Glider

I should make my position clearer. As far as I know, olfactory illusions per se don't exist. Hallucination don't require bottom up processes at all. They don't require the processing of incoming stimuli because they are generated at 'the top'. Illusions require the interaction between bottom up and top down processes, because in order to work they require that top down systems interfere with the objective interpretation of bottom up stimuli. Well, there are a number of haptic illusions, including the thermal grill illusion which induces the experience of (painful) noxious heat on exposure to stimuli of innocuous intensity. This is attributed to the interplay between two types of spinothalamic tract projection neurons (see for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8023144&dopt=Abstract). So the evidence would suggest that our sense of touch does in fact allow considerable room for confusion, particularly as afferent signals entering via spinal nerves undergo a level of processing at the level of the dorsal horn. The olfactory sense on the other hand undergoes no primary processing as it relies on cranial nerves which project directly to the brain. I would have to disagree with you there. In my opinion, the fact that the compounds that smell like rotting meat were interpreted as smelling like rotting meat denies the claim that it's an illusion. I think the fact that the compounds were generated by a plant and not rotting meat is not relevant in this case. The compounds are the same, so there was no misinterpretation by the sense. I see your point and in this instance it is a good argument. However, there are many more visual illusions than mirages: Muller lyer, Kanitson triangle, Necker cube, Pinna-Brelstaff, any of the figure-ground illusions and any number of other visual phenomena that demonstrate the interferance of top down processes with the accurate perception of bottom up stimuli. As far as I know, there is nothing like this to demonstrate the same effect in the olfactory sense.

Aw...I see you're no novice at flattery either are ya, you smooth talker you! However, I can't take full credit for all that with which you credit me. I don't remember saying olfactory illusions were impossible, and I doubt I would have assumed it. Nope, that doesn't sound like me at all. I don't remember implying that thalamic involvement was necessary for illusions to occur either. As I recall, my 2 main points were 1) that whereas optical illusions most often work through 'top down' processes, smell, depending less on 'top down' processes for its function and interpretation is less likely to be fooled. 2) That as the basic olfactory sense depending on chemoreceptors is less likely to be fooled. For example, there are plants that generate a smell like rotting meat (Amorphophallus titanum). It could be argued that this is an olfactory illusion because here we have a plant and not a rotting carcass. However, chemical analysis of the scent released by the plant shows the basic compounds are the same as those released by rotting meat. So, is that an illusion?

Tortured for injection? What does that mean?

Yep, I like that Yes it does, thank you, though in all conscience, I'm not sure I could inflict the VC on any of my students. Plus, I still like the idea of tarring and feathering the bugger.

Aw....you flatterer you!

That would be the case if the blood was luminous and purple light was coming from within and shining through the wall of the vein. This is not the case though. The light we see is coming from outside and is reflected from the surface of the vein. Evidence for the result can be found by looking at your own veins

Yep, that's it. The final verdict is that peripheral veins appear tinged blue because venous blood (with the exception of the pulmonary vein) is very dark purple and the wall of veins are much thinner than the walls of arteries. I guess the best evidence for this is cyanosis where a persons's O2 sats drop to dangerous levels as the areterial blood also becomes deoxygenated. In these cases the blood in the capilaries is as dark as venous blood and so where these capillaries are close to the surface (e.g. the fingernail beds and lips), turns light blue.

Nonetheless, extended sleep deprivation is fatal: http://www.thedoctorslounge.net/medlounge/articles/sleep/ http://www.answers.com/topic/sleep-deprivation

Well, NATFHE has just voted for strike action on the 7th March. I will probably go out, but I'm not comfortable with the logic. It's the same as hostage situations: "accede to our dermands or the innocent will suffer". It is for this reason reason that nurses have never gone on strike (because the patients would be the ones to suffer, not the Chief execs.). When nurses held pickets, they had done their shift, gone home for a shower and then come back to picket on their own time. This is also the reason that nurses are screwed year after year. I see no justification for University Vice-Chancellors to have awarded themselves an average 25% increase over the last four years, whilst failing to make any offer whatsoever to the lecturers, despite having promised the government that 30% of the increase in HE funding gained from the introduction of tuition fees would go to improvements in lecturer's pay and conditions. Even so, I can't help feeling that the students are already paying enough. Why should they also be expected to take the brunt of our dissatisfaction with the hypocricy of Vice-Chancellors? I'm afraid that militant unionism isn't my forte either, when it involves holding the innocent to ransom. However, I'd be in favour of getting hold of the Vice-Chancellors and tarring and feathering the bastards. Why should these lying hypocrites get away with using students as a human shield?

