Can we compare physics and psychology?

Originally posted by dadudemon
am I over-estimating neuro-plasticity?

probably

so, what I am studying now is reaching and how the eyes and the hand coordinate. If you think about it in terms of what is known as the dual hypothesis of vision, reaching is strictly a "dorsal" task:

The dorsal stream is the "vision-for-action" stream, whereas the ventral stream is the "vision-for-perception" stream (for instance, Visual Agnosia is caused from ventral damage [or damage to the temporal lobe] and Optic Ataxia is caused by dorsal damage [damage to the parietal lobe]). Because some people in our lab do research on clinical populations (not on treatments, on a condition called PCA [posterior cortical atrophy]) we try to put a bit of a clinical spin on our work (helps with funding too).

[god this is long winded, my apologies] Anyways, in a clinical sense, it is possible that activating, bottom-up, either the dorsal or ventral stream could help damage in the other, given how connected they are. However, this is unlikely, as similar tactics have not shown results historically.

It might be that nobody has tested it specifically, or in a specific way, but at this point, it doesn't look like unlimited plasticity exists.

However, the hippocampus and memory itself are entirely different, the hippocampus undergoing intense plasticity throughout life, so maybe it will work differently, however, I do doubt the ability of this type of "bottom-up therapy", though I admit, it is almost entirely unstudied.

Originally posted by dadudemon
(surely there's a way you can associate these synapses in a way that makes it inaccessible to the fight or flight response but still accessible as a memory?) That would require a physical manipulation....or would it?

It would probably require a physical manipulation of some kind, the big risk however would be that neurological areas are highly tied to one another. I can only assume there isn't a ptsd "spot" that would be independent of other memories.

we could argue the benefits of getting rid of it while causing other cognitive developments, however, the idea that things are processed in specific and localized areas in the brain is quickly falling out of favor for distributed and overlapping models. I can't speak to ptsd specifically, but the idea that removing or disrupting the connections to that area wouldn't cause massive impacts to the memory and emotion system is almost inconceivable.

however, we are talking future tech, so maybe in this world we can rebuild these systems or whatever... idk... this future-science bullshit makes me mad, bro, as well.

Originally posted by dadudemon
CSI is full of shit, basically....our computers are not fast enough to pattern match to anything useful on the "trillions of synapses" scale.

at this point, the best we have been able to simulate is a very limited mouse brain. However, when we turned it on, it began to organize much in the same way we had predicted, meaning that even though we are extremely limited at this point, we probably are on the right track.

but ya, CSI is bullshit. hence why I don't pay for cable

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your discoveries on how shit works may lead to cures. You're part of the system of cures! 313

ha, you want to talk to me about something that gets me mad, it is the fact that everyone I meet thinks psychology is only about the clinical/guidance thing. People know Freud and Dr Phil.

It takes pains sometimes to explain to people that I don't care about helping them with their insignificant problems that stem from all the lies they tell themselves

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...

1. That's awesome that you're a free agent. Keep in mind that if you make a marvelous breakthrough that makes you millions, I knew you and supported your work BEFORE the riches. uhuh Obviously, support, in this regard, is acting as a cheerleader. 😐

cash only

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. Finding an open-minded project lead/boss/lead researcher is difficult to find, these days. You're lucky. They have their own ideas, many times. For instance, Hawking ran into trouble with his research on blackholes and his "boss" said, "Dude, this is shit science. It will never go anywhere." I bet hawking laughed about that...while droollin. 🙁

ya, I've actually got a very supportive prof that I am working for now (not that my previous one in undergrad was any different, I'm just expressing that I am ****ing lucky)

Originally posted by inimalist
probably

so, what I am studying now is reaching and how the eyes and the hand coordinate. If you think about it in terms of what is known as the dual hypothesis of vision, reaching is strictly a "dorsal" task:

The dorsal stream is the "vision-for-action" stream, whereas the ventral stream is the "vision-for-perception" stream (for instance, Visual Agnosia is caused from ventral damage [or damage to the temporal lobe] and Optic Ataxia is caused by dorsal damage [damage to the parietal lobe]). Because some people in our lab do research on clinical populations (not on treatments, on a condition called PCA [posterior cortical atrophy]) we try to put a bit of a clinical spin on our work (helps with funding too).

[god this is long winded, my apologies] Anyways, in a clinical sense, it is possible that activating, bottom-up, either the dorsal or ventral stream could help damage in the other, given how connected they are. However, this is unlikely, as similar tactics have not shown results historically.

It might be that nobody has tested it specifically, or in a specific way, but at this point, it doesn't look like unlimited plasticity exists.

However, the hippocampus and memory itself are entirely different, the hippocampus undergoing intense plasticity throughout life, so maybe it will work differently, however, I do doubt the ability of this type of "bottom-up therapy", though I admit, it is almost entirely unstudied.

You're selling out to a clinical spin to get funding...you bastard. You're just like everyone else. (JK)

About the plasticity of the memories, this is what I was referring to. It is that plasticity that makes me think moving the "traumatic" memories to another area that are not generally associated with the bottom-up responses to stimuli (though...isn't that a failed conclusion anyway? the subconscious does its background stuff all the time making the notion that you can just shove the memory somewhere safe, just stupid) a safe solution if you assume our mind will not re-wire to re-integrate the memories into our responses (i.e. triggers to the memories associated with the traumatic event). This is supported with the dreams about war and waking up in a total rage and scared to the point of shitting or pissing yourself or beating up your spouse (real reactions for some with PTSD)...the subconscious is still "digging" around our memories and creating dreams from them. That tells me my idea is shit and there's no "safe" place unless you remove the memory altogether. The memory may be safe until the connections are made and then you'd have to move it again. I dunno, doesn't seem pragmatic. I am not intelligent enough or knowledgeable enough to come up with pragmatic solutions to problems that function from memories. But that is the type of work our future neuroscientists will need to be looking into as it would obviously be in high demand if we get there (considering that some people think we are just a couple of decades away from becoming virtually immortal (either digitally or biologically)).

Originally posted by inimalist
It would probably require a physical manipulation of some kind, the big risk however would be that neurological areas are highly tied to one another. I can only assume there isn't a ptsd "spot" that would be independent of other memories.

I agree. When they expose these "dudes" to images that are supposed to invoke their PTS, it activates in certain areas of the brain. It is in the same areas, but there's no way to localize it: there's probably a mass of "neuronic groups" activated because that memory is tied to so much stuff that it would be absurd to try and move it.

Originally posted by inimalist
we could argue the benefits of getting rid of it while causing other cognitive developments, however, the idea that things are processed in specific and localized areas in the brain is quickly falling out of favor for distributed and overlapping models. I can't speak to ptsd specifically, but the idea that removing or disrupting the connections to that area wouldn't cause massive impacts to the memory and emotion system is almost inconceivable.

however, we are talking future tech, so maybe in this world we can rebuild these systems or whatever... idk... this future-science bullshit makes me mad, bro, as well.

Well, if you consider removing the association of that memory as a trigger of stress/negative reaction, our brain already does it for us when we go through therapy. So it should not be beyond the realm of science to recreate, in a more "predictable" and controllable fashion, what the brain already does for us. Why is it that some can completely get over it (lose their symptoms) and others keep it with them the rest of their lives? For example, I almost got knocked the **** out by my grandfather when I fake punched at his face...he went into military mode and almost took me out (he stopped before he actually hit me but I could tell I was a couple of seconds away from getting shit stomped by someone with mild PTSD). Even though he was completely over his PTSD (it was never that bad) he still showed signs that it wasn't fully "gotten-over".

Originally posted by inimalist
but ya, CSI is bullshit. hence why I don't pay for cable

Every episode has something in it to make at least several scientists from different fields face palm. It's worse than Star Trek, in that regard.

Originally posted by inimalist
ha, you want to talk to me about something that gets me mad, it is the fact that everyone I meet thinks psychology is only about the clinical/guidance thing. People know Freud and Dr Phil.

I think that you just admitted there was clinical applications of your work and part of how you get funding. nya nya. I do agree that that may be in part due to how much we think this should all tie back into "cures!". Everyone wants their cures or at least snake oil with science enough to make it seem like "not snake oil."

Don't get me started on "Dr." Phil.

Originally posted by inimalist
It takes pains sometimes to explain to people that I don't care about helping them with their insignificant problems that stem from all the lies they tell themselves

It seems that it doesn't take any pain at all for you to say that. Rather, you seem to enjoy saying things, "IDGAF about you pissing your bed and how it carried over into your sex life where you like to be pissed on to get off".

Remember that one time I asked you if there was something wrong with me because I was confusing memories created in dreams for memories in the real world? I thought there was something wrong with my reality association and I did not know enough about neuroscience to tell if it was the symptom of another medical problem. You were nice about it and said, "nah...there shouldn't be any problems". I'm not a hypochondriac, for sure, but every now and again, something happens that makes me thing maybe I shouldn't be so carefree. Some people look to those that are genuinely knowledgeable, or at least those that are passing themselves off as such, for comfort and legit guidance. It's in human nature. You have a great power: start taking advantage of people! 😆

Originally posted by inimalist
cash only

Done. Do you take canadian bucks or USD?

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, I've actually got a very supportive prof that I am working for now (not that my previous one in undergrad was any different, I'm just expressing that I am ****ing lucky)

Good. At least you know you're lucky.

ugh, have to stop and play skyrim

Originally posted by inimalist
ugh, have to stop and play skyrim

WTF? You have Skyrim? I guess you're not as poor as I thought. Hooray for virtual worlds!

Originally posted by dadudemon
WTF? You have Skyrim? I guess you're not as poor as I thought. Hooray for virtual worlds!

<---------------------------------------

come on

Originally posted by inimalist
<---------------------------------------

come on

Yes...but...I thought you were above that sort of thing for the stuff you strongly supported. In fact, I remember you saying that you purchase for stuff you support back in '08. A game you will play for 70-150 hours seems like one of those things...especially since I never see you post about video games you want to play instead of discuss neuroscience.

I'm not dogging you because Bethesda made a shit ton of money already and they already made their budget back and then some. I just thought this would be something your purchased instead of torrenting based on previous discussion. That last post I made actually took quite a bit of thinking before I typed it and submitted (like 15 whole seconds which is a long time for me).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes...but...I thought you were above that sort of thing for the stuff you strongly supported. In fact, I remember you saying that you purchase for stuff you support back in '08. A game you will play for 70-150 hours seems like one of those things...especially since I never see you post about video games you want to play instead of discuss neuroscience.

I'm not dogging you because Bethesda made a shit ton of money already and they already made their budget back and then some. I just thought this would be something your purchased instead of torrenting based on previous discussion. That last post I made actually took quite a bit of thinking before I typed it and submitted (like 15 whole seconds which is a long time for me).

i probably will pick it up at some point for exactly why you mentioned, but no, the cash isnt there for games at the moment

Originally posted by inimalist
i probably will pick it up at some point for exactly why you mentioned, but no, the cash isnt there for games at the moment

Meaning I was right in my assumptions on all accounts HOWEVER I over-estimated your seeming sage-like patience for consuming entertainment (you have never come off as one of those impatient consumer types...i.e. me lol).

Back on topic.

I would love to read your thoughts on my last big -arse response. We are technically still on topic because physics and psychology TECHNICALLY merge at neuroscience. All of "real" science it technically some sort of physics but on higher levels.

All of physics is technically math. So, yeah, everything "science" is math...xkcd comic on that, too...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would love to read your thoughts on my last big -arse response

ugh, let me know in a couple of days if I haven't gotten to it. I totally hear what you are saying, and there is some interesting stuff I'd love to go over, I just have a lot of stuff on my plate at the moment.

Originally posted by inimalist
ugh, let me know in a couple of days if I haven't gotten to it. I totally hear what you are saying, and there is some interesting stuff I'd love to go over, I just have a lot of stuff on my plate at the moment.

Since I won't forget (I still have a youtube video reply to one of your posts from 2008 that I have yet to get around, to...lame, I know...), I'll remind you at some random future date when I start thinking about it, again.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're selling out to a clinical spin to get funding...you bastard. You're just like everyone else. (JK)

there is a game to play. it sucks, but until I play it enough, nobody will listen to me when I say we should probably change it

Originally posted by dadudemon
About the plasticity of the memories, this is what I was referring to. It is that plasticity that makes me think moving the "traumatic" memories to another area that are not generally associated with the bottom-up responses to stimuli (though...isn't that a failed conclusion anyway? the subconscious does its background stuff all the time making the notion that you can just shove the memory somewhere safe, just stupid) a safe solution if you assume our mind will not re-wire to re-integrate the memories into our responses (i.e. triggers to the memories associated with the traumatic event). This is supported with the dreams about war and waking up in a total rage and scared to the point of shitting or pissing yourself or beating up your spouse (real reactions for some with PTSD)...the subconscious is still "digging" around our memories and creating dreams from them. That tells me my idea is shit and there's no "safe" place unless you remove the memory altogether. The memory may be safe until the connections are made and then you'd have to move it again. I dunno, doesn't seem pragmatic. I am not intelligent enough or knowledgeable enough to come up with pragmatic solutions to problems that function from memories. But that is the type of work our future neuroscientists will need to be looking into as it would obviously be in high demand if we get there (considering that some people think we are just a couple of decades away from becoming virtually immortal (either digitally or biologically)).

I agree. When they expose these "dudes" to images that are supposed to invoke their PTS, it activates in certain areas of the brain. It is in the same areas, but there's no way to localize it: there's probably a mass of "neuronic groups" activated because that memory is tied to so much stuff that it would be absurd to try and move it.

Well, if you consider removing the association of that memory as a trigger of stress/negative reaction, our brain already does it for us when we go through therapy. So it should not be beyond the realm of science to recreate, in a more "predictable" and controllable fashion, what the brain already does for us. Why is it that some can completely get over it (lose their symptoms) and others keep it with them the rest of their lives? For example, I almost got knocked the **** out by my grandfather when I fake punched at his face...he went into military mode and almost took me out (he stopped before he actually hit me but I could tell I was a couple of seconds away from getting shit stomped by someone with mild PTSD). Even though he was completely over his PTSD (it was never that bad) he still showed signs that it wasn't fully "gotten-over".

I think the biggest thing is that PTSD isn't a memory problem per se, it is an emotional problem associated with too much reaction for specific stimuli.

I think we have to differ between what I think you are describing as a "bottom-up" stimuli therapy, and a specific neurological intervention where people literally shape neuronal connections.

in terms of just using the brains own plasticity, sure, you are right, often people's brains will temper traumatic memories, but it is not a perfect system, and memory works in such a way that more intense and emotional things are remembered better. You might work to decouple intense emotional reactions from the PTSD stimuli, but I'm not sure if the cure would be worse than the condition in that case. For instance, I suffer fairly intense panic attacks from blood sometimes. In theory (though I am skeptical) some type of therapy where I am subjected to blood might cause me to habituate to the stimuli, but to do that it would require me to go through many panic attacks. I'm not sure if a therapy that required exposure to PTSD triggers is the best way to go about curing PTSD, simply because of how traumatic the therapy would be itself.

The type of neuronal interventions where we could shape the physical connections to produce less emotional response? sure, it will take a couple more decades of understanding individual neuronal organization and some more maturity in neuron/circuit interfaces, but if you are proposing that level of sophistical in the science, I can't see the major theoretical issue. I'd say, from where I sit at least, that such maturity and understanding are massive obstacles at this point, and require so much investigation that such interventions are comparable to hard science fiction, but I can't think of a theoretical reason why it wouldn't be possible. It might cause irreversible changes in personality and the like, but given we are talking about changing a disorder that effects the personality, that might be a good thing or even the specific results being sought.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't get me started on "Dr." Phil.

I would take the jail time/fines that would come from punching him square in the face if I ever got the opportunity. He is so offensive to the entire philosophy I have about the things that mean the most to me (psych and all that), and no matter what I do, I will never have as much impact as he does. He gets to pull 100% wrong ideas out of his ass on TV and gets a studio audience to clap as he yells at emotionally unstable people with severe interpersonal and relationship issues. He is what is wrong with our society. Like, literally, all the things I hate about society, its ignorance, anti-intellectualism, pop-psychology, easy answers, black and white, self aggrandizing idiocy, he is like a condensed form of all of that. AND HIS BOOKS ARE STACKED BESIDE THOSE WRITTEN BY REAL SCIENTISTS IN THE PSYCHOLOGY SECTION OF BOOK STORES.

and his sell better by a 10 to 1 margin.....

aaaaaaaaaaannnnnnd.............. I'm depressed again...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Remember that one time I asked you if there was something wrong with me because I was confusing memories created in dreams for memories in the real world? I thought there was something wrong with my reality association and I did not know enough about neuroscience to tell if it was the symptom of another medical problem. You were nice about it and said, "nah...there shouldn't be any problems". I'm not a hypochondriac, for sure, but every now and again, something happens that makes me thing maybe I shouldn't be so carefree. Some people look to those that are genuinely knowledgeable, or at least those that are passing themselves off as such, for comfort and legit guidance. It's in human nature. You have a great power: start taking advantage of people! 😆

I think you get my point though

most of the time I spend in describing what I do is telling people why I'm not qualified to give them advice on their personal issues rather than explaining the interesting things I find with my research. In fact, once I specify that I'm not going to tell people that they are special snowflakes, they seem totally uninterested... funny that...