General Question

rpm_pseud0name's avatar

How do brain cells store information?

Asked by rpm_pseud0name (8208points) October 31st, 2011

Not just how do they work (in terms of storing information), but also, can you see when a cell has information stored? To put it hypothetically, if you had two brains, one filled with thoughts, ideas, memories, & the other has zero information.. would you be able to compare the cells & say, ‘there, those cells have information stored.’?

Any helpful input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

37 Answers

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Can you define information?

Some of us don’t believe that brains are “filled with thoughts, ideas, memories”. Thoughts and memories don’t spill onto the floor during brain surgery.

Perhaps the brain simply represents thought… Just like the words on this page represent my thoughts… and yours… But the words on this page are not our thoughts.

rpm_pseud0name's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’ll try. Simply put, when I want to recall all the knowledge I have about something, let’s say, my knowledge of cuttlefish. That information I’m gathering, where is that coming from within the cells? Does that help? Sorry, I’m having a hard time putting my question into words.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Your brain recalls memory just like a computer does… It makes electronic connections. That’s the physical mechanism. But the idea of PhotoShop is not inside the computer any more than it’s inside the brain of the people who wrote it.

The idea is non physical… immaterial… Descriptive words such as in or out do not apply to immaterial phenomenon. The material medium represents the immaterial thought.

In-form-ation… The process of representing immaterial thought in material form. That’s what the words on this thread are doing right now. They represent thought.

Jeruba's avatar

My husband and I have just finished reading this book. Fascinating, and I think it’ll answer your question about as well as it can be answered if you’re not a neuroscientist.

(Of course, we may get another view when @nikipedia weighs in.)

ragingloli's avatar

If my memory of Biology class serves me right, by physical changes to the neurons (for long term memory), which changes brain activity patterns

rpm_pseud0name's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I don’t know if your analogy helps me. There are electronic connections, but the computer uses a HDD with a magnetic platter with billions of sections. When information is written, the arm changes the magnetism in certain sections. How would that relate to how a brain cell stores information?

@Jeruba Thanks, I’ll check that out. If you’re interested, I recently read this book . Which seems similar to your recommendation, so you may like it.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Again, I can’t answer questions based upon the term “stored”. No one has ever seen a thought in either a brain or a hard drive. The physical mediums don’t store. They represent.

The billions of blocks on a hard drive are analagous to the 100 billion neurons in the brain. The magnetism is analagous to synapses firing upon connections made.

gasman's avatar

I think the basic answer is, nobody knows. It might have something to do with RNA. It might have something to do with structural changes at the synapses. It might have something to do with mitogen-activated protein kinase. But it’s still a huge mystery.

Clearly the brain is NOT just like a computer and it’s very unlikely that memories are stored in any explicitly digital format.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Wess Warrens research does point to thought initiating within the ncRNA.

Jeruba's avatar

@rpm_pseud0name, thanks—that one sounds like it’s right up our alley. We’ve read a number of books on brain/mind functions, probably more than a dozen, some more philosophical, some more at the hard-science end of the spectrum. It’s a fascinating subject. I’d rank the Linden book pretty highly.

lillycoyote's avatar

It’s complicated and not fully understood. “Storing” involves memory and I believe different type of “memories” are “stored” and processed different ways and in different parts of the brain. Your “knowledge” of cuttlefish could involve a number of types of information including what the word cuttlefish means, what a cuttlefish looks like, what a cuttlefish tastes like, what a cuttlefish smells like or feels like to the touch, what you have read about cuttlefish, what you have learned through personal experience, and what someone has told you about cuttlefish, auditory input, the habits and behavior of cuttlefish. Visual memory, taste, touch, semantic, auditory information, are stored and processed differently, I believe. The brain isn’t a file cabinet where every bit of cuttlefish information you encounter automatically goes into a file folder labeled “Cuttlefish” where the totality of your knowledge of cuttlefish is stored and can be accessed.

Edit: And your “knowledge” of cuttlefish doesn’t just involve storage and memory. It involves processes that take all the disparate cuttlefish data and memories and connect them, somehow figure out that the all somehow belong together to form “cuttlefish knowledge.”

