Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

True there are many critiques but they [real scientists] don’t condemn the HCP as phrenology and in other derogatory terms.

Note I am arguing on the basis of a trend,
-the supposedly impossible objective of the Human Genome project is now completed.
-it was impossible for humans to reach the moon,
-the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology
-etc. etc.
I would appreciate if you can tell me why there is no possibility at all of scientists achieving the objectives of the HCP.

Simply search “anti=connectome-ism”.
I have raised numerous objections to the possibility that the HCP, if realized to some extent, will do what you claim can be done. I should not have to keep repeating myself.
Successes in other areas of science do not guarantee the success of the HCP. And scientists are too busy in day by day research to comment on the conjectures of neurophilosophy. But then all you have to do is to consider a good criticism as dated when it remains appropriate.

“…we now know that the brain continuously ‘rewires’ itself in response to experience, by altering its connections, and perhaps breaking older ones countless times per second. A static connectivity map would therefore tell us nothing about these organizational changes. We would, therefore, need multiple connectomes for each individual to take these changes into account.”—Mo Costandi
From another reviewer–
“Connectome research is another pie in the sky science fiction fantasy. Neurons are not little digital 1/0 units with well defined inputs/outputs. The hubris of some projects is astounding.”

Objection 1.
Neuron connections are fluid, not static.

The review was done in 2012,
Fri 21 Sep 2012 15.00 BST, and apparently it is against Seung’s grand claims;

The brain is very very complex.
Thus even if we have the attained the objectives of the HCP such may not cover the total processes within the brain neural connectivities.
What is critical is the HCP provide the standard model [of reasonable precision] of how the neurons are connected in relation to various functions within a normal brain of the majority.
I believe this standard model of reasonable precision is sufficient for us to deal with anxiety cells to the existential crisis to religions which would be more precise than the black-box approach the Buddhists and others are using at present.

Physically, in the standard model of human anatomy, the humans hands are not attached to the hips.
It is the same with the standard model of the anatomy of the human brain where there are standard connections within the structures of the brain of the normal person. No matter how fluid, we don’t expect the main neurons of taste be connected to neurons for hearing within the normal brain.

There are only exceptional variations facilitated by neuroplasticity due to brain damage or random wrong connectivity, e.g. as in anaethesia due to cross wiring of the senses.

Your objection 1 is thus blasted.

Neuron connections vary in ways other than by neuroplasticity or anesthesia and perhaps change several times per second. Of course there are neuron routes that distinguish arm from leg movement. You must take me for a fool. Neurons tell the quality of the experience not just the mechanics of it. A dead, sliced nematode is not about to translate, by virtue of its 120 immobilized neurons, into some algorithm that will reveal to someone other than myself what the taste and texture of jello is like. If the HCP remains in the mechanical mode, it will not be able to reveal eventually what it is like to be human.
Objection 1 still stands.
Objection 2. only living neurons can reveal qualia.
Your theory rests on your assumptions that you know the why and wherefore of anxiety cell activity. That assumption has been blasted time and again by others here.

I love how no one mentions glial cells in these debates. That neurons are the only cells having shaping skills and functions is, like, so passe.

Agreed. Prism’s theory, however, is based on research done by the HCP, which is mainly concerned with the connectivity of neurons to each other and to body sites.
Objection 3. Glial cells participate in the brain’s attempts to achieve homeostasis. They insulate neurons, which may affect “anxiety” cells. Although glial cells do not participate directly in the neuron activity at the synapse, their support of neurons could be considered indirect influence on neuron connectivity.
Karpel Tunnel,
If you have any appropriate information about glial cells, please let us know.

Popular:
scientificbrains.com/5-reaons-wh … elligence/

Little deeper
blogs.ohsu.edu/brain/2013/04/19 … in-humans/

This was the book that first clued me in that glial cells are not just structural and are part of intelligence, cognition, memory and more…
amazon.com/Root-Thought-Unl … 0134383036
scientificamerican.com/arti … ught-what/

Other
medicalxpress.com/news/2014-12- … -mice.html
huffingtonpost.com/dr-dougl … 10871.html
dujs.dartmouth.edu/2014/08/glial … rpBJtRuaUk
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4161624/
google.com/url?q=https://ww … rOcx6U6S65
google.com/url?q=https://ww … w-LbCEaFkW
google.com/url?q=https://ww … IJGg3YVDov

Thanks for these references. I was wrong about glial cells not being involved in synaptic activity. Some even make their own neurotransmitters.

The book was great, though now it is dated. Oddly despite it being dated, it still hasn’t sunk in in discussions of minds, cognition, etc. It is always neurons. In the book Glial cells seemed to regulate a slower kind of building information intelligence and also to regulate neuronal interactions.

