What is different about a brain when you have a good but NOT perfect memory?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Maximum7, Sep 10, 2021.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    It is obvious to all of us - except you - that Hercules Rockefeller knows a great deal more about biology than you do. You just post reams of stuff you have looked up on the internet about your pet obsessions, without any idea what the material you post really means. And you are so stubborn that you refuse to acknowledge any error in your fanciful interpretations of this material, even when it is staring you in the face.

    Microtubules have bugger all to do with the transmission of signals along an axon. Their role is in cell maintenance and possibly in the way connections are made with other cells. The latter may be important in neural processes, since the interconnections between neurons are important. But they do not "conduct" nerve impulses along axons.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    OK, you just keep believing that way ......

    p.s. they conduct nerve impulses inside axons, along microtubules.

    p.p.s. Loss of memory is directly attributable to microtubule catastrophe.

    Are you going to argue against that?
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2021
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    The problem here is that you’ve got a pet hypothesis and have latched onto research that you think supports it, but have misunderstood the research.

    You post lots and lots and lots of links that demonstrate what we already know and agree on:
    • MTs are vital structural components of all eukaryotic cells, and that they play a role in intracellular transport of macromolecules and vesicles (and sometimes whole organelles).
    • MTs are present in neurons and perform those functions in neurons.
    There’s no argument so far. MTs provide structural support for axons regulate axon diameter, which influences nerve conduction velocity. MTs are polarised polymers and are intrinsically “electrical” in their nature, insomuch as they have separated charge and, as a result, dipole moments. But to conclude that, because of this, they are primarily responsible for neuronal action potentials and are the basis of consciousness is over-reach. Of course, you haven't even mentioned other cytoskeletal components, such as neurofilaments and microfilaments, and what roles they might play.

    Now, this is your best cherry-picked literature example:
    Let’s take a look at some key phrases from the abstract:

    Okay, the key word here is “similar”. It’s not “the same as” action potentials, it’s “similar to…”.

    I'm not sure what “electrical oscillations” means in this context, but I know what it doesn’t mean – saltatory conduction of action potentials.

    I don’t have a great deal of electrophysiological research experience, but the experience I do have tells me that voltage-clamped membrane-permeabilized cultured neurons is an extremely unnatural assay system. What they’re doing here is forcing the MTs to ‘electrically oscillate’. This tells us they can do this, but not that they do this naturally in the context of normal neuronal function, or that it has relevance to action potentials.

    Okay, great! That still doesn’t support your over-reach.

    So, it seems reasonable to entertain the hypothesis that MTs may assist, or help to regulate, action potentials. The analogy of a transistor seems like a good one. MTs may be capable of supporting the amplification and axial transfer of electrical signals through interaction with ion channels. They may assist in clustering ion channel domains. But, again, none of this is the same thing as being intrinsically responsible for action potentials which is an ion channel and phospholipid-based bilayer process.

    No doubt the last line of the abstract is a major impetus for you:

    This is typical abstract grandiose last line stuff designed to sell the work. The operative word here is “may”.
    Kristoffer and exchemist like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Actually I have several times, but they are more limited in function than the incredibly versatile "variable" microtubules.


    Microfilaments and intermediate filaments
    OK, so it is different, but does that in any way disprove the phenomenon and its apparent functional uses in the system? It is a new discovery and should be added to the library, not discarded because we don't know yet its exact functionality.
    I accept that, but does that mean it has no evolved functionality, something to be ignored?
    Why do we think that unraveling the molecular functions at nano-scales is difficult? We have only just begun to physically explore this largely unknown part of our biological electrochemical world. The invention of the electron microscope has revealed an entirely new world ready for exploration.
    But it definitively disproves the assertion that microtubules do not transport electric impulses at all. That's where the objections started.
    To me it shows we have come a long way toward gaining a more comprehensive knowledge of the role MT play in a host of controlling essential homeostatic and mental processes.
    That is the only claim I make. MT are the natural candidates for Tegmark's advice to start with known "hard facts" rather than asking the "hard question", which assumes an extraneous unnatural ingredient, rather than that we already possess all the necessary ingredients for consciousness. I believe that is an eminently sage approach into a new world of discovery of brain structure, functional neural processors and its emergent non-physical mental excellencies.
    yes, yes, yes, finally...... a kindred voice in the wilderness.
    As I read it, MT are responsible for many, if not all ion and phospholid-based processes. I have no objection to the fact that cell-membrane transmission is also a known process. One does not necessarily exclude the other.
    Oh, I am well aware of the potential conceptual trap hidden in the term "may". But it is a lot more positive than the definitive term "cannot", as is being advanced by several other posters.

    Let me take this opportunity to thank you for your excellent critique and your (tacit) confirmation of several important known facts which I have presented in support of the proposition that MT are a critical component in the fundamental causal aggregate necessary for an emergent evolving neural excellence that "may" have led to a consciousness well advanced beyond evolutionary necessity, perhaps attributable to a major "beneficial" chromosomal mutation of human chromosome 2.

    p.s. Interestingly, MT form the mitotic spindle that controls the exact copying of chromosomes during cell division. One of the fundamental properties of living Eukaryotic organisms.

    AFAIK, microtubules exist in ALL eukaryotic organisms and fossils show a simpler form in most prokaryotic organisms, which suggests that they have been there from the very onset of life and may even have been instrumental in the evolution of Abiogenesis.

    Their very self-organizing simplicity and dynamical functional properties make them prime candidates for abiogenetic processes leading to the emergence of life.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2021

Share This Page