
This basically implies that the abacus is not a primitive form of computer.
It's not about falling within the modern definition that makes it relevant, it's the fact it set the study of the brain in motion.

>> No.5675152

>>5675108
First of all how are you involved with neuroscience? I'm not a frequent user of this board and I don't know your history here. For the record, I am an engineer.

How can you not quantify cognition? Someone who is better in decision making or language has enormous advantages over someone who isn't as good. I agree that pattern recognition is very limited to assess cognition as a whole.

Are you familiar with the g factor? Could you explain it a bit if so?

>> No.5675153
File: 55 KB, 250x250, 1364413974825.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5675153

>>5675150
So, where does the consciousness come from?

Oh, what? You think I forgot the original question? Nice try.

>> No.5675150

>>5675144
>This basically implies that the abacus is not a primitive form of computer.
No, it isn't at all like saying that. Jesus.
>it's the fact it set the study of the brain in motion.
Like I said, twice, we only just got started in the 90's. The proper tools to study the brain haven't been around for very long. You're saying that, because we don't know everything about the brain, funding brain research is useless. Why am I even arguing with you. It should be fucking obvious why saying shit like that is fucking stupid.

>> No.5675159

>>5675153
>So, where does the consciousness come from?
Yeah, we don't know. What's your fucking point. It's not like that question is the only reason for neuroscience to exist.

>> No.5675163

>>5675159
>What's your fucking point
centuries of research, decennia of millions spent on even more research, and we still know nothing of value.

>> No.5675168

>>5675152
>First of all how are you involved with neuroscience?
I'm a post-doc.

>How can you not quantify cognition?
One overarching measure is, in my opinion, problematic considering it consists of many different facets, mediated by disparate brain regions. One can, however, quantify individual aspects of cognition, and the more specific you get, the more accurate your measure will be.

>Are you familiar with the g factor? Could you explain it a bit if so?
G is essentially what Spearman hypothesised to be the single factor that underlies (a subset of) cognitive abilities. It's what's approximated with some (most?) IQ tests.

>> No.5675170

>>5675163
>and we still know nothing of value
That's not true though, you ignorant cunt.

>> No.5675171

>>5675168
> It's what's approximated with some (most?) IQ tests.
IQ tests only give you an answer relative to the median general population's intelligence.

>>5675170
Excellent rebuttal.

>> No.5675174

>>5675171
>Excellent rebuttal.
Thanks. It's not hard refute a post in which no argument was made, but only a statement. I can just reply with a counter statement.

>> No.5675176

>>5675174
Let me rephrase
>We have spent a lot of money on neuroscience
>and we still know nothing of value
>AND I THINK WE SHOULD STOP FUNDING NEUROSCIENCE BECAUSE IT'S A WASTE OF MONEY

The argument is complete now. Argue.

>> No.5675178

>>5675176
Your argument relies on a false premise:
>and we still know nothing of value
We have leaned a great deal about the brain.

>> No.5675181

>>5675178
Yes we have. We know what receptors do what and how, we know what drugs affect what parts of the brain.
How is any of this significant? We can't apply it to anything.

>> No.5675186

>>5675181
>We can't apply it to anything.
Tell your doctor that when you're going in for epilepsy. Or when your grandmother develops Alzheimer's, and your grandfather develops Parkinson's. You get a brain tumor, or suffer from a stroke. Develop MS, your kid is diagnosed with OCD, and is infected with encephalitis and becomes dyskinetic. You get the point.

You might as well not seek treatment for any of these conditions, given that after all we can't apply anything now can we? You'd be just as well off with a herbal cream from a voodoo master.

>> No.5675191

>>5675168
>different facets of cognition
How close are we to understanding how our brain works as a total?
How close are we to unifying the various cognitive skills into one single theory?
I separated these to avoid misunderstanding

So g is just a product of statistics?

Is there any ongoing research to understand cognition or neuroscientists don't touch it with a 10ft pole for obvious reasons?

>> No.5675197

Because the uneducated high schoolers of /sci/ don't know shit about neuroscience. In their ignorance they think philosophy trolling about qualia, free will and consciousness means neuroscience.

