the math... it haunts me...

So it makes sense that there is some conceivable pattern for every finite list of numbers (things, etc) that could either be disproved or not disproved (never proved of course; nothing is ever proved in science, just not disproved) by the addition of another element. Sure, we may not be smart enough to come up with conceivable patterns for really long sets of elements, but it seems like as long as that set is finite, such a pattern must exist.

I don't know why this is interesting. It just is. I wish I could remember my topology. It's like the concept of a cover or something... anyway, as the world is mostly finite (leave infinity for math and physics groping for solutions), there should be a pattern to everything.

That's kind of comforting, even though of course most of those patterns are probably wrong. But who would ever know if the additional element is never given, if the pattern is never explicable?

2 things

1. It bothers me when people say I'm "converting oxygen to carbon dioxide." Oxygen is absorbed through the linings in the alveoli in the lungs into the capillary beds where it is distributed through pulmonary circulation. Once distributed, it serves as the final electron acceptor in the electron transport chain. The electron transport chain is a series of redox reactions that generates the proton gradient in the Krebs cycle that provides energy for the pump that drives the creation of ATP, cellular energy.
Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is, I think, a byproduct of the citric acid cycle, which is a separate event from the electron transport chain and the Krebs cycle. The citric acid cycle generates the electron carrier molecules needed for further redox reactions by transforming carbon-based molecules.
This carbon dioxide waste is carried in the blood back to the lungs where it is absorbed back through the alveoli down a concentration gradient and respired back into the atmosphere.
You are not "converting oxygen to carbon dioxide."

2. I think it's really interesting that we have a stronger memory for visual things than for other senses. I think it's true that olfactory stimuli provide the strongest memory inducer, but try this exercise: conjure the image of your bedroom, or office, or whatever room you're not at at the moment. It's pretty clear, right? Now conjure the taste of chocolate cake. I mean, I want you to really taste it the way you really see your room. It doesn't work as well, does it? I wonder why that is? Maybe the visual component of our engrams is stronger than the other components? I don't know enough to know that. Hopefully some day I'll find out.

That's all for now folks.

more cool things my brain can do

So I know that the brain isn't really great at touch localization on certain body parts in relation to others due to the differing representation of body parts in the humunculous down the center part of the brain (ie we are much better at localizing touch to our hands than touch to our backs or something). But something we should get credit for I think is that imazing cortex (I can't remember which... really I am often am a failure of a neuroscience student) involved in three-dimensional representation of the world. For instance, I can close my eyes and touch accurately all of my body parts without making a mistake, even the fine tuning on my face. If you asked me to touch somebody else's nose you'd get a pin the tail on the donkey problem, but my 3D localization is tied up with my body sense, so I'm so much better at proprioception or whatever it's called than I am at knowing where your body parts are.

Just one more reason our brains are amazing.

haha bureaucracy

Quote from my hazardous chemicals training for work. Shock value, anyone? :-P
" Note: When handling toxic materials that penetrate the skin, the proper glove is critical. A researcher died from skin exposure to dimethyl mercury."

comments and questions

1. What if someone with synesthesia went blind due to damage of their eyes? I am fairly certain that they would still "see" colors because the brain regions are intact and stimulated by the false connections, and that is kind of cool...

2. So string theory is vibration of tiny strings in space or on branes in ten or eleven dimensions (one being time, the rest space). So the evidence is not good for string theory at the moment (in fact there is no evidence, just the nice way it unites the particles and forces), but imagine with me that in every dimension a string vibrates through it vibrates space (which it does, causing creation of particles). But if it vibrate space it must produce a sound wave at some frequency way to high to hear I think. But imagine we could hear it. Then it would be like every instant was a ten-note chord, and the universe was a chord progression. Very cool.

3. I had something else but I've forgotten it... perhaps I'll come back and fill it in.

bipolar and internal sound localization

About bipolar- I learned that not only is lithium a protein kinase C inhibitor (I don't understand why inhibition works, but whatever), so is.. um... Lamictal maybe? I can't remember which, a drug that also treats bipolar anyway. Also, breast cancer drugs that affect protein kinase C help with bipolar, further evidence (although the study was small). So the conclusion is that one of the bipolar risk factor genes is a gene that codes for protein kinase C that has an SNP. Now I'm going out on a limb here, but if an inhibitor works for treatment, it must cause a protein kinase C that does something wacky, and if inhibiting doesn't restore normal function, it must at least get rid of that detrimental effect. I don't know though, that's just my guess. Anyway, I wonder if they're working on the genes that protein kinase C phosphorylates transcription factors of or whatever it does? That seems like the next step. My PTSD work seems simple compared to bipolar. At least PTSD isn't genetic (I mean a tendency towards it is, but you have to have the spark). I think bipolar is multifactorial as well as polygenetic. Very complicated. But it seems we're making progress! This is the field I want my Ph.D in: bipolar and pharmacological treatment of bipolar. Then I can be a psychiatrist with a strong drug background... that will be awesome (MD-PhD).

About sound localization- I was thinking. So vertical sound localization is caused by the pinna in your ear differently refracting sound waves I think at different heights. Horizontal sound localization is caused by some structure (can't remember which- LGN maybe?? that's probably wrong) receiving sound waves at different times, thus causing different amounts of action potentials because the waves are curved on either side by the curvature of the head. So my question is- why do we perceive internal noise location as being in our head when we plug our ears and hum? It definitely seems like we get the vertical and horizontal localization correct although at least the vertical localization can't be working the same way.

Hmm... well if some major neuroscientist ever reads this is the distant future, please comment and explain.

cnn in the morning

This is ridiculous. More on it later, but seriously. I know the line has to be drawn somewhere and nobody wants a future voyeur streaking naked across the stage, but seriously, here? Blowing a kiss? That's *so* normal. Jeez.

And don't get me started on the child rapist that got only one year in prison.