The problem comes when you don't have any. To get back to the original principle of the post, who would we rather have to hand when we are injured or sick (and sooner or later, we WILL need that kind of help), a nurse or David arsing Beckham? What about when our kids need someone to stop them growing up stupid? one of the LA Raiders or a teacher? What if our houses burn down? Would we prefer a steeler or a firefighter? Certainly people want entertainment, but people need health care workers, teachers, firefighters etc.. As has been said, these sporting 'heroes' are the best of the best. Why then is it becoming acceptable to recruit the dross to do the jobs that people need done because, for the salary, that's all we're going to attract? Do we really want your kids taught by somebody who is only a teacher because they couldn't make it in sports, show biz or the private sector? Is that who we want dishing out meaningless degrees to our kids, or standing at the end of our bed tyring to work out what's killing us? If we are prepared to pay for the best of the best to play games for us, why don't we want the best of the best looking after us and teaching our kids and saving our lives? How many can see the irony in rewarding the purile so richly and then bitching about shortfalls in nurse recruitment or teaching standards?

Nope, just impaired source location.

Sisyphus is essentially right. However, although it sould be argued that all brain function is essentially chemical, the importance of sleep seems to be psychological rather than just chemical. It is cognitive function that suffers first with sleep deprivation, reaction times slow, logical thought becomes difficult. This is followed by paranoia, anxiety, depression, hallucinations and eventually death.

If you have been exercising hard and drink water before cooling down the chances are you'll just throw it back up again. There is also the chance of stomach cramps. If you are working hard, rinse and spit. Drink once you have cooled down (5-10 minutes).

There is nothing wrong with YT's suggestion. Warm olive oil is better than warm water as ear wax is...er...wax, and so is not easily disolved by water. The principle of using a lighter oil to disolve a heavier one is sound, and warm olive oil won't do you any harm. However, it sounds like your problem is not due to a build up of ear wax. It sounds more like an infection and the problem with ear infections is that, depending on the precise location, antibiotics can be of limited use. Antibiotics taken orally or tnravenously are in the blood and so any infection in tissue perfused with blood will be helped by this method. However, if you have an infection in your middle ear (between your timpanic membrane and your inner ear), this is a space and so blood-borne antibiotics won't be of much use. Infection usually gets to the middle ear through the eustachian tubes and often the best course is to just let the infection drain the same way. Usually the infection sorts itself out in a few days. Sometimes grommets have to be fitted in the timpanic membranes. These provide a passage through the membranes which allows the infection to drain that way (this is often done with children). In any event, you should check with a doctor (again), just to be sure. If there is an infection, you want it watched so it doesn't get out of hand and risk your hearing.

No. If I had quoted from any particular source, I would have cited it and provided a reference. Physiology is one of those 'it-is-what-it-is' subjects with little room for debate, particularly in the basics, so any basic information presented is going to be the same as can be found in most basic physiology texts. By happy coincidence, I give lectures on psychobiology: Introduction to the Nervous System, Neurons: The building Blocks of the Nervous System, and The Brain. These are all basic structure and function lectures, so in this instance I didn't need to refer to a text, although of course, the information would replicate that which could be found in any appropriate text (e.g. Kalat).

Well, firstly there is no such thing as a specific 'pain stimulus'. Almost any stimulus can evoke pain if it is sufficiently intense, but whether or not it does so is due to factors other than the stimulus itself. "...respond to pain stimuli in in parallel to the way human pain stimulii is experienced." This doesn't make sense really. They may respond to intense stimuli in a similar way to humans (e.g. by withdrawing), but that doesn't mean they share the same experience. If you poke the gill of an aplesia (sea slug) it will withdraw the gill. Can you say that it experienced pain? The reality is that even in humans, you can't make absolute judgements concerning their experience based upon their behavioural response. A human may withdraw from an intense stimulus, but that doesn't mean they experience pain. The stimulus is not pain, nor is activity in 'nociceptive' receptors or fibres. Pain is a psychological state.

Do you mean to calculate Spearman's Rho by hand? Yes, both columns of data should ranked.

No. Pain is a psychological state. It requires more than one neuron to create the experience of pain.

It depends on what your research question is. What are you you trying to do?