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@gasman Your link is interesting. Thanks. It seems to me that it only discusses how the synapes are degraded… And from that, the hope is to discover how to strenghten them.

The mutant mice cannot access the memory because the medium which represents them has broken down. Much like a hard drive goes bad and prevents the operator from accessing the information represented.

The info exists independently from the medium which expresses it. Info is not stored like water in a bucket. PhotoShop doesn’t die if my hard drive goes bad. Only my ability to access PS has been damaged. An archeologist who digs up a tattered manuscript knows to look for another copy in better condition. She knows the info exists. She just needs a more stable medium to access it. She does this because the medium is never equal to the message it represents… Never ever.

Response moderated (Spam)
mattbrowne's avatar

This article is a good place to start

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

LostInParadise's avatar

The short answer is that we do not know. Neuroscience is a young science and, though it has discovered a great many things, there is still so much more to find out. I get a little annoyed sometimes at pop neuroscience books that make it seem as if they have done more than they have, with titles like How the Brain Works and Consciousness Explained.

Memory is intimately connected to the great unsolved puzzle of consciousness. It is not just a matter of how individual memories are stored, but how they are organized. Why does remembering one thing trigger other memories? What causes us to forget? What causes us to embellish what happened? I think these questions will eventually be answered, but I also think that the answer will be very unintuitive. If there was an intuitive answer, someone would have thought of it by now.

Hacksawhawk's avatar

@LostInParadise Well that’s just because Daniel Dennett is one arrogant human being…
I think @RealEyesRealizeRealLies has got the right picture with the analogy of a computer. When I think of a tree, obviously no neuroscientist is going to find an actual tree in my braincells. Just like that I won’t find a material object inside my computer called “excel”.

This reminds me a bit of http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aY_CidIS8YM. Asking to find all the information inside the brain cells, as if that information consists of concrete, material objects is like that girl in the video.

Qingu's avatar

Individual brain cells don’t store information. Patterns of neurons and patterns of electrochemical processes between neurons store information.

Similarly, an electronic bit in a computer hard drive doesn’t store information. Rather it’s the patterns of millions of bits that encode—and store—information.

We certainly have a lot to learn about how the brain stores information. But when you “learn,” we know that the brain essentially hard-wires certain patterns or arrangements of neurons. These patterns or arrangements are thought to represent encoded behavior.

nikipedia's avatar

This is a hard question. I’ll do my best to answer it but as many people have already pointed out, we don’t have a complete answer yet, and you probably already know a lot of the things I’m about to say. Let me also preface this by saying that most of the answer I’m about to give has been observed either in cells in a dish or in non-human animals, but almost none of it has been seen in awake, behaving humans (yet).

The best short answer to your question is paraphrased from Donald Hebb: neurons that fire together, wire together. Your representation of a cuttlefish started out as a bunch of neurons that got activated when you thought about cuttlefish, and now those neurons have stronger, more sensitive connections to one another. Together, they are responsible for your experience of knowing about cuttlefish.

Or, another way of thinking about it the way you can tell if a neuron has information in it or not is if it’s alive. A neuron that doesn’t give or receive information will eventually die off.

To go more in depth, we can look at this on multiple levels. The smallest level that’s useful to us is the molecular level. When one neuron sends a message to another neuron through an action potential, the receiving neuron responds by letting calcium ions flow into the cell through AMPA receptors and, if the depolarization is strong enough, NMDA receptors. Once a critical concentration of calcium is reached, it activates calcium-dependent protein kinases, including CaMKII (calcium-calmodulin dependent protein kinases II) and PKC (protein kinase C).

The process I just described is called early LTP. So at this stage in learning, the cells involved are already qualitatively distinguishable from other cells: they have high concentrations of calcium, and active forms of CaMKII and PKC.

But these aren’t permanent changes. For learning to be sustained, the cell has to go through gene transcription and protein synthesis.

