I wonder if this could have anything to do with AD/HDers having difficulty making decisions? Maybe our AD/HD impairs those cells?

Brain Cells Linked To Choice News Article (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=610912006)

Scientists find brain cells linked to choice

LONDON (Reuters) - If choosing the right outfit or whether to invest in stocks or bonds is difficult, it may not be just indecisiveness but how brain cells assign values to different items, scientists said on Sunday.

Researchers at Harvard Medical School in Boston have identified neurons, or brain cells, that seem to play a role in how a person selects different items or goods.

Scientists have known that cells in different parts of the brain react to attributes such as colour, taste or quantity. Dr Camillo Padaoa-Schioppa and John Assad, an associate professor of neurobiology, found neurons involved in assigning values that help people to make choices.

"The neurons we have identified encode the value individuals assign to the available items when they make choices based on subjective preferences, a behaviour called economic choice," Padoa-Schioppa said in a statement.

The scientists, who reported the findings in the journal Nature, located the neurons in an area of the brain known as the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) while studying macaque monkeys which had to choose between different flavours and quantities of juices.

They correlated the animals' choices with the activity of neurons in the OFC with the valued assigned to the different types of juices. Some neurons would be highly active when the monkeys selected three drops of grape juice, for example, or 10 drops of apple juice.

Other neurons encoded the value of only the orange juice or grape juice.

"The monkey's choice may be based on the activity of these neurons," said Padoa-Schioppa.

Earlier research involving the OFC showed that lesions in the area seem to have an association with eating disorders, compulsive gambling and unusual social behaviour.

The new findings show an association between the activity of the OFC and the mental valuation process underlying choice behaviour, according to the scientists.

"A concrete possibility is that various choice deficits may result from an impaired or dysfunctional activity of this population (of neurons), though this hypothesis remains to be tested," Padoa-Schioppa.

Interesting thought Chameleon.
The article was hard to read for me, but
it was interesting concept.
Thanks for the article.:)

sry but, how isn't that a little bit well....obvious, i mean surely people knew this years ago or is this just that they've actually proved it cause it sounds like common sense.

ur link does make sense though cham, good post :)

Oh, well – baby steps.

Interesting article, though, and thanks for posting it.

In the long run this work isn’t all that helpful, and I suspect that these guys aren’t going to get much further than this. The talk about dysfunction is misplaced, and their lack of understanding about that is what tells us they don’t grasp how neural structures function in real live brains.

I suppose that’s what they’re trying to understand with this work, but I don’t see it as progress. This result was a no-brainer for many theorists twenty years ago.

I guess that’s what frosts me about work like this. Why can’t people pay attention to history, and avoid spending research time and money on stuff like this, which should fall out of any of several more important efforts for free?

* * * * *

If anyone’s interested:

This is the expected behavior of neural structures. It interesting that they apparently manage to monitor specific neurons in real time in living subjects, which may or may not be a small advance on existing technology. But knowing that there’s activity in specific neurons involved in the modeling associated with the macaques making a choice isn’t very helpful.

This is not “a behaviour called economic choice”, as the authors claim. All neural structures function this way, regardless of any externally observable behaviors they may be associated with, or even if they play no obvious role.

In a sense neural structures are always driven to identify an optimum of some sort; that determination represents the output of the process implied by the structure’s logic.

To put it more simply, if these structures didn’t process the macaque’s sensory input stream in this way (to identify the most desirable object present), no choices would ever get made.

The idea that this might lead to a better understanding of some recognizable disability doesn’t follow, from anything we can see in it. It certainly has nothing to do with AD/HD.

Researchers at Harvard Medical School have a lack of understanding about dysfunction Stabile??? Omg! Who do we turn to then? YOU?
If I can't trust Harvard scientists to know what they're talking about, then I'm really at a loss.

What I wondered though, is if the chemical imbalances in the AD/HD brain could cause the cell dysfunction they describe.

The article was interesting. Its good to see they are developing a greater understanding of how the brain functions so we can more concisely addresses dysfunctions and disorders. They need to learn to count before they can do math!

It will be funny years from now how people will be saying, "How could people use those methods! That was so barbaric!" when we percieve it as state of the art right now. ;)

My question though is they were clearly trying to measuring how decision making was being made and the neural activity around it, but is this really a true measure of decision making or a measure of likes and dislikes?

Good point. Does deciding what we like take the same brain process as deciding what we should do? Seems like different processes to me, if I was to guess.
Choosing new shoes to buy is an enjoyable decision.
Choosing whether to pay for surgery my llama needs is not a fun decision. :p

I think in the test where they were using three drops of grape juice verse 10 drops of apple juice they were really measuring what the monkey liked or preferred to drink, but in a true economic decision we may or may not have unrestricted choices... wants verse needs..

The other thing that isn't taken into account is the social impact of decisions and how those impact our economic decisions..

Sure we don't have unrestricted choices, but we do choose between the choices allowed us. And do you ever feel like you can't make ANY decisions because you're incapable? I get that way when my anxiety is high which makes my ADHD worse. Just feel like decision making is too taxing on my brain.

There's lots of considerations they didn't take into account. For instance, if someone was trying to lose weight they'd take into account the calorie count of apple juice vs grape juice. If they were allergic to apples they'd certainly take that into account. If they just brushed their teeth and were going out, that may impact their decision to not drink the grape juice. So so many considerations.
But as far as the all-encompassing decision making process, I'd like to know how much ADHD impacts it, and anxiety, on the cellular level.

i have a really hard time making decisions. Especially in high stress times.

I would like to hear more about this, maybe read more when i'm at home and can concentrate better!

Well I'm afraid the article doesn't answer our questions about that Chloe, we're just speculating now and wishing it answered :p

Oh so I am not stupid since I didnt under stand the article.:D

Researchers at Harvard Medical School have a lack of understanding about dysfunction Stabile??? Omg! Who do we turn to then? YOU?
Hopefully, you turn to a well informed self.


If I can't trust Harvard scientists to know what they're talking about, then I'm really at a loss.
I didn’t say you couldn‘t trust ‘em. I said they’re pretty far off the mark, and I stand by that. These results (or something strikingly similar) were considered expected by many theorists working as far back as twenty years or more.

That said, there are a lot of people working out there today with a similar lack of appreciation of the basic principles by which neural structures perform their function. It’s kind of sad, but not entirely unexpected.

The reasons why that’s not unexpected are related to the appearance of AD/HD. In our study of human communication we identified two significantly different forms of logical structures in general use to store and process information. (These are not neural structures, but rather the organizing principle of the information represented in neural structures.)

One form is relatively modern, in use for perhaps five to ten thousand years. It’s capable of significantly more detailed representations, and its use is strongly tied to AD/HD.

People that don’t use these structures (for whatever reason) construct solid, complete logical systems that are provably correct, but may be significantly different than logical systems built using the newer form. But note these, too, are likely to be complete and correct, posing quite a problem when the two clash.

The difference between the newer form and the older one is the inclusion of an awareness of relative metalevel, a logical property. Dysfunction and the effects observed by these researchers occupy two completely different metalevels. Any relationship between the two would be distant and derivative at best. (In truth, there is likely no connection at all.)

The researchers statements lumped dysfunction and their results together in a way that leads me to believe they don’t include an awareness of relative metalevel in their internal models of their work, i.e., they likely use the older logical form to store and analyze the information related to their work.

In fairness, the use of the older form is often required by circumstance when working in a mainstream research environment. Exceptions to this are still relatively rare, and note that the use of the traditional logical form at work doesn’t preclude the use of the newer form in other areas of one’s life.

One of the purposes of our AD/HD drugs is to allow us to adapt to exactly this sort of circumstance.


What I wondered though, is if the chemical imbalances in the AD/HD brain could cause the cell dysfunction they describe.
That’s a good question, and good for you for seeing it behind the main thrust of the article.

Unfortunately, the popular idea that we suffer from a chemical imbalance itself suffers from the same problems that the article faced. The kind of effects that might be related to an actual chemical imbalance in our brains are on a completely different metalevel than the mechanisms that are related to the symptoms of AD/HD.

Many people will tell you with great confidence that such chemical deficiencies (or excesses) have been observed in the brains of ADDers, but that completely overstates the science that exists.

We’ve looked pretty closely at this, with the help of people who have every reason to know the details of the neurochemistry and neurobiology. As far as we can tell, even the best guesses about the role of chemical differences between the AD/HD brain and a normal brain are likely to be at least partially incorrect.

The kind of effects that cause you to, say, be forgetful, or overload and forget to turn off the water in the sink, or other similar AD/HD symptoms, are not related directly to any chemical effects. If you can do any of these things, even poorly (if it’s fair to call it that), then the biochemical systems are working fine.

