A new study conducted at the University of Haifa identified a specific protein whose increased production in the brain after learning is essential for the formation of long-term memories
A new study conducted at the University of Haifa identified a specific protein whose increased production in the brain after learning is essential for the formation of long-term memories. This discovery joins a series of discoveries from previous studies that allow a better understanding of one of the most complex processes in nature - the process in which memories are created and stored in the human brain. The new study will be published in the prestigious magazine NEUROSCIENCE NATURE from the publishing house of NATURE.
The human brain is constantly inundated with sensory information about the world: new sounds, tastes, sights and smells. Little of this sensory information becomes short-term memory. Only a small part of the information that becomes short-term memory eventually becomes long-term and stable memory. In previous studies conducted at the Laboratory for Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of Learning and Memory at the University of Haifa, a protein was found related to the quality of long-term memory that indicated whether it would be a strong or weak memory. In the current study, the researchers sought to understand how memory is formed.
The team of researchers led by Prof. Kobi Rosenblum, Head of the Department of Neurobiology at the University of Haifa together with Alina Alkobi, Dr. Katia Belalovsky Dr. Liza Barki and in collaboration with Dr. Ingrid Ehrlich from the University of Lausanne in Switzerland sought to find a protein that is created during memory formation and even prove that this protein is essential and necessary for this process.
The type of memories that the researchers tested is memories for new tastes. In the first step, the researchers found that a protein called PSD-95 was formed in the brains of mice during the process of forming the memory for a new taste exactly in the area where the taste memories are stored. In contrast, exposure to a known taste did not cause an increased production of the PSD-95 protein in the neurons in the relevant area of the brain.
To prove the essentiality of this protein for the process of forming the memory for a new taste, the researchers took two other groups of mice, which passed the same taste memory test. Using genetic engineering technology, they stopped the production of the PSD-95 protein in one group in the nerve cells in the specific area of the cerebral cortex where the taste memory is stored. While the group that did not undergo the genetic process knew the next day to recognize the new taste, the group in which the production of PSD-95 was prevented did not recognize the taste, which means that the memory was not consolidated and therefore disappeared.
To test whether the production of the PSD-95 protein is also essential for the process in which we extract memories that have already been formed, the production of this protein was prevented from another group of mice after they had already formed the taste memory. The findings showed that they recognized the taste, meaning that preventing the production of the protein does not harm the memories that are already formed in the brain.
"The process of forming long-term memories is one of the wonderful processes in which a clear change is evident between the human brain and an artificial "brain" for example in a computer. While the artificial "brain" absorbs the information and immediately saves it, in the human brain the processing of the information continues long after it has been absorbed and the quality of our memory depends to a large extent on the prolonged processing of the memories created. One of the processes that is first affected in diseases that impair cognitive ability such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's is the process of acquiring and processing memory. In the current study, we found out of the multitude of proteins that work in synapses, a specific protein whose increased production is essential for the process of processing the information that the brain has received. As we understand the process and the active components of this complex process, we will be able to find drugs that will delay the onset of neurodegenerative diseases of the brain and allow patients to continue to function", noted Prof. Rosenblum.
39 תגובות
If you do not understand me and I do not understand you, this is evidence that we will not be able to understand what consciousness is
point:
What you are doing is called digging.
They understood the computer enough to build it from scratch.
The fact that we still don't understand everything in the fields of quantum theory is true, but it's not interesting when we talk about understanding how existing computers work (by the way, when I say "we" I mean humanity as a whole - that is - something that "we" understand is something that someone understands).
I don't believe that you would claim that we would never be able to understand the mind if you thought it was possible for us to understand it the way we understand the computer, but now that you have seen that we might reach such an understanding, you allow yourself to say that we don't understand the computer either - just to keep your original claim valid.
Many more studies are needed to understand the connection between the observed biological side and the psychological processes in consciousness. I doubt at all that this is feasible with the tools that science has today, maybe for many, many years. In any case, this is one more step for the biology of diseases and solving such as Alzheimer's or memory loss.
To Michael:
"We" you mean those who understand. Most do not understand how the computer works.
And the matter with levels of understanding is essential.
If we require that in order to say that someone understands the operation of a computer, to know the exact manner of the flow of electrons (wave functions) for example, then surely there is no one who understands the computer.
