vix86
Member
From: Tokyo
Registered: 2010-01-19
Posts: 1469
The light reading version of this is:
Researchers may have discovered how memories are encoded in the brain
The original science article is actually open access though and can be read from the journal: Cytoskeletal Signaling: Is Memory Encoded in Microtubule Lattices by CaMKII Phosphorylation?(PDF on the right)
If you have a some college level biology and/or neurobiology under your belt, I recommend the science article because, even if you don't, wiki can help. The first few sections, before it goes into detail about the work done, are a good coverage of some of the most current ideas on memory storage.
(Disclaimer: I am not [neuro]biologist)
The run down is basically that, through atomic scanning and computer models they have a working model which shows that CaMKII kinase could potentially function as a 6 bit array and store information over a long term. They also demonstrate the ability in the article to do logic AND or XOR conditional operations on the array.
For those scratching your heads. CaMKII kinase is a protein structure that acts to guide phoposphates (ex: ATP, the fuel that runs cells in our body ) to specific enzyme substrates. So like rolling a battery into the correct port. CaMKII, if I follow this right, is basically the "block" that makes up most of the microtubules in many of our neurons. These microtubules sit in the space between inner cell wall and outer cell wall and hold the structure together. Prior research has suggested strongly that these structures can actually perform calculations and that they affect internal cell processes. In the neurons in the brain (primarily in the dendrites and synapse area in the case of memory) these structures don't under go change or reshaping in the same way their other bretherin in other parts of their body do so this also adds another bit/clue that they may be "storage house" for long term memories.
Much of this still needs more testing and support from other people but the results are quite profound if its true.
1) This could explain how instinctual memory is passed down. If the memories are tied up in certain (protein based) cytoskeletal structures; DNA could easily encode these structures as static and pass down the memories or bits of memory, to offspring. Such as how many animals are born knowing which predators to run from/hide from.
2) With more research into DNA and genetic engineering, we too may one day be able to encode and pass down memories to our kids. Imagine encoding the breadth of current mathematical and scientific knowledge into each new kid. They are conceived knowing the most current knowledge of the day. And when they finally get old enough to do anything (ie: think rationally), they can start hitting the hard problems of the day. They'll have cut out a significant chunk of what must be learned.
If you actually ARE biologist, please correct my earlier stuff if it happens to be incorrect.
Last edited by vix86 (2012 March 23, 9:00 am)
Splatted
Member
From: England
Registered: 2010-10-02
Posts: 776
I've not read either article yet, but your post is fascinating. Thanks for sharing.
vix86 wrote:
2) With more research into DNA and genetic engineering, we too may one day be able to encode and pass down memories to our kids. Imagine encoding the breadth of current mathematical and scientific knowledge into each new kid. They are conceived knowing the most current knowledge of the day. And when they finally get old enough to do anything (ie: think rationally), they can start hitting the hard problems of the day. They'll have cut out a significant chunk of what must be learned.
You have a very utopian view of how this would be used. Imagine how else we might program our kids, or how a government might program them for us. I bet there's already countless 1984esq sci-fi novels about it.
Last edited by Splatted (2012 March 23, 8:51 am)
vix86
Member
From: Tokyo
Registered: 2010-01-19
Posts: 1469
brianobush wrote:
Coal and gas fired plants have risks (long term and short term), but they pale in comparison to nuclear.
The trade off is basically: guaranteed dumping of tons of carcinogens, heavy metals, and global warming accelerants into the air VS a small but quite unlikely chance of maybe something possibly worse happening. Its worth noting that the number of nuclear disasters which resulted in considerable damage to the environment have been considerably small (to non-existent) when compared to the number of nuclear plants in use around the world.
cjon256 wrote:
So nuclear power would be fine if it wasn't being run by human beings?
I knew someone would point that out. Its true that anything humans do they'll likely at some point do in error, usually in the management of it. However you can decrease the damage caused by simply employing better (read: safer) reactor designs. The 2 largest nuclear reactors disasters are the result of the same type of reactor design which can quickly run away when not cooled properly.
vix86
Member
From: Tokyo
Registered: 2010-01-19
Posts: 1469
vileru wrote:
@vix86
For the present, it's quite obvious that you support fission as a major energy source, especially compared to coal (and I assume oil/gas as well). However, what about the future? Should we stick with fission or move onto fusion or non-nuclear alternatives, such as wind or solar power?
Honestly I support new attempts at power sources such as fusion, molten salt solar plants, and wind/water/etc are always obvious. Photovoltaic cells though, you need to be careful about, a number of them tend to be rife with heavy metals so its one thing to be conscious of, but at least its no floating around in the air. I just take issue with the disproportionate bad rep that nuclear power gets in the public/mass media sphere. Fossil fuels, which are guaranteed to pump more pollutants and life threatening materials into the atmosphere don't even remotely catch the same kind of scrutiny.
You take this, and then pile it on top of the fact that no one also wants to fund new research...Its frustrating and I blame the large scale ignorance of people.
Tzadeck wrote:
You know, I find it really odd that nobody has made a forum interface that deals with threads going off topic. You could easily make something like 'branch threads' within threads, that would not appear unless you clicked on 'view branch thread' or whatever. Thus, people who are interested in whatever the off-topic thing is would be able to read it if they wanted to, but those who wanted to ignore it could do it much more easily.
It would make it easier to continue an on-topic discussion while branch discussions were also happening.
This is an awesome idea! I have yet to see anything like it. I wonder how hard it would be to implement a plugin to do it on a BB system hmmm.
Last edited by vix86 (2012 March 23, 10:28 pm)
dtcamero
Member
From: new york
Registered: 2010-05-15
Posts: 653
vix86 wrote:
And when guns aren't available. People just grab the next best weapon.
this equates to a basic statistical ignorance. in your defence, most people are unaware of the enormous effect gun control laws (and more specifically the lack thereof) have on peoples behaviour...
"There are an average of 30,000 gun deaths and 100,000 gun injuries each year. The average US annual firearm fatality rate is 10.6 per 100,000 population which is more than the entire industrialized world combined. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rose … 47153.html
I suppose we could propogate some canard about the US and its racial history, or it just being a violent country... but the canadians are pretty similar demographically, plus gun control laws, and have 1/10th the amount of societal violence. I find it kind of strange that your examples were all japanese when in fact they have one of the lowest rates of societal violence in the world. they do bring a certain manic weirdness to their criminal episodes however.
vix86
Member
From: Tokyo
Registered: 2010-01-19
Posts: 1469
Frankly I don't care what the statistics on gun homicides or knife homicides or any of it is. The point still is: A gun does not get up on its own walk out onto the street and start shooting people. Someone or something has to pick it up, point it at someone, and pull the trigger. Technology and science are not inherently evil it is the actions of people which turn the knowledge of something into something dangerous.
As I said, if we based our progress in science on "Gosh people will do bad stuff with this." we'd still be back in the stone age because no one would want to try and figure out how to create bronze or iron because "Oh my, someone might take this carving knife and stab someone with it." or "Someone might make a really long knife and go to the next town over with a group of people and massacre them and continue doing this over and over."
EDIT: The reason I used Japan for my examples is because guns are not prevalent here, but when people want to kill someone they always do it with knifes, and its almost always grisly.
Last edited by vix86 (2012 March 24, 12:19 am)
