DrmDoc

Today I learned the origin of Jell-O and how it became "America's Favorite Dessert"--it involved a very clever marketing ad that cost $336 in 1904 dollars.

They who and how? Please, elaborate. As for me, today I learned 28 fascinating facts about the history of cosmetics. Throughout history, a surprising amount used lead as a key component.

"If nothing's faster than light, how did the dark get there first?"--Yeah, it's probably an old joke, but it gave me a chuckle today.

What interesting fact or trivia did you learn today? For example, today I learned that a shamrock and four-leaf clover are not the same. It seems that shamrock describes a three-leaf clover and, as folklore has it, was used by St.Patrick as a religious totem. The four-leaf clover, which is not associated with St.Patrick, owes it's reputation for luck to its rarity. So, do you have something interesting to share?

Add another one. I just discovered Animalogic, very entertaining. Never heard of the Mane Wolf until today.

All of the above plus DNews, AsapScience, and Mental Floss; however, none of these channels are adequate substitutes for your independent investigation and study of all the available peer-reviewed evidence and published research covering your topic of interest.

I try to frame my thoughts around simplistic points of logic; e.g., if a = b, then b = a. I've asked myself, using that type of framing, if our brain is a computer, is a computer also a brain? For me, in view of what we know about brain function, the answer is confidently no because computers do not produce consciousness. Although our brain and computers share a type of input/output functional distinction, that distinction in computers do not lead to consciousness, which suggest that there is something more to brain function and consciousness than we can determine from mere processes of input and output. I agree that normal brain function is dependent on sensory input; however, analogous machinery processes convey an incomplete and unreliable picture of consciousness producing brain function. Our understanding of afferent (input) and efferent (output) data streaming processes doesn't tell us how those processes produce consciousness in the brain. If you're interested in learning more about brain function, I think it is best to begin with how our brain likely evolved, which may be difficult if you don't know where to begin your investigation of that aspect. Regardless, the functional anatomy of brain structure remarkably reveals its contiguous path of evolution.

If our ideas regard the production of consciousness by brain function, the neuron minutia isn't as important to our understanding as is the overall functional contribution of separate and distinct neuronal groups and how those groups interact to produce consciousness. For example, no spontaneous activity occurs in our cerebral cortex without a neural connection to subcortical structure, primarily the thalamus. Also, the cortex can sustain and recover from substantial injury without a threat to life; however, similar damage to the thalamus would be fatal. These separate functional effects positions the thalamus as more important to the organ that produces consciousness--the brain--than the cortex. These functional effects also tell us that the cortical neuronal groups are dependent on the thalamus neuronal group for functionality, which suggests that thalamic function is likely the root of consciousness construction. So, our investigation should involve what the thalamus neuronal group contributes to consciousness. What this neuronal group contributes is most completely explained by how and why the structure evolved--in my opinion.

I think what concerns me most about these computer analogs is their reductionist approach. There are several significant steps to consciousness--as the specifics of brain function provide--that simplistic computer comparisons inadequately convey.

Although computers may simulate brain function, they do not produce consciousness. Any and every idea with computer function and construct as a basis will lead to a false and misleading vision of consciousness--because, again, computers do not produce consciousness. If the goal is to understand or mechanically recreate consciousness, isn't it logical to first study and understand the only structure capable of producing consciousness? Learning how consciousness is produced by brain function is the only viable, reliable, rational path to a goal of some artificial construct.

No, I do not consider myself the same as any baby or anyone. I consider myself as an individual defined distinctly by my life experiences and my interpretation of those experiences. Even if I were a twin, I remain an individual separated by my unique perspective, isolated and insulated from others by the singular and dedicated sensory connections between my brain and my body. My understanding of Mr. Harris' quote was that we mostly feel like "passengers in a vehicle" because of some perceived disconnection between our cognitive processes and the body those processes inhabit. In reality, those processes arise from our physiological components and have never been cogently or convinceingly demonstrated to be otherwise. Are computers self-aware? By your logic, the brain is also a slide-ruler and abacus; however, these, like computers, do not possess or give rise to that quality of consciousness that is distinctive of brain function. Can a computer evolve or self-innovate beyond its structure and programming without aid of human hands and intelligence? Essentially, computers are tools that rudimentarily extend our brain's processing power and nothing more.

