How do emotions, positive or negative, strengthen our memories? Is it possible - and how - to control the mind over the emotion?
The points of departure between the emotion and the cognitive activity that occurs in the brain are among the areas of research that Dr. Paz is engaged in. How do emotions, positive or negative, strengthen our memories? How does the expectation of reward affect the learning process? How do emotional considerations intervene in making "logical" decisions? And vice versa - how do we control emotions using the mind? A disturbance in the balance between emotion and logic may lead to phenomena such as post-traumatic syndrome, anxiety attacks, autism and schizophrenia, so understanding the interrelationships between the brain processes that control "emotion" and those related to cognitive activity is essential for developing ways to help patients suffering from these disorders.
A brain area that plays a central role in the field of emotion and reward is the amygdala, or the "tonsillar body" - an almond-like structure, evolutionarily ancient, located in the depths of the brain. The handling of cognitive information, on the other hand, is mainly carried out in a large array of other areas, including part of the brain cortex (Neocortex) and the hippocampus (Hippocampus). Information processing is conducted as a kind of dialogue between these two areas: the information arrives at the cerebral cortex, from where it is sent to the hippocampus, and after a series of transitions returns to final storage in the cerebral cortex. When the information carries an emotional nature, the amygdala intervenes in the conversation, influencing the passage of neural signals between the cerebral cortex and the hippocampus. "In order to accurately understand the role played by the amygdala in this game, it is necessary to take an unconventional look at the entire array at once," says Paz. For this purpose, he combines neuro-physiological and behavioral methods with computational and statistical approaches. The combination of methods makes it possible not only to examine individual nerve cells, but also to analyze the activity of large networks of nerve cells, and to understand multidimensional interrelationships between different areas of the brain.
Using this systemic approach is what led Paz, during his post-doctoral research at Rutgers University in New Jersey, to the discovery of the neural mechanism responsible for strengthening emotional memories, and to uncovering the role of the amygdala in this process. Measuring the electrical activity of nerve cells in several areas at the same time showed that the amygdala intervenes in the movement of nerve signals on the axis connecting the cerebral cortex and the hippocampus. The study, described in the journal Nature Neuroscience as a "tour de force of behavioral neurophysiological research", showed that when learning takes place in an emotional context (for example, when the subject expects a certain reward), the amygdala strengthens the learning process: it increases the movement of nerve signals , and also "arranges" them in a clear direction - from the cerebral cortex to the hippocampus.
Dialogue between the amygdala and another part of the cerebral cortex is responsible for another phenomenon that Dr. Paz studies - the extinction of memories. "Extinction of memories is not forgetting, but a new learning, which regulates the primary memory. We actually learn to 'silence' the reaction we learned to perform earlier", he says. The most recent model in this field points to a certain area in the cerebral cortex that regulates the activity of the amygdala, thus suppressing the production of the response, but the mechanisms that control this process are not fully understood. A similar phenomenon also occurs when we try to make decisions rationally - the logical cerebral cortex silences the emotional arguments of the amygdala, which tries to intervene in areas it does not belong to. Inability to eradicate memories, due to abnormal activity of the cerebral cortex, may cause anxiety attacks or post-trauma, because the traumatic memory floats and rises uncontrollably.
Another way to attack anxiety and post-traumatic disorders is through understanding the generalization processes of learning. Learning is based on the ability to generalize and create connections and consequences, but also on the ability to maintain specificity. A person who learned what a coffee cup looked like would know how to recognize other cups, but would not try to drink coffee from a pot. People who suffer from trauma make sweeping generalizations, and are unable to separate the traumatic event from similar, but different events. Why do some people, who have been injured in a car accident, develop driving anxiety, and other people do not automatically make a connection between the events? In his future studies, Dr. Paz will focus on the neurological basis of the generalization processes while focusing on emotion and reward. Understanding the processes of generalization, and the mechanisms that enable a balance between generalization and uniqueness, will perhaps also make it possible to create machines with such capabilities - which perform defined learning and thinking tasks, in a similar way to what animals and humans do.
personal
Roni Paz was born and raised in Tel Aviv. His first choice for higher studies was medicine, and he began studying at the medical school of the Hebrew University, but later changed it to a double bachelor's degree in mathematics and philosophy, hopping between the campus on Mount Scopus and that of Givat Ram.