One AD/HD effect that might be related to a subtle shift in the neurochemical environment in which these neural structures function is the ability to multitask, or multithread your conscious attention processes. It’s not too surprising that this is directly related to the ability to observe relative metalevel and store a memory of the relationship.

Stabile, have you read any of the literature regarding the intersection of neurochemical transmission/neuropharmacology and cognitive neuroscience? I ask this because your statements that neurochemical transmission cannot be involved with ADHD symptoms is in complete contradiction with virtually every expert on the subject. I'm not just saying "hey, I disagree," I'm saying that just about every psychiatrist except breggin, and every neurologist except baughman...in other words, everyone but the quacks, accepts the proposed neurochemical, specifically catecholaminergic, etiology of ADHD. If you wish to speculate on other possile causes, could you please include a disclaimer stating that your views are not widely accepted by the major researchers?

now on to this article, for everyone else: These actions, or lack thereof, are certainly occuring in or near regions of the brain that have previously been implicated in ADHD. However, what is interesting in ADHD patients is that prefrontal activity in and of itself is not responsible for all the behaviors that we lack, but that inactivity in this region likely prevents proper functioning of the various other regions. If I had to make a rather uninformed guess, I'd wonder if perhaps the value of each oject were stored elsewhere in the macaques' brains, but that the OFC activity was necessary to access each value simultaneously so that they can be compared. Inactivity in this region would then result in knowing the value of each object, but eing unable to evaluate them "side-by-side" as it were, and therefore eing unable to base a decision on such a comparison.

In this situation, the OFC activity wouldn't necessarily be a cognitive action, but rather a regulatory action, coordinating between the areas where each value is stored and with working memory that can perform such a comparison. Without this regulatory function, most likely through inhibitory neurotransmitters, the order of things gets all screwed up.

So how does this relate to neurochemical transmission? Well, in ADHD patients, the lack of these regulatory functions occurs because the prefrontal neurons fail to activate properly. They fail to activate properly because the excitatory catecholamine neurotransmitters, primarily dopamine, but possily also norepinephrine, are not reaching the receptors on these neurons in large enough amounts to activate them. In ADHD patients, we see an excess of dopamine transport proteins in the presynaptic dopamine producing cells that send out these chemicals to the prefrontal neurons. These proteins are responsible for removing dopamine from the synapse, leaving less of it to activate the postsynaptic, or "downstream" neuron, which in this case are the prefrontal neurons.

Almost all ADHD medications involve action at these proteins. Adderall and Dexedrine cause these proteins to work in reverse, so they send more excitatory transmitters out instead of removing them. Ritalin, Concerta, and other forms of methylphenidate, along with Wellbutrin and Strattera, block these proteins so that they cannot pull more of the excitatory neurotransmitters out of the synapse. I've posted in other threads an in-depth look at why these actions are so useful in treating ADHD, and how all of these issues result in the difference in effect between ADHD and non-ADHD patients when they take them.

Just in case this wasn’t already rolling down hill let me bring in a monkey wrench just to make those brain breaks do so real spinning….

I am not agreeing or disagreeing just some observations here as I think we get into a redundancy loop and as we all know us hyper ADDers don’t do redundancy well.

Sense I can not change any one but myself then let me play a bit here!!

I am always loosing the non-ADDers in my other forums!

I am a lot of fun in debates!

This crowd is one of the few who can keep up with the changes kind of like playing music!!!

what is interesting in ADHD patients is that prefrontal activity in and of itself is not responsible for all the behaviors that we lack, but that inactivity in this region likely prevents proper functioning of the various other regions

For bunch of ADDers with severely dysfunctional brains I sure read a lot of intellectual arguments!

Okay I will buy this I am more than my frontal cortex! Thank you!

Inactivity is a bit skewed in my realm of “functioning” here .. I see it as harder to activate perhaps or even active by different stimulus. .no function = brain dead!

Excuse me I don’t remember any one saying my brain could be dead. .it forget to take my body with it…Oh yea I work tomorrow… :faint: .... that will do it!

I'd wonder if perhaps the value of each object were stored elsewhere in the macaques' brains, but that the OFC activity was necessary to access each value simultaneously so that they can be compared

Value of monkeys probably vastly different than mine! How necessary is executive functions in the brain of a monkey when deciding what to drink?? How necessary is it in mine what are the difference and similarities? I don’t think I even need the executive functioning to decide if I am thirsty!


rather a regulatory action, coordinating between the areas where each value is stored and with working memory that can perform such a comparison. Without this regulatory function, most likely through inhibitory neurotransmitters, the order of things gets all screwed up.


My decisions as to what to drink based upon what I like better apple or grape juice is stored in short term memory that I have not got????? I thought these things were stored in the taste buds!


Break in redundancy loop…..

Dopamine, norephniphereine, executive function apparently don’t work well in a lot of things not just ADD …….. is it what….. it is in the where??? Wtf=fry is up with this dopamine, norepinphrine, fixations! More round and rounds! Round six million and sixty-five!

Just to make sure we aren't on the same page!

I get this stuff in my e-mail......

Medscape (http://www.medscape.com/pages/sites/infosite/nsi/content/article-0805-depression)

Quote***
Reduced dopaminergic activity has been associated with anhedonia[14], decreased incentive motivation[15], and loss of interest[16] in depression. The mesocorticolimbic DA pathway, in particular the nucleus accumbens, appears to be a key regulator of pleasure[17]. The ventral striatum and prefrontal cortex are believed to be important dopaminergic regions involved in motivation and affect[18]. A dysfunction of the mesocorticolimbic DA system may underlie the symptoms of anhedonia, apathy, and loss of interest observed in depression.
End Quote***


Gee this does not sound like my ADHD at all! I must have dopamine out the waaa zooo!


Medscape another page (http://www.medscape.com/pages/sites/infosite/nsi/content/article-0805-rlspathophys)

quote***
Abnormalities in both dopamine reuptake and dopamine receptor distribution and/or function have been found in the brains of patients with RLS. Besides dopamine, other neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine and opiates may be involved in the pathophysiology of RLS; however, their role is less defined than that of dopamine.
End Quote***

I have restless body!!! But I can stop wiggling if I am so inclined, I am just rarely inclined.

Okay now this one reads exactly like the main stream ADDed reasoning...

Guess this condition...I put the blanks in so let us see how good you are at condtion guess don't peek at the source until you have made your guess!

Neuropsychological evidence (http://www.medscape.com/pages/sites/infosite/nsi/content/article-1005-symptoms)


Neuropsychological studies in patients with (***) have consistently identified cognitive impairment in the domains of attention, memory, and executive function.[3]

Attention
Patients with (***) frequently complain of impaired attention. Most research on attentional impairment in (blank condition) supports the concept that (blank condition) interferes more with effortful processes than with automatic processes.[4] Automatic processes are accomplished automatically, and do not require attention or conscious awareness. Effortful processes, on the other hand, require attention, sustained effort, and information processing.

Memory

Studies of memory in (another blank) patients have consistently shown impairments in short-term recall and learning for both verbal and visuo-spatial material.[9]

Executive function

Executive function is the aspect of cognition that contributes to decision-making and higher-level thinking involved in initiation, planning, execution, and anticipation.[13] Executive functions are responsible for the control of attention, inhibition, set-shifting, and task management.

Neuropsychological studies of executive function in (***) have identified deficits in working memory, cognitive set-shifting, and planning tasks
End Quote***

OKay think this is talking about ADD~~~=~~~TIME UP!

From source**
Neuroimaging technology has provided the ability to investigate the neuroanatomical and neurophysiological correlates of the cognitive symptoms of depression
End Quote***

(***)=MMD=major depressive disorder

(blank condition)=depression!

That is correct the above source quote first and last are discussing depression which doesn't feel any thing like hyper active, multi tasking, ever nosey ADD= or hyper active, hyper aware, hyper intersted meadd823!

Okay I need some one from this school of thought here to explain to me the difference between the egg and the chicken so to speak!

Do have a good day and don’t forget …..don’t forget oops I forgot- :p forgot to work my memory.......he he he :p !!!

Outta here! For now any way! Have fun!

Soon enough we'll experience a complete perspective change in the processes which medical science is applying to understand the mind.

Funnily enough, the development of the logical structure (responsible for our mind) is uncovered by its own development; real elegant.

That last sentence is important, but difficult to grasp, unless you've always suspected something kinda' similar.

It's real simple ...honestly... the mind is not the 'body'.
The orders and disorders of the body collapse under 'molecular' scrutiny, but the mind cannot collapse using these tools.
The fact that they've been applied is really only the consequence of the benefits that medicine has witnessed in areas where these techniques will work, that is, in studies upon the body and brain BUT NOT mind.

Naturally, there are some big players selling the neurochemical approach to mind ... but please, think for a second about the mind :-)

Do you really think that a slightly reduced affinity for a serine phosphorylation event or some other biochemical process, could ever expand up to generating something as large as an experiential perspective change over reality.

