You are searching about Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football, today we will share with you article about Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football was compiled and edited by our team from many sources on the internet. Hope this article on the topic Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football is useful to you.
Does Memory Reside Inside the Brain
NBC Philadelphia had an interesting report on June 2, 2005. Christina Santhaus contracted a virus at age 8 that causes a rare brain disorder known as Rasmussen syndrome. And her doctor had to perform a hemispherectomy, removing half of her brain. 10 years later, Christina would graduate from high school with honors. After the surgery, she had a slight limp and her left arm did not work at all. She had also lost her peripheral vision, but otherwise, was a normal teenager. A similar case was reported in the Telegraph (UK) on 29 May 2002, a girl named Bursa, who had a similar disorder and had her left brain removed when she was 3 years old, became fluent in Dutch and Turkish by the time she was 7 years old. In 1987, A. Smith reported that one patient with a hemispherectomy completed college, attended graduate school, and scored above average on intelligence tests. Studies have found no significant long-term effects on memory, personality or humor and minimal changes in overall cognitive function after the procedure.
The results of hemispherectomy are amazing. Neuroscience suggests that memory is stored in neurons in the brain. If that premise turns out to be true, then removing half of the brain would destroy one’s memory as memory is stored in a network structure of neurons, as suggested by one school of cognitive physiology, or at least half of memory if bits of memory information are stored individually. Neurons in the brain as suggested by another school of cognitive neuroscience. But it is obvious that the results disagree with one of the explanations. Removing part of the brain for severe epilepsy is standard surgery and has been performed thousands of times. Many of the results are similar to hemispherectomy.
The orthodox explanation for the observation is that information stored in the infected brain area is duplicated in the healthy brain area before surgery. This rationalization is still insufficient when you consider how brain surgery is performed. To ensure that the infection does not spread, the surgeon must remove the infected area and some surrounding healthy tissue, sometimes tissue much larger than the infected area. If the information stored in the infected area is reproduced elsewhere in the brain before surgery, some information is lost even after the healthy tissue surrounding the brain is removed, resulting in memory loss.
It is not noticeable after surgery. Therefore, it must be assumed that memories stored in adjacent healthy tissue are also formed in other parts of the brain. This raises a question: How does the brain know how much healthy tissue is going to be removed? If the brain doesn’t know, surgeries inevitably destroy part of the memory. The belief that memory is stored in the brain (in neurons or networks of neurons) is clearly at odds with findings from brain surgery.
In the 1920s, Carl Lashley conducted several experiments to identify which part of the brain stores memories. He trained rats to find their way through a maze and then inflicted lesions on various parts of the cerebral cortex in an attempt to erase its original memory. His experimental animals were still able to find their way through the maze, no matter where he inflicted the lesions on their brains. He therefore concluded that memories are not stored in any one part of the brain, but are distributed throughout. Distributing the memory of each event across the entire brain is energetically inefficient and mathematically impossible. If his reasoning is not limited to the brain, then the logical conclusion is that memory is not stored in the brain.
Instincts are naturally inherited and no one has the slightest idea where the information that makes up the instinct is stored, and cognitive memory is acquired through experience and stored by changing signal chemicals in neurons in the brain.
New research shows that cognitive memory can also be inherited. A study by Larry Feig at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston showed that maternal rats that undergo mental training before pregnancy can pass the cognitive benefits to their young, even if there is no direct contact between the mothers and their offspring. It is clear that cognitive memory is not acquired by young people through experience, and young people have no apparent way to store information in their neurons, so where do young people acquire memory? Perhaps where they store their instinctual information, no one knows yet.
“Areas of the brain such as the hippocampus, amygdala, striatum, or mammillary bodies are thought to be involved in certain types of memory. For example, the hippocampus is thought to be involved in spatial learning and declarative learning, while the amygdala is thought to be involved in emotional memory. Loss of certain areas in patients and animal models and subsequent Memory deficits are the primary source of information. However, rather than affecting a specific area, damage to the pathway traveling through that area may actually be responsible for the observed deficit” (excerpt from http://www.wikipedia.com). If someone keeps all his wealth in a warehouse connected to his house by a highway, he will not be able to get anything from the warehouse if the highway breaks. It is ridiculous to assume that everything is stored on the highway based on the fact that he can’t get anything when the highway is blocked. Although the connection between the brain and memory is well established, it is beyond logic to conclude that memory resides in the brain itself.
Wilder Penfield was a pioneer in associating specific types of memory with specific areas of the brain. When they were performing surgery to remove certain types of temporal lobe loci that cause epilepsy, they made a significant discovery by noticing that their unanesthetized patients (with local pain inhibitors) could hear and respond to their questions while their temporal lobes were still there. An operation was being performed. Indeed, the patient’s verbal feedback was essential so that Penfield could determine that he was removing the exact part of the brain that was treating the neurological symptoms. He will insert an electrode into the patient’s brain and deliver electrical stimulation to see how the patient responds.
