iNow

I don't post much in this forum but I still read the posts to learn, and what I learned today, is that she has a lot more character than the pompous people in this thread. Nice going.

 

Bettina

It's a valid point for sure. Don't let it preclude your further participation in these fora though. I imagine most of your learning occurs outside of the general discussion threads, so it would be a shame to cease your viewing habits as a result of one.

I'm not suggesting that Na+ opening doesn't cause depolarsation or K+ opening doesn't cause repolarisation...

I suppose this is good, since that's not how it works.

What I was trying to say was that action potential is only detectable at the axon membrane... It's only the edge of the membrane that there is a massive change in potential difference...

What do you mean "only detectable at the axon membrane?" I ask, because if you are implying that action potential action is limited to the cell membrane, you are mistaken. However, if you are implying that we haven't really been able to measure an action potential without measuring the whole cell (see methods section of this link here for details on the perforated configuration of the patch-clamp technique), then you are basically correct. The bigger point is that, just because our measuring equipment is not sufficient to detect change within the cell does not mean that no change within the cell is occurring.

The action potential is a propigation of sodium ions along the axonal membranes...

Just as I stated in post #2.

I don't think it really maters though...

Well, I guess that makes one of us. Agreeing whether it's an amino acid or a protein would actually prove pretty useful to somebody doing work on the topic. It's not a "tastes great," "less filling" discussion we're having, but dialog on histamine structure and method of action, where details matter and statements should be supported.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Histamine is a decarboxylated amino acid not a protein...

Okay... You were close. Here's what I've found, complete with support and citation.

http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/s1/i12-7.html

In contrast to the catecholamines and 5-HT, the biosynthesis of histamine does not require hydroxylation. Histamine is the product of the decarboxylation of the amino acid, histidine, to form the monoamine, histamine, in a single step that is analogous to the decarboxylation of DOPA and 5-HTP. A different enzyme is used to decarboxylate histidine, histidine decarboxylase, as shown in Figure 12.8. This enzyme, like AADC, requires vitamin B6.

Emphasis mine. Click link to view figure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hmmm... yet here, it says the following:

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/1biochem/amino2.html

A few biologically important derivatives of the standard amino acids are shown in the figure below. Anyone who has used an "anti-histamine" to alleviate the symptoms of exposure to an allergen can appreciate the role that histamine a decarboxylated derivative of histidine plays in mediating the body's response to allergic reactions. L-DOPA, which is a derivative of tyrosine, has been used to treat Parkinson's disease

So, maybe both me and my link are mistaken. Perhaps someone can answer this... Can a protein be decarboxylated, or are only amino acids decarboxylated?

For instance, your point (3) about the evolution of the eye is incomplete. From what did the eye evolve in 364000 generations? And really, an eye can be described in 3640-ish bits? You must be kidding. Describing an eye, with all its intricaties, its interactions with other subsystems, its chemical composition, etc. etc. would take millions, probably hundreds of millions of bits. Books full of texts are written about the eye... and still, all these books together only capture a tiny fraction of what the eye really is.

You know, the mammalian eye isn't even really that great. This may help you understand its evolution.

Five minute RealPlayer clip - Click here

Five minute QuickTime clip - Click here

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

Evolution of the Eye:

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

 

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

 

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

 

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

 

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

 

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

 

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

 

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Approach the world with open eyes...

This is part of the point I have been making all along. There is no such thing as 100% safe. Any new food or crop might be hazardous. The key is the test program. The GM test program is more stringent and thorough than any other in humankind's history. That is why it is actually safer to eat GM foods than foods from a newly developed conventionally bred crop.

Absolutely, and I think you've done a fantastic job illustrating this point, especially with the discussion around the use of radiation in the middle of the 20th century.

The action of the Na+/K+ pump during an action potential is minimal and the concentration of Na+ and K+ within nerve cells essentially remains the same before and after an action potential as there is basically no difference on the overall concentration of sodium and potassium within the neurone before and after the action potential (only at the membrane of a neurone does the potential difference of the membrane changes)...

