Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Wielokropek

Pages: [1] 2
1
Question: What is the role of Onkis?

2
Question: What are the origins of the Dunyain?

3
Question: Is the Absolute antithetical to the existence of the gods?

4
Prediction: Akka is being led to the location of the Heron Spear.

5
Question: Did the Dunyain intend for Kellhus or Moenghus to attain the Absolute?

6
Prediction: Serwa bears a nonman child at Ishterebinth.

7
Question: What is the No-God?

8
Question: How does the Thousandfold Thought move people?

9
Question: Why is Kellhus able to see halos around his hands and perform miracles, e.g. pulling Serwe's hart from his chest?

10
Question: If what comes after determines what comes before (as with the white-luck), then how can the logos allow for a communion of intellect and circumstance?

11
Neurology and Cognitive Neuroscience (Neuroinformatics in total, I guess) are my passions, so I'm going to try and elaborate on how this stuff works and then try to propose an alternative sequence for everything below feeling.

Yeah, the synaptic cleft (or synapse) is the space between one neuron's axon terminal and another's dentritic spine (or cell body); therefore, it is the space at which two neurons communicate. Since the synapse is just a space, however, and not an actual structure, it's typically only used as a point of reference. For example, a neuron can be presynaptic or postsynaptic depending on whether it sends information (in the form of neurotransmitters) across the synapse or whether it receives information.

Synapses themselves aren't normally referenced when discussing how remembering things works because they exist at a much smaller scale than, say, the CA nuclei in the hypothalamus. The synapse is, however, involved in the processes that encourage neural plasticity (how neural networks alter their format, or just how neurons change the specifics of inter-neuronal communication), without which things like forming new declarative or procedural memories would be impossible.

Generally, the actual processes that cause neural plasticity are long term potentiation and long term depression. This is when presynaptic neurons release large neurotransmitters that, when they bind to special receptors on postsynaptic neurons, can cause other metabolic functions to in turn cause epigenetic changes (changes in gene expression) in the postsynaptic neuron. Ultimately this changes the way the presynaptic and postsynaptic neurons interact. For example, the postsynaptic neuron may increase the number of receptors at the synapse, thereby increasing its ability to respond to the presynaptic neuron.

Trying to sort networks according to how they deal with sensory information or what kind of feedback loops they are involved in would be really messy because there are just so many ways the brain does and can deal with sensory information and information feedback. To simplify, I'll just organize neural networks by their size.

I would arrange the scale accordingly:

Multi-region neural networks
Multi-nucleic neural networks
Mono-nucleic neural networks
Long term potentiation/depression
Transmission across the synapse
Neural metabolic processes (i.e. synthesis of neurotransmitters, receptors, etc. second messenger actions, mitochondrial processes, etc.)
Genetic makeup (particularly any genes involved in neurogenetics, considering this is about the brain)
Basic chemical compositions
Atomic Scale
physics that I don't understand
...

If you'd like clearer or more detailed explanations of anything here, I'd be happy to provide them.

12
Your entire use of synapse seems a little peculiar to me considering it's just the space between dendritic spines and axonal terminals. The only times I encounter people referring to the synapse is when describing particular properties of presynaptic and postsynaptic neurons, or mentioning the existence of specific ionotropic or metabotropic receptors on postsynaptic neurons or the production of specific ligands in presynaptic neurons. To my knowledge, whenever systems of neurons are mentioned, they're referred to as neuronal networks or circuits, so I'd use one of those terms wherever you use synaptic connection.

I'd also probably throw in long-term potentiation/depression before specific firings between neurons because the epigenetic changes caused by these processes are what alter how neurons connect and how they behave in networks.

Speaking about algorithms in neural networks is tricky because algorithms can exist at multiple levels. There can be complex algorithms spanning multiple lobes that determine behavioural output and there can be algorithms within specific nuclei that determine their output, so I'd not use algorithms at all and instead use more specific references to the size of networks.

