SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow3941
As the brain grows and develops, nerve cells must make connections between one another in order to function properly. Brain cells are tightly packed together, so each cell might touch hundreds or thousands of other cells, and yet those cells only make stable and strong connections with a fraction of those neighboring cells. Researchers have long puzzled over how the probing finger-like neuronal protrusions called filopodia decide on the right place to land and make a stable link. Now researchers at Jefferson (Philadelphia University + Thomas Jefferson University) have shown that a single molecule makes the yes-or-no decision at each touch with a neighboring neuron.
The new research was published in the Cell Press journal Neuron, and could have implications for our understanding of synapse-related diseases such as autism, Down syndrome, addiction or epilepsy.
"We've shown here that one molecule can both repel unproductive contacts and connect where appropriate based on the kinds of signals that pass through that molecule," said senior author on the paper Matthew Dalva, PhD, Professor of Neuroscience at The Vickie & Jack Farber Institute for Neuroscience and Director of the Synaptic Biology Center at Jefferson (Philadelphia University + Thomas Jefferson University). "This molecule is the only molecule we know of that can both repel and connect synapses."
Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180503142833.htm
Yu-Ting Mao, Julia X. Zhu, Kenji Hanamura, Giuliano Iurilli, Sandeep Robert Datta, Matthew B. Dalva. Filopodia Conduct Target Selection in Cortical Neurons Using Differences in Signal Kinetics of a Single Kinase. Neuron, 2018; DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.04.011
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 08 2018, @01:58PM (14 children)
I agree with everything you just said, while still noting that those values are their own philosophy/religion virtually indistinguishable from other philosophies/belief systems when viewed from outside.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 08 2018, @03:18PM (7 children)
That's bullshit. Name me one religion that encourages that. And don't say Buddhism.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 08 2018, @03:41PM (6 children)
We can start with the cult of science. Faith in peer reviewed literature. Darwin's Dogma. Not all religions build houses of worship and gather their members on a weekly basis.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 08 2018, @06:38PM (5 children)
That, I would argue, is ironically poor science :D Can you see why?
And...I'm probably gonna regret this, but *do* expand on "Darwin's Dogma" for me a bit...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 08 2018, @08:53PM (4 children)
Oooooh, a challenge: Darwin's Dogma - all sorts of temptation to go on about misinterpreting "survival of the fittest" by leaving off important bits like "in their extant environment." I think the prime problem with any well developed religion is poor execution of the core tenets - Christians slaughtering their way to and from the holy land "in the name of God" - entirely missing Jesus' more helpful messages in the process is the easy picking in the bunch, but they all do it.
Blind faith in peer reviewed published literature is indeed bad science, but it is not uncommon, and one of many things that draws an analogy between the traditionally recognized religions and the "religion of science" in my mind. It's one thing to point to an ideal execution of a concept, it is quite another to observe it operating in the real world.
Sorry, I did try to come up with a scatological simile for Darwin's Dogma doo... but that felt like too much of a stretch.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 09 2018, @03:47AM (3 children)
The abuse of survival of the fittest was down to Spencer, IIRC, not Darwin himself.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 09 2018, @11:54AM (2 children)
Neither do I blame Jesus for the Inquisition....
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 09 2018, @01:20PM (1 child)
You ought to, strictly speaking, since Christianity says he *is* God and is therefore eternal, time-transcendent, omniscient, and absolutely-sovereign, whereas scientists are merely human.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 09 2018, @08:17PM
You mistake my perspective, in my mind (whatever religion this labels me as) Jesus was just a man, a man with a particularly successful post-mortem viral marketing campaign. Like any institution that persists for centuries, Christianity has philosophized some really good things: love your fellow man, practice forgiveness, help those in need, etc. If you cherry pick the best of the messages, it's some powerfully good stuff, and I've been in a couple of churches that seem to at least try to use the best parts to "build people up." I've seen far more churches that pick and choose their messages from God apparently with the sole purpose being to grow the headcount and tithing power of their flock as big and as fast as they can.
Christianity, Judaism and every other omniscient/omnipotent deity religion struggles mightily with God's justice, or apparent lack thereof in people's daily lives. They tend to lose a lot of followers when the going gets tough on a personal level. The whole "born again" movement tries to repair that and find some love in God even when He seems to be kicking you in the teeth over and over... there seems to be a lot of willful blind-spotting going on to make that approach work.
The very same kind of willful blind-spotting I see (human, less than ideally perfect) scientists do all the time when pursuing a theory. Peer review is supposed to help tone that down, but in a lot of cases the reviewers and authors form a little group-think echo chamber that just chugs along merrily theorizing and experimenting in a narrow little sweet spot where their theories work without really examining some very obvious things nearby that could be quite important to their field.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 08 2018, @05:34PM (5 children)
So, no, I don't consider Crowley's "Do what thou wilt, that shall be the whole of the law" to be something which defines a religion.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 08 2018, @08:36PM (4 children)
Publish a scientific paper with a balanced presentation full of well supported objective truths that hurts your employer's bottom line, then tell me there's no implied threat of punishment in the system.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 08 2018, @09:31PM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 08 2018, @10:08PM (2 children)
I'd call it economics - one of the primary corruptors of religion, of all kinds.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 09 2018, @07:32AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 09 2018, @11:57AM
Really? I feel like we are transcending that state into one where economics has almost wholly subsumed politics. Ouroboros incarnate.
🌻🌻 [google.com]