Since this is counter to the information above in my posts, information for which I shared references, would you be so kind as to offer some citations that support your statement (paraphrased) “concentrations of Na and K ions inside the neuron are stable?” Also, to be clear, my reference to the pump was post-action potential.

All activity in an action potential is due to the massive permeability changes in the membrane and the mass opening and closing of Na+ and K+ channels... A lot of people think that the action potential is caused by changes in potassium and sodium ion levels within neurones but this is not the case...

Didn’t you just contradict yourself? You first said that action potentials are due to opening of Na and K channels (the opening of which changes concentrations of those ions inside and outside of the nerve cell membrane), yet you then went on to say that people who think changes in these levels cause the action potential are wrong.

Can you clarify, as you’re not making sense, and I have a feeling that you know what you’re saying but just mistyped it here.

I think the Na+/K+ pump is only important in maintaining the overall concentration of Na+ and K+ within the cell and this is all... It's main role is ensuring that the resting potential is maintained...

And since the resting potential must be restored after the action potential, the Na/K pump is active during this process.

Does that make sense?

Well, I follow what you are saying, however, it's not self-consistent and some of it is contrary to existing knowledge. The pump helps restore the resting potential, and I was not arguing for it's responsibility in action potential transmission. For the cell to repolarize though, energy is required, it's not passive (as supported in the above posts I've made with multiple citations), and the non-passivitity is further reinforced by the fact that the Na/K pump consumes ATP during repolarization.

Proteins are made up of amino acids but amino acids aren't proteins...

Of course, I did not intent do imply otherwise. However, are you also suggesting by this that the very first sentence in the link I shared in post #10 is incorrect?

While this discussion is not about the actions of person X due to an elephant, an important note is just how easily person X could do harmful and violent things because the invisible elephant told them so. The active process of non-thought (thanks Glider) allows this, whereas the active process of critical reasoning helps mitigate this potentiality.

where, and by who, has it been descided that GM is safe?

I'd suggest that this is a decision we must each make for ourselves. Personally, I couldn't care less. Bring on the mutant celery and the chicken with six legs... I'm good with that.

Imagine red meat that didn't cause health issues and maximizing the nutritional value of fruits and veggies. I'm hungry!

Histamine is a decarboxylated amino acid not a protein...

What are proteins made of?

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/Immunology/Students/spring2000/lamar/mfirp.htm

Histamine is an important protein involved in many allergic reactions. Allergies are caused by an immune response to a normally innocuous substance (i.e. pollen, dust) that comes in contact with lymphocytes specific for that substance, or antigen. In many cases, the lymphocyte triggered to respond is a mast cell. For this response to occur, a free-floating IgE (an immunoglobulin associated with allergic response) molecule specific to the antigen must first be attached to cell surface receptors on mast cells. Antigen binding to the mast cell-attached IgE then triggers the mast cell to respond. This response often includes the release of histamine.

The release of histamine (hist = because it's made up of histidine residues, amine = because it's a vasoactive amine) causes several allergic symptoms. 1) It contributes to an inflammatory response. 2) It causes constriction of smooth muscle.

Histamine can cause inflammation directly as well as indirectly. Upon release of histamine by an antigen activated mast cell, permeability of vessels near the site is increased. Thus, blood fluids (including leukocytes, which participate in immune responses) enter the area causing swelling. This is accomplished due to histamine’s ability to induce phosphorylation of an intercellular adhesion protein (called (VE)-cadherin) found on vascular endothelial cells (Andriopoulou et al 1999). That is why histamine is known as being vasoactive. Gaps between the cells in vascular tissue are created by this phosphorylation, allowing blood fluids to seep out into extracellular space. Indirectly, histamine contributes to inflammation by affecting the functions of other leukocytes in the area. It has been suggested by Marone et al that histamine release triggers the release of cytokines and inflammatory mediator by some neighboring leukocytes (1999). These chemicals in turn increases the inflammatory response.

