Pliny's Tangent Du Jour

Aids for the Religiously Impaired

2012-02-01T10:19:00.000-08:00

Gender Determination: For those in parts of Afghanistan where there may well be no remaining biology books, a short primer on sex determination of offspring.

Each of your cells has 23 pairs of chromosomes. One of those pairs contains the chromosomes that determine gender. Since you are a man, you most likely have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. The Y chromosome determines male gender. Now, in a process that is not described in any holy text, your body produces little sex cells called sperm, while your wife's makes eggs. These sex cells are unique in that each has only one copy from each of the 23 pairs of chromosomes, meaning that instead of 46 chromosomes like all your other cells) the sex cells have 23. Since women (like your wife, presumably) have only X sex chromosomes, you can pretty much guarantee that the egg will have one.

Your seed however can have either an X or a Y in it.

In order for your wife to be with child (by your efforts at least) you must impregnate her with your seed or sperm. That way, the 23 chromosomes in your seed can be combined with the 23 in the wife's egg to produce an offspring, which depending upon whether one of your Y chromosome bearing seeds or one of the X bearing ones get's there first, will be either a boy (XY) or a girl (XX).
So, if your child turns out to be a girl, it's completely your doing, not your wife's. Or it's clearly God's will, in which case who are you to argue. If you don't like that, then you should kill yourself or pound on your Johnson or testicles with a ball peen hammer or the jaw bone of an ass to express your displeasure. Or have your mother strangle you for failing to give her a grandson.

Christian Persecution in the modern USA. Little history lesson - since 323 AD it's been the Christians doing the persecuting. Being told to mind your own business is not persecution. Being persecuted is not having someone roll their eyes at you for wearing a big crucifix around your neck - it's being required to wear it so that the government knows who you are and can find you anytime it decides to get rid of you. Get over the martyrdom, and stop pining for a world where nobody can question your right to tell them what to do.

Greg Laden Owes Me a New Irony Meter!

2012-01-24T13:46:00.001-08:00

;) I was almost killed when the thing exploded...

The Republican Weakness for Amphibian Mythology

2012-01-21T11:43:00.000-08:00

Actually, he's more of a toad than a frog...

It's Too Scary, So It Can't Be True

2012-01-08T13:13:00.000-08:00

When you cut to the chase, the push back to arguments from realism you get from most apologetics boil down to this: "It's too scary, so it can't be true". Doesn't mater whether it's morality, evolution, or any of a thousand other topics.

The Four Pillars of Subjective Morality

2012-01-06T09:59:00.001-08:00

The Worst Combined Christmas and Science Pun of All Time?

2011-12-21T13:00:00.000-08:00

Enjoy - or wretch uncontrollably...

Grumble, grumble

2011-12-16T14:46:00.000-08:00

CMS released the hounds a couple of weeks back. The single most important project under Obamacare came out. It is the CMMI Innovations Challenge. A one billion dollar free for all to demonstrate actual working projects that make care better and cheaper. It's looking for the magic bullet that makes everything all right.

It's a frustrating process. First there are the 'webinars'. Information programs where government representatives give out some information and try to act calm when the 89th guy asks the same dumb question someone else asked 4 seconds earlier. I hate these things because the only people who ask questions are 1) idiots who didn't listen to the presentation, and 2) gas bags who never pass up open mike day as a means to demonstrate their self-proclaimed superior knowledge.

Next, there's the Letter of Intent. It must contain a description of how you will change the world in 750 characters - including spaces and punctuation! I suppose I should be glad they didn't demand it be put into Haiku.

Then the proposal. Everything - letters of support, budgets, research plans, models, technology, training, administration - all has to fit in 40 pages of 12 point font double spaced. 20 pages of text in other words. Fix the healthcare system in 20 pages.

One has to wonder how many great ideas these days miss out because some innovator isn't good at sound bytes.

Oh well...

grumble, grumble.

Rich Lowry is Wrong; Again

2011-12-08T15:14:00.000-08:00

That's not too much of a surprise. I usually just wrap old coffee grounds in his column and move on. But today I feel the need to comment.

Rich is atwitter about the negative comments directed at Denver Bronco's quarterback, Tim Tebow's on field praying. As usual, Rich misses the point entirely.

The issue is not Tebow's religiousity - it's more about whether making a big production of praying for success in a football game presents a really good role model for Christians. Now, I know that I'm making an assumption here, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch. I doubt he's praying for world peace after the huddle.

Is that what praying is about? Getting a new car, winning a game, getting a promotion? I know kids pray for material things but is that adult behavior? If it is, then don't be too surprised when other people make fun.

Observations of a Retiring Surgeon

2011-11-28T13:09:00.000-08:00

Pliny is retiring from clinical practice, if all goes well in the next few months. As I go, I have a few observations to share with those who will follow. Being a doctor is hard and often a challenge. It is still an amazing privilege if you keep your perspective. Some thoughts in no particular order.

Fear of the unknown spirals out of control: In the absence of knowledge and informed discussion, people will seek to fill the dread void of uncertainty with anything available. This is in large part why quacks succeed. Uncertainty breeds fear, which seeks comfort anywhere that looks promising. Keep people informed. Let them know what to expect. Be their advocate.
It’s their data, not state secrets: The job of a physician is not to shield a patient from their own data, it’s to synthesize it for them and help them understand its meaning. Most need to see it at least in passing in order to have trust in the synthesis presented. All this HIPAA nonsense is just an excuse to be lazy and not talk wit patients and families.
If their call is important to you, then why not bloody well take it! Individuals care very little that you are busy. Nothing says ‘my time is more valuable than your angst’, than a voice-mail decision tree. You can’t complain about patients lacking loyalty when you treat them like an airline complaint desk.
Schedule phone appointments: Delivering medical news is not the same as receiving a major appliance. Don’t expect a patient to wait around during some 4 hour window to get the results of their path.
Say what you are going to do and do what you say.
Honesty is the only policy: Often, what we do is really a life and death matter. You will forget. You will make mistakes. These are inevitable and forgivable as long as you are honest about it. Lie once, and it’s the dark side for you.
Share your battle plan: Years ago, a colleague of mine related the following story to me on Monday morning after covering my practice for the weekend. A very ill ICU transfer patient developed a known complication of their very complex emergency procedure that was caught early enough to successfully intervene. The covering surgeon went out to talk with the family and as hem-hawing around about the complication, when the spouse said, “Oh you mean X occurred. Dr [Pliny] told us that if that complication was going to happen it would likely be this weekend, and that you would do Y to try and fix it.” The family was appropriately concerned but confident in the team since we had been very open about their loved one’s condition, the risks and benefits of our therapy and our battle plan for when things, on occasion, go wrong. My practice motto to patients and families was always simple - You hope for the best and I’ll prepare for the worst. I’ve never found a better method for helping patients and families achieve realistic expectations.
Medicine is a business - being a doctor isn’t: It’s best to decide early on whether you want to be a well-paid technician or a patient advocate. It really is that simple. Good luck trying to be both. Like Darth Vader, you will eventually succumb to the dark side.
You work hard? So what: A lot of people work just as hard or harder for a lot less money. If life were fair, urban firefighters would have the highest salaries in the world, not you.
Tough love: Like parenting, being a physician isn’t always being popular. It’s being the adult. The truth is often unpleasant but it's always easier to remember.
You’re the expert, take some responsibility: Imagine finding yourself thrown into a canoe a hundred yards from some ominous looking rapids ahead. There’s a guide along the shore who responds to your pleading gaze with, “well, you have a couple of paddles, an oar, your hands and feet, and an empty tin can. Any one of them may be appropriate in some circumstances. Let me know what you decide.” Patient autonomy is fine. But patients lack a physician’s knowledge and are (often) emotionally compromised. Be their advocate. Most of us would prefer the guide to yell, “Take an oar and paddle as hard as you can to the far bank and jump in the shallows.” On occasion, some know-it-all might ignore the guide’s suggestions and go over the falls. Regardless of what the person in the canoe decides to do, the guide can still walk up the hill and go home at the end of the day. Like the guide, the physician can take solace in the knowledge that bad patient decisions affect them, not you. I don’t need a waiter for a cafeteria plan. If it’s just a matter of reviewing my options and making up my own mind about it, what am I paying you for again?
Imagine you are buying a car: A lot of docs I know are notorious pains when it comes to shopping for a new car. They investigate and study and check out this and that, visit and grill the sales staff, and are generally suspicious of anything they are told. Why then, do these same people get so upset when a patient they have never met, has a few questions and concerns before you trot them off to surgery where someone they meet the morning of surgery will poison them to the brink of death (otherwise known as general anesthesia...) and you will rearrange their internal organs? The residents always were shocked when before a really major surgery, I automatically suggested a second opinion and provided them a list of excellent surgeons to pick from. We belabor our choice of cellular phone plan more than our choice of surgeon. Very strange.
Embrace the Internet. The patients will be looking stuff up. Be proactive. Have a list of authoritative sites available for your patients. Explain why you prefer them.
Invoke Pliny’s test engine anytime you have doubts: Pliny’s test is simple. I have found it to be very useful over the last 25 years. If you are unsure about something clinical, use test one: Say what you are thinking out loud but preface it with the following phrase - “Well, Your Honor, it was like this...” You’ll know what to do. For ethical dilemmas use test 2: Say what you are considering, again out loud, but preface it with the following phrase - “Well, Dad, it was like this...”

The Bandwidth Wars Heat Up!

2011-11-21T15:21:00.000-08:00

A couple of months back our household cut the cable. We decided to save more than a hundred dollars a month that we were spending on cable TV. 570 stations and nothing on... We bought a couple of Roku's (you'd know what I'm talking about if you weren't addicted to your TV set...) to stream video and indoor antennas for the local stations. We tried it a month before jettisoning the cable. It works for us and saves a lot of time and money. It's a bit more effort to watch TV but that is a good thing since we watch a lot less of it.

Quest, unfortunately is our DSL provider. I hate Quest. I hate what ever company they changed their name to in a Philip-Morris-to-Altrea-like move they hoped would distance them from the stench of their crappy history of service. (Shakespeare said it -"A steaming pile by any other name...") They still suck. They also still charge us for DSL service that is about as reliable as pony express service after Little Big Horn. It's S-L-O-W on a good day. Few days are good.

And if that weren't bad enough, last night eldest daughter was hogging all the bandwidth! I went in to the guest room and she was there with the TV on streaming Gossip Girls, talking on her cell to a friend, while fussing with facebook on a laptop with her online school document folders open and iTunes at the ready.

My how times change but fathers stay the same. My dad used to complain, "Hey, stop hogging the bathroom so someone else has a chance."

Now I say, "Hey, stop hogging all the bandwidth so someone else has a chance - to watch TV...

A Different Slant on the End of Life

2011-11-11T13:33:00.000-08:00

End of life determinations should be among our most personal and private matters. Unfortunately various groups, with a wide range of ideological dogs in the hunt, refuse to allow this. Sure, there are societal interests to be protected, but these really are about ownership, protecting the interests of at risk individuals, etc. Not whether a person has the right to determine the manner and hour of their death in the face of its impending certainty. Those who object on ‘philosophical grounds’ usually belong to groups that insist on extending their pet ideology into others' lives. One wishes they would find other hobbies.

Though there are no doubt other reasons, to me situations where one might chose to end their own life include intractable pain and loss of self.

All pain cannot be well controlled. I have been involved in the treatment of pain for around 25 years. While most people’s pain can be controlled, some can’t. Anybody who claims otherwise is either ill informed, part of a political agenda, or unaware of #2 on the above list.

Number 2, the loss of self, is rarely discussed in the context of pain management. Knowing what we know of neurochemistry and the pharmacology of pain medications and sedatives, it is clear that these drugs alter human cognition. For some (the opiods are the classic example), that’s how they actually provide pain relief. They alter a patient’s perception. When used to treat recoverable injury (including surgery) we accept these effects as a passing inconvenience on our road to recovery.

But what about the intractable pain of some terminal illnesses? The doses of these centrally acting medications that are required often impair cognition even when combined with NSAID's and other medications. Is the pharmacological loss of self in the face of pain any less important than structural losses such as severe head injury or coma?

What do you think?

Natural Election 4.0: Those Were the Days!

2011-11-10T10:44:00.000-08:00

‘IF ANYONE WILL NOT WORK, NEITHER SHOULD HE EAT’
Michele Bachmann
(from a speech at the Family Research Council)

With the GoP record on providing services to the children of the poor, one has to assume that the earlier times people like Michele long for includes scenes like these.

Stop your complaining! Not until you get a proper job!

Ahh, Those were the days...

To the Legislature of Michigan...

2011-11-08T11:39:00.000-08:00

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

But if religious beliefs are a legal excuse for otherwise criminal behaviors, it has a potential downside (upside?)
Therefore: Religious beliefs = Mental illness, diminished mental capacity.

Is that what you were aiming for?

My 1/4 Cents Worth

2011-11-07T16:51:00.000-08:00

Watching a video of John Haught debating Jerry Coyne it all seems to boil down to this: Is our sense of things more important than the facts of things? A huge number of people seem to prefer the former to the later.

Haught’s position was that a person must allow themselves to be in the proper mindset that will allow them to experience ‘higher levels of meaning’. The mindset he describes (he did eventually call it faith) will allow a person to accept the existence of invisible forces that allegedly govern reality without empirical proof. Indeed forces which conflict with actual empirical observation and science. Where's the proof? In one's own perceptions, that's where. QED.

In every area of life and society, save religion, we recognize the unreliable nature of personal perception. The reason that science has been so successful is, at long last, we have a mechanism to combat cognitive bias. Theology, which arguably owes its continuing existence to cognitive bias, understandably, doesn’t like this.

How we perceive the universe affects our sense of happiness, contentment and purpose. That’s fine. But how the world is, should control our shared decisions.

Haught makes the argument that absent his beliefs, humankind has no purpose. Nonsense. To my mind, Haught and others like him create a worse problem. By sticking their heads in the sand to actual reality, they divert energy away from actually working to make the world more like what we imagine it could be, or even should be.

