Reflections on In Search of Memory by Eric Kandel

by B.J. on 6/23/2008 02:45:00 PM 0 comments Print this post

I'm not very far in what I think is a career towards the brain and mind sciences or arts.

Spent most of undergrad criticizing the sciences in a minor that I thought would be devoted to just that.

But here I am, 2 years later, needing to learn it...

I bought the book In Search of Memory by Eric Kandel because:

a) I had been given a 2nd Barnes & Noble Giftcard thanks to my friend Nancy
b) I figured I would probably take a class in auto repair...(or just rent a book from the 'brary)
c) I wanted something that would encourage my interest in memory studies
d) I didn't want something that I felt comfortable with and could read in an entire day

Yes, I've figured out something specific...I like the brain...and specifically I like memory.

Memory, because of its multifacetedness.

Short-term working memory has implications for intelligence, which is what I've always been interested in. Long-term memory shows what really lies deep within ourselves. Memory is a reflection of what we give meaning to, what we place importance on. Highly emotional, highly subjective states are what we remember most, because they are packed with meaning, and ultimately that's what we go on.

Overall, I didn't understand a lot of the biological language, but certainly, I became more interested in learning about them. I was interested in the insights he had into the science profession, the mind. Generally speaking, it's stuff you've heard before in the public discourse...our brains are plastic, you can learn a lot no matter what age you are, just in more detail.


On the book's interesting points:

1) Interesting stuff he said about the work of scientists.

First was a comment on scientific research work. He often described those he held in esteem as "creative", as if they were artists, rather than neurological or molecular biologists.

"There are scientists...who are very strong technically but who do not necessarily have the deepest insights into the biological questions they are studying (68)."

Then he mentioned the motviation of scientists; they are no different than any other human beings.

"If pure scientists were motivated by curiosity alone, they should be delighted when someone else sovles the problem they are working on---but that is not the usual reaction. Recognition by their peers and esteem come only to those who have made original contributions to the common stock of knowledge.(68)"

Scientists have a need to prove and validate themselves just like any other human being. However, the specialized, high-level language they use to describe their work, their findings, etc. makes it appear as if they are disconnected from the regular world.

2) On Learning: "Different forms of learning give rise to different forms of memory." (198) I have no clue as to what he's referring to here, but it could be interesting some day.

3) On Synapses and Learning: He mentions the strength of synaptic connections as being the key to learning.

Very important chapter in the book of neuro-bio for unbelievably moronic wankers.

"We found that learning leads to a change in the strength of synapctic connections---and therefore in the effectiveness of communication---between specific cells in the neural circuit that mediates the behavior.(200)

Strength---the long-term effectiveness of synaptic connections---is regulated by experience. This view implies that the potential for many of an organism's behaviors is built into the brain and is to that extent under genetic and developmental control; however, a creature's environment and learning alter the effectiveness of the preexisting pathways, thereby leading to the expression of new patterns of behavior.(202)"

He connects the idea that we have built-in knowledge to Immanuel Kant as opposed to John Locke's tabula rasa.

4) On Synapses: "Synaptic connections between two neurons can be...strengthened or weakened---by different forms of learning. Thus habituation weakens the synapse, whereas sensitization or classical condition strengthens it (204)."

So from this it sounds like habits make you have less synaptic connection because the synapse grows in itself, which means weaker connections between neurons, which means less likely to associate with another thing, which means that your habit becomes more engrained and exaggerated.

In contrast, being sensitized to something means stronger synapctic connections between neurons, which means more likely to associate with another thing, which means that your sensitization and association becomes more engrained and exaggerated.

In conclusion, associative and explicit learning arises from sensitization, while implicit learning arises from habituation.

5) On Neuro-bio: "Long-term memory required the synthesis of a new protein (212)." As opposed to the electrical charges that keep firing from neurons.

6) On Science and Evolution: Evolution does not have any higher purpose than its immediate adaptation for something.

"Evolution does not require new, specialized molecules to produce a new adaptive mechanism" (234).

...The Biochemical actions underlying memory did not arise apecifically to support memory. Rather neurons, simply recruited an efficient signaling system employed for other purposes in other cells and used it to produce the changes in synaptic strength required for memory storage.

