Anonymous

Engrams get called out as one of the most fundamental mistakes in neuroscience in the December 2009 edition of Discover magazine. In an interview with Henry Markram , discussing virtualization of the brain, the concept of engrams is considered a roadblock:

Onanymous

"Engram" existed before Hubbard started to use it (and changed its meaning). Question, how did you come to the conclusion that the article associates "engram" with "roadblock"?

themadhair

He meant roadblock as in a roadblock to scientific research due to it being a false idea.

Chanology is a flower that grew out of a hole filled with internet shoite. As long as that shoite provides nourishment, that flower will continue to thrive and bloom.

Anonymous Ireland

New to chanology? Want to know if there is Anonymous in your area? Find out at http://www.anonstillalive.com/

Onanymous

I see. I'm no scientist, but it looks to me that the author is not 100% honest here.

It's as if the author defines "engram" exclusively as "the state of a neuron or synapse." The definition of "engram" as per Myriam-Webster is "hypothetical change in neural tissue postulated in order to account for persistence of memory." The change can be anything, not exclusively the "state of a neuron or synapse" (whatever he meant). So an engram could very well be a particular connection layout of a group of neurons -- and hence, one can't say "this is one of the most fundamental mistakes in neuroscience" regarding the existence of the postulated engram.

Anonymous

This is nice and all, good idea to look at memory from another side. But there are certainly some aspects of brain function where the concept of "engrams" or "physically fixed" circuits is valid. Look at the cerebellum or into the studies with Aplysia.
The article sounds a bit like selling ideas for fundraising or at least the typical 'scientific' "our findings may result in a completely new view of blabla". I know what I'm talking about.

Anonymous

It sure makes sense to me too, I'm pretty sure it has been demonstrated by now that when one loses a piece of brain, one often loses functions and/or memories... So geez, there must have been some imprints in that lost cerebral tissue...

But I can see FZers/etc. jumping on this as "evidence!!!" that Hubbard was right!!! (rather than questioning the rather weak argument of the author.)

Anonymous

Funny they use such an experimental setup to "reverse engineer" the brain. With what is shown on the picture, you normally measure electrical connections between cells or conduction properties of one cell.
Which is only one very small aspect of a lot more factors involved in memory / brain function.

But I'm mean. The EPFL has a very good reputation. And the interesting point is, that "engrams" could be something more 'virtual', more like an electromagnetic or "activity" field and not some biophysical neuronal property.