Appolinaria

Ugh god, immortal in this body?

Yeah right. Even at the time I was in my prime physical existence (probably childhood? idk), I'm annoyed with mundane sensations... dirt, sweat, bodily function... the weight of my limbs, etc. Not to mention, that's before the real affects of aging even come in.

I'm limited to the knowledge my brain can hold. I want to understand the incomprehensible, and feel things this body doesn't allow.

I don't want to walk down just one path, I want to walk them all. This existence limits me. I had one father. My eyes are blue. My name is Polina. I was born on Earth. Even if I were immortal, these things would never change.

Screw that!

Let's say I was chosen to be admin of this board by a lottery.

If thrown into this position, I would not know how to utilize the function of the board to apply my own personal judgement of how things should be done.

Training by other members might cost money, depleting anything saved from this lottery method- as opposed to being elected because I have prior knowledge & experience.

How important is education in implementing someone's standpoints politically?

Maybe it is just as necessary as mental health.

Really kind of ironic, no one at any point has asserted that any of the chemicals under discussion aren't in the brain or have no affect on it, what we have been say is that placing them in excess into the system has no affect on underlying brain function, which is vastly different from what any of your papers which say it has an affect on brain function in people with impaired memory, with little even mentioned into the underlying reasoning of why. So yes if you are malnourished these supplements will help, the same way Vitamin A will stop you going blind, however eating a gram of vitamin A a day isn't going to give you X-ray vision, it will give you a headache and make you sick.

 

 

It would be a major contributing factor, though the specific ability to remember doesn't make you intelligent, the ability to make connections between things therefore understanding the bigger picture does and that requires you to remember many different ideas.

.

You would have to find the study, but without reading it it seems like a logical assertion, if you are under pressure to do something or get away from it the mind would be distracted from other processes as they seem less important.

 

They don't make you more intelligent, your level of intelligence is exactly the same until you choose to put more information into the system and then you may remember more of that information than if you had a deficiency in DHA and arachidonic acid, however it has been shown that short term supplementation with these fatty acids doesn't actually change the proportional levels of them in young adult humans, but over a six month period more affect was shown.

 

The study on mice shows that originally the levels of DHA and AA are down regulated, this could be due to deficiency of the precursor or levels of anabolism of the fatty acid in the first place that doesn't occur in humans or only in the elderly. The only thing DHA and AA have been shown to do is to keep you at optimum performance, which in some maybe a increase in memory but only due to incorrect dietary intake in the first place. This is forgetting that there are other omega-3 fatty acids that have little effect, hence using the term omega-3 fatty acids is incorrect.

Just because a change takes more than 6 months doesn't mean the supplementation is insignificant. 6 months is not a long time.

The study states that a decrease in synaptic plasticity occurs because of aging in mice.. which they believe is the brain becoming increasingly rigid; not because of incorrect dietary intake. As I inquired earlier, aren't we all in different stages of aging? Therefore, I think keeping a brain at optimum performance is an improvement, since aging is inevitable....

So in response to the OP, I think certain omega 3 fatty acid's will improve memory, since it's been shown to improve synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus of rats. Other reputable sources claim this same affect in humans, but it might be part of a scheme (no sarcasm here). I don't know if the brains of rats are similar to human's, or if this same test has been replicated in humans, but at least it will send you in the right direction.

Here are some links I found interesting.

Not only are there studies on omega 3 fatty acid's, but also on insulin signaling..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633586/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094074

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1971.full

Do we not need some restrictions on the pool we randomly pick from? What if a person who is mentally disabled is chosen?

I like the idea, but would prefer that there were a baseline amount of knowledge necessary for the job. At least a solid understanding of civics.

I agree. I think what's in question is experience, not education.

While some careers gain many benefits from experienced personnel, politics seems to have some extraneous problems with more experienced career members. Campaign financing, partisan politics, corruption and mounting compensation costs all suggest that alternatives might be warranted.

 

A study done at Cornell University suggests that selecting representatives randomly can lead to an improvement in efficiency (links to the study are available within that article). This would eliminate campaigning costs for those representatives entirely, offset by whatever lottery system costs were incurred. It would cut compensation costs as well, since retirement benefits could be reduced or eliminated. Could the rank and file salary of $174,000 per year be reduced or is that better left as an inducement for Random Joe or Jane?