7) On Evolution and Neuro-bio: The stuff that makes us what we are...our genes are ALSO subject themselves to the environment in which they live (264).

8) On Memories: A characteristic of age related memory loss is the inability to consolidate long-term memories (266).

9) On Synapses and Memory: The growth and maintenace of new synaptic terminals makes memory persist (276).

10) On Perception: Sensation is an abstraction not a replication, of the real world (Mountcastle via Kandel 302)

11) On the Hippocampus: Hippocampus is concerned with perception of the environment and represents a multisensory experience (308).

12) On Dopamine: Blocking dopamine blocks the stablization of the spatial map in an animal (313).
Dopamine seems like the chemical for explicit learning and memory whereas serotonin represents the chemical for implicit learning.

13) On the Amygdala and Hippocampus: "Damage to the amygdala, which is concerned with the memory of fear, disrsupts the ability of an emotionally charged stimulus to elicit an emotional response. In contrast, damage to the hippocampus, which is concerned with conscious memory, interferes with the ability to remember the context in which the stimulus occurred. (342)"

14) Depression compromises the memory (361).

15) What science lacks are rules for explaining how subjective properties (consciousness) arise from the properties of objects (interconnecte nerve cells) (381).

Reflections:

1) On learning: As he was talking about studying analogs of learning, I was thinking about how people in general, learn. I think at the most ideal level, we learn by figuring out meanings. And then once we "learn" that it means something, we commit it to memory.

He mentioned habituation, sensitiation, and classical conditioning as the basis or most primordial form of learning.

2) On Habituation: Then I began thinking about habituation in my own world. The cycles of the world. I began thinking about the habits of people in the housing developments. What were their habits? What are the habits of the people in the middle and high classs? How did they develop them? What was the geography and environment that forced them to exhibit those habits that they did have?

3) On Sensitization: Then he mentioned sensitatization, and I began thinking about that in my own world. "After hearing a gun go off, a person will show an exaggerated response and will jump when he hears a tone or senses a touch on the shoulder (169)." Essentially, the gun going off acts as a sign and/or a symbol for someone to elicit a response.

4) On Brain studies of the past: I was curious about how this idea ever made sense in American Education in the 1950s:

"We were taught that the map of the somatosensory corex discovered by Wade Marshall is FIXED and IMMUTABLE throughout life." When and why did they think that it was fixed and mutable (216)? Was that informed by religion?

5) On Hippocampus and Spatiality: I also wondered about the hippocampus and spatial information that he mentioned(282).

6) On Intelligence: I was wondering how this fuses into Jeff Hawkins theory of brain and mind in his book On Intelligence.

7) On Fear: Fear is the easily most detectable emotion across species (339). It seems as though this is the emotion that what we give most the meaning to, and so we respond accordingly. It's really a disjointed event from anything were used to, so were likely to give a response out of the ordinary.

He brings in a dose of the breakthrough psychologit William James:

"We do not experience fear until after we have run away from the bear. We first act instinctively and then invoke cognition to explain the changes in the body associated with that action." (340)

Essentially, what he says is that emotion happens afterward, after an event. After the event is finished we build meaning off of that emotion via language expression which is then encoded into our memories.

8) On Learning: I began thinking of the social/asocial aspects of learning.

Learning is a very social activity, and that social activity is one way we build meanings. Learning in isolation is the most fruitful, but it's very difficult because we don't have the benefit of other people affirming your correctness in a belief or whatnot. You're forced to come up with your own meanings, definitions, labels for things and events which might be valid, but might not be recognized by anyone else.

Example: I watch a bunch of NBA basketball, but since I don't really have cable, it's often over the internet via international TV where they're speaking some other language other than English. So I don't watch a lot of basketball in English, which is good.

I don't have annoying commentators like Jeff Van Gundy telling me, indoctrinating me, on how unathletic, but intelligent the whiteboy Kirk Hinrich is, I just see what's on the basketball screen and make meaning out of what's happening all by myself. Therefore I learn what's happening in isolation, relatively speaking vs. other fans. I gain my knowledge of the game by my own observations, interpretations, and analysis. I "learn" what's happening basically on my own.

