A Speed Limit on Thought?

ken kpaulc at [remove]earthlink.net
Tue Mar 30 23:47:27 EST 2004


"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:arbk609i7lh8g1e9pmkr1mfcphptfgb3n3 at 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:39:02 +1000, "John H." <johnh at faraway.> wrote:
>
> } http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1446_A_1143790_1_A,00.html
> }
> } group of German neuro-physicists say
> } they've discovered an upper limit on
> } how fast human beings can think. It
> } all depends on how closely connected
> } the brain's nerve cells are.
> }
> } If you've ever been envious of people
> } who seem able to think faster or be
> } more coordinated, take heart. There
> } is a limit, it seems, even for them.
> }
> } Three theoretical neuro-physicists
> } from the Max Planck Institute for
> } Flow Research in Göttingen used models
> } of neural networks in the brain to
> } discover an upper limit to the speed
> } of thought.

> Now all they have to do is prove a cor-
> relation between neural processing speed
> and "thinking" (whatever that is) speed.

It's much-more than a connectivity-change.

It's an information-density increase that's
actualized at the 'level' of ionic conduct-
ances, "standing-wave Genetics", protein
[including enzymes] synthesis -- in general
"3-D energydynamics" -- with the result be-
ing that =less= neural activation does rel-
atively-more information-processing Work as
"biological mass" accumulates.

After long Study [after the doing of rela-
tively-much information-processing Work],
one can literally hold a representation
of the Learned external physical reality
in one's neural Topology, and operate up-
on it, in =all= of it's Learned qualities,
=simultaneously= -- in a Hugely-massively-
parallel way -- 'take it apart', 'walk
through it', 'watch' it function -- as if
it existed outside of one, but without
having to 'worry' about "breaking" it --
because it remains fully-functional, even
when it's 'taken apart'.

In this 'state', it's much-more than "con-
nectivity", because, if it were "connectiv-
ity", there'd be no seamless-'flow' -- the
Learned external physical reality =would=
'break' as the connectivity-shifts occurred.

In NDT, this Hugely-massively-parallel
"coherence" is attributed to neuron-glia
interactions, which I've discussed in long-
former posts with respect to major memory-
focus shifts -- an example of which folks
who've read my discussion of my Proof of
Fermat's Last Theorem have witnessed. I'd
not dealt with the Proof for over a 'dec-
ade' [except for hacking a short version
of its QBASIC[tm] embodiment out of the
bigger bigger program that I developed
back when I was working on CompuServe, and
posting it in some online 'places', includ-
ing here in b.n]. So, when the topic came
up in recent posts, I had to 'reconfigure'
my neural Topology significantly before I
could 'get back into' the Proof - and that
"reconfiguration" dynamic is literally
readable in the discussions I posted --
relatively-weak to relatively-strong [and
still-building].

This massive-reconfiguration within memory-
focus =cannot= occur via connectivity mod-
ifications in the traditional sense -- be-
cause it's way-too-massive and quick to be
actualized in the neural trophy that'd be
necessary to embody such large memory-focus
shifts.

Instead of a connectivity-embodiment, NDT
explains such memory-focus reconfigurations
with =minimal= structural reconfiguration,
but with massive "biological mass" tuning,
in which neuron-glia interactions play the
major role.

In this view, the minimal structural re-
configurations that occur 'address' the
neuron-glia 'state', and converge upon it
via TD E/I-minimization that occurs sim-
ultaneously with respect to experiential
external reality [in my recent example,
the first msg that evoked "Fermat's Last
Theorem"] =and= pre-existing "biological
mass".

There =is= a "speed limit" involved. It's
the rate at which =New= information can
be taken-in.

But what Determines the overall rate of
Thought [TD E/I-minimized "supersystem
configuration" AoK, Ap5] is the extent
of the pre-existing "biological mass"
that, via the doing of =prior= informa-
tion-processing Work, has been created
in-correlation to the 'momentary' ex-
ternal experiential "trigger".

It's why the prior information-proces-
sing Work is Necessary.

Where this view differs from the "con-
nectivity" view that the Article reports
on, is that, "speed of thought" is not
constrained by connectivity-work, but
by magnitude of prior "biological mass"
construction - and, it's been my exper-
ience that there is no limit on the
quantity of "biological mass" that can
be created, and 'addressed' [I've dis-
cussed how I use this understanding, by
working 'constantly' [even maximizing it
within sleep-ing-Consciousness] 'cram-
ming'-information, without 'evaluating'
it a priori -- information can only act-
ually =Be= "evaluated" =after= it's got-
ten into the neural Topology.

[Standard Admonition: =DO NOT= attempt
such information-'cramming' before com-
ing up-to-speed in NDT's understanding,
else you'll drive your 'self' [the neur-
al Topology of your nervous system] into
the "zone of Randomness" [AoK, Ap4], Un-
protected. And, if 'you' 'go-in-there',
Unprotected by Understanding, it's a
Gamble with respect to your ever 'find-
ing your way out of there'. Learn NDT's
stuff =First=. Then information-'cram'
to your 'heart's content.]

If folks 'wonder' why I so, seemingly-
'casually' 'jump'-right-into discussions,
it's because I understand the "trigger-
ing" and "biological mass" 'addressing'
dynamics are =Necessary= - to 'just'
focus the neuron-glia dynamics through
which "biological mass" is tuned -- "heat
is Good".

That, and that, since I've known all
along that I'd have to discuss this very
stuff, I've been 'piling-up' cases in-
point, all along -- in order to give
folks a little "biological mass" upon
which TD E/I-minimization within their
nervous systems could converge, when the
Opportunity for Discussion would come.

Which is 'tonight'.

=Sincere Thanks= to you, DynaSoar, for
broaching the topic.

[All: Don't 'worry' if you don't get it
just yet. You will, in your nervous sys-
tems Individually-Unique 'time' frames.]

If there are questions with respect to
what's been discussed in this post, =if=
the 'time' is right [if I can 'sense'
that folks are ready to go-ahead], I'll
do what I can to answer them.

But, Please, be sure you understand what's
in this post, first.

ken [k. p. collins]






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list