>> No.5675206
File: 15 KB, 250x250, 1294601690449.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5675206

>>5675197

thread over, the autist is here

>> No.5675210

>>5675191
>How close are we to understanding how our brain works as a total?
How close? That's hard to answer. Not very. The ting about the brain is that there are many different levels of study. You can look at how the system functions as a whole, all the way down to how individual subunits of ion channels behave. This is reflected in relatively segregated bodies of literature. Different tools exists for the electrophysiologist who studies in vitro slice preparations than for the cognitive neuroscientist who studies live and healthy humans. Integrating the these different levels of study has proven difficult. In the time to come, as methods will develop to study both single-neuron and system-level dynamics in unison, we can begin to consolidate- and expand upon what we already know, and more importantly, integrative theory will emerge, although it's hard to say when and how fast all of this will happen.

>How close are we to unifying the various cognitive skills into one single theory?
Progress is being made, as similarities of different aspects of cognition are starting to get noticed. There's a lively discussion going on in the literature at the moment about whether attention and working memory are really separate concepts. I think that once we start to define these things in neural terms, it's easier to classify them into distinct categories that aren't reliant on a semantic description of the process in question.

>So g is just a product of statistics?
To simplify things, yes. It's a summary variable that explains variance in task performance across cognitive domains. It's not actually something physical, although it has neural correlates.

>Is there any ongoing research to understand cognition or neuroscientists
Yes. I'm a cognitive neuroscientist myself. The thing is though, people hardly study all aspects of cognition, but virtually always specialize on one particular cognitive process.

Anyway, I'm going for dinner now. Have a wonderful day!

>> No.5675245

>>5675210
Thanks for all the information and time you've given me, really appreciate it. Keep up the good work

>> No.5675271

>>5674960
Bump, because this shits interesting

>> No.5675408

BUMP FOR MOTHERFUCKING NEUROSCIENCE

>> No.5675419

>>5675035
>>5675027
>>5675039
>>5675108
>>5675168
>>5675210
A+. You should post more often.

>> No.5675450

>>5675181
>We can't apply it to anything
I know there's already been a rebuttal here, but to say that we can't apply it to anything is like saying that you can't figure a maze out even though you have a map of it.

Let's say for instance that whoops, you just took a little too much of a drug. Is it useless to me to know which drugs to administer to you in order to lessen or block the first drug's effects so you don't overdose and die?

From a psychopharmacological point of view, yes, we absolutely know things of value. Pretty much everything we know about the brain is of value. Seriously, the human brain is the most complex system that we know of. Comparing it to a supercomputer is like comparing a toy Tonka bulldozer to a Caterpillar military bulldozer. EVERYTHING we know about the brain, therefore, is of tremendous value. If you put value to your own brain, I should hope you would realize that there is everything to be gained from neuroscience.

>> No.5676053
File: 127 KB, 229x287, who.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5676053

>>5675191
To know the answer to how close are we to understanding how the brain works as a whole, we would first have to understand what the whole is. So to answer your question, we would already have to have the answer to the question how the brain works as a whole, effectively rendering the first question obsolete.

I hate when people try to squeeze out a single answer for the most complicated subjects. Its like you're not even interested in science.

Simple questions, simple answers, simple minds. Nothing to do with science, since nothing is simple, except simple people, and even those are infinitely interesting from a certain perspective.

>> No.5676148

>>5675052
fuck you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-NMfp13Uug

>> No.5676574

>>5675186
>epilepsy
>Alzheimer's
>Parkinson's
>brain tumor
>stroke
>MS
>OCD
>dyskinesia
Yeah, none of these can be cured by neuroscientists, either.
Weed can halt Alzheimer's and tumors, though.

>> No.5676583

>>5676574

fucking retard

>> No.5676591

>>5676583
Oh, no. Thanks for showing me the error of my way. I now fully understand why you are right and I am wrong.

>>5676148
>We can now analyse the brain of a dead mouse
Yeah, real useful for humans.

>> No.5676794

>>5676591
>Yeah, real useful for humans.
No, please, continue shitposting.

>> No.5676805

Is this a neuroscience Q&A?

How do neurons know which neurotransmitter to release?

>> No.5676823

>>5676805
Neurons are generally programmed to release only one kind of neurotransmitters. e.g. the cholinergic neurons of the basal forebrain, the GABAergic interneurons, etc.

Most neurons have only one type of effect: excitation or inhibition. It's the combination of billions of neurons that elicits the complex effects seen in living things.

>> No.5676834

>>5676823
Thank you

>> No.5676992

>>5676574
>Yeah, none of these can be cured by neuroscientists, either.
But they are manageable and life expectancy for the fatal ones of that list has increased dramatically. Thus, we can apply stuff we know from neuroscience. You dumb fuck.