Sunday, March 25, 2012

Here’s an Incredible Idea For How Memory Works

Do you remember Avogadro’s number, the acceleration due to gravity, pi or a Shakespearean Sonnet? The problem is that how the brain could store information long-term has been something of a mystery. But now researchers have developed a very interesting idea of how the brain’s neurons could store information using, believe it or not, a binary encoding scheme based on phosphorylation:

Memory is attributed to strengthened synaptic connections among particular brain neurons, yet synaptic membrane components are transient, whereas memories can endure. This suggests synaptic information is encoded and ‘hard-wired’ elsewhere, e.g. at molecular levels within the post-synaptic neuron. In long-term potentiation (LTP), a cellular and molecular model for memory, post-synaptic calcium ion (Ca2+) flux activates the hexagonal Ca2+-calmodulin dependent kinase II (CaMKII), a dodacameric holoenzyme containing 2 hexagonal sets of 6 kinase domains. Each kinase domain can either phosphorylate substrate proteins, or not (i.e. encoding one bit). Thus each set of extended CaMKII kinases can potentially encode synaptic Ca2+ information via phosphorylation as ordered arrays of binary ‘bits’. Candidate sites for CaMKII phosphorylation-encoded molecular memory include microtubules (MTs), cylindrical organelles whose surfaces represent a regular lattice with a pattern of hexagonal polymers of the protein tubulin. Using molecular mechanics modeling and electrostatic profiling, we find that spatial dimensions and geometry of the extended CaMKII kinase domains precisely match those of MT hexagonal lattices. This suggests sets of six CaMKII kinase domains phosphorylate hexagonal MT lattice neighborhoods collectively, e.g. conveying synaptic information as ordered arrays of six “bits”, and thus “bytes”, with 64 to 5,281 possible bit states per CaMKII-MT byte. Signaling and encoding in MTs and other cytoskeletal structures offer rapid, robust solid-state information processing which may reflect a general code for MT-based memory and information processing within neurons and other eukaryotic cells.

That just has random mutations written all over it.

74 comments:

  1. Cornelius,

    You just don't know how powerful evolution is! It does any and all things, regardless of probability.

    You don't see any gods pushing molecules around now, do you?

    :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr Hunter, please join this very interesting Facebook group...

      http://www.facebook.com/groups/celebrate.evolving.creation/

      We need an ID Proponent there!!!

      Delete
  2. 'Complex, therefore designed'?

    Really? STILL playing this broken record?

    STILL ignoring the fact that ToE is NOT random chance?

    STILL ignoring all the non-random evolutionary mechanisms and processes which increase information and complexity?

    STILL not willing to see how ID's explanation measures up scientifically?

    STILL just relying on "ToE is random chance (lie), but look how complicated THIS is. Surely that wasn't random chance, *scoff scoff*"

    STILL no science? STILL no rational argument?

    Really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. STILL ignoring all the non-random evolutionary mechanisms and processes which decrease entropy?

      Really?

      Delete
    2. Differential reproductive success?

      Delete
  3. of related note, The following is a interesting point to note in view of the brain having more switches that the internet,,,

    Appraising the brain's energy budget:
    Excerpt: In the average adult human, the brain represents about 2% of the body weight. Remarkably, despite its relatively small size, the brain accounts for about 20% of the oxygen and, hence, calories consumed by the body. This high rate of metabolism is remarkably constant despite widely varying mental and motoric activity. The metabolic activity of the brain is remarkably constant over time.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237.full

    THE EFFECT OF MENTAL ARITHMETIC ON CEREBRAL CIRCULATION AND METABOLISM
    Excerpt: Although Lennox considered the performance of mental arithmetic as "mental work", it is not immediately apparent what the nature of that work in the physical sense might be if, indeed, there be any. If no work or energy transformation is involved in the process of thought, then it is not surprising that cerebral oxygen consumption is unaltered during mental arithmetic.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC438861/pdf/jcinvest00624-0127.pdf

    Notes:

    Human Brain Has More Switches Than All Computers on Earth - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5516446/

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a
    microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet
    connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fascinating read, Dr. Hunter, thanks.

    It's remarkable how much more sophisticated life is than those who propagated Darwin's argument-from-ignorance throughout the 19th and 20th centuries realized. The sophistication continues to grow by leaps-and-bounds, all while nature's creative ineptitude remains constant.

