
Giant neuron found wrapped around entire mouse brain - mcbits
http://www.nature.com/news/a-giant-neuron-found-wrapped-around-entire-mouse-brain-1.21539
======
moh_maya
This is very cool, and very hard! The observation has its own significance of
course, but I think even the method they used is important in its own right.

Also shows how little we still understand of biological fine structure and
detail. $deity is in the details!

Though, given my limited understanding of neuro, I still fail to see why
having a single neuron that circumnavigates the brain should lead to
consciousness.

~~~
nacc
> I still fail to see why having a single neuron that circumnavigates the
> brain should lead to consciousness.

The number of neurons you can trace is limited by the methods: traditionally
you can only stain a couple of neurons at most, otherwise the mangling axons
and dendrites just make it impossible to differentiate between the neurons.
Although now there are better methods (e.g. "brainbow" for barcoding neurons,
"CLARITY" for whole-brain imaging).

In this case although it's just a couple sample neurons from claustrum, but
given that same type of neurons in the brain tend to cluster together (which
is how we differentiate brain regions anyway), it is likely that there are
many, many more neurons like this in claustrum.

Claustrum has long been hypothesized to play a role in conciousness, however
we know so little about this region (it was only a couple years ago people
first recorded neural activity from that region!). This provides support about
it because consciousness contains information about just all
sensor/motor/cognition, therefore a neuron that computes consciousness should
have access to a large amount of brain regions. So finding this neuron which
basically connects the whole brain is supportive to this hypothesis. What's
more supportive is the fact we have never seen neurons like this anywhere
else: so even if it's just a couple of neurons in the claustrum, the potential
bayes factor favouring their role in consciousness can be quite high.

~~~
pm_s_mp
While you are not incorrect in that consciousness stems, in part, from the
interaction of various lobes/regions of the encephalon, consciousness as we
perceive it subjectively (I realize this is a bit tenuous logically, but I am
being both as accurate and precise as I can be) is a mixture of the world
without and the world within our physical bodies.

I realize this is a little metaphysical, but the truth of consciousness is one
that Penrose and many others refer to in a sense of entanglement, the sense
that we are connected beings and that connection drives consciousness inasmuch
as what we perceive, how we perceive it, and the reactions to that perception
are all part of what Feynman describes extraordinarily well in his work
regarding Q.E.D.

That is to say, and I'll try to use the most layman-esque terms I can while
maintaining scientific integrity: what you know, what you perceive with your
mind, is known because of how it is and how you are. The mental connection
between those two things is very real. Here's a nice little "thought"
experiment for you.

Take a walk somewhere. If you can, note what you are thinking in relationship
to your memory of the things that you are observing (with all of your senses)
in terms of their metaphorical juxtaposition and/or relationship. That
metacognition is a good example of the entanglement that comprises our
consciousness.

Therefore, the Claustrum (and I love that name, Santa Claus-esque, very
apropos) is merely (ha) the network hub if the senses, but it does not direct
consciousness. The interaction of the senses, the external (autonomous as it
is and therefore unregulated by the Claustrum) world, and all of your
memories, imagination, theorizing, etc, are what comprise your consciousness.
Inordinately complex, yes, but nonetheless a definite phenomena that we can
seek further to define, understand, and recognize as something we can model
and learn more from as we meander our way to enlightenment.

If this seems a bit dense, or a bit abstract, it's because the knowledge is
incredibly knew and has less grounding than even something as nascent as Dark
Matter, Quantum Computing, or whether global temperatures are steadily on the
rise.......

~~~
snowwrestler
You can look at it like this: you carry around in your brain a computational
model of the world, and the model includes yourself, because you are part of
the world. The apparatus for receiving and making sense of input from our
external senses, and input from the rest of the brain itself, is the same.

Consciousness is the brain perceiving and modeling itself. If that sounds
totally recursive, it's not, because there is much more to the brain than
consciousness.

For example consider recent research showing that emotions are essential to
making decisions. We don't consciously choose which emotions to experience.
But take away emotions, and people find it very difficult to make decisions.
They can evaluate the options, but can't choose which one to take action
towards.

Our conscious minds spend most of their time reacting. After all most people
don't think to themselves "I consciously choose to like chocolate ice cream
better than vanilla." But they might think "I consciously choose to not eat
ice cream tonight."

------
return0
From the image it looks like they're visualizing dendrites rather than a big
ass bifurcating axon. That neuron is really huge if true.

------
codr4life
I don't follow the jump from well-connected neuron to consciousness at all.
Why does consciousness have to be based in the physical brain? That doesn't
even begin to explain collective consciousness, or the fact that
observation/awareness affects observed objects.

~~~
andbberger
Observation (as used in quantum mechanics) has nothing to do with
consciousness. Consciousness is not a prerequisite to measure an
observable.... That's a total non sequitur...

~~~
codr4life
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. The effects of
observation is all about consciousness, and has nothing to do with measuring.

~~~
achr2
You are incorrect.

~~~
codr4life
Very constructive, now you can go back to observing and measuring
unconsciously :)

~~~
benchaney
If you want constructive responses you need to make non idiotic comments.

Humans can't observe without a conscious because humans have a conscious. That
is related to the nature of being human and has nothing to do with any thing
fundamental to observation.

~~~
codr4life
[http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-
bet...](http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-
human-mind-and-quantum-
physics?inf_contact_key=be2e1f01a643df417864f3cef4ab4438ecebec8286589dbd5dca45516c58787b)

I'm far from the only one who disagrees with you. And I'll just note that
calling people idiots is the opposite of constructive.

