ashennell

I think it would be interesting to see if there is some means of pulling people out of a coma using electrical stimulation or otherwise. However, a coma is not similar to sleep at all. Most people in a coma have a huge amount of brain damage so its not clear that they could remain conscious or that there brain could actually do anything useful once awake. In some cases this could be useful though.

I found this paper (abstract only): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_aset=V-WA-A-W-W-MsSAYVA-UUW-U-AABVBUAZAZ-AABAYYWVAZ-VZEUZCAAA-W-U&_rdoc=2&_fmt=summary&_udi=B6T0D-3Y15V5C-9&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2000&_cdi=4860&_orig=search&_st=13&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=971b69ef711b2b0c6272b2064ae159ef Heres the abstract: To explore brain areas involved in basic numerical computation, functional magnetic imagingnext term (fMRI) scanning was performed on college students during performance of three tasks; simple arithmetic, numerical magnitude judgment, and a perceptual-motor control task. For the arithmetic relative to the other tasks, results for all eight subjects revealed bilateral activation in Brodmann’s area 44, in dorsolateral prefrontal previous termcortexnext term (areas 9 and 10), in inferior and superior parietal areas, and in lingual and fusiform gyri. Activation was stronger on the left for all subjects, but only at Brodmann’s area 44 and the parietal previous termcortices.next term No activation was observed in the arithmetic task in several other areas previously implicated for arithmetic, including the angular and supramarginal gyri and the basal ganglia. In fact, angular and supramarginal gyri were significantly deactivated by the verification task relative to both the magnitude judgment and control tasks for every subject. Areas activated by the magnitude task relative to the control were more variable, but in five subjects included bilateral inferior parietal previous termcortex.next term These results confirm some existing hypotheses regarding the neural basis of numerical processes, invite revision of others, and suggest productive lines for future investigation.

binding problem - http://www.dartmouth.edu/~adinar/publications/binding.pdf I dont think that there is any useful link between turing machine like procesing and the binding problem - at least not any link that I know of.

I'm not sure who has argued that this would not be that harmful. No drugs really mimic an indigenous neurotransmitter completely. Most neurotransmitters are released under tight control. They act on a very small local area and are removed quicky so there effect is temporary. Some neuromodulators have a more prolonged effect over wider areas. But these chemicals are released under specific circumstances and have a function. Drugs that mimic these neurotransmitters are applied globally - the original function of the neurotransmitter is lost.

Hello. Hello. The research is real the original link you posted is bull. I think I tried to explain that already. I've cannot find any more news about the research after the 2003 article. The initial link you gave is just something that somebody has made up based on the original story. There is no garuantee that this replacement HPC will work. It was developed from recordings from rat HPC slices. We still don't know alot about what the HPC is doing.

This group has been working on the prosthetic HPC for ages. In 2003 there was some noise about the first test on rodents. I've not seen any positive results published yet. The aim was to produce a replacement hippocampus and not a suped up version. We don't know enough to clearly define the function of the HPC let alone produce a better version. That 'better = consolidating more details/memories' sounds like a reporters idea and not a neuroscientists. that any of this would be used to make super soldiers is absurd. I think some of these stories inflate the perception of just how much we know about how the brain works. We have a way to go yet.

So what exactly is the conflict between relativity and quatum theories? Where do they disagree?

Do you mean attention? I mean, if you pay attention to any task you will often tend to increase your threshold to other stimuli. Reading and reading novels in particular are effective at doing this becuase they contain complex structure - narrative, etc, etc, and heaps load of info that need to be processed. I would say that the effect you mention is pretty common. Perhaps there is a clinical condition that increases this effect, sort of like an anti-ADHD (or what ever it's official name is now). I often ignore the time when I'm doing tasks - hey it's 1.00 in the morning already. goodnight.