    As for Ritchie's sissified rant above: Darwinists frequently use the "bad design" argument against I.D., where they use an alleged lack of complexity/sophistication as evidence for an absence of intelligent design.

    But, here's the rub...

    If the lack of sophistication is evidence for the absence of of intelligent design, then an abundance of sophistication is evidence for the presence of intelligent design.

    Make up your minds, Liars For Darwin. Either quality of design can be be used as evidence for or against I.D., or it cannot.

    If it's the former, then sophistication is, in fact, evidence for I.D.

    If it's the latter, then "bad design" is cannot evidence against I.D.

    My opinion is that sophistication is evidence for -- and bad design evidence against -- I.D. It's clear that the former greatly outweighs the latter, thus, the quality of the design found in life overwhelmingly sides with I.D.

    I.D. wins again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Make up your minds, Liars For Darwin. Either quality of design can be be used as evidence for or against I.D., or it cannot.

      Still not really getting it then.

      Evolution can produce complex and sophisticated features. It also can produce some duff ones - kludges, or biological dead-ends, if you will. This fits the evidence.

      However, if there was a desinger, how are we to explain 'bad design'?

      See? 'Good design' can be explained a number of different ways, so there is no necessity to credit ID.

      Meanwhile, 'bad design' still stands as a significant problem to the ID hypothesis.

      So no, ID does not 'win' at all. It comes out looking like the lame duck it is.

      Delete
    2. What do you feel are good or bad designs?

      Delete
    3. Smith

      What do you feel are good or bad designs?


      How about the designer giving humans different types of blood (A,B, AB,O) with different Rh factors so that if you accidentally marry someone of an incompatible type and have a family, your children die.

      The Designer didn't think that one through very well, now did He?

      Delete
    4. Ritchie:

      Lots of things designed by humans are poor designs. There is my car. There is the Tacoma/Narrows bridge. Citicorp Building was found to have a critical design flaw. It was corrected before it collapsed. I could site more examples, but I think you get the idea. I could even say that this post is poorly designed. Poor design doesn't mean no designer.

      Delete
    5. natschuster

      Lots of things designed by humans are poor designs. There is my car. There is the Tacoma/Narrows bridge. Citicorp Building was found to have a critical design flaw. It was corrected before it collapsed. I could site more examples, but I think you get the idea. I could even say that this post is poorly designed. Poor design doesn't mean no designer.


      So you agree that poor design means an incompetent designer?

      That pretty much rules out the claimed Omnipotent Infallible Christian God as the Designer then, right?

      Delete
    6. Re: Thorton

      He who? Anyhow. Rh conflicts could be a method of population control. Humans build such devices into our constructs. In terms of propagation, we certainly further the ability through various contraceptives and abortion techniques. Marriage does not necessarily require progeny either.


      Re: Natchuster

      Design flaw or engineering flaw? Maybe insurance fraud was Citicorp’s aim. What’s wrong with your car?

      Delete
    7. Unless, of course the designer had a reason for designing something we see as poor. Sometimes it turns out to be a good design. Or the designer had a reason, like planned obsolescence. Or it is a punishment for sin. Or it is a test. Or it instills fear in us which could motivate us to turn to God. Or perfection includes the ability to be imperfect. So if God is perfect, then that puts a limitation on Him. Lots of people a lot smarter than me have discussed these issues, starting with the Book of Job.

      Delete
    8. Smith:

      I understand that the error was a miscalculation of wind shear, combined with a decision to use bolts instead of welding. I don't konow how to classify that error. And please don't get me started on my car. Poor gas milage, to start with.

      Delete
    9. That's often the challenge with known systems. We may be introduced to the what and the where yet rarely the why. Without more data, any classification may be a stretch.

      Your car situation sounds like a fun blend of fiscally interdependent corporate back patting. (If one is in to conspiracy theories.)

      Delete
    10. Smith

      He who?


      Ask PaV/Lino when he comes back. He claims to know.

      Rh conflicts could be a method of population control. Humans build such devices into our constructs.

      Wow. So the Designer came up with a way to cause unsuspecting parents the joy of watching their children suffer or die as a form of birth control. That explains why He designed Ravine encephalopathy that kills babies by destroying their brains too. Still, you'd think the Designer of the whole universe could come up with something a little less macabre. I guess having little children mauled to death by bears and drowning them in a Great Flood got a little boring.

      In terms of propagation, we certainly further the ability through various contraceptives and abortion techniques. Marriage does not necessarily require progeny either

      There are a couple of million Roman Catholics who would fight you tooth and nail over that. If they can take time from their busy schedule bombing Planned Parenthood clinics and fighting same-sex marriages that is.