13
The Forum of Interesting Things / Re: Culture is (not) your friend
« on: March 27, 2014, 12:21:58 am »
Alright, makes sense. We certainly emphasize the importance of the scientist, and I imagine the importance of the priest would have been emphasized in 7th century Europe.

Does Berman provide any kind of definition of what a culture is or what it means for one to die (or change into an internal or external culture)? Without operational definitions, the claim that a culture can cycle between internal and external states is kind of moot.

In any case, I doubt that an emphasis of commercialism, pleasure, and cognitive bias-reinforcing media could even change our society such that it is no longer dependent on scientific rationality. As long as we retain our current level of technological dependency, there will be vested interests in maintaining the scientific status quo. And if we did, somehow, fail to provide enough of a rudimentary education to encourage those who would become scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. then we would probably become dependent on immigrant intellectuals.

14
The Forum of Interesting Things / Re: Culture is (not) your friend
« on: March 26, 2014, 08:47:06 pm »
I disagree with Berman.

The dichotomy of external and internal cultures doesn't seem particularly valid to me. I can't think of a single culture that is or was centered wholly around dogma, nor can I think of a culture that is or was centered solely around rationality. I certainly wouldn't call our own culture external. Sure, we've had extreme technological advancements over the last century or two, advancements that couldn't have happened without scientific rationality, but huge proportions of the population have been religious all throughout these last few centuries.

Another problem is that I have no idea what it means for a culture to die, or what even constitutes a culture. Think of the Roman culture. Many (probably most) of the unique mannerisms of the Roman people have died off, but Rome has doubtless made at least philosophical and legal innovations that live on in our culture.

If a culture is only the mannerisms of the people, then it's probably something that simply changes over time as new technological advancements or political changes allow or force people to act differently (or the culture dies off if the people are killed). And if a culture consists of the innovations of any population that allow them to behave in different ways, then those innovations can probably survive the collapse of the society that houses the culture so long as not all the people die and their records are not destroyed.

Besides, if Berman is right, then as the general populace sees the world increasingly as magical science and confirmations of their cognitive biases, we should see less scientific progress. But there's tons of scientific innovation happening right now, even as news segments broadcast their daily tripe.

15
The Forum of Interesting Things / Re: Culture is (not) your friend
« on: March 25, 2014, 11:03:24 pm »
I don't really have a high opinion of the news (if you're calling it infotainment, I doubt you do either). It never really conveys what I'd call informative or important information. And the thing is, I, at least, am not interested in doing research into the political state of the world, what my true social conditions are, or whatever factors influence any kind of vast social power dynamic. There might be a lot of information about these things out there, but if I'm not interested in finding credible resources and developing a well justified opinion (or what I think is a well justified opinion), then the information will reside in a permanent blind spot.

So a society in which people never actively consider the consequences of their social status doesn't seem too far fetched to me. And if the infotainment doesn't just seem like blind entertainment, but makes one feel like they have a good grasp on the situation, then why would they actively seek out information that proves otherwise?

Now, I'm not saying that this is or would be true about everyone. There could be any number of reasons someone would actively seek to learn more about the true nature of society. I do, however, believe that whoever does learn more about their society would ultimately just belong to another social in-group. Intellectual debate and critical thinking live on, but just because there are groups who debate and think critically doesn't mean that these groups could ever actually affect social change.

I suppose it would generally go something like, "leave the philosophizing to the intellectuals and the policy-making to the politicians; but if you ask me, I could do it better than any of them." I mean just look at voter turn-out. Most people don't seem to care or have time for politics, but the political wheel keeps spinning, and I bet a whole lot a non-voters would still be willing to tell you "what's going on." Just look at me! I know that I know very little, but here I am, running my mouth.

If there is any kind of vast economic collapse, however, and the majority of people don't have any access to basic necessities (i.e. food, water, shelter, etc.), then that's a whole other situation. Maybe society would turn on ousting a scapegoat, maybe the rioting would be controlled and the wealthy would simply flee to safer waters. In that case, I have no idea how things could pan out or what would happen to any western culture.

Pages: [1] 2