DrmDoc

Unlike CharonY, I believe that there are sources that do clearly explain certain memory phenomena simply and neatly particularly amid sleep. Although I agree that our brain isn't simple, I don't believe its complexity is beyond our ability to decipher or understand.

It's confirmed, "President Trump is least popular president" according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll. Although polls are frequently unreliable, I think results showing that 58% of those polled think Trump is "out of touch" with the concerns of most people in the U.S. are spot-on.

"Sorry" usually isn't enough if it's delivered insincerely or when its delivery doesn't clearly redress the loss or harm compelling its expression. Words don't always have the impact of deeds, which may leave some recipients of "sorry" wanting more.

Today I learned why some motorcyclists crash. It seems that most crashes are due to poor cycling skills and inattentiveness.

In case you were wondering, here is where you can the 66 executive actions Trump has signed and what each does.

Unfortunately, you and they are absolutely wrong because there's not a single shred of solid neurological evidence for memory consolidation in sleep. Admittedly, there's a plethora of legitimate study and test results that do reveal our memory and mental acuity as functionally far superior particularly after the non-REM stages of sleep. However, as CharonY so aptly conveyed, "nothing in the recent years have suggested that there is a full understanding of the mechanisms from the cellular process to full physiological consequences (i.e. memory consolidation)", particularly in sleep...but then, there are those pesky results and how we should interpret them isn't there?. Although the efficacy of non-REM sleep in restoring mental acuity is legitimate, that legitimacy is undermined by the absence of some clearly defined or cogently relevant neurological evidence. Well, there is such evidence that provides a defined and cogent explanation for our enhanced memory and acuity after non-REM and that evidence has nothing to do with some memory consolidation process in sleep. That evidence is provided by the connection between Alzheimer and our Glymphatic system. Our brain's normal processes produce a toxic metabolic byproduct (amyloid-beta) that is known to accumulate plaque in the brains of Alzheimer patients who suffer debilitating memory loss. During non-REM sleep, this memory debilitating peptide (amyloid-beta) is removed from our brain via its glymphatic process. Rather than some memory or neural consolidation process as many believe, it's the removal of this amyloid peptide and other extracellular waste that enhances our neural connectivity and, effectively, our memory potential and mental acuity. Although I've extolled dreaming as an extraordinary experience, I would never assert that experience as mysterious. The mystery for me was lost in my early youth and buried by neuroscience ever since. Neuroscience has informed me that the brain doesn't produce a "Subconscious" and that dreams aren't as many believe or as the video describes. As I complete my fourth decade of indulging my interest in mind and consciousness, neuroscience informs me that our brain function produces just two measurable states (conscious and unconscious) suggestive of activation and mentation. Rather than a mind or state, subconscious is an influence our brain either produces or is affected by. Actual brain states like coma and dreaming are a subset of our brain's unconscious functions. As I so frequently commented, the distinction between unconscious and subconscious is analogous to a person and a package. In that analogy, unconscious identifies the persons while subconscious identifies the package he either receives or delivers. Regarding the nature of dreams and your link to an Allan Hobson article, Allan is a well respected, Harvard professor learned in the neuroscience of the dreaming brain for many years...and...I think he's wrong on several issues. Here's an example from your article link: He was looking for neurological reasons why dreams are hard to remember and, correctly, investigated neurological and neurochemical distinctions between the waking and dreaming states of brain function. His serotonin conclusion is flawed, in my view, for a couple of reasons. First, the idea that serotonin disrupts memory formation after dreaming suggests that serotonin should also have the same effect during wakeful experience since our waking-state brain is continually bathe in this neurochemical. We actually remember our experiences from day-to-day quite well with increased serotonin. Second, Prof. Hobson didn't appear to consider the evolved nature of memory and its impact on his findings. When we think about what may have led to the evolution of memory as one of humanity's most significant survival tools, we should find that real physical/material experience was likely the most compelling impetus for that adaptation. Without question, memory evolved concurrent with sensory experiences that had a real physical/material impact on the survival of ancestral animals. Consequently, as I have frequently commented, our brains have evolved the ability to detect and distinguish the sensory distinctions of true physical/material reality. That ability is supported by transient hypofrontality in sleep and cortical dependency on subcortical neural input as suggested by decorticate studies. Our dream perceptions aren't real physical/material experiences in true reality and, therefore, are difficult to remember because of the evolved nature of memory. If we are able to remember even a little about our dreams, its because of the subtle and subdue real physical perceptions incorporated into dream content. For example, dreaming about running incorporates increased physical respiration in sleep, which can be detected by our brain amid dreaming and lead to an enhanced memory of that dream experience.

A recent SciShow video purports 9 Groundbreaking Discoveries About Sleep. I take issue with discovery #2, "sleep solidifies memory," wherein, purportedly, our brain organizes and consolidates our memory. The video's host says that this process occurs during non-REM sleep phases. My issue is that the brain is not organizing and consolidating memories during non-REM, which would require increased neural activity that doesn't occur. What actually occurs is something I've commented about previously regarding the removal of extracellular waste via its Glymphatic system. During non-REM, our brain flushes away extracellular toxins and waste that can impede our mental acuity. If we have stronger memories after a good sleep, its because our brain works better after it has sufficiently cleared its structure of toxic metabolic byproducts.