McRecipe

2011-10-28T10:21:00.001-07:00

NOTE: Any similarity of this sandwich to real or imagined products is purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as reflective on any real vile and disgusting products by any vendor.

Cutting Through the ...

2011-10-10T11:59:00.000-07:00

The notion that true arguments require empirical data as a basis is, I believe, one of the distinctions between science and philosophy. Science ultimately seeks a data driven basis for claims while philosophy does not require it.

This should not be news to anyone claiming sophistication in thought and logic since the notion of validity versus soundness is something taught in that oft-mentioned philosophy 101 course.

Valid vs sound, as used to describe logic, is a critical distinction. It’s also a huge part of why apologists can clog the Internets with an endless stream of drivel. It’s a lot easier to create valid arguments than to create sound ones.

Valid arguments are those that follow logically from the initial claims. As example, ‘If A and B, then C’, makes a claim. The claim is valid, if C really is a logical outcome of A and B. If not, the argument is invalid.

This is arguably the basis for almost all apologetics. A claim is made that can only be answered by the existence of deity x. Ergo, the apologist shouts triumph.

“Not so fast”, should be the response.

Important to the truth of the claim, is whether the argument is not just valid, but also sound. Sound arguments are those that are based upon true assumptions. That's the key.

For example let’s return to, ‘If A and B, then C’, but substitute the following for A, B, and C.

A- “All dogs are alien lifeforms.”
B- ”Rex is a dog.”
C- Therefore, Rex is an alien lifeform.

This is a valid argument. If all dogs are aliens, and Rex is a dog, it follows logically, that Rex is an alien.

Of course, we recognize this as (logical) nonsense because the claim A, “all dogs are alien lifeforms’, is untrue. Therefore, the argument for claim C is unsound because one of it's dependencies is false.

It's important to note that an argument can be made that Claim C is valid based upon the logic of A and B. But the argument is unsound because the basis of one or more of its claims is silly. This is really key: a logical argument can be valid and at the same time, be unsound. Understanding that distinction can save you a lot of time and energy sorting through arguments.

Confronted with such an argument, at least four responses are possible:

“Oh, wow! I didn’t know that! Tell me more.”
Slowly back away because this person is obviously delusional.
“Oh, let’s talk about this argument of yours, which differs from my own understanding thusly...”
“Don’t bother me again, you twit, until you have proof that all dogs are aliens.”

Response 1 suggests that the respondent is an idiot; 2, rational; 3, misguided or deluded into thinking this can be a rational discussion, and 4, rational, blunt, and bigger than the claimant.

This example is pretty easy to see through. Even if the advocate of the claim insisted that you were dumb or ignorant because you didn’t believe the claim, I doubt you’d lose sleep over it. (It's interesting that we use the word delusional to describe valid but unsound arguments in those with mental illness, but it gets called sophisticated theology in other contexts.)

Other equally unsound claims may appear, on the surface, more difficult.

What if claim A were something like, ‘All things require a cause’. It’s easy to create all kinds of B’s and therefore C’s in combination with this, but the claimant must never be allowed to focus his or her slight of hand to the validity of the argument until the soundness of the assumptions is proven or strongly supported. That's how apologetics work - the apologist makes a claim then gets the reader bogged down in the details of the logic argument which may be valid within the context of the presented claims. But if the underlying assumptions for the claim are untrue, it's a form of slight of hand- the illusion of substance.

The wiser move may be to simply return to the assumptions (claims) and demand the apologist provide support for the soundness, the foundation of truth, to the claims since logical arguments can be valid, and unsound. There is no reason to argue about validity, unless the argument is sound in the first place. It also sidesteps another apologetic tactic - fashioning an argument so as to require the respondent to prove a negative (something we can’t do). Examining the assumptions (initial claims) for soundness puts the onus on the apologist to prove the positive for the assumptions that form the basis of their arguments. This is how science approaches these discussions. Of all candidates for determining whether or not a claim is factual, empirical data is probably the best means to determine the soundness of an assumption.

Going back to the ‘all things require a cause’ claim the facts of radioactive decay and the appearance of virtual particles negates this claim, period. These are empirical data that prove that the claim is false. So any argument using this claim is unsound - period. It's hard to argue with repeatable data.

A rational respondent may legitimately ignore any arguments using this claim as a basis. They cannot be sound (no matter how valid sounding) since one claim is false. That's the proper response to the apologist who may fire back that you need to read all the literature on the subject before you render judgement. Hardly, once a claim is proven false, there is never any rational need to dig further. One’s time will be better spent elsewhere. Arguments about truth are a house of cards. They are negated when any claim is proven unsound. Anyone who insists otherwise is either ignorant of the need to support claims with evidence, or has an agenda other than truth.

That takes us back to one of the fundamental differences between science and philosophy. Science spends a great deal of time on testing the soundness of claims through experimentation. Philosophy, not so much.

The Pattern is Full: The Return of the Hardcore Bike Commuter.

2011-10-07T09:40:00.000-07:00

A lot has changed since I last posted on bike commuting in Biketown USA. For one, the size of my thighs finally exceeds the girth of my previously fat a---. Old Pliny’s body contour has been in flux! The biggest problem I face right now is that walking around for me, is sort of like being an astronaut on the moon. When I started this process, my legs were carrying a bunch more mass and weight about and were acclimated to working out at that weight. Now faced with a fraction of the effort I have to be careful when getting out of a chair, lest my leg muscles propel me to the ceiling.

Portland is even more bike friendly than before, though the same can’t always be said of the riders themselves. More bike lanes and all those little bike path markers that cost us $450 a pop. Being bike friendly is easier than dealing with the homeless, enticing businesses to move here, or restoring a wrecked economy. Eventually, Portland will be populated by nothing other than bike enthusiasts, the homeless and barristas. Who’ll support the city on parking ticket revenues then? Hard to know. One thing’s for sure, the bike community is like that mouse with the cookie.

But I digress. Time for my relaxing morning ride.

It’s morning and I begin to gear up for the 5.5 mile commute one way to work in the predawn light. Lots of hills to crush. It’s cold and rainy so most of the pretenders and Humpty Dumpty’s won’t be cluttering up the route. Plus fewer Gazelles, Cellheads, barrage balloons, and Cartwrights. That is good. It’s safer for them and for me. Just the usual Zombies, Spandicks and T-rex’s but they have mostly learned to avoid the Ghost Biker.

I check my ride. I circle it like a big cat or a pilot in preflight. Tire pressure, ride height, signs of rust or debris, spoke tension, the disc brakes. All check out. No glass in the rubber. My ride is like no other. Started off the shelf but quickly morphed in to my unique ride. Including that wonderful seat made out of the same stuff as the old Stretch Armstrong dolls. The old seat was about as comfortable as a TSA pat down when you object to extra nadrads. (Every bump in the road shouldn’t make you feel like you lost at roshambo.) New pedals, and those magnificent red Axiom waterproof bags. They hold 50 pounds if for some reason one foolishly felt compelled to shlep 50 extra pounds up the hills. Right now they just hold my Clark Kent persona and garb for what waits at the end of the ride. And more lights than Radio City. Unless you burn the driver’s retinas there’s no such thing as too many lights. Don’t forget the Greek chariot front axle just in case somebody gets too close. Get that neon leg thingy that keeps your pants from getting wrapped up in the sprockets? check. Lost a good pair of pants that way once. The road crew vest visible from space? check. Long-billed fishing hat for the rain? check. Keeps the rain out of the eyes. And the shiny chromed bike helmet. A climber’s helmet actually, protection is more important than aerodynamics. Don't look in the mirror because I'm sort of dressed like I should be outside a Tea Party gathering...

Saddle up for the morning show. Once more into the breech and into traffic. Eyes peeled for all the people who can’t be bothered to devote their full attention to the road even in poor visibility. Easily the most dangerous activity any of them pursues. So many bikes of so many descriptions. Looks like something out of steampunk.

And of course there are the peds. Peds, Peds everywhere. Even in the designated bike lanes, the peds clog the thoroughfares. They should have to wear signs saying, “I’m a clueless idiot and your responsible for me.” That’s what the greek front end is for.

Uh oh, a barrage balloon about 75 meters ahead. Clueless dog lover with a long tether who thinks that everyone must love his little ankle biter as much as he/she. Thinks that the rest of the world must bend to accommodate their actions. Darting across the bike lane in random patterns. Give ‘em a wide berth - but not too wide. They need to feel the heat from the Ghost Biker’s passing. Maybe they’ll learn, maybe not.

I pass a Humpty Dumpty within the first half mile of the ride. No helmet. The King’s men would have an easier time gluing those egg shell bits together than a neurosurgeon will if your head hits the concrete at speed with no protection. No limiting rules for them, by god. Except gravity and inertia don’t grant wavers to even the most narcissistic among us. [Important safety digression, being as I actually take care of such people: The Humpty Dumptys are full of excuses for not wearing a helmet. My favorite is, “I ride slowly and safely on back streets.” Hey clueless! Your skull evolved to protect your brain from ground level falls in dirt. Yours is not the skull of a great ram. Falling on concrete or asphalt will hurt your brain. Now back to my regularly scheduled rant, already in progress...]

Half way down the stretch and my speed is maxed out. Bloody Hell! Intersecting to and fro Cartwrights! Little chance of not having to hit the brakes. Little chance, but turns out it’s enough. Groups of people walking in line abreast chatting away about something of universal consequence cluttering up the pattern. Ben, Adam, Hoss , and Little Joe they ain’t. Feel the heat clueless! Dirty looks and shouts easily outdistanced. Sign language in order? The vitriol created suggests that an alternate route might be best for a couple of days.

People moving like zombies covered in soiled blankets. Moving from their night time lares under the bridges to their daily feeding grounds. Moving slow to conserve energy. Not hard to avoid but you need to remember they are unaware of your approach and unconcerned about collision. The local economy and mild weather have made the ranks swell. That and the complete dismantling of mental health services. Muttering to themselves for the most part. The packs of youngish ones are the only ones to really be concerned about. But Jim Bowie’s design is easily recognized even at a distance. They may be feral but not dumb. Best defense is to look like way too much trouble amongst easier pickings. True most places in life.

A Gazelle is ahead near a narrow turn. Jinking back and forth across the path like a great cat was in hot pursuit. In tune to music from their buds. I want to come back clueless in my next life! Ringing the bell to alert them to my approach. She turns to show her distain for being bothered. Six weeks in traction from a collision would be a bigger bother I suspect.

Bloody Hell in spades! The Steel Bridge is going up. To allow a huge yacht to pass by. That bad boy uses more fuel in a minute than all the stopped bikers watching in disgust save in a year. 15 minutes lost waiting for USS (or is it ASS?) Conspicuous Consumption to trundle by. Then I’m back on the path.

A T-Rex is approaching head on and considering cutting me off to round some Cartwrights in his lane rather than break. Thinks better of it and huffs at the inconvenience of not being able to do whatever he wants - ie force me to break. T-Rex’s are most pathological subset of the spandicks. Guys who deliberately try to minimize the amount of upper body work they do since arm strength equates with weight that doesn’t get applied to the road. They better hope they have the legs to get them out of trouble when they cut somebody off because their little arms won’t be of much help when someone with a more balanced muscle mass catches up with them.

Bunch of peds along the river. THINK FAST walkers. No coincidence that our handlebars would not look out of place on a bull’s head. Running in Pamploma would be safer than walking the concourse during the daily bike commute.

Cellhead is up ahead. Flailing their arms to make a point that the guy on the other end of the conversation can’t really appreciate.
(Pliny's suggestion for new bike lane signage was rejected.)
Turn the corner for the egress off the river walk and up a hard hill. ARGH! Somebody is feeding the stupid pigeons! Covering the bike lane. This rainy stretch of concrete is slick enough without the addition of the Pigeon guano. Plus the Biker isn’t too interested in picking it off of his pants legs at the end of the ride.

Big hill at the finish. So steep that I have to traverse it but at least I don’t have to walk the ride anymore.

Work, work, work, work. Quitting time. WOOHOOO!

Day’s end. Stopped at a light waiting for the signal when a spandick half my age rides around me so as to be able to get a jump at the light and not be inconvenienced by anyone. I’m surprised he doesn’t shoot himself when I pass him on that long hill. The BTU’s radiating off my leg muscles must be contributing to global warming. Rain has stopped at least. Time for the evening ride back to the barn and navigate all the road work. How can you tell it’s spring in Portland? Easy - road crews have every major artery blocked down to one lane. They must meet in secret each spring and plan so that no path in or out of the city is free of obstructions and gridlock. They decide to block two lanes of one of our remaining bridges for - what exactly? Can’t actually see anything they are doing. It’s faster to bike than drive in summer. They’ve added all these new bioswails and jogs in the main streets to - “calm the traffic”. Gotta love bureaucratic speak. May calm the traffic but it sure pisses off the drivers engulfed in it. But Portlanders stew in silence. Hardly ever hit the horn regardless of the idiotic infraction in front of them. I swear they’d sooner starve to death in gridlock than honk their horn. Me, I tend more towards a Chicago/New York style of driving... If you aren’t going to use the horn may as well pull it off and save the weight... Heck if I could, I’d get a horn that’s like a sperm whale sonar - one that would actually stun the idiot in front. Ahhh. Biking is so much more relaxing than driving... ;)

Apologetics 101: We Adore Moving Metaphors

2011-10-06T14:50:00.001-07:00

The apologetic philosopher can learn a lot from observing (take a breath and do not panic at that word. Fear not, empiricism will not be required) a squeezed balloon.

This method of argument has been successfully employed for centuries. It never goes anywhere but eventually they will tire and you can declare victory!

After the Flood: Clean up on Orbit Three...

2011-10-04T11:39:00.000-07:00

The Agonist and the Ecstasy: Pliny's pictorial guide to spiritual relations in this modern age

2011-09-23T10:42:00.000-07:00

(Some of whom, are shockingly nice people)

More Interesting, Simpler, and Better Put

2011-09-21T10:32:00.000-07:00

Inconceivable!

