neuroplasticity research

>>7763992
That sure is an attractive looking female.

Pretty much every neuroscience undergrad I talk to has had this stupid idea.

If you increase the plasticity of the brain, aren't you just as likely to forget things as you are to learn new things? What's the point of being able to learn a new language more easily if it's at the cost of forgetting how to drive a car, or other potentially important skills that would not be exercised as much while under the theoretical treatment's effects?

>>7763993
The cat exposed her physical flaws. You can't hide those astigmatisms behind the glasses when they are off.

plasticity=development
adulthood=end of development

>>7764014
>astigmatism
>flaw
it's like you don't want guaranteed genius children

>>7764004
I think she did a AOT cosplay of the female titan

>>7764004
If this is the case, how do I remember anything from my childhood? Surely the plastisity would have removed all traces of childhood memories by now.

Brain plasticity isn't Absulute plasisity, the structure has some stability which is why long term memory exist.

>>7764004
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygx5nLtIFRI

Stop being an idiot and look at this video here.

>>7764268
Nice.

To me, what it comes down to is: if you believe in evolution, there's no reason to reject the idea of enhancing the human mind using genetics or other stuffs

>>7763992
Be the experiment: lobotomize yourself
>>Sterilize yourself while you're at it

>>7764526
I'll be getting a vasectomy after I get Lasik, and I'll probably get a lobotomy if I ever decide to kill myself, just to see if it helps.

>>7764004
As far as I know there are a lot of neurons which form the path. These neurons translate into logic or memories. Upon plasticity occuring the least used neurons on the path to the goal would participate in forming a new set of connections. This is to say that while new neurons would be created, they would also be able to convert, as this is more energy efficient than creating new and destroying the existing.

Mass of the brain wouldn't necesarily increase, as growth phaise has already passed. We can see this in people who have suffered large brain injuries: the brain does not regenerate - atleast not in a timespain which would be practical. People may learn to talk and walk with the help of therapy - that's brain plasticity, but the potential does not increase. All happens mostly within limits that already exist. Limits may be pushed, but not to degree of literal regeneration.

Something like the skill to drive a car has a very large neuronal network in it's use. This means that even if some parts of the networks would be reused, the base skill wouldn't disappear. If one skill wouldn't replace the other, the networks would probably merge together and use same routes. Ie: the skill of driving a car, the skill of driving a motorcycle and the skill of driving a bike: they're not seperate skills, but rather one extended skill: the skill of driving things. Of course; I don't know jackshit about neuroscience, so this is just a set of pure guesses.

File: 1450263529836.jpg (3MB, 6142x4488px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 6142x4488px

>>7763992

Homo sapiens is already sufficiently neotenous. The idea of "reinstating" a child-like learning capacity in adults is a moot point since they already have that child-like learning capacity.

If you're interested in learning shit, please learn how to critique your own points of view before you've considered them good ideas.