 

Histamine's second type of allergic response is one of the major causes for asthma. In response to an allergen (a substance that triggers an allergic reaction), histamine, along with other chemicals, causes the contraction of smooth muscle (Schmidt et al 1999). Consequently, the muscles surrounding the airways constrict causing shortness of breath and possibly complete trachial-closure, an obviously life-threatening condition. If the effects of histamine during an allergic reaction are inhibited, the life of an allergic person can be eased (in the case of inflammation) or even saved by preventing or shortening asthma attacks. Thankfully, many effective drugs have been developed to hinder histamine's allergic response activities.

The recovery of a neurone from hyperpolarisation to resting potential is passive and is not due to the action of the sodium/potassium pump...

This last quote to which you responded was mine, and your response is not correct. The repolarization and return to resting potential is exactly the result of the activity of the sodium-potassium pump. Here is a very simple animation provided by the MCB-HHMI Outreach program at Harvard which specifically supports my point (for reference, this particular point is covered on slide #5):

http://outreach.mcb.harvard.edu/animations/actionpotential.swf

I think my stumbling block is examining it clearly when it comes to matter and energy, the cosmos, herds, plants. The collective, or, greater consciousness. I’m not sure what else to call it since it can’t easily be examined as yet. It’s all at a feeling level really, with my only observation that life needs to be driven into existence rather than magically chancing upon the right matter and energy combinations, in the right environment, at the right time.

The search is fun. It's clear that this is something in which you are deeply interested. If you take a moment to read the quoted text above though, I think you will see you are in search of evidence which confirms preconceived notions. You may be able to make more progress by allowing the evidence to shape those notions in the first place, and try approaching life as tabula rasa.

nd yep, the ‘collective unconscious’ first came to my attention while reading, 'Modern man in search of a soul'. Jung uses it to describe man’s "reservoir of experiences of our species". Through archetypes, dreams, and intuition, and drives the person to make mistakes on purpose in order to evolve. I’m not using it the same way. I’m using it to describe a force that drives life into existence. Like the force of gravity that pulls things down to earth. Maybe I should call it, 'unconscious force', or some such.

 

Does this help, or just confuse?

I'm fine with it, but perhaps the next step would be to spend more time on describing the parameters, impact, and mechanisms tied to this concept (I concede that this is no easy task), instead of spending all of our time discussing how to label it.

So... what is this "thing," this "force" which interests you, how is it different from evolutionary chance, and how might we measure it? Those are my questions. Feel free to disregard and explore your own path though. I'm just another random member of this online community like yourself.

Thought surfing the waves of curiosity...

I have learned two things from this thread.

 

1. It is O.K. to make sneering ad-hom attacks on people who, not being members of this forum, are unable to answer back and complain to moderators.

 

2. It adds weight to the groundswell opinion on the typical American world view.

 

So thanks for that.

What one learns and what others teach are not always aligned.

Thanks for the extra details and clarifications.

It was truly my pleasure. Thanks for giving me to the motivation to open up some long dormant knowledge.

The idea of the brain's neuron surfaces being loaded with positive charge, that needs to lower, cuts to the heart of why we need synapses.

I'm confused by this. We have synapses by virtue of the fact that we have neurons. The synapse is the space between neurons. So, saying that the neurons are loaded with charge is the reason we need synapses seems contrary to the much simpler anatomical description.

This could also be deduced directly from the firing of the dendrites.

Now, I know for a fact I've corrected you on this before, but dendrites are a part of the neuron which receive the signals from other nerve cells. There are two types of dendrites, basilar and apical, the former more common in the body and latter more common in the cortex. They don't "fire," but receive and transmit signal.

Based on this when an axon goes hunting to make a synapse, say on a dendrite, since its little tip is very high in potential, it is going to look for the soft spots on the dendrite which appear to be at the lowest potential. This is reflected by all the right stuff on one spot on the dendrite surface. If it is not the right stuff, the surface potential is too high, such that the axon tip is repelled causing it to continue its search.

We still do not fully understand the entire mechanism responsible for increasing axonal filopodia (axon extrusions into the cytoplasm), but there is EXTENSIVE work indicating that glutamate is responsible for mediating synaptogenesis, or in simpler terms, the growth of new connections between axons and dentrites. The growth of dendritic branches is directly influenced by glutamate, as well as AMPA, NMDA, actin, calcium ions, and glial cells..

Considering this information, I'd suggest that your proposal of this process being entirely mitigated by aggregate potential gradients unnecessarily limits the true scope of this body of research and also ignores mountains of existing evidence.

To picture absolute motion in an absolute frame, read this work of mine.

 

<url removed by iNow prior to posting>

 

Warning - This post may vanish in a short time period. This is due to it directing you to interesting points of view that can not be compressed small enough in size to fit into a mere forum post.

Complete disappearance is not very likely. Have you checked the Speculations forum yet?

Yep, this is fine too, if it makes more sense to the scientific mindset. It is essentially what I am saying, i suppose . I just haven't heard it phrased that way. Or maybe simply, non-random behaviour in life? Anyway, I think most would get what I mean.

 

cheers

I'm not married to it or anything (unless it's picked up in the general lexicon... then, I want royalties ), I've just noticed most attacks on your presentation seem to center on the disagreement surrounding the words "unconscious" and "collective." However, I don't think my phrasing accounts for your interest in the "collective" aspect of it.

Is this somehow tied to they ideas of Jung? He wrote a lot of great books, and one I particulary enjoyed was "Modern Man in Search of a Soul."

http://books.google.com/books?id=U6lMnx8AQsYC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=dgSx4-7F7Q&sig=U5PKDzIg8IFvY1cSVqTNPHUK6js&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dspell%26resnum%3D0%26ct%3Dresult%26cd%3D1%26q%3D%2522modern%2Bman%2522%2Bjung%26spell%3D1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title

So the internalist idea is unprovable and the externalist is untenable, yet you still maintain memes exist?

The only real decision to make is whether memes and memetics are merely pop psychology of the worst kind or simply pseudo-science.

Perhaps we should let Richard Dawkins have some comments;

 

Faith in the meme perhaps?

 

Oh Dear, he could be describing Memetics, couldn't he?

Is there anybody here is claiming without shadow of a doubt that memes exist, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong? Come on, mate. Please. Be more respectful than that.

Also, when was Dawkin's last work on memes? Give me a citation for his last published paper on the topic. I'd imagine that he started focussing on the problem of irrational faith for a reason.

That's the beauty of science, and most scientists who understand it's core... Ideas are not truths, and can be rejected in the face of contradictory evidence. Religion, on the other hand, claims that the stories they share ARE truth.

This thread isn't about memes. You're entire approach thus far has been ad hominem. To paraphrase you, "Dawkin's clearly has double-standards when he says religion and irrational faith are detrimental to society since he spent a few years studying memes, and memes don't have any proof. So, therefore he's obviously wrong when speaking about faith."

I contend that, despite any work on memes (and thank you, btw, for helping me realize the weak footing on which this concept of memes actually stands) which Dawkin's has done, his point about belief and faith in the face of contrary (or NO) evidence being detrimental to us as a people is, remarkably, valid.

Yea it is true, scientists are now believing that water we are using is Extra Terrestrial. According to new research most of the water came to earth by meteorite shower as per the theory of Panspermia.

Hi Rajdilawar,

Which scientists are those? Also, isn't the theory of panspermia specific to "life" and not "water?"

I'm reluctant to accept your statement without citations or support, but would be interested in further information if you have any available. Take care.

Definitely plant more plants. You can also turn them into biochar and bury it your garden for some amazing crop yields. So, you grow plants, which take carbon out the atmosphere, then char those plants at low temps and low oxygen to create porous charcoal, you smash that up and put it in your dirt, and you grow better plants and repeat the process. It's called "Terra Preta" and was first discovered in the Amazon.

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/555prostagland.html

The atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to 367 ppm in 1999 and today's CO2 concentrations have not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years (IPCC, 2001). The release or sequestration of carbon in soils is therefore of prime importance.