You're asking, if I understand correctly, what is the evolutionary basis for an extraordinarily insightful experience--dreaming--that is difficult to recall in detail upon waking? Many years ago, my extraordinary dream experiences led me to neuroscience, which was where I found many of the answers I sought. What I sought uppermost was a clear and cogent answer to why we dreamed. I quickly learned that the answer I sought resided in how our brain evolved rather than in any particular functional study or collective neurophysiological work. If you want to know why we dream, you'll have to first uncover why we sleep because dreaming occurs amid sleep. Sleep is mediated by the most basic and primitive aspects of brain function and it likely evolved as a means to conserve energy during periods of rest and between periods of feeding. As it has evolved, every aspect of the sleep process serves the metabolic needs of brain and body at rest. Although dreaming arises amid sleep, our brain actually isn't sleeping while dreaming. Our brain is the largest consumer of our body's energy uptake (about 20%) and that uptake doesn't stop when we sleep. The metabolic needs of our brain in sleep causes arousal in the brain and that arousal precipitates dreaming. Our dream content is primarily a synthesis of the mental and subtitle physical perceptions we experience during the sleep process. For no other reason, we dream because our brain requires energy even in sleep; however, why some dreams are hard to remember in detail is another matter. Succinctly, our animal ancestors evolved memory concurrent with experiences that had a real physical/material impact on their survival. Dreams are not real physical/material experiences and, therefore, do not conform to the evolved nature of memory. Our dreaming brain is able to make that real vs. unreal physical/material distinction although we may not be aware of that distinction while dreaming. Consequently, dreams are hard to remember because they are not real experiences. Interestingly, our dreams become more memorable the more we consider their content vital to our conscious experience.

I wondered about that as well. The article did says the longest was an oil well but didn't say what that meant. The article also referenced a SciShow video link which it did not provide. Perhaps the details are in that nonexistent video link.

Today I learned what's at the bottom of the world deepest borehole. It's in Murmansk, Russia and it's 12,262 meters (7.5 miles approx.).

According to this Quartz article: Although I don't think it possible to synchronize music to brain "chemistry", music can affect our mood and mood is merely an expression of brain function. Essentially, what this article discusses isn't much of a revelation. We've known since Stone Age humanity's first drumbeat that music can elicit certain behavioral responses. Therefore, it isn't a stretch of credulity or ground breaking discovery that music can alter the brainwave frequencies underpinning our moods and behaviors. The article attempts to make a distinction between synchronizing music to brainwave frequencies as opposed to taste--which was a distinction lost on me because brainwaves also underpin our tastes.

If I may join your discussion, this appears to me to be the focus of your original query. Although I have not read in detail the other replies you've received, I think I have an answer that may differ from the others. We primarily assess consciousness equivalency in other species by the only means and standards we are somewhat capable of measuring and understanding, which is human brain function and output. If another species brain structure and function are similarly configured to ours and it's behavioral expressions are found comparable, then we can be confident that this other species possess some measure of human equivalent self-awareness. Taking a machine to a state of human equivalent self-awareness would require a programming construct to a complexity comparable to that suggested by how the human brain evolved. Human consciousness is an "emergent property of complexity" in human brain evolution. We can't presume that consciousness is anything more than a product of brain function because no evidence for that "anything more" has been determined by science and all human expressions and attributes can be traced to specific aspects of brain function. The human brain didn't begin as human, it evolved from something basic to something complex and, surprisingly, its contiguous functional configuration provides evidence of that evolution, its stages and the survival influences likely compelling those major functional stages. I believe we have the programming capability to mimic every major functional development of the human brain. What the programmers lack, in my opinion, is an adequate understanding of those functions and a clear perspective of their functional hierarchy. For example, cortical function is subservient to subcortical inputs, which means that nothing happens in our cortex without subcortical directives; therefore, who we are emerges from brain structures not generally associated with thought. This isn't a quality programmers might know but could be significant in how they configure brain equivalent programming.

Yes, you're quite correct. It was 2.5 instead of 1.5 years. 1.5 years was their initial calculation, whereas, 2.5 years was their final more precise calculation.

Today I learned that the Laws of Relativity and it's relevant math suggests that Earth's core is 2.5 years younger than its surface and, according to this SciShow Space video, the center of our sun is 39,000 years younger than its surface!

No area of a healthy brain is ever entirely inactive, even in sleep. This means that all brain areas produce some level of brainwave activity at all times. However, as we transition into sleep and then into REM, the frequency of those waves begin to change in a way that suggest diminished activity overall and relative inactivity between brain areas. By "relative inactivity", I am referring to those brain areas that register slower wave frequencies (lower activity) compared to other brain areas. During REM, for example, our prefrontal cortex is primarily and relatively inactive compared to other brain areas. Amid REM, our prefrontal experiences a state known as transient hypofrontality, which is a temporary state of diminished activity relative to all other areas of the brain. Generally, our brain produces 5 types of brainwave frequencies (Gamma, Beta, Alpha, Theta, and Delta) and, overall, exhibits 4 distinctive brainwave patterns as it cycles through 5 distinct stages of sleep.

That reply you quoted regarded my impression of quickquestion's posts to this thread. If your interests regard evidence in established science, then you are certainly posting to the right forum. Some of us list that information as part of our member profile. I'm from the U.S. also.

This discussion thread is posted to the Neuroscience Forum. Perhaps the quality you are discussing or want to discuss is best suited for the Philosophy or Religion Forum? There, perhaps, you may find respondents more amenable to your perspective.

I do not presume to know your mind or reasoning and I think it wise that you don't presume to know mine. I was unsure of your position because your rambling and convoluted reply style made your position tediously difficult from me to follow and comprehend. No, I didn't say you were wrong, I asked for "legitimate evidence in science" supporting that statement because it inferred the idea of consciousness perpetuation or transference after brain death. That inference is further suggested by your subsequent "reincarnation" query. Also, no, my comments do not contradict any of my previous replies. Consciousness--if we both share the same understanding of the term--is determined by very specific means and tests relative to brain function and behavior. Indeed, we are able to assess whether conscious awareness exist in any brain by way of these means and tests. I'm going to contradict you as well by saying neuroscience isn't an existential matter in that we are fully capable of medically assessing whether a leucotomy patient or any person possesses awareness. The empirical equivalency in human brain function and behavioral expression provides the basis and measures for assessing the comparable nature of consciousness in any individuals. If an individual's brain activity and behavioral testing suggest awareness, we can be confident that this individual is indeed aware. Unfortunately, the crux of consciousness discussions in scientific forums like this is indeed about "empirical evidence." Without such evidence, how are we to know what we believe is actually true? What "feels reasonable" isn't actually reason or always reliable, in my opinion. It may feel reasonable to drink from a nearby stream but I certainly wouldn't without knowing what is actually in that water. Accordingly, I don't accept ideas with a basis I can't independently verify. I'm familiar with these OBE experiments, which have yet to yield any credible evidence supporting reports of that experience. That reply you quoted regarded the question "do you believe we are our awareness"? My response regards my thoughts on what makes us who we are indifferent to consciousness; therefore, no conflation. Being 100% sure of one's own position may be comforting but not particularly or necessarily reassuring to others without evidence they can study and verify to their own satisfaction.

What an interesting fellow!

My degree is in business, which I used to manage a medical center from many years until my retirement in 2004. However, my primary interests have always involved science. Credentials aside, you should always further investigate and independently verify the answers you receive in forums like this because the anonymity of these forums virtually assures the unreliability of many of the responses your queries receive. I hope this helps.

You know what? I like a little vinegar too, particularly on my fish-n-chips...yum...it's true, we Americans are getting fatter.

I don't use it often but yes, certain ketchup brands here are a little more sweet than tart.

Now, I do. Fascinating!

I believe we are, individually, a collective of the knowledge and insight we've amassed through life experience. What we've learned, our experiences, and the memories we hold influence who we are and how we express that quality. Although we may not be consciously aware during sleep, that lack of awareness doesn't suggest we die when we sleep. Regardless of what some of us may believe, true death occurs when our brain activity stops. Sleep isn't brain death and brain activity doesn't stop when we sleep. Well, two quotes from that link: The idea that consciousness resides in the prefrontal cortex is false, which is proved by patients who have received and survived leucotomy. Leucotomy--procedurally reduced and renamed lobotomy--is a psychosurgery procedure that separates the prefrontal cortex from the rest of the brain, effectively, rendering the prefrontal cortex inactive. Although leucotomy alters certain behavioral expressions and qualities, it doesn't render patients brain dead or without awareness when performed correctly. Consciousness involves a confluence of brain activity that is not entirely dependent on prefrontal function. An inactive prefrontal merely changes the quality of consciousness expression rather than cause its cessation. These initial paragraphs set the tone for the rest of the article. A teacher can have knowledge of neuroscience without being a neuroscientist; however, in this case, this teacher appears to have erred in his understanding of brain function, which renders the basis for his article without sufficient support in generally accepted science. There's considerably more to the nature of sleep and the nature of consciousness in sleep than some of us may have actually studied. That study should, if I may suggest, begin with a clear perspective of brain evolution--as should all functional investigations of the brain should begin, in my opinion.

I'm not sure what position you're conveying here regarding brain death but if we are talking about evidence in science, a brain that is dead cannot and does not produce evidence of consciousness by any standard of medical science. Consciousness does not exist in brain death when there is no measurable or observable evidence in either overt behavior or through appropriate medical testing. Although reincarnation is a cornerstone of religious faith for millions of devotees around the world, faith is insufficient evidence of its possibility. I'm familiar with the idea and have read and reviewed accounts purported as evidence. None of that evidence was from sources most would consider legitimate science. If you have such evidence, in legitimate science, I invite you to post that evidence or a link here. As I said, I'd be very interested in reviewing it.