More regulations on fluoride in drinking water may be coming due to the new court order last week, experts say.
Fluoride, commonly added to drinking water to prevent cavities, has come under scrutiny.
Several cities have now stopped adding fluoride to their drinking water. But whether the whole landscape will change depends on what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will do next.
How Much Fluoride in Water Might Be Safe?
On Sept. 24, U.S. Federal Judge Edward Chen ordered the EPA to strengthen its rules around fluoride in drinking water.
The decision was made in light of The National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) report in August, which found that 1.5 milligrams of fluoride in drinking water is sufficient to pose neurodevelopmental risks in children.
The EPA calculates a margin of exposure to determine a safety buffer between the exposure and hazard levels. For fluoride, the exposure rate should be one-tenth of the hazard level, lawyer Michael Connett said.
Since the NTP’s report found 1.5 milligrams per liter to be potentially risky, exposure risks could start from 0.15 milligrams per liter, Connett added.
Americans’ current exposure level of 0.7 milligram per liter—”the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children,” Chen wrote in his ruling.
Currently, the EPA sets the maximum level for fluoride at 4 milligrams per liter, significantly higher than the risk level cited in the recent study.
I have a friend who manages the water facilities in a fairly large city. She is a credentialed chemist and objects to fluoride most of all because in its raw form it is a very harmful substance and the workers who add it to drinking water are rarely, if ever, properly trained or dressed to do that job safely. ABN
A pioneering once-a-day pill that regenerates nerve cell connections damaged by ALS has been FDA-approved for ongoing clinical trials. The drug is now being given to those with ALS and could be a watershed moment in the treatment of the fatal disease.
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or Lou Gehrig’s disease, affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, called motor neurons, that control voluntary muscle movements like walking, talking, and breathing. As the neurons die and can’t send messages to the muscles, loss of muscle control worsens over time and is eventually fatal.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several drugs that help manage symptoms or slow the disease’s progress, but there’s no current treatment that reverses the progression of ALS. In short, there’s no cure. That’s where Spinogenix, Inc. comes in.
Spinogenix, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, has developed SPG302, a unique once-a-day pill that regenerates the gaps, called synapses, between neurons to restore communication. Following promising results from clinical trials to evaluate the drug’s safety, the FDA has approved the company’s Investigational New Drug (IND) application, paving the way for further trials.
A RECENT GROUNDBREAKING EXPERIMENT in which anesthesia was administered to rats has convinced scientists that tiny structures in the rodents’ brains are responsible for the experience of consciousness. To pull it off, these microscopic hollow tube structures, called “microtubules,” don’t rely on our everyday flavor of classical physics. Instead, experts believe, microtubules perform incredible operations in the quantum realm. Citing the work of earlier researchers, the study infers that the same kind of quantum operations are likely happening in human brains.
During their rat brain experiments, scientists at Wellesley College in Massachusetts gave the rodents isoflurane, a type of inhaled general anesthetic used to induce and maintain unconsciousness for medical procedures. One group of drugged rats also received microtubule-stabilizing drugs, while the other did not. The researchers discovered that the microtubule-stabilizing molecules kept the rats conscious for longer than the non-stabilized rats, which more quickly lost their “righting reflex,” or the ability to restore normal posture, according to their findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal eNeuro in August 2024.
The Wellesley study is significant because the physical source of consciousness has been a mystery for decades. It’s a major step toward verifying a theory that our brains perform quantum operations, and that this ability generates our consciousness—an idea that’s been gaining traction over the past three decades.
The notion that quantum physics must be the underlying mechanism for consciousness first emerged in the 1990s, when Nobel Prize-winning physicist Roger Penrose, Ph.D., and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, M.D., popularized the idea that neural microtubules enable quantum processes in our brain, giving rise to consciousness. Specifically, they postulated in a 1996 paper that consciousness may operate as a quantum wave passing through the brain’s microtubules. This is known as Orch OR theory, referring to the ability of microtubules to perform quantum computations through a mathematical process Penrose calls “objective reduction.”