Realizing that I can learn either socially or asocially kind of annoyed me. Institutions seem to have a monopoly on social learning and will charge the hell out of you just for that. If you're not learning via an institution (and paying at least 20 dollars a unit), you feel like you don't know any avenue to learning what you need to learn.

The library is there, but it's limited and you still wouldn't know where to look.

But I digress.

9) On the feelings of disjointedness vs. fluidity: From Leo Tolstoy: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" (349).

From this quote, I became concerned with the idea of disjointedness in the unhappy family and explicitness vs. fluidity and implicitness in the happy family. Everything seems to be a disruption for the unhappy family whereas, everything seems to work in harmony for the happy family.

The discourse about the unhappy family, and explicitness triggered personal memories of the kids in the housing developments yet again. What types of disjointedness have they experienced and how have they dealt with them? I would think a quality of disjointedness towards long-term ventures, not because it's innate, but because it's been learned.

10) On Working Memory: "When normal individuals are challenge by a task that requires working memory, metabolic function in their prefrontal areas increases dramatically (354)."

Working memory seems to be a tool of social moderation --- they say "intelligence" is just working memory, and prefrontal areas with which it is associated with are associated with planning and judging.

Doubts and Questions:

1) On Kandel's Observations and Reductionist Methods: I wondered if Kandel just colored in stereotypical sexist interpretations in his interpretation of results for the differences between male and female brains.

"He [Some scientist named O'Keefe] has found clear differences in the way women and men attend to and orient themselves in the space around them. Women use nearby cues and landmarks. Thus when asked for directions, a woman is likely to say, "Turn right at the Walgreen's drugstore, and then drive until you see a white colonial houe on the left with green window shutters. Men rely more on an internalized geometric map. They are likely to say 'Drive five miles north, then turn right and head east for another half mile.' Brain imaging shows activation of different areas in mean and women as they think about space: the left hippocampus in men, and the right parietal and right prefrontal cortex in women. (315-316)"

That's pretty much a hegemonically sexist thing to say: women are the fluffy, artistic, right-side thinkers, while males are the logical, left-side thinkers.

I consider myself a male and masculine and all that other shit, but I definitely don't give directions like the cold hard-cut logical male. I currently don't have the means to argue against what he says, but I just know that what he says doesn't seem to represent the truth.

2) On Kandel's Memory and Perception of this growing epidemic of "disorders of memory"...disorders of memory are more evident today than they were when I began practicing medicine fifty years ago because people are living longer now (327)"

This brings up other questions related to medical anthropology and health care that cut across time and space.

Perhaps more people are just diagnosing more, prescribing more, just to make more money, which gives off the feeling that "disorders of memory are more evident today."

After all, the guy is in the pharmaceutical biz...

Also, people probably are living longer, but how is he sure that a connection can be made between the fact that there are more memory disorders and a longer life expectancy?

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

 

Read Entire Post...





Theory of Human Monogamy's Evolution

by B.J. on 1/18/2008 04:32:00 AM 0 comments Print this post

From my Medical Anthrpology book:

"Freeland (1976) suggests that many aspcts of the social organization of terrestrial Old World monkeys may minimize the probability of acquiring new pathogens or the impact of a disease already harbored by an individual in the group.

He argues that the composition of a primate group itself and sexual fiedlity of individual primates to other members of the group is the result of selection for the avoidance of new diseases."

According to this theory, a big reason we are monogamous is to avoid diseases.

Given that medicine has traditionally been interwoven with religion and religion has been a bedrock for virtually all of known human societies, it seems like monogamy was just the most sensible way of living and so became prescribed for everyone (at least for healers and priests).

If restoring a type of karmic balance be it physical, social, emotional was the basic component of human healing in most societies, a deprivation, a sacrifice, a "controlled" a "balanced" way of holding would be needed to maintain "well-being", or a sense of balance. To stave off these diseases, people would just need to do things in a "balanced" way.

Now I'm just wondering what the history of knowing "balance" and karma is.

Labels:

 

Read Entire Post...





Consumerism, and Breaking that State of Mind

by B.J. on 10/08/2007 09:59:00 AM 0 comments Print this post

"You know why we have houses? It’s so we can keep all our stuff in them. And when we buy a new house and we have to buy more stuff to fill our house" - George Carlin

Born. Breathe. Eat. Drink. Shit. Fuck. Die.

