<jwwilliams at gems.vcu.edu> wrote:
>Those of us who deal with the brain and thought are at the same impass. We
>cannot explain how its working using 16th century physics. The paradigm must
>change but science need not be abandon.
^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^
I'm glad to hear you say that.
>As per the discussion: Paul Werbos recently presented a model showing that it
>takes 20 neurons to process one bit of information. (I don't know who
>developed it or if its been submitted for critical review). One bit, for
>instance, being one color. If we look at one landscape imagine the bits of
>information that must be processes instantaneously,
This ratio of "20 neurons to 1 bit" is misleading. A bit is a one or a
zero. Neurons fire APs, lasting about 1 ms. These APs could possibly be
considered a "bit" of one. Let us say that the average neuron can fire at
200 Hz. Then it is capable of processing 200 bits per second. If there
are a billion neurons in the cerebral cortex, this is comparable to a
32-bit microprocessor with a 6250 MHz speed. The new Pentiums have 90 MHz
speed.
However, this does not give the brain enough credit, because the
combinations of neurotransmitter and synapses, and connections between
neurons, must raise the "processing capacity of the brain" exponentially.
Neurons also release neurotransmitter, and some of them (in the retina)
pass analog voltage changes along to other neurons without converting them
to the "digital" APs.
Remember that attention filters out most details from consciousness.
Thus while, yes, some brain areas must process those stimuli, association
cortical areas do not have to process sensory information all the time.
>numerous colors, shades,
>hues, shapes, distances, the movement of things, smells...on and on. When we
>still need neural circuits to maintain motor and visceral function, where is
>all this being processed?
See a biopsychology textbook.
>Where thought is taking place is an excellent question.
>But where is any of this taking place.
...
>broken up into energy packets. It all moves into what Einstein caled the
>void. His frustration about relativity was that E=MC2 was intrepreted as
>energy comes from matter. His focus was the opposite. Energy it the primal
>source of everything. Energy makes up our mass. We only perceive mass.
>The
>only way we know what is around us is through perception and the brain does
>not have the ability to process all this.
You haven't provided very strong evidence for this statement.
>So, in conclusion, if the brain does not have the capacity to process
>everything
I think you mean that the brain does not have enough capacity to account
for our experience of perception and thought. Even if this is right,
you should provide a reasonable alternative to the idea that the brain is
the thing that thinks. If not the brain, then what?
>and this matter that makes up our world, bodies and brain is only
>an electromagnetic illusion,
>what the heck are we.
E=mc^2 does not imply that mass does not exist. For the purposes of this
discussion, I think we can assume that both mass and energy are real.
>Where it this thought?
>What is this thought?
>We are at a point where these questions cannot be
>ignored. If we do we will never understand brain function.
The "where is this thought?" question is interesting. Does it exist in
my mind, your mind, or on the computer screen?
"What is this thought?" is even more difficult to answer. However, I
think of "brain function" as being manifested in observable behavior. So
from my perspective, for example, the function of motor cortex is to help
initiate movements. The function of visual cortex is to help decode the
meanings (i.e., relevance to reproductive fitness) of visual stimuli. We
can understand these functions of brain areas without asking questions
like "what is a thought?" We can understand much of brain function while
ignoring questions like those.
--
Tom