Just a comment on Sam Harris' quote--nonsense. I don't think most people feel like "passengers in a vehicle." Perhaps people who are continually engrossed in thought might, but not most people. To most people, I think, bodily perception is what gives us our sense of self as a separate and distinct individual apart from others and our environment. Also, I think efforts to understand consciousness through computer analogs are just wrongheaded. Those efforts should start with understanding the evolvutional history of the one and only object we know with any degree of certainty that is capable of generating consciousness--the human brain.

I think the answer to your question here is what the research link I provided shows. That research suggests that sexual orientation involves neural activations of the hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, anterior cingulate gyrus, putamen, amygdala, hypothalamus, and insula. Specifically, that research shows those areas of the brain activated or aroused in the presence of visual stimuli associated with our sexual interests. Although this research suggests those brain areas involving our sexual arousal, it doesn't identify the cause of that arousal. If the question is about the neural circuitry that causes our sexual attraction to a specific gender, this research doesn't provide an answer. If the question regards the neural circuity associated with our gender identity, we won't find an answer in this research either. I believe what you are looking for is the possibility to overwrite our neural circuitry; however, our gender attraction and identity isn't just a neural matter. We can't reprogram our brain circuitry without including other factors such as genetic, hormonal, and social environment. As StringJunky and iNow have so eloquently expressed, my comments regarded the rights, acceptance and respect of others for who they are rather than a denial of their options to be who they are.

Your query, if I understand correctly, regards people who are dissatisfied with their sexual orientation for one reason or another. As an example, you gave homosexual's limited dating pool as impetus for procedures leading to less limited options. There are many therapies that currently exist for people who are, for many reasons, unhappy with themselves and their condition without a neuroscience option. I think our quest should be about finding ways to be happy with oneself without radical changes and for others to be more accepting and respectful of our differences and who we are. However, there continues to be ongoing research you can access relative the neural nature of sexual orientation.

That would infer treatment for a disorder where it doesn't exist, doesn't it? Varied sexual orientations exist in nature as it does in us. Whether a possibility becomes a future option depends on why you may think such a thing is necessary. Do you think this sexual orientation therapy or treatment is necessary?

PRINCE...

Hello Morrison50, This was likely a lucid dream experience if there is no evidence in your sleep environment of the activity you recall and you recall waking in bed at the conclusion of your experience. This lucid experience appears to suggest your mental state at the time of your dream, in my opinion. Dreams are empirically mental experiences and , therefore, more than likely reflect the state of mind of the dreamer. There was a reason why you smoke infrequently and prior to this experience. Perhaps that reason provides a clue to its cause. THC alters our state of mind and mood and, perhaps, that was your intent. Perhaps your dream suggest the state or mood you sought to alter or escape. I hope this helps.

You're not losing your mind but may be assimilating, as you said, your surrounding sensory experiences amid mirco sleeping. However, you should consider seeing a sleep disorder specialist rather than rely in any opinion here.

Your doctor should have order a CT scan or referred you to either a sleep specialist or neurologist. Your altered perceptual experiences could be a symptom of some underlying neuropathy that has yet to fully manifest. I suggest that you return to your doctor and insist on receiving the proper medical attention your experience deserves.

Referred to as hypnogogia, yours is a fairly common experience that often occurs during the brief period between wakefulness and sleep. The experience may include voices, loud noises, sharp sensations, bed shaking, lucid paralysis, imagined room intruders, and, of course, tinnitus among various other types of sensory experiences. That sound you hear is most likely the amplified ringing many older adults hear imperceptibly. Exposure to loud noises and the continuous use of earphone devices over the years is the likely cause. As you drift into sleep, you may be experiencing an increased sensitivity to ambient noises in your sleep environment as many of us do. Unfortunately, that sensitivity could be enhancing your tinnitus. Although I advise that you visit a sleep specialist, noise cancelling devices and natural sound generators have shown some effectiveness in easing the symptoms of this kind of sleep disturbance. I hope this helps.