In quantum physics, a particle does not exist in the way classical physics observes it, with a definite physical location. Instead, it exists as a cloud of probabilities. If it comes into contact with its environment, as when a measuring apparatus observes it, then the particle loses its “superposition” of multiple states. It collapses into a definite, measurable state, the state in which it was observed. Penrose hypothesized that “each time a quantum wave function collapses in this way in the brain, it gives rise to a moment of conscious experience.”
Recent studies have started uncovering the potential benefits of psychedelics on the brain, especially concerning cognitive and emotional health. A recent meta-analysis published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology has found that individuals who consume psychedelics exhibit significantly higher levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) compared to healthy non-users. This increase in BDNF suggests that psychedelics might enhance the brain’s ability to adapt and reorganize itself, potentially offering new avenues for treating mental health disorders.
BDNF is a protein that plays a critical role in the health and functioning of the brain. It supports the survival of existing neurons and encourages the growth and differentiation of new neurons and synapses. BDNF is vital for long-term memory, learning, and the overall plasticity of the brain—its ability to change and adapt in response to new experiences.
Alterations in BDNF levels have been linked to various neuropsychiatric disorders, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Higher levels of BDNF are generally associated with better cognitive function and mental health, making it a key area of interest for researchers studying the brain and its many functions.
In the philosophy of mind, neuroscience, and psychology, the causal relationship between phenomenal consciousness, mentation, and brain states has always been a matter of debate. On the one hand, material monism posits consciousness and mind as pure brain epiphenomena. One of its most stringent lines of reasoning relies on a ‘loss-of-function lesion premise,’ according to which, since brain lesions and neurochemical modifications lead to cognitive impairment and/or altered states of consciousness, there is no reason to doubt the mind-brain identity. On the other hand, dualism or idealism (in one form or another) regard consciousness and mind as something other than the sole product of cerebral activity pointing at the ineffable, undefinable, and seemingly unphysical nature of our subjective qualitative experiences and its related mental dimension. Here, several neuroscientific findings are reviewed that question the idea that posits phenomenal experience as an emergent property of brain activity, and argue that the premise of material monism is based on a logical correlation-causation fallacy. While these (mostly ignored) findings, if considered separately from each other, could, in principle, be recast into a physicalist paradigm, once viewed from an integral perspective, they substantiate equally well an ontology that posits mind and consciousness as a primal phenomenon.
UPDATE: Below is a comment from a reader. I am reposting it closer to the article it refers to because it greatly widens the discussion of what consciousness is and how to understand it. ABN
Please allow me to point out a clear oversight in this abstract. This abstract implicitly suggests that if one rejects material monism, they must subscribe to either dualism or idealism. This binary framing excludes other philosophical perspectives such as Radical Empiricism (R.E.) that do not fit neatly into these categories, which prioritize substance (whether mental or physical) over pure experience.
As proposed by William James, Radical Empiricism offers a distinct alternative that is neither strictly materialistic nor dualistic/idealistic. It posits that consciousness and experience are integral and interconnected aspects of reality. It’s core tenets embrace two assertions which fundamentally align with Buddhist aggregate theory: (1) the primary substance of reality is pure experience, which includes both the subjective and objective aspects of reality without privileging one over the other. (2) Experiences are fundamentally interconnected and relational.
In R.E., consciousness is not an independent fundamental substance (as in idealism) nor merely an epiphenomenon of the brain (as in material monism). Instead, consciousness is a function of the elements of pure experience, which are continuous and interwoven.
Other non-dualistic and non-materialistic perspectives, such as process philosophy and phenomenology, also challenge this simplistic binary framing.
However, R.E. is the most explicit in asserting elements of pure experience as more ontologically fundamental than either the mental or physical worlds of experience, which are seen to be mere abstractions from pure experience.
In Radical Empiricism, consciousness is not the fundamental substance of reality but a manifestation of the dynamic interplay of experiences. This view avoids the pitfalls of both dualism and material monism by grounding consciousness in the relational fabric of pure experience.
What I wish to emphasize in this commentary is that consciousness, while central to understanding human experience, is not an isolated phenomenon but intricately linked with the flow of experiences.
The abstract’s presupposition that rejecting material monism necessitates adopting dualism or idealism is a form of a false dilemma, which is a logical fallacy. By not considering other viable philosophical approaches, it limits the scope of the discussion and potentially misleads readers about the diversity of thought in the philosophy of mind.