The signaling cascade described above (calcium—>PKC + CaMKII) activates a series of second messengers, including MAPK/ERK, which @gasman mentioned, and CREB (cyclic AMP response element binding protein) which @mattbrowne mentioned. Another important molecule that’s constitutively active and necessary for this process is the enzyme PKMzeta.

Together, these messengers initiate gene transcription and subsequent protein synthesis so that the cell can start undergoing structural changes. So that more or less wraps up the molecular perspective, and we can move up to the cellular level.

There are several changes the cell undergoes to reflect its new learning. More AMPA receptors are moved from storage pools up to the cell membrane, new dendritic spines start to grow, and the spines that exist change their shape to become more available to outside signals. Here’s another image of the effects of experience-dependent plasticity on dendritic spines.

So on this level, you could say that a neuron that has this new information in it is distinguishable from one that doesn’t in terms of its number of membrane-bound AMPA receptors, and the number and shape of its dendritic spines.

Now let’s take a big jump up from the molecular/cellular level up to the systems/behavioral/cognitive level. One way you can see if a cell has information stored is to see what it responds to. We can measure the electrical activity of a cell directly by implanting electrodes in or near them, but doing this is in humans is generally frowned upon. So, instead we have to measure the activity of whole networks using methods like EEG, PET, and my tool of choice, functional MRI.

Using these techniques, you can see which parts of the brain become active when you do certain tasks. Visual cortex in the occipital lobe responds strongly whenever you look at anything; the amygdala becomes active in response to emotionally arousing situations, the medial temporal lobe is engaged in memory tasks. Using these techniques, we differentiate cells that “know” a specific kind of information by measuring the magnitude of voltage changes in a given region (in the case of EEG) or the amount of energy being expended measured as glucose consumption (PET) or blood flow (fMRI). The cells involved in a certain kind of information storage become active when they engage in a relevant task, and in a roundabout way we can use these techniques to find out which ones do what.

And that’s the long answer.

LostInParadise's avatar

@nikipedia , very interesting. Can we say that a particular cell encodes a specific memory or piece of information, or does this encoding require groups of cells?

nikipedia's avatar

@LostInParadise, great question. Neuroscientists call the idea that one cell = one information unit the grandmother cell hypothesis, after the hypothesis that you have a single neuron that represents your grandmother. There is some evidence that this exists (I heard a talk by some people from UCLA that found a cell that responded to pictures of Jennifer Aniston, but not other actresses), but I would tentatively say that more neuroscientists embrace the idea of distributed representation instead. (That might just be the neuroscientists I know, though.)

Qingu's avatar

I always thought the grandmother cell hypothesis was considered a reducto ad absurdum…

rpm_pseud0name's avatar

I came across this absolutely astounding video & just had to share it. In a small way it kind of relates to my question in terms of ‘measuring information’. Who knew… your Kindle gains a very tiny bit of weight when it’s chockablock with books. :) What a fun thought.

mattbrowne's avatar

@Qingu – You said that patterns of neurons and patterns of electrochemical processes between neurons store information. Yes, but for long-term storage this also involves gene expressions and the manufacture of new proteins used in new synaptic connections. Thoughts do become matter. This can be seen as a form of storage.

Qingu's avatar

I stand corrected.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

All this talk of “storage” is so misleading. The idea that information is “stored” rather than “represented” is the reason no advancement will be made in this field. We must get past the current paradigm and understand information for what it really is.

@rpm_pseud0name That video is very interesting… but it is misleading to suggest that it determines the weight of information. It determines the weight of electrons which represent information… but information itself cannot be weighed because it is non physical.

Measuring the weight of electrons is just like measuring the weight of ink on a page. The ink is not information. The ink only represents information.

