Looked at reflection on a subject of the “Whether Itself Can Grow Up a New Brain“Looked at reflection on a subject of the “Whether Itself Can Grow Up a New Brain“ program only that one interesting program from the cycle Science 2. 0 Questions of science with Semikhatov “Science questions“ with Semikhatov a series from 01. 06. 2015 with the rhetorical name: Whether “Itself can grow up a new brain“. Guest of the program: Stroganova, Tatyana Aleksandrovna. Frankly speaking, as saw that the leader invited the scientist. Was disappointed a little since marasmus Chernihiv which I described in one of the articles left, some deposit of indignation, and here the next scientist telling about a brain. Even Anokhin, (the great-grandson of the hereditary scientist who inherited degree forgot initials, most likely) did not impress me. Nevertheless, surprisingly the guest it was quite adequate and informed in this subject and Semikhatov in spite of the fact that in the field not special, asked the correct questions. Since. the subject is very actual and perspective I decided to write down the thoughts, and the key moments of the program, and for one and to publish a response.
Why there were many nervous cages which are fated to die? generally I write
that was remembered and as understood. In principle everything that was told by Strogonova and so was in general known. But she showed concrete interrelation of work of these or those structures and their manifestation in this program, and so - specified many indistinct moments which popularize but a lot of things at them are kept back. For example, thought that nervous cages are not restored, then decided that all currents are restored. Strogonova cleared up the matter. They can really be restored, but so far this function is found if I am not mistaken in a gipokampa and that restoration single (hundreds of cages). And here restoration is not found in bark yet. And, above all that after the person will be born cages perish in millions for the reasons of the programmed apoptosis (suicide). According to Strogonova this death is caused mainly by the fact that cells of the suicide did not get into gear of their communication are less effective or they are less connected with other cages. And still this redundancy of cages is necessary since the evolutionary law of “the preexisting variety“ works (I do not know how it correctly is called). I.e. the brain does not know what cages where and how many communications can be necessary therefore cages arises much, and then superfluous just die off. But for me this law is not strongly convincing since as it is known the nature does not suffer excesses and furthermore such expensive. Though he can quite explain this phenomenon. And, it is sure this regularity perfectly works and is the reason to many phenomena. But, nevertheless besides the preexisting variety, I would consider still as the reason the biogenetic law. I.e. at a certain stage of evolutionary development of humanity at people the brain was larger and most likely and it was more nervous cages. It is proved by results of anthropological researches. The brain of modern people slightly decreased, but became more dense. Here actually embryonic and after - uterine development also repeats such process. In the beginning it is more cages (as at our ancestors), then they go on other way of development in which the brain of the modern person - increase went if it is possible so it will be expressed, capacities for the account increase in quantity is possible synapses, perhaps nervous communications, or it is possible even minor change of complexes neuro - mediators, and also miyelinization of axons, or abilities to create new nemiyelinizirovanny axons that can actually result in bigger plasticity of a brain and ability to training and reorganization. Also speaks about such reorganization the guest of the program focusing attention that the miyelinization strenuously proceeds till 25 years. It would be besides very interesting to poissledovat about how many years the miyelinization at ancient people proceeded if it came to an end sooner or later, then it can demonstrate that in particular and at the expense of this phenomenon the brain evolves. What will actually confirm my assumption described above.
Neurons - deceivers.