That is certainly an impressive feat. Actual, 'normal' people can be trained to do two language tasks simultaneously. Maybe reading a page with each eye is not normally possible but I'm sure there have been load of tests using different combinations of listening to one or more voices, or reading from text, and vocally repeating information. I can't remember the exact format of these tests though. As for reading speed, I would agree with most people so far - the intake rate is determined by comprehension rate which, I would guess, is affected by familiarity. Sometimes, if im reading a paper which isn't that enthralling I will find that I have continued to read 2 or 3 paragraphs while still thinking about the last reasonably intersesting sentence. I'm sure if this is really the same as increasing reading speed. If you reread the same passage you will have already comprehended the content. As you become more familiar there is less info to obtain. This is like removing the rate -limiting comprehension part of the task so it not suprising that you get faster.

I agree that smell is a more 'basic' sense and is less influenced by top down processing but this does not mean that there are no olfactory illusions. There is some evidence that smells are context sensitive and that they can be learned. I have put some refs at the end. The smell of something is a function of the perceptual system and not the molecule. There is not some simple mapping between molecular structure and percieved smell. Smells are context sensitive. You are contrasting a proposed olfactory illusion with a poor visual illusion. A fairer (slightly theoretical) example would be : Is a perfect 3D hologram of a strawberry a visual illusion because it looks like a strawberry? I would say that we interpret our percept as a real strawberry. It is not a real strawberry so therefore it is a visual illusion. This same logic could be applied to the olfactory situation. By the way - Steven Pinker provides a quite convincing arguement for why 2d pictures are in fact visual illusions in 'How the Mind Works' Anyways - I can see how these type of olfactory illusions could be debated - I'm sure that not everyone would agree. So I decided to look for some better olfactory illusions - This is from a report about the paper below. This demonstrates context sensitivity of olfaction and shows that it can be influenced by top-down processing. Perception. 2001;30(3):381-91. Related Articles, Links The influence of verbal labeling on the perception of odors: evidence for olfactory illusions? Herz RS, von Clef J. Herz has done quite a lot of research on olfaction including some stuff on how a smells interpretation may be learned. I also found a recent news article - http://www.news-medical.net/?id=12548. It refers to the illusion of taste produced by smell. Maybe this is a gustatory illusion but it is created through the olfactory system so I ain't sure. However, I'm pretty sure that you can't just declare that there are no olfactory illusions.

I think that there are two was of constraining this task - 1. Restrict the possible functions from the outset, limit it right down to basic operators. This would make the task harder but the resulting solutions would probably look a lot more 'foury' - like the list moosie posted a while back. 2. Allow people to use any standard, commonly used, maths function. Sure it will be easier at the beginning but I'm pretty sure that it will get harder and harder as the numbers go up. Personally, I favour the second option - clearly, it's not up to to me, but I think it will make it more intersting in the long run. I think F_4 is no more dodgy than using 0.4 disguised as .4. Plus, when it does get really difficult (assuming it will) there are a lot more possibilities that need to be tried. Having a restricted repertoire will only curtail creative solutions. Where is the challenger ot an admin to resolve this issue? Hello cosine, welcome to scienceforums. sorry I was a bit picky with you before - im sure that if I was normal person these things would not matter so much

I didn't check cosines answers but they do seem ot be wrong like you say. I assume that F_4 = 3 - this seems like the only reasonable interpretation. If it was the sum of the first 4 numbers then I think it would be unallowable anyway as that is not a standard function. Are the Fibonacci numbers even allowed? I still think it is a bit rude just posting a long list of answers. I'm sure that a couple of the other guys who have been posting could have sped off into the distance if they wanted. if F_4 is not allowd then we might as well jsut carry on form 119 if f_4=3 is allowed then we could include all of consines anwers up to the first one that is wrong. FRom OP: so we should post one at a time really. posting 2 or 3 is a bit cheeky

I think that is a bit rude really. Im going to call it quits to be honest.

Maybe the solution to 99 is kinda cheating .. heres another just in case: [math]sin^{-1}(cos(4!))*(\frac{4+\sqrt{4}}{4})=99[/math] [math](4!*4)+\sqrt{4}+\sqrt{4}=100[/math] [math]cos^{-1}(sin\sqrt{4})+\frac{4!+\sqrt{4}}{\sqrt{4}}=101[/math] Bigmoosie - I think filling in the gaps without using any other functions is going to to very difficult and maybe impossible. The ones that have been left blank arethe ones that were quite tough to do.

Hi, the Thing - in your solution to 92 you used a 2. Ignoring the heresy for a moment could you just change it to a sqrt(4) to maintain the purity of 4 throughout. Yes, I know it is silly.

a couple more [math]tan^{-1}(\frac{4}{4})+4!+4! = 93[/math] [math](4!*4)-4+\sqrt{4}=94[/math] [math](4!*4)-\frac{4}{4}=95[/math]

My familiarity with the trigometric functions is non-existant. To be be honest I think this stuff is generally way over my head. I don't think I'd ever of managed to get 83. However, as long as no one minds me stealing a good idea I'll fill a few more in that all use the approach: [math]sin^{-1}(cos4)-(\frac{4}{4})^4=85[/math] [math]sin^{-1}(cos4)+4-\sqrt{4}-\sqrt{4}=86[/math] [math]sin^{-1}(cos4)+(\frac{4}{4})^4=87[/math] Credit to the Thing.

very good - I just couldn't get there: [math]4!\sqrt{4}+sin^{-1}(\frac{\sqrt{4}}{4})= 78[/math] Edit : I'm sure there is a lot easier way then this. May as well add 79 too - [math]\frac{sin^{-1}(\frac{\sqrt{4}}{4})}{.4}+4=79[/math]

edited : wrong again!! god my maths is shocking. I think I need more sleep

second attempt : (4!+sqrt(4))/.4+sqrt(4)=67

((4^4)-4)/4 = 63

Maybe one day. I think that coding of information in the brain is individual specific. The paper you refer to actually records from the visual thalamus. This is before the signals reaches the cortex. At this stage decoding is probably quite simple as the organisation is retinotopic and the flow of information is on way. However, once the information gets to the cortex things get a lot more complex. Activity here is subject to mass top-down influcence and is likely to depend on personal experience, interpretation, covert attention, etc,etc. Unforetunely we would need to decode this mess to be able to record our dreams. It would be cool though, we apparent never remember most of our dreams - it would be quite strange to wake up and watch what we created overnight for the first time not as a dream.

Whenever you simulate anything in your head, like a percept or even an action you use parts of the cortex that actually represent or produce real percepts and real actions. A simple way to understand this is by considering a population of neurons that respond when you see a certain face. They do not code the physical properties of the face (well they may partly) but the meaning of the face - the identity of the person , how it's appearance in your visual field will effect your behaviour, current goals etc, etc. The perceptual system's role could be viewed as transforming inputs that are physically similar into outputs that are semantically similar. So in simulation, activation of the visual areas dosn't just produce a phyical 'image' but also contibutes towards defining a meaning of the stimuli. (Nueroscientists: I know this is a big simplification) I just had an intersting idea while typing this message actually. I would say that if you were asked to visualise an apple that the internal 'picture' would be a lot less vivid than when you have a dream or even a daydream. Maybe this is because an apple (or any other object), on it's own, has little semantics attached whereas a story has more meaning. Of course, when you are asleep or daydreaming sensory input is somewhat attenuated. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be between an apple and imagining buying a newspaper in a shop , or something else with narative, both while fully awake. I, myself, find it alot easier to get a vivid simulation of the more complex situation.

I think you would be limited over what you could achieve. It's pretty hard to have any control or certainty over the conditions that the subject is in. I think you would have to be very careful about choosing which parameters you could investigate - in any kind of test. Some papers that may be useful: Buchanan T, Ali T, Heffernan TM, Ling J, Parrott AC, Rodgers J, Scholey AB. Nonequivalence of on-line and paper-and-pencil psychological tests: the case of the prospective memory questionnaire. Behav Res Methods. 2005 Feb;37(1):148-54. These guys basically say that there can be differences and tests should be checked individually. An example of people that use the internet to get data: Fogel J, Ford DE. Stigma beliefs of Asian Americans with depression in an internet sample. Can J Psychiatry. 2005 Jul;50(8):470-8. I think the best course of action would be to devise your test and then conduct one sample over the internet and another under controlled conditions. If you can proove that their is no difference you should then be able to go on and use the internet alone. I think it would be hard to get people to do IQ related stuff over the internet. There are all these damn 'check your IQ' pop-ups and ads plastered over every other page. I think that if a saw any page with IQ on it I would reach for the back button