That video spoke of weighing the internet in binary form. But if we used trinary code, it would weigh 256 x’s lighter, and quaternary code another 256 x’s lighter than that. But all of those codes would represent the same information. The same logic could suggest that the information represented in German weighs more than the info represented in English, since German has a 30% redundancy and English has 50% redundancy. But the meaning of “See the dog run” doesn’t weigh any more than “Siehe den Hund ausführen.” It took more electrons to represent the meaning in German than in English… and though the German language weighs more than English, the meaning… the information doesn’t weigh anything at all.

nikipedia's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, I think the committee that awarded Eric Kandel a Nobel prize for his work on memory storage would disagree that “no advancement will be made in this field.”

mattbrowne's avatar

Eric Kandel figured out how sea slugs do it and it turns out to be the same mechanism for humans. Who would have thought that our understanding of slugs revolutionized modern neuroscience.

ragingloli's avatar

@mattbrowne
Ironically, slug research is precisely the kind of research Sarah Palin would call frivolous and a waste of tax payer money.

SavoirFaire's avatar

Fortunately, scientists don’t get as hung up on figures of speech as @RealEyesRealizeRealLies does.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@nikipedia ”...his work on memory storage…”

No doubt the ability to observe better will advance knowledge about the physical medium and how that mechanism functions. But that doesn’t tell us anything about the information which is the memory. Kandel discovered a system of triggers and switches that no one had ever seen before. Kudos to him and we all benefit from that discovery.

But in essence, it is no different than seeing smoke in the sky or hearing a tap on the table. At first it seems like random physical phenomenon. Surprise to discover it is not random at all, but rather the smoke or tap is a codified signal which represents information. That info is not stored in either the smoke or the tap. It is represented by them.

@SavoirFaire ”...scientists don’t get as hung up on figures of speech…”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is extremely specific with vocabulary. Science has no tolerance for metaphors.
___________

Like it or not, the study of memory and thought requires interdisciplinary attention. Biologists and Neuropsychologists should not be so loose tongued when addressing notions of Information Processing. It is misleading and unfair to the pursuit of truth in science.

The Laws of Information are not reducible or explainable by the Laws of Chemistry or Physics.

ragingloli's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
“Science has no tolerance for metaphors. ”
Sure it does.
What do you think “black hole”, “big bang”, “brown dwarf”, “blue supergiant”, “dark energy”, “dark matter” are?
Or how about the “waveform”? Certainly they are not literal waves, as in, water waves?

SavoirFaire's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies All the physicists I know and work with would disagree about metaphors. Being specific is good, but figures of speech are okay when people understand what is meant by them. We translate things like this all the time, even in interdisciplinary research. Indeed, being conversant in more than one’s own tongue is part of being a good interdisciplinary researcher.

None of the physicists I know would agree that the laws of information are not reducible to physics, either, but there I think the case is less clear.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@ragingloli “What do you think “black hole”, “big bang”, “brown dwarf”, “blue supergiant”, “dark energy”, “dark matter” are?”

Those are placeholder words that mean “We don’t really know… But if we make you think we do, then we’ll get next years grant renewal”.

@SavoirFaire “None of the physicists I know would agree that the laws of information are not reducible to physics”

They wouldn’t if they studied Information Theory.

Physics has actually stolen the word Information and completely redefined it.
In 2003, J. D. Bekenstein claimed there is a growing trend in physics to define the physical world as being made of information itself.

How unfortunate. It just confuses the issue. We should not steal words from other disciplines and use them to define things which are polar opposite from their origins. Not in science. At best, it is ignorant. At worst, it is disingenuous.

I would encourage your physicists friends to acknowledge A Discipline Independent Definition of Information.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies One of them does. He’s also a computer scientist. And another one of them has worked with Losee while working at Duke (the two schools collaborate frequently). As it turns out, the people I’m talking about are not ignorant.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I’d be interested in knowing if your friends define Information as:

1. Equal to observable phenomenon in the physical world… as described by J.D. Bekenstein.

or

2. The process of describing observable phenomenon in the physical world as a codified representation… as noted in A Discipline Independent Definition of Information.

The “ation” in Information denotes a process. In-form etymology is that which has no form (thought) made physically manifest in-to-form… In-form-ation = immaterial thought in-to-material-form.

SavoirFaire's avatar

I will ask them.

mattbrowne's avatar

@ragingloli – Indeed. Sea slugs might even seem worse than fruit flies. Yuck.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther