4 ms·

That's pretty much a direct quote from MIT neuroscientist Sebastian Seung's TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sebastian_seung.html http://www.ted.com

by espeed 16y ago

That's pretty much a direct quote from MIT neuroscientist Sebastian Seung's TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sebastian_seung.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sebastian_seung.html The idea that neural connections (synapses) grow stronger from learning is well supported... "synapses grow stronger when we're awake as we learn and adapt to an ever-changing environment" (http://www.med.wisc.edu/news-events/news/sleep-tempers-growth-of-synapses/842 http://www.med.wisc.edu/news-events/news/sleep-tempers-growt...) "Most contemporary neuro-scientists agree that learning takes place at the neural switch points – the synapses. Research has shown that experience can change synapses: they can become either stronger or weaker; and this change can persist for a lifetime. Changes in synaptic conduction are without doubt the basis for learning and long-term memory" (http://www.mentalspaceresearch.com/english-articles/expanding-the-neuro-in-nlp http://www.mentalspaceresearch.com/english-articles/expandin...). "One area of change is the synapses, the connections between neurons, which are altered as the brain receives stimuli. “What happens when you’re awake is you produce an overall strengthening of synapses,” Dr. Tononi said. “That’s good, because that’s how you learn.” But that is unsustainable in the long run, because stronger synapses require more energy and material, and there’s a limit to how much of both is available. “It’s as if in the morning you start with a V-6 engine,” he said, “and in the evening you find yourself idling, but you’re running a V-8.” Stronger synapses are also bigger, but the brain cannot grow bigger or denser. “If you strengthen synapses because you learn, soon you’d reach a point where you can’t learn further,” he added. So Dr. Tononi and a colleague, Chiara Cirelli, have hypothesized that during sleep, the synapses weaken. The downscaling is across the board, so that the synapses’ relative strength is maintained. Those that have been used (those involved in learning) stay stronger than those that haven’t." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/science/29obslee.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/science/29obslee.html?_r=1)

mooftard 16y ago
They don't get stronger, they simply get different. Thinking on a past experience, for example, changes the memory of the experience. Thoughts can actually be corrupted by thinking about them. Use it and lose it in just as many cases as the opposite.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
apl 16y ago
Take a look at the passage I quoted. He equates "thoughts" and "neural activity." That's either a vacuous statement (because, assuming materialism, all mental activity is neural activity) or embarrassingly oversimplified. Similar situation for the following two sentences. I'm not disputing synaptic theories of memory/learning; they're common sense these days. Moreover, I'm sure he's derived his presentation from (hopefully sound) science. But nothing is gained from faux-scientific, superficial neuro-bla. Nothing at all. Reality is much more complicated: usage is but one mechanism by which synaptic strength is modulated. There are several others. Nobody really understands how learning works, or how "thoughts are stored" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Sure, synaptic connections change after learning episodes. But that tells us shit about how to become a genius, or why a (HIGH-LEVEL -- neuroscience has no clue how stuff like this works!) phenomenon like sudden perspective shifts leads to breakthroughs. So why cheapen solid pop-psychology with insufficient grasp of modern neurobiology?
- espeed 16y ago
  "How thoughts are stored" is the entire premise of Sebastian Seung's (http://bcs.mit.edu/people/seung.html http://bcs.mit.edu/people/seung.html) TED talk it was referencing -- "I Am My Connectome". The importance of perspective shifts isn't a new idea -- Alan Kay stresses the same thing (http://www.ted.com/talks/alan_kay_shares_a_powerful_idea_about_ideas.html http://www.ted.com/talks/alan_kay_shares_a_powerful_idea_abo...).
- espeed 16y ago
  UPDATE: I emailed Sebastian Seung (http://bcs.mit.edu/people/seung.html http://bcs.mit.edu/people/seung.html) asking about this. This is what I said: "BTW I liked your TED talk. My friends and I were discussing it the other day, and I made the analogy of comparing the connectome in your brain to hardware and the thoughts in your mind to software. Is that a fair analogy? David Rock wrote a book called 'Your Brain at Work' where he says that insights come from detecting weak associations (he gave a Google Tech Talk on this too -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeJSXfXep4M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeJSXfXep4M). If the brain software/hardware analogy is right, is there a similar relationship between weak associations of thoughts and neurons that are "distantly" connected? In other words, are associations weak because they are indirect paths from one node – one neural connection -- to another, and would a more direct path optimize you mental ability?" This is what Sebastian said: "The hardware-software analogy is wrong 1) the brain is not a general purpose programmable computer. different areas are specialized to different functions 2) the connectome changes over time, unlike hardware you're right that direct vs indirect paths do matter, unlike in communication networks. but the weakness of an association might have to do with the strength of synapses, not just the length of the path. i'm addressing these questions in my book which will appear in feb 2012 if all goes well." So maybe a better analogy for the brain would be a network of specialized computers, like a private cloud connected to the Internet because the cloud can change with demand, and the size of connection and number of hops both affect performance. For example, pushing data closer to the client is one of the primary reasons CDNs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network) were invented -- to optimize content delivery so content is fewer hops away from the client. And in graph theory a common problem is trying to find the shortest path from one node to another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortest_path_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortest_path_problem).

