The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

New Brain Cell Discovered Options
FounDit
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 4:36:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,893
Neurons: 51,941
Interesting.

Scientists Find a Strange New Cell in Human Brains: The 'Rosehip Neuron'


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 7:25:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,411
Neurons: 48,155
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Yes, very interesting, FD. Not found in mice! It will be fun to see the next experiments to see if they can find out their functions.

I'm sure Epi will be interested in this discovery.

I see you have posted a couple of articles from Live Science. Since I would like to note the website, I first checked its reliability. There were a couple of things they wished were better, but said the articles seemed to be credible. From 2016. However, I've never heard of the critic either. 😀But I'll check out their articles for interesting bits of information.

Evaluating Credibility of Live Science

So thanks for the link. (The other link you posted from that site on another thread gave an error message.)

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
FounDit
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2018 7:42:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,893
Neurons: 51,941
Hope123 wrote:
Yes, very interesting, FD. Not found in mice! It will be fun to see the next experiments to see if they can find out their functions.

I'm sure Epi will be interested in this discovery.

I see you have posted a couple of articles from Live Science. Since I would like to note the website, I first checked its reliability. There were a couple of things they wished were better, but said the articles seemed to be credible. From 2016. However, I've never heard of the critic either. 😀But I'll check out their articles for interesting bits of information.

Evaluating Credibility of Live Science

So thanks for the link. (The other link you posted from that site on another thread gave an error message.)


I'm not all that familiar with the site myself. I've only come across it a few times, mainly surfing the web, but the articles seemed interesting. I thought of Epiphileon when I read it.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Epiphileon
Posted: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 7:14:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,085
Neurons: 94,124
Thanks for posting this FounDit, and you are right Hope it is extremely interesting. It is not as if the complexity of the issue wasn't already beyond any reasonable comprehension, this adds yet another dimension to the problem space of neuronal circuitry. This article at Science Daily has a bit more information in it, and is well worth reading.

It does give me significant pause once again to consider just how much of an exponential curve our knowledge of the brain/mind has increased in just the 30 years that I've been studying it. I am fairly confident that there is no other aspect of nature in which there has been such an increase.

There is however, a somewhat paradoxical relationship in neuroscience, particularly at the behavioral level, the more knowledge we gain, the less we understand what's going on. That is roughly stated, and not very well at that.

There are some basic principles that seem to be well founded at this point. Mountcastle's organizing principle of a distributed system utilizing phasic reentrant signalling for example. This is incredibly useful for talking about high order mental behaviors like cognition, and consciousness, as well as things like percept construction; however, when it comes to the nitty gritty of what is bandied about as "the hard problem", it seems the more knowledge we gain at this point, the more things will have to be accounted for in any eventual hypothesis.

Eventually I think we will reach a tipping point, until then I think the more we learn, the less we will understand, as weird as that may sound. Then again that may just be an indicator of my own flummoxed state in the face of the overwhelming tide of new knowledge.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
RuthP
Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2018 2:36:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,223
Neurons: 63,603
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
FounDit, thanks for posting the link! This is very cool stuff. Thanks, too, to Epi.

For those still interested in further reading, the original papers may be accessed through the "Download PDF" links here: Abstract 1 and Abstract 2. Be aware these are early-release versions of the papers. There may be errors in them and they may have been further edited prior to actual publication. On the other hand, you don't need to pay the (usually $30 - $50) pay-per-view cost the actual journal probably charges for the published articles. I found these by searching Google Scholar. They were near the top of the search results, along with a lot of hits for rose hips, rose oil, and rose seeds.

These are technical articles, intended for publication in a journal, Nature Neuroscience. The articles are focused on how-we-proved-what-we-claim (i.e., here's a new neuron, Abstract 1, and there are a lot of neurons that are conserved-somewhere between "the same" and "similar"-in mice & humans, Abstract 2). This is what is often called "basic research".
Elvandil
Posted: Saturday, September 1, 2018 12:57:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/5/2014
Posts: 311
Neurons: 128,310
Location: East Montpelier, Vermont, United States


As if we didn't have enough interconnections to follow already!
But it bothers me that a modern article like this still states that dendrites carry signals to the cell-body. It has been known for some time that both axons and dendrites carry signals in both directions, and if stimulated in the middle, in both directions at once. It may have been Ramón y Cajal that started the original rumor - he made a lot of physiological mistakes, but his art was so incredible that people tended to believe anything he said.


RuthP wrote:
FounDit, thanks for posting the link! This is very cool stuff. Thanks, too, to Epi.

For those still interested in further reading, the original papers may be accessed through the "Download PDF" links here: Abstract 1 and Abstract 2. Be aware these are early-release versions of the papers. There may be errors in them and they may have been further edited prior to actual publication. On the other hand, you don't need to pay the (usually $30 - $50) pay-per-view cost the actual journal probably charges for the published articles. I found these by searching Google Scholar. They were near the top of the search results, along with a lot of hits for rose hips, rose oil, and rose seeds.

These are technical articles, intended for publication in a journal, Nature Neuroscience. The articles are focused on how-we-proved-what-we-claim (i.e., here's a new neuron, Abstract 1, and there are a lot of neurons that are conserved-somewhere between "the same" and "similar"-in mice & humans, Abstract 2). This is what is often called "basic research".



Unfortunately, abstracts give only the most basic of summaries and can even sometimes be misleading. The full article really needs to be dissected to make a good judgement of the conclusions and methods.





(議思不の界世) pןɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo sɹǝpuoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝuo sı ǝpoɔıun
RuthP
Posted: Saturday, September 1, 2018 9:33:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,223
Neurons: 63,603
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
Elvandil wrote:


As if we didn't have enough interconnections to follow already!
But it bothers me that a modern article like this still states that dendrites carry signals to the cell-body. It has been known for some time that both axons and dendrites carry signals in both directions, and if stimulated in the middle, in both directions at once. It may have been Ramón y Cajal that started the original rumor - he made a lot of physiological mistakes, but his art was so incredible that people tended to believe anything he said.


RuthP wrote:
FounDit, thanks for posting the link! This is very cool stuff. Thanks, too, to Epi.

For those still interested in further reading, the original papers may be accessed through the "Download PDF" links here: Abstract 1 and Abstract 2. Be aware these are early-release versions of the papers. There may be errors in them and they may have been further edited prior to actual publication. On the other hand, you don't need to pay the (usually $30 - $50) pay-per-view cost the actual journal probably charges for the published articles. I found these by searching Google Scholar. They were near the top of the search results, along with a lot of hits for rose hips, rose oil, and rose seeds.

These are technical articles, intended for publication in a journal, Nature Neuroscience. The articles are focused on how-we-proved-what-we-claim (i.e., here's a new neuron, Abstract 1, and there are a lot of neurons that are conserved-somewhere between "the same" and "similar"-in mice & humans, Abstract 2). This is what is often called "basic research".



Unfortunately, abstracts give only the most basic of summaries and can even sometimes be misleading. The full article really needs to be dissected to make a good judgement of the conclusions and methods.

Yes, but you missed it: there's a link to the full article in each of the abstracts.
Amandacool26
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2018 9:30:40 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 9/28/2018
Posts: 1
Neurons: 3
What a great article. it was really valuable. thanks a lot
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.