While I am in every way scientific minded - I always find it disturbing how neuroscientists make such fundamental errors in inference on the nature of the mind after playing around with their cell mush.
"This experimental method is the ultimate way of demonstrating that mind, like memory recall, is based on changes in matter."
No, I'm afraid it is not. It is the ultimate way of demonstrating that: what is experienced by the mind is stored by the brain. Shocking. The statement is expressed in the same cocksure way that neuroscientists tout that brain structure definitely is what shapes thought; when time and time again, thought has been shown to shape brain structure.
You can infer absolutely nothing about the mind from your tests, much less that it is based on matter! I can just as easily make the opposite statement asserting causation, using the same data:
"This experimental method is the ultimate way of demonstrating that brain, like memory recall, is based on changes in mind."
While I am scientific minded- I always find it disturbing how neuroscientists make such fundamental errors in inference on the nature of the mind after playing around with their cell mush.
"This experimental method is the ultimate way of demonstrating that mind, like memory recall, is based on changes in matter."
No, I'm afraid it is not. It is the ultimate way of demonstrating that: what is experienced by the mind is stored by the brain. Shocking. The statement is expressed in the same cocksure way neuroscientists tout that brain structure surely is what shapes thought; when time and time again, thought has been shown to shape brain structure.
You can infer absolutely nothing about the mind from your tests, much less that it is based on matter! I can just as easily make the opposite statement asserting causation, using the same exact data:
"This experimental method is the ultimate way of demonstrating that the brain, like memory recall, is based on changes in mind."
I agree. The experiment is wonderful but the basis that memory is just due to changes in matter is itself very unscientific. Knowledge is unlimited and history has taught us that rushing to make such statements as these will only be disproved in a matter of time. Is it not possible that the region of the brain which stores memory is actually linked with some unknown energy field which is probably part of a much bigger energy field which represents the human body. As long as science keep growing we are yet to discover more surprises. Anyway a very good experiment done.
Aren't those cells in hippocampus just like gate keepers of the information rather than storing all the information about the episode (engrams)? Most of the information is probably stored (when consolidated?) in neocortex cells that link to those hippocampus cells, isn't it?
The hippopotamus stores fast-trigger memories where there is no time for the prefrontal context to consciously process the stimulus. What the researchers triggered were reflexes, not memories wholesale. Repeat the experiment in a month and the fear might be attached to an entirely different memory, although the reflex response remains strong. The hippocampus is a generalized circuit, although it will invoke specific memories at any one particular time, like stills taken from a film.
"You can infer absolutely nothing about the mind from your tests, much less that it is based on matter! I can just as easily make the opposite statement asserting causation, using the same data"
But by your criteria, no experiment whatsoever could challenge your preconceived notion of what the mind is. You can always say, "yes, your experiment explains every single detail of what is experienced by a mind in terms of brain cells, and nothing 'extra' is needed, but I believe there IS something extra and you can't disprove there isn't anything extra, so your experiment doesn't really tell us anything about my conception of what mind really is." Do you see that you are putting "mind" in the same category as "god", that is, something that can never be proven or disproven and will always remain a matter of belief?
I think there's a bit of confusion going on here. There is much debate in the field as to what "is" a memory. Many scientists believe that memories are formed by strengthening of synapses. "Neurons that fire together wire together". Thus neurons that are synchronized will contain molecules that strengthen the synapses within this network. No one has been able to demonstrate however that this molecular strengthening is actually a memory, until now. The researchers argue that the 'learning' genes, which are coexpressed with the optogenetic channelrhodopsin, occured in the maze fear network. They then reactivated that fear network using the channelrhodopsin that was expressed in neurons that experienced learning.
It's a nature publication. You guys might want to consider a lil background knowledge of the field before spouting your gut feelings about how brains work.
A Milestone, Rediscovered Pavlov And That Genes Are Organisms, RNA Nucleotides Genes Organisms Complying With Pavlov
From http://strokereve...e-in-spe Showing that the reactivation of those nerve cells that were active during learning can reproduce the learned behavior is surely a milestone.
vince_picariello
Mar 23, 2012"This experimental method is the ultimate way of demonstrating that mind, like memory recall, is based on changes in matter."
No, I'm afraid it is not. It is the ultimate way of demonstrating that: what is experienced by the mind is stored by the brain. Shocking. The statement is expressed in the same cocksure way that neuroscientists tout that brain structure definitely is what shapes thought; when time and time again, thought has been shown to shape brain structure.
You can infer absolutely nothing about the mind from your tests, much less that it is based on matter!
I can just as easily make the opposite statement asserting causation, using the same data:
"This experimental method is the ultimate way of demonstrating that brain, like memory recall, is based on changes in mind."