The brain is the most complex organ in the human body, and as such, it is responsible for the control and regulation of everything else within us. While its functions vary greatly in number and in role, the underlying physiological processes that are responsible for each given function tend to be quite similar. Throughout the history of neuroscience, there have been multiple attempts to identify these processes and explain them, and I have described some of these attempts (Dualism, Descartes' model) in my previous entries. And like I have also said before, we now realise that the brain is a large aggregation of nervous tissue in which a few glands of the endocrine system are present, such as the pituitary gland and the pineal gland. Specifically, nervous tissue refers to neurons, the nervous cells which communicate information, and the cells which provide them with nutrients. About 20 days after conception, the origin of the nervous system, the neural tube, will be formed after a portion of the posterior of the embryo hardens and curls inward. This tube will close off at the bottom and form the bottom of the spinal cord, and the top will send forth progenitor cells which give rise to the neurons and nutrient-providing cells of the brain. These cells will arrange themselves in a manner specified by the genetic instructions coded for by the DNA of the organism, and, once they have all been formed and moved to their specified locations, they will send out extensions of themselves, or processes, to connect with the other neurons of the brain. Meanwhile, the neurons which comprise the rest of the nervous system are being formed from progenitor cells located down the rest of the soon-to-be spinal cord, and will connect with each other, the cells of the brain, and the organs of the body. All this entails, really, is that the brain is a complex conglomeration of nerve cells. Ergo, the functionality of the brain can be attributed to biological processes of the cells, or, at least, this was the classic model of the brain until a scientist I had referenced in my previous post, "The Rhythm of Memories," introduced a new model which used another variable to explain the processes of the brain: time.
A function of neurons is that they propagate messages along their bodies using electricity. The aforementioned scientist whose name is Rodolfo Llinas, discovered in the mid 80s that the electric charge of a group of neurons would become constant in that grouping, and that those charges would then begin to oscillate in rhythm with one another. He found that this would occur without any perceptual or cognitive stimulus, and is, as a result, intrinsically present as a process of the brain. The scientist used this intrinsic oscillation, and therefore time, as a variable in a model of the brain he proposed. As I had described and subsequently challenged in my previous post, Llinas found that regions of the brain that were responsible for movement, such as the cerebellum, oscillated at a different frequency than regions of the brain responsible for interpretation of sensory information, such as the cerebrum. Another region of the brain, the thalamus, is also comprised of groups of neurons which oscillate together, however the inside of the thalamus naturally does so at the same frequency those regions of the brain involved with movement oscillate at (around 10 Hz), and the outside oscillates in conjunctive frequency with sensory information processing regions of the brain, around 40 Hz. Rodolfo Llinas used these findings to conclude that we move at a frequency of about 10 Hz, whereas we perceive and sense at a frequency of about 40 Hz. The neuroscientist stipulated that this disparagement between oscillation frequencies of movement and perception was in part to an evolutionary 'allowance' of sorts, so that the brain could have time to process information before it acted.
As his research continued, Llinas began to focus moreso on the thalamus, a region of the brain commonly known as the sensory relay station. That is true to an extent, however the outside of the thalamus is what is majorly responsible for this, and the inside is mainly responsible for attentiveness, or arousal. Because the inside of the thalamus and areas of the brain responsible for movement oscillate at the same frequency, it can be asserted that they are connected to each other, both in anatomy and functionality, and it can then be logically concluded that an organism will make movements that are not caused by reflex arcs based on what it is paying attention to. Following this line of reasoning, the outside of the thalamus is connected to the sensory information processing areas of the brain such as the cerebrum (a set of connections which Llinas coined to be the thalamocortical system), and that the functionality of those regions is based on the information being relayed by the thalamus. Furthermore, as I had originally described in my post, "Subjective Perception," multiphasic cognitive relay is a term which I use to refer to the general illusory state of consciousness, being that the individual will be conscious of something if two or more cognitive faculties are perceiving information from it. Because regions of the brain which oscillate at the same frequency play a role in the processes of one another, Llinas found that if the outside and inside of the thalamus are oscillating at the same frequencies, then the individual is paying attention to, or aroused by, the cognition, from (as I personally stipulate) two or more sensory systems, which the thalamus is perceiving, and is therefore conscious of it. Simply put, an organism is conscious of what it is paying attention to, be it vision, audition, proprioception, interoception, or any of the senses.
