Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: How do we walk?

  1. #1 How do we walk? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    I know that seems like a dumb question? I tried googling "how does our brain direct our physical actions" and I didn't find any readily handy articles.

    Do you guys have any recommendations for an article or articles on what takes place that allows us to turn thought in to physical activity?

    I would like to know how I am able to make this topic and type out my thoughts and questions. How is it I can control my fingers to make them type this sort of thing?

    Cheers.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Welcome WTBDIK, and thanks for asking a perfectly good question. Precise key words help to narrow search results, and searching is one of those situations where knowing a little can help a lot. Most people don't use the original definitions of the word motor, as a noun or an adjective, but we use them in science.

    motor
    [from Latin motor , a mover]
    n.
    1. anything that produces or imparts motion
    2. an engine; esp., an internal-combustion engine for propelling a vehicle
    3. a motor vehicle
    4. Elec. a machine for converting electric energy into mechanical energy
    adj.
    1. producing or imparting motion
    2. of, having to do with, or powered by a motor or motors [motor oil, motor parts, a motor bicycle]
    3. of, by, or for motor vehicles [a motor trip]
    4. for motorists [a motor inn]
    5. designating or of a nerve carrying impulses from the central nervous system to a muscle that produces motion
    6. of, manifested by, or involving muscular movements [a motor reflex, motor skills]

    Try searching for: "brain", "motor control", "motor cortex", "motor neuron", and/or "locomotor" *.

    * I specifically included locomotor (a word closely related to locomotion and locomotive) because of the title of your topic.

    Come back with any other questions.


    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    That was very helpful jrmonroe, thank you. I particularly found the motor cortex and motor neuron search very helpful.

    Based on wikipedia's explanation of the two I assume there is a whole other control system for stimulating glandular and organ activity. Can you or someone help me with a search phrase for this?

    Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    - viscera
    - autonomic nervous system
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    - viscera
    - autonomic nervous system
    Thanks again. The ANS is quite a lot to digest no pun intended. It led me to the immune system which led me to this.

    “Microorganisms or toxins that successfully enter an organism will encounter the cells and mechanisms of the innate immune system. The innate response is usually triggered when microbes are identified by pattern recognition receptors, which recognize components that are conserved among broad groups of microorganisms,[26] or when damaged, injured or stressed cells send out alarm signals, many of which (but not all) are recognized by the same receptors as those that recognize pathogens.[27] Innate immune defenses are non-specific, meaning these systems respond to pathogens in a generic way.[14] This system does not confer long-lasting immunity against a pathogen. The innate immune system is the dominant system of host defense in most organisms.”

    Autoimmune and genetics aside what else could cause pathogens to slip past the innate immune system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Pathogens usually have characteristics we call "virulence factors," which is a fancy way to say they have traits that help them get around the innate and adaptive immune response. Our innate immune system is pretty good at stopping most things, but it's not perfect. A major part of your innate immune system is the skin, which is pretty good at keeping bacteria at bay, but when you get cut, bacteria get inside and a major part of your innate immune system has been compromised. Now usually this isn't that big a deal, but then there are conditions like an animal bite, where large amounts of bacteria are carried in as well, then your immune system has a hard time handling things.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virulence_factors

    Edit: Also, some are simply just very good at getting through your immune defenses.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Pathogens usually have characteristics we call "virulence factors," which is a fancy way to say they have traits that help them get around the innate and adaptive immune response. Our innate immune system is pretty good at stopping most things, but it's not perfect. A major part of your innate immune system is the skin, which is pretty good at keeping bacteria at bay, but when you get cut, bacteria get inside and a major part of your innate immune system has been compromised. Now usually this isn't that big a deal, but then there are conditions like an animal bite, where large amounts of bacteria are carried in as well, then your immune system has a hard time handling things.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virulence_factors

    Edit: Also, some are simply just very good at getting through your immune defenses.
    I was just about to edit my last comment adding this from Wiki Immune system..

    “Detection is complicated as pathogens can evolve rapidly; producing adaptations that avoid the immune system and allow the pathogens to successfully infect their hosts.”

    Can we assume there are pathogens other than HIV that can weaken the immune system once they have slipped past?