by espeed 16y ago

mooftard 16y ago

They don't get stronger, they simply get different. Thinking on a past experience, for example, changes the memory of the experience. Thoughts can actually be corrupted by thinking about them. Use it and lose it in just as many cases as the opposite.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

apl 16y ago

Take a look at the passage I quoted. He equates "thoughts" and "neural activity." That's either a vacuous statement (because, assuming materialism, all mental activity is neural activity) or embarrassingly oversimplified. Similar situation for the following two sentences. I'm not disputing synaptic theories of memory/learning; they're common sense these days. Moreover, I'm sure he's derived his presentation from (hopefully sound) science. But nothing is gained from faux-scientific, superficial neuro-bla. Nothing at all. Reality is much more complicated: usage is but one mechanism by which synaptic strength is modulated. There are several others. Nobody really understands how learning works, or how "thoughts are stored" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Sure, synaptic connections change after learning episodes. But that tells us shit about how to become a genius, or why a (HIGH-LEVEL -- neuroscience has no clue how stuff like this works!) phenomenon like sudden perspective shifts leads to breakthroughs. So why cheapen solid pop-psychology with insufficient grasp of modern neurobiology?

espeed 16y ago
"How thoughts are stored" is the entire premise of Sebastian Seung's (http://bcs.mit.edu/people/seung.html http://bcs.mit.edu/people/seung.html) TED talk it was referencing -- "I Am My Connectome". The importance of perspective shifts isn't a new idea -- Alan Kay stresses the same thing (http://www.ted.com/talks/alan_kay_shares_a_powerful_idea_about_ideas.html http://www.ted.com/talks/alan_kay_shares_a_powerful_idea_abo...).
espeed 16y ago
UPDATE: I emailed Sebastian Seung (http://bcs.mit.edu/people/seung.html http://bcs.mit.edu/people/seung.html) asking about this. This is what I said: "BTW I liked your TED talk. My friends and I were discussing it the other day, and I made the analogy of comparing the connectome in your brain to hardware and the thoughts in your mind to software. Is that a fair analogy? David Rock wrote a book called 'Your Brain at Work' where he says that insights come from detecting weak associations (he gave a Google Tech Talk on this too -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeJSXfXep4M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeJSXfXep4M). If the brain software/hardware analogy is right, is there a similar relationship between weak associations of thoughts and neurons that are "distantly" connected? In other words, are associations weak because they are indirect paths from one node – one neural connection -- to another, and would a more direct path optimize you mental ability?" This is what Sebastian said: "The hardware-software analogy is wrong 1) the brain is not a general purpose programmable computer. different areas are specialized to different functions 2) the connectome changes over time, unlike hardware you're right that direct vs indirect paths do matter, unlike in communication networks. but the weakness of an association might have to do with the strength of synapses, not just the length of the path. i'm addressing these questions in my book which will appear in feb 2012 if all goes well." So maybe a better analogy for the brain would be a network of specialized computers, like a private cloud connected to the Internet because the cloud can change with demand, and the size of connection and number of hops both affect performance. For example, pushing data closer to the client is one of the primary reasons CDNs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network) were invented -- to optimize content delivery so content is fewer hops away from the client. And in graph theory a common problem is trying to find the shortest path from one node to another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortest_path_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortest_path_problem).