As further proof of concept, Llinas continued onward to discover a class of disorders collectively known as thalamocortical dysrhythmia. These disorders entail a region of the thalamus oscillating at a 'mismatched' frequency than the rest of the brain area, and, depending on the region, will produce a different disorder. The neuroscientist, along with other neuroscientists who have been taking increasingly vested interests in thalamocortical dysrhythmia, discovered that it is the cause of disorders such as Parkinson's Disease, tinnitus, and even schizophrenia, among other previously recognised conditions and disorders. Specifically, schizophrenia is a disorder which humans have known of since the classical age of Ancient Rome and Greece. The word literally means "broken mind" in Greek, and is philosophically referred to as perceiving reality as if it were a dream. But what is a dream?
As I said in my introductory paragraph of this entry, the brain is responsible for a myriad of functions, however the physiological processes which perform these functions are not as varied, in fact I would go so far as to assert that they all revolve around the same intrinsic chattering that occurs between groups and circuits of neurons. In my posts "The Genius Gene" and "The Memory Circuit," I go into detail concerning the nature of what a memory is, and attribute it to a circuit of neurons that "loops" through different regions of the brain depending on which regions were activated due to the experience the stored memory entails. I've also said that the frontal lobe of the cerebrum is responsible for the planning of behaviours and strategies as well as the solving of problems. Because the brain is capable of synthesising stored memories to create new concepts, ideas, strategies, etc., I stipulate that a dream is simply a conglomeration of synthesised memories. Moreover, it has been found that brain activity during dream-sleep, or REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep, is consistent with levels of brain activity during wakefulness, and logic can then lead to the conclusion that a dreaming individual can be considered conscious. And as I had said before, you are conscious of something if you are paying attention to it, so an individual is, very simply, paying attention to the conglomerate memory synthesis when he is dreaming. Furthermore, because of the illusory nature of consciousness, it is not something which is able to actually to "do" anything at all, which means that processes such as conglomerate memory synthesis are not ones that are initiated by functions classically thought of as conscious. However does that mean this synthesis process is one that is facilitated by sensory information, or one that happens intrinsically, similar to the chatter-like neuronal oscillation?
A commonly referred to phenomenon is one in which the given individual reports to have been dreaming about a TV show he had been watching before he went to bed. Another instance of this would be if the individual is upset by something. He would then report that his dreams were related to that feeling of being upset in some way. Therefore it can be asserted that previously perceived cognition can and does play a role in dreams. Somnambulism, or sleepwalking, is, very simply, interaction with the environment as if the interacting individual was awake. These interactions tend to be repeated behaviours such as cleaning, and could be attributed to some type of cognition the individual did not consciously perceive due to his inherent focus on his dreaming, and therefore has no ability to inhibit the habitual behaviour. The interactions might also have the possibility of being driven by events the individual is dreaming of. The recurring theme in each of the aforementioned cases is that the sensory events are affecting the dream state, which means that the conglomerate memory syntheses would occur intrinsically, without any need for cognitive manipulation. For example, when we daydream, we tend to "zone out" and focus on the daydream, however we are capable of "snapping out of it" due to some outside stimulus, perhaps someone yelling. The daydream originally occurred, though, because the individual began to pay attention more and more to it.
Schizophrenia is, as I had mentioned previously, generally refers to difficulty in differentiating between reality and dreams. Because dream-like processes, or conglomerate memory syntheses, occur intrinsically, a difficulty in reality and dream differentiation would simply refer to the frontal lobe having difficult solving the 'problem' of whether or not something is real, which would be, as Rodolfo Llinas has found, in part to thalamocortical dysrhythmia. To conclude, it is becoming more and more evident that using time as a variable in a model of brain functionality is critical to the realism of the model, and the processes of the thalamocortical system, as well as the thalamus itself, point further to the plausibility of my original concept of multiphasic cognitive relay.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
The Rhythm of Memories
I recently read an article from Discovery magasine called "Brainsong," in which the author had interviewed a neuroscientist by the name of Rodolfo Llinas. The string of questions concerned Llinas' perspective as to how the brain functions, and this perspective "emphasizes frequency, time, and coherence as much as anatomy and neurochemistry." Llinas has found that neurons intrinsically communicate with each other in low-level electric oscillatory rhythms, and that they do so intrinsically. That is, this rhythmic neural oscillation occurs without the need for any sort of sensory input. The generally thought of model of the brain is that it is akin to a computer, where it simply receives an efferent, sensory input, and then outputs a response using afferent motor neurons, however what actually happens is that incoming stimuli simply alter the inherent "chatting" that is already occurring between neurons of a given group, and then other neurons in that group will adjust to that altered oscillation frequency. This is similar to the beating of the heart: it can be slowed or sped up, but it will always pump, and, in the case of the neural oscillations, they can be increased or decreased in frequency, but they will still already be occurring. Furthermore, according to Rodolfo, regions of the brain that are involved in movement and coordination, such as the cerebellum, oscillate at 10 Hertz (Hz), or cycles per second, whereas faculties such as perception and cognition oscillate at 40 Hz, a frequency which is called gamma band. But, while Llinas' findings are indisputable, I stipulate that his interpretation of what they entail is mistaken. Why?
In my post "The Memory Circuit," I had said that memories are comprised of circuits of neurons which "loop" through different areas of the brain. What I did not say, however, is that each of these memory circuits are maintained by constant low-level electrical oscillations. These oscillations could be what Llinas refers to when he said the cerebellum oscillates at 10 Hz, something which he interpreted to be the simple functioning of the region. As I had referenced in my post "The Genius Gene," the brain stores basic statements, ideas or movements that it deems to be axiomatic in nature as memories, and then connects multiples of these simpler memories to form more complex conclusions. I think that the memory of a simple movement or complex behaviour would be comprised of a neural circuit which "loops" through corresponding regions of the brain, such as the cerebellum, and I further stipulate that the neuroscientist's observation of brain regions responsible for movement oscillating at 10 Hz instead refers to memory circuits that involve movements in their stored recollections. As a final point, I convict that if a memory circuit were to begin oscillating at 40 Hz, the individual would still only consciously recall it if multiple different cognitive stimuli were responsible for increasing the oscillatory frequency.
My next few posts will concern various points which Rodolfo Llinas made in the interview featured in a special edition of the Discovery magasine.
References
"Brainsong." Interview by Kat McGowan. Discover May 2012: 15-22. Print.
In my post "The Memory Circuit," I had said that memories are comprised of circuits of neurons which "loop" through different areas of the brain. What I did not say, however, is that each of these memory circuits are maintained by constant low-level electrical oscillations. These oscillations could be what Llinas refers to when he said the cerebellum oscillates at 10 Hz, something which he interpreted to be the simple functioning of the region. As I had referenced in my post "The Genius Gene," the brain stores basic statements, ideas or movements that it deems to be axiomatic in nature as memories, and then connects multiples of these simpler memories to form more complex conclusions. I think that the memory of a simple movement or complex behaviour would be comprised of a neural circuit which "loops" through corresponding regions of the brain, such as the cerebellum, and I further stipulate that the neuroscientist's observation of brain regions responsible for movement oscillating at 10 Hz instead refers to memory circuits that involve movements in their stored recollections. As a final point, I convict that if a memory circuit were to begin oscillating at 40 Hz, the individual would still only consciously recall it if multiple different cognitive stimuli were responsible for increasing the oscillatory frequency.
My next few posts will concern various points which Rodolfo Llinas made in the interview featured in a special edition of the Discovery magasine.
References
"Brainsong." Interview by Kat McGowan. Discover May 2012: 15-22. Print.
Monday, August 6, 2012
The Memory Circuit
In 1997, a doctor named Itzhak Friend experimented on a number of his epilepsy patients. He placed tiny brain activity monitors, or electrodes, in various regions of the patients' brains, and he then flashed various images of Marilyn Monroe at different rates to them. He had found that the same neurons, in a given patient's brain, were stimulated by different, yet similar images of Marilyn Monroe, as long as those neurons had been first exposed to a picture of her for the duration of a minimum time frame (less than a sixth of a second). Those neurons were also stimulated when the individual saw Monroe's name. Fried concluded that sets of neurons such as the ones stimulated by Marilyn Monroe are capable of retaining the "idea" of something (a place, an individual, etc.), for a brief period of time, and will be excited by stimuli which are similar to that idea. I stipulate this ability to be what I will refer to as short-term plasticity, or the ability of neurons to briefly alter their synaptic connections when posed with same or similar yet repeating stimuli in a small period of time (Plasticity, or neuroplasticity, is an ability of neurons I describe in my post "Habits, neuroplasticity, and the origin of emotion). Furthermore, this process is, essentially, the beginnings of a newly forming memory, and can be converted to one via long-term potentiation: the ability of neurons to alter their synaptic connections, in accordance with incoming stimulus, and to maintain that alteration for longer periods of time. But how and why does this conversion occur?
Memories tend to be more intense, and can be recalled more easily, if there is emotion associated with them. An example of this would be what is called, commonly, emotional scarring. This entails a situation which is so traumatic, or negative, in relation to a given individual, that the events of this occurrence are "burned" into the individual's mind ad infinitum. I would further convict that not only emotion, but the more mental processes, or faculties, involved in the memory, the more easily it can be recalled. For instance, learning is found to be easier if the subject interests the learner. Learning, as I had described in my post "The Genius Gene," is the process of the brain synthesising a new conclusion from multiple previously held memories that it deems axiomatic. Moreover, the brain is able to focus more of itself on certain processes or activities that it deems interesting via more widespread releases of a chemical called norepinephrine. Norepinephrine is involved in enhancing the vigilance, or attention to stimuli, of a given individual, and widespread releases of it will act on multiple regions of the brain, causing these regions to focus, more so, on the interesting process or activity. Therefore, the memory of the aforementioned new conclusion will be more easily remembered by the learner, if the subject at hand is one they find interesting. Another example of multiple mental faculties allowing easier recall of a given memory, as well as the associated memory or sensory information, would be cognitive association. The reason you are "reminded" of a particular memory in relation to an incoming stimulus is because one of the three lobes of the cerebrum responsible for cognitive association (the temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes) have associated that stimulus with the memory. And, the more stimulus associated with a memory, the greater the probability of, as well as ease in, the brain's recollection, because multiple different regions of the cerebrum would be involved in that remembrance (the brain is able to process more quickly depending on the amount of white matter involved in making the relevant connections, ergo the more regions of the brain involved, the faster the recollection). This concept correlates directly with multiphasic cognitive relay, a process I describe in my post "Subjective Perception." I suppose that just as multiple cognitions create the illusion of the individual being aware of that cognition, and just as multiple cognitions or mental faculties involved in the recall of a memory speeds up the process, the individual will be aware of that recall so long as multiple different cognitive associations are made by the cerebrum. In other words, the individual will become aware of the recollection of a memory if the brain had processed and stored multiple different stimuli regarding that memory, and if that information is being associated with other multiphasic cognition, be it present perception, past perception, or the frontal lobe formulating a strategy or behaviour. The remaining question, though, is how are these memories converted from short-term plasticity to long-term potentiation, and then stored?
A set of proteins, known as protein kinase, are responsible for a number of different regulatory functions. A recently discovered class of protein kinase, known as PKM-Zeta, is the single protein which is responsible for the maintaining of long-term potentiation between neurons. This protein acts as a sort of "glue" which keeps intact the altered synaptic connections, connections originally altered by the preceding short-term plasticity. Moreover, as I had stated in the previous paragraph, that the more mental faculties involved in a memory, the more easily it can be recalled, I stipulate that this is due to the nature of memory storage in the brain, a nature which I will describe as a memory circuit. A memory circuit is an interconnecting set of neurons, held together in the long-term by PKM-Zeta, that processes, or "loops," through the different regions of the brain that had been active in regards to the memory at the time of said memory. These regions are then stimulated in the same or similar manner as they had been, and this similar stimulation causes the individual to be "reminded" of the previous instances when it had occurred. As discussed in my post "Habits, Neuroplasticity, and the Origin of Emotion," neurons can undergo neuroplasticity and alter their synaptic connections in such a way that matches repeated stimuli, and I further stipulate that this neuroplasticity is the foundation on which a memory circuit is formed by the brain. As my final point, I convict that short-term plasticity is converted to long-term potentiation so long as the repeating stimuli which caused the short-term plasticity is repeated for a longer period of time. This time frame can vary depending on the intelligence, or speed at which an individual's brain makes connections, of the given individual.
I have been receiving a number of requests to create entries in regards to a number of different concepts, such as drugs and positive association. I will, in due time, write these, however for now I must start with one of the principal bases of brain function: the memory circuit.
Memories tend to be more intense, and can be recalled more easily, if there is emotion associated with them. An example of this would be what is called, commonly, emotional scarring. This entails a situation which is so traumatic, or negative, in relation to a given individual, that the events of this occurrence are "burned" into the individual's mind ad infinitum. I would further convict that not only emotion, but the more mental processes, or faculties, involved in the memory, the more easily it can be recalled. For instance, learning is found to be easier if the subject interests the learner. Learning, as I had described in my post "The Genius Gene," is the process of the brain synthesising a new conclusion from multiple previously held memories that it deems axiomatic. Moreover, the brain is able to focus more of itself on certain processes or activities that it deems interesting via more widespread releases of a chemical called norepinephrine. Norepinephrine is involved in enhancing the vigilance, or attention to stimuli, of a given individual, and widespread releases of it will act on multiple regions of the brain, causing these regions to focus, more so, on the interesting process or activity. Therefore, the memory of the aforementioned new conclusion will be more easily remembered by the learner, if the subject at hand is one they find interesting. Another example of multiple mental faculties allowing easier recall of a given memory, as well as the associated memory or sensory information, would be cognitive association. The reason you are "reminded" of a particular memory in relation to an incoming stimulus is because one of the three lobes of the cerebrum responsible for cognitive association (the temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes) have associated that stimulus with the memory. And, the more stimulus associated with a memory, the greater the probability of, as well as ease in, the brain's recollection, because multiple different regions of the cerebrum would be involved in that remembrance (the brain is able to process more quickly depending on the amount of white matter involved in making the relevant connections, ergo the more regions of the brain involved, the faster the recollection). This concept correlates directly with multiphasic cognitive relay, a process I describe in my post "Subjective Perception." I suppose that just as multiple cognitions create the illusion of the individual being aware of that cognition, and just as multiple cognitions or mental faculties involved in the recall of a memory speeds up the process, the individual will be aware of that recall so long as multiple different cognitive associations are made by the cerebrum. In other words, the individual will become aware of the recollection of a memory if the brain had processed and stored multiple different stimuli regarding that memory, and if that information is being associated with other multiphasic cognition, be it present perception, past perception, or the frontal lobe formulating a strategy or behaviour. The remaining question, though, is how are these memories converted from short-term plasticity to long-term potentiation, and then stored?
A set of proteins, known as protein kinase, are responsible for a number of different regulatory functions. A recently discovered class of protein kinase, known as PKM-Zeta, is the single protein which is responsible for the maintaining of long-term potentiation between neurons. This protein acts as a sort of "glue" which keeps intact the altered synaptic connections, connections originally altered by the preceding short-term plasticity. Moreover, as I had stated in the previous paragraph, that the more mental faculties involved in a memory, the more easily it can be recalled, I stipulate that this is due to the nature of memory storage in the brain, a nature which I will describe as a memory circuit. A memory circuit is an interconnecting set of neurons, held together in the long-term by PKM-Zeta, that processes, or "loops," through the different regions of the brain that had been active in regards to the memory at the time of said memory. These regions are then stimulated in the same or similar manner as they had been, and this similar stimulation causes the individual to be "reminded" of the previous instances when it had occurred. As discussed in my post "Habits, Neuroplasticity, and the Origin of Emotion," neurons can undergo neuroplasticity and alter their synaptic connections in such a way that matches repeated stimuli, and I further stipulate that this neuroplasticity is the foundation on which a memory circuit is formed by the brain. As my final point, I convict that short-term plasticity is converted to long-term potentiation so long as the repeating stimuli which caused the short-term plasticity is repeated for a longer period of time. This time frame can vary depending on the intelligence, or speed at which an individual's brain makes connections, of the given individual.
I have been receiving a number of requests to create entries in regards to a number of different concepts, such as drugs and positive association. I will, in due time, write these, however for now I must start with one of the principal bases of brain function: the memory circuit.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Habits, Neuroplasticity, and the Origin of Emotion
There are two manners in which an individual grows and develops: genetically, or pathologically. Genetic development refers to processes which are both defined and initiated by the genetic code, or DNA. The DNA of humans is located in the nuclei (plural of nucleus), or centers, of the individual cells that compose all organisms, and sequences of it, known as genes, account mainly for the development and functionality of these cells that lend themselves to the collective organism's mass, function, and growth. Essentially, genes build organisms from the ground-up. Pathological development, on the other hand, refers not to development which originates from the genetic code, but rather that which is formed or altered in part to what is known as sensory input. In the context of development, it also always refers to the nervous system, and the many 'pathways it contains.' Sensory input occurs when some manner of stimulus, for example, the heat source referenced in my post, "The Decision Reflex," acts on receptors located on neurons that connect to, or innervate, whatever other bodily system the sensory input corresponds to (in this instance, the sensory input corresponds to the integumentary system, or the skin). The input will be communicated by the sensory neurons (whose receptors it originally acted on) to other areas of the body, where it will temporarily alter current functionality. An example of this would be if you were told by a trainer or instructor to begin to run. This stimulus will be received by the auditory system, and communicated to the brain. The brain will then formulate a plan that corresponds to the trainer's instruction, and then communicate with muscles in the legs, so that the individual begins to run. Although something like this is considered a behaviour (and a conscious one at that), the course of events remained the same: you received a stimulus in the form of a command, and it thereafter altered the current functionality of the body, both by the brain processing the command, and the muscles of the legs carrying it out. However, the alterations described above are only temporary. In order for sensory input to cause pathological development, the same or similar sensory inputs must occur repeatedly over a larger period of time. For example, according to the text The Physiology of Behaviour, an infant must begin to experience seeing things with both eyes simultaneously at around two months of age, or else he will be cross-eyed. But in respect to biology, what actually happens?
In my post, "The Genius Gene," I referenced the limbs, or processes, of neurons, which are known as axons and dendrites. What I did not mention, is that both axons and dendrites branch off into smaller processes of themselves, and axons specifically terminate in what are known as terminal buttons. These buttons then form what are called synapses with one of the dendrites, cell body (or "soma"), or even an axon of another neuron (how synapses are created will be discussed in a later post). A synapse formed by a terminal button and a dendrite is axodendritic, one formed by a button and a soma is axosomatic, and one formed by a button and an axon is axoaxonic (Use the below visual as a reference). Chemicals known as neurotransmitters are released by terminal buttons when the rest of the neuron is stimulated by a communication from a sensory input or another neuron, and are the neurons' primary method of information transmission. Released neurotransmitters will briefly float through the space between the button, and the surface it has formed a connection with, known as the synaptic cleft, and consequently affect the dendrite, soma, or axon of whatever neuron with which the synapse had been formed. The newly affected neuron will then either propagate or inhibit the transmission which caused the original release of chemicals into the synaptic cleft, and this depends on the type of the neurotransmitter. This will continue, from neuron to neuron, until the transmission is inhibited, or completes the communication of the information being transmitted.
Neurons are actually capable of changing the synapses they have formed with other neurons, and are able to cease communication by terminating a synaptic connection with one neuron, and creating a connection with another. This process is referred to collectively as neuroplasticity, and will also be discussed in more detail in future posts. For now, though, the ability of neurons to alter their synaptic connections are the changes caused by the aforementioned gradually altering sensory input which I had called pathological development. An example of this would be habitual behaviour, or recurring behaviours of an individual that he did not consciously initiate. This can refer to many behaviours, including (but by no means limited to) grinding teeth, biting nails, and a psychological disorder that entails the habitual pulling out of hair known as trichotillomania. Habits are formed when the individual receives a sensory input which causes him to consciously perform a given behaviour, and then receives the same or a similar sensory input on a few later occasions which cause him to consciously repeat the same given behaviour (the neurons which communicate the brain's plan to initiate a behaviour to the necessary muscles are known as motor neurons). After enough instances of the same sensory input causing the same behavioural response, the neurons which have been involved with the communication of the sensory input, known as efferent neurons, and the motor neurons (or afferent neurons), will display neuroplasticity and rearrange some of their synaptic connections in what can be described as an attempt to predict the transmission of both sensory and motor information in instances similar to those which caused the original sensory inputs. Therein lies a question: why are these recurring processes, or habits, not initiated consciously?
In my post entitled "Subjective Perception," I had discussed what I stipulate to be the nature of consciousness, a phenomenon which I had referred to as multiphasic cognitive relay. Essentially this term entails the requirement for a sensory system to be processing information that corresponds to information currently being processed by other sensory systems in order for the individual to become aware of the information. In the previous paragraph, I had said that before a behaviour becomes habitual, it is still planned and initiated consciously. The frontal lobe, responsible for the planning of behaviours (among other things), communicates with the other three lobes of the cerebrum: the temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes. These lobes are responsible for processing their corresponding sensory information, possibly storing that information as memory, and then associating previously stored sensory information with either that which is currently being perceived, other memories, or plans the frontal lobe might be formulating. I will refer to this process of association as cognitive association, and the frontal lobe employs thus each time it attempts to create a plan. In the case of a behaviour which is not habitual, I stipulate the individual is conscious of cognitive association relative to the given situation because the brain is using multiple different cognitive faculties in order to process the sensory inputs of the situation. Furthermore, I convict that the individual is not conscious of the initiation of habitual behaviour because of the pathological development that caused the efferent and afferent neurons that communicated information on same or similar previous occasions where perception and response, on the part of the given individual, was consistent, to display neuroplasticity and alter their synaptic connections in order to "predict" similar transmissions of information. Therefore, only one sensory input would be necessary in order to at least begin the efferent transmission of information to the brain, where the same cognitive association would occur, and the same afferent motor neurons would be triggered, thus resulting in a habitual behaviour. This would also account for conscious interruption of a habit, that if another sensory system receives an input from the situation whilst the first sensory input is being processed or the motor neurons are carrying out the consequent behaviour, the individual will become aware of the process.
Neuroplasticity entails the alteration of synaptic connections on the parts of involved neurons. However, what had the original state of the synaptic connections been, before any processes displaying neuroplasticity had occurred? In my previously referenced post, "The Genius Gene," the brain of the child learning basic addition creates what I referred to as intellectual precedents that correlate to the basic postulates that are needed to prove the legitimacy of addition. And just as the infant needs to begin experience what is known as stereoscopic vision (vision with both eyes) early in their life, I hypothesise that it is at this point in the child's life, it also experiences the emotional reactions to different situations of those around him, for example his parents, and his brain then creates intellectual precedents which correspond to those emotional reactions, and uses them as a basis for how the child himself will feel in relation to different situations. After that initial intellectual precedent, neuroplasticity can occur repeatedly and alter the way in which the individual will feel about the same or similar situations, or situations which remind him of the ones in which he witnessed his parents respond emotionally, as an infant.
As in my previous posts, I will reference both the plausibility as well as hypothetical nature of my stipulations. What is interesting to note, however, is that my idea as to how emotions originate within individuals correlates to what I have recently discovered to be the most generally accepted theory of emotion within the scientific community: the James-Lange Theory. I will actually go more into detail concerning the actual nature of emotions, or irrational thought processes, in later posts, as well as all else I made clear I would discuss further. I also suggest you read my previous posts if you have not already, because I use each one as a reference point in this post, and I will continue to do so in future entries.
References
Carlson, Neil R. Physiology of Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2011. Print.