 

Would a random selection system be less prone to corruption or manipulation? Is the time served a major factor? Obviously, you want an optimum time that doesn't take too many years away from the citizen's normal career, but gives him or her enough time to gain experience at the job without becoming corrupted.

 

Can a system like this help US politics? What do you think it would take to have representatives chosen by lottery? Could our Congress be made up of politically inexperienced citizens who would dedicate X years of their lives to serving their country in the legislative branch?

I kind of like this idea. The most diverse options, the better. I think this applies to everything. Maybe the fresh perspective of someone inexperienced coupled with the experience of an established member can create something innovative.

New things sprout up in nature... natural selection determines whether they carry on. Should this idea cross over to politics?

Maybe throwing the pieces in the air, and seeing how they fall, could be more beneficial than we expect?

The negative effects of the deficiencies does not, in any way, suggest positive effects of excess. The state of the science does not currently lean towards any kind of supplementation above and beyond a normal healthy diet as being efficacious to improve memory or other cognitive functions substantially above an individual's personal baseline. Can you show me perhaps a meta-analysis or two which disagrees with me here?

 

 

On a completely separate note, passive-aggression is decidedly un-cute.

 

 

And, Appolinaria:

 

"I don't think being able to retain memories, or rapidly think, necessarily contributes to intelligence."

 

On the contrary, these are two large components of general cognitive ability.

You're implying cognitive ability = intelligence.

Okay, so if Omega 3's improve LTP in the hippocampus of rats (aka memory- a large contributor to general cognitive function you spoke of) , then they make you more intelligent. So why did you say this earlier?

"To echo what Psycho said: exactly. Might omega-3s be important for neurological health in the long-term? Yes. I'd even be willing to go withprobably. Does that mean they'll make you smarter? A thousand times no. There is a gulf between those two assertions you'd need a jet airliner to get across."

 

 

 

 

~*MaGiC*~

To echo what Psycho said: exactly. Might omega-3s be important for neurological health in the long-term? Yes. I'd even be willing to go with probably. Does that mean they'll make you smarter? A thousand times no. There is a gulf between those two assertions you'd need a jet airliner to get across.

Is it necessary to equate being smarter/intelligent with better memory?

Take Autism. IE Asperger's; plenty of people with this can remember a huge amount of things about a specific topic....but don't function at normal intelligence level when it comes to things like feeling empathy, or communication.

I don't think being able to retain memories, or rapidly think, necessarily contributes to intelligence.

Psycho & PhD, can you please give me your opinion on synaptic plasticity of the hippocampus? I've read an article that something as simple & common as stress can impair LTP in the hippocampus of rats... is this bullshit?

Thanks!

p squared, if omega 3 fatty acids have no positive affect, why do websites like bbc and .gov support this idea?

It sounds like some self-indulgent desert gnomes dug up some bad caraway seeds and put them in your groceries, making you sick and clogging up your shower drain so you had to use your tooth brush to get it unclogged.

 

Either that or you got your wisdom teeth out and made the mistake of sipping your tea too fast.

 

I hate when that happens!

I envy your creativity

As a child on the beach, I would always see the bodies of jellyfish & horseshoe crabs that were stoned to death. This summer, I saw around 40 teary-eyed people watch two men try to get a very large stingray back into the water after it got stuck on shore. I think people are getting kinder.

+1

As I said to someone else, not long ago:

 

''Change means motion, Einstein's field equations generate motion in time that is a symmetry of the theory, not true time evolution. So there is a problem with believing the definition of time is change.''

If there is a problem with believing the definition of time is change, how can you agree with DrRocket's statement, "Time is what clocks measure" ?

Can you have a clock without motion/change?

On the clock I have on my wall, the speed of the hand is the same between the distance of each number on the hand. It's in motion, it stops, it's in motion, it stops.

Shouldn't speed over distance, and motion, have SOME relationship with what we call "time" ?

I'm sure you have. So have I. But because I'm in the psych field, and to some extent know the research, and get to hang around smart people who are part of the field and know the state of the field, I can speak to the scientific status of those things with at least some authority.