    Also would the immune system suffer from lack of sleep, lack of food, stress and other lifestyle choices allowing gaps in the defense? Wiki didn't address these as effecting the immune system but it seems like we would need the energy and reserves to mount a defense the same way we would need energy to walk?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    A lot of pathogens have ways to weaken the immune system, none as severely as HIV that I can think of off the top of my head. A very common one is something like releasing caspases, which breaks down hydrogen peroxide, used as a sort of weapon by your neutrophils.

    Immunodeficiency can be caused by severe malnutrition, but you'd have to be essentially dying by that point, and it's never as bad as you see in an AIDS patient. There are HIV denialist who claim that drug use, stress, etc. can cause immunodeficiency, but those are unsubstantiated and frankly bullshit.

    Chemotherapy weakens the immune response because the adaptive response relies on fast proliferating cells. Also, often transplant patients are given immunosuppressant drugs to stop them from rejecting organs, and these can make them vulnerable to diseases s healthy immune system would normally take care of. Lymphoma also results in immune suppression.

    A few people also have genetic defects which make their immune response less effective, because they can't make certain necessary proteins. These genetic disorders can range from mild to severe.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    OK, so there are other pathogens that can get past the immune system and effect immunity, not just HIV.

    I'm not qualified to rule out theories yet. I don't have enough to make a judgment call. You did create a new question with your reply.

    My question is this, if we miss a full night or two of sleep and do not eat enough and we have the ancient Chinese disease known as dragon' a$$ and we can barely walk, stand or think clearly will our immune system still be at 100%?

    If so, how? Does the brain or body shift energy to keep the immune system at full power or does the immune system run independent of the energy source we need to do everything else physically and mentally? Or does the immune system run on something other than energy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    The main thing to realize is that even when the immune system isn't in top shape, like when a person is starving or under a lot of stress, it is still functioning much better than that of an AIDS patient.

    The vast majority of your body's energy use goes into keeping your organs working and maintaining your body temperature, relative to those your immune systems runs on practically nothing. That's why you would have to be in very bad shape to have your immune system severely compromised. As you age, your immune system eventually starts to become less effective at replenishing white blood cells, and in general, you become more susceptible to disease, but even the very old do not manifest diseases associated with immunodeficiency, without the presence of other causes of course.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Can we approach this as if before AIDS and other severe immune deficiencies became epidemics?

    What if failing health is a result of many small immune deficiencies accumulating to create major immune deficiencies, as in something considered mostly insignificant gets past the immune system and gets established, and then another a year down the road and then others follow.

    Some people slowly lose their health one sign or symptom at a time. One person makes it to 75 without any real issues while another finds them self on a new prescription every year or so until they have multiple prescriptions. Genetics aside, isn't it possible that each time something slips past the immune system, the person become a greater risk for other pathogens to slip past? To me this seems obvious. Which brings me to my concern, outside of AIDS what else is really compromising immunity. Isn’t it obvious that society is not the epitome of proper immunity?

    I know we are all going to lose our ability to create new cells and die, especially white blood cells but why has science not come up with why some people remain virtually immune to a ripe old age and others do not. Genetics seem to be the common belief but I have seen instances where one person in a family is a wreck and everyone else is doing quite well without AIDS being an issue or factor.

    You say you don't believe that heavy drug use or alcohol is likely to compromise immunity and it also seems like you do not feel lack of sleep has an effect.

    To me it seems humans are devolving in regards to immunity and becoming more reliant on medications with some turning to "new age" medicine which seems to me to be minimally effective at restoring immunity as well. We are clearly missing the big pictures and I fear if we keep dismissing ideas that are less popular with science we will continue to miss the big picture. If there is means for better immunity it hasn’t been discovered yet unless it has but has been dismissed as silly or unscientific.

    People want to boost their immune system so they turn to products that have wonderful marketing and labels. They try fad diets. They try fad "new age" gadgets, machines and far too often gimmicks and nothing seems to be working. Everything science throws at us seems to be failing. Clearly science doesn't have all the answers yet. I fear this could be because of tunnel vision.

