Memory study can show that memory processes are the same regardless of what brain is being studied, but to assume that the human brain, with two layers of memory processes can be explained by a single level of memory process is absurd and tends to lead science down the mythical rabbit hole.

It is called 'focus' not 'filter'. A 'filter' assumes a blanket equal focal plane that is processed internally. That is completely outside of how the eye works. The discussion mixes the receptor and the process and Crick was WRONG!

The brain is always 'developing' it is a model of evolution. To be amazed that it 'still develops' is to declare evolution stops. Ridiculous.

There's nothing like redifining a term or just plain making up a definition to make your case. This author is guilty of both a renders the opinion useless trash.

Major flaw: memory is NOT STORED by specific input experience, only by specific input receptor. End of usefulness of this waste of research funds

1: emotions are NOT PROCESSED, they are results of processing 2: that 'processing' is long term reactionary output. OF COUSE it is a different part of the brain than anything involving short term processing and 3: the study of girls only centered on visual thinkers, which taints the study, besides the fact the conclusions are absurd

"The brain is the mind is the brain." Nope. The brain makes the mind, which only thinks it the brain. Emotions are results. Study the cause and stop putting band aids on pain.

It makes one wonder just how stupid these people can ..... What comes next? What would prior input tell you was the next word? And wow.. you mean you can 'hear' it in your brain? If you thought in aural processing and not visual processing you would never ask the amazing question. You would ask, you mean you can 'see' that in your brain. I can't see anything but black in my brain. Some day we can only hope the two opposing sides of brain study can come together. No, I don't mean the liberal and conservative sides, I don't mean the left and right sides, I mean the thinking human short term controlled intellect and reactive monkey-like long term sides.

One of these days these people are going to realize that 'seeing' is not looking at a photograph, and storing it like Hubbard claimed. It is processing millions of different completely out of focus, tiny rod and cone generate values that when combined make up a visual image, each one is compared to all others from the same pathway and wham.. you can tell a dog is a dog, a cat tail is under the rocking chair and computer scientists should stick to hardware and stay out of the study of the brain. They just want to anthropormorphize their boxes.

What a joke. They don't know what a memory is, let alone how much there could be. But I bet they got some good ol' nice funding for it.

How about we add #11 ... HOW IT WORKS. Nah.. that would take all the mystery and therefore funding out of researching it.

BRAVO! Logic emerges! How cool is that? "An expert committee studying the efficacy of brain mapping criminal suspects has concluded that it is unscientific and should be discontinued as an investigative tool and as evidence in courts." it should also be stopped from being used to determine WYSIWYG brain studies, and ignorance theory guesses and dependency on what you see instead of what makes what you see.

Ah, what would remembering be if it wasn't reliving? Your 'world' exists inside your head. You do not 'see' with your ears, hear with your 'ears'. You detect with those sensors, you see and hear in your brain. Memory is what the result of those computations is. Recalling is reliving the same input you last had, whether that is another remembering, or a new experience.

All the best to them as they embark upon another boondoggle. How the brain works, and how to build one have already been proven and completed. DARPA can just waste the taxpayer's money all they want. The solution has been waiting for over a decade. They were offered it free. Those terms have since changed. When they realize they have a nice duplicate of what they THINK the brain does, one day they will realized how stupid they have been. No they won't.

Somebody's gonna be in serious trouble over this one. Didn't they mean to say 'Mouse Brain a random stab that stuck and worked and had nothing to do with design?

Wow, the brain does the same thing for every single sensory input it receives and they get all giddy over cross wires.

One of these days researchers will wake up and realize that the first assumption, "that activities such as speech, vision and hearing take place in fixed locations, with the aid of specialized neural circuits" gave way to "the power of the brain, the key to its flexibility and coordination, lies not just in the capacities of these dedicated processing centers, but also in the connections among them." from "compartmentalized (real estate, where most still reside) to "communication (what people do these days more than think first) to finally come to the facts of 'SYSTEM' employing location AND communication. Ah, on second thought. Stick with stupid, its normal.

Here we go again. Real estate, not function. Form, not substance. If these poor people would just think for a moment past what they see, they might realize one is visual, the other is aural and start contemplating the function instead of where it may be. But don't hold your breath. Ignorance defends itself to the very death.

The brain does not have a storage system. It has a processing system. Computers have storage systems. To impose the computer on the brain is to declare the created creates the creator and that can only be backwards and totally ignorant of logic.