There’s also the large nexi of nerves around the heart and then also the digrestions system. Mind is happening there also.

Let alone Candace Pert’s work indicating that the body as a whole is the unconscious -w hich obviously contributes immensely to intelligence, cognition, choice.

Or that there are other communication systems in the body based on biophotons.

There is so much pressure to find ‘the’ organ, the mechanism, and control it. Partly this is because there is a tie between research and industry, the latter wanting to control via products and services. Partly is human hubris and likely fear of not knowing completely (yet). There is an anti-ecological component parts approach to western knowledge that still is causing problems also.

My sense is we are still dealing with tip of the iceberg, but if you listen to scientists as it trickles into the public sphere, we are just around the corner from TOE on cognition, intelligence, brains, what we are, etc.

I’ve been a fan of Candace Pert since she discovered endorphins in the late 20th century. The idea that the body is the unconscious and can communicate among its parts is fascinating. There seems to be a lot more going on in the body/mind than the HCP can account for if it relies solely on neuronal communications
Popular science, such as the HCP is based on grand illusions. The HCP in no way compares with the human genome project as Prism believes simply because the former is based on the idea that the content of consciousness may be revealed through a study of neuronal connectivity.

I can’t say how much they will get to in terms of content or how little. Even if they begin to be able to track content through viewing activity this does not mean they can then intervene with effectiveness, since we are dealing with such an incredibly complicated ‘thing’. And especially if they are tracking only one part of what leads to cognition. Understanding is often conflated with control. I would also have concerns about the modular nature of at least prism’s sense of how this information will be used. Those neurons fire during anxiety, let’s minimize their firing. I think generally it is better to approach humans (and other parts of nature) holistically. I mean, saying, I am rooting for you, for example, can have powerful effects on the firing of neurons, and it is, of course, not dehumanizing. Not that I am suggesting that sentence as a panacea or even a ‘widespreadly’ useful intervention. One can oversimplify therapy too. Just saying that dealing with people as patterns of neurons is not the only way to deal with them powerfully, and never even thinking about neurons one can still support positive change which will also show at the neuronal level.

Honestly I think the approach is kinda creepy and suffers from hubris. But that’s my reaction to how he originally presented it. What HCP plans to do or how its mapping will be used by others may very well be another story. I just get concerned when people are treated as if they are broken cellphones in need of troubleshooting.

It is more positive to think of anxiety cells as causing incentive to procreate and to survive. This would account for their presence in mice and men. They may be the goads toward creative excellence, not only the alarms of something currently wrong with the system. Existential angst is a human interpretation of drives for homeostasis and creative endeavors.

Prismatic has left the building. However, I’d like to make one last point. I asked him if rats dream. He objected to the question as simply rhetorical. If REMs indicate dream states, rats do dream. The problem would be insisting on knowing what rats dream about. The function of dreaming as a state does not reveal what the dreams are about. Neither does the function of anxiety cells in the amygdala indicate what the anxiety is about. Oh well . I do hope Prism is ok.

I don’t think we need to worry. He has been saying, implicitly or openly, that his discussion partners here are irrational. If he has any sense at all, working from that conclusion, he should become tired of it and move on.

The issue would be when there is too much anxiety - and determining when that is the case - then determining causes (external/internal) then trying to figure out the best approach to reducing anxiety, which might include a whole range of approaches - nutritional, legal, sociological, psychological, social, medical, activity changes, meme changes, interventions at the family and subucultural level, economic changes and god knows what else.

Just came in today and read a few posts.
Was away reading and researching on Heidegger’s Being and Time on a full time basis.
Had just finished one preliminary round of Being and Time and need to read it a few more times together with other secondary sources.
I will be back after I have a good grasp of the Book and its philosophical views and principles.

Btw, I don’t recall you ask about rats dreaming and I don’t think this is relevant.

Re anxiety cells, just as with the current practice [crude], volunteers or sufferers are exposed to various scenarios to find out which case trigger which cells and images are captured in in FMRI imagings. So this is not a problem with anxieties and anxiety cells especially when the knowledge and techniques are more sophisticated in the future.
Above are just my points, I do not intend to engage on them at present.

Btw, my focus is always on this;


the whole loads and range of religious-based evils and violence in the World,
and how to resolve the above issues in whatever ways that is optimal to my current situation.

My reading of Being and Time will also contribute to the above.

Welcome back. Enjoy Heidegger.
I don’t think, however, that he can contribute much to your version of neurophilosophy, with its emphasis on the evils of religions.

Thanks.

I have linked the following loads of evil, i.e.

to religion [Islam] as the root cause,
religion is grounded on angst, i.e. anxiety.

One of the most critical element within Heidegger’s Being and Time is ‘anxiety’ i.e. Angst.

Glad to see you back, Prism.