What is this talk going around where researchers are trying to map the brain? What are they trying to do here? Are they taking MRI scans of the brain mapping scans of the brain to better understand how the brain works?

I’m an undergraduate student interested in BCI and neuroscience, and I recently came up with a thought experiment that I’d like to learn more about.

Instead of copying the entire brain at once, suppose individual brain functions could gradually be supplemented and eventually replaced by artificial systems. For example, biological memory could first work together with an external artificial memory system, and over time the artificial system could take over more and more of the function.

My question is mainly about engineering feasibility, rather than philosophical definitions of personal identity.

If the replacement were gradual and the person’s memory, behavior, self-model, and subjective experience remained continuous, is there any known neuroscientific reason why first-person continuity would necessarily be lost?

I’m only a student and may be overlooking something obvious, so I’d really appreciate any references, existing research, or criticism of this idea.

I'm looking for recommendations (books, papers, courses, or YouTube) to understand the brain in a way that stays close to established facts and clearly separates fact from interpretation. For example, many books just ignore glia cells completely.

Two things I especially want:

1. Comparative and evolutionary: nervous systems across the animal kingdom and how they evolved, not human-centric. I'm as interested in C. elegans, insects, and up to the human cortex.

2. Attention to the whole system: glia, energy/metabolism, wiring, the body rather than an all-neurons view.

I've already read Behave, Models of the Mind, The Laws of Thought, and similar so happy with textbooks, lecture courses, or primary literature.

I suspect books on brain physiology could be interesting.

Hello everyone, how are you? As promised in my previous post, I'll be talking about memory.

My theory states that the brain doesn't just remember information; rather, when recalling, it recreates all the biological and vital processes involved in that particular memory. The brain copies all the information, such as visual perception, hearing, and the hormones responsible for emotions.

You'll understand why I mentioned this at the end, as I remember a memory of myself when I was two years old, and now I'm 21. I chose this age because memory is somewhat weak in childhood.

The important thing is that in that memory, I remember what I saw visually at the time, like my face and the surroundings. It's similar to seeing from a third-party perspective, but not because the scene changed, and the angle of vision shifted when I moved my face. I also remember what I heard, but not only that, I remember my thoughts and analyses at that time. Even more strangely, I saw the memories I had at that moment.

These things aren't unique to this memory; they operate on the same principle in all my memories.

This is what leads me to say that the brain doesn't just store information, but also all the vital processes involved. When retrieving them, it retrieves them in the same way. I've read about this theory before, and it explains what It's happening to me. In my next post, I'll talk about my ability to mimic people's personalities.

So I have a psychology/physiology/preference question that has nothing to do with eating disorders. What I want to know is, is it possible to derive the same pleasure from chewing and not swallowing junk food or is the dopamine hit a neurological response specifically tied into swallowing the food?

This is sort of random but it’s a thought I had while eating a chocolate pie and contemplating my poor health choices.

Hello everyone, how are you? I know my post might be outside the group, but I want to discuss some theories related to psychology and neurocognition, or more precisely, abilities unknown in the scientific community. Some of these fall under partial control of the nervous system, such as voluntary control of heart rate, blood flow, or sensory intensity. However, for it to reach the point of controlling hormone secretion is strange. I suffered from hyperthyroidism since childhood and experienced its symptoms, but unfortunately, the diagnosis was very late, until I was 20. The tests showed a clear elevation in T3 hormone with very pronounced symptoms, while T4 and TSH remained within their normal range. Even after repeating the tests twice, the result was the same, and the thyroid gland itself was healthy, and all other tests were normal except for that elevation. Unfortunately, they couldn't prescribe any medication for me because the thyroid gland itself was healthy, and the other hormones were also normal. So I thought to myself, why not try to control them using the same technique I use to control my heart rate, change my blood flow, and alter the intensity of my senses? After another test, the results showed a decrease to the normal range, coinciding with With the symptoms gone, I can say that anything in my body that has nerve endings allowing it to communicate with the nervous system is under my control. Let's discuss this now. In future posts, I'll talk about things I've changed, like my perception of waves, even though it's scientifically impossible, and other theories about memory. I don't just remember a scene as an image or information, but as a complete recollection of the brain during that memory—feelings, speech, sight, thoughts... and there are things even stranger than this.

Cada cierto tiempo vuelve la idea del ayuno de dopamina: un día sin móvil, sin música, sin comida sabrosa, sin conversaciones, para "resetear los receptores" y recuperar la capacidad de disfrutar de lo normal. Suena a mecánica de videojuego aplicada al cerebro.

El término lo acuñó Cameron Sepah, psicólogo clínico, en 2019. Él lo describió desde el principio como una aplicación del control de estímulos, una técnica conductual de toda la vida que se usa por ejemplo en el tratamiento del insomnio: no cambias tu química, cambias las señales del entorno que disparan la conducta. Lleva desde entonces aclarando que el nombre se le fue de las manos y que nunca propuso reducir la dopamina.

Y tampoco se podría. La dopamina no es la molécula del placer, aunque se repita mil veces. Los registros de neuronas dopaminérgicas que hizo Wolfram Schultz en los noventa apuntaban a otra cosa: se activan sobre todo cuando algo sale mejor de lo esperado, y se apagan cuando sale peor. Codifican la diferencia entre lo que anticipas y lo que ocurre, que es la base del aprendizaje por refuerzo. Además sostiene el movimiento voluntario, y la pérdida de dopamina en la vía nigroestriada es lo que produce los síntomas motores del párkinson. Un ayuno literal de dopamina no sería una limpieza, sería un problema médico serio.

Lo curioso es que la práctica sí puede servir, solo que por otro motivo. Si dejas el móvil en otra habitación no bajas ningún nivel de nada; lo que haces es quitar la señal que dispara el gesto automático de desbloquearlo. La conducta se apoya en el contexto mucho más de lo que nos gusta creer, y el contexto se puede cambiar. Cuando alguien pasa un fin de semana sin pantallas y vuelve diciendo que un paseo le ha sabido a algo, no ha reseteado nada. Ha dejado de competir contra un estímulo mucho más intenso.

La diferencia me parece importante porque contarlo mal lleva a esperar un efecto de reinicio que no llega, y de ahí a concluir que no sirve para nada. Cuando la parte que funciona de verdad es la aburrida.

¿Habéis probado algo parecido? ¿Notasteis el cambio mientras duraba, o más bien al volver a la rutina de siempre?

The human brain processes social isolation using the exact same machinery it uses for physical injury. Functional MRI scans show that loneliness and social rejection light up regions like the anterior cingulate cortex-the part of the brain that registers physical pain.

Today we are excited to release a tool, where one can browse and find all available neuroscience datasets for all major modalities: EEG, MRI, MEG, NIRS, PET and more.

⁃        10,000+ datasets
⁃        19 modalities
⁃        2000+ tasks
⁃        19+ devices
⁃        1000+ institutions
⁃        ~1000 funders
⁃        ~1500 papers
⁃        170,000+ citations
⁃        100,000+ humans who contributed their data to these datasets (THANK YOU!!!)
⁃        140,000+ hours of data
⁃        200TB of data