Glider

Yeauhuh...sounds like a lot of fun I love the smell of ether in the mornings. It smells like victory Vs

It is tabula rasa, meaning 'clean slate'. Neonates undergo a huge level of programmed cell death in the first few months of life. Neurons die at a high rate, but synapses form at an immensely higher rate. New connections are formed and older, redundant ones are extinguished. With such neural activity going on at such a rate, it's hardly surprising that memories from that time are wiped. Moreover, in order to remember something, you need to be able to understand it. You need to have 'cognitive hooks' to hang new memories on (see for example Bartlett's 1932 'War of the Ghosts' experiment). Whilst neonates may not strictly be tabula rasa, it is extremely unlikely that they have any relevant cognitive structures that would allow them to interpret and make sense of their own birth. Moreover, why would they need to? Birth must be quite traumatic and remembering it would serve no adaptive purpose.

Probably due to the mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1969). In brief, this shows that mere exposure to a stimulus (even on a preattentive level) increases our liking (or reduces our disliking) for it on subsequent exposure and particularly in comparison with other, novel stimuli. Another factor is probably the fact that we are always more sympathetic to stimuli that resemble ourselves (including odour) or bear some familial resemblance. All part of the family group recognition thing.

The problem with addiction is that it's only partly a physiological issue. Arguably, the larger part is behavioural. There are drug interventions for many addictions. These can do several things; they can create an adverse reaction to the addictive substance (e.g. emetic effects), prodicing an aversion to the behaviour. They can manipulate NT release, preventing the substance from having a rewarding effect, or they can act as a substitute (e.g. methodone or NRT), reducing the cravings without providing the 'rush'. The problem is that on their own, they are not very effective. The behavioural drives still exist. Throwing drugs at an addiction will not generally cure the problem because the problem is largely behavioural, not chemical. The way addictive substances work is to trigger the reward system in the brain (VTA, MFB and NA). This sytem evolved to reinforce behaviours that were adaptive and provided an advantage with respect to survival: searching for and finding food, feeding, sex, and so-on. Drugs of abuse activate the reward system and so very quickly an association is formed between the reward and the behaviours that resulted in it, and these behaviours become strongly reinforced. Using NT manipulation to block the reward does not address the fact that the reinforced behavioural drives still exist. Over time such manipulation would result in extinction of the behaviours, but as has been said, such drug intervention is a bit like using a sledgehammer. If you block the reward centres for too long, you are begging for depression (anhedonism, where no behaviour is rewarding). There is a lot of research to show that where drug intervention must be used, it is most effective when combined with behavioural therapy. Drug therapy can give the individual 'breathing space' (i.e. a respite from cravings) but they need to use that respite to address the behavioural component of addiction. Without the behavioural component being addressed, the individual remains dependent, although now on the drug that aleviates symptoms of withdrawal. One of the most effective regimes of behaviour change is the transtheoretical model, otherwise known as the 'Stages of Change' model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1992). This is widely (and successfully) used now by the NHS in treating people with addiction problems. The short answer is that there is no 'magic pill' shortcut. Addiction comes about through chemical reinforcement of behaviour, and to be effective, any path to recovery has to address the behavioural component as well as the physiological.

This is the African Paradoxical frog. It spends most of life cycle as a tadpole and only matures to reproduce.

1) Lose the really, really stupid and expensive PFI thing. 2) Take a long hard look at the 'management and administration' framework. A few years ago in the NHS there was one nurse for every 3 beds, but 1.5 managers per bed. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but there's something badly wrong with that.

Yeahuh...remembering training is one thing. Understanding it and being able to apply it to different situations appropriately is another.

I have similar memories. I was born in Africa (Kisumu). My dad spent weeks on end, sometimes months in the bush. My mother was out each day working as a midwife. As a result, my first languages were Swahili and Kiluhya. When we moved to this country (UK) in the 60s, they put me a school in the east end of London. It kinda went downhill from there. I had never seen so many white faces, so I automatically oriented towards the few black people there were (I was 5). The black kids didn't trust the white kids and didn't respond well to being greeted in Swahili. The white kids didn't respond well to a white kid talking to the black kids (especially in Swahili), so, both the black and white kids were hostile and the white kids labelled me 'white nigger'. That followed me through school for 11 years. By the end of my school years, I had made 3 friends. Now, I have a real hatred of racism, because even then I could see how pointless it is and how flawed is its logic, and I can see how it exists on all sides. It is not a white problem. Racism exists to different degrees in all races. Even in Kenya, the biggest problem at that time was violence between the local Africans and the Asian immigrant shoopkeepers. There were too few whites to matter really. Things are changing. I can see a real difference, but I think as far as we have come, wherever there are differences (real or percieved), there are going to be problems and this is a function of ignorance, not race. Of all the things people think of as their enemy, ignorance and stupidity is the real problem and as far as I can see, these exist more or less equally among people, regardless of race or religion.

People have the wrong idea about peer review. When a book or article is submitted, a reviewing editor and several referees read it, but this isn't peer review. This is just to ensure that it's of a sufficient standard (and of an appropriate topic) for publication by that particular journal or publisher. Peer review begins after publication, when the book or article is read by the author's peers. That's when all the rebuttals and death-threats and stuff start pouring in.

Hmm...it would be hard to differentiate because a poor recall is a function of ADHD. You can only remember information to which there are traces. Encoding alone isn't enough. Just encoding information is a bit like just throwing a box into a warehouse full of boxes, without watching where it lands. Yes, it will be in storage, but you have little chance of finding it. Forming traces requires that the information is both registered and processed. The processing allows you to form links between the new information and existing information. Just hearing it isn't enough on its own to form sufficient traces to be able to recall the information, you have to have understood it and related it to existing knowledge. You might be 'paying attention', i.e. looking at the speaker, or the book, but if your mind is wandering you will be registering the information, but not processing it. Basically, if you ignore any neuropathological cause of bad memory, then you are left only with 'not paying attention' and this may or may not be due to ADHD. ADHD simply means you don't really have the choice. However, there are other symptoms to ADHD and if they're not present then you are left only with 'not paying attention'.

You can find laugh boxes in magic/novelty/joke/toy shops over here. I'm sure you can find one in a similar shop over there. E-bay would be a good bet though.

No such correlation has been shown as far as I'm aware. Both hemispheres contain motor cortices and lateralisation just determines which is dominant. As I said, there are degrees of lateralisation, so right handed people can be left footed or left eye dominant, so it's not an 'all or nothing' state. Left handed people are not necessarily left hemisphere dominant and all people use both hemispheres anyway. It's a question of degree. BobbyJoeCool: These 'split-brain' patients have had the hemispheres of their brain separated by cutting through the corpus callosum (in most cases other transhemispheric tracts are left alone). This is usually done in cases of severe (life threatening) epilepsy, to prevent the cascade from passing from one hemisphere to the other. These people can read well enough because the optic chiasm allows information from each eye to pass into both hemispheres. Where it gets strange is when, for example, they are choosing a dress or a suit from a wardrobe. One hand will reach for one and the other will reach for another, each hemisphere having made a separate choice.

Chameleons have the ability to move each eye independently and to integrate the disparate information coming in from each eye. Humans don't, not even savants.

It comes down to brain lateralization, or more specifically, differences in brain lateralization between individuals. The stronger the hemispheric lateralization, the more 'one side' dominant we are. In about 20% of the population, the right hemisphere is more strongly lateralized leading to left-handedness. In some cases, the brain is less strongly lateralized and the greater the tendency toward being ambidextrous. About 80% of the population show left hemispheric dominance and so are right handed. However, even in this group there are differences. Some some right handers are left footed or show left eye dominance, so there is a degree of variance even in a particular group, which siggests that hemispheric lateralization exists on a continuum rather than a dichotemous either - or state.

It's the bacteria that exist in our bodies that are mainly responsible for decomposition anyway. Decomposition always begins in the gut and the abdomen becomes discoloured blue/green after about 12 hours.

Maybe he's just assessing how awake his class is by seeing how many just sit there going "Ooooohh, really?" and how many go "Wait a minute! That's plain madness!" I do it myself sometimes; slip some obviously and wildly wrong thing into the lesson and see how many go "Uhuh, yep, ok." After all, I'm not just providing information, I'm supposed to be teaching them to think critically. I always point it out if it slips by though. I never let them go away believing it.

I suppose it could be their version of fighting fire with fire. They may feel the need to say things are worse than they are simply to offset those who say things are better than they are. Strangely, I feel more inclined to believe that greenpeace believe what they are saying (whether or not its true) more than large businesses. Whilst I can't argue with the need for objectivity in science, I do think that too much objectivity = 'I don't care', which is not always appropriate, and certainly not when it comes to issues like global warming, the destruction of rainforest and the extinction of species which affect everybody on the planet. Having said that, I'm not above a little Schadenfreude...Teeheehee...they crashed their boat and smashed a reef

Reading is a skill and the way to increase speed is practice. A bit like learning to play the guitar. If you want to learn how to do a fast, steady tremolo, you just have to practice. Comprehension is something else. You can read without understanding. e.g. If you know the pronunciation rules, you can read Spanish without being able to speak or understand it. Comprehension is understanding and basically, the more you know, the more you will understand. If you bombard someone who doesn't know anything about a particular subject with lots of information on that subject, most of it will 'slide off' because they don't have any 'cognitive hooks' to hang it on. The new information doesn't hold meaning for them and so they will not be able to form links between the new information and stuff they already know. Essentially, learning is a bit like growing a crystal. You need the germ (basic knowledge) in order to be able to expand upon it and allow it to grow. So, the more you know about something, the easier it will be to assimilate new relevant information and the faster your comprehension speed.

CSF bathes the cerebral aspects of the brain? Can alter the firing potential of neurons? What are you talking about? The last paragraph is utter rubbish.

When you come to write it up, use paragraphs and punctuation.

That's doable, and is done in hospitals for patients on CPN (Complete Peripheral Nutrition). Those who are unable to eat are fed IV. It's a milky substance and it smells awful, but it will keep you alive. The thing is that much of what we need can't really be ensmallened, so you'd just end up with huge pills, or hundreds of smaller ones. You might just as well eat 'normal' food.

Ooopsie. My bad . Still, it's not like you had that much left anyway.

You would have to get a mean reading over a period of months (as happened in the cave experiment) to get close to an accurate value.

So do I, but I think that's mainly because it agrees largely with my own ideas on blame I think that blame falls proportionately to responsibility, and I don't think that those responsible for non-violent provocation are responsible for any subsequent violence. I think the two are separate things. Outside of self-defence, violence is a volitional act, unless we are prepared to admit that we do not have free will and that we are not in control of our own actions. We can't have it both ways. Those responsible for provocation are guilty of making violence more likely given their probable knowledge of the nature of people. But they can only be said to have 'lowered the threshold' as it were. They can't be considered guilty of causing violence. The cause of violence is always the choice of the individual to commit violence. To use an analogy, it's like that way long-term potentiation makes a neuron more likely to fire, but is not in and of itself, the cause of an action potential. It could even be argued (accurately in most cases) that those guilty of provocation want violence to result from it. But unless they commit a violent act, they can't be said to have caused violence. And if they're that stupid, why should people give them what they want?