2011-09-20T14:41:00.000-07:00

On another blog, someone posted the wisdom of WL Craig, renowned Catholic apologist. While drinking deep of its intellectual bounty I was bothered by a nagging feeling that I had encountered this argument and style before. The bits in dark gray are allegedly quotes from Craig.
________________________________________________________

I’ll make you a wager. Your philosophy against
science. I win, you release the Princess.

Your science against my metaphysics! A debate? HA, I accept.

Not so much a debate, which often has more to do with wordplay and rhetorical skill than truth. More an exploration of truth. Are you game?

Proceed if you dare...

Very well. Beyond, personal belief and established lore,
what proof have you of the existence of your particular deity?

Hmmm, What proof you ask. Mine are rational arguments! There are literally thousands of proofs at my disposal. You must be one of those poor dolts bound by naive evidentialist epistomology. I’ll wager you aren’t versed in the the kalam cosmological argument are you?

I am, and in the various ways it’s been refuted. Most damning being the fact that it merely pushes the problem of first origins backward. Never mind that even if it were sound, it’s a long way from there to your particular sect.

What I find disturbing is even when these arguments are shown to be unsound you seem incapable of abandoning them. Science depends upon the ability to falsify claims, but not theism it seems. You insist we prove you wrong, but can’t prove yourself right. You call that a victory. Which is the opposite of the scientific approach.

You’d like to think that, being an immoral atheist who fears death. But it is not true. Here’s an example for you heathen: If the universe were discovered to be eternal, we'd be obliged to give up biblical inerrancy (as well as the kalam cosmological argument), since the Bible teaches that the universe was created a finite time ago. But obviously, that wouldn't imply that God does not exist or that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

Truly you have a dizzying control of words if not the intellect to match. And an infinite capacity for rationalization. So your faith is a cafeteria plan not requiring internal consistency. But if the Bible wasn’t inerrant how would you know which, if any, pieces were true?

PFFFT! We have many personal accounts of the truth of those really important bits and the belief of millions.

None of which is a reliable measure of truth in any other arena. What about other believers from other faiths who claim just such revelations?

Of course, anyone (or, at least any sort of theist) can claim to have a self-authenticating witness of God to the truth of his religion. But the reason you argue with them is because they really don't: either they've just had some emotional experience or else they've misinterpreted their religious experience. So you present arguments and evidence in favor of Christian theism and objections against their worldview in the hope that their false confidence will crack under the weight of the argument and they will come to know the truth.

So the same could not be said for you? What you call the
Holy Spirit might just be an emotional experience? Other than your argument from authority I don’t see the difference. Seems to me that nothing would dissuade you from your belief. Hardly the position for an intellectual to defend, is it not?

BAH! There are many things that I would take as proof for disbelief. Say, If Jesus' bones were actually found, then the doctrine of his resurrection would be false and so Christianity would not be true and there would be no witness of the Holy Spirit. So if Jesus' bones were found, no one should be a Christian. Fortunately, there is a witness of the Holy Spirit, and so it follows logically that Jesus' bones will not be found. But I have proven that I am open to evidence against my faith should it be found HA!

First, Isn’t that a Websters-worthy example of tautology?
And second, how would one ever know if a set of bones once belonged to Jesus? Not much of a risk there. Wouldn’t you simply deny the authenticity of the find? Or come up with some equally convenient excuse?

HAHAHA! I really have you now! For not only should I continue to have faith in God on the basis of the Spirit's witness even if all the arguments for His existence were refuted, but I should continue to have faith in God even in the face of objections which I cannot at that time answer. The first claim is not really all that radical: I think most theologians, not to mention ordinary believers, would say that arguments of natural theology are not necessary in order for faith in God to be rational. In the absence of some argument for the truth of atheism, I can be perfectly rational to believe in God on the basis of the Spirit's witness.

Ah, back to the burden of proving you wrong rather than being right. Isn’t that a spurious argument, since the question is not whether a god exists, but rather whether a god is required to explain observed facts, which it is not?

You obviously missed the class on Aquinas.

No, but I also attended the classes about the vast store of scientific achievements in the following 700 years.

Have you read all of the works on christian apologetics, hmmmm?

No, nor have I read all of Jacklyn Suzanne but I read enough to
stop seeking answers to life’s meaning there either. I would expect more than an “emperor’s new clothes” response from one so versed in logic. To disagree with you is not to lack understanding or education. One need not handle every piece of dung, to recognize its stench. Don’t you see that your retreat to the mystical sanctuary of catholic doctrine might weaken your claim to intellectual openness?

I find it odd that because I also believe that there is a self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit, that fact is thought to somehow undermine the arguments and evidence I present.

So you don’t see how appealing to experience and mysticism out one side of your face while spewing unsound arguments out the other might undermine your credibility? Or that your flat admission that no facts would sway you, might call into question the purpose of all your rhetoric? Is obfuscation of the nature of your blind faith the extent of your rational argument?

I’m just getting started! I haven’t even talked about contingent beings yet! But first, What I'm claiming is that even in the face of evidence against God which we cannot refute, we ought to believe in God on the basis of His Spirit's witness. Apostasy is never the rational obligation of any believer, nor is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. God can be trusted to provide such powerful warrant for the great truths of the Gospel that we will never be rationally obliged to reject or desert Him."

So basically you are saying, “screw the evidence,
feeling is believing.”

If it were proven that morality were merely a socio-evolutionary tool, then theism would be false and there would then be no witness of the Holy Spirit, since God would not exist. For theism entails that objective moral values and duties exist. So if they didn't, theism would obviously be false. The key here is the word "merely." We can agree that the way in which we come to know moral values and duties is through the evolutionary process, but to conclude that they are therefore not objectively real would be to commit the genetic fallacy of trying to invalidate a view by showing how someone came to hold it. Absent a proof of atheism, the socio-evolutionary account of our moral beliefs does nothing to negate their objective validity.

Again, with the claim of authority. You’re stalling, and not answering my questions. Useful debate strategies, yes,but not the methods of real seekers of truth.

NO I”M NOT STALLING! I’m using rational argument!

You are using that word again. I do not think it means what you think it means.

DID I ASK YOU?!!!

If I may capture your attention once again. Isn’t there something more important than rational arguments?

Such as?

Facts?

INCONCEIVABLE! What I claim is that for the person who attends to it the witness of the Holy Spirit overwhelms the putative defeaters brought against the truths to which He bears witness.

But that makes absolutely no sense.

You only think that it makes no sense! Since you failed to study all 28,276 theological apologetics you cannot grasp my rational arguments. And since you can’t summarize all the knowledge of science into a single trite comment, I WIN! I WIN!

HAHAHAHA AAARRRGH UUUGH!

What happened to him?

I think he finally choked on his convoluted rhetoric. It was inevitable.

Well enough of him, Princess. Time to head into the fire swamp to deal with other ROUS'...

Social Engineering

2011-09-13T16:42:00.000-07:00

Anthony weaved and bobbed in and out of traffic on his single speed bike wearing that idiotic plaid fedora. It was the best way to escape the culling. Subscribers weren’t allowed to harm civilians. Unless there was a former Force Recon sniper out there, he’d probably be safe. Most of those guys didn’t have the ten grand to get a subscription. Hit a civilian by mistake and the departed’ family was granted open season on you for a year. And they didn’t have to wear an orange vest or abide by the 5 block rule.

No worries about anyone not wearing a subscriber vest (beyond the usual dangers of urban living). The penalties for poaching had gotten real steep. Only the most unrepentant sociopaths dared. And most of them had already been culled.

It was really very simple. The subscriber’s bright orange vest sent an RF code that matched the ones given off by his or her bullets. A subscription bought you 5 bullets, the use of the vest, and a Day-Glo orange lever action 30-30. You weren’t allowed to wear camo or use a bipod. That was deemed unsporting and had been rejected by the courts. Nor were you allowed to shoot a runner within 5 blocks of their home. African safari’s might still make big bucks staking out a watering hole so some rich douche could shoot a thirsty lion, but the US lotto system insisted on a reasonable degree of fairness. Five grand got you a pump 12 gauge with 5 shells.

If you scored a kill, the RF tag in the runner’s vest sent an alert to the county assessor’s office matching your RF tag to the kill. That locked the bolt on your weapon and froze the firing pin. It also alerted the local disposal service to the location for retrieval. No trophies were allowed except for a photo of you over the kill which cost you an extra grand. The subscriber had 2 business days to turn in his or her gear, or else they went to the top of the target list. If you used your 5 rounds without a kill, well too damn bad. The subscription also expired after 3 days. Five more rounds cost you 10 grand, but you had to wait six months to reapply. After all, there was a huge waiting list.

You had to be 18 or older but kids above 10 could get a subscription to taze. Obviously, the runner was allowed a 20 minute grace period from definitive culling after each taze. After all, Americans weren’t barbarians.

Local governments made a killing off the fees. In a big city, you might have a thousand runners and a hundred subscribers on a given day. You’d think all those culled bodies would have negatively affected the tax rolls but as it turned out most of them didn’t pay much in taxes anyway. The remaining workers at coffee houses and boutiques had to move a lot faster and most french restaurants had closed, but society considered it a small price to pay. If you lasted 6 months on the culling list, your account was reset to zero and you got to start over. Most ended up on the list again within 2 years. It was just their nature.

Anthony (his histrionic insistence on being called Anthony while wearing that fedora everywhere had been one of the things that had first brought him to the attention of the culling service) was sure this was all a horribly unfair mistake. Most who had met him, disagreed. Anthony was one of those people who just felt things more deeply than anyone else could. Just ask him and he would tell you. Along with other equally strong opinions about a wide range of topics generally outside his education or experience. In short, Anthony was an insufferable twit. The kind of person that used to populate many large cities adding to the unpleasantness of urban living. He was one of those guys who had absolutely no insight into the clueless nature of his self-absorbed behaviors but was instantly on the ass of anyone who violated his hair trigger sensibilities or his cause du jour. Now his primary cause was pretty basic. Live another day. Oh well, it kept is nose clean.

A Law of Unintended Consequences

2011-09-12T12:42:00.000-07:00

“Ignorance of the law is no excuse, young man.”

“And yours is a particularly heinous crime - matricide!”

"You can’t blame me for what happened, judge! I was an infant for Chrissake! I had no control over.."

"Spare me. The 29th Amendment states clearly that you were a person at the moment of conception. Persons have rights but also responsibilities my friend. Your actions within the womb lead to the death of your mother. Though it wasn’t planned, you clearly are responsible. There is no statue of limitations on killing. In vivo matricide was recognized by the court in 2022. Now that you are 18, you can be tried as an adult."

"I was a newborn! I wasn’t even aware then!"

"That’s why it’s only manslaughter. Next case."

Venn Budism and Apologetics

2011-09-10T07:04:00.000-07:00

Venn Budism

2011-09-08T17:33:00.000-07:00

The belief that all bullshit in the universe is connected by intersecting sets that can be explained over a beer.

(and no, that is not ole Pliny!)

Just a Suggestion

2011-09-07T12:51:00.000-07:00

To the City of Portland planners and road crews: FIX one bloody street or bridge at a time instead of disrupting every single friggin route across the city. Oh, and don't tear out a section of one of our main bridges before you settle your disagreement with the repair company. Just a suggestion.

Natural Election Redux

2011-08-29T16:21:00.000-07:00

I’ve never been a fan of political litmus tests. I suspect that being President is a challenging enough without having your hands tied behind your back by a bunch of idiotic pledges to avoid this or that specific thing that is the sole purpose for being for some special interest group. It’s kind of like asking a pilot to promise that he or she will never turn in this direction or go above this altitude before they take off. Sometimes having the freedom to act as is appropriate to the situation is the best way to avoid that mountain up ahead when the weather changes suddenly. I tend to see the world as a pretty complex assortment of gray areas and I always hope for someone who’s smart, can be calm and deliberate when it’s warranted, and decisive when it’s not. The exact character we need in the White House often ends up being a retrospective assessment based upon the events the President ends up facing.

It’s that last part that’s gotten me to reconsider the idea of a political litmus test. A candidate’s stand on Evolutionary theory is being bandied about as such a test by a number of blogs I frequent. I think it’s a good one and here’s why: A President may be required to make critical decisions that affect us all. Many of those decisions will be based on less than ideal information. I need to be confident that my President is committed to making those decisions on the best evidence at his or her disposal. Rejecting evolution is a clear case of just the opposite. The facts of evolution are some of the most solid knowledge in science and it’s hard to find anything else at once so elegant and simple and yet so powerful and broad in its explanations of life on earth. At this time in history there are only 4 reasons one can reject the fact of evolution: religious preference over the facts, ignorance of the basic science, political pandering, being an out and out liar, or some combination of the four.

None of those four reasons are characteristics I’m seeking in a President. If you can't see the overwhelming evidence of evolution then I can't trust you to see the truth in anything less clear cut when the time comes. If you think the jury’s still out on evolution then this judge says the verdict on your qualifications as President is clear. You’ll never get my vote.

Descartes Blanche

2011-08-26T11:29:00.000-07:00

Democrats: I think, therefore I feel guilty

Scalia: I think, therefore it should be law

The poor: I think, therefore I know I’m hungry

Republicans: I think, therefore F#%# off

Fundi’s: They thought for me, so F$%^$ off

Obama: I think, therefore let’s talk

Cheney (and libertarians): Who cares, F%^%&% off

Bottoms Up! (a break from the basic science)

2011-08-24T13:12:00.000-07:00

One thing about which scientists, skeptics, philosophers and mystics can agree, is that science cannot explain the existence of a consciousness without anatomy.

Those abstract thinkers on the right (the philosophers and mystics) believe this demonstrates a limitation of science. After all, they have defined the attributes of a disembodied mind and science doesn’t explain it to their satisfaction. The roll their eyes in condescension and accuse skeptics and scientists of that dreaded paragon of concrete thinking, reductionism. After all, it’s intuitively obvious that human minds are very special in a way that cannot be defined by the observed anatomy.