 

Soil organic carbon is an important pool of carbon in the global biogeochemical cycle. The total amount of organic carbon in soils is estimated to be 2011 Gt C, which constitutes about 82% of the global organic carbon in terrestrial ecosystems... <read more at link above>

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IO9hjqWtHKYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=History+and+origin+of+Terra+Preta+soils+and+future+perspectives&ots=2uRho-m-dn&sig=hQibGXUWYgCrqTN2Q5CG6iIdF7E

The pain from headaches, as much as it feels like it's inside the head, isn't. I'ts usually a diffuse sensation originating in the scalp, or the muscles and veins in it and in the face and neck (depending on the type of headache: vascular, myogenic or cervocogenic).

 

It's not the pressure of inflamed tissue that causes the pain. The pain relatated elements of inflammation is the release of substances like prostaglandins and histamine which sensitize and activate (respectively) primary afferent (pain) fibres.

I genuflect in your general direction. Thank you very much for such a clear and concise explanation. I plan now to research further the concept of inflammation and the effects of prostaglandins and histamine on the pain response.

So, if I wear a white gold necklace when my neck is sore, is that going to make me feel better? Or, does that only work with magnets?

EDIT: I love learning new things and correcting errors in my thinking. I just spent the last 45 minutes reading about headaches, inflammation, and prostaglandins. I'm no expert, but damn did I correct some issues in my thinking. It was also interesting to see what the data shows, as I could draw very strong links to the half truths I previously held.

For those interested (off topic, I know, but hey... white gold powder and health? Come on...), the following two sites were very concise and clear:

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/555prostagland.html

http://www.doctorsforadults.com/topics/dfa_head.htm

.

Some interesting thoughts. I am getting a better feel for your philosophy on this subject having read more of your posts. However, there are a few key details which I believe you are fundamentally missing, and I will do my best to explain the mechanisms actually in place without attacking your concept.

When the neurons place the Na+ on the surface, they are using the cation that has the most apparent postive charge and the most tightly bound water in the first hydration shell. The inside is richer in K+ with its lower apparent postive charge and its less tightly held first hydration shell. The situation that is created, are the neuron surfaces are covered with a lot of postive charge, with a relative strong first hydration shell that is relatively stable, relative to K+. The neurons repel each other's positive surfaces, but are anchored so they are not able to move relative to each other. The result is positive potential looking for ways to reduce this potential.

The neurons are not "placing" their ions at the surface. There is, in fact, a difference in potential across the membrane wall of the nerve cell, just as you imply. When the cell is at rest, the outside of the cell wall membrane has a positive charge and the inside of the membrane has a negative charge. This is called it's resting potential. It results from the differences of positively charged ions of sodium (Na) and potassium (K) to the negatively charged cytoplasm outside the cell. Additionally, it's useful to note that there are more Na ions concentrated outside of the cell and more K ions concentrated inside of the cell. This is important since, as you correctly mentioned, the "amount" of charge "expressed" by each ion is not equal.

Per the above, the concentrations of ions on either side of the cell wall membrane are not in equilibrium, and it has to be actively maintained. This is where the sodium-potassium pump comes into play. This pump actively transports the ions against their concentration gradients.

The points where the positive charge on different neurons is able to approach the closest are the synapses. This closeness indicates, this is where the positive charge repulsion will be at a minimum. But since the synapse retains a gap, this implies the positive potential is never zero. The direction of the Na+ current from axon to dendrite or axon, is reflective of the movement from higher toward lower positive potential.

There are actually openings in the cell membrane called sodium (Na) gates and potassium (K) gates, and it is these which allow the respective ions to cross. In very rough terms, the sodium on the outside of the cell goes to the inside, and the potassium on inside of the cell goes to the outside, causing a temporary reversal of the cell membrane potential... it changes polarity.

Since the sodium is on the outside, it reacts first to the propogating signal from the neighboring nerve cells. So, the sodium gates open first, and sodium floods into the cell. It is after this happens that the potassium gates respond, and potassium evacuates the cell, thus restoring the resting potentials net charges. The sodium-potassium pump then pushes the Na ions out of the cell and the K ions are pumped back into the cell, and the original distribution of those ions are restored.