the important question of adjustment of the arriving impulses for which as it is known the retikulyarny formation is responsible was Also raised. Though as I understood the question asked by Semikhatov up to the end is not revealed. Namely 21 minutes of transfer, (I paraphrase as I understood) - actually as the separate neuron is promoted for adoption of the correct decision. The question is really very difficult, but also actual since as it was described above and told in video, neurons which are not encouraged are inclined to a suicide. And to imagine how there is an encouragement of concrete neuron if the huge neural network quite difficult is involved. How to allocate what neuron worked and what faked? Moreover, even at the wrong decision there can be an encouragement if the group of neurons of deceivers is involved. This unexpected idea about neurons - deceivers arose at me literally when I wrote these lines. Nna at first sight can seem far-fetched, but actually people very often are engaged in self-deception causing in themselves such undeserved encouragement of neurons. I.e. most likely at such people life really can the system of neurons which causes encouragement is involved even if the result was not achieved. Remember at least memes: “everything that does not become to the best“, “it broke for luck“, “it is necessary to be the optimist“ etc. Such memes and similar auto-suggestion really most likely keep part of nervous cages, but do the person less effective, not adequate and sillier. Reduce plasticity and self-criticism of thinking. And it is possible they and lead to death of cages which all currents could cope with a task having received real objective advantage, but remained bezdeystvenny of - for the fact that neurons - deceivers were promoted for outstanding work. Therefore I always was against such “hepiist“ (excess optimists) in spite of the fact that this “hepiizm“ in some quite wide circles is popularized. An example of that poor and defective Paro - scientific ideas like movies: “Secret“, “Power of thought: That we know about it“ “a reality transerfing etc. However, it is already separate big subject.
Questions of plasticity of a brain.
What else wanted to be noticed coming back to this program. What is possible for example nervous cells of bark are restored from - for the fact that cannot be restored, and from - for the fact that in it there is no urgent need, and restoration of nervous cages can cause cardinal reorganization of all brain that in turn can even lead to change of the personality. Therefore a brain trying to keep the most valuable, practices and the fulfilled receptions of the past tries to adapt them for performance of different tasks. Though besides, It is a pity that Semikhatov did not ask a question as there is a redistribution of functions of a brain at people with cherepno - brain injuries. I.e. there were cases when at the person literally it was necessary to remove the certain sites of a brain answering for example: for the speech, or coordination, and it was again with great difficulty rehabilitated and even without these sites could perform operations for which remote departments are responsible. Of course it not always and everything worked well, but nevertheless at the expense of what there is compensation? Due to growth of new neurons in bark or in bark they essentially cannot grow once again? Whether there is enough reorganization of nervous communications in already available neurons and whether really from potential on it is big so many that without emergence of additional nervous communications it can compensate functions of the lost departments? Whether it will be reflected in efficiency in general? If yes, then there is a reason to keep as much as possible nervous cages at development. I.e. not to allow them to die. It has to lead to great opportunities and potential of a brain. How to make it? Sinesteziya`s
and extrasensory perception.
Still should note very important detail about which Stroganova, namely only casually mentioned a sinesteziiya. More precisely she did not even mention this concept, but very accurately let know prerequisites of its emergence. After her words became the reason of emergence of a sinesteziya in the 16th minute of video is more clear (for example, visual projections to acoustical bark). Though 17 min. are not absolutely clear. That the phrase “means to see ears“. I, on the basis of knowledge known to me, can apprehend it literally. Namely this development an echo - locations both at various animals, and at some people. For example, Jaimie Asplend learned an echo - locations (as dolphins) by Daniel Keesha`s method. Though I would advise such people to use not language, but some technical means which could be operated changing amplitude and frequency of a sound. Then such people will be able will be trained to perceive the World even more accurately, to literally see others on through analyzing, having developed hearing the reflected sound. I.e. they will be able as dolphins to determine for example density of fabrics, and even to see changes in internals. Perhaps such and similar deep sinestetichesky analysis on a row with long practice and training of perception brings to extrasensory perception. Of course this very far-fetched assumption. Not everyone sinestt can on sensitive and qualitative analyze the feelings in a complex so much to gain from them hardly noticeable knowledge escaping ordinary people not for acting sense organs in the non-standard complex analysis. And this concept is alas discredited since 99% are charlatans. But nevertheless I think it quite possibly if people can the echo - locations will learn. I.e. they can supplement similarly information of one sense organ with another, sending an impulse as sinesteta from eyes for example to hearing. But it I will repeat all my assumptions.
generally a subject very interesting and a little studied, having big prospects. To think to eat of what … I will look Strogonova still can something useful will tell especially as MRT also quite promising technique.