When he was looking for a subject to continue his studies that would combine the two fields, he learned about the interdisciplinary program for neural computing, and he completed his master's and master's studies there, under the guidance of Prof. Elon Vadia. Paz, who served in the army as head of a programming team, worked as an algorithm developer in high-tech companies at the same time as his academic studies.
29 תגובות
to ask:
If you are tired of grinding water then stop doing it.
For example, stop making the claim about the hundreds of thousands of transfer avenues that are explicitly hidden by the Book of Kings in Chapter XNUMX.
This lie (of hundreds of thousands of transmission avenues) is used by the converts many times but you know I know it is a lie so why repeat it.
The things you wrote to Roy - at least in regards to me - are not true.
To Michael,
I'm also tired of grinding water.
Passing on a tradition through hundreds of thousands of different avenues of transmission is not something that can be produced in a manipulative way, and certainly not when this tradition dictates a lifestyle.
A technique of transmitting tradition in this way can be scientifically verified in historical as well as sociological research.
Do you know of another tradition that is passed down in a certain nation in an independent way (everyone passes on what their ancestor personally experienced(!), and not what their ancestor 'swallowed' as a story by their 'rabbi').
Just as the holocaust is a historical truth not because of the findings that exist today on the ground but because of our collective memory (as well as the civil war in the USA), so is the giving of the Torah. On the contrary, you are invited to find another tradition that goes this way and is hidden by scientific findings.
to roy,
What I meant to say is that even when others surf to say harsh things (and even very harsh, if you think about it for a moment from my point of view) they don't get carried away for nothing (after all, no one invited them to get carried away) but to annoy me and test the degree of my tolerance and provoke me to respond. I did the same, only in the statement.
From my point of view, the discussion ends here.
borrowed:
It does sound like treading water because you have no intention of understanding (or, at least, admitting that you understood) but there is a difference between the fact that the research is based on contradicting assumptions and believing in assumptions that contradict reality or themselves.
How difficult can it be to understand such a simple thing?!
As soon as I have a certain assumption, I make efforts to fail it and perceive it to be in contradiction with reality, and as soon as such a contradiction is revealed, I stop believing in it and I am really not excited (in the negative sense), but on the contrary - I am excited by the progress and by the fact that I have information that allows me to improve the assumption.
However, since science has been working systematically for quite a number of years, most theories (and evolution in content) are no longer so easily seen as contradictory. In fact, all accepted theories of science, including evolution, are those in which contradictions between their predictions and reality were not discovered in the experiment. It is true that there are edge situations where the theories are not defined, but for now we are also unable to perform experiments on these edge situations.
borrowed,
You say one thing and vice versa. As far as I'm concerned, this pointless debate is closed here. I can only hope that in the future you will choose not to annoy people on purpose. It's a practice that doesn't help anyone.
Roy.
I didn't choose to annoy for the sake of disturbing someone's sleep, but to put religious tolerance to the test, and really (unfortunately), I succeeded..
Small correction: the famous guard is, of course, Michael Halperin and not Raphael Halperin. This shocking mistake proves once again how much advertisements disrupt our subconscious as well.
Bye..
borrowed,
Do you remember your request? We are not entering into a discussion of evolution here.
And in our case, I never commented to Michael or other people about their words, because I believe that the purpose of the site is to bring about a fruitful discussion. Even if the responders sometimes get carried away in their words or in a storm of emotions, they have a goal - to convince the other side, or to convey their message more clearly.