And here comes the basic matter of understanding. that in order to understand something it is enough to understand how it is composed of other parts that we assume to be primary or fundamental. For example, in a computer, these will be the logic gates, or translate them into transistors.
And I think this matter is clear to everyone.
Higgs.
I know the subject…
point
Google consciousness problem or consciousness theory
Some magazines often divide the problem of recognition into difficult and easy. Look at the wiki, etc.
Every few years there is a big conference at Tucson University in Arizona where scientists from all fields of science come
There are many abstracts on the university website, click on Google
consciousness tucson conf
After active engagement in the last 20 years and theories from all fields of neurological, quantum,
Philosophies and more and more. The business has waned a bit because no one has yet come up with anything real about it.
In fact, everyone admits that there is currently no real solution in sight.
All the partial mechanisms such as in the current article, found by researchers all over the world, do not actually solve anything about the main recognition problem.
In fact, no overall interpretation was accepted by those involved in the matter. There are still many who believe that the brain is a computerized machine similar to the mechanized computational architecture.
And there are schools of thought that deny this altogether.
Perhaps you should recommend to my father, the owner of the site, to submit some nice articles from the collection for the perusal of the surfers.
point:
I don't know why you described the levels of understanding of computers but it doesn't change the fact that we understand the computer without knowing everything that has run or will run on it.
Regarding the brain, we may reach the same level of understanding. I'm not claiming that it will happen - I'm just claiming that you haven't proven that it can't happen.
For some reason you also returned to the non-discharge claim which, as mentioned, is extremely questionable in light of the findings that I already mentioned in my first response here (response number 3)
Avi. It's a recommendation for Hugin to set up a site called The Mystic. I think she'll be a good manager
I will tell you how and how consciousness is hacked!!
There comes a point where a small dot vibrates in the brain.. tickles, irritates, freaks out all the fuses and neurons
Little by little and all at once-boom they are released and suddenly the brain bursts into a huge giantess
Suddenly you see the Almighty in a sudden dizzying and intoxicating light something something **
And all because of a point!! Small small and m-r-g-y-z-h....
I haven't decided yet if I'm the cause of this or maybe the point of the website and maybe it's all together for some salad-soup-explosion-accelerator etc etc etc...
May you have an enlightening year and...and...and...
Avi,
Soon I'm going to turn the "point" of this site into virtual particles: they will exist for a fraction of a second before returning and disappearing.. and this is because of an unnecessary "borrowing" of energy from the surrounding space.. before that we'll have enough to count a few and... maybe we'll find a few more through it Serious elements in a complete matrix...120?132?144??Perfect harmonic effect..what do you think?
Did you hear a point????!!!
to the point I did not understand your comment
There is no site called the mystic?
point
I really don't like telling you - maybe you understand numbers and formulas bit by bit, but read Hebrew
You don't know. I'm sorry for you and the disability you're showing, I'm really sorry.
Hugin: creative consciousness.
Hugin,
If you really are a mystic then what exactly are you looking for here?
Your premises are completely different from those who accept the premises of science.
To Michael,
Understanding this system certainly does not mean that we understand the real physical components of which it is composed. Understanding a system means that we structure the function of the "parts of the system" (which are not things that really exist because they themselves are composed of things that we do not understand or are required to understand) and their "combined function" up to a level that makes it possible by assembling the parts to create the system.
The computer is a system on several levels, for example the simple programmer understands how the language he wrote will work after he runs it. He has not yet been told that he understands how the computer works.
The computer engineer is the one who understands how the computer works, because he understands how all the parts needed to build the computer are combined to create a computer.
And the difference between the computer and consciousness is fundamental, the computer is made up of parts, the entire function of the computer is exactly the sum of all the functions of the parts, the combination of the parts together does not create something different from the sum of all the parts (even if some of us convince ourselves that it does).
And consciousness is unique in that it cannot be broken down into components of consciousness because there is no such thing, and therefore it cannot be understood.
And the second argument comes to show that consciousness is also unique in that it includes understanding itself, therefore understanding consciousness means creating another personality which in itself would contradict the concept of "I understand"..
Regarding an artificial brain, there is no problem creating something without understanding how it works, by imitation for example.
point:
And I said that "understanding the universe", as you describe it, is not something that anyone has ever tried or will try to achieve and that even in understanding the mind it is not about the personality of a specific person but about the working principles of the mind.
By the way - we did not invent the laws of physics in a vacuum, just as the principles of the brain's operation were not removed from our hearts if we discovered them. These are also on the same plane of reliable representations and models that we find to describe reality.
I return to the computer example:
Are you saying we don't understand him? As mentioned - this is what you have to argue if you think the understanding of the universe is the same understanding you described.
If in your opinion (and contrary to what you said about the meaning of understanding the universe) we understand the computer then my next question is - what would you say about our understanding of the brain if we knew how to create an artificial brain.
point
Lord of the world! I am the most serious person on earth.
You won't be able to understand anything if you don't respect. Willing to teach you high mathematics and also high morals.
I'm sorry if you don't understand. Perhaps time will take its course. A new year is upon us and then ++ 10 days... and slowly, with measured and calculated steps, the gates of nobility will be opened to you by supreme grace.
Indeed, it is true that my place is also full of a sense of humor - but that does not invalidate a single word written here on the site.
Unless you want to filter here and there an inappropriate response that I responded according to the extent of the situation.
In the XNUMXth, since you are asking, you have the option to take out the value "Hugin and.." and you will receive all the responses.
I wish you to be educated.
Happy New Year.
Happy New Year
to Hugin,
I tried, and I try from time to time, to read your comments, are these serious comments? Until now I was sure that you write only for the comical thing to entertain and amuse the readership.
Now you say that your comments are completely serious. The concepts "secrets" "eternity" "primordial" "superior" and dozens of other concepts you took from the world of shallow mysticism, do you mean them seriously?
Among other things, I also tried to find a serious scientific response of yours to the subject of the article and I did not find it. Maybe I didn't search hard enough. Can you direct me to such a response?
Michael
I brought the "understanding of the universe" only to show that understanding the laws of physics which are simple (and we invented them) is not the same as understanding the universe which is complex.
Higgs, that's what I was talking about, and my argument is that we can never understand consciousness, in the usual sense of understanding. And it is clear that this does not mean that consciousness is something supernatural, only that we are limited in our thinking.
Lol
It's a joke?
The PDZ protein family has been known for its connections with AMPA and NMDA for over a decade.
This "study" is nothing more than a dismal summary of its predecessors.
Besides, titles like:
"Beginning to understand the brain" just download a set of popular science websites like Hidan.
point:
The "understanding of the universe" that you are looking for (really? Or is it just for the sake of argument?) is an understanding that no one is looking for and yet the "theory of everything" is being sought.
The reason for this is that the same "theory of everything" is what is interesting and entering the parameters of all parts of the universe into some computer program is of no interest to anyone (among other things because it is clearly not possible).
In the sense in which you claim that you want to understand things, it can also be argued that no one understands what a computer is because no one can know what programs will be run on it.
For some reason it seems to me that you are a bit carried away in your redefining of the concept of understanding.
The big problem remains unclear as yet how the brain works and how consciousness is created.
So discovering such and such chemical bonds does not advance the solution much.
You have no obligation to reply.
You can definitely read my comments slowly and safely (while surfing..moderately on the site).
Successfully
Shabbat Shalom
Hugin: Point.
Before I answer you,
Tell me what beliefs you hold.
Point: a rude question maybe simple but answer for your innocent point.
It was just sex.. and here you are out of it forever. Right???
Excessive sophistication is sometimes more harmful. And what intelligent and pure simplicity will save in the end
you too.
It's not good for a tzotzikon to underestimate Komkomun...
Bye point from Bri...fill in the blanks..(and please don't give it to me - not to me).
Hugin. The good Shaves.. And thanks to Yehuda!!…. Yehuda???? Shalom and thank you for your honesty.
Multiplication, addition, substitution and table search is this considered a complicated calculation?
On what date were you born. (Important and complicated - not for you).
Michael, you need to differentiate between the laws of physics, and the universe - the medium to which the laws of physics apply.
Understanding the laws of physics definitely means having the ability to know what will happen in a certain simplified situation. And that's what they do at the university.
To understand the universe means to know what happened and what will happen to every particle...which is completely impossible. Even a simple chaotic situation is not amenable to such simulation.
And Hogin what can I say.
Michael - Point
From time to time it happens that there is some kind of blocking obstacle in my response.. Here I wanted to respond to a point and you with the wiring of the brain come in. In fact your unique brain is a screen or a barrier-protection against the direct light of my responses. A kind of interpreter. But just recently our warning "point" opened
to the brain frequency, gradually, hard, but sure. He goes point by point ..careful, concise, focused
And sometimes it has a kind of quantum leap-brightness.
Do you want to take the wind out of his sails until his springs finally broke out and with a passion that almost blew away the Yehudala of... and how could I do without him??? Ah ah..
Michael "Point" raises very necessary points..
To the point I wanted to say: In one of the comments not long ago I mentioned that in order to move to another phase one must first shed the "psycho" dimension.
Distortion and wrong channeling. As we know throughout hysterical history (womb=emotions+brain=>psyche and this is not there but, in the brain-heart-consciousness area.
Hugin: With Freud's blessing to free yourselves from his unnecessary burden for this hour.... Bye Freud.... Love
you....byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
:
point:
I don't get the things.
Not that I have a contradictory prophecy - I just don't know what will happen in the future, but the whole recursion thing you're talking about is irrelevant.
Understanding the laws of physics, for example, does not mean simulating all the physical events that have occurred or may occur.
In addition to that, in general, even when we think about a certain recursion and understand it - we certainly don't run it ad infinitum in our minds.
It seems to me that the next argument is stronger, and it also includes the possibility that consciousness is indeed a discharge. And he explains why even then the brain could not be understood.
Assuming that all psychic functions are from the brain (thinking and understanding between them).
You need to understand what it means to "understand" at all. At some point it can be agreed that part of the act of understanding includes some kind of mental simulation of the thing understood, that is, understanding how and why the concept is the way it is.
Then, to say that we understood the brain, means that a part of the brain will perform a simulation of itself. And what does it require? that a certain area of the brain produced all the functions we want to understand in the brain. And if it is consciousness, it means simulating consciousness and all the things it is capable of being aware of (discharge consciousness).
Apparently there is no problem with that, but something strange will happen then, during the simulation another personality will be created, different from that research, and she will have her own understanding and thinking.
That is, the researcher trying to understand the mind, will have to become a different personality. And here is the problem, because after he turns into another personality and returns from it, we cannot say that he is the one who understood.
Its name in Hebrew is "Illusions of the brain".
The things I said are not taken from one book or another. This is a simple claim.
Indeed, "cannot" does not refer to a mental disability. but because consciousness is always aware of "something" (even if it is itself). That is, there is always another factor. And it's no longer simple at all.
By the way - I didn't mean to write in Yiddish.
I just lost a signal in one of the shows of "Speculation"
I don't know (for the same reason Hugin mentioned) what you read but I also don't understand what you are saying.
Not every speculation written in some book is true, but right now I can't even say what the speculation is.
When Mischan's reasoning is "it is impossible to think" about something, I usually tend to interpret it as "I (the writer) am unable to think" about that something. Maybe others can.
A smart and catchy point.
But - what is the name of the book?? Information.. Information..
I read it a long time ago. A must for every person.
The non-discharge of consciousness does not necessarily arise from the operation of the brain, but from the fact that it is not possible to think about a single function of consciousness. It always consists of several different functions that somehow unite into consciousness.
point:
Why predict?
By the way - the non-discharge you describe is probably not true, and the number of strange phenomena encountered when following the results of brain injuries is enormous.
A person can lose almost any cognitive ability without losing the others. It actually indicates discharges.
Read, among other things, Ramachandran's excellent book Phantoms in the Brain
In the XNUMXth century there is an important step here for understanding the global-integrative brain which is actually a conscious brain - and is indeed related to simple and developed senses (even "post pagans" and long-term memory. Very interesting.. (I just wouldn't want to be the lab mouse.)
And in general, who wants to be the subject of an experiment?? Of course, there are also those who like penetration into their minds.. I don't.. I prefer external tests. Ha ha ha 1=1/ 1+1=>3 etc.
Let it be Hogin.
It is not possible and will not be possible to understand the mind (I mean the conscious side).
We can only understand simple things and even then only if there are simplifying assumptions in the background.
And since the operation of the brain (the function of consciousness) is indivisible, then it is not a simple operation, and therefore it is incomprehensible.