When some gene changes, a biological process alters, and this process has a 1:1 relationship with the problem.
Imagine, how many intermediate stages some subtle biochemical change would have to undergo, before it, itself, could give rise to the problem ... which in the case of mental conditions, is a change in ---mind---.

I'm pretty sure that any effect that genetics or identifiable biochemistry will yield towards an understanding of mind, will be invisible (next to non-existent), back-to-back against the advances in understanding of mind (as a logical structure) that we are poised to see, and which will result in the largest paradigm shift that I believe is possible for man, and moreso, the largest paradigm shift which *currently* can be envisaged to be possible.

Such are the implications for mind as a logical structure and not neural structure, that the scientific mindscape will be virtually unrecognizable as soon as the terrain shifts, however, that isn't even a small part of all of this.

:-)

Totally cool, and an all-inclusive end to the non-ADDer/ADDer divide :-)

SB.

Stabile, have you read any of the literature regarding the intersection of neurochemical transmission/neuropharmacology and cognitive neuroscience?
Yes. But you knew that, didn’t you? (grin)


I ask this because your statements that neurochemical transmission cannot be involved with ADHD symptoms is in complete contradiction with virtually every expert on the subject. I'm not just saying "hey, I disagree," I'm saying that just about every psychiatrist except breggin, and every neurologist except baughman...in other words, everyone but the quacks, accepts the proposed neurochemical, specifically catecholaminergic, etiology of ADHD. If you wish to speculate on other possile causes, could you please include a disclaimer stating that your views are not widely accepted by the major researchers?
I think I did that well enough, but I can be clearer if you want. You should, also; your claim that there’s a significant agreement out there on the specific role of the relative concentration of neurotransmitters grossly overstates the reality.

Everybody has a different idea of what’s going on, at least in the details. This is tolerated because there isn’t any truly definitive data.

We’ve pointed out many times that all claims we’ve seen having to do with what neurotransmitters are actually doing in a real, live human brain are derivative at best. That is, they rely on inference guided by experimental data gathered in the lab, not from actual active brains, and assumptions about the way drug chemistry affects real functioning brains, again derived from similar lab data.

It is not yet possible to get the kind of data that would allow us to definitively answer the question of what’s happening in the ADDer’s brain when s/he becomes distracted, or forgetful, or contrary, or whatever.

If you know of any advances we might have missed, I would be grateful to hear about them. As far as we know, instrumentation hasn’t had any quantum leaps lately.

Of course, assigning etiology to changes in relative concentrations of neurotransmitters is just as flawed, really a matter of opinion on the part of everyone who takes this stance. Nobody knows what the effects of differences in thinking are on these systems, nor have we heard anyone mention this in the last ten or fifteen years.

There certainly must be differences, though, and these must be compensated for in the data before any conclusions can be drawn. If an ADDer brain can be differentiated from a normal brain, there are differences by definition that must be reflected in a difference in the biochemistry of the respective brains.

What that may be is still up in the air, but existence of a difference shouldn’t necessarily be taken as a sign that a causative factor has been identified. Until we know better, it’s as likely to be a symptom as the observed behavioral differences that made us look in the first place.


now on to this article, for everyone else:
(grins…)


These actions, or lack thereof, are certainly occuring in or near regions of the brain that have previously been implicated in ADHD.
…in one completely unverified model. Be fair, dude. This stuff is all conhecture.


However, what is interesting in ADHD patients is that prefrontal activity in and of itself is not responsible for all the behaviors that we lack, but that inactivity in this region likely prevents proper functioning of the various other regions.
…another matter of opinion, with absolutely no scientific data to back it up.

These interpretations of functional areas of the brain are old news, as is the argument over them. None of them are consistent with the long established and well accepted understanding of how neural structures function.

We know that many big name researchers cleave to an opinion about functional areas similar to this, but that doesn’t matter a whit: they do not know what they are talking about, at least when it comes to these ‘functional’ models of how our brains work.

If they’re from Harvard, yes, we’re saying we know better than they do. But we’ll go one better than you’re likely to get from any of the big name researchers (and feel free to drop names here, if you wish): we’ll give y’all the basis for our claims, if you’re interested.

That’s something nobody promoting the various functional models of the brain has yet to do, despite repeated requests. We’ll even repeat it one more time (Hyperion, we’re looking in your direction):

Where is any scientific evidence that establishes the role of any of these functional areas?

We haven’t seen any. We have seen the relatively slim data gathered from animal research, and that available by clever experiments on humans, or serendipitous injuries and the activity of disease.

But the interpretation, that is, the way that functional definitions are assigned, is all out of whack. This is where we’ve seen no science at all, in fact, not even a mention. Researchers apparently just make a statement to the effect, “This area governs such-and-such a function,” and we’re off to the races.

The truth is most of the functional definition currently in use isn’t consistent with the known function of neural structures. It seems a no-brainer that the models these researchers apply should reflect the way actual neurons work, but that seems not to be the case.

Anyone that can point us to science establishing the functional models associated with these so-called functional areas please do so. We can’t find it, and as I already said, we’ve asked literally hundreds of times before, here and elsewhere.

We have yet to get a meaningful reply. Until that time, we’ll consider the speculation about how the work in the article might be related to AD/HD just that, unsupported speculation, which happens to not fit models based on actual neurons very well.

We’ll stand by our original statements. If anyone is interested in the scientific work on which we’ve based our models, please feel free to contact us.

As we said in an earlier post: Hopefully, you turn to a well informed self (for understanding). We encourage it, and we’re sure you won’t get caught up in silly functional definitions.


(Quote from Medscape)
Reduced dopaminergic activity has been associated with anhedonia[14], decreased incentive motivation[15], and loss of interest[16] in depression. The mesocorticolimbic DA pathway, in particular the nucleus accumbens, appears to be a key regulator of pleasure[17]. The ventral striatum and prefrontal cortex are believed to be important dopaminergic regions involved in motivation and affect[18]. A dysfunction of the mesocorticolimbic DA system may underlie the symptoms of anhedonia, apathy, and loss of interest observed in depression.
Note that “has been associated” is usually code for “has not been shown to actually be related; we could be wrong.” When you track it down, the ‘association’ often turns out to be a statement similar to this:

“The ventral striatum and prefrontal cortex are believed to be important dopaminergic regions involved in motivation and affect[18].”

What often happens is the ‘believed’ get modulated by reference as ‘associated’, and eventually in the haze of language a monster stirs.

Our take on this paragraph (and we spent a lot of time several years ago chasing down exactly this sort of this stuff):

***This is a possible model for a mechanism, which may be more or less correct even if the suggestion of other possible models turns out to be inaccurate. None of it has been demonstrated, not even one scrap of real data.***

***But it might turn out to be true, and if it does, we said it first.***


You have to learn to read between the lines of this stuff; this looks like it suggests we know a lot about what function various areas of the brain perform, and the actual activity of drugs in real live brains. But it’s almost entirely conjecture. Almost all the real data is likely to be stuff generated in test tubes, not real people, and then extrapolated to infer what happens in the brain.

Look at it this way: where did the definitions of motivation and affect come from? (We know the answer, so no cheating.) The problem is these definitions are only valid within the context they’re defined, externally observable behavior.

We’re willing to bet not one shred of work has been done justifying their transfer into the context of operating neural structures. In fact, when we look at how neural structures should work theoretically, behavioral artifacts such as affect arise as a complex combination of circumstances in many different neural structures. The external appearance is a kind of accident.

The translation supported by real theory says it’s entirely wrong to consider something like affect to be an identifiable ‘trait’ in the neural context. It’s kind of like looking deeply into the red paint on your car, and expecting to see ‘red’ everywhere. What you see is a complex quantum mechanical interference effect; on the level it’s generated, ‘red’ isn’t even a valid conceptual model.

When we see science like that making the link, we’ll begin to believe it. Until then it just seems silly and unjustified.


(more Medscape stuff)
Executive function is the aspect of cognition that contributes to decision-making and higher-level thinking involved in initiation, planning, execution, and anticipation.[13] Executive functions are responsible for the control of attention, inhibition, set-shifting, and task management.

Neuropsychological studies of executive function in (***) have identified deficits in working memory, cognitive set-shifting, and planning tasks
Here, the same problems multiplied many times.

Nobody has ever established the existence of an ‘executive’, and there is no evidence of it in any paper we’ve seen.

So these statements are bogus to begin with, and the only way they can go is further down into the mud.

The abstract patterns we perceive in externally observable behavior that we might consider represent an ‘executive’ at work do not translate into the activity of real neural structures. The only place this model is valid is on the level it was defined.

Just like the ‘red’ in the paint on your car…


Neuroimaging technology has provided the ability to investigate the neuroanatomical and neurophysiological correlates of the cognitive symptoms of depression
…also vastly overstated. While imaging can see some neat stuff, figuring out what you’re seeing relies on a model of the activity represented.

So we’re right back in the same ol’ boat: nobody has bothered to validate the models in use.

I wouldn’t pay much attention to this article either. It might be fun looking at the images, given the fact we have valid models of some of the activity represented. But it’s hard to take specific activity and state what it represents; neural structures operate in a highly unobvious way, and the activity that (through complex combinations and happenstance) leads to the external perception of depression would be extremely difficult to identify.


It's real simple ...honestly... the mind is not the 'body'.
Amen. Now how do we get these guys to pay attention to that, I wonder?

It sure won’t make their life easy. But at least they would be able to justify their results on all the levels they claim relevance…

Oy oy oy oy oy.

We need to have a discussion on this board regarding the difference between science and pseudoscience. It is also important to understand the difference between what we want to believe versus what we can show empirically through observational evidence.

lemme just address a few points from the last two posts:

First, Tammy, I think that the main problem is that you are misinterpreting what I said. You need to slow down and possily re-read what I write before responding, which I know is an all-around ADD problem, but is especially important when discussing such a complicated issue. A lot of your criticisms aren't really related to what I wrote, but rather address your misinterpretation.

for instance:

For bunch of ADDers with severely dysfunctional brains I sure read a lot of intellectual arguments!

Okay I will buy this I am more than my frontal cortex! Thank you!

Inactivity is a bit skewed in my realm of “functioning” here .. I see it as harder to activate perhaps or even active by different stimulus. .no function = brain dead!

Excuse me I don’t remember any one saying my brain could be dead. .it forget to take my body with it…Oh yea I work tomorrow… :faint: .... that will do it!
lack of activity is not the same as being "brain dead" in this instance. I never said or implied that you or anyone else with ADD, including myself, was brain dead. In this case, I was discussing the hypothesis that there was a lack of activity in a particular region of the brain responsible for certain regulatory and inhibitory functions that may be involved in executive functions and attention. This is not due to dead neurons, but rather that the neurons involved fail to fire. They are not dead, anymore than a patient under general anaesthesia experiences brain death, there is a huge difference between a dead neuron and a neuron that isn't active. I understand that this is not an easy subject, all I'm asking is that you accept the possiility that you might be misunderstanding or misinterpreting this.

Furthermore

Value of monkeys probably vastly different than mine! How necessary is executive functions in the brain of a monkey when deciding what to drink?? How necessary is it in mine what are the difference and similarities? I don’t think I even need the executive functioning to decide if I am thirsty!
Your brain is actually very similar to that of a monkey's, although it bears far more similarity to the brain of a chimp, of course. There really aren't that many differences involved, and in all honesty, there isn't even that much of a cognitive difference between a human of average intelligence and your average chimp. The only real difference is that humans tend to have more Einsteins and Pasteurs than chimps do, and we have more efficient methods for them to communicate their discoveries to the rest of the species.

As for whether you need executive functions to decide if you're thirsty, prolly not. On the other hand, you do need executive functions to convert the thought of "I'm thirsty," into the action of getting a drink.



My decisions as to what to drink based upon what I like better apple or grape juice is stored in short term memory that I have not got????? I thought these things were stored in the taste buds!

It's not necessarily stored in short term memory, but it sure as hell isn't stored in your taste buds, they don't have memory at all. Your memories of the taste of each juice are stored in long-term memory. This is why we can all rememer what each juice tastes like. What is postulated is that in order to compare the taste of the juices to make a decision over which is better, you have to pull both "thoughts" into short-term memory and compare them, and it appears that the area that coordinates this comparison is located somewhere in the frontal area.

Dopamine, norephniphereine, executive function apparently don’t work well in a lot of things not just ADD …….. is it what….. it is in the where??? Wtf=fry is up with this dopamine, norepinphrine, fixations! More round and rounds! Round six million and sixty-five!
Oy, yes, where the problem occurs is very important. Dopamine, norepi, serotonin, acetycholine, melatonin, histamine, endorphins, enkephalins, hormones, these things are used throughout the body as chemical signals. What is important is what chemical signal is used, and where it is used. Dopamine and norepinephrine, for instance, act primarily to activate neurons. Where you put the dopamine or norepinephrine is going to determine what gets activated. Lack of dopamine in the prefrontal cortex will lead to ADD symptoms, lack of dopamine in motor-controlling areas will lead to Parkinson's. Excess histamine in certain areas of the body is responsile for allergic reactions ranging from a runny nose to anaphylactic shock. In some areas of the brain, though, it appears to maintain wakefullness.

I'm not sure what the point of all the studies you posted was. Yes, dopamine shows up in a numer of other problems. It's an essential neurotransmitter, involved in everything from attention to learning to movement to sexual arousal.

One of the things that some people do is tend to either overstate or understate the importance of synaptic transmission. In your case, you're overstating the importance of dopamine, and ignoring that it matters where exactly this transmitter is acting. Stabile makes the opposite error, focusing on the larger structures while ignoring the synaptic transmissions that allow them to communicate.

Excess histamine in certain areas of the body is responsile for allergic reactions ranging from a runny nose to anaphylactic shock. In some areas of the brain, though, it appears to maintain wakefullness.
How about a synthesis of current understanding, just one example ... I can provide many more ...


http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=275331&postcount=135
-------PART3--------
The mind developed from the body, by transferring over tried and tested, useful, stable and suitable functionality from the body ... as the substrate for the formation of the mind.
MIND.............................................. ........BODY.......................DUALITY
ADD*** [histamine n/t]<----His--->[mast cell histamine]*allergies(asthma,eczema)
The ideas above are not copied from another ... simply a more plausible synthesis of currently available data ...

SB.

Oh dear lord, Stabile posted before I posted that last one. Regardless, I'm going to address UK next because he asked first:

Soon enough we'll experience a complete perspective change in the processes which medical science is applying to understand the mind.
Soon enough, soon enough. It's always "soon enough" this and "soon enough" that. Try submitting a paper entitled "Soon enough, I'll report findings on this subject." Science has to go on what we observe, not what we expect we might observe at some point in the future. We can hypothesize that future technological advance will allow us better means of investigating certain things, but in this we can still only extrapolate from our current observations.

It's real simple ...honestly... the mind is not the 'body'.
The orders and disorders of the body collapse under 'molecular' scrutiny, but the mind cannot collapse using these tools.
The fact that they've been applied is really only the consequence of the benefits that medicine has witnessed in areas where these techniques will work, that is, in studies upon the body and brain BUT NOT mind.

Naturally, there are some big players selling the neurochemical approach to mind ... but please, think for a second about the mind :-)
Ok, now where do you propose that we start investigating the mind? We can analyze the brain, which is what we're doing and what I'm discussing. Unless you're implying that there is more to cognition than the brain, I really don't know what to tell you, except to say that science doesn't investigate "soul" or "spirit" or "chakra" or whatever you want to call the spiritual experience.

Do you really think that a slightly reduced affinity for a serine phosphorylation event or some other biochemical process, could ever expand up to generating something as large as an experiential perspective change over reality.
Yes. Actually, I don't just think that, I conclude that based on multiple lines of evidence and observation. Administering a simple 5HT-2a agonist drug such as LSD can cause profound changes in perspective and perceived reality. Disruptions in dopamine in certain Temporal lobe regions can cause schizophrenia. Overstimulation of the amygdala has been shown to result in anger and even violence. Depletion of acetylcholine in the hippocampus is thought to be responsible for the effects of Alzheimer's disease, and as I already mentioned, damage to the dopamine receptors or possily certain dopamine producing neurons in the motor-control regions of the brain is thought to be responsile for Parkinson's.

The real question, though, is why you doubt that these minor imbalances can cause widespread problems. The brain is a precision machine, and it doesn't take much to cause serious probems.

When some gene changes, a biological process alters, and this process has a 1:1 relationship with the problem.
Imagine, how many intermediate stages some subtle biochemical change would have to undergo, before it, itself, could give rise to the problem ... which in the case of mental conditions, is a change in ---mind---.
Oh dear lord. You're completely ignoring virtually everything that has been discovered in genetics and developmental biology over the past three decades. I don't even know where to begin here, but this is a very flawed assessment. For starters, it's not a 1:1 correllation. That's a very simplistic look at a very complex problem. One small change in one gene can have huge effects on multiple areas, or it can cause no problem at all. A small single point mutation is responsile for sickle-cell anemia, for instance. Or consider fruit flies with defective Hox genes that fail to develop a head, they literally have two butts, one on either end.