This propogating signal is called the action potential. It actually does begin at one spot on the cell membrane, but then spreads to adjacent "sides" of the membrane and then across the synaptic cleft.

One can almost look at the brain as this big bundle of positive charge that is trying to find ways to discharge the potential, i.e,, into synampses.

 

The hydrations sphere of Na+ is an extension of the positive potential that is on the surfaces of the neurons. In other words, the Na+ does not exist just as isolated Na+, but as Na+ plus hydration. The value of this water is when neurotransmittors appear in the local water, but before they bind onto synapses, these chemicals have their own hydrated what that reflects their polar/nonpolar atoms in their structures. It is sort of an additional tweak at the level of the H ,that affects the surface Na+, even before the neurotransmittor binds to the membrane.

I suppose this is the part of your post that sounded most interesting. It seems to make logical sense. I would, however, like to see some detailed clarification, if possible, also some studies along these lines. After all, logic makes people think that heavier objects reach the ground more quicky, but empirical data proves this is not the case. Empiricism beats logic any day.

Neurotransmittor may have more specificity at the synapse, but its appearance anywhere outside of neurons has an impact before it begins to bind. The cerebral spinal fluid is an extension of the surface water. As features in the core of the brain add chemicals, the positive potential gets tweaked.

I am not familiar with the idea that neurotransmitters may carry some charge... that they are ions, but I am honestly not sure. This may, in fact, be the case, but it doesn't trigger any recall from my 4 years of study. If you are able to provide some support that NTs carry charge, then that's great, but until then I'd caution you not to carry this line of reasoning too much farther.

It is in the cell body of the neuron that the neurotransmitters are produced. These molecules are transported down the axon to the axon terminal, and are stored in vesicles, which are like little bundles or balloons. It is only when these vesicles "fuse" with the cell membrane of the axon terminal that they released into the synapse. What happens then is the neurotransmitters will ONLY bond with certain specific receptors on the neighboring nerve cell. It as if there are a series of locks on the neighboring nerve cell, and the neurotransmitters are keys. The key must fit the lock, or the door will not open. (Note - Nitric Oxide (NO) is not stored in vessicles, and it diffuses through the cell membrane instead of being released by fusing with the axon terminal. It then activates enzymes in the neighboring cell which produce something called "second messengers.")

They may be how the brain associates memory to valance. Any emotional response, often implies core region chemical input into the CSF. The bulk positive potentials of the brain, gets sort of primed to reflect the best possible way to lower the tweaked positive potential via the synapses. This can not be a random, since any neruon can absorb there chems. There needs to be specific synaptic selectivity for these chems to trigger associated memories.

Again... not so sure about this, but hey... I'll give it a definite maybe. It really is important that if you are going to use logic and deduction to understand a system that you are not working from a set of false premises. Houses built in sand will topple, ya dig?

In the interest of transparency, I want to state that I spent some time refreshing my knowlege of this subject by reviewing the links which I tied to many of the words within my post. I'd be glad to elucidate further on any of these points as needed, but am myself a student of life and don't hold all of the answers either.

Speculation is fun, but science is funnerer.

FYI, bubble text is only allowed in General Discussion threads. Not as big a deal in Pseudoscience as in Physics, but let's keep Gir and the rest in GD, please.

Hey. No problem. Let me know if I should edit it. How would one know about this anyway?

So, that aside...

How about it? Non-Random Behavioral Trends in Multiple Life Domains?

i guess i would agree that the number of cigarettes consumed per day increases with age. my father tried to quit once but he is always with people who smoke. so he went back to his vise and now he is totally dependent on smoking. but i noticed, he sometimes doesn't finish the entire cigarette. about a quarter or half would be left from the cigarette before he throws it away. he is 60+ now. does this mean anything significant?

Probably that he now only smokes to satisfy the withdrawal and he no longer enjoys them like he used to.

Semantics and preconceived notions seem to impose an impasse when discussing the idea of unconscious intellect. What about replacing the term, perhaps with something more aligned with what you're truly discussing... like:

"Non-Random Behavioral Trends in Multiple Life Domains"