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

A New Form of Neural Communication Options
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:37:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,506
Neurons: 54,166
This is a fascinating new discovery about the brain. I wonder if it holds true for all mammals.

https://www.sciencealert.com/neuroscientists-say-they-ve-found-an-entirely-new-form-of-neural-communication


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Blodybeef
Posted: Friday, February 22, 2019 2:37:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/15/2009
Posts: 517
Neurons: 437,889
Location: Ataşehir, Istanbul, Turkey
Looks like Quantum mechanics.
or Quantum electronics.
or communications.
I am interested very much in this subject, but sadly guess it is above me Brick wall

“Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching." ― C.S. Lewis
Epiphileon
Posted: Friday, February 22, 2019 4:22:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,116
Neurons: 119,051
Leaping Freaking Leptons!!!
Okay this is going to take no little further investigation. I'm going to have to read the linked articles and anything else I can find on this. I'm not even sure what to call this, revolutionary would not be literally correct but does convey the scale of the leap in complexity this would represent. I think agog is a good description of my state as the concept described in the article formed in my mind. I'll be back.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Epiphileon
Posted: Friday, February 22, 2019 4:29:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,116
Neurons: 119,051
Blodybeef wrote:
Looks like Quantum mechanics.
or Quantum electronics.
or communications.
I am interested very much in this subject, but sadly guess it is above me Brick wall


I would still be extremely hesitant to invoke quantum mechanics at least in the sense of ORCH-OR notions. I don't think this article in any way, at least at this point, lends any validation to those notions. This seems more of a field effect rather than q-bit communication of any sort.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Blodybeef
Posted: Friday, February 22, 2019 6:03:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/15/2009
Posts: 517
Neurons: 437,889
Location: Ataşehir, Istanbul, Turkey
The title reads: "...previously unknown form of neural communication that self-propagates across brain tissue, and can leap wirelessly from neurons in one section of brain tissue to another – even if they've been surgically severed."

But you are correct, the body of the text does not clarify how far apart the severed parts of the brain were, which seemed to communicate after being severed.

I'd guess this would really be revolutionary if the parts continued communicating when an obstructing material was placed in between.

“Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching." ― C.S. Lewis
FounDit
Posted: Friday, February 22, 2019 12:21:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,506
Neurons: 54,166
What I found most interesting was the slow waves that move through the tissue. I had not heard of this before and wondered how and where it is propagated. This could be a real game-changer in the study of the brain.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Epiphileon
Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2019 5:07:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,116
Neurons: 119,051
FounDit wrote:
What I found most interesting was the slow waves that move through the tissue. I had not heard of this before and wondered how and where it is propagated. This could be a real game-changer in the study of the brain.


The slow wave propagation has been known for some time; however, that it does not rely on any of the known communication modalities is new.

Just as I was averse to applying the term revolutionary, I would not call it a game changer, more of a game intensifier adding yet another level(?) to the communication protocol(?) of mind.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2019 10:57:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,506
Neurons: 54,166
Epiphileon wrote:
FounDit wrote:
What I found most interesting was the slow waves that move through the tissue. I had not heard of this before and wondered how and where it is propagated. This could be a real game-changer in the study of the brain.


The slow wave propagation has been known for some time; however, that it does not rely on any of the known communication modalities is new.

Just as I was averse to applying the term revolutionary, I would not call it a game changer, more of a game intensifier adding yet another level(?) to the communication protocol(?) of mind.


A thought occurred to me as I was reading this (wondering now if I generated a slow wave in doing so), could these slow waves be a magnetic field generated by the processes of electrical signals as they travel down the axons and across the synapses? Seems plausible.

This would explain why two pieces of brain tissue would show the slow wave even when separated. The magnetic field generated in one would induce a similar wave in the other. This would not, of course, mean the same thoughts are generated, but only that electrical activity is being generated.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
leonAzul
Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 2:54:17 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,536
Neurons: 28,393
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
FounDit wrote:
This is a fascinating new discovery about the brain. I wonder if it holds true for all mammals.

https://www.sciencealert.com/neuroscientists-say-they-ve-found-an-entirely-new-form-of-neural-communication


This sounds to me like the journalist — and I use the term loosely — has stumbled across an abstract concerning research about the role of glial cells in the nervous system.

The understanding that nerve fiber acts as a conduit for impulses with a particularly concentrated effect in the brain seems to have been understood prehistorically. Indeed, many core treatises of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) place nerve tissue and sinew (tendons) in the same category with regard to the control of muscles and movement, such that nerves conduct current, or qi, and sinews provide mechanical connections across skeletal articulations, or joints.

One of the earliest discoveries facilitated by the optical microscope was the myelin sheath, around major axons, composed of Schwann cells, named after the man who first observed them and was among the first to extend Leeuwenhoek's hypothesis of cellular basis for plant life to the animal kingdom and beyond.

More recent research into the causes of various diseases suggests that myelin is not merely a conduit that supports neurons, but that the relationship is more interactive, and a better model includes the notion that in some regards the neurons support the myelin.

Similarly, whereas glia were once thought to be merely coincidentally related to brain function, further investigation into the etiology and prognosis of Alzheimer's syndrome, in particular, increasingly points to glial cells as the effectors of much of what the brain does. It is my humble opinion that it is this sort of "new" form of communication that has been ironically miscommunicated.


"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
leonAzul
Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 3:38:16 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,536
Neurons: 28,393
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
FounDit wrote:

A thought occurred to me as I was reading this (wondering now if I generated a slow wave in doing so), could these slow waves be a magnetic field generated by the processes of electrical signals as they travel down the axons and across the synapses? Seems plausible.

This would explain why two pieces of brain tissue would show the slow wave even when separated. The magnetic field generated in one would induce a similar wave in the other. This would not, of course, mean the same thoughts are generated, but only that electrical activity is being generated.



This is not a bad idea, but a critical examination demonstrates why it might not be likely.

The magnetic induction you refer to requires a metallic coil to work. The propagation of electrical currents in most terrestrial life as we know it involves electrochemical pathways with only measurable resistive and capacitive components.

Indeed, one of the assumptions that make MRI and fMRI observations so valuable is that they are non-invasive: the magnetic fields generated by the instruments allow for differential measurement of the flow of ferromagnetic molecules such as hemoglobin without directly affecting the flow.

"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 1:49:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,506
Neurons: 54,166
Well, just hypothesizing, but considering that
whereas:
nerve transmission is electro-chemical and
whereas:
that calcium waves are generated as nerves conduct signals (somewhat similar to how muscles are moved by the stimulated release of calcium ions), and
whereas:
since chemical ions have their own electrical charge,

It occurred to me that the generation of electrical-chemical waves might result in weak magnetic waves also from conduction of such nerve signals. How else to explain brain tissue responding to electrical signals in another piece of brain tissue when separated? I am curious, however, as to the distance between the pieces. I noticed no measurement was given on that.

Furthermore, since myelin sheaths tend to insulate nerve axons and aid in transmission of the nerve signals, it would seem that there must be some kind of communication between the nerve tissue that transcends the insulation.

But, perhaps it is the synaptic gaps where the field is strongest and where the neurotransmitters work that such a field might spread outwardly thus influencing neighboring tissue. It's an interesting thought anyway.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
leonAzul
Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 2:23:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,536
Neurons: 28,393
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
FounDit wrote:
Well, just hypothesizing, but considering that
whereas:
nerve transmission is electro-chemical and
whereas:
that calcium waves are generated as nerves conduct signals (somewhat similar to how muscles are moved by the stimulated release of calcium ions), and
whereas:
since chemical ions have their own electrical charge,

It occurred to me that the generation of electrical-chemical waves might result in weak magnetic waves also from conduction of such nerve signals. How else to explain brain tissue responding to electrical signals in another piece of brain tissue when separated? I am curious, however, as to the distance between the pieces. I noticed no measurement was given on that.

Furthermore, since myelin sheaths tend to insulate nerve axons and aid in transmission of the nerve signals, it would seem that there must be some kind of communication between the nerve tissue that transcends the insulation.

But, perhaps it is the synaptic gaps where the field is strongest and where the neurotransmitters work that such a field might spread outwardly thus influencing neighboring tissue. It's an interesting thought anyway.


Speculation is good; the evidence of glial cells is better. ;)

"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 8:06:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,506
Neurons: 54,166
leonAzul wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Well, just hypothesizing, but considering that
whereas:
nerve transmission is electro-chemical and
whereas:
that calcium waves are generated as nerves conduct signals (somewhat similar to how muscles are moved by the stimulated release of calcium ions), and
whereas:
since chemical ions have their own electrical charge,

It occurred to me that the generation of electrical-chemical waves might result in weak magnetic waves also from conduction of such nerve signals. How else to explain brain tissue responding to electrical signals in another piece of brain tissue when separated? I am curious, however, as to the distance between the pieces. I noticed no measurement was given on that.

Furthermore, since myelin sheaths tend to insulate nerve axons and aid in transmission of the nerve signals, it would seem that there must be some kind of communication between the nerve tissue that transcends the insulation.

But, perhaps it is the synaptic gaps where the field is strongest and where the neurotransmitters work that such a field might spread outwardly thus influencing neighboring tissue. It's an interesting thought anyway.


Speculation is good; the evidence of glial cells is better. ;)

I must have missed something along the way. Since glial cells seem to exist in a ratio of less than 1:1 with neuronal cells, and since their functions are listed as: [having] four main functions: (1) to surround neurons and hold them in place; (2) to supply nutrients and oxygen to neurons; (3) to insulate one neuron from another; (4) to destroy pathogens and remove dead neurons. They also play a role in neurotransmission and synaptic connections,[2] and in physiological processes like breathing.[3][4] While glia were thought to outnumber neurons by a ratio of 10:1, a recent study provides evidence for a ratio of less than 1:1.[5], I don't see any evidence of their ability to communicate with other cells when separated from those other cells. It was for this reason I surmised that it may be the neuronal cells and not glial cells that may be (and I emphasize may be) creating the conditions via a weak magnetic field, a.k.a., the slow waves that appear to have no discreet source. Anyway, it's interesting to think about.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
CIBERNETICO
Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 8:14:44 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/22/2019
Posts: 1
Neurons: 50
Very Interesating
Epiphileon
Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 4:45:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,116
Neurons: 119,051
LeonAzul wrote:
Similarly, whereas glia were once thought to be merely coincidentally related to brain function, further investigation into the etiology and prognosis of Alzheimer's syndrome, in particular, increasingly points to glial cells as the effectors of much of what the brain does. It is my humble opinion that it is this sort of "new" form of communication that has been ironically miscommunicated.


I don't think it matters which cells are initializing the signal, it seems the point is that transmission of the signal is occurring across a physical gap with no traditional communication modalities present.

Unfortunately, there is much I've missed in the development of the current understanding of neurophysiology, currently I'm trying to determine how this is not an instance of ephatic coupling;
Wikipedia wrote:
Ephaptic coupling is a form of communication within the nervous system and is distinct from direct communication systems like electrical synapses and chemical synapses. It may refer to the coupling of adjacent (touching) nerve fibers caused by the exchange of ions between the cells, or it may refer to coupling of nerve fibers as a result of local electric fields.[1]


I also need to figure out what the waves referred to actually represent, it seems to me that they represent the activation of successive local neural circuits. Now before I can come to any further conjecture I need to understand whether that is some sort of actual signaling or if it is analogous to the current in a conductor.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 10:55:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,506
Neurons: 54,166
Ephaptic contact is a new term for me. I've never encountered that before.

e·phapse (ē-faps'),
A place where two or more nerve cell processes (axons and dendrites) touch without forming a typical synaptic contact; some form of neural transmission may occur at such nonsynaptic contact sites.
[G. ephapsis, contact]


This would, indeed, be an interesting form of communication if it proves to be correct, and might explain the source of the waves detected, if no source has yet to be determined.

This idea triggers a completely new way of viewing thought. Perhaps, rather than thoughts following nerve axons from one section of the brain to another, stimulation of several parts of the brain create a holistic construct whereby the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; possibly the source of imagination? That would be amazing, if true.

Very interesting...Think



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
leonAzul
Posted: Friday, March 1, 2019 7:29:34 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,536
Neurons: 28,393
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Oops, I need to make some corrections.

Anxious

It would seem that when I first clicked on the link to the report, I only saw about a third of it.

In my defense, there were massive advertisements separating the article into sections. At the first one, I thought I had reached the conclusion. I was very wrong.

When I saw the different responses from you in this thread, I suspected something was up, and now I am better informed, yet not as well as I would like to be.

Just the same, my critique of the induction hypothesis still stands as valid. There is nothing to support it structurally nor chemically.

There is a great deal of support for "electrical" connections over distances as great as tens of meters that involve chemicals such as pheromones. If this doesn't turn out to be an instrumentation error (like the notorious cup of jello that showed "brain waves"), this is where I would look.

"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
FounDit
Posted: Friday, March 1, 2019 6:34:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,506
Neurons: 54,166
Well, we do know that brain waves produce some kind of magnetic waves since this is what is detected in EEG scans. So if electrically produced magnetic signals can be picked up by sensors on the skin, through the skin and the skull, it would appear that brain tissue is, indeed, producing some kind of inductive field, would it not?...Think

And if that is true, then could that field not induce other activity in brain tissue in close proximity? It's an interesting thought.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
leonAzul
Posted: Sunday, March 3, 2019 11:33:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,536
Neurons: 28,393
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
FounDit wrote:
Well, we do know that brain waves produce some kind of magnetic waves since this is what is detected in EEG scans. So if electrically produced magnetic signals can be picked up by sensors on the skin, through the skin and the skull, it would appear that brain tissue is, indeed, producing some kind of inductive field, would it not?...Think


That is not how it works. EEG detects electrical potentials (voltaic, to be precise) across different places on the scalp that have been correlated, through a great deal of effort and study, to global electrical activity in the brain. It is important to understand that these voltaic differences have a minimal magnetic component, despite their correlation with periodic waveforms typically associated with alternating currents. The reason for the lack of an inductive component is the lack of structures composed of ferromagnetic metals that could support it. Perhaps this line of inquiry could elucidate such structures, in which case that would be something to think about. I remain skeptical, yet also open to the evidence, if well supported.

FounDit wrote:

And if that is true, then could that field not induce other activity in brain tissue in close proximity? It's an interesting thought.


That's a big "if". Meanwhile, there is ample evidence of electrochemical interaction within such a context.



"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
FounDit
Posted: Monday, March 4, 2019 9:39:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,506
Neurons: 54,166
leonAzul wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Well, we do know that brain waves produce some kind of magnetic waves since this is what is detected in EEG scans. So if electrically produced magnetic signals can be picked up by sensors on the skin, through the skin and the skull, it would appear that brain tissue is, indeed, producing some kind of inductive field, would it not?...Think


That is not how it works. EEG detects electrical potentials (voltaic, to be precise) across different places on the scalp that have been correlated, through a great deal of effort and study, to global electrical activity in the brain. It is important to understand that these voltaic differences have a minimal magnetic component, despite their correlation with periodic waveforms typically associated with alternating currents. The reason for the lack of an inductive component is the lack of structures composed of ferromagnetic metals that could support it. Perhaps this line of inquiry could elucidate such structures, in which case that would be something to think about. I remain skeptical, yet also open to the evidence, if well supported.

Hmmm..., so how do these voltages get to the scalp to be picked up by the electrodes if they are not magnetically induced waves? Surely no one would suggest that the billions of neurons in the brain are passing their currents into the scalp. The fact that they are waves, suggests otherwise.

Similarly, electrical fields are found in molecules and, indeed, ions themselves. Water, for instance, is polar (the familiar H2O, two hydrogen, one oxygen atom), being negative on one end and positive on the other without any ferromagnetic metals being involved. Ligand-gated ion channels permit the passage of ions such as Na+, K+, Ca2+, and/or Cl− to pass through the cell membrane. I still think that the billions of electro-chemical actions and reactions create a magnetic field that the EEG is responding to, and which in turn may be creating an inductive field that other brain tissue can respond to.

Of course, I could be immensely wrong, too. To quote the song, "I ain't got a witness, and you know I can't prove it, but That's My Story and I'm stickin' to it" (at least for now, anyway).




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, March 4, 2019 11:59:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,536
Neurons: 28,393
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
FounDit wrote:

Hmmm..., so how do these voltages get to the scalp to be picked up by the electrodes if they are not magnetically induced waves? Surely no one would suggest that the billions of neurons in the brain are passing their currents into the scalp. The fact that they are waves, suggests otherwise.


Many events can be described as periodic waves. That doesn't mean that they involve induction.

Unlike currents more or less contained by metallic conductors, electrical potentials in the human body are "conducted" by channels of chemicals with ionic potentials (notably sodium and calcium) at the molecular level. Although these are largely concentrated at synapses, they can permeate the entire body, albeit weakly compared to induced currents. The mode of propagation is chemical, not magnetic. This is what Luigi Galvani discovered in animal tissue.

FounDit wrote:


Similarly, electrical fields are found in molecules and, indeed, ions themselves. Water, for instance, is polar (the familiar H2O, two hydrogen, one oxygen atom), being negative on one end and positive on the other without any ferromagnetic metals being involved. Ligand-gated ion channels permit the passage of ions such as Na+, K+, Ca2+, and/or Cl− to pass through the cell membrane. I still think that the billions of electro-chemical actions and reactions create a magnetic field that the EEG is responding to, and which in turn may be creating an inductive field that other brain tissue can respond to.


What you are describing is similar to the theory behind MRI. A magnetic field is induced and the differential patterns of ions (typically hydrogen) moving in the field are observed and analyzed.

An EEG or EKG uses conductive pads, not coils, to measure voltaic potentials on the skin. With careful calibration and filtering, the electrical activity of the nerves of interest can then be detected.

FounDit wrote:


Of course, I could be immensely wrong, too. To quote the song, "I ain't got a witness, and you know I can't prove it, but That's My Story and I'm stickin' to it" (at least for now, anyway).



You are fundamentally correct that all chemistry involves electrons and therefore a type of electricity. The behavior and properties are very different, however, in the contexts of electromagnetic and electrochemical systems.

Perhaps someday we will have tri-corders, but the evidence for that is rather thin on the ground these days.




"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
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 © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.