I'm pretty sure that any effect that genetics or identifiable biochemistry will yield towards an understanding of mind, will be invisible (next to non-existent),Well, it's invisible only to the extent that you refuse to examine it. Do you have any clue how many experiments have shown a genetic link to ADD. Do you have any idea how many hundred experiments have shown the biochemical issues that underly the disorder. I'm not saying that genes are everything, but there is so much evidence showing areas where they are important that I honestly don't know how you can ignore them. This entire sentence is simply false. You're waving away piles of data simply because it conflicts with what you want to believe.

Is it more important to be correct, or to be able to maintain the illusion of being correct?

Reasoned debate has no place for likening respected others on this forum to disrespected others on this forum ... Breggin and Baughman, who, incidentally I only know of because of the disparaging comments on these guys which I've seen here.

I'm interested in understanding why scientology, Breggin and Baughman have these opinions?
Aren't you?
If you're not, then I'm afraid that there's little hope of reconciliation.

The greatest mysteries of man lie in the observation of 2 diametrically opposed views, which co-exist with either side keen to destroy the other, and members of each side believing in their philosophy with such intensity that battles (physical or otherwise) erupt under challenge.

Have a look at some of the innovators who were rejected in their time.
Of course now you're probably thinking that I'm pushing the idea that the Stabile ideas are great innovations, but no ... try and leave that thought on one side ... and ask, what is it about large paradigm shifts which're so resisted by man.

The answer to this question reveals much about our reality, some would say drivers, others impulses ... me, myself, I would say the violent maintenance of a common reality, by whichever means, as a mechansm to ensure commonality towards survival of the species.

Please, I've mentioned the 5HT story to you previously and David (Weatherall - sickle cell) and Paul (Sharpe - Hox) are friends of mine ... their ideas are cool, they're ostensibly correct ... but really, how many times do I have to repeat the phrase that the MIND is not BODY!

Try and concentrate your mind on itself and not on structural changes within the rbc, or basic mechanisms during embryogenesis.

SB.

The greatest mysteries of man lie in the observation of 2 diametrically opposed views, which co-exist with either side keen to destroy the other, and members of each side believing in their philosophy with such intensity that battles (physical or otherwise) erupt under challenge.

Excellent point here!

These opposing perspectives do co-exist here on ADDF. Although all have remained in compliance with the guidelines so far I would like to ask that responses continue to do so!

When challenged it isn’t hard to go off on a tangent and cross the line into flaming territory! We all passionately believe in our perspectives I share this tendency.

However I must perform the duties of moderator and take this time to remind all ….. please keep all intense battles(physical or otherwise), eruptions, challenges ect…. within ADDF guidelines!

Thank you in advance for your cooperation!

Yes, real important to avoid flaming, and using flaming as an example ... why do individuals find it necessary as a component of debate?

We all know how to flame, and we all know how to create the false impression that we are expert in any given field ... however, I'd like to think that a forum such as this, where individuals reveal more of themselves than they would in the rrreal world under the comfort of anonymity, might consist of others that can at least attempt to understand viewpoints which're alien to themselves.
These'll be true, false, personal or general ... however, it's difficult to classify any idea, if attempts are not made to understand the essence of the argument. Also, it's real easy to defer to a self-appointed expert, but in my eyes, reality is a construct which one can only construct for oneself.
Any statement that 'it must be true because ABC from Yale University says so is a little silly' ... and I'd recoil in horror, if anyone used the phrase 'it must be true because SBUK from Cambridge University says so' ... the onus for building reality cannot be deferred, and this is an explanation of the Stabile comment above addressed at Chameleon, relating to the point above on credibility of researchers from Yale Uni.

The 'Emperor's New clothes' is a parable which I've used quite some on these pages, and as such, the 'Emperor's New clothes' is an expression of a low level driver, called the 'Social Impulse' (by the nomenclature authority on these ideas), and which drives a group of individuals to enforce the same model of reality upon other members of the social group.
This low level driver was fundamental to the survival of species, but has a darker side ... the birth of language alongside the development of divisions, of groups, in effect keen to flame one another ... in words or with the 'real' analogue.
Simply put, the mind is something that we all have.
For the most part, and not wishing to get bogged down in the evolutionary occurrence of aspects of mind ... it's sufficient to consider it as an ability to think abstractly.
The mind does not exist in the mouse, rat or dog, at least to any meaningful extent which might permit the use of an animal model in the study of the mind ... and so consequently anything that your dog of choice is capable of doing with its brain, is not a component of mind.
And so therein, we see that animal models of some of the diseases which you mention, and also of an animal to experience emotion (a dog growling, biting your ***, wagging its tail, rolling over to have its tummy tickled etc... etc... etc... are ---absolutely--- products of brain, but ---NOT--- products of mind.

There is absolutely nothing contentious about the existence of mind.
Interestingly though, an evolutionary tour through the anatomical changes which arose through evolution ... do in effect explain the underlying basis to the mystery which surrounds such things as ... "chakra" ... trace out the development of melatonin as a neurotransmitter, particularly during the 'ascent of man' ... and you'll understand position #2 of the chakras, at least. (I've covered #4/5 elsewhere here). The clue lies in the outgrowth of the pineal gland, from the suprachiasmatic nuclei (remarkable nucleus of the hypothalamus) ... consisting of only 2 cell types. I've written more on this here, just search on my name and melatonin.

The "soul and spirit" as metaphors can also be explained.

I'd be real grateful if you'd try and refrain from using phrases like 'Dear Lord' - extremely patronizing, and I think it's clear that if the idea has so obvious a solution as to drive you to use this phrase, that perhaps an explanation of your standpoint would represent a less inflammatory approach towards making your point.

SB.

Holy cr@p stabile! :eek:

when are u planning to pubish that book u posted? ;)

do u two take it in turns to type, when ones fingers are typed out you switch :D

after already trying to read hyperons text which took some time,i managed to read SB_UK's with relative ease then got to urs, started reading and felt like saying in a pride and prejudice way "Oh mr or mrs stabile, my synapses are shutting down" :eek: ;) :confused: :faint:

but anyway,

i think we can agree that we need better diagnostic equipment in order to understand the brain, at the moment most information is pretty much conception.

i can see this thread taking a circular course...if it hasn't already, the stabile's are conciderbly adminant and hyperion has taken an opposite view from his own research both are valid and both won't budge without substantial evidence to support it which of course is quite logical in it's predicament, but the chances are this thread will evolve into a political-like debate ;)

Omg what happened to my thread?
I'm sure I recall mention in the forum guidelines about keeping posts short.
Long posts are a thread killer, because once the long-winded dig their feet into a thread, it's a gonner to most of the rest of us. :p

whoa, sry SB_UK and mead823, didn't read read the whole thing, i had to take a break, i've pretty much reilliterated what u guys said.

note to self: read the WHOLE thread before replying :eyebrow:

But what if you CAN'T read the whole thing? Short and sweet I say! :D

We need to have a discussion on this board regarding the difference between science and pseudoscience. It is also important to understand the difference between what we want to believe versus what we can show empirically through observational evidence…
I think we’ll pass this time; we already had that discussion.

All it showed was that a narrow view of science is usually accompanied by a narrow view of everything else, and suffers from the same kind of misunderstandings that brings about.

Unless you can bring something new to the discussion, we’ll assume it would be a waste of effort to renew the debate. But regardless, this thread isn’t the place for it.

Most of us already know your views on this, and you’re certainly entitled to them. Others have different ideas, most of which are supported by professional validation of one kind or another.

Which illustrates the point well, I think: being a professor at Harvard only buys a ticket to the debate, not automatic acceptance of the ideas presented.

The first best authority will always be the well-informed self. Lots of people with lots of advanced degrees find fault with the narrowly defined view of science and the scientific method, but so far none of them suggests anybody should abandon that view if it seems to suit them.

They just suggest not forcing it on others, or denying the valid science that comes from work embracing a broader view.

It’s a kind of tolerant respect thing. We don’t mean not being critical, but rather focusing the criticism on valid areas, like our difficulty with the fact that the Harvard work cited might have been done in the context of a more important effort, the research dollars better spent.

We didn’t criticize the scientific validity of their effort. We suggested they might have come to a different conclusion if they worked in a different way, and that’s just a fact of formal logic. We don’t control that.


lack of activity is not the same as being "brain dead" in this instance…
Underestimating the intelligence behind Tammy’s statements is a big mistake, in our opinion. I would suggest that you might consider her casual use of the term ‘brain dead’ a little more carefully. Nothing we saw in her comments led us to believe she didn‘t understand you correctly.


…In this case, I was discussing the hypothesis that there was a lack of activity in a particular region of the brain responsible for certain regulatory and inhibitory functions that may be involved in executive functions and attention…
Well done: you’ve identified that idea as hypothesis. But shouldn’t you first establish the validity of the hypothesis on which your hypothesis depends, the existence of so-called executive functions?

Absent that, there’s no way to evaluate your hypothesis at all. You can’t build anything without a foundation; intentionally skipping the step of establishing the validity of your foundation principles is the classic hallmark of pseudoscience, is it not?

We know of no work establishing the existence of ‘the executive’ as a valid construct in the context of actual neural function. We were around when the term first saw use, as a part of a linguistic framework for discussing externally observable patterns of behavior.

It was not intended to represent actual structures in the brain, and early users were always careful to make that distinction. We don’t see that caveat anymore; certainly you didn’t offer it, when you stated your hypothesis. Isn’t that another hallmark of pseudoscience?

We’re not suggesting you skipped over that intentionally, of course, and certainly we’re not accusing you of promulgating pseudoscience. But it is interesting that such a basic oversight can work its way into the mainstream, isn‘t it?

It happens all the time, perhaps a bit more lately now that we’re looking so closely at the brain. Such study, using the thing we’re studying as the primary tool for inquiry, has additional pitfalls that lead to just such problems.

All the more reason to remain skeptical, and rely on a well informed self.


This is not due to dead neurons, but rather that the neurons involved fail to fire…
Tammy never said they were dead; she used a popular expression, correctly.

And neither you nor anyone else knows that “neurons… fail to fire.” Shame on you and everyone else promoting similar ideas for suggesting this is anything but your own thought model for neural function.

Neurons don’t work in the way your simplified model suggests. The gross behaviors you’re generally addressing are the result of activity in neural structures, not individual neurons. Furthermore, the activity on the level of interest is logical, not physical; the effect of an individual neuron failing to fire is indirect at best, and likely would have minimal effect.

Neural structures are extremely forgiving, in a way not obvious to anyone looking for a simple linear cause-and-effect model. As we’ve often stated, these principles are well established and universally accepted, even by those researchers who still mistakenly insist on looking for a simple model.

To us, that reeks of bad science, but what the heck: it may only be behavior designed to convince committees of lay people to award more grant money.

However it comes about, it matters not a whit. Neurons and neural structures don’t work this way, and claiming they do won’t further understanding of anything.


I understand that this is not an easy subject, all I'm asking is that you accept the possibility that you might be misunderstanding or misinterpreting this.
Good general advice, in our book. We question everything as a matter of course, especially the foundation principles on which our work and general understanding depend.


Your brain is actually very similar to that of a monkey's, although it bears far more similarity to the brain of a chimp, of course.
This is only true in then most superficial sense. Of course, you’re talking about the mind, not the brain per se, and the human mind is very different from that of any other creature.

These are logical properties you’re discussing. Drawing conclusions based on the superficial physical similarities to the brains of other primates would be poor science at best, don’t you think?

* * * * *

OK, that’s enough to get the idea across. Many of the ideas Hyperion is presenting here are still just hypothesis, some of which are unsupported, and some of which contradict the well-accepted understanding of how neural mechanisms work.

And they’re all addressing logical operations of that machinery; the connection to chemistry of any sort is indirect at best. The best advice we can offer is beware the assumption of ordinary cause-and-effect. In the brain, it’s usually incorrect.

Besides, I just cut my thumb on a glass getting Kay off to work, and it’s hard to keep pressure on it while I type.

ADD, anyone? (grins…)

OK, that’s enough to get the idea across.
Far, far, far, far, far more than enough.
Stabile, I don't know how to say this any clearer than I have -

You're posts are so long that they kill threads.
There are guidelines here. Please respect them. When it comes down to just a few long-winded people arguing with each other over and over in a thread, it's really not fair to the person that started the thread. Unless, of course, that person was one of you long-winded sorts. :)

Holy cr@p stabile!

when are u planning to publish that book u posted?
(grins…)

do u two take it in turns to type, when ones fingers are typed out you switch
Nope, I do most of the typing; Kay’s input is either offline, or most often dictating to me on the cell phone while she’s driving to and from work.

Got to make some use of that time, right? (grin)

We compose everything in Word, leaving various documents open on the desktop until we have time to finish them. Some times the thread goes off in another direction, and we wind up not posting.

Lucky you, eh? (grins…)


after already trying to read hyperons text which took some time,i managed to read SB_UK's with relative ease then got to urs, started reading and felt like saying in a pride and prejudice way "Oh mr or mrs stabile, my synapses are shutting down"
SB’s really good at that, don’t you think? In a way, his clarity of style set us free to be more introverted and bookish, sad to say. We should probably try harder to emulate his posts.

We used to post in a lighter style with an occasional humorous bit, once upon a time. I’ve been complaining to Kay about that for a few months now, but she thinks I’m being funny. Hmpf.


i think we can agree that we need better diagnostic equipment in order to understand the brain, at the moment most information is pretty much conception…
Good point, particularly about the need for better hardware. But we’re reasonably certain all we’ll get is proof that the conceptual work is necessary.

In effect, if we creep up on the mind carefully enough, like Elmer Fudd hunting a wabbit, we’ll have a similar result: nothing’s there. Then we can get on with the work of figuring out how the whole mess works.

James Albus did a creditable job of starting along that path back in the Seventies. Sooner or later we’ll get back to the job at hand. Hyperion’s completely correct about it being complicated, but there’s nothing we see that prevents us from working through it carefully.

But we do need to be on the right path, and an ability to recognize the level of abstraction a particular concept occupies is required.

That in turn requires an awareness of relative metalevel, which not coincidentally is most often associated with the broader view of scientific work mentioned previously. In a very real sense, the narrow view is intended to eliminate the influence of the logical property represented by metalevels.

Kurt Gödel’s work was originally intended to show that metalevels aren’t required to understand nature completely. Of course, he ultimately proved exactly the opposite, in an inspired construction that could only have been realized by a view from the metalevel above the problem…


i can see this thread taking a circular course...if it hasn't already, the stabile's are conciderbly adminant and hyperion has taken an opposite view from his own research both are valid and both won't budge without substantial evidence to support it which of course is quite logical in it's predicament, but the chances are this thread will evolve into a political-like debate…
Nah, we’ve said enough, and we’ve all already been over that territory before.

I should point out that the only elements we’re adamant about are those that derive entirely from well-accepted work by others. We didn’t invent James Albus, or any of the other neural theorists that followed in essentially complete agreement with his conclusions. We certainly aren’t responsible for formal logic. (grins…)

And we aren’t responsible for the fact that the current situation makes it seem that these well-established elements must somehow be incorrect.

We will take responsibility for repeatedly pointing it out, however, and for having an ulterior motive for doing so. We know that once people stop bickering and begin to figure out why the contradictions exist, the real work will have finally begun.

Until then many of us are just waiting, and these debates are only a measure of how close we are to the end, and the beginning.

--Tom and Kay

Omg what happened to my thread?
You picked on a topic that has deep roots, kiddo. Lucky you, eh?


I'm sure I recall mention in the forum guidelines about keeping posts short.
Long posts are a thread killer, because once the long-winded dig their feet into a thread, it's a gonner to most of the rest of us. :p
The forum guidelines don’t prohibit long posts, nor do they suggest long posts are necessarily inappropriate.

They do suggest a certain level of sensitivity to the audience, particularly to the fact that some ADDers may find it hard to stay tuned through long logical expositions.

But sometimes the logical path isn’t short, and we find that anyone interested, especially ADDers, will follow a logical thread that interests them forever, if necessary.

In our defense: our original reply was one page, 12 paragraphs, and a total of forty lines. That’s an ADD friendly 3 1/3 lines of 27 1/4 words per paragraph, on average.

You can chalk the rest up to the deep roots of your original post. If the thread hadn’t gone off into that direction, we probably wouldn’t have posted much more.

Most members feel good about starting a popular thread. Perhaps you wanted the answers to be a bit simpler? It would be nice if they could be, but in this case they’re not.

Also not our fault. (grins…)

So in other words - my request means nothing to you?

To re-iterate, imagine we've a model for an internal combustion engine, and then we've a functional car. We don't tell the scientist guys about the internal combustions engine, and send them off, using the power of observation alone ... to generate a model for the functionality of the car.
The scientist guys are allowed to observe aspects of its function, driven by a chap who's in on the experiment.
The scientist guys will generate a plausible hypothesis ... backwards :-) that is, use the externally observable characteristics of a car kinda' like speed and petrol consumption ... give them fancy name like executive motor functions, if it's a large car :-) ... and then generate some model which is predicated on the actual end effects of the 'thing' itself.

Give the guys the model for the internal combustion engine, in effect the model that we'd like them to regenerate using observation ... and perform a comparison.
In current models of mind (exec function), we've a situation in which we've just this, namely a comparison which yields gross dysjunction between 'executive motor function' and the equivalent of the internal combustion engine (for brain), however, in our case the exec guys have not yet thrown their arms up in the air in disgust and switched paradigms.
As I suggested above though ... they will.
And please see that the discussion is our (the scientist) favourite part of a scientific publication ... and its purpose may be paraphrased as such ... 'soon enough' ... if one chooses, however I'd describe it more favourably as positioning the current work within context of the whole.

SB.

Far, far, far, far, far more than enough.
Stabile, I don't know how to say this any clearer than I have -

You're posts are so long that they kill threads.
There are guidelines here. Please respect them. When it comes down to just a few long-winded people arguing with each other over and over in a thread, it's really not fair to the person that started the thread. Unless, of course, that person was one of you long-winded sorts.
There are guidelines about being respectful of other members, too, that are much more restrictive than the guidelines about length of posts. (See our previous post for our take on length.)

Inappropriate debate kills threads, not post length per se. Your accusations are fairly offensive, for no reason we can see.

I suppose you might try to ask members to limit the length of their responses in your original thread starter, but doing so without specific reasons in itself seems disrespectful.

Why do you want to limit the debate in this particular way? Not all subjects can be addressed adequately in only a few sentences. Are you harboring the adamant belief that the subject itself should be simpler?

If so, wouldn’t it be more forthright to address that? We’re only responding to the subjects you originally opened up, primarily in the context of others’ responses to them.

Oooops!
Sorry ... my comments aren't in any way directed at the size of posts which should be permitted, but I really must suggest that this subject does not particularly lend itself to brevity.
Big subject, big words.
:-)
The short answer to the question is that these researchers are pushing a false paradigm ... the big buncha' words are necessary to justify this view, and to be fair, one should never simply state that an individual is wrong without justification.

SB.

It's not "big words" that bother me SB_UK, it's the number of words.
It's alright though. I'll just give up my thread to the long-winded-ones (which, by the way, I don't consider you one of. Your post here is well constructed and non repetitive).
I'll try to only post threads about knitting or gum chewing from now on...

So in other words - my request means nothing to you?
Of course not – that would also be disrespectful.

We just aren’t sure why you’re making it. As I said, long posts are not necessarily inappropriate, and length isn’t the primary thread killer – inappropriate debate is usually the culprit.

We limited our participation in the debate purposely, and stated as much. Now this debate has taken over, and although shorter posts are appropriate to the subject, it’s still getting to be a thread killer in our view.

So unless you can think of something more to address about it, we’ll bow out of this one for now.


…in our case the exec guys have not yet thrown their arms up in the air in disgust and switched paradigms.
As I suggested above though ... they will.
They’ll have to, simply because we know these guys are essentially honest, only interested in getting to the truth, and that’s the only way to get there.

The fact they have to get disgusted before they let go of their current view is important in its own right, an artifact of the underlying reasons this debate ever arises. As you’ve pointed out several times before, if the problem was cellular biochemistry, we’d never fall into this trap. Looking at the brain causes immediate problems, requiring new approaches.

But the old ones have to fail first, if that’s what you’ve been accustomed to applying.

Nicely said, BTW…

what so hold on, u and ur wife....make conference calls about posts?, i have to say they fact that u kept using words like "us" and "we" was beginning to freak me out a lil, i knew u were two people but i didn't think that u both had input when posting like that.

ur right about SB_UK though *notices that he's watching as i'm typin* he does have a way with words :D i have to say i do like the way how ur implying he's the equation that balances the in depth people out :P


sry i should of been a lil more specific with the remark about diagnostic equipment, basically what i meant was (and by the way this is completely not researched so for god sake don't take it seriously) that it would be nice to have a dianostic tool that could show the dispersion of dophamine and other key chemicals like that, don't ask me why but i have a feeling theres a conciderble amount that we could learn from information like that.

maybe looking more into things like the chemicals that the brain is made up of and how to detect them through large calcium deposits would help eventually.

i dunno, as i've said all what i said is pure guess, i'm on a software engineering course so i kinda see things like the brain as an extremely complex computer and trying to figure out from there similarities and such.

i am extremely interested in some of the programming and neuoscientific projects that are going on, for instance i believe theres one in which they are trying to contruct key areas of the human brain as computer systems, in the hopes of inproving medical testing and monitoring side effects and cancerous growth that kinda thing, it's quite a daughting prospect.

We will take responsibility for repeatedly pointing it out, however, and for having an ulterior motive for doing so. We know that once people stop bickering and begin to figure out why the contradictions exist, the real work will have finally begun. lol how noble of u ;) but i doubt the bickering with ever cease it seems to be a bit of a trend of human nature :P

sorry for the lengthy post cham. :foot:

No need to feel offended Stabile. I was simply gently trying to tell you something, but you weren't hearing me so I had to be a bit more blunt about it.
It's just the way I, and many others here I've spoken to, feel about long-winded posts.

I don't consider your post lengthy either Lee. It's just the ones that make me scroll down for a solid 60 seconds to get past them that I'm referring to :p

I'll try to only post threads about knitting or gum chewing from now on...
What fun would that be? You saw right through that article to the interesting issues underneath, and it seems doubtful to us you would be happy stifling that intellect.

C’mon, fess up: you’re really awfully smart, like the rest of us, and you probably like being that way. It was your vision that launched this thread, not any of ours. It would be a shame for the forum to lose that…

I'm not denying my intelligence, I just cannot read long posts like yours with my ADHD, and that's a real pity because I'd like to know what you're saying.

stabile, do u realise just how differcult it is to grasp ur personality when theres two people supplying input? :confused: :faint:

u guys have really done my head in with the mixture of perspectives and words u use lol, i can't get a grip on it, with one person it's ok, i can usually predict replies and ideas they're forming and such but two people is too much lol :D

i was firstly thrown into a loop because i thought u were one person and it drove me nuts lol, i thought u had split personality disorder :eyebrow:

And it's not just me that can't read them. Many people I've spoken to here can't and just give up on the thread after you get to it. Maybe you just have too much to say between the two of you, I don't know. You think you're expressing your thoughts well by spreading them out so thin, wide and long, but to many of us that just makes our brains go blank, especially those of us that have Scotopic Sensitivity, making your point impossible for us to understand rather than clearer.
I may not always agree with your point of view, and at times have been offended by you as well, but I would like to be able to read your input. I think you're both very smart. Don't limit who you're heard by. :)

I think that I was correct when I said that we need to have a discussion regarding the difference between science and pseudoscience. Stabile has put down several long posts in which he distorts or misunderstands most of what I posted. I'm not going to spend an hour chasing after straw men, because it's just going to lead into more pointless debating.

Rather, I wish to examine the one sentence in his post which is actually true:

Many of the ideas Hyperion is presenting here are still just hypothesis, some of which are unsupported, and some of which contradict the well-accepted understanding of how neural mechanisms work.
I think that Stabile may be surprised that I'm highlighting this sentence. At first glance, it might appear to be a concise refutation of everything that I wrote. To a non-scientist, it certainly would look that way. However, this cuts directly to my point regarding the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Science deals with uncertainties. It deals with situations in which not all information is immediately available. Science is the process of gathering data and figuring out what we know, and then using that data to formulate a hypothesis to explain what we're seeing. Once we have that hypothesis, we can then figure out ways that we can test it to see if it holds up. Further evidence can disprove the hypothesis, or it can support the hypothesis, but it can never truly "prove" the hypothesis in the manner in which Stabile requests.

This is one of the key differences between science and pseudoscience. The scientist will offer hypotheses, discuss how a line of evidence leads to possible conclusions, point out areas where we need to know more, while at the same time using what we do know to tentatively fill in certain gaps.

The pseudoscientist, by contrast, uses the uncertainty of science as a tool against itself, proclaiming every gap in knowledge to be proof that a theory or hypothesis must be false. He will assert that because science can never prove a certain point beyond reasonable doubt, all scientific conclusions are suspect. He will then assert that he knows the "Truth," with a capital T, which must be the answer because it offers an emotional certainty which is lacking in the scientific reponse. He has little doubt of his answer, which means that he must be right, certainly moreso than the scientist who offers hypotheses and possiilities and unknowns.

It is through this that we see pseudoscientists proclaim "well, we don't know that for certain," or "those are just unsubstantiated hypotheses," as if this somehow invalidates the scientific method. Sure, I've posted several hypotheses here before. I also usually mention when I'm posting something that is fully substantiated, when it's a hypothesis based on pretty solid evidence, when it's a more speculative hypothesis, and when it's something that I'm guessing off the top of my head. In fact, in my original post on this thread, I pointed out that some of what I was typing was, in fact, a wild guess. I did, however, attempt to delineate between where the evidence was, and where I was extrapolating from observed evidence.

Finally, a pseudoscientist will usually end with an emotional appeal. Sometimes this will be an appeal to "common sense." In prior times, this was the "common sense" that the Earth must be flat, or must be the center of the universe. In modern times, we have the "common sense" that "natural" remedies must be safer than semi-synthetic ones, or in this situation, that the mind is some sacred process completely separate from biological function. We see the naked appeal to the concept that man is somehow apart from other animals in this regard, that cognitive functioning is somehow supernatural, different from the biological laws that govern the rest of our bodies and also completely different from the neurological and cognitive functioning of other animals. We are asked to ignore the inconvenient fact that we are animals, that we use the same mechanisms and equipment in our cognitive functions that other animals use, that we evolved alongside these other animals and share almost all of their biological functions. Are we different in some ways? Of course, just as a chimp is different from a dog is different from an elephant is different from a horse is different from a mouse. Which is to say, not that different at all.

No need to feel offended Stabile...
None taken… (grin)


I was simply gently trying to tell you something, but you weren't hearing me so I had to be a bit more blunt about it.
It's just the way I, and many others here I've spoken to, feel about long-winded posts.
We know that feeling, too. The problem is we don’t necessarily agree with your definition of long winded, and we been trying gently to point that out.

Long is not the same as long-winded; the problems with getting through long posts are well known. Some of it isn’t AD/HD related at all, but rather the form of presentation, i.e., on a video screen. Everybody has some trouble with that, which is one reason the paperless society has yet to materialize.

We routinely recognize when we’ve run into that wall and print out the offending post (grin) to read offline, on real live paper. It helps a lot, and many other members have said they do the same.

Probably some from your list, too, given the way this community works. But at least it’s a community; in lots of fora, we wouldn’t have gotten to this point at all. We ADDers are often a lot more civil and considerate than people generally give us credit for…

Probably best to end all of this, and so final comments ...

Not sacred, not supernatural.
Anybody that tells you the otherwise, is probably best avoided.
We are the products of evolution, we of course share many aspects of brain with other animals.

Final comment ... what does sapiens mean?
Not worthwhile posting an explanation.

Presumably you'll find that it represents some aspect of man that is kinda' important.

In fact, isn't man Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens? ... 'so good they named us twice, I love it' ... perhaps a suggestion that sapiensing is kinda' species-specific to the guys on this forum, and a coupla' or three billion other sentient life-forms who're currently chillin' on planet Earth.

So ... Homo (genus) sapiens (species) sapiens (subspecies) ... for all those interested in taxonomy.
Try a Google with NCBI and taxonomy browser if you'd like more :-)

If sapiensing rocks in such an obviously successful way, and evolution has conferred orthologous processes for aspects of brain, utilizing orthologous networks/pathways/genes for processes in the brain over the brain/periphery including hunger/thirst mechanisms, heart rate regulation ... then why isn't the big guacamole copying off all of these precedents and finding representation within other organisms.

Why isn't my dog wearing a cravate and pondering meaning?

Or your cat smoking cannabis and discussing the shapes that he sees in the clouds above?

Or the penguin that lives next door busily developing a highly emotionally charged re-interpretation of the tango, whilst dreaming of a relationship with a puffin who he's only seen once.

But once was all it took.

Such is love.

SB.

Really, it's really so simple ... and apologies C ... the 'big' was tied to 'big buncha' words', just me playing, and pointing to large numbers *and not* words of > a certain number of letters. This comment needs making, because it really would be unacceptable for any forum member to suggest that particular idea to another. OK, so apologies, that's not what I meant.

Final comment ... what does sapiens mean?
Not worthwhile posting an explanation.

Presumably you'll find that it represents some aspect of man that is kinda' important.

In fact, isn't man Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens? ... 'so good they named us twice, I love it' ... perhaps a suggestion that sapiensing is kinda' species-specific to the guys on this forum, and a coupla' or three billion other sentient life-forms who're currently chillin' on planet Earth.

So ... Homo (genus) sapiens (species) sapiens (subspecies) ... for all those interested in taxonomy.
Try a Google with NCBI and taxonomy browser if you'd like more :-)Yeah, it's the name we gave to ourselves, meaning something like "Man, who thinks," if I remember correctly. This etomology doesn't really mean anything other than that the taxonomists who chose the name clearly had a high opinion of our species. Just because we call ourselves something doesn't necessarily mean much.



If sapiensing rocks in such an obviously successful way, and evolution has conferred orthologous processes for aspects of brain, utilizing orthologous networks/pathways/genes for processes in the brain over the brain/periphery including hunger/thirst mechanisms, heart rate regulation ... then why isn't the big guacamole copying off all of these precedents and finding representation within other organisms.

I wouldn't normally respond to this, but I think there's an important fallacy here that needs correcting: Intelligence is does not necessarily correlate to "success," from a biological perspective. If you want to look at the most successful animal species, we have to recognize that the vast majority of known taxa are beetles. Are beetles the epitome of animal forms? For that matter, the most successful organisms are and always have been bacteria, which make up not only the majority of the organisms on Earth, but also possily the majority of the Earth's biomass.

Furthermore, other animals utilize their neurological systems in different ways, which have adapted to their particular environment. The cephalopod brain and central nervous system is in many ways superior to ours. Like us, they have a centralized brain mass, but because they are invertebrates, they've also kept the invertebrate system of decentralized neurological functioning, so they also have ganglia - large bundles of neurons, like a mini-brain - at the base of each arm. This enables the central brain to formulate a plan for the arms, while each individual ganglion tells each individual arm the specifics of what to do. Very efficient. Also very unique. It does have a few drawbacks, though, such as the fact that the brain is wrapped around the esophagus, which can cause some serious problems if you try to eat spiny things.

Most invertebrates, though, utilize some sort of decentralized nervous system. Insects and other arthropods have a small brain that is largely dedicated to sensory information from the eyes and antennae as well as choosing a direction to move, but the legs are controlled by individual ganglia, similar to the cephalopods, except that in arthropods the main neural structure coordinating this isn't the brain, but rather a pair of nerve chords running under the belly. This obviously doesn't allow for the level of centralized brain functions that verterates and cephalopods enjoy, but it does allow quicker reaction times, as well as flexiility and segmentation. It allows a fairly simple arthropod blueprint to be modified into many different forms, from losters to bees to butterflies to spiders to shrimp, because it's very easy to simply add or subtract legs or segments without drastically altering the nervous system.

Most verterates, by contrast, are pretty similar in their nervous system layout. The most basic neural chassis are conserved across taxa. Within most mammals, brains are similar enough that you can just use the same terms for the major parts, the basic neurology is almost identical. From a developmental standpoint, all our brains develop identically through most of fetal development. Humans do not have any structures within our brains which are not present in most other mammals. Our neocortex is more heavily developed, certainly, and occupies a larger portion of brain mass, which in and of itself represents a larger percentage of our body mass than most other vertebrates, but it's simply a matter of having a little more of the same stuff than other mammals.

So wow, humans can do some things with our brains that other animals don't. Other animals do things with their neural systems that we can't. Why is it that the biological principles that allow us to study their systems cannot be applied to ours, other than the ridiculous notion that we can't use the brain to study the brain?

If you treat human beings as if we are separate or different from other animals, as if we can't apply the same principles that we use to study them to study ourselves, then we're never going to learn anything. That's the danger of pseudoscience, not that it misleads the uninformed, but that it has nothing to offer in terms of research or discovery in mt opinion, and if we were actually to fall victim to its allure, and actually attempt to use it to study the world, the past five centuries of learning and study from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment would come to a crashing halt.

Omg what happened to my thread?
I'm sure I recall mention in the forum guidelines about keeping posts short.
Long posts are a thread killer, because once the long-winded dig their feet into a thread, it's a gonner to most of the rest of us.


Okay guidelines ask that the subject of the initial post be respected and addressed, however unless the rules have changed in the last 24-48 hours there are no restrictions on length.

With that being said it is also a privilege of members to choose weather or not to read long post weather all or in part! I use the word privilege in previous sentence because it is not a choice us moderator types have, we have to scan all post in our sections!

The initial subject:

The new findings show an association between the activity of the OFC and the mental valuation process underlying choice behavior, according to the scientists.

"A concrete possibility is that various choice deficits may result from an impaired or dysfunctional activity of this population (of neurons), though this hypothesis remains to be tested," Padoa-Schioppa.

Scientific post normally generate responses from scientific types, many of which tend to go to extra lengths to validate their presenting point!

All post placed on ADDF are open to all members comments as long as the responses reflect good etiquette and remain on topic, or a resemblance thereof!

There are guidelines here

Which I will post a hyperlink to now for all who wish to review!


Opening page (http://www.addforums.com/forums/announcement.php?f=75&announcementid=64)


etiquette page (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15843)


I will be honest, I am posting this at the end of page 2 and still have two pages to read. Sorry I am reading between carpet scrubbing and carpet drying sessions!

Thanks Tammy :)

Obviously I am going to have to be the thread killer here.

Too many insulting comments for moderators to edit out in this space time continuum!

Thread closed for now. Thanks for all who participated!

P.S. This is NOT directed at the last post. If every one took direction as well as Cham, no threads would need to be closed ever! ;)