      Delete
    11. Hey, watch it. 47 % of Catholics are Democrats. 98 % of Catholics use some form of birth control. 44% support gay marriage. The Offical Dogma of the Church is routinely ignored, for good reason.

      Delete
    12. re: thorton

      Hmm. Sounds like your view of a designer may closely align with his – perhaps with overtones of Islam, hints of Akkad and a pinch of oregano. I do doubt that it is joyful for a parent to watch their child suffer.

      We mirror the macabre in our own methods. Blood types and R. Encephalopathy occur regardless of one's affinity. Plopping a newborn in a dumpster and leaving it for dead is something else entirely. If you're upset over natural causes, are you just as upset over unnatural causes?

      Did you just stereotype all roman catholics as domestic terrorists?

      Delete
    13. Smith

      Hmm. Sounds like your view of a designer may closely align with his – perhaps with overtones of Islam, hints of Akkad and a pinch of oregano. I do doubt that it is joyful for a parent to watch their child suffer.


      You're the guy who suggested your Designer kills children as a form of population control.

      We mirror the macabre in our own methods. Blood types and R. Encephalopathy occur regardless of one's affinity.

      Your Designer is an equal opportunity murderer. Got it.

      If you're upset over natural causes, are you just as upset over unnatural causes?

      But you just told us your Designer kills children on purpose. That's not a natural cause.

      Did you just stereotype all roman catholics as domestic terrorists?

      No.

      Delete
    14. "Your designer," as in mine? You may want to check the text again to see who capitalizes what. You seem more interested in talking about some designer than you are "good" or "bad" examples of design. What constitutes a good design for you?

      Also, which "couple of million roman catholics" are the domestic terrorists? As that religion is widespread, I would like to be aware.

      Delete
    15. Smith

      "Your designer," as in mine? You may want to check the text again to see who capitalizes what.


      The Designer you say deliberately kills children as a form of population control. You brought it up so I assumed it was yours. I don't know of any actual Designer.

      What constitutes a good design for you?

      There are many things that have been highly optimized by millions of years of selection pressures - the streamlined shape of certain fish for high speed swimming as an example. I don't know of anything in the biological world that was consciously designed.

      Delete
    16. My comment was in the context of your initial statement regarding your designer's use of blood types and Rh factors. My initial question to Ritchie was, "What do you feel are good or bad designs?" You invoked a designer.

      What constitutes a good design for you outside of biological structures?

      Delete
    17. Smith

      What constitutes a good design for you outside of biological structures?


      To me a good design is one that meets or exceeds its pre-conceived, pre-design specifications.

      Delete
    18. Allow me to add:

      To me a good design is one that meets or exceeds its pre-conceived, pre-design specifications without producing any undesirable or negative side effects.

      Delete
    19. Interesting description. I think spoons are usually well done.

      Could you elaborate a bit on how a design meets preconceived or pre-design specifications?

      Delete
    20. Smith

      Could you elaborate a bit on how a design meets preconceived or pre-design specifications?


      The usual way is that a production article of the design is empirically tested, and the test results compared against the goals outlined in the before-the-fact specification.

      Delete
    21. For a single component, yes. What about the design itself?

      Delete
    22. Smith

      For a single component, yes. What about the design itself?


      It's done for individual components before assembly (which have their own lower level specs), and done for the entire design as a whole to meet the highest level system specification.

      How do you think new aircraft are checked out, by testing one wing at a time?

      Delete
    23. That would depend upon the phase of production.

      What about other facets of design?

      Delete
    24. Smith

      What about other facets of design?


      What about them?

      Delete
    25. You've hinted at portions of industrial design, but not much else. Your original statement about preconception and pre-design specification would seem to hint at a predetermined need or desire for which "design" is used as a method of solution.

      To you, what is design?

      Delete
    26. Smith

      You've hinted at portions of industrial design, but not much else. Your original statement about preconception and pre-design specification would seem to hint at a predetermined need or desire for which "design" is used as a method of solution.


      You asked a lot of rather silly questions that you could have easily found answers for yourself, and I have patiently answered them. If there is a point to this time wasting goat rope, please state it.

      Delete
    27. Unless there is a repository of your thoughts in existence elsewhere, questioning is a reasonable method.

      You have stated what you believe makes a good design but not what design itself is.