    What if little things like sleep, water, stress, chemical toxins like drugs and alcohol and a lot of other seemingly insignificant socially accepted lifestyle choices effect the immune system and slowly allow for pathogens to slip through the cracks.

    Here is a big "what if", what if we have more control over our immune system than we are aware? What if our reliance on modern science and technology has caused us to lose some immune instincts or we simply stopped investigating immune responses in pursuit of finding the magic pill or something like that? I'm not suggesting mind over matter, power of the mind, faith healing or belief. I'm talking about the possibility that we are scientifically adapting to improper and unnatural lifestyles? I am sure this way of thinking could be considered "new age" and woo woo but I think it depends on how you look at it.

    I don't know how many ways we can look at it. One way is we look at is as plain foolishness and dismiss it completely and another is we look at it as a possibility and then dig in deep until we do rule it as impossible. Maybe we need to back up to a more primitive form of science and start from scratch?

    When a person is sick and they go to their doctor and get their antibiotics and are told to go home and get plenty of rest and drink plenty of fluids, what is the meaning behind it? How did the rest and plenty of water/fluids come about? I don't want to be woo woo about it but couldn't plenty of rest and water before the illness potentially prevented the illness? I haven't been to the doctor for a very long time so maybe "rest and plenty of fluids" isn't a prescription today?

    What if we are missing the obvious?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Can we approach this as if before AIDS and other severe immune deficiencies became epidemics?

    What if failing health is a result of many small immune deficiencies accumulating to create major immune deficiencies, as in something considered mostly insignificant gets past the immune system and gets established, and then another a year down the road and then others follow.
    This would contradict what we know of how the immune system functions. We have a fairly good understanding of how the immune system functions, we're still working through the finer details but we have a decent general picture of how our immune system works. How would these small immune deficiencies be acquired?

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Some people slowly lose their health one sign or symptom at a time. One person makes it to 75 without any real issues while another finds them self on a new prescription every year or so until they have multiple prescriptions. Genetics aside, isn't it possible that each time something slips past the immune system, the person become a greater risk for other pathogens to slip past? To me this seems obvious. Which brings me to my concern, outside of AIDS what else is really compromising immunity. Isn’t it obvious that society is not the epitome of proper immunity?
    Well, first of all, here we're starting with anecdotal evidence. Secondly, systemic failure is gradual, and lifestyle will have an effect on how/if/when your organs begin to fail. In the west, you're highly likely to die from something unrelated to a weakening immune system, heart disease, diabetes and cancer are more likely to do you in. A fair number do die from respiratory diseases and other infectious disease, but part of this is that their weakened organs in general are not as good at handling disease, not just the immune system. People just aren't built to last long-term, on an evolutionary scale, your survivability past reproductive age is not that big a deal.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    I know we are all going to lose our ability to create new cells and die, especially white blood cells but why has science not come up with why some people remain virtually immune to a ripe old age and others do not. Genetics seem to be the common belief but I have seen instances where one person in a family is a wreck and everyone else is doing quite well without AIDS being an issue or factor.
    Lifestyle certainly plays a part, in that having a healthy heart and being a good weight will make you better suited to surviving disease than a fat guy with a bad heart, but that isn't really because their immune systems are different. Some people are also simply lucky.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    You say you don't believe that heavy drug use or alcohol is likely to compromise immunity and it also seems like you do not feel lack of sleep has an effect.