It’s time for skeptics and scientists to stop granting the machinations of philosophers and mystics, preferred status.

The issue is not skeptical reductionism. It is, as it has always been, a problem of philosophical overreach and imagined assumptions, matched with an a priori respect afforded such. Science cannot demonstrate the mystical properties of mind for the simple reason, that these are made up constructs to begin with. Philosophers and mystics must demonstrate a sound basis for these claims (other than word games or intuition) or we should just ignore them. Science is not reductionism it is coherent modeling. Starting from basic reproducible observations of reality, science helps to build models of reality that fit the observable universe with greater and greater precision and accuracy. That these models cannot provide any support for the existence of a soul for example is less a problem with the model and more a problem with the philosophy. Philosophers can debate nonexistent realms until the end of time since they seem more concerned with sounding convincing or defending their intuition than with being right about the true nature of existence.

Coherent modeling is superior to philosophy in this regard for a simple reason; modeling builds a ground up view of existence while philosophy starts from the top down and as such is largely based upon a foundation of intuition. A ground up model is always superior because this method is most easily consistent with Occam’s Razor. When building from the ground up you reach a point when observed reality is well approximated by the model. This end point may not be intuitive but it will be the simplest explanation of the observed facts. (Often it isn’t intuitive, but intuition is highly over rated in science.) At this point, a scientist can be fairly comfortable that the model reflects objective reality. The simplest explanation is reached in this manner. Based upon details of observed reality, a coherent model is essentially complete once these details have been accounted for. There is no need to account for any missing parts based upon intuition or baseless assumptions.

The top down philosopher however has the added burden of accounting for their initial suppositions. Starting from a series of assumptions that may well have no basis in reality, the philosopher has to account for the disparity between coherent models of reality and their hypothesis. The result? The philosopher declares victory since science has revealed a gap between their assumptions and demonstrable reality. They announce that this proves the existence of something beyond science! No it doesn't. It's far, far more likely to prove that the assumptions of the philosopher were groundless in the first place. That such gaps are the arbitrary creations of the philosopher seems to be of little consequence. Rare seems to be the philosopher who concedes that their intuition is faulty. No, it must be a problem with the scientific method which is not good enough to detect the transcendent parts of reality that only they can intuit. Despite the abysmal track record of intuitive thinking to successfully describe objective reality, philosophers cling to it as a badge of honor. Which, I suppose is why they continue to debate Aquinas while the rest of the word has moved forward 7 centuries.

If science supports a view that the evolutionary development of our senses as a means to successfully navigate objective reality in concert with the growth in our brain’s complexity led to the perceptions we now embody with mystical powers, rather than the other way around (a view which depends upon the existence of abstract consciousness, a thing never seen to exist), then that’s just the way it is. It may be fun to imagine that this were not so, but it’s high time we stopped treating this as anything beyond speculative fiction.

Any philosophy that depends upon the existence of a mind without an underlying structure, is guilty of such a top down bias. No objective evidence exists in support of such minds. This is the mother of all gods of the gaps. It’s based upon the error of assigning far too much credence to our intuition about such things instead of what we actually observe in nature. The bottom up approach to neuroscience is resulting in coherent models of the human mind that fit real observations. If philosophers of the mind want to be taken seriously, then let them first prove that a disembodied mind can in fact exist outside of their intuition. If not, science needs to stop apologizing for the fact that the special nature of humans that we all love so much exists now, where it always has, only in philosophy texts.

Neuro-Not-So-Basics 2: Late Phase Long Term Potentiation of Excitatory Neurons

2011-08-13T10:41:00.001-07:00

To rehash the last segment, axonal action potentials of a sufficient frequency (as in number of depolarizations in a given time interval) trigger plastic effects on the target dendrite in addition to the usual depolarizations associated with nerve conduction. Glutamate released by the axon acts across the synaptic cleft to activate ionotropic receptors (AMPA) in the dendrite cell membrane that cause Sodium ions (Na+) to enter the cell and alter its baseline polarity which may trigger an action potential in the target cell. In addition, the repetitive stimulation prevents the dendrite’s potential from returning to baseline before the next stimulation, resulting in a stacking of charges until a critical threshold is exceeded. Once this threshold is exceeded, changes in the dendrite membrane and glutamate binding to NMDA receptors flushes Magnesium ions (Mg++) out of the receptors allowing Calcium ions (Ca++) to enter the cell. The Calcium activates PKC and Calmodulin kinase (CaMKII) to phosphorylate the AMPA receptors making them more efficient at sodium transport. This lowers the threshold of the cell to future stimulation. Additional AMPA receptors already bound to the dendrite’s cell membrane are recruited into the synaptic cleft, completing the early (independent of protein synthesis) phase of Long Term Potentiation (e-LTP). The major elements of e-LTP are displayed in the first Plinygraph.

This bit covers the late phase of Long Term Potentiation. (Note that not every intermediary in the process is presented nor are all the alternate converging pathways described.) Metabotrophic (second messenger) receptors were briefly mentioned in the last installment but their most significant effects bear on late phase changes in LTP.

Glutamate reversibly binds with the metabotrophic complex (the red bits) which ultimately activate Adenyl cyclase (AC). AC converts ATP from mitochondria into the cytoplasmic second messenger Cyclic AMP (cAMP).

cAMP in combination with a Protein Kinase (PKA) transmits this message to the nucleus of the stimulated neuron. This is but one of a number of cascades available to the cell, including Calmodulin Kinase, growth factors, other neurotransmitters and even cytokines from stress events, that converge within the nucleus to phosphorylate cAMP Response Element-Binding proteins (CREB).

Phosphorylated CREB binds to specific DNA segments in the promotor regions of genes, which can be transcribed into mRNA strands relevant to the translation of the peptide subunits of additional receptors like NMDA. These promotor regions where CREB binds are called cAMP Response Elements (CRE). Bound CREB, in combination with several other proteins, unfolds a segment of DNA and allows RNA Polymerase II to transcribe the relevant mRNA strands.

From the nucleus the mRNA is transported to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) where protein synthesis generally takes place. ER is one of a number of amazing organelles located within eukaryotic cells. It can be argued that the leap from prokaryote to eukaryote was a far larger change in complexity than the evolution of mammals such as ourselves from single-celled eukaryotes. All of our cells are specialized variations on the basic plan of a eukaryote.

Within the ER, transcribed mRNA copies are translated into new receptor proteins through the interactions of Ribosomes, mRNA, and tRNA-bound amino acids. Technically, the subunit peptides of the proteins get produced in the ER and then are assembled in their final form in the Golgi Apparatus (left off of the diagrams which are complex enough already). There is some controversy regarding whether the new receptors are created within the affected dendrite or in the soma, but an observed property of LTP suggest that it is the soma. More on this after a bit.

These newly minted receptors are then transported (usually via microtubules) to the synaptic membranes of the specific dendrite that triggered this cascade, not any others. The plastic change is limited to the dendrite that was subjected to high frequency stimulation. This dendrite receives an added boost in its responsiveness (in addition to e-LTP changes) to future stimuli through the addition of new receptors generated through protein synthesis.

This characteristic of LTP, which limits the plastic effects to the triggering dendrite demonstrates LTP Selectivity.

But what happens if during this high frequency stimulation, another separate dendrite is experiencing a sub-critical stimulus? Turns out that this other dendrite experiences LTP as well. This argues for soma production of the new receptors, and the presence of a local impulse-driven cofactor that promotes transport of the new receptors since the level of stimulation in the other dendrite is too weak to trigger e-LTP cascades. This phenomenon is called LTP Association. The potential relationship of LTP association to certain cognitive biases will be a topic for the future.

This is LTP in a nutshell. LTP results in enhanced receptor response to future stimuli and more receptors. LTP appears to be a key component of the neuroplastic changes that result in the creation of new memories. But as you might expect, there is a lot more to it... Next time? The creation of new synapses and the deregulation of others. After that, the modulation of these processes by other neurotransmitters, the role of nucleic acids, then it's off to the anatomy of the brain.

Neuro-Not-So-Basics: Diving Into a Bit More Detail on Neuroplasticity

2011-08-10T15:01:00.000-07:00

The previous installment on neuronal plasticity involved a lot of wand waving in order to keep it very basic. There is far less of that here. This is a more detailed review of neuroplasticity and one of its components, Long Term Potentiation (early phase) (e-LTP). The second installment with cover Long Term Potentiation (late phase). Certainly not all of the known processes involved in learning and memory will be presented in this review but hopefully it gets us closer to what’s really going on behind our eyeballs. These next two installments will review some of the current knowledge about learning and memory at the synaptic level, and following that, the focus will shift to a review of cellular changes that can create new connections or prune unneeded old ones.

Below is a rendition of an excitatory synapse in the CNS with some of its critical components displayed in their ‘resting state’ Resting state is a misnomer since a great deal of energy is required to maintain the baseline charge gradient against diffusion. Separated by the synaptic cleft, the axon is the input to the synapse, the dendrite is the receiver and output, and the astrocyte is there to support the metabolic needs of the neurons but it also serves some other vital functions as well. The astrocyte provides some of the interlacing structure that holds the synapse together (not shown for simplicity) and it polices the synaptic cleft absorbing neurotransmitters and their byproducts between firings. I’m not going into too much detail on that part but it should be noted that failure of that function by the astrocytes is associated with known diseases including ALS.

The axon terminus contains vacuoles filled with gluamate (glutamic acid or Glu). Glutamate is an amino acid, a preservative in Chinese food and the most common neurotransmitter in the CNS.

The synaptic cleft is maintained with a resting excess of sodium (Na+) and Calcium (Ca++) ions relative to the interior of the cells.

Embedded into the cell membrane of the dendrite are a number of protein complexes that span its lipid bilayer. Among these are AMPA (Alpha -amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid) and NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate) ionotropic receptors for glutamate (Glu). An inotropic receptor is one that selectively admits ions to the cytoplasm of the cell when activated (in this case by Glu). There are also metabotropic receptors that bind with transmitter. Metabotropic receptors are those that activate intracellular second messenger cascades within the cell. What does that mean? When the transmitter binds to the external portion of the metabotropic complex, it causes a conformational change in the portion of the complex that extends into the cytoplasm. Once this happens this usually results in a configuration of the protein that allows it to catalyse some important reaction to create an intercellular messenger that communicates with structures within the cytoplasm. The most famous metabotropic complex is the one associated with adenyl cyclase (the Western Union of eukaryotic cells) which creates the ubiquitous intracellular messenger, cyclic AMP (which will play a roll in the discussion of the late phase of LTP).

So ionotropic receptors allow ions to pass into the cell, while metabotropic receptors switch on some intracellular machinery. You should also note that not all of these receptors are located within the synapse. This will be of some importance after a bit.

This is pretty much the state of things until an action potential makes its way to the synapse as a wave of membrane depolarization moves toward the terminus of the axon.

Once the terminus deploraizes, the vacuoles containing Glutamate (Glu) bind with the cell membrane and discharge Glu into the synaptic cleft.

Glutamate binds to AMPA which opens these ion channels to the cytoplasm allowing Sodium ions (Na+) to rush into the cell.

This changes the electrical potential of the dendritic cell membrane,

Which may or may not be enough to generate a responding action potential in the target neuron. Absent any additional stimulus within a short period of time, the Glu is reabsorbed and the membrane potentials return to baseline. This can occur over and over again without any noticeable plastic change to the synapse.

However, the situation changes considerably if the synapse is subjected to high frequency bombardment. Imagine situation like below, where the axon is being stimulated over and over again with such frequency that the dendrite cannot return to baseline polarity before the next signal hits. This situation is called tetany (where tetanus gets its name). Since the dendrite is unable to return to baseline between firings, the potentials begin to stack one onto the next until a critical electrical threshold is exceeded.

Once this threshold is exceeded several things happen as part of what is called Long Term Potentiation (early phase) (e-LTP).

The electrical charge changes are sufficient to dislodge magnesium ions (Mg++) that normally block the ion channels of NMDA.
Glutamate binds to NMDA and Calcium ions (Ca++) enter the cell.

There is plenty of surplus Glu about to bind to the metabotropic receptors in the synapse to activate second messengers in the cytoplasm. (not shown)
Calcium ions in conjunction with the second messengers activate a number of intracellular cascades including Protein Kinase (PKC) and Calmodulin kinase II (CaMKII).

This activated complex does a couple of things. First, it phosphorylates AMDA which dramatically improves each molecule's ability to transmit Sodium ions to the cytoplasm. This change can persist for some time even if no other changes occur. The enhanced ion channels are far more sensitive to future stimulation and may even promote neuron depolarization at signal frequencies that previously would have been below the threshold for response. So this is a plastic change to the synapse.

The second effect is that AMPA receptors outside of the synapse are drawn into it. The result is more available receptors without the need for additional protein synthesis further strengthening the synapse's responsiveness to future stimulation.

Protein synthesis is vital to the next stage of the process, which is the late phase of Long Term Potentiation (LTP) which fixes and extends these changes. But that is a story for another day. Hope this is interesting.

Neuro Basics, Part 3: the magnitude of neuronal connectivity

2011-08-08T10:24:00.000-07:00

In parts one and two we touched on the basic building blocks of the CNS and a couple of the mechanisms that allow our biological neural networks to develop with experience. This part is mercifully short but important (should have doe this one before plasticity). Before starting into the higher levels of organization within the CNS it's good to really nail down the level of complexity that exists at the most basic level. One of the hang ups people have about a biological explanation for thought is an under appreciation for just how extensive our neural networks really are.

Part one covered very basic structures of the neuron with the picture below.

We covered the fact that the level of connectivity of a real neuron was considerably higher, but how high is it really? The image below is closer to reality. This image looks much more complex than the simplified one above. Surely, it's an accurate illustration of a real neuron.

No, not really. This illustration shows 800 dendrites. Eight hundred individual connections with other neurons to a single neuron. And it's still just a simplification. The average neuron in the average adult human brain has 7000+ connections. So this complex looking picture is 8-10x too simple to represent the average human neuron.