      It is satisfactory if you do not have an answer, though it is a bit odd.

      Delete
    28. Smith

      You have stated what you believe makes a good design but not what design itself is.


      Ah, I see. You're just interested in playing silly semantic games with definitions.

      Why don't you tell us what design is, since you raised the issue. After that you can provide your answers to all the questions you asked.

      Delete
    29. Ah, avoidance.

      If you're not interested in a thorough conversation regarding design or are unable to provide a competent answer, simply say so.

      Delete
    30. Smith

      If you're not interested in a thorough conversation regarding design or are unable to provide a competent answer, simply say so.


      I'm not interested in a one sided conversation with a childish IDiot only interested in playing evasive semantic games.

      Feel free to prove me wrong by providing your own definitions and your own answers to the questions you asked of me.

      Delete
    31. So you assume a conversation regarding design must entail a supposed antithesis to what you believe which you visit upon others. Childish indeed! You're very similar in approach to information as you perceive others on this blog to be.

      Feel free to provide the details as to which few million roman catholics are terrorists.

      Delete
    32. Smith

      So you assume a conversation regarding design must entail a supposed antithesis to what you believe which you visit upon others. Childish indeed! You're very similar in approach to information as you perceive others on this blog to be.


      Cowardly avoidance of questions by childish IDiot noted.

      Delete
    33. Smith

      As is your hypocrisy.


      I answered your questions. You're too much of a mouthy coward to answer them yourself.

      Delete
    34. It started off as a nice conversation. You answered the questions you were comfortable with and avoided the ones you were not. When asked again you became acerbic and assumptive and entered into a pattern of abusive language in order to hide from your ignorance of the subject matter.

      Mouthy and cowardly? Yes. But you.

      Delete
    35. Smith

      It started off as a nice conversation. You answered the questions you were comfortable with and avoided the ones you were not.


      You avoided all the questions and chose instead to pursue your childish semantic antics. You're the one who demonstrated ignorance on the subject matter.

      Seems like dishonest rhetorical games are all you mouthy IDiot cowards can ever do.

      Delete
    36. It does seem fair to answer the question you posed, let's narrow it down to human design, if nothing else to satisfy the curious observer.

      Delete
    37. Are we still waiting, or have we moved on?

      Delete
    38. Smith

      Are we still waiting, or have we moved on?


      The rest of us are still waiting for you to provide your own answers to the discussion questions. Whether or not you've moved on to your next childish semantic game is unknown.

      Delete
    39. Look Thorton, from naturalist to naturalist can you please shut up? You make the rest of us look really bad. If you have a point then make it. Otherwise stop saying very stupid things.

      Delete
    40. Kazammiri

      Look Thorton, from naturalist to naturalist can you please shut up? You make the rest of us look really bad. If you have a point then make it. Otherwise stop saying very stupid things.


      LOL! Oh lookie, another IDiot chimes in from the sidelines.

      Why don't you have a go and answer Smith's questions? That way you wouldn't look so stupid and wouldn't make yourself look so bad.

      Delete
    41. Yeah and your reading comprehension sucks. Did you even read the first sentence? You say ignorant things and can't back 'em up. You complain about others doing the same thing. Stop being a pansy. You're not helping the rest of us make any progress.

      Delete
    42. Kazammiri

      Yeah and your reading comprehension sucks. Did you even read the first sentence?


      Yeah, and IDiot trolls lying and pretending to be pro-science are a dime a dozen. It's just another tactic in their Lying for Jesus tool kit.

      You say ignorant things and can't back 'em up.

      Funny then that you can't demonstrate where anything I've said about evolutionary biology is ignorant or hasn't been backed up.

      You're not helping the rest of us make any progress.

      If you want to "make progress" then supply your answers to Smith's questions. Smith was too cowardly to try. I'm betting you are too.

      So speak up or go slime back under your rock, IDiot troll.

      Delete
    43. And again with it! Dense much? I'm a naturalist. What I'm saying is that your self-absorbed rants make the rest of us look as ridiculous as you. Science isn't some sort of chest beating game where you show everyone how much you're compensating for low self esteem. At least some of us can put a cohesive thought together.

      You haven't answered his question either. Should I slime your rock or mine?

      Delete
    44. Kazammiri

      And again with it! Dense much?


      Lying IDiot troll spotted.

      You haven't answered his question either.

      Yes I did answer his questions, up to the point it became obvious he was only interested in playing childish semantic games and refused to provide his own answers. You won't provide any answers either because you're lying IDiot troll. Now go bugger off.