Thus, an integral perspective stemming from a more holistic approach (such as the chain of interdependent originations in Buddhist aggregate theory) aligns well with Radical Empiricism by considering the interconnectedness and relational nature of experiences. This is the justification for explicitly asserting such discussions, as this abstract invokes, must include R.E. as a valid and valuable approach to understanding consciousness.
Radical Empiricism’s emphasis on direct experience and empirical grounding aligns with the empirical findings in neuroscience that challenge simplistic materialist explanations. Highlighting this alignment is important in order to show how and in what manner R.E. can bridge empirical data and philosophical insights.
In conclusion: The abstract’s oversight in presenting a false dichotomy between material monism and dualism/idealism is a significant limitation. Radical Empiricism provides a nuanced and comprehensive alternative that views consciousness as a function of the elements of pure experience, rather than as a separate fundamental entity. A more inclusive and accurate discussion would acknowledge this and other philosophical perspectives, enriching the debate and providing a more robust framework for understanding the nature of consciousness.
Libet gave participants of his experiments a simple task, while measuring their brain activity: they had to decide to flex a finger whenever they wished, and note the position on a fast-moving clock at the precise moment they took the decision.
The result was that the brain showed activity at least 400ms before the participants became aware of their “decision making.”
“RP” stands for “Readiness Potential,” that is, the supposed build-up in brain activity before the decision to act and the subsequent action. What we see is that this brain activity starts before the participants became aware of their intention to flex the finger.
The results have led the no-Free-Will crowd to [falsely] exclaim, “see, everything is driven by your brain, and you taking decisions is just an illusion!”
However, this seems to be a typical case of taking something very specific and isolated out of context and then drawing conclusions based on existing biases.
The exercise of free will in basic FIML is done during the “Readiness Potential” period described above. FIML done with a partner is an exquisite exercise of free will that completely changes how we speak and listen for the better. FIML is somewhat difficult because it requires being aware of the Readiness Potential period close to its onset. But this can be learned with practice. Buddhists or others who practice mindfulness may find this part of FIML to be rather easy. From this point of view, FIML can be described as mindfulness shared by two people, or pair-work mindfulness. FIML mostly focuses on interpersonal speech and listening but also includes all other interpersonal semiotics. More posts related to FIML and brain science can be found here. ABN
Memory reconsolidation research by neuroscientists has demonstrated the erasure of emotional learnings. This article reviews these historic findings and how they translate directly into therapeutic application to provide the clinical field with an empirically confirmed process of transformational change. Psychotherapists’ early use of this new, transtheoretical knowledge indicates a strong potential for significant advances in both the effectiveness of psychotherapy and the unification of its many diverse systems. The erasure process consists of the creation of certain critical experiences required by the brain, and it neither dictates nor limits the experiential methods that therapists can use to facilitate the needed experiences. This article explains memory reconsolidation, delineates the empirically confirmed process, illustrates it in a case example of long-term depression, indicates the evidence supporting the hypothesis that this process is responsible for transformational change in any therapy sessions, describes the differing mechanisms underlying transformational change versus incremental change, and reports extensive clinical evidence that the basis and cause of most of the problems and symptoms presented by therapy clients are emotional learnings, that is, emotionally laden mental models, or schemas, in semantic memory.
Below is an excerpt that explains how memory reconsolidation works. FIML does precisely what is described below in real-time, real-world situations as they arise between partners or when they are together and something else arises. ABN
The Erasure of an Emotional Learning
MR research by neuroscientists has demonstrated that an emotional learning is nullified by the following set of three experiences, which have therefore been termed the empirically confirmed process of erasure (ECPE) (Ecker 2018). Hundreds of MR research studies have used a vast range of different procedures and protocols to produce these experiences (reviewed by Ecker 2015, 2018), which means that what the brain requires for erasure of an emotional learning is not any particular external procedure, but rather the internal occurrence of these three subjective experiences, whatever may be the external procedures that create them. Therefore the ECPE does not dictate or favor the use of any particular therapeutic techniques, and psychotherapists are free to facilitate these critical experiences using any of the therapy field’s vast array of experiential methods.
1.Reactivated, Symptom-Generating Target Learning Experienced in AwarenessThis is the deliberate use of salient cues or contexts that reactivate the target emotional learning or schema underlying the client’s presenting symptom or problem. For example, a woman in therapy for depression and absence of motivation was cued into reactivation of her lifelong schema that had newly come into awareness and was verbalized as, “Mom sees and knows everything I ever care about or do, and then takes over and takes away everything I ever care about or do, which feels devastating for me, and my only way to be safe from her pillaging is for me to care about nothing and do nothing.” To assure that the schema is being directly accessed at its roots in the emotional learning and memory system and is not merely a cognitive insight, it is critically important that the emotions accompanying the reactivated schema are fully felt affectively and somatically while the schema also is cognized verbally and conceptually. Note that the schema is at core a mental model, from which are generated particular emotions, which in the example above would include helplessness, hopelessness, fear, desperation, despair, aloneness, and the deep pain of feeling used, pillaged and eclipsed in this way by her own mother. How that schema was found, brought into awareness, and then disconfirmed and unlearned is described in the case vignette in the next section.
2.Experience of Mismatch/Prediction Error Destabilizes the Target Learning’s Neural EncodingWhile the target schema is reactivated in awareness as described above, this is an additional, concurrent experience or knowing that contradicts what the client knows and expects according to the schema. This is termed a memory mismatch or prediction error experience by memory researchers. In response to this experience of the world differing from the target learning’s expectations, the client’s brain rapidly transforms the neural encoding of the target learning from its stable, consolidated state in long-term memory into a destabilized, de-consolidated, labile state, which is susceptible to being updated and re-encoded by any relevant new learning that may occur next. This destabilization, which requires and is triggered by the mismatch/prediction error experience, begins the reconsolidation process.Footnote2 The labile, destabilized condition persists for about 5 h, widely termed the reconsolidation window, after which the neural encoding automatically reconsolidates, that is, it returns to a stable state in long-term memory. The case vignette below describes how a contradictory knowing was found for the schema of the depressed woman, creating the needed mismatch experience.
3.Experience of Counter-Learning Drives Unlearning, Nullification, Re-encoding and Replacement of Target LearningThis experience consists of just a few repetitions, during the rest of the therapy session, of the same mismatch experience created in the previous step. Each mismatch is a juxtaposition experience, in the sense that the client experiences both reality according to the target learning and a contradictory perception or knowing, with both in the same single field of awareness. Two or three repetitions of that juxtaposition experience serve as counter-learning that functions as an experiential disconfirmation of the target learning. Because the counter-learning is occurring while the encoding of the target learning is labile, the counter-learning rewrites and replaces the encoding of the target schema in memory. As a result, the target learning no longer exists in memory, so it cannot be reactivated and cause a relapse. The target learning is a model of the world in semantic memory, not an episodic memory of specific events and experiences; the latter is not erased. The unlearning of the target learning’s version of reality is the profound resolution of a core emotional issue in the client’s life, as noted earlier.Footnote3 Successful erasure of the target learning is then verified by observing the markers of transformational change beginning to appear immediately: the symptom(s) driven by the target learning cease to occur; the target learning itself, which previously was felt as a potent and horrible truth of the world, no longer feels true or real and is not reactivated by situations that formerly did so, eliminating a problematic, distressed ego state; and those changes persist effortlessly and permanently. If the same counter-learning occurs without first finding, reactivating and destabilizing the target learning (steps 1 and 2 above), the counter-learning only creates its own encoding separate from that of the target learning. In that case, the two learnings compete for control of behavior and state of mind, producing at best only incremental change that is prone to relapse when the emotionally more intense target learning becomes newly retriggered by current circumstances.
ibid
An advantage of FIML as therapy for unwholesome or unwanted schema is FIML is mostly done in real-time, real-world situations so the schema is right there in front of you clear as a bell in your own mind. You can see it and see very clearly how it is distorting reality.
Therapies that work by recalling unwholesome schema in a professional settings have the advantage of: 1) relying on a professional; 2) avoiding doing this work with your spouse or best friend; and 3) aiming for wholesale erasure of the schema once and for all.
FIML practitioners could use a schema method to do this but generally FIML works by focusing on the unwholesome schema the moment it arises and whenever it arises in the real-world (conditions permitting). This method erases or extirpates the unwholesome schema by observing its maladaptive dysfunction as many times as needed.
FIML is also able to deal with more than one maladaptive schema, and in real-life there are many, without causing confusion because when unwholesome schemas are encounter in real-world, real-time, their structure and origins are generally easily seen for what they are.
Many unwanted schema can be extirpated with just a few FIML exchanges. Some are more stubborn and may require more time and multiple occurrences.
Another advantage FIML has is it prevents new schemas from arising and taking hold. Unwholesome schemas do not all come from the deep past or from childhood. Schemas also arise later in life and often are based on serious misinterpretations. FIML is very effective at stopping schemas of this sort immediately, before they can consolidate and cause harm.
I would add that unwholesome schemas exist in virtually everyone and often we are dealing not with our own schemas but those of others. FIML partners can eliminate problem schemas between themselves, but often do no more than recognize them in others. However, understanding ourselves through FIML practice does help us understand others much better, and how deal with them more compassionately due to that understanding. ABN
Effortless, enjoyable productivity is a state of consciousness prized and sought after by people in business, the arts, research, education and anyone else who wants to produce a stream of creative ideas and products. That’s flow, or the sense of being “in the zone.” A new neuroimaging study from Drexel University’s Creativity Research Lab is the first to reveal how the brain gets to the creative flow state.
The study isolated flow-related brain activity during a creative task: jazz improvisation. The findings reveal the creative flow state involves two key factors: extensive experience, which leads to a network of brain areas specialized for generating the desired type of ideas, plus the release of control – “letting go” – to allow this network to work with little or no conscious supervision.
Working memory is the part of you that organizes and executes action in real-time. All real-time actions—save stupor or deep sleep—require working memory.
Working memory is where your life meets the world, where your existential rubber meets the real-time road.
Working memory is the spear point of the mind as it does life. For this reason, it is the single best key to understanding human psychology. And through this understanding to change it for the better.
Working memory shows you how you really think, feel, or perceive. Properly observed, it does not lie. Working memory happens too quickly to lie.
If you can observe your working memory as it performs—in a flash—a significant psychological act, you will have an accurate handle on the deep memories that comprise your psycho-spiritual makeup.
Working memory is quick. It’s “contents” or “the items it entertains” come and go quickly. Its “contents” can be perceptions, memories, judgement, sensations, words, emotions, almost anything.
Working memory is obviously linked to long-term memory though how it is linked is not entirely clear to science.
Phone numbers, remembered or not, typically come up in this context. But the connection between working and long-term memory is much more than just that.
Long-term memories—your psychology or life experiences—deeply color working memory. And this coloring changes in different contexts.
When we access long-term “psychological” (aren’t they all?) memories, they are huge; they are large systems of associations and neurons. This is why overemphasizing long-term memories and that aspect of psychology does not provide full insight into the workings of the mind.
For that we need the spear-point—working memory—to show us precisely where the contact points really are, precisely how we engage with the real world.
I bet most readers have no idea how to analyze their working-memories, how to accurately access them for psychological insight.
A new study on speech comprehension shows that humans respond to the “contextual semantic content of each word in a relatively time-locked fashion.”
These findings demonstrate that, when successfully comprehending natural speech, the human brain responds to the contextual semantic content of each word in a relatively time-locked fashion. (Source)
This process is roughly illustrated here:
While I do not doubt these findings for simple speech in simple contexts, I do wonder what the results would be for speech in psychologically complex contexts, whether that speech is simple or not.
I wonder this because I am certain that in almost all psychologically complex contexts (those rich with subjectivity, emotion, idiosyncratic memory or association, etc.) the “contextual semantic content of each word” will necessarily be different, often very different for each speaker.
Psychologically rich interpersonal speech is almost always fraught with contextual differences that can be very large. Sometimes participants know these differences exist and sometimes they don’t. It is very common for speakers to make major mistakes in this area, the most important area of speech for human psychological well-being.
It seems possible that EEG with increased sensitivity might one day be able to detect “context diversion” between speakers, but even if complex emotional information is also included, people will still have to talk about what is diverging from what.
My comments are not meant to detract from the very interesting findings posted above. I make them because these findings illustrate how inherently problematic real-time mutual comprehension of the “contextual semantic content” of all spoken words actually is.
FIML practice is the only way I know of today to find profound real-time mutual comprehension of complex interpersonal speech.
Humans tend to think that we are the most intelligent life-forms on Earth, and that we’re largely followed by our close relatives such as chimps and gorillas. But there are some areas of cognition in which homo sapiens and other primates are not unmatched. What other animal’s brain could possibly operate at a human’s level, at least when it comes to one function? Birds—again.
This is far from the first time that bird species such as corvids and parrots have shown that they can think like us in certain ways. Jackdaws are clever corvids that belong to the same family as crows and ravens. After putting a pair of them to the test, an international team of researchers saw that the birds’ working memory operates the same way as that of humans and higher primates. All of these species use what’s termed “attractor dynamics,” where they organize information into specific categories.
Unfortunately for them, that means they also make the same mistakes we do. “Jackdaws (Corvus monedula) have similar behavioral biases as humans; memories are less precise and more biased as memory demands increase,” the researchers said in a study recently published in Communications Biology.
When speaking to one another, much of the communication occurs nonverbally – through body posture, hand gestures, and the eyes. Our eye gaze during conversations therefore reveals a wealth of information about our attention, intention, or psychological states. But, there remains little scientific knowledge about the information that human eyes convey in interactions – is looking at others’ faces enough, or does our communication require eye-to-eye contact?
Researchers from McGill University and Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) have studied the prevalence of eye contact by recording the eye gazing behavior in face-to-face dyadic interactions and found that although eye-to-eye contact occurred rarely, it communicated important messages which are vital for subsequent successful social behavior.
The study participants, who did not know each other beforehand, were paired and presented with an imaginary survival scenario which required the pairs to rank a list of items in order of their usefulness for survival, all while wearing mobile eye-tracking glasses. The researchers analyzed how often the participants looked at each other’s eye and mouth regions. The researchers also tested each participant individually for gaze following and linked the prevalence of different types of mutual looks during the interaction (i.e., eye-to-eye vs. eye-to-mouth) with the tendency to follow their partner’s gaze.
This study is interesting and, to an extent, important, but from a FIML point of view it bespeaks the shallowness of our understanding of human communication. ABN
A new approach to the study of mental disorder—called computational psychiatry—uses Bayesian inference to explain where people with problems are going wrong.
Bayesian inference is a method of statistical reasoning used to understand the probability of a hypothesis and how to update it as conditions change.
The idea is that people with schizophrenia, for example, are doing a bad job at inferring the reasonableness of their hypotheses. This happens because schizophrenics seem to be less likely to put enough weight on prior experience (a factor in Bayesian reasoning).
Distorted calculations — and the altered versions of the world they create — may also play a role in depression and anxiety, some researchers think. While suffering from depression, people may hold on to distorted priors — believing that good things are out of reach, for instance. And people with high anxiety can have trouble making good choices in a volatile environment… (Ibid)
The key problem with autism and anxiety is people with these conditions have trouble updating their expectations—a major component of Bayesian reasoning—and thus make many mistakes.
These mistakes, of course, compound and further increase a sense of anxiety or alienation.
Like several of the researches quoted in the linked article, I find this computational approach exciting.
It speaks to me because it confirms a core hypothesis of FIML practice—that all people make many, significant inferential mistakes during virtually all acts of communication.
In this respect, I believe all people are mentally disordered, not just the ones who are suffering the most.
I think a Bayesian thought experiment can all but prove my point:
What are the odds that you will correctly infer the mental state(s) of anyone you speak with? What are the odds that they will correctly infer your mental state(s)?
In a formal setting, both of you will do well enough if the inferring is kept within whatever the formal boundaries are. But that is all you will be able to infer reasonably well.
In the far more important realm of intimate interpersonal communication, the odds that either party is making correct inferences go down significantly.
If we do not know someone’s mental state, we cannot know why they have communicated as they have. If our inferences about them are based on such questionable data, we are bound to make many more mistakes about them.
American Buddhist Net 