A prime example of visual thinking being imposed on aural processes because visual thinkers are just plain sure that is how the brain works. That would be dumb.

Just downright stupid! What researchers refer to when the use the term 'executive function' is short term processing. The brain does not get 'tired'. Long term fights to control the brain and that dominance will win out if short term does not control it. To impose an observational delusion on it is just plain stupid.

The premise is fatally flawed: "Impaired function in brain areas controlling flexible behaviour probably predisposes people to developing the compulsive rigid symptoms that are characteristic of OCD" OCD is long term dominance with short term ignorance. There is nothing 'imparied'.

Here we have technology helping to do what your own brain can do on its own. Overkill! ADD is a symptom of low short term control. The process employed here tricks short term into control, but it does not train short term to BE in control.

How many times do scientists have to jump to ignorant conclusions before somebody calls them on it? Oh, wait. That is what this site is for. Here we have brains shrinking. Not one consideration is given to how those brains are used, whether they are used or not, for more than repetitive tasks and whether the brain itself may have something to do with 'shrinking'. And we don't even have a 'what the heck does shrinking mean' question posed by anybody. To put it concisely (shrinking the explanation) the less something is used, the less it will be. What you eat has some what to do with how much your tissue grows or does not grow, (duh) but it is not at all , ALL of what makes the brain grow. The brain grows by making neurons and shrinks by losing neurons and that process is controlled by how the brain is used. You can add in weight, veggies or video games and you will completely miss the point if you don't finally admit that the brain is not all about what goes in to it. It is about what the brain does with what goes in to it.

Anthropomorphism rears its ugly head again. "Dogs are becoming more intelligent and are even learning morals from human contact, scientists claim." Nope. Dogs are not becoming more intelligent. People are allowing themselves to recognize a dog's intelligence more. Dogs are not learning morals from humans. Humans are 'slowly' recognizing traits in other creatures that could be similar to expected moral behaviour. Dogs are not developing a 'sense of fair play'. Humans are putting dogs in situations where such a human trait can be imposed upon a reactive action to learned behaviour. To impose humans traits on an animal, especially a trait such as 'morals', which is a subjective term, meaning different things to different cultures and people, is to totally waste whatever funding was given to this absurd study.

All that money. All that time. All they get is, you learn, so if you haven't learned, duck. Dumb.

Purty pictures, stupid science.

Like a science fiction novel: people with a history of depression have a "trait abnormality". Bunk. They have a memory of depression. Start with an assumption and people like these at the NIMH are prone to making up the rest.

There is no such thing as 'emotional memory'. Sorry! I know that's a really emotional topic, but you see, memory is memory. It isn't sorted by type. It isn't cataloged by scientists, unless they just make it up. Which is what this study has done.

So tell me. Where does the line fall? We have a mechanical 'robot' running on a collection of rat brain neurons. It is an artificial device running from a biological system. What would be wrong with a mechanical device running from a silicon version of the same biological system? If the silicon version did exactly the same thing that the biological version did, what would the difference be? None, actually. So while these fine researchers are studying a robot controlled by a 'brain', (ok neurons are parts, brains are wholes, but this is an academic exercise and facts never matter, just ask an academic) a robot controlled by a 'brain' is sitting in a crate in a climate controlled storage facility. Unlike 'Gordon' the bio, 'Ricci' the siliconite is no longer thinking on his own. His 'life' was removed after testing (a nine volt battery, Eveready if 'my' memory still works.) Little 'Ricci' had no computers either. He ran on his own, with a brain built from transistors and diodes, the mechanical version of neurons and synapses. Of course the transistors were not connected as switches, and the signal the process worked in was not 'electronic', but the same result happened as it has with 'Gordon'. The device moved on its own decision. It learned from its mistakes and it even became partial to objects. After learning that dark areas were not necessarily to be avoided, Little 'Ricci' took off into the shade, preferring it to the Sun drenched space it was rolling around in. A single 9V battery powered the 'brain' while two 9V batteries powered the motors and actuators taking their motion commands from the brain. No computers, no remote control. It is a story for the news when one version of artificial rolls by, and a complete lack of coverage when another does. But that is just fine. One day, Little 'Ricci' will sit on his pedestal, and we will all know that the first truly autonomous robot was built in Fort Smith Arkansas by Neutronics Technologies Corporation and once spent more than a decade in a climate controlled storage crate. 'Ricci' didn't like lamp posts, but he sure fell for a red wagon, followed it closely and became so enamoured with it, that he pushed it. It was a shame to turn him off. And he will never turn on again. Dead is dead. The next version will make 'Gordon' seem like the also ran he really is. Frankenrobot is not the first and certainly not the most intelligent autonomous device ever built. He is the second.