The reason I am commenting on your current words comes from the same sentence you added at the end of your words:
"The stinging talk about evolution was said just to annoy (…) not to reopen a discussion on the subject."
In other words, you chose, knowing full well, to annoy people, not with the intention of bringing about a discussion or conveying a particular message.
Simply, to annoy.
To Michael, blessed is the believer.
Your words deserve to be read by Yehuda.
To the body of the opening of your words: you did not understand the point of my words, which were formulated gently towards Roy. Lonora (this is how my oldest daughter who will live taught me to write in SMS)
You wrote that your faith 'does not provide predictions that contradict the facts'. were you serious All scientific research is riddled with contradictions (which quite a few scientists make a living from trying to reconcile them) and no one is overly excited about it.
Thanks for your comment. I always knew that from people of faith you can expect more...
Well, you can of course skip one of the performances of "The Times that Roy Called" at the beginning of the above
borrowed:
You make the excuse that you don't remember the times that Roy called the times that Roy called an act that I did (which is even interesting - what act did I do, apart from writing on this website, that Roy knows about?) my childishness in the betrayal of your memory so let me help you.
The correctness of your words depends on the role you attribute to your memory.
If his job is to remember things that happened then he is not cheating on you at all. In this case, the things you say without foundation are the real betrayal. Really, and eventually in you too.
If his job is to invent a history for you that will serve your arguments then he is indeed betraying you.
Is the force of attraction between masses necessary?
unknown to anyone and yet you accept its existence.
This means that the demand for necessity you demand only from evolution.
There is no doubt, as I have often mentioned, that we all believe in the end. I remember that once someone from a freedom organization remarked to me that I had written on some subject "I believe that so and so...". He told me that "believer" is a religious expression and that I should have written "I think so and so...". I told him in response that religious people have no right to appropriate words for themselves and when I believe and want to say it I will use the appropriate word.
So yes, I believe, but my belief is based on a lot of evidence from reality. It is belief in the only meaning that out of all the possibilities I have examined seems to me the most probable (and in this specific case, it is the only one that does not provide predictions that contradict the facts) even though it is not certain knowledge.
So yes, it is a belief, based even, but it is not a religion. It does not command me imperatives and does not create in me feelings of superiority over others. She does not send me to kill others and does not expect me to be killed for sanctification.
Since I am Jewish by origin, you are therefore welcome to call me a "believing Jew"
Another addition to admit,
The claim that Judaism is fixed is exactly the claim of the historian Arnold Toynbee who claimed that the nation of Israel is a historical fossil (this is a modern repetition of the claim of classical Christianity that the nation of Israel was kept alive by the Creator artificially only to show the world the punishment of those who harmed that man...).
The late Dr. Yaakov Herzog (brother of the former president of the country Haim Herzog), who was an Ilevi, was sent to argue with him, and defeated him in a public debate that has already gone down in history.
Any Google search by his name will direct you to the above debate.
Bye, and sorry for taking so long.
A small, unrelated addition: I stopped mentioning my family name at the top of my responses not because I'm hiding behind something, but because I also often commit the sin of self-searching on Google, and to my surprise I discovered that the times my name appears in 'Yaden' jump to the top of the list. It certainly adds respect to Iden, but I wouldn't necessarily want anyone who searches for me on Google (a potential employer, to be exact) to come straight to all my writing.