    To me it seems humans are devolving in regards to immunity and becoming more reliant on medications with some turning to "new age" medicine which seems to me to be minimally effective at restoring immunity as well. We are clearly missing the big pictures and I fear if we keep dismissing ideas that are less popular with science we will continue to miss the big picture. If there is means for better immunity it hasn’t been discovered yet unless it has but has been dismissed as silly or unscientific.
    I don't think this is true. People live longer than ever before, and have a higher quality of life longterm than ever before. Science doesn't dismiss ideas merely off the basis of popularity, but science is only open to ideas with evidence. Conjecture without any supporting evidence does little to satisfy me, it simply isn't a trustworthy basis to make decisions off of. We can't extrapolate from negatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    People want to boost their immune system so they turn to products that have wonderful marketing and labels. They try fad diets. They try fad "new age" gadgets, machines and far too often gimmicks and nothing seems to be working. Everything science throws at us seems to be failing. Clearly science doesn't have all the answers yet. I fear this could be because of tunnel vision.
    Science doesn't have all the answers yet, simply because that is a large task to be able to do. However, it is not due to any sort of tunnel vision, science operates under strict guidelines because the scientific method is reliable and efficient for producing accurate results.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    What if little things like sleep, water, stress, chemical toxins like drugs and alcohol and a lot of other seemingly insignificant socially accepted lifestyle choices effect the immune system and slowly allow for pathogens to slip through the cracks.
    This is conjecture, someone could easily test these things in studies, and I'm sure they've been done. I just don't know of any reliable evidence supporting such a view. We know plenty of ways stress, lack of sleep, and drugs can harm you without having to speculate about potential effects on the immune system, which do not seem to be significant if they exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Here is a big "what if", what if we have more control over our immune system than we are aware? What if our reliance on modern science and technology has caused us to lose some immune instincts or we simply stopped investigating immune responses in pursuit of finding the magic pill or something like that? I'm not suggesting mind over matter, power of the mind, faith healing or belief. I'm talking about the possibility that we are scientifically adapting to improper and unnatural lifestyles? I am sure this way of thinking could be considered "new age" and woo woo but I think it depends on how you look at it.
    And what if the Easter Bunny were real? This has very little substance, in science we only look at hypotheses which can reasonably be tested. When you present this sort of broad unfalsifiable hypothesis there is little we can comment on, it simply isn't conductive to further understanding. If you want to test something like, say happy people have stronger immune systems, you can, and this has been looked at and found not be a factor. The mindset of individuals has little effect on the progress of diseases like cancer and bacterial infections.

    [quote="whatthebleepdoiknow"]
    I don't know how many ways we can look at it. One way is we look at is as plain foolishness and dismiss it completely and another is we look at it as a possibility and then dig in deep until we do rule it as impossible. Maybe we need to back up to a more primitive form of science and start from scratch? [quote=whatthebleepdoiknow]e here is a misunderstanding of how science functions. I can assure you that people are looking into many possibilities that have viable ways to be tested and examined. There are plenty of pseudoscientific groups that spend a lot of money trying to justify non-mainstream ideas too, there's a lot of money to be made in the health industry so I'd be surprised if any easy avenue hasn't been examined.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    When a person is sick and they go to their doctor and get their antibiotics and are told to go home and get plenty of rest and drink plenty of fluids, what is the meaning behind it? How did the rest and plenty of water/fluids come about? I don't want to be woo woo about it but couldn't plenty of rest and water before the illness potentially prevented the illness? I haven't been to the doctor for a very long time so maybe "rest and plenty of fluids" isn't a prescription today?

    What if we are missing the obvious?
    Well this has to do with the fact that exercise raises body temperature, and overheating is a real concern when someone is sick, likewise dehydration is often caused by the fever and diarrhea. Those are just sensible precautions against potential complications of an infection.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Tartar sauce! Science is depressing. I feel something dropping as I type. It is a good thing attitude and peace of mind does not affect the immune system because mine just took a dive. :?

    You mentioned some people may just be lucky and make it to a ripe old age without being sickly. Scientifically speaking, would that mean they didn't come in contact with nasty pathogens or that they just lucked out and had a more effective immune system?

    One of the immune system sites I read mentioned that we all come in contact with many different pathogens every day and our immune systems deal with them effectively and eliminate them without us even knowing. If this is the case, are there pathogens that even the effective/lucky immune system cannot process? For example, if someone comes in contact with HIV is it possible they can process it like all the other pathogens they process without then even knowing or is that where the "lucky" comes in to play?

    Maybe there is a list of pathogens that no immune system can defend against no matter what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    It's a little bit of both, some people are born with immune systems better at dealing with some pathogens and others simply luck out on never coming in contact with some bad ones. Most of us in Western countries will never have to deal with Malarial fever, nor are we likely to be infected with TB, both of which are quite common in developing countries.

