Neuronal transmissions and thoughts

[seazal]

What is the solid proof that all of our thoughts depend on the neuronal transmissions and limited by it.

This is always the arguments used to prove that even if there is any hidden quantum computations in the brain, it won't affect our thoughts since our thoughts depend on the speed of nerve impulses and neuronal signal propagation. Can this be proven categorically and 100%? And no controversy (or exception) about it anymore?

 

[Drakkith]

What is the solid proof that all of our thoughts depend on the neuronal transmissions and limited by it.

I suppose it would be the total cessation of all physical indications of thought when you have no neuronal transmissions.

This is always the arguments used to prove that even if there is any hidden quantum computations in the brain, it won't affect our thoughts since our thoughts depend on the speed of nerve impulses and neuronal signal propagation. Can this be proven categorically and 100%? And no controversy (or exception) about it anymore?

There's practically zero controversy regarding whether neuronal transmission forms the basis of thought. However, there may be details about how neurons function that we don't know about at this time that would help clarify how neurons behave and how their interactions give rise to thought. This is an active area of research.

 

[seazal]

I suppose it would be the total cessation of all physical indications of thought when you have no neuronal transmissions.
There's practically zero controversy regarding whether neuronal transmission forms the basis of thought. However, there may be details about how neurons function that we don't know about at this time that would help clarify how neurons behave and how their interactions give rise to thought. This is an active area of research.

Everything that occurs in a computer is faster than the processing power stopped to 1 Hz of say 3.3Ghz. It means nothing can occur less than 1 Hz which we can take as analogy as akin to the neuron. No thought process can occur less than one neutron transmission speed.

So far, the brain uses parallel processing unlike a CPU. What is the equivalent Gigaherz of our brain?

What is the latest reference (books, articles) that gives last minutes updates about all of this (published late 2018)? Is there still possibility some thought process can occur less than the a neutron transmission speed. We are not focusing on any particular quantum superposition and molecular circuitry that can prevent decoherence. But just want to know any possibility of it. It also means that to access this realm slower than neurons, it is not about waking consciousness, but some altered states of consciousness that could somehow access it? Still a possibility, is it not.

 

[Tiran]

Is there still possibility some thought process can occur less than the a neutron transmission speed.

This isn't a good question because "thoughts" don't have a scientific definition. There are scientific terms like "engram" that are better defined, but hypothetical. If you can't point to a discrete neuronal transmission, you can't measure when it begins and ends or what it consists of. We know a bit about individual nerve impulses, but not their role in sending what we might think of as individual ideas/thoughts/engrams/cognitive bits.

 

[Rive]

So far, the brain uses parallel processing unlike a CPU. What is the equivalent Gigaherz of our brain?

Put it in a different context. Usually you, as an user has nothing to do directly with the CPU: you are in connection with the OS and the applications. And those are definitely using parallel processing. It is done with splitting the tasks into smaller tasks and cycling those small tasks through the CPU fast - that is the reason why the high speed of the CPU is needed. If there are more CPUs are present then the speed (as GHz) requirement will be lower, while the speed you sense will remain ~ the same. So, what is the 'speed' you sense is actually about?

Try to repeat your inquiry with using the 'response time' instead of GHz.

 

[seazal]

This isn't a good question because "thoughts" don't have a scientific definition. There are scientific terms like "engram" that are better defined, but hypothetical. If you can't point to a discrete neuronal transmission, you can't measure when it begins and ends or what it consists of. We know a bit about individual nerve impulses, but not their role in sending what we might think of as individual ideas/thoughts/engrams/cognitive bits.

Can engram process faster than neurons or slower. There might already be experiments that can show it. Is there not?

 

[Tiran]

Can engram process faster than neurons or slower. There might already be experiments that can show it. Is there not?

An engram is a hypothetical unit of memory, not a physical structure.

 

[seazal]

An engram is a hypothetical unit of memory, not a physical structure.

But a hypothetical unit of memory still need neurons. We just need to figure out the time scale of Engram and whether it can be faster than any neural processing or slower.

 

[jedishrfu]

Brains have neurons as their basic processing elements. Neurons can be modeled by a computer to a degree. However neurons are not binary based components such as digital gates, flip-flops or cpus meaning we must create a physical simulation. While we do know that neurons transmit information via an FM based signal enabled by neuro-transmitters at fairly low hertz, we don't know much more than that.

https://www.wingsforlife.com/en/latest/how-does-a-neuron-work-562/

https://www.khanacademy.org/science...m/a/overview-of-neuron-structure-and-function

We have anecdotal information from brain operations and experiments on how various parts of the brain handle key processing operations, but we don't know how that is all put together to create a thought or even what a thought is. Some scientists have speculated that quantum mechanical effects may play a role in brain function to create thoughts but we don't have an accepted theory of how it all might work.



Here's an article in NewScientist that may help jumpstart your investigations into this field:

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-physics-behind-your-brains-ability-to-think/

Its somewhat dated circa 2015 but maybe you could use it to further your research into this field.

Bottomline is we can't answer your questions here and would suggest that you watch the TED talk by Dr Henning Beck and do some legwork yourself reviewing the current literature.

Since we have covered all we can for this topic, it's time to close this thread and to thank all who participated here.

Jedi