Bye
To Michael, Yehuda and Roy, and to anyone interested:
There are two separate questions: one: did evolution, indeed, happen. A question in the philosophical definition is: Is evolution 'realistically possible'. To this question I am ready to accept that the answer is positive, subject to the reservation that each of us should have about a theory that is built based on findings in the field, that is, from any type of archaeology. This question is not a religious question at all because nowhere does the Torah tell us the way in which God created the world. The Melbim in his commentary to the Torah explicitly writes that in his opinion creation was a kind of Darwinian development - when it is clear from his words that he adopts this concept (as he understood it according to his level of exposure to it), although he did not mention it to Darwin personally (the Melbim was very big in the Torah and removed from the rabbinical seat in Bucharest by the members of the 'Mishchilim' committee for the crime of 'excessive ultra-Orthodoxism'; although it turns out that his socialism (he was a wonderful preacher and never missed an opportunity to sting the rich for their alienation from the poor) annoyed them - the rich - more than his ultra-Orthodoxism. Rafael Halperin the well-known guard was his grandson and fed him as a child at the end of his days, but that's another topic)
A completely separate question is whether evolution was a natural and necessary phenomenon, i.e. whether it is 'obliged by reality' (meaning 100 percent success) to the point of the development of an intelligent being, and then, and only then, arises the religious question of whether God exists, etc., etc. To the best of my knowledge, no answer has been found to this question yet. I have already mentioned on this website that this question can be answered by computer simulations that will visualize the initial 'soup' and run the history of millions of years in computer simulation. In the world of astronomy, this is a highly accepted technique for testing mechanisms and theories for the development of the universe, the development of galaxies, etc., and for some reason it has not been used to test the theory of evolution. Of course, it will be necessary to add non-biological parameters to the simulation, such as the chance that a planet will exist exactly in the life belt around a star, that it will have an orbit that is not too elliptical (in which case it leaves the life belt), that it will be relatively immune from meteors and the other destructive radiations and forces that circulate freely in the universe (that is, that it will be in place relatively remote in the galaxy), which will be late in time so that the necessary elements for the formation of life reside in it (according to Fred Hoyle), etc., etc. In short, the same mechanism that can enable the development of evolution.
Since this question has not yet been answered, the one who adopts it without the necessary proofs is a 'believing' person, or, as one of the great scientists living with us put it: Prof. Ephraim Katzir (in the past I would have bothered to point out that he was the president of the country, but today, I think that this biographical detail does not necessarily add respect to him): he believes in evolution because he has nothing else better to believe in.
My personal feeling is that evolution at a level that can develop very simple levels of life (moss, for example) is definitely required by reality, but to claim that evolution is required by reality at a level that can develop populations of intelligent beings (regardless of whether they will be homo sapiens or ET) on a planet that can support In this (my translation from the classic English expression), it is completely a fantasy.
It would not be polite to 'put' Yigal Fatal in here without asking his permission first, that's why I'm just pointing out the article he wrote about seven years ago in the monthly 'Teva Havit', from which it is implied that in his opinion there are no more intelligent beings in the universe. At that exact time, an article on this subject and in the same spirit was also published in the monthly (to which I have subscribed for quite a few years): Sky&Telescope (the editor there does not miss any opportunity to express his atheism, and one cannot suspect him of publishing the article with Christian motives).
Of course, there could be extraterrestrials, but even then they would be the result of creation (the Torah does not refer to this at all, as in its way of not referring to things if there is no moral lesson, etc.).
My guess is that my memory betrays me, and that's the only reason I don't remember the times you commented to Michael about an act you called (assuming he did it) childish, and therefore, and that's the only reason I live in an illusion that only to me you commented what you commented...
to Judah,
The talk about Judaism being fixed is the biggest mental fixation I know since I was born...
Bye everyone.
(A small apology: these days I am extremely busy, so I will not be able to respond in detail, although I will surely watch, with God's help, your responses)
to ask
Your tireless attempt to describe evolution as a religion is an attempt to put creationism on the same level as evolution. Two religions standing opposite each other. I must point out that this is a failed attempt that Roy and Michael do not fall into.
We argue about evolution, refine the ideas that build it and are ready for the changes that will appear in it. You with your established creationism for two thousand years since the days of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi do not bring us any equivalent substitute for refining scientific thoughts, and enriching minds.
Go compare it to the fixation you are in.
The only thing in which you and your ilk improve are the ways in which you will try to convince. The "religion of evolution" is a broken attempt. try something else.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
borrowed,
Everything I said on this site belonged to the discussion and contrary to your claim, I never did it without a logical link to the topic.