One of Penfield’s patients heard certain musical selections by an orchestra “when a point on the superior surface of the right temporal lobe was stimulated after removal of the anterior half of the lobe.” The sound was so clear that the patient thought there was a phonograph in the operating room. By re-stimulating the same point (without withdrawing the electrodes, simply stopping and re-supplying the electrical stimulus) the music started at the same point where it had started before.
When Penfield blocked the electrode, the patient heard nothing. He found that the patient could not predict what would happen after the electrodes were removed. “LG saw a man fighting. When Bindu got excited again, he saw a man and a dog walking down the road.” Often the memory no longer remembers.
Early in his career in brain surgery, Penfield reasoned that memory must be stored somewhere in the brain, and inspiration opened the floodgates of memory. His work led to numerous studies linking memory and emotion to specific areas of the brain. Penfield’s continued research convinced him that memory could not exist in the brain. He and his colleagues reported that removing more cortex after brain injury increased intelligence quotient. In one case, he was surprised to learn that his patient’s IQ went from 75 to 80 – 95 after bilateral removal of the prefrontal lobes. William Cone reported a similar effect after removing part of his patient’s brain. Penfield’s continued work, particularly on the hippocampus and cortex, changed his views on the brain, consciousness, and memory. He later proposed that the interpretive cortex of the temporal lobe acts as a bridge and that the hippocampus holds the “access keys” to recorded past experiences somewhere outside the brain.
Philosopher William James had a technically different but similar view of consciousness to Penfield. He believed that rather than consciousness being produced by the brain, consciousness operates through the brain. The notion that consciousness is separate from the body is a long tradition among Western thinkers. Plato portrayed the earthly body as a limiting factor on conscious experience. Kant asserts that the body is “imposed upon our pure spiritual life.” This idea matured into a proposal called the Transmission Hypothesis — that the brain and body act not as transmitters of consciousness but as its trans-receivers. Most of the cited supporting evidence for this hypothesis is in what are generally considered non-scientific areas, such as psychedelic research, the psi effect, the after-death experience, etc. As a result, this assumption is wrong in the philosophical and scientific community. But this does not mean that they are wrong, in the light of the above facts separating consciousness from body is a very correct thing.
Since memory does not reside within the brain, the functions of the brain must be re-examined. It is possible that the brain acts as a bridge of consciousness as suggested by Penfield, or a trance-receiver as suggested by William James. The similarity between the two is obvious and the brain is the only pathway to consciousness and memory for both cases. The importance of the brain to memory has been supported by many critical studies throughout history. But there is little evidence to suggest that the brain is the only organ involved in memory, with some evidence suggesting that the heart may also be involved in memory.
Does the heart have memory? This has been a question for years. This question resurfaces after heart or other organs are transplanted into humans and some changes are noticed in the recipients. Some recipients have reported severe changes in their personality after heart transplants. For some people, eating a large amount of Mexican food is a must when ever that type of cuisine is enjoyed. For others, a sudden love for football, when the sport was previously hated, comes into play.
How can these phenomena be explained? Can the heart really feel, think and remember? The answer may shed light on how memory is manipulated by humans.
Rollin McCratey of the University of California Hearthmath has developed tests that show how the heart processes information. His experiments showed that the heart responded before the brain when faced with an emotional event. He concluded that the heart must have the ability to process emotional data.
Linking the heart to memory is a valid proposition based on these findings. But there is no medical evidence to show that changing the heart to a mechanical heart causes memory loss. This means that the memory is not stored in the heart. Could it be because the heart does not store memory but is the gateway to memory? What type of memory can be acquired through the heart? Are other organs also gateways to limited memory? These questions beg to expand memory research beyond the brain.
The inevitable question is, if memory is not inside the brain, where does memory reside? The short answer is: we don’t know. Scientific endeavors are always looking for evidence to support a logical conclusion drawn from a general theory. If the general theory is fundamentally flawed, science will stop progressing and wait for convincing evidence to overturn the general theory. It is from there that science will flourish again on a new foundation. Materialism has been very successful in promoting quality of life and scientific questions. Recent research in quantum mechanics suggests that reality at a more fundamental level may not be materialism at all. Memory may be in a physical form that we are not aware of or does not reside outside of our physical world. We will wait for new evidence.
Video about Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football
You can see more content about Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football on our youtube channel: Click Here
Question about Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football
If you have any questions about Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football, please let us know, all your questions or suggestions will help us improve in the following articles!
The article Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football was compiled by me and my team from many sources. If you find the article Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football helpful to you, please support the team Like or Share!
Rate Articles Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football
Rate: 4-5 stars
Search keywords Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football
Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football
way Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football
tutorial Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football
Does Wide Receiver To Have Any Money Left After Football free
#Memory #Reside #Brain