      Delete
    45. “...he was only interested in playing childish semantic games and refused to provide his own answers.”

      That is an interesting take. It is good to know that, in your mind, cowardice is equitable to not commenting on a blog that isn't one's own in a compensatory and compulsory manner because other responsibilities take precedence.



      Design is a language.

      Delete
    46. Smith

      “T; ...he was only interested in playing childish semantic games and refused to provide his own answers.”

      That is an interesting take. It is good to know that, in your mind, cowardice is equitable to not commenting on a blog that isn't one's own in a compensatory and compulsory manner because other responsibilities take precedence.


      Funny then that you found time to make three other smarmy non-answer posts after you were asked to answer your own questions. So much for the "I was too busy" excuse. You IDiots can't go a single day without lying about something.

      Design is a language.

      Please elaborate on and support your assertion. Or are we only going to see more childish semantic games?

      Delete
    47. Tut, tut, little one.

      "There are a couple of million Roman Catholics who would fight you tooth and nail over that. If they can take time from their busy schedule bombing Planned Parenthood clinics and fighting same-sex marriages that is."

      "Please elaborate on and support your assertion. Or are we only going to see more childish semantic games?"

      Delete
    48. Smith

      Tut, tut, little one.


      Tut tut indeed. Besides being too stupid to recognize sarcasm, the lying IDiot is still only interested in evading questions and playing his silly word games. What a surprise.

      Delete
    49. Did you just call Velikovskys stupid too?

      Delete
    50. Thanks for defending my honor,Smith,regardless of the motivation. Since Thorton said he did not mean that Catholics were bomb wielding fanatics, I figure that is truth. Then again I am not in a " nice conversation" like you guys. And being called stupid? Take a number.

      Thanks for the definition,Smith. Design is a language? A method to communicate an idea? Or am I on the wrong track?

      Delete
    51. I wonder about him...

      On design; the language of solution. Designs, then, are not developed out of preference but for the understanding and solving of need.

      Delete
    52. The designer's preferences are intrinsic to design, design is the elimination of alternate possibilities. There are practical as well as idiosyncratic reasons for the choices. Perhaps your definition of need is broad enough to encompass this so preference is redundant

      Delete
    53. In some regards.
      A good designer would put the need before the preference. It is, unfortunately, rare. Even so, multiple solutions are valid if the need is kept at the fore. It makes for a colorful world.

      Delete
  5. Human design can be either complex or simple, There is a school of thought which believes the simplest means to an end is the most elegant.

    But I thought ID was only about detecting design, the means or quality or the when or most importantly,the who was off limits. Otherwise per Dr Hunter you are not doing good science

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Human design can be either complex or simple,..."

    Indeed. Simplicity and complexity tend to be treated as weapons rather than understood as methods.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You are correct,but alas , if the detection of a design is the goal,by definition created by designer,possibly completely different from us, who greatly exceeds human capacity ,whose motivations and intentions are inscrutable, what options do you have? Just the claim that life is just too darn complex to have occurred, with our present knowledge, therefore design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. The same has been asked for many years regarding pieces of "art." We use high technology to uncover the masterful strokes of long-dead painters. Maybe their techniques weren't the same point of awe then as they are now.

      The option of pursuit is always viable.

      Delete
    2. Have you heard of Maurizio Seracini? He has spent 35 yrs trying to prove that there is a lost DaVinci fresco underneath another fresco in Florence. They have linked the black pigment used on the hidden fresco to the black pigment used by Da Vinci. There are still skeptics.

      Delete
    3. I have, yes. It has been some time since I last followed the efforts. It reminds me of Baroque puzzle canons in their interactive sort of nature.

      Delete
  8. If the design seen in this paper is evidence for Design, People who say that this is the product of anything else but design are just evidence for Satan...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Omar,

      I hope you are a Poe,if not that is also proof of Satan

      Delete
    2. Kumar, are you aware there is satanic mechanic in this universe?

      Delete
    3. Does he work on Satan's car? Maybe he could give Nat a hand.

      Delete
  9. If the brain evolved to control movement, then memory would play an integral part in that task. This is because we make extensive use of memory in how we move, apply force, etc.

    See the following TED talk for details: Daniel Wolpert: The real reason for brains.

    If this is the case, memory would represent a pre-adaptation in regards to how we, as human beings utilize it for additional purposes.

    ReplyDelete