Of course, when you attack evolution and offer to replace its claims with the claims of religion, religion becomes part of the discussion.
By the way - even when you use the nonsense phrase "religion of evolution" you bring religion into the discussion (while demonstrating the intellectual honesty of its representatives).
borrowed,
I do not exclude religions, therefore 'religious tolerance' is not a commodity that is lacking here. If anything, you are the one who is offended by the 'followers of the religion of evolution', as you say. And from your mouth, you do it "just to annoy". Does that sound like religious tolerance to you?
Whether Michael does so or not, is irrelevant. A childish act is a childish act, and it doesn't matter if all the other kids do it too.
Think about it.
Roy.
Dear Roy,
More than once Michael has written things about Judaism and in the name of Judaism when the words have no logical connection to the subject and all this in order to take advantage of the opportunity to lecture his worldview and to provoke me to respond sharply, and I did not fall into the trap: either I did not respond at all or I responded to the matter without being drawn into it. Whereas you did fall into the 'bin' that I buried for you; Not to hurt you personally, but to prove once again that religious tolerance is a commodity that is lacking not necessarily in those who are called religious but in everyone who believes in something.
Think about it.
Bye
borrowed:
I was aware of the possibility of seeing its action as the "sweetness of the pill" but reading her book I did not get the impression that this was the case. The motive that emerged from her writing was the motive of efficiency.
borrowed,
I don't disagree with the logic you present here. I object to the presentation method, which is accompanied by repeated stings aimed at annoying some readers.
I would be happy if you put these bites to my mother's test, or even the test you demand from every evolutionary opinion here: are they really smart? If you are repaid with other annoying comments, will it advance the discussion? Will make other people happy or gain new insight?
My opinion is that if everyone here accompanied the presentation of their opinions with annoying and pointless comments, then not many would bother to read the opinion. Nevertheless, telenovelas are also on cable, and between us, the heroes there know how to annoy each other much better than you.
Roy.
To Michael,
I, too, was surprised at the absurdity of the professional 'slaughterhouse' she chose - consulting for slaughterhouses, but I think you are presenting things incorrectly: its purpose is not to reduce the manpower required for slaughter, but to reduce the suffering of the cow on the way, after she has already been sentenced to what she was sentenced to .
In Oliver Sacks' book, she describes several cases in which cows are - unintentionally - very seriously disturbed (a dark corridor on the way to the gallows, for example), when the struggle with the cow to convince her to continue on the way causes the cow more mental suffering than the slaughter itself.
In any case, in a cold and emotionless analysis - consistent with the way of thinking she attributes to herself - vegetarianism (yours) is not a positive thing at all, because if everyone were vegetarians (like you) she would not have a job.
Bye
nice movie.
The book says that when she wanted to choose a name for him, she thought of the name "cow's eye view" because of the special connection she felt towards cows. If I remember correctly, someone convinced her that it would not be well received and that the name should be changed to "Thinking in pictures".
The strange thing, from my personal point of view, is that a large part of her work is devoted to slaughtering cows - how to do it so that the cow will not be afraid until the last moment and that you will go to the slaughter in a calmer way and not many people will be needed to force her to the gallows.
To Michael and Roy and anyone interested,
Thanks to the reminder Michael gave us, I found the Delkman video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46ycu3JFRrA
(This video has two more sequels that are all there)
In conclusion: maybe autism is not an absolute disorder but it is a practical disorder to integrate into society.
By the way, her autobiographical book - Thinking in Pictures is highly recommended (and in any weather)
Her name is Grandin Temple and I say this not to annoy (although Saul's words achieved their goal and annoyed me too:)
Dear Roy - don't forget your mother's teachings,
The content of my words was extremely serious (both the books I referred to, and the thought experiment I proposed to conduct). The jokes told along the way are no more pointless than various culinary descriptions, which I could have written on that occasion... (of course, your sense of taste may be different, but Lonsky already said that taste and smell should not be debated).
'Anthropologist on Mars' is not at all a name taken from some science fiction book. This is a self-definition given to Oliver Sacks by the 'heroine' of his book: the autistic Canadian scientist who specialized in researching animal distress - the only one, as far as I know, who is completely autistic, but who managed to integrate into society in the sense that she has a 'real' career at a university and a world name ( It's just a memory flower name, at the moment). At his request, she allowed him to accompany her during a few routine days of her life and analyze her behavior and work relationships with his scientific tools. She constantly describes to him her difficulties in deciphering the behavioral codes, our codes are self-evident, and always invite an appropriate response: the greeting "Good morning" can be said in countless 'melodies', each of which has a different meaning, and each of which has a different required response, and we recognize all of them easily, whereas she should have followed the reactions of her conversation partners in order to decipher what was expected of her - all this in order not to unintentionally offend or ignore a human 'transmitter' from her secretary, for example: therefore she is constantly like an anthropologist on Mars '.
Since the first commenter claimed that autism is not a disorder, I deemed it appropriate to interrupt the discussion by referring to a book that emphasizes that autism is not a 'disorder' but is definitely a 'burden' on the establishment of a mixed society of autistics and 'normal' people, since autistics have - among other things - a lack of the ability to decode in children Describe the most basic behavior patterns.
It seems to me that your wise mother would also say that if you don't understand something, you can try to read again and understand or ask, and not just criticize others. In any case, from our little acquaintance I can testify that, overall, she definitely succeeded in your education.
Bye
borrowed,
My wise mother once told me that if I don't have something smart to say, it's better to keep quiet. I don't usually criticize others, but this is a wise sentence, which can also help you on your way in the world.
even help a lot.
And unlike you, what I said here I did not say "just to annoy".
Roy.
Also added: since among the commenters to this site there are quite a few who complain and grumble about the religion of evolution (a religion which, like many pagan religions, has no problem offering 'human sacrifices'; in the borrowed sense, of course); After all, it is possible to test whether autism is a disorder by a simple computer experiment: you have to imagine two populations: one of 'normals' and one of autistics, and compare them over time. The group that survives for days is the 'better', and anyway the other behavior pattern is the disorder. In my words, indeed, the possibility is encapsulated, that it is possible, rather, autism is normality and 'normality' is the disorder.
By the way, the stinging talk about evolution was said just to annoy (…) not to reopen a discussion on the subject.
Bye
The most impressive descriptions of the world from the point of view of the autistic are found in the book of the American Jewish neurologist Oliver Sachs: "Anthropologist on Mars". Also in his book "The Man Who Thought His Wife Was a Hat" there are quite a few extremely sympathetic and painful references to the disconnect (and its consequences) between autistics and non-autistics (as a rule, it is common to divide autistics into several groups, and it would be superficial to generalize; but it can certainly be said that at least some of Autistics suffer from their condition subjective suffering; therefore, at least to some extent 'autism' is a disorder).
Another interesting book was recently published: "The strange case of the dog at night"; Not a scientific book but extremely fascinating.
Bye
Dr. Paz is wrong and misleading when he says "a disturbance in the balance between emotion and logic may lead to phenomena such as post-traumatic syndrome, anxiety attacks, autism and schizophrenia".
Autism is a neurological phenomenon from birth! No one knows what causes autism!
In addition, Dr. Paz is wrong and misleading when he says "So understanding the interrelationships between the brain processes that control "emotion" and those related to cognitive activity, is essential for developing ways to help patients suffering from these disorders."
Autism is neither a disease nor a disorder, and we, the autistic, do not "suffer" from autism.
It is our right to be free and happy autistics, without being defined as "sick"!
Chen Gershoni
spokesman
AS - the community of people on the autistic spectrum in Israel