Now imagine the connections to this one neuron.

In this image stimulating neurons are ones with purple dendrites and regulating ones are in green. Some neurons are tasked with suppressing the firing of a neuron and others with stimulating it to pass its signal to those up its chain. This is just the connectivity of one amongst 10- 11 billion others. Each of which is connected to a similar number of others.

Looks very complex doesn't it. The only problem is that these last two pictures would have to include 260x more connections to be an accurate picture of an average neuron. Do the math. Is it really that hard to imagine that some extraordinary processes that at times look magical can be accomplished with the numbers of combinations or permutations that actually exist in our brains?

Basic Science Saturday on the QT

2011-08-06T15:01:00.000-07:00

WooHOO! Basic Science Saturday. Be warned! This is a very simplified description and illustration of a very important concept that will have bearing on later discussions about consciousness: Quantum Tunneling. It's a curious thing but I think it’s fairly easy to understand qualitatively. As long as we avoid the usual bad analogies and the math which can be more than a bit dicey.

I’m going to forgo the usual bad analogies because I think they add more confusion than they’re worth because of the orders of magnitude that separate us from the quantum world. What works for a single particle is one thing, but what works for an object made up of a trillion trillion particles is something else.

Just how removed the world of one subatomic particle from our macro world is something I hope to illustrate below. How big is a proton? It’s roughly 10-13 cm in diameter, although the diameter of a proton is sort of a misnomer to begin with since it’s not like a little rubber ball with discrete boundaries. It’s hard to contextualize that small of an object. We need a frame of reference. So let’s, for once find a use for Charlie Brown to illustrate the size issues.

Take Charlie Brown (Somebody please take him! How much longer must we endure recycled comics that weren’t funny to begin with. But I digress)

But let’s imagine mister whinny, boring not with his usual round head which I have arbitrarily estimated at 38 cm (It’s a big fat head. Not really a blockhead but more of a big fat ball of self loathing) but with a head the size of our sun. Assuming we preserve the relative proportions of the sun to CB’s usual blockhead, how big would a proton be?

Would you believe it would be about 3.7 microns?! Even if whimpering simp Charlie Brown’s head were the size of the orbit of Neptune, the proton would still only be a hair shy of an inch in diameter. So we are talking teensy here. So far removed is this world from our macro one, that we should never expect bodies with our mass and numbers of particles to behave in the manner we’re about to describe. Statistically, it’s essentially impossible.

But down deep at the level of the proton or electron, things are strange. Turns out that’s a really good thing for us.

A proton isn't a discrete particle. It is something that is explained as having particle - wave duality. We have a wave function to describe a proton, and there is the possibility of a discrete solution to the equation at a specific time and place - that’s the particle part. For better or worse I tend to think of subatomic particles as a specific observed instance of a wave function. This actually helps me to mentally accept the duality. Unless we are seeing a specific instance, the proton or electron behaves as a wave function and therefore even a single electron or proton can appear to be many places at once - just like a wave. On those occasions when a specific instance is being observed, we see more discrete particle behavior. But generally it works to think of it as a fuzzy cloud like the diagram below. Remember this is just a means to illustrate this.

The fuzzy cloud is the wave function which tells us the likelihood of finding the particle solution or a specific instance of the thing at a particular location in space. The denser areas of the cloud correspond to areas where the particle is most commonly found. But it can be found anywhere in this cloud at some times and if we don’t insist on measuring its precise location, it acts as if it’s everywhere in this cloud at once.

The next two diagrams illustrates that second to last point. The particle can be located anywhere in the cloud of the defined wave function though the probability changes with respect to a particular region. Because the little bugger is so tiny, we can never know both its precise location and its velocity. This concept sometimes gives people fits but it really is fairly simple to grasp. Imagine you are in a pitch black room with a superball bouncing around and you have a strobe light to get a picture of it. (Ok, I have succumbed to the siren's call of bad macro metaphors as well. Someone should have lashed me to the mast.) With the lights out you can hear the thing bouncing around seemingly everywhere but hit the strobe and you can snap a picture of exactly where it is at that instant. Of course there is a problem when you look at the photo you took with the strobe. You see the superball in all its glory but you can't tell where it's headed or how fast. It's just a picture of a ball in the air. You can't tell where it's headed, what it may hit, or how hard. Now as to why this is a bad metaphor goes back to the issues of scale we mentioned earlier. Light from a strobe hitting the superball imparts negligible force on the velocity of the ball. At the level of a proton, however, the energy of a single photon used to detect its whereabouts imparts tremendous force upon the proton altering its momentum and path. Measuring its position always influences its path. That's the uncertainty principle.

Now let’s imagine this very tiny wave function approaching some kind of energy barrier (an electric field for example)

If the barrier is great enough, the particle represented by the wave function will bounce off as we’d expect. The behavior here is very similar to what would be described by classical mechanics. No surprises yet.

But what if the barrier (field) is not so great in size? This next proton approaches a barrier as before. But notice that the region defined by the wave function actually extends beyond the width of the barrier. In other words, in this situation there is some probability that if we collapsed the wave function, the particle would be on the other side of the barrier. It might bounce off as before - then again it might not.

Keeping in mind that this is just an illustration, if the width of the energy barrier is small enough with respect to the wave function of the particle in question, something pretty strange can occur.

The result? The particle may appear to have tunneled through the barrier appearing on the other side with the exact same energy it started with. It’s not magic, it’s just math - really really hard math...

This isn’t just theoretical. It is observable in the behavior of prisms and in an advanced form of microscopy. It has relevance to superconductors, radioactive decay, processor design limits, and even to fusion reactions in the core of our beloved sun to name a few.

The sun you say! Turns out, if quantum tunneling wasn’t real, we wouldn’t exist. The sun requires it to be a fact for it to generate light and heat as it does. One of the problems scientists and engineers are facing here on earth when trying to develop a working fusion reactor is that they have to raise the temperature and pressures to levels far higher than exist in the sun’s core. That’s because the normal conditions within the sun’s core are insufficient to overcome the repulsion of like charges when trying to bring two hydrogen nuclei together long enough to fuse. That seems like a potential problem (badda boom!). The like charges create an ‘energy barrier’ (see where this is going?) that prevents this from happening. But because our dear sun is so very very huge (channeling Michael Palin), nuclei can fuse because a certain percentage ‘tunnel’ through the barrier of like charges and fuse. Science doesn’t get any better than that.

Due to the scale involved and the numbers of particles in question, it should also be apparent that this doesn’t mean we can walk through walls from time to time. We’ll just have to be content with the fact that we get to live because of it and stick to the doors.

This apparent digression will hopefully serve some purpose in later discussions about consciousness (nonwoo kind).

The Comets Tale

2011-08-03T11:22:00.001-07:00

Back in the 13th century while some amazing guys were creating all the big ideas a modern philosopher would ever need, people had some pretty screwy ideas about comets. Among other things they were bad omens - and not the the strike the Yucatan and annihilate the dinosaurs kind of bad omen. No, comets were cosmic pink slips from God. That slow progression across the heavens with a fiery tail was pretty upsetting. It would be centuries before anyone understood what they really are. Far from being messages of doom (but still very much potential agents of same...) they were dirty snowballs with particularly eccentric orbits.

And as people studied them they discovered some other interesting facts. One of these facts was that the tail always pointed away from the sun. That was curious at first. Why would the evaporation products of the coma always form a pattern away from the sun? It suggested the presence of a force or an agent that was pushing the cometary tail particles away from the sun. Turns out that this is the solar wind. That expanding impulse of particles always being ejected from the sun's surface. Invisible, subtle, but not undetectable. An effect first detectable through observation; then a process imagined to explain it; then the mechanism validated through experimentation. Like every other process in nature the solar wind left signs of its existence long before we had any means of either imagining its existence or detecting it. But what was true elsewhere in nature was true here as well: if it caused some effect, then it left a mark.

Is this one of my usual digressions? I don't think so. Time and again science finds that causes leave fingerprints on their effects in this universe of ours. So why would consciousness be any different? Philosophers who insist on some special status for human cognition not explained by our neuroanatomy, must show us the marks left by these metaphysical processes. Even (usually) subtle forces like the solar wind leave a trail of breadcrumbs. Evidence not words are what is required.

The Starting Gun

2011-08-01T10:03:00.000-07:00

What is the difference between consciousness and instinct? Or better yet, why do we label very similar observed behaviors volitional or conscious acts in humans and instinct in another mammal?
How do you know that someone loves you? Is it a 'feeling' or is it a perception built upon a foundation of little behaviors?

The Grand Illusion: Not the one by Styx

2011-07-21T10:46:00.000-07:00

Ok, my last post was a bit sarcastic but it's really not far from the claims of philosophers who insist on the immutable nature of consciousness. Essentially it is what they are claiming: brain and mind are analogous to computer and software. It's the software that makes us human and special above all others. Kind of the way Mac users feel. It is software as a service. We get access to our soul under certain limited terms and conditions which can be revoked at any time. So all those people who complain about Gates or Jobs thinking they're God, really aren't too far off...

I, of course don't buy this. I think that what we have named consciousness, doesn't really exist. It is a grand illusion. Over the next many months I hope to share my reasons. I've already started with the beginnings of some very basic primers on the basics of our anatomy. Fleshing out the basics will take several installments. In between I hope to continue to post bad poetry, sarcastic political commentary, self-amusing anecdotes, and the occasional story.

The question is complex and brings together a number of disciplines. But in the end, I think we'll be able to show that the basic structure of cognition is written not in some lore, but in our neurons.

Let the games begin!

Soulware as a Sevice

2011-07-20T17:44:00.000-07:00

I don't know why I did not see this sooner. I have had an epiphany. I bought a new computer recently. It arrived with all the software pre-installed. To activate it I had to agree to the terms and conditions which basically state that I don't really own the software. I'm basically just leasing it. When the computer goes belly up, I have to get a new software suite. Some part of the hardware fails and the software is toast too.

That was when it hit me - That's what happens to us! We come with pre-installed software that only runs on this model of brain (CPU, RAM and Memory requirements for the system, etc.) - Soulware as it were. Chimp brains for example, don't have the right CPU. Dolphin brains have the CPU but not enough RAM. Mouse and Rat brains for example can only run Windows 7. The big provisioning system in the sky preloads the software at the factory and off we go. We don't actually own the soul, which can be disposed of at The Great Software Makers discretion.

Too bad it's not a polytheistic belief - we could stand some competition or else we'll never get any upgrades.

(Sorry, left over post - didn't want to waste it.)

And the Child Shall Lead

2011-07-19T11:54:00.001-07:00

A bittersweet event happened a couple of weeks ago. Our eldest, of highschool age, expressed an interest in taking a comparative religion course. She has been raised to be ethical and moral without religion. She knows how her mom and I feel about religion but from time she could ask such questions my answer has always been the same - deciding what you believe is a choice that you alone get to make. And she is a wonder. A kinder and more empathetic soul has never lived. She is also smart and confident and not easily swayed. She is free of guilt and baggage. She gives me hope for our future.

I suggested that we could have a series of sessions like that at home. She politely said that she preferred to gain an outside perspective on the subject.

"I'm not interested in the teachings so much as the history of religions,"She said.

"No offense, but you and mom kind of cloud the discussion with political commentary about religion."

It is a bit of a shock when your wildest hopes for your children come true - a father's hope that his children would be better than he.

She is.

Punching Out Before We Buy the Farm

2011-07-19T09:07:00.001-07:00

What do flat spins and investments have in common?

Easy - in both if you stay the course too long, you become part of a smoking hole in the ground.
Cutting your losses is a tough thing. "Just another second", or "it'll turn around" can easily become an epitaph. At some point, a reasonable person just has to decide to punch out and live to fight another day.

Today I'm going to punch out on the subject of theology. The reason's pretty simple. I've reached a point where I am no longer interested in hearing the arguments. The evidence is compelling enough for me to assume a piori, in any context, that gods don't exist. There's about 10,000 books I'd love to read before I die. I've developed a tin ear to theology. It's all started to sound the same, and it's been years since I've heard a novel argument. Even something as complicated as quantum physics rewards the casual reader with incentives as to why they should dig deeper. The theological reader is treated to archaic thinking, poor logic and circular arguments. If the deists ever come up with some compelling proof, I'll be happy to reconsider. But it will have to be something a lot more tangible than arguments about first causes, etc.

Stripping away all the rhetoric, it came down to this for me - there is ample evidence that the universe came to be through natural means.

I have no quarrel with descent people who feel religion in their hearts and live their lives just because they believe. That doesn't bother me. Some of them actually visit here and I enjoy their perspectives. If it feels like faith to them, and cognitive bias to me, well so what. I can appreciate them as fellow human beings trying to make their way just like me. It's all the Pseudo-intellectual clap trap that annoys me no end. I wish them all well - as long as they stay out of politics. Politicians who hide behind God are still fair game.

I also want to invite anyone who visits this place from time to time to submit guest posts if they wish or request that I respond to something in particular. I won't censor any posts beyond some obvious ones (like Holocaust denial, but I don't suspect that's a problem with this small crew) but I will work to ensure that we all remain civil. (I drafted this on the 15th - funny coincidence)

Science and Philosophy

2011-07-17T17:11:00.000-07:00

I admit that I don't see much use for philosophy without purpose. As many of the recent blogs show, it's easy to get tied up in knots and get regularly insulted by so called philosophers who tend to look down on those of us who aren't convinced by their practiced linguistic contortions. We get lectured on not being 'schooled' in all the nuanced arguments about how many angels can fit on the head of a rhetorical pin. It's an incredible waste of time. Mostly it shows the mental hazards of disconnecting philosophy from reality. People can come up with all sorts of logic exercises that may seem somewhat compelling until you ask the question of how it fits with what is real. Logic that contradicts reality is just nonsense, no matter how skillfully argued.