In my post, "The Genius Gene," I referenced the limbs, or processes, of neurons, which are known as axons and dendrites. What I did not mention, is that both axons and dendrites branch off into smaller processes of themselves, and axons specifically terminate in what are known as terminal buttons. These buttons then form what are called synapses with one of the dendrites, cell body (or "soma"), or even an axon of another neuron (how synapses are created will be discussed in a later post). A synapse formed by a terminal button and a dendrite is axodendritic, one formed by a button and a soma is axosomatic, and one formed by a button and an axon is axoaxonic (Use the below visual as a reference). Chemicals known as neurotransmitters are released by terminal buttons when the rest of the neuron is stimulated by a communication from a sensory input or another neuron, and are the neurons' primary method of information transmission. Released neurotransmitters will briefly float through the space between the button, and the surface it has formed a connection with, known as the synaptic cleft, and consequently affect the dendrite, soma, or axon of whatever neuron with which the synapse had been formed. The newly affected neuron will then either propagate or inhibit the transmission which caused the original release of chemicals into the synaptic cleft, and this depends on the type of the neurotransmitter. This will continue, from neuron to neuron, until the transmission is inhibited, or completes the communication of the information being transmitted.
 |
| Three synaptic connections: leftmost is axodendritic, center is axosomatic, rightmost is axoaxonic |
In my post entitled "Subjective Perception," I had discussed what I stipulate to be the nature of consciousness, a phenomenon which I had referred to as multiphasic cognitive relay. Essentially this term entails the requirement for a sensory system to be processing information that corresponds to information currently being processed by other sensory systems in order for the individual to become aware of the information. In the previous paragraph, I had said that before a behaviour becomes habitual, it is still planned and initiated consciously. The frontal lobe, responsible for the planning of behaviours (among other things), communicates with the other three lobes of the cerebrum: the temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes. These lobes are responsible for processing their corresponding sensory information, possibly storing that information as memory, and then associating previously stored sensory information with either that which is currently being perceived, other memories, or plans the frontal lobe might be formulating. I will refer to this process of association as cognitive association, and the frontal lobe employs thus each time it attempts to create a plan. In the case of a behaviour which is not habitual, I stipulate the individual is conscious of cognitive association relative to the given situation because the brain is using multiple different cognitive faculties in order to process the sensory inputs of the situation. Furthermore, I convict that the individual is not conscious of the initiation of habitual behaviour because of the pathological development that caused the efferent and afferent neurons that communicated information on same or similar previous occasions where perception and response, on the part of the given individual, was consistent, to display neuroplasticity and alter their synaptic connections in order to "predict" similar transmissions of information. Therefore, only one sensory input would be necessary in order to at least begin the efferent transmission of information to the brain, where the same cognitive association would occur, and the same afferent motor neurons would be triggered, thus resulting in a habitual behaviour. This would also account for conscious interruption of a habit, that if another sensory system receives an input from the situation whilst the first sensory input is being processed or the motor neurons are carrying out the consequent behaviour, the individual will become aware of the process.
Neuroplasticity entails the alteration of synaptic connections on the parts of involved neurons. However, what had the original state of the synaptic connections been, before any processes displaying neuroplasticity had occurred? In my previously referenced post, "The Genius Gene," the brain of the child learning basic addition creates what I referred to as intellectual precedents that correlate to the basic postulates that are needed to prove the legitimacy of addition. And just as the infant needs to begin experience what is known as stereoscopic vision (vision with both eyes) early in their life, I hypothesise that it is at this point in the child's life, it also experiences the emotional reactions to different situations of those around him, for example his parents, and his brain then creates intellectual precedents which correspond to those emotional reactions, and uses them as a basis for how the child himself will feel in relation to different situations. After that initial intellectual precedent, neuroplasticity can occur repeatedly and alter the way in which the individual will feel about the same or similar situations, or situations which remind him of the ones in which he witnessed his parents respond emotionally, as an infant.
As in my previous posts, I will reference both the plausibility as well as hypothetical nature of my stipulations. What is interesting to note, however, is that my idea as to how emotions originate within individuals correlates to what I have recently discovered to be the most generally accepted theory of emotion within the scientific community: the James-Lange Theory. I will actually go more into detail concerning the actual nature of emotions, or irrational thought processes, in later posts, as well as all else I made clear I would discuss further. I also suggest you read my previous posts if you have not already, because I use each one as a reference point in this post, and I will continue to do so in future entries.
References
Carlson, Neil R. Physiology of Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2011. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)