Please sit down. What's so strange about this story? We have a gullible writer working for a sensationalistic virtual rag, pushing tripe for disturbed theorists. So what's different about that? Nothing! Its just the audacity of it all (I like that word, audacity.) Not for a few thousands of years would it be possible they say, and the gullible reporter sells that to the sensationalistic virtual rag. What is worse, is the absurdity of theory being used to create theory. It happens all the time but that doesn't make it any less moronicly stupid.

Whoa.. really? Are you sure it isn't caused by the feet or perhaps the elbow? Duh! ... Look at the pretty picture at this link and you'll see how the process of OCD is one of the lack of short term processing control.

It matters does it? How about reading why. The Politics of Brain Function at http://www.enticy.org will shed the light. Or you can just keep on making it up.

Flash: Somebody finally admits that a brain that isn't working when a person is asleep is a DEAD BRAIN!... But now, just because they studied sleeping they have determined there's a difference between being awake and a working brain and being asleep with a working brain and now comes the 'why' guesses. How about just realizing the brain only stops working when it is DEAD and try real hard to focus on what it is doing not when. Nah. That would mess up the whole neuroscience myth.

Empathy is a reaction with evaluation. Children under 8 years of age, (minus the rate few) are not evaluating much at all. Duh! If these researchers understood what they were looking it they may have had an interesting study to report.

Thinking happens inside the brain so to act outside, gee, it has to use input from its sensors. Enough said. But to say, the brain 'hides' anyhing is just downright ignorantly infantile.

A study actually bothers with "humans and animals actually prefer an immediate rather than a delayed reward." No they don't. Inductive idiots. It depends if the brain is being controlled by long term (which requires immediate response to react from) or by short term, which does not require anything as it does not react.

Wow, let's just kill the whole Psychiatric community right now. Stupid. Brains are not wired to be anything but brains, unless they are wired wrong, and being shy is not a physical problem. These people are just amazingly stupid.

1: There is no such thing as random brain activity. 2: There is no such thing as 'noise' in the brain. So.. instead of just admitting their ignorance, these researchers proceed to justify it.

The next time your plumber declares your toilet works because he has found the main connection to the sewer line, you can believe this junk study.

It doesn't. Language is a result of the brain. If you decided to go looking for how does speed exist in a car, good luck in finding that one.

There is no such thing as 'reward circuitry'. Everything entering the brain alters its structure. It is a living organ, not a computer hard drive. Ignorance is so wasteful.

The ignorant leading the ignorant to ignorance. Success! There is no such thing as a pleasure area. Grow up.

From a poll comes a study to justify the statement used in deduction: "The authors argue that a conservative belief acts as a psychological buffer in a world of increasing inequality." How absurd can the get? That absurd. If conservative are happier than liberals it has nothing to do with a 'buffer'. It has to do with negativity and positivity. Liberals find fault and demand replacement. Conservative find potential and make a path to it, instead of insisting the end result happen before the first step is taken. A ridiculous poll and a more ridiculous poor excuse for a scientific study.

This is a prime example of ignorance ruling reporting. When the term 'biological clock' is used it should mean the timing mechanism, but in this instance it is a play on a term used to denote a female's gestation ability. From that we get junk science evaluated in a junk jounalism exercise.

Newsflash for stupid scientists with agendas: 'Sex' is a human created thing. There is no such thing in any other creature. Behaviour attributed to human created 'sex' cannot be attributed to other creatures unless anthropomorphism is a law rather than a sin in science. Read 'The Politics of Brain Function' for what 'sex' is.

This study is seriously flawed. Genes determine building instructions (for the lack of a more relatable phrase), they do not determine what the building does with information is uses after it is built. That is determined by the use of it. This study only addressed boys. Both genders have genes. Duh. Without the study of females the conclusions of this research are flawed for ignoring how a gene could be present in both genders and ignored in one.

Your brain does not do anything of the sort. The more you allow into long term without evaluating, the more the resulting trash will become what you believe. End of stupidity.

This is just stupid. There is no 'reward center' and there is no 'adventure' center. Those are things the brain made up to explain events.

How absurd can one get? Good grief. Without one clue as to how a normal brain work with language, these dimwits are going to have a make belief guess, come to a conclusion about a make belief guess.

Yep. Gender is a physical thing. Preference is a mental thing, but oft' times preference is NOT A CHOICE. A brain based in visual dominance in short term AND long term will tend to find itself 'gay', whereas a female brain based in aural dominance in short and long term will tend to think it is 'lesbian'. It is a natural assumption to make. But to conclude that how the brain dominant changes the gender is absurd and physically impossible. See the book 'Modern Mysticism' chapter on Brain function of politics for a detailed explanation.

The brain does not have a 'network'. Your office might. Observing short term at work does not mean it is something called a network. Observing it working, does not mean it is a default network. Somebody please tell these scientists to stop imposing what they know into what they do not know.

"Scientists at Umeå University and Karolinska Institutet in Sweden now show in the journal Science that the answer lies in the brain areas activated by each task" No it doesn't. It lies in the mechanism the brain uses to process input verus memory. When will be ignorant people ever get away from the real estate syndrom?

The brain doesn't do any such thing. 'Noise' or background sound (sound other than the desired focus) is ignored when short term concentrate on the sound desired to be heard. If the brain is not running with short term in control everything will be noise.

No. A typical ignorant question. The USE of computers is not changing anything. It is allowing reactive long term memory to gain greater control over proactive short term memory. Computers can't change a brain anymore than a car can change road. It can only damage it.

So let's see here. Take the initials of a test that doesn't measure intelligence, say it does, impose that upon a gene and declare, that a brain without toxins is a smart brain. This is another waste of funding and ignorant stupidity in action.

This is another phrase for, "OH heck just make it up." The end result of this 'study' will be NOT what the brain does, but how the brain sees itself do things. It is self diagnoses. And stupid.

Advertising hype with not one clue about what they are talking about.

Gee, you mean it has something to do with WHAT the brain is, HOW it works and not at all with how BIG it is? Oh gosh. Don't tell the scientists, it will just mean they have been wrong about some other assumption based on observation delusion.

Duh. There is no such thing as future. There are only things that have not happened yet. "To the brain, remembering the past and visualizing the future look surprisingly similar." Duh! Imagining ANYTHING is nothing more than combining what you have already experienced, learned or thought and imposing it on a fictional future.

Less gray matter is an indication of less short term awareness. It is the result of long term dominance, which is the structural cause of depression.

No it doesn't. The brain does not represent meaning. It processes sensory input. The idiot with the brain imposes meaning.

This is a prime example of stupid reporters just making stuff up. A traffic cop watches traffic long enough and patterns emerge, so he can 'predict' what will come next. He does NOT DECODE THE DRIVERS when he does so. Just plain stupid.

The title is very misleading, but we can write that off to journalists without a clue: What "Researcher Mark Changizi of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York" has announced has nothing to do with seeing into the future or even optical illusions: it has to do with how the brain functions. The brain processes data faster than it takes in data. That gives the illusion of being 'ahead' when it is actually 'behind'. Those "glimpse of events one-tenth of a second" are memory recalling the potential 'next' event from the past's experience. It has nothing to do with future. (See absrud time direction critique elsewhere in Logicwatch.) Optical illusions have to do with the speed of processing as well, but upside down to the assumption this researcher has concluded. This study actually does help prove the mechanism as described in the white papers and books from the Enticy Institute, but as long as the deduction is based in observation of the observed and not observation of the cause, researchers like this one will continue to be baffled by things that are right in their faces.

What an absurd beginning assumption! This study is typical of today's 'science'. They start with a premise, then proceed to study the premise, instead of the thing being studied and they wind up with a result that supports their premise, regardless if it matters to the thing being studied. Emotions are the result of long term processing. A person who controls their emotions is either of two things: 1: Short term dominate, or 2: (I know this one is hard to imagine) even frequency. Brain functions in an even frequency are like a 2 kz sound wave bounding from a flat surface. The reflection cancels the incoming wave. An even frequency brain's multiple levels of processing tend to cancel out, leaving no relative relationship to events and results in lack of remourse and a detachment from realty. The study does not support the hypothesis, it recreates it.

Here is their question: "The basic laws of physics work equally well forward or backward in time, yet we perceive time to move in one direction only—toward the future. Why?" And here is the answer: Because time is a perception. The laws work regardless of direction because there is no direction. Time is a product of the brain's processing, where older memories are smaller memories. That 'distance' creates the perception that 'time', which is a form of measurement, is the thing being measured. The thing being measured is duration. Duration does not exist anymore than time does, but it is measureable, just as distance does not exist, yet it is measureable. Time itself is a perception created by the mechanism of memory. Any futher discussion is just completely absurd. This article delves into the period before the big bang. Give me a break. "To account for it, we have to delve into the prehistory of the universe, to a time before the big bang. Our universe may be part of a much larger multiverse, which as a whole is time-symmetric. Time may run backward in other universes." And that would be the thing of fiction and scientists so caught up in their own perceptions they cannot imagine them to be just that.

Fact: the brain does not have 'BITS'. Chuck Hopkins is concerned that the process of teaching requires reading. Some people learn, he says, "in ways that don't involve reading." That is logical, but it is absurd to inductively declare that to be definitive. This line is downright funny: "So there'll be a lot riding on whether neuroscientists can identify the biological gateways for learning. And on how long it will take them to do it." It has already been done. This line is ignorant: "As with any good idea, the initiative has started to snowball." Snowballs have nothing to do with good ideas. They have everything to do with the credibility of the person announcing them. Sad too. But typical.

If you are going to try to make a serious point, don't become absurd in your explanations: you may get caught. This piece does that and quotes Eric Hoffer, “Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.” Much like any news coverage, the brain of a person not in control over their own actions, is easily tailored to fit the intention.

"Building on the existing body of research, Galán's work indicates that the spontaneous activity of small neuronal networks in the cortex consists of highly structured patterns rather than random "noise," shedding light on previous speculations." Gee, you mean the brain isn't a random useless happenstance engine? Gee.

"Individuals with autism who exhibit repetitive behavior show reduced activity in brain regions normally responsible for attention and executive function, the processes that help organize our actions and behaviors, researchers at Hofstra, Duke, and the University of North Carolina report in the current issue of the journal Biological Psychiatry." Its about time! Autism is long term dominance with very small short term presence. Of course they see it they way they do.

"Studies with non-human primates have made major contributions to our understanding of the brain and will continue to be an important, if small, part of neuroscience research, according to a recent review published in the British medical journal, The Lancet." Of course. The only drawback to such studies is anthropomorphism, which seems to reign supreme in such studies.

"Australian scientists have made a discovery about the part of the brain responsible for learning and memory." Well, they get the real estate right: the hippocampus. But the term 'regenerated' is silly. New memory needs new places to travel. Old neurons aren't hanging around waiting to be 'regenerated'.

"A new study suggests the brain has a "sixth sense" that can detect calories in food without the benefit of taste or smell." Yale came up with this. May I remind the reader, a 'calorie' is a concoction of measurement. Like the 'foot' or 'metre' it only exists in measurement. It does not reside anywhere. What "Yale neuroscientist Ivan de Araujo" is speaking about is the long term memory comparison reaction, an anticipation reaction. It is not detecting, it is reacting.

The "mirror neuron" concept is a fantasy. Neurons are parts, they make up the system, the system's structure determines the function, not the parts. Studies like this one assume the parts are greater than the whole and that is always a fatal mistake in logic. The brain does not 'detect' anything. It takes in input, compares it to previous input (whoops there's that mirror thing again) and either outputs a reaction, or is tempered by a short term proaction.

"Our main goal is to better understand why amputees retain the memory of pain after losing a limb," explains Ms. Duerden, who is completing her doctorate in the laboratory of Dr. Gary Duncan at the Université de Montréal's Department of Physiology and the Centre de recherche de l'Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal (CRIUGM). Here's your answer: pain in a result of brain function, where the processing value reaches exceeds '0'. Pain occurs in the brain, not in the limb. Removing a limb leaves the nerve endings feeding the brain.

Hyperthymestic syndrome is a result of the second component of recall: clarity. if you consider memory to be a binary entity, this concept is useless. But memory in the brain is not binary, it is fluid and variable. From ratio of function over input, to clarity of function, the hyperthymestic person employs both to a high degree, in short and long term memory processes. It is the same condition that gives rise to perfect pitch and photographic memory.

This piece about a 'scientist' who makes a standard mistake is just plain absurd. He insists we all can control emotions, then proceeds to make a typical 'psych' error in declaring that emotions need to be released. Emotions are results. They are only causes of things after they are results. To say we can control, then declare control is eventually impossible is typical ignorance.