That's not to say that I think philosophy isn't important. I think it is, as long as it remains linked to science and not allowed to go off on some cockamamie quest into metaphysical LaLa land. Philosophy is a useful way to explore the next great questions that should be posed to science. But the questions need to be coherent with what we already know. Does that mean that once science answers the questions that philosophy is no longer useful? Hardly, because philosophy (ethics) is useful in discussing and imagining the consequences of what science has learned. What do we do about the new knowledge? It's a loop.

For example, science is revealing the biological nature of thought. Over time, we will learn more and more about how we think and what 'thinking' and mind really are. But what are the ramifications of that knowledge? How should our laws, and expectations, even our democracy adapt to the new realities? That sounds like a great job for some philosophers.

Would Thomas Aquinas be an Atheist if He Were Born in the 21st Century?

2011-07-15T15:07:00.000-07:00

A favorite of 'scholarly' deists is to fall back on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Any time you say anything about the dangers of putting too much emphasis on ideas percolated well before 99% of what we currently know to be fact, these guys take it as a personal affront either for themselves or poor old Thomas, or in one case as an indictment of the 13th century. They trot out how enlightened it all was in the 13th century, with all the university's being founded and such. Not so much about the 4th through 9th Crusades, the Children's Crusade, the Medieval Inquisition, the Church condemnations (including some of the works of Aquinas himself), the fact that University's were placed outside of secular law allowing students freedom for all sorts of crime, and the fact that the 'Queen of the Sciences' taught at these places to rich kids was theology. The 'natural sciences' as taught were based mostly on the teachings of Aristotle, another intelligent guy who was completely wrong about what we now think of as science. If you were a scholar you had to learn Christianity in Europe. Everything else was learned from that perspective. God was a priori knowledge. The pope granted great latitude to university curricula. Except when you taught heresy that would get you excommunicated. In other words, the scholarly theists cherry pick what they need at the moment just like always.

To argue against the ideas is to attack the man. I have a bombshell for you. I personally find Aquinas to be an extremely interesting and important figure from history. I also believe that he was clearly very intelligent and a skilled writer. He also was pretty wrong about the actual science. Here's a quote about spontaneous generation (admittedly a persistent meme that survived until Pasteur conclusively proved it false).

Since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation of things, that from the corruption of the less perfect the more perfect should be generated. Hence animals generated from the corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated then.

I don't include that to belittle the man at all. He was a man for his time. But what if he wasn't?

The whimsy I propose is something that I have thought about from time to time. It's part of the old nature or nurture argument. What would a man like Aquinas born and raised in our time, think of what he wrote in his own time? Maybe it sounds silly, but I'm not convinced that a modern version of Aquinas would have come to the same conclusions as one from the 13th century. If he was the thoughtful and insightful man his modern acolytes insist he was, what if any, would have been the effects of modern knowledge? If he had attended modern university would he have emerged like Behe, like Ruse, or like Shermer?

In light of current science would he have concluded that once you remove yourself from all the word games what evidence is left? Impossible to know. But it's something to consider when these guys trot out the religiosity of some scientist from a few hundred years ago. They never seem to stop to consider what those scientists would think today - particularly now that the penalty for spiritual honesty is not roasting on a stake.

The Cosmological Argument

2011-07-14T09:21:00.001-07:00

In fairness, it probably does look interesting from the dog's perspective.

Natural Election 2012: Proposed New Rules for Political Speech

2011-07-13T14:52:00.000-07:00

With the ready availability of information on the Internet, I propose the following: Every time a major politician speaks, nonpartisan fact checkers must be present to immediately research any zingers and post their results on an aggregate BS meter that must be in camera view at all times.

Any time the dial is active, a continuous loop of the term BS, will be played at a decibel level appropriate for the reading. Each level of dial activity will be associated with an increase of 10 decibels over the one below it. Any time the dial reaches critical, the speaker has to stop, and can only resume speaking if they win a round of roshimbo with a Navy Seal.

The Problem With Being on a Mission From God

2011-07-13T12:35:00.000-07:00

She's on a mission from God. Michelle Bachmann scares me. She really does. She scares me on many levels, not the least of which is that she has followers.

Whenever I hear some politician talk about being on such a mission, I'm reminded of the old Stephen King book, The Dead Zone. Pushing the button because of a higher calling. I have a real problem with a President being on such a mission. Beyond the obvious, it's an issue of accountability. I want a President to feel accountable deep down in their gut. I want them to feel the weight of their responsibility. I want them to believe that the buck stops with them. I want them to feel the burden of the consequences of their acts. They wanted the job, after all.

You are what you glutamate; Basic Neuroscience part 2: Plasticity and Pruning

2011-07-11T12:47:00.000-07:00

Part one was a simple review of the structure and the function of the basic building block of the CNS: the neuron. This installment will attempt to cover a simple explanation of the very complex processes of Neuroplasticity and pruning. These are critical concepts in our understanding of the biological basis of cognition.

To review, each neuronal soma (body) has many input jacks (dendrites and receptors) and one output cable (axon) which can have more than one end connector. These individual neurons are arrayed in vast networks with many specialized functions (a subject we will return to in a later installment). These arrays are very flexible and adaptable depending upon the quality and quantity of inputs; what we call experiences. Below is a greatly simplified diagram illustrating a section of brain tissue with all the supporting bits removed. It’s important to realize that although this diagram looks pretty complex and meaty, in reality each of the neurons could have 5-15 thousand dendritic connections. In real brains the connectivity runs into the trillions.

The next diagram illustrates the beginning of neuronal impulse propagation. The neuron with the red arrow has been stimulated sufficiently by the axon end terminus to the left, for it to depolarize and propagate the impulse to other neurons down the line. Although the blue arrowed neuron also received a signal from the left neuron, in this case either the signal was inadequate to fire the blue arrowed neuron or other neurons were sending it suppressive signals to stand down. Although there may have been local alterations in the membrane potential of these dendrites, a full scale action potential was not triggered.

The fourth diagrams shows how the signal may be passed down a particular pathway to the exclusion of others.

Or it may take a more circuitous route or even multiple routes as in the diagram below.

How one or more tracks gets favored is the fun part. The availability and facility with which an impulse travels along various pathways within this network is the cornerstone of our minds. The tracks selected depend upon inputs and a variety of structural, electrochemical, and genetic processes. It’s very complicated. It is rocket science. But that doesn’t mean a person can’t understand the basic premise. How these pathways come to be, is at the heart of our thinking, our core being, and our memories (both procedural and experiential). It’s what experts call neuroplasticity.

There’s a lot of confusion about this term, but hopefully we can get rid of some of the mystery. At a high level, neuroplasticity refers to the fact that structural and functional changes to the brain can be permanently created through the variety and intensity of experiences. Keep in mind that experiences are combinations of sensory inputs to the brain mitigated by the residual effects of similar experiences and the their behavioral impact. That definition is true but I think it’s confusing to all us non-neuroscientists. It conjures up images of neurons replicating and filling our heads with more cells or creating new brain regions in response to new experiences. That’s not really it. Plasticity has more to do with biochemistry and 'functional anatomy' than classic anatomy with one huge exception we’ll get to later.

We have these enormous neural networks waiting for something to do. We start out with vastly greater numbers of connections than we will likely ever need. The redundancy is in orders of magnitude. So neuroplasticity is not so much building new structures as much as it’s making certain existing ones much more efficient (and preferred) and eliminating ones we don’t ever use (a process aptly named ‘pruning’). Starting with a situation where two competing paths are possible (obviously there are many other possible permutations), how do we arrive at a situation where one is favored? It’s actually very simple to explain as long as we keep way from the complex molecular biology and biochemistry of the process (which is unbelievably cool if you are into that sort of thing).

At its most basic the process is this:

Strong or repetitive stimulation of a dendritic connection by impulses from an associated axon.
Responsive activation of genes linked to the dendritic membrane receptors within the nucleus resulting in transcription and mRNA formation.
Translation of the mRNA and production of either increased numbers of receptors or receptors with more efficient neurotransmitter binding.
Selective transport of the enhanced receptors to the specific dendrite (or dendrites) that triggered the response, resulting in greater sensitivity of those dendrites to future stimuli. (for Jared, I was careful to avoid the dreaded ‘code’ word)

In essence, the connections to these axons are plastically enhanced. This mechanism appears to be extremely important to how the brain actually functions outside of philosophy discussions. Although the basic structure of the neural net is the same as before, functionally, a new executable has been structurally created (biochemically) that changes the behavior of the system to subsequent stimuli. Future stimuli can trigger this enhanced pathway more easily and the target neuron may not require as many supporting stimuli from other axons as it originally required. We’ll return to this topic when we look at the effects of hallucinogens in a future installment (it also explains why some of those drug induced states may become permanent). We’ll also noodle a bit on how this arrangement may explain a host of observable phenomena from mnemonics to confirmation bias (that’s a teaser!).

So as the next two diagrams show, strong, multichannel, or repetitive stimulation of a pathway results in the creation of changes to the structure of the connections between neurons. The interplay of major pathways, regulatory paths (the neuron with the blue aura), and multiple convergent channels can strengthen these enhanced pathways. Future stimuli or previously inadequate stimuli from primary or secondary pathways may be sufficient to trigger the path. Since the pathways don't exist in a vacuum, previously unrelated stimuli (coming in from any of the thousands of alternate attachments) may be sufficient, post enhancement, to trigger an action potential - think about what memory process that helps explain.

This explains the plastic changes that result in new functional structures at a high level. It also helps explain why the old computer / software saw falls apart a bit. Memory and cognitive processes are more akin to self etching chips than to a traditional digital computer with fixed hardware and add on software. The flip side to this is what happens to connections that aren’t doing anything. This next process helps explain why kids may have twice as many connections per neuron as adults. Take the circled axon dendrite connection circled below.

If this connection never amounts to much (few stimuli, or greatly overshadowed by others) it may be ‘pruned’ as in the second picture. This latent connection is lost resulting in another permanent change to the structure of the brain. "Use it or lose it" is something the brain has known about for a long time.

Talk about pruning! This little exercise prunes about 98% of the science away, but hopefully this helps to better understand three vital aspects of the brain: the extensive networks of neurons, how new functions and experiences result in permanent changes, and how lack of activity can result in loss of connectivity. FYI: If you understand the pun in the title, you get a gold star for today...

Do Materialists Dream of Etherial Sheep?

2011-07-08T10:28:00.000-07:00

Sorry to Phillip K. I think a lot of non-material thinkers believe that materialists can't have a good time. Since we are skeptical of a lot of the things that such individuals enjoy they seem to think that we never have any fun. Not so. Being objective about the world doesn't destroy the value of subjective experience.

The fact that we don't think that our existence is magical doesn't take away from the magic of living.

Let me give you an example.

I suspect that the first painting needs no introduction, but the one on the left may. The painting to the left is "Lavender Mist" by Jackson Pollock. As way of introduction, Ole Pliny is a very (very, very) minor artist who has sold some of his work over the years. Art is not my vocation nor my hobby. Art for me has always been my emotional outlet. I paint for my own needs. If on occasion one of my works connects to someone, I'm just as likely to give it to them as sell it. The value for me is in the creation of the piece not the end product. That is a very subjective process. To me, art has both an objective worth and a subjective one. I appreciate the former - and enjoy the later.

These two pieces illustrate my meaning. I greatly appreciate and admire Leonardo's skill and his historical importance is unquestionable. But subjectively there is no contest - I would much prefer to have Pollock's painting over my mantel than the "Mona Lisa". That sounds crazy to some, after all, objectively, the "Mona Lisa" is extraordinarily valuable and historically significant. As an investment it would be the best choice. As art it falls flat to me.

Well, not exactly flat but I still enjoy "Lavender Mist" more. Now you are surely convinced that Ole' Pliny is completely wacked. The paintings work emotionally for me for different reasons. The allure of the "Mona Lisa" is that expression. What is she thinking? Leonardo has captured facial ambiguity perfectly. The viewer can create a world to explain that look because it's not an obvious expression that we can easy catalog. It gives us pause. That is masterful. But it's easier than what Pollock does.

Pollock, and the other great abstract painters, have a more difficult task in my opinion. They have to create drama and emotion absent common place cues. There is no expression to capture our interest in "Lavender Mist". And yet, to view it in person, is to be filled with emotion. Emotion created without the benefit of the obvious. That to me is great art. It's very subjective, but so what?

Defending the Blivit!

2011-07-07T19:52:00.000-07:00

Over at 'Evangelical Realism', a site I used to visit with some regularity, there is an ongoing battle between some fellow named Alan Roebuck and some familiar faces about the importance of consciousness as a 'proof' of the existence of non-material things which with the usual slight of hand means that God exists. QED and a smug smile. It makes me crazy how people think.

Here's most human thought in a nutshell:

We make shit up.
We convince ourselves that the shit we concocted is real.
We defend the made up shit with logic based upon the inscrutable nature of made up shit.
We remember the 2 experiences that support the shit and ignore the 12 billion that don't.
We scoff at skeptics who insist on evidence because shit plays by its own rules.

Did I miss anything?

Let's take an example. There exists a thing called a Blivit. A Blivit, as anyone knows, is 20 pounds of dung in a ten pound bag. We know it exists despite the materialistic limitations of said ten pound bag. The fact that rationally, 20 pounds won't fit is immaterial... A Blivit exists and can be defending through logic. Ontologically, a perfect Blivit must also exist since perfection must exist. Any silly naysayer just doesn't get it because we know it exists through means not limited by ridiculous notions of material evidence. It FEELS like I'm carrying around 20 pounds so it must be true.

Consciousness is another such a concept. Consciousness is not a substance, it is a word. It's a word that was created to describe something long before humans had any knowledge of the underlying physical processes. It’s just a label we insist on clinging to when describing a complex set of neurosensory perceptions created by well studied anatomic and physiologic structures and processes. These processes are accessible to anyone with an interest in neuroanatomy and physiology. These disciplines form the strong basis for taking a material view of the mind. Most (if not all) of the emotions, perceptions, mental states (including deeply religious ones) can be reliably duplicated by stimulation of specific regions of the brain or the application of either neurotransmitters or their analogs. As a corollary, damage to these regions results in predictable alterations in emotion, cognition, perception, notion of self, or even spirituality. These constitute very strong evidence of a material explanation of thought processes. No evidence of any consciousness outside of the constraints of neuroanatomy has ever been demonstrated in any valid test. Claims to such have always been anecdotal, biased or poorly tested. Such claims have not been repeatable nor have they demonstrated any findings that cannot be explained by the neurosciences. Neuroscience experimentation has resulted in enormous support for a material explanation of the mind while other explanations fail to provide any support outside of philosophy debates.

Can you measure consciousness? Who cares! It's a word we made up to describe a bunch of processes that are completely governed by the anatomy and physiology of the brain. These can be measured and studied. It's time to stop studying Blivits.

Natural Election 2012 (July 1, 2011)

2011-07-01T10:32:00.000-07:00

Republican Visual Recognition and Talking Points Aid Packages are now available for purchase! No more embarrassing gaffes! An example below:

LEFT: John Wayne Gacy: notorious serial killer,
responsible for the murders of 33 people.

RIGHT: John Wayne: beloved republican icon and actor responsible for the simulated deaths of several hundreds

Real deer in the headlights vs metaphorical..

The Pliny Wheel

2011-06-29T14:03:00.000-07:00

Considering the volumes of whale dung spewed into the media and cyberspace, how on earth can a reasonable person sort through even a part of it, in search of objective reality. I’m not talking about assessing a car or a new TV or deciding on a court case. (My rule for marketing claims is simple - they are lying and I leave it at that. In the case of lawyers it’s similar. They are being paid to ignore large parts of the truth in order to prevail.) I’m talking about weighing bigger ideas. I don’t claim to have the answer but I will share some of the approach I take to learning new ideas. Ian called it a Pliny Wheel. I kind of liked that for some reason...

In truth, I don’t always start this process in the same spot. Sometimes I start with the source, sometimes the prior art and sometimes basic plausibility. No matter where I start, I always try to address each of these filters unless the idea gets destroyed early on.

Prior art: Most brilliant insights aren’t very original. They may be new to the person shouting the revelation, but frequently the ideas have been proposed before in one form of another. Based upon the similarity of this ‘new idea’ to the old, you can usually use the same tools that were effective in bashing the old idea in the first place. Or at least this lets you evaluate whether anything truly new is being presented in reference to past discussions. It’s no accident that patent claims follow a similar order.

If it was refuted before, semantic changes aren’t likely to result in an appreciably better argument, so I tend to move on in that case. Prior art isn’t just the idea itself - it’s also the framework of the arguments used in defense of the new idea. Flawed logic, hackneyed arguments or accusations of bias by the inventor against his or her skeptics, usually are nothing more than another attempt to put lipstick on an old pig that didn’t pass muster before. The Emperor’s new cloths approach is used often in defense of bad ideas, but just because it’s an effective marketing ploy doesn’t make it legitimate. If you have to insult the intelligence or cognitive skills of a skeptic, in order to make your point, then it’s probably not a good one in the first place.

The best red flags are accusations against the scientific method, the refuge of metaphysics, insinuations that deniers are too concrete in their thinking, or denials of the need (or even better, the possibility) for empirical confirmation. When I encounter any of these I usually press reset. There are times that the prior art is less valid. Such as when major knowledge was unearthed in the intervening period. But that’s not too common.

Dealing with the concept of any of the disembodied mind collection of ideas is an example of using prior art. There are many variations (including most established faiths) but all require the existence of a mind without form or underlying structure and cognition absent any time framework. Since all actual minds that have ever been observed (outside of religious texts, new age treatises, or science fiction) have an underlying structure, the proponent must show how this one is different before it can be seriously considered. Claiming that such thing ‘just is’, is nothing more than a religious argument that elevates personal revelation to the level of empirical assessment - an equality that does not exist. Absent objective evidence of such a thing, the prior art pretty much lays it to rest.

This approach saves time considering anything Deepak Chopra has to say in light of the discounted ideas of the hippie physicists of the 70’s, for example, who claimed that LSD took them somewhere other than along the route of normally closed neuropathways...

Reliability of the Source: Sometimes authoritative sources like the Lancet make huge mistakes publishing crap like Andrew Wakfield’s self-serving nonsense, but their track record is still better than most. Experts with well disclosed relationships and a reputation for intellectual honesty carry more weight with me than some dime store philosopher out to sell a book. I put sincerity here as well. A scam artist or political operative probably didn’t change his spots when he or she had that new revelation. More likely they just refined their schtick through trial and error. Careful and broad use of this filter would have nipped LDS and scientology in the bud.

I try to be kind to sincere ideas, but sometimes you just have to conclude that the sincere person is either sincerely stupid or sincerely deluded. At that point it’s best to smile and walk away. I learned long go in the ED to not try to talk anyone out of a perfectly good delusion.

Plausibility: If you come up with an idea that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics there are three possibilities: One you are a genius of unprecedented proportions who has completely overturned centuries of physics; two, you have identified an arena of knowledge beyond any silly constraints of objective reality; or three, you are wrong. Considering the Second Law’s track record, I’d lean toward number 3. The enlightened will often accuse one of Naive Evidentialist Epistemology, when you make such arguments but although there are many instances and inconsistencies in the claims of people who take that offensive approach, we’ve yet to see a single example of a violation of the precepts of the Second Law. Most people aren’t crazy enough to attack such laws directly, so they tend to make guerrilla attacks and then disperse into the jungles of metaphysics, where anything is possible, and you cannot prove that it isn’t. Strangely, the metaphysical realm consistently fails to show itself beyond the confines of the biased individual mind. Anything that is vital to existence, yet never can be shown to affect the universe in any measurable way, is probably a fantasy. There’s simply no point in arguing the merits of fantasy outside of a book club. Everything that has ever been shown to actually exist, has been shown to exert a force, leave a trace, impart energy at some level, etc. Don’t trot out semantics to try and discredit this claim. Words like consciousness, mind, emotion, etc. are all just that - words. Words created to describe objective processes before humans knew that the underlying natural processes even existed.

Take religious or spiritual experiences as an example. We have a great deal of language and labels for episodes of supposed self-transcendence. But pump enough serotonin into the right areas of the brain and anyone will have a spiritual experience. Does that mean that serotonin is ‘grace’? Or is grace a label we apply to the perception caused by an over abundance of serotonin? It makes a difference. If serotonin is the footprint of God’s hand in our mind, then it stands to reason that we can find the trigger that stimulates it. If the Holy Spirit sneaks in at night and injects serotonin into the brains of the chosen people we should be able to tell. If it proves (as it already has, of course) to be nothing more than variability in a natural process without any evidence of external control, then what? Unfortunately not much. Just means that the Holy Spirit is very stealthy and on to the ways of scientists. It’s not a coincidence that taking drugs that stimulate these centers or similar pathways, leads to spiritual experiences. The fact that we can mimic such experiences with drugs should have ended the debate about it being anything other than a natural process. Of course it hasn’t. People still take drugs to experience a ‘spiritual awakening’ and others still go to church. Some clever tribes do both. That it’s nothing more than a drug induced alteration in our perceptions doesn’t phase too many people. After all it seems so real. And what could be false about a drug induced experience? Is it more likely that these experiences are merely an example of how neurotransmitters or their analogs can be used to affect our sensory processing using known biological mechanisms, or is it more likely that these drugs really carry us to the spirit world, otherwise invisible?

The adherents of the new idea will often accuse you of being narrow minded, or unable to grasp realities beyond the objective. But they usually won’t explain to us mere mortals how something that can’t be seen, tested, detected, or even be found to be a necessary element in any rational description of reality, is useful or relevant. If it’s invisible to methodical observation, how can it be important?

A lot of these arguments take the form of conceptual Escher paintings - clearly wrong but hard to pin down specifically why, at a glance. Our old friend the ontologic argument is a useful example of logic run amok. God exists because things exist and things must have a cause therefore God exists. It’s logical in a way (assuming you don’t question the assumptions too closely), but clearly troubling. (Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them.) Entire careers have been made running around in circles defending it. These defenders seem nonplused by the obvious follow-up question of ‘if things need a cause, how did God come to be”. Smugly answering that such a question can only come from a naive slave to naturalism and that ‘God just is’, negates the argument that everything needs a cause which is the cornerstone of their argument. If God can just be, why not a universe? They smile and roll their eyes. How could we be so silly to suggest such a thing. Only God needs no reason. Everything else needs one. But if God is an exception to this rule why not something that has far less form in the first place? They don’t see that, which seems odd. Or maybe not.

Coherence: I’m not talking about a Michelle Bachmann speech, but rather does the idea fit with known facts. Facts being the operative word. Not lore, not perception, not personal experience, not intuition, not one’s sense of purpose, not some slick lawyer’s summation, but cold empirical facts. If an idea requires that everything else we are pretty sure of, in fact, be wrong, then it’s probably nonsense. Coherence is of course closely tied to plausibility. To be plausible most ideas need to fit into a known framework. Coherence across multiple domains is one of the strongest supports for evolution, for example. Facts are unpopular because they are often inconvenient, limit the scope of what is possible, and tend to keep raising their little heads despite all our hand waving and covering of our ears. The good news I suppose is that reality is not affected by our perceptions merely our ability to successfully navigate it. The facts of evolution will still be valid long after there are no humans to debate it. Only our ability to possibly affect our own fate is in question.

Bias: Cognitive bias is so rampant and well described, that I must admit that I discount any personal experience or perception as a rational model of reality. Uncontrolled and corroborated experiences are in my mind too subject to bias to put any stock in them. The scientific method has become popular and vital in no small part because it addresses these biases in order to assess reality.

iBabble

2011-06-21T11:59:00.000-07:00

I love a lot of things about my iPhone. But the spell checker thing for texting is not one of them. I think the thing was designed by the same people who wrote that Hungarian to English translation book for the old Monty Python skit.

Filtering New Ideas

2011-06-19T18:49:00.001-07:00

The Two Kinds of People in the World

2011-06-17T16:27:00.001-07:00

Type 1: All human perceptions are governed and explainable by an objective reality. There's only one set of rules even if we can't always tell.

Type 2: Humans have access to realities beyond what can be objectively described. Objective reality is only one form of a greater reality.

I'll take door number one, thank you...

The Truth Foundation

2011-06-16T09:43:00.000-07:00

Maybe such a thing already exists, but if not, here's an idea I've had in mind for awhile - The Truth Foundation. A nonprofit foundation that publishes tables of consensus, amongst experts in several fields for consumption by nonexperts. One of the problems in our society of 'low information voters' is that the media presents all arguments as essentially two-sided. Click on the news and almost any issue is debated by two talking heads, giving the perception that the arguments (no matter how ridiculous) are of equal merit. That is most often not the case. A simple way to determine the consensus (or range of opinions) amongst experts in a field and the money trail associated with various opinions might be helpful.

Many professions already have editorial groups, like the old medical 'Parkland Papers', where the state of the art is presented in a manner that obviates the need for everyone to review all the available literature.

What would the foundation publish? A couple of examples might help. Take evolution for example. A poll of people with Phd's in biology could be conducted. A simple table could be constructed, and to be factored into the table, all relevant survey questions would have to be answered. The numbers of non and incomplete responders would be published as well. The table might include the following:

Evolution: fact - x% ; Religious affiliation - ; source of funding
Evolution: Probable - y%; same
Evolution: unlikely - z%; same
Nonresponders - a%
Incomplete responders - b%

Or what about climate change? Poll experts in weather and climatology.

Human caused climate change: fact - x%; source of funding
Human caused climate change: Probable - y%; source of funding

etc.

Such a clearing house of data wouldn't hurt. It would tell nonexperts what the consensus among true experts is, any philosophical biases they may have, and where the money comes from that might bias supposed dissension.

Neuro Basics: Part 1

2011-06-15T10:52:00.001-07:00

As a preamble to some more discussion about artificial minds, I thought it would be good to review some very basic neuroanatomy and physiology. I think a lot of the misinformation about minds comes from ignorance of these basics.

Below, is a simple approximation of a neuron - the basic building block of the Central Nervous System (CNS). Neurons are found in the brain, spinal cord, ganglia, etc.

The neuron has a cell body (soma) and finger-like projections emanating from the body. Invariably, there can be many tendrils called dendrites, but only one tendril called an axon. The dendrites and other receptors along the soma, are part of the synaptic connections to the axon end terminals of many other neurons. Dendrites are one of the ways a neuron can receive a chemical signal from another cell. The axon carries the signal of the neuron to the dendrites of other neurons, or to regulatory connections with other cell types like muscle cells. In other words, the dendrites are the input jacks to the neuron and the axon is the output.

The single axon can have more than one end terminal complex allowing the single axon to interact with more than one other cell.

The axon is an amazing structure. A single axon may span from a ganglion in the spinal cord, to a motor end plate in the foot - a distance of more than a meter!

Neurons are supported in the CNS by specialized cells - the glia (glue). You may have heard of brain tumors called gliomas, glioblastomas, or astrocytomas. All originate from the support cells of the CNS. The ratio of glia to neurons is around 3 to 2 in the CNS. Importantly, there are no connective tissue cells in the CNS like the collagen producing cells everywhere else in the body. The advantage of course is that there are no extraneous cells taking up valuable real estate in the CNS. The disadvantage is that the neurons and their connections are fragile and susceptible to ‘shear injury’ because there is no elastic tissue in the CNS to prevent them from being displaced by changes in acceleration - like falling on concrete for example.

Glial cells aid in metabolic support of the extended axons and a subtype, the Schwann cells, form an insulating lining around the axon called the myelin sheath.

Myelin is an insulator which aids in the efficient transmission of electrical impulses along the axon. You may have heard of ‘demyelinating disease’ (like MS). Loss or damage to this sheath can interrupt the action potentials of neurons interfering with normal function. What’s an action potential? That’s the next part.

A neuron is regulated by connections to many other neurons through the dendrite and soma connections (synapses). Greatly simplifying, there are two types of actions going on in a neuron: neurotransmitter based, and electrochemical signal propagation. The inputs to the neuron are neurotransmitter based. Other neurons fire and release neurotransmitters that affect the target neuron. Not all receptors need to be stimulated at once (usually a good thing). What’s more, not all neurotransmitter signals are positive, ie stimulating. Some are negative or suppressive signals telling the neuron to ‘stand down’.

This is similar to a lot of the transmitter/receptor negative feedback loops found throughout the body. The sum total of positives with respect to negatives released by all the interlaced neurons determines whether the neuron fires or not. There are no half-way or partial firings. Neuron are said to behave in an ‘all or none’ manner. They are either on or they are off. Nothing in between. Neurons are therefore binary systems. The complex interplay of dendrite connections can be quite extensive, but in the end it’s either on or off. The subtlety comes from the magnitude of the interacting binary processes and the various transmitters they release. This is important to the discussion of minds. As an aside, the actions of many drugs can be explained in this way. In essence, they may alter the normal stimulus/feedback mechanisms allowing aberrant stimulation of normally inactive pathways.

If the thing fires, it does it at one output level. Any subtle effects it might have are due to the interplay of many such neurons, some firing, some not.

If the neuron fires, an electrochemical reaction propagates along the axon causing depolarization of the axon membranes and the generation of an electric action potential. This is how the chemical messages triggered by dendritic stimulation exceeding the action threshold, are relayed the great distance to the axonal end terminals.

The net effect of this propagating action potential is felt at the end terminus of the axon, which sits in a terminus / receptor complex called a synapse. The axon terminus is separated from an adjacent receptor on another cell, by a short space called the synaptic cleft. What happens at this point is illustrated by the next diagram of a specific example of a synapse - a motor end plate where a neuron connects to a muscle cell to regulate its contraction.

The action potential reaches the nerve terminus and causes a neurotransmitter to be released into the synaptic cleft (in this case, acetylcholine). Reversible binding of the acetylcholine to its receptor on the target muscle cell triggers it to respond. This is a short lived effect because the binding is reversible and the acetylcholine is quickly metabolized with the aid of enzymes in the synapse. The metabolized products are reabsorbed by the nerve terminus to be reformed into acetylcholine neurotransmitter molecules for use the next time the neuron fires.
As a complete aside, this is the process attacked by nerve agents.

The nerve agent binds (sometimes irreversibly!) to the esterase that breaks down the acetylcholine. The result is more acetylcholine sticks around and continuously stimulates the muscle cell, and any other cell type using this type of neurotransmitter. This effect isn’t always an agent of evil, however. Medications are used in certain diseases of the motor end plate such as Myasthenia Gravis, to make up for the diseased reduction in neurotransmitter by allowing that acetylcholine which is present, to persist longer and stimulate the muscle more effectively.

Back to the point at hand. In summary:

The CNS is composed of neurons and their attendant support cells, the glia.
Neurons are linked together in huge interlocking networks.
Neurons receive biochemical prompts from other neurons (and hormones too, but let’s ignore that for the moment, since the basic physiological responses are the same.)
These prompts can be to stimulate the neuron or to suppress its response.
These neurochemicals are essentially the only way a neuron receives a stimulus.
Once a neuron is stimulated beyond a threshold to activate, it transmits this activation using an electrochemical process that extends this activation to the business end of the neuron, the end terminus of the axon.
The end terminus of the axon releases its own neurotransmitters starting the process in another cell.

This is very rudimentary explanation but the basic biochemistry of all this is pretty well understood. This includes the actions of neurotransmitters and the ion pumps and channels that drive the action potential. Micro probes can measure this electrical activity around a single point on one axon. The actions of most medications and drugs can be explained by effects upon these processes and replicated. Interfering with any point in this process can create repeatable results. Though the brain links these basic building blocks together in many amazing ways, this is the heart of it. It's easy to see how some equate the binary nature of the all or none response of a neuron to the world of digital computing. There are similarities, and there are huge differences, we'll discuss later. But it's not completely crazy.

And there is absolutely no current evidence that anything else is going on in the CNS that isn’t derived from this basic unit and its biochemistry. There is no evidence that anything coexists with the neurons inside our skulls. Whatever we are, it comes from this. What ever we might think is going on, must account for the fact that nothing, not even a hint, of anything else, has ever been detected. The dream we each have of consciousness, is found not in mysticism, but somewhere in this biochemistry.

I’ll come back to that when we talk more about AI.

How the Internet Rots Our Brain; All in Pictures

2011-06-14T10:12:00.000-07:00

Natural Election 2012

2011-06-13T13:56:00.000-07:00

Well boys and girls! 2012 is just around the political corner and the Repubs are working hard to win the White House at any cost. So hard that they have no time for other things like real leadership or governance, but that’s not what politics is about. Elections are won by acting like spoiled 2 year olds, preventing anything from being accomplished, then blaming the Dem’s for being ineffectual. Great strategy. Pliny’s Election Central is kicking off our coverage of the campaign too. We did such a great job election night in 2010, that a popular groundswell (detectable by the most sensitive seismic detectors on the planet - if they are 3 feet or so away, at least...) that we are covering the whole campaign this time. What follows is a PEC exclusive! PEC was privileged to have access to a closed republican campaign strategy camp. Normally these things are carefully shielded from the public eye behind 3 feet of lead, because, well you know, governing should always be done in the shadows. And the public should be spared the machinations behind the creation of those sound bites. But this reporter was fortunate to gain access through the fortunate happenstance that one oil company lobbyist got drunk and dropped his invite. Booze money well spent... Stay with PEC throughout the campaign as your main source of information. Our Motto: PEC - where the news is still more truthful than Fox! What follows are just some quick highlights of the event in no particular order.

Harold Camping gave the invocation stating that although he personally would not be here for the next election, having raptured this October, he said he would still feel better if a Republican was in the White House for the seven years of the Tribulation since they would not be soft on the AntiChrist like the liberals. Jesus would need every nuke he could get his divine hands on for Armageddon.

The promoters of the event got everyone in the spirit of the proceedings by leading the group in a shout out exercise. A promoter would shout out a question and the audience would practice their parroting skills.

Can we agree to providing the most basic health care to all Americans? No we can't!
Can we agree to put our single minded pursuit of winning the next election behind the good of the nation? No we can't!
Can we agree that abortion is not the single most pressing issue faced by America? No we can't!
Can we agree that unrestricted greed is bad for the country? No we can't!
Can we agree that a single individual owning enough personal firepower to defeat the entire Continental army of 1777 might not be what he Founders had in mind? Now we can't!
Can we agree that clean air and water, and uncontaminated soil is a good thing? No we can't!
Can we stop bad mouthing the opposition and concentrate on what we would do differently? No we can't?
Can we tell the truth? No we can't!

Former VP Cheney put in a brief appearance.

At one point, an outdoor photo shoot of the candidates was disrupted by the weather. The event had to be brought indoors when wind gusts resulted in Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and several others suffering injuries when Donald Trump's comb over came untethered.

The spin machine was brought to full rpms for the event and put to good use. Strategists were invited to submit their challenge and the spindoctor panel would make recommendations. Several strategists were concerned with a report from the National Science Foundation that both Sara Palin and Michelle Bachmann had failed a Turing test. Most remained glad that the many registered independents remained still too lazy to look at their track record and decide that enough really was enough, but were concerned this might not continue. Both issues were turned over to the spin-meisters for proper rotation.

Bill O’Reilly and Shawn Hannity were recognized with a special award as the only Fox contributors not running for President.

There was a brief altercation when climate change denialists clashed with GOP health care strategists. The health care bloc was lamenting the fact that reductions in ice floes would seriously affect their elder care provisions, when fists began to fly...

Poly the Parrot, impressed attendees within the test crowd with her short and concise answers and her uncanny ability to stay on message regardless of questioning. Most found her lack of Ivy League credentials a plus with likely Republican voters. PEC will be following her campaign closely.

A short lived commotion occurred when some robed long hair speaking Aramaic attempted to overturn the displays in the lobbyist area, but was quickly manhandled and expelled by the Black Water security detail, who were payed 30 dollars for every arrest.

On a related note, the official unveiling of the new “Corporate Jesus” caused quite a stir. The culmination of a effort begun during the Reagan administration and funded in part by the Heritage foundation, this long needed revision was not without its detractors.
Although most were pleased with this modern update to the tired old image of Jesus in rags amongst the ancestors of the Democrats, some thought he still looked too ethnic and many wished they could ditch the beard. Nevertheless, it was endorsed by leaders of several big box suburban churches as being just the ticket.

Oddly, open carriers were not admitted to the seminar, but instead congregated at a local Starbucks.

The break out sessions were extensive and varied but the seminar titled, “I am my brother’s keeper but that stinky poor dude ain’t my brother” was a favorite and seats were hard to come by.

Another one, presented by Karl Rove, gave many useful hints at finding an appropriate host.

Sara Palin’s, “US History as it should be”, contained many neufacts that astounded her listeners. I for one, had not known that Karl Marx had actually impregnated Barack Obama’s great grandmother during a rally in Nairobi.

Another big draw was the seminar on how to avoid vice sting operations in public bathrooms, which was well attended by congressional hopefuls.

Focus on the Family sponsored, “Jesus would have lied to win the Presidency”

Many digs were taken at Congressman Weiner’s expense and the now famous images of his namesake were prominently displayed on large screens until someone realized that it was having an unfortunate effect on the reverend Hagarty right before his big musical number, “I’m gonna wash that gay right out of my soul".

Pure genius was exhibited by the new time saver that is to be beta tested next year. Called the ‘Bills for Bills service’, the expensive middleman is being cut out of key legislation. A special interest need no longer hire an expensive lobbyist to make their case. Now they simply submit the desired bill along with an enclosed check to the RNC, and it goes straight to the appropriate committee. Outsourcing at its finest! No need for staff either - less likely to spill the beans if they aren't there anyway. The contribution is even spelled out by using a convenient calculator on the RNC website. Depending upon how egregious or immoral the need, the higher is the fee. No guess work. The RNC even provides help with messaging. Now Monsanto need no longer worry about convincing the public that industrial waste is a problem - Now it’s a great new way to add needed minerals to our drinking water! Drink enough mercury and you’ll be able to take your own temperature! Everybody rich wins.

Harder was coming up with the appropriate sound bite needed for party unity in the tough months ahead. Usually the Repubs are really good at that sort of ear worm cliché but they seemed to have some trouble because of the size of their tent and the presence of the Tea Partyers. Some slogan ideas that were rejected included:

"No ideas are better than socialist ideas!"
"Change we can profit from."
“Guns and Embryo’s need our protection”
“Closeted Gays are A ok!”
"God, Guns and Greed Made America great - let's keep all three!"

After 3 days of deliberation, however, they did arrive at a slogan that the strategists felt would unite all of their constituents: "Can somebody in the grand old party make the scary black man go away?"

This is a work of satire. Any perceived similarity to real persons, groups or demon infested organizations is merely coincidental and indicative of the excessive paranoia of the reader. Please seek a lobotomy prior to the next election.

The Four Levels of Truth

2011-06-13T11:29:00.000-07:00

It's simplistic, but I think of truth as having 4 levels:

Truth
Perception
Delusion
Lies

Truth should need no introduction, but often does. It's objective reality. But not all things can be objectively quantified, such as why one individual did 'x' or 'y'. Their behavior may have been so convoluted by 2 and/or 3 that the actual truth of their actions is indeterminable.

Perceptions are what drives most rationale people and provide an opportunity for education and science.

Delusions are tough to displace and about the best you can hope for is to mitigate their effects on others and prevent their spread.

Lies are easy - shine the light on them at every opportunity. It's hard enough to deal with the interplay of truth, perception, and delusion without having to deal with lies and liars.

Ayn Rand

2011-06-08T10:41:00.000-07:00

A short aside from the AI discussions while I review and collect references.

Ayn Rand. In my circles the name usually requires one to spit on the ground, or a least give a hearty sigh and eye roll. She's become the anti-liberal poster child. But she's a problem for both conservatives and liberals in our current age. For liberals, she's an atheist who celebrates self absorption in the manner to which conservatives warn that atheism makes us all vulnerable. To conservatives she's someone who espouses that bootstrap mentality they love, were it not for that pesky atheism. Here's my 2 cents worth.

I've read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. First, I think most people agree that the writing is at least to the level of L Ron Hubbard, but far short of Fitzgerald. Both books are a bit of a slog. The Fountainhead in particular is unlikely to be on many progressive book shelves for good reason. The old fall in love with your rapist theme is certainly repugnant as is the 'good terrorist' notion. The influences and rebellion against the communism of her home land are pretty concrete in bothz.

I'd be lying if I didn't admit that on occasion I have rued that we do not live in a meritocracy. The world is not always kind to the brightest and the most skilled. Hard work does not ensure success and truth is often a liability in public life. But as Christopher Hitchens said (a person whose views are also a bit of a mixed bag in my opinion), 'we don't really need a philosophy that promotes selfishness as that is such a natural state.'

That's Rand's biggest mistake - smart and capable people can be just as big old sacks of whale dung as lazy idiots. Selfishness is biological. We are organisms and organisms live in the now. The effect of our actions on others and the impact on the future are somebody else's problems. That's what needs to be discussed. That's what needs to be mitigated. Smart people can rationalize their actions just like anyone else. Smart is not equal to moral or ethical - just look at Karl Rove. That's why government is the lessor of all evils. In government, a leader's selfish aims must be made to align with the selfish aims of enough of the rest of the country to some degree. The more educated and informed the populace, the harder that job becomes. Some of the more paranoid among us might argue that this is the reason that public schools are under attack. A free and open education that is limited by law from promoting a particular value set beyond open-mindedness is a threat to all in power. The CEO of a major company is so far removed from you or I that we have almost no influence on their selfishness. The President has a harder time. We expect more from him or her. And within the voting both we can be heard. That's one of the reasons I prefer the imperfect hand of government over the siren's call of privatization.