 

Can "memory" be "improved?" Of course it can. With tricks. That's how people memorize thousands of digits of pi, or incredible amounts of holy books: tricks. They're not difficult to come by, not difficult to learn. But that's somewhat distinct from what he's asking.

Yes, yes. This is understood. I think you are taking my questions personally, when I'm genuinely curious. Aside from tricks to memorize digits of pi, aren't there things that occur neurologically that contribute to memory... and are not just theories but have been proven? Isn't preventing or diminishing the inevitable degeneration of the brain that comes with age considered an improvement? What about improving synaptic plasticity of the hippocampus? Hasn't it been shown to be affected by things like stress?

Well you said ''distance'' see. I think that is different to saying ''distance is what clocks measure...'' - or maybe not. I mean, we do move in time afterall, there is some quality to it that we may associate to a distance in time?

i said a change. a to b. how can you have a clock without intervals?

in my previous post, the first thing i said was time is defined by its measurement. a clock measures time.

isnt that exactly what i said...

I hate feeling static-y, sticky, fevers, my wisdom teeth, how restaurant food & normal grocery store products make me some degree of sleepy and/or nauseous, hot beverages, desert landscapes, mining gnomes, too much sunlight, self-indulgent people, caraway seeds, not being able to brush my teeth or shower.

Pretty sure I've read about numerous things that improve memory in humans...

I've heard of baby elephants dying of a broken heart when their mother or human caregiver leaves them

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2012275/I-broke-baby-elephant-s-heart-Daphne-Sheldrick-dedicated-life-elephants-s-learned-hard-way-really-forget.html

Eh, for one no one has "phosphorus" in there body, they have phosphate, secondly if it were the case the amount of phosphate in the urine would decrease with thought as it would be in use unless you are implying nuclear fusion occurs in the brain, thirdly phosphate is used in hundreds of cascades throughout the body and isn't specifically related to thought it is just how many proteins send signals to each other.

 

There is of course a chemical cascades that lead to what we call thought and conciousness but they are so diverse and complex in number and branching that we don't understand or haven't isolated them yet. Primarily before we can workout how thoughts occur a far greater understanding of brain physiology is needed.

in the context of my source, he uses the term phosphorus.

if this were the case, regardless if it increases or decreases, it would still be affected by thought.

i did state that i wasnt sure if phosphorus is directly related to the brain, i just said i found the concept intriguing.

since we dont understand the chemicals yet, i am not wrong by mentioning phosphorus or phosphate...

i am just interested in what chemicals relate to thought.

William James was no slouch--I have a professor fond of saying that, in a century of experimental social and behavioral science, we really haven't killed a single one of his major hypotheses. If you read the passage, though, he's not really raising the possibility, he's trashing an idea he regards as so silly--phosphorus is a "though chemical"--that he simply refers to it as an error. And why would you say there's no way of testing it. James describes, in the passage which you just linked us to, exactly how one might test it! At any rate, it's a bit insane to imagine a single chemical "responsible for consciousness." Consciousness is the activity of the brain, an epiphenomenon of its various doings. All of its chemicals are "responsible for consciousness." It's like imagining that there's a chemical responsible for the throwing motion of my arm. Everything that comprises the structure of my arm is responsible.

 

And why on earth would more of such a chemical, if things were so simplistic that something like it actually existed, result in higher intelligence? Consciousness is not intelligence. More consciousness is not higher intelligence. Those two things are decidedly not the same thing, at all.

yes but he says theres no way to directly test it and relate it to the brain because other organs release phosphorus.

if i imply phosphorus relates to thought, wouldnt an increased amount in urine maybe mean increased amount of thought?

maybe i used the wrong word. maybe not intelligence. but a chemical responsible for increased thought, more complex thought, that could lead to higher intelligence possibly

I once read about the theory of a chemical found in the brain responsible for thought.

For example, this book talks about the possibility of phosphorus. ( This book is old, and I'm pretty sure it says there's no way of testing this idea... it might be completely untrue and ridiculous but I have no idea on these matters )

But it's still interesting!

If not phosphorus, what if there's a chemical in the brain responsible for our consciousness? And the higher levels of it, the more intelligent? Wouldn't that be intriguing.....

HAHA. Nice.

Isn't everything a mutation, even simple things such as eye color? It just hasn't been weeded out by natural selection...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

I guess I'm a mutant