    The majority of exposures to HIV actually don't end up resulting in infection. For anal intercourse it's something like 50 in 10,000 exposures results in infection for the receptive partner, vaginal is lower at around 10 per 10,000 for the woman. Things vary, different carriers will have higher viral loads in their semen/blood, depending on what stage of disease they're at. However, when HIV infected blood is used for a transfusion the infection rate is a pretty high 95%, that's pretty remarkable. Once exposure to HIV progresses to acute infection, and the virus is proliferating amongst your white blood cells it's pretty much a done deal for the infected individual, sadly.

    Rabies for a long time was thought to result 100% in death by those who were infected and not vaccinated immediately after. However, in the last couple of years some doctors in Milwaukee managed to develop a treatment that has save 4 out of 35 people it was tried on, which isn't great but a big improvement over 0.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    OK, with HIV the virus doesn't get past the vaginal or anal linings and secretions of the immune system or the first layer but if injected into the blood it is 95% likely to lead to a HIV patient.

    This means there is a 5% chance a person could detect and eliminate HIV injected/transfused into the blood so some humans could be considered superior to HIV.

    That peps me up. You go 5%! Now, please don't go raining on my parade and tell me I misunderstood. Give me a little time to enjoy man's awesome immunity or immune system.

    :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Yes, it's been known for a few years that certain variants of CCR5 (a receptor on white blood cells used by HIV for infection), delta 32 to be specific, will confer some extra resistance to those people to certain strains of HIV.

    Some of those 5% may just be lucky though, maybe they got less virus infected blood, or they just happened to be a bit more resistant. It's hard to say, also the study that number comes from is quite old, coming from 1990, when we didn't know as much about HIV. Since we test blood before transfusions now there isn't an opportunity to look at why certain transfusion recipients didn't get infected.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Well that wasn't too bad of a letdown. I woke up with the topic on my mind this morning. I woke believing there is less time and money being spent on figuring out why the 5% don't get HIV after being infected. I don't know that they have spent less time; I just assume they have and like you said and now that blood is screened the opportunity to research it is even rarer.

    However, no matter how tired and sleepy you are, your understanding and research shows that the human immune system is capable of dealing with strains of HIV. That cheered me up. I know you only gave me a 5% immunity figure for blood transfusions and that is wonderful and a place to start.

    You have made it clear that that you believe very little negatively influences on the body effect the immune system and I'm not trying to be a jerk but I know that is a not the case.

    I'm not a formally trained scientist so I really do appreciate all your hard work and dedication to science, especially your understanding of medical science. You are a great wealth of information and I hope we can continue to share information because I know you would be a great asset to my efforts but I have to disagree with you on the fact that "little things" do indeed effect the immune system and the more little things the greater the effect. This is something I can prove if I find scientist who are interested.

    If 5% of people getting blood transfusions find themselves immune to HIV while under stress and duress my education and understanding of health and healing suggest people not under any stress would have a higher percentage of immunity. Hypothetically speaking, if 50 healthy people who seldom get colds or flus where injected with viable strains of HIV while under the impression they were getting injected with a super potent vitamin complex instead of HIV, I believe it would be unlikely anyone of them would become HIV carries.

    I know my opinions are not science. And that is why I am here. I want to add science to my work and change the world.

    How do we walk? Jrmonroe helped me out with that one.

    How do we control our immune responses? Now that I know how we walk our immune system is controlled in much the same way as we walk and I will explain that over in New Hypotheses and Ideas in hopes that people will be receptive to what I know to be true and be willing to discuss the issue instead of attack the issue because they were taught differently. I have been attacked for 15 years but until now I have never spoken to scientist or science minded people. I am well aware that what I say contradicts modern science but isn’t it likely that the cure for HIV or AIDS hasn’t been found yet because it is not in the current realm of “modern” science?