If it is due to a crap lifestyle, then CBT will definitely help. Its function is to help you to adjust the way you think and behave (why it's called cognitive behavioural therapy). Well, that's a start. You've found something that has an effect. You could build on that. Well, these drugs would only help if you were depressed or anxious. Moreover, if you're sedated through hypnotics and sedating antidepressants, what are you likely to be doing that would make you naturally tired? Not a lot I would imagine. These things don't help you sleep. Even sleeping tablets are only partly useful. There are two types; one type just calms you to help you drift off. The other just knock you out. But that's not sleep. You come round after 8 hours feeling just as crappy because you haven't undergone a natural sleep cycle, you've just been unconscious. That's entirely possible. Consider the total number of conditions that exist and try to imagine the number of years of medical training it would take to cover them all in depth. No medic would ever get to practice before retirement. That's why we have a system of referral. Your doctor, having isolated the problem should then refer you to a speciallist in sleep disorders or an appropriate therapist. Well, let's think about it for a minute. You say the hypnotic anti-depressants are not effective at letting you sleep. Ok, well if the insomnia was cause by the anxiety/depression, then alleviation of the anxiety/depression should relieve the insomnia. If it doesn't then it would seem more likely that the anxiety/depression is being caused by the insomnia, although, of course, being anxious/depressed will certainly not help the insomnia, so it's a nasty cycle. Insomnia causing anxiety/depression which compounds the insomnia. I suppose throwing some anxiolytics/hypnotics at the problem would be a reasonable stab at breaking the cycle if it was a simple as that. It rarely is though. You have said yourself that "exercise has been the most beneficial so far". Exercise is a behaviour and the fact that it shows some beneficial effect would support the hypothesis that a crap lifestyle is the principal factor. I don't know what your lifestyle is, so I can't begin to guess what particular things about it might be causing the problem, or what changes might be most effective, but a CB Therapist could help you to alter it in ways that would help. People are often put off by the thought that kind of change. They usually think everything has to change, and that they'll have to end up living like Spartans, but that's never the case. More often than not, small changes are all it takes. But even small changes involve learning a new set of habits, so they do have to be practiced.

No, I'm an academic psychologist (lecturer/researcher). CBT is one of the most effective of the therapies. But you have to remember that in CBT (as in most therapies), you have to do the work. Think of it like learning to play the piano. Your teacher can only show you how it's done and provide exercises that experience has shown work in the development of the skill. They can guide you and correct you and show you, but they can't actually instill in you the ability to play. It doesn't matter how good they are, if you don't practice, you will never be able play. Learning to think/feel/behave differently is learning a new skill. In that, it is exactly like learning to play the piano. This is where medicine and psychiatry differ. In medicine, the patient can (often) lie back passively and have corrective things done to them. In psychiatry/psychological therapy most often the therapist can only play the part of a guide/teacher. You really just need to pick one you trust. If CBT is to work, you'll need to be able to work with your therapist. As I say, he/she can only guide you. You'll have to do the work. They will support you, but they can't do it for you and in order for it to stand a chance, you'll have to trust them enough to be open with them. I do know what you mean. Medicine is very much the same. For example, whilst people can explain clearly that they have a stomach ache (as you say), that doesn't help determine whether it's mild food poisoning, Gastroenteritis, the beginnings of an ulcer, gas, referred pain from an inflamed appendix, an illial torsion, obstruction or infection. A person may be able to state clearly that "I have a stomach ache", but them the physician has to begin to narrow down the possibilities to the most probable through elimination and often, trial and error. Physicians have the advantage of direct physical observation; blood tests (testing for infection), palpation, ultrasound scans etc. Psychiatrists have to undertake the same process of elimination, but they have none of the physical tools to help them. You have to ask yourself how surprising it is that the process takes longer and that errors happen. This is true. Of the hundreds of thousands of people who suffer from some form of psychological illness at some point in their lives, it only takes the media to get hold of one such story and people want to light torches, grab pitchforks and storm the castle screamning "Kill the monster". Funny how none of the hundreds of thousands who infect others with HIV through unprotected sex receive the same coverage. People fear psychological illness to such an extent that those suffering it (e.g. depression) are often afraid to seek help. They try to carry it alone and won't seek help because they fear the stigma attached to it. This only adds to the feelings of isolation and helplessness which compound the original problem. The fear people have of psychological illness is odd, because as far as I know, psychological illnesses aren't contagious. As a general rule, the only person at risk in cases of severe psychological illness is the sufferer. This cannot be said of many physical diseases; Resistant TB, denghi fever or any of the heamorrhagic viruses, flu, hepatitis, HIV, measles, mumps, chicken pox or any of the herpes variants, STDs etc., etc.. There is an odd phenomenon that occurs in psychological illness in which the patient becomes the condition in the minds of others. For example, people with schitzophrenia are usually called 'schitzophrenics'. People with anorexia nervosa or bulimia are called 'anorexics' or 'bulimics'. Can you think of a single 'physical' illness in which this happens? It is a form of labelling and a part of the reason that stigma still surrounds people with these conditions. The only thing that can be said for these labels is that they are extremely adhesive. It's just another form of prejudice.

"Hahaha' date=' oh man, that's hillarious. [/i']" I would guess