I guess that sums up human existence in 7 words or less. I'm not really sure what else is supposed to happen afterwards, but from visual, auditory, and other sensory cues, it looks like that's about it.

Often times I have this craving to buy something to make myself feel better.

If I get this McDonalds' Sundae and consume it, my life will be much more complete.

Even though I will have added an unnecessary 400 calories to my diet. And will probably function at a slower rate.

But at least my taste buds will have experienced a temporary positive stimulation.

If I buy and spend time playing FIFA 08, even though there are approximately 34,734,833,743,829,347,384,323 things that I could do that would lead to something more useful.

These are amongst some of the most difficult issues I must deal with on a daily basis.

I take the perspective that I have been given a lot while others not so much. I juxtapose that belief with the classic maxim pressing my mind: with much power comes much responsibility.

The result? I've been trying not to give into excess and temptation. No dollar donuts, no eating out, no traveling or using the car if I could help it, limit computer and technology use outside of "work" to about 3 hours a day.

I call these things "excess" and "temptation" because they aren't really "needed" in the sense of the sustenance that simple water and food give me.

Giving into those temptations usually only temporarily satisfies some decidedly shallow desires.

It seems like when I do give in, it's only to make myself "feel better," as if some sort of balance will be achieved if I give into the temptation.

But then I realize something. Kids from Brazilian favelas playing soccer with home-made balls don't have this luxury.

In all likelihood, they don't have this similar temptation because they aren't exposed to it. In other words, they probably don't need to play FIFA 07 to restore some sort of balance to their lives. It probably isn't a part of their world, so it's not going to help restore some kind of balance for them. For that matter, they probably also don't need an In-N-Out cheeseburger, a Diddy-Reise chocolate chip cookie, a bottle of Heineken, thai BBQ chicken, an iPhone or iPod, 20-inch rims, to restore a feeling of balance. Parents from these favelas probably aren't taking their kids to Disneyland or even movie theatres to elicit a sense of "fun."

It would be interesting however to find out what they do actually need to live balanced lives, and how the powers that be has probably limited access to it.

In conclusion, if it's simply this feeling of balance that needs to be achieved whenever one needs to consume and engage in their brand of 'fun", can't the American human middle-class mind find a way to self-engineer it without spending money? Or are we hard-wired to consume?

Perhaps not these freegans though.

The freegans are a group of people who attempt to live off what people throw away, be it abandoned buildings in your city, food, or electronics. What strikes me is that they are independent people, somewhat free from the system. It seems that they get their enjoyment out of "foraging"/finding things and making something out of it.

To me it seems like the feeling of balance is achieved when you are in a similar situation and do exactly that --- independent and making something out of nothing (or whatever is perceived as nothing). The balance seems to happen you are free from the need to sustain a string of short-term pleasures like buying a new car or even consuming a chocolate bar, and keep control of your mind.

And an Onion Satire

Labels: , ,

 

Read Entire Post...





by B.J. on 10/24/2004 07:48:00 PM 2 comments Print this post

Travel in the 21st Century

From a western biological evolutionary historical point of view, it seems as if the weakest of a species have always had to find ways around the dominants to get resources.

Part of finding a way to survive: get away from the dominants. Travel. And migrate !

I mean, as a human, if you were part of a group of dominants and surviving well, why would you ever want to leave your spot and go into barbaric territory unless you were going to conquer it ?

Nowadays there still is this element of migrating to get away from a home territory for better opportunities elsewhere. It seems to have always been a survival mechanism (wow with all this Western reasoning and some definitive affirmative adverbs like "always" I am just opening up a lot of questions for anthropologists to investigate).

However, ever since we've developed technology and gotten super-fast vehicles like trains, travelling is something done not only by the weakest of the species but now mostly by the middle to the upper classes in Western society, arguably the strongest of the species in the sense that they are better able to reproduce and ensure survival for their young. They go everywhere and sometimes may even hold this up as another sign of their affluence.

Labels: , ,

 

Read Entire Post...





Who Really Wins ? Dominant vs. "Weak"

by B.J. on 5/14/2004 09:57:00 AM 0 comments Print this post

If you're weak and you survive, you'll get yours. Don't worry, be happy.

This is based off that "Who Would You Rather be? James A Naismith (inventor of basketball) or Michael Jordan (basketball great)" post that I had. It was about choosing to be an innovator of something or the best at something. The innovator represents the "weak" whilst the best at something represents the dominant because really now, they are the best at something, so don't argue with that stupidass.


In the bigger broader picture, the innovator through many generations of evolution makes the lasting changes that transcends any greatness at something. So, applied to James Naismith and Michael Jordan; James Naismith invented basketball and he will always be known as that, but Michael Jordan will not always be known as the best (sad to say since I'm the biggest Bulls fan you'll ever meet). So James Naismith, innovator, in the bigger picture has made the bigger contribution to human existence.

When you're the best in society, you're usually going to keep the status quo. You'll usually be some jackass who keeps your multi-jillion dollar corporation running not really keeping an eye to improve society or do something breakthrough. You'll just live your life and be somewhat of a waste to human existence in terms of evolving anything cool doing nothing more than eating pizza and bon bons on Saturday nights, but it's OK. Whatever.

Usually, when you're not the best in society, you can go in one of three ways: accept the status quo, flop, or resist against the status quo.

Resisting against the status quo usually means that you've found away around whatever is dominant. Naismith's status quo as a YMCA instructor was to accept that he did not have a sport of skill (skill being a keyword as opposed to some stupid-ass weightlifting or what have you) for his students to play indoors during the winter. Obviously he didn't flop or else there would be no basketball. So his last option was to resist the status quo: create the damn game of basketball, obviously.

So basically, I just said that the objects of change are probably going to be better fit for evolution. Yeah, it's all about change in evolution. That makes sense.

But all I have discussed thus far is resistance at a superficial level.

There's two points that makes the weak survivors a.k.a. the innovators better fit for survival throughout this course of constant evolution: one, they resist. Two, they are versatile. Those that overdominate will probably need too many tools to survive.

Imagine resistance built up by the weak against the dominant over generations. Resistance by the weak is probably what has helped us evolve into what we are. Remember that if you can survive ala the corporation fat cat, you'll probably stay right where you are.

So let's apply that principle of resistance by the weak to the dominant through innovation to human evolution.

So let's say you're the weakest macaque in a troop and you never get food. What the hell do you do ? Fold up and die. Err, not really. Find another way, captain obvious. You find your food around those dominants.

For example, macaques in Sri Lanka have been known to steal actual processed food from villagers. Macaques are old world monkeys. They come from forests and have only been recently coming to human villages because their homes in the forest have been demolished by deforestation or some other ecology-destroying human activity. As far as we know, macaques don't bake or cook shit, but the key is they find their way to get food. They walk on barbed wire that surrounds the village. They get into people's houses. They steal anything they sense is edible from fruits to cakes (as in the one that you bake). Eventually this way of finding food will give these much more distinct traits than their dominant cousins still powerhousing their way in the forest. These distinct traits will have evolved from them specializing in something. These traits will proably eventually help them kick their dominant cousins' asses one day in surviving (maybe literally too, but that's not a given).

An example of distinct traits a genus has developed to potentially kick their once dominant cousins' asses within the same genus in surviving can be seen in humans from chimps. We don't walk on our knuckles for some reason (like maybe as shade from the sun). And we can definitely kick chimps butts if we wanted to. They will get owned. And why'd they start walking, probably to travel long distances. Why travel long distances ? To get food because there was a scarcity and with a scarcity, there's some kind of "weakness" somewhere.

Despite developing distinct traits, "weak" animals manage to stay versatile in the environment. That is, they don't overly gourge on themselves.

There's also such a thing as overdominance. I think a species can develop out of getting too big and eventually killing themselves off. For example, 500-lb gorillas. They are going extinct. Whatever.

Whatever class of animals ascends to being the most dominant (and currently it's humans, FYI) will theoretically, eventually stomp on their ancestors to survive. We evolved from other animals and yet we kill them (we also kill our own.) I find it amazing how we have to respect everything from humans to animals we kill now. But later when we probably won't care.

So the lesson of this story is that if you're weak and you find a way to survive, you'll get yours (at least your ancestors will).

Labels: ,

 

Read Entire Post...




Home Page