    This is my first opportunity to scientifically discuss what I know to be true provided they do not run me off for suggesting we can maintain immunity by controlling our immune system. I’m excited. I hope you will join me with an open mind for a while and then go totally scientific on me. Please give me some time to get the post up. Thank you for all your help.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    15
    @ WTBDIK-I have a question similar to your original question!
    How does body movement work?
    For eg. if I want to lift my finger, I think about it consciously or sub-consciously but my brain instantaneously decides which muscles to contract and which to expand in order to bring about the desired movement. The brain sends the signals via the correct nerves to the correct muscles.
    How does it do that?? Is it the cortical honunculus? How does it work?
    I've read about "brain sending electro-chemical signals through nerves to the brain" but is there anything we know about how does the brain decide the correct pathway (nerve, I mean) to the correct muscle. Please keep in mind that I consider brain sitting at least a meter away from the muscle in the finger. I hope you are getting what I am trying to say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    What if there are other signals that do not go through the nervous system? Does anyone know the actual limitations of communication from the brain to the body or from one body to another?

    When we speak, it stands to reason that the words are formed by the nervous system but then the sound is made and our receptors pick up the sound. A word goes from one person to another so obviously there is a gap where the sound can travel outside the nervous system.

    Are we to assume science has all the answers to internal and external forms of communication?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    In the west, you're highly likely to die from something unrelated to a weakening immune system, heart disease, diabetes and cancer are more likely to do you in
    It's not at all established that heart disease, diabetes, and cancer are not immune system failures of some kind, themselves.

    Damaged or malfunctioning immune systems are strongly correlated with all three, in some specific cases (Kaposi's Sarcoma, auto-immune destruction of insulin producing cells, and inflammation of the arteries feeding the heart, say), and implicated in many others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    It's not at all established that heart disease, diabetes, and cancer are not immune system failures of some kind, themselves.

    Damaged or malfunctioning immune systems are strongly correlated with all three, in some specific cases (Kaposi's Sarcoma, auto-immune destruction of insulin producing cells, and inflammation of the arteries feeding the heart, say), and implicated in many others.
    I have a hard time seeing how most cases of heart disease and type II diabetes are immune related, apart from some possible endocardiasis or pancreatitis. Inflammation of the arteries is not related to a weakened immune system, nor is auto-immune attacks in type I diabetes. I'll give you that some cancers are related in large part to the function of the immune system. And, you should note that I did say a weakening immune system plays a role, I was saying that age related disease is not the exclusive domain of a poorer functioning immune system. You're taking immune failure to mean any malfunctioning of the immune system, when I was speaking specifically of the weakening of the immune response with age.

    Just because people with severely compromised immune systems will quickly develop systemic problems, does not mean that the vast majority of people dying from diabetes and heart disease are dying because of problems unrelated to their immune system weakening with age.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    What if there are other signals that do not go through the nervous system? Does anyone know the actual limitations of communication from the brain to the body or from one body to another?

    When we speak, it stands to reason that the words are formed by the nervous system but then the sound is made and our receptors pick up the sound. A word goes from one person to another so obviously there is a gap where the sound can travel outside the nervous system.

    Are we to assume science has all the answers to internal and external forms of communication?
    Um, this is a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Why do you have a hard time???? It clearly isn't established that heart disease, diabetes or cancer are not immune system failures.

    It clearly isn't established that they are immune related either. Guess what Sleepy, there is nothing established in regards to heart disease, diabetes or cancer so I have a hard time seeing how you can create any opinion or ASSUME anything with any one of the three conditions.

    As for you making the comment about my comment being a whole lot of words that didn't say anything. Naturally you missed it because what I said did not match YOUR OPINION, your opinion that has not been established as anything more than opinion.

    So I will clear it up since you have issues with OPINION. There is no way science knows whether or not a person can or cannot detect and decipher subconscious communications that one person's brain sends to his or her own body.

    Let me smooth it out, when your body is detecting a pathogen and sending in the troops, science cannot prove that my body sitting right next to you could not also detect the communication your body is using to detect and defend.

    There is no reason why we cannot suspect our receptors to be receptive of the same signals from another person. After all the signals you make are the same signals I make.

    So now that we know that science's version of what is immune related and what is not is pure theory and speculation with nothing solidified or established why don't we speculate on issues that can make a difference. But for the record, diabetes, heart disease and cancer are all immune related because they are all pathogenic diseases unless you want to tell us that cancer is a human produced cell run a muck and not a virus or other pathogen but I will remind you that it isn't "established".
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •