On the Question of Brain Activity as a Physics Problem?

[Perfict_Lightning]

Some people think that in your central nervous system there are several million neurons firing at any given time, and when a neuron fires, a pulse travels down the axon activating synapses and so on. But what if the neurons fire one at a time? Only one pulse begins at a time but there are millions of different pulses traveling at any given time.

Suppose I show you a photo. Neurons fire in response to the light coming off the picture. This creates a pattern of synaptic activity unique to the picture. Now, if you’ve never seen the photo before maybe it’s giving you new ideas, but if you have seen it before a neuron will fire to begin a cascade that gives you that sensation of recognition. This neuron fires for a different reason then the ones’ before, the ones’ creating a synaptic pattern characteristic to the photo. This neuron fires because that pattern is not original, the pattern has been created before.

Now the point is that whether the neurons fire one at a time or not you still have that first neuron in the cascade to fire, and you still have to explain it. If it indeed fires because a synaptic pattern has repeated, then the system has actually measured and compared the current pattern against some patterns created in the past. Never mind the fact that neurons don’t have the architecture to do anything like that, but how can a purely fluid system firing all at once do that before the pattern has changed? So there’s more to it.

When I was a child I was wondering how to even handle the timing on a sequential system. Then I heard a story about how you could turn on a flash light, send out a photon, and that photon could travel all the way around the universe, circle the entire place only to come back here and hit you right smack dab in the back of the head. Thing is, the photon experienced no time doing it. I thought wait a minute, what if the photon experienced a little bit of time, like the amount of time between neural firings. Like every time a neuron fired it sent out a photon, to circled the universe, and it came back to your brain just in time to fire the next neuron and leave agian. The photon wasn’t supposed to experience any time but it did, and just the right amount of time between firings. It was a neat idea and like I said I was a child, but still, talk about the right guess for the wrong reason, it could catch the imagination, this is where it led me.

A long time ago there was a piece of energy, lets call it a parlif, and it was moving in a circle very quickly. It was also changing size, getting large when it was at the top of the circle and small at the bottom. The parlif would slow down at the bottom and become very very small before coming unbound to grow agian. It was attracted to itself, and began to slow at the bottom and then quickly swing around the top and back to the bottom for a second slow pass, and then repeat. The parlif would first be somewhere and then try to be there agian. It was trying to be at the same place twice. A forlorn hope because it can’t change directions on the circle, but it tries and tries.

The space gets cluttered, more and more cluttered, but the parlif keeps trying, and using the clutter to advance towards it’s goal. Finally, after all this time, the parlif has become you. Not only taking an extra nice run at its’ goal, every time a neuron fires (perhaps by now a 3 way 2 banger), but also the parlifs’ cycle is evident in your daily routine . Growing while you’re awake, shrinking while asleep and unbound while you dream.

 

If you could visualize the path the parlif took forward from the beginning, forming matter, gravity, fusion, evolution, conception, growth, right up to the present moment in time, say when neurons are firing as a response to the stimulus of photons coming off a picture, till boom, a neuron fires because a memory is accessed. If you could visualize the path the parlif took forward, then you could visualize that same path going backwards, in reverse, essentially enabling the parlif to go backwards on the circle and achieve its’ goal, getting to the same place twice. (At the very least, if you have one, a chance to let your buddy go because that’s where he is, and now you can take over).

[Bender]

None of this makes sense.

 

For starters: a photon doesn't take an instant to go around the universe, which is, to our best estimates, at least 90 billion lightyears across, meaning it will take a photon 90 billion years.

[DrmDoc]

Neurologically, the process of visual recognition is fairly fluid, which means it's not a stop and start process of recognition then memory association. All visual sensory, whether or not previously experienced, is primarily relayed to the visual cortex where it initiates a cascade of neural responses that provide recognition through prior associations. The process is like a particle shaped to follow a specific groove where it may travel to either a dedicated portal (prior experience, assessment, and memory) or create said portal (new experience, assessment, and memory). When the particle reaches or creates that portal, recognition is initiated. That recognition and its collective associations are then relayed to full consciousness and consolidated--with other attributes--as either a prior or new perception for a behavioral response. As to the physics of it all, I have no opinion.

[Delta1212]

If you're interested in actual mechanics, I would highly recommend looking into the structure and underlying mathematics of neural networks.

 

To make a long story short, there is not one first neuron and you cannot fire the neurons one at a time sequentially, because it is the pattern and timing of which neurons are active and which aren't at any given time that give rise to the complex pathways from which our responses and interpretations of stimuli are derived.

[Perfict_Lightning]

K, These are all great points, and thanks for the interest and feedback.

I am just drawing attention to the idea that once you assume the neurons are firing sequentially (and it’s never been proven they otherwise) the question of brain activity becomes a physics problem.

Moreover I would claim that the physicist need concern himself with little more from the realm of psychology then the question of how we remember what we see.

I know people have for decades thought the nervous system was not sequential by nature, and it certainly doesn’t feel sequential. This is what both DrmDoc and Delta1212 suggest here, and that’s fair enough, but this assumption has never been proven.

And what Benders’ talking about, that was just the inspiration for me, and it wasn’t a real argument of any sort at that early stage. Later, and as a real theory develops and similar ideas are used, that’s when all the t’s get crossed.

When you assume the neurons are firing one at a time, it’s like Newton, when he saw the apple fall, does he believe in something invisible? Does he have reason too? Do the currently accepted theories answer enough questions or is there something better?

We are making an assumption here that has never been proven and that could be holding us back.

[Bender]

A neuron receives a signal and fires. It is connected to, on average, 7000 other neurons. These other neurons can fire, but are not necessarily mutually connected. How can they fire sequentially, if they don't "know" which other neurons have received signals and might fire?

 

Also: a sequential system of neurons has less possibilities and is less complex than a network, so what would the advantage be?

Edited February 10, 2017 by Bender

[DrmDoc]

K, These are all great points, and thanks for the interest and feedback.

I am just drawing attention to the idea that once you assume the neurons are firing sequentially (and it’s never been proven they otherwise) the question of brain activity becomes a physics problem.

Moreover I would claim that the physicist need concern himself with little more from the realm of psychology then the question of how we remember what we see.

I know people have for decades thought the nervous system was not sequential by nature, and it certainly doesn’t feel sequential. This is what both DrmDoc and Delta1212 suggest here, and that’s fair enough, but this assumption has never been proven.

And what Benders’ talking about, that was just the inspiration for me, and it wasn’t a real argument of any sort at that early stage. Later, and as a real theory develops and similar ideas are used, that’s when all the t’s get crossed.

When you assume the neurons are firing one at a time, it’s like Newton, when he saw the apple fall, does he believe in something invisible? Does he have reason too? Do the currently accepted theories answer enough questions or is there something better?

We are making an assumption here that has never been proven and that could be holding us back.

 

There are sequences of exchanges between groups of neurons that do occur during the sensory perception, assessment and response process but not between single neurons firing one at a time. The clearest evidence of this is actually shown by how visual sensory information is transferred from the eye into brain structure. Visual sensory is received in the eye, as a collective of information, by a collective of rods and cones that collectively convert that information into a collective of neural impulses. Those collective impulses are forwarded via the optic nerve initially to the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus where it is then collectively forwarded to the striate cortex of the occipital lobe where groups of neurons collectively receive and decipher the collective visual information those impulses convey. As you may now better understand, the sequence of visual sensory perception involves collective exchanges between singular groups of neural components rather than sequential exchanges between singular neurons. Rather than one at a time, neurons fire collectively, which is logically the most efficient way to perceive, process, and respond to collective sensory information.

Edited February 10, 2017 by DrmDoc

[Perfict_Lightning]

The advantage to considering a sequential nervous system is that it’s the first step towards uncovering a second parameter in the likelihood that a particular neuron will be the next to fire. As it stands now the only parameter we are aware of is the fluid parameter, residing in the potential of the fluid within the neuron. With pumps and as the neuron receives synaptic input the potential rises, till it crosses a threshold and the neuron fires, lowering the potential. With some neurons the potential rises due to external stimuli, and others are so well connected that when one fires the next always fires too. There’s all different kinds.

This parameter is massive and usually the only one even thought to exist, but if this parameter is the only one then we would be able to see with our microscopes the only reasons a neuron would have to fire or not. This does not seem to be the case. Why do we benefit so much from sleep? We can not see any significant reason with our microscopes. If there are other parameters in play, then they would all have to be in good working order for the brain to function well. A lack of sleep will make an absolute mess of one of these parameters, but not the fluid parameter because if the fluid parameter was effected we would see the mess with our microscopes.

The reason I like analyzing how we remember what we see is because I think it’s the best place to find a second parameter come into play. One day you see a photo, you say you’ve never seen it before. The next day you see the same photo and you say “I’ve already seen it”. The same stimulus elicits a different response. How is that possible?

The first time I see the photo my nervous system creates over some region a pattern of synaptic activity unique to the photo. This comes as no surprise, it’s something the neurons are good at, creating these unique patterns, using the long skinny axons with tons of synapses. We evolved this way, it is to our advantage to be able to make a seemingly endless variety of patterns to go along with the endless variety of things we see. This makes sense for some reason. What doesn’t make sense is that the system doesn’t have any way to utilize these patterns.

The problem is with the neuron. It receives synaptic input from thousands of other neurons but when it fires, it fires because the pattern of input is in any one of many thousand different states. Essentially it fires for what could be any one of many thousand different unknown reasons. It tells you only that it is receiving synaptic activity but it does not tell you which synapses are active. This information is lost every time a neuron fires, over and over.

Neurons, or at least the nervous system has evolved in such a way that it’s able to create these unique patterns, but the neurons themselves, and due to their architecture, have no readily apparent way to use these patterns themselves, that is they can’t really measure and compare various patterns. That’s not how evolution works. We would not expend energy making such a rich and varied array of actual patterns if we were not going to use them, so of course we use them.

It’s when you see that photo for the second time. The same stimulus eliciting a different response. The first time you see the photo it produces a new pattern, the second time it produces an old pattern, one that has been created before. That is the difference within the brain between the way it was the first and the second time you saw the photo. That is the difference that produces a different response, but the difference is not visible with a microscope.

Here then finally is the advantage of considering the sequential system, it can open doors of inquiry. Give each neuron a number. Each time a neuron fires write down the number. Now you have a list of numbers that is a record of your life. Suppose there is a way for the brain to take a kind of a 3 dimensional snap-shot of the current synaptic activity across a region. Now replace each number in the list with a snap-shot of what the activity was like at the time that neuron fired.

A long line of snapshots. Now lets‘ say snapshots that are similar to each other are attracted to each other, in such a way that when the most recent snap-shot taken is a perfect match with one taken previously, the entire list buckles half way between the two.

If the region we take a snap-shot of is a sphere, and the unique synaptic activity just a unique arrangement of molecules within the sphere, then potentially what was a long time ago just a single parlif trying to exist in the same place twice, could now have become two spheres trying to exist in the same place twice. Two spheres which contain the same molecules in the same places as each other, at different times, attracted to one another.

That’s the advantage of considering a sequential system. It will open the door to a wider and more varied selection of models from which to contemplate and choose. If we consider the fluid parameter alone, the models will stretch it too thin, and fall short.

[Bender]

To be honest, it sounds like wishful thinking. As long as there is no indication of such a sequential system, it is completely useless to explain anything.

 

I'll highlight two reasons why I think such a sequential system is highly unlikely:

1) it requires neurons who are not in contact with each other to know their place in the sequence

2) why would we use our brain, which is very costly to grow and maintain, in a horribly inefficient sequential way?

[Perfict_Lightning]

You’re absolutely right, and I apologize for beating around the bush, even saying stuff like the “neurons don’t use the patterns”, perhaps hoping to take the conversation down some bottomless pit. So anyways, here’s a prediction ... .

There’s going to be a new fad in physics, especially cosmology. People are going to try to figure out how to make the universe out of a parlif. They will start at the beginning with nothing but a single parlif, no mass, no energy, no time, make some rules, find an algorithm, and presto, the big bang.

The good news is that, if it’s done right, this construction will have features that make it more appealing then the real universe. A better idea of what light is, and it’s relationship with mass, why it’s helium that’s so plentiful right after hydrogen (something that’s always puzzled me, like it goes right from 1-1 to 2-4 with almost no 1-2 or 2-2 ?!). Why electrons orbit in spheres rather then circles.

The bad news is that this universe only exists frozen, at one point in time. None of the particles in this universe move with respect to one another. Rather, the parlif dismantles an existing universe, frozen at one point in time, and moves all the particles to a new and totally different location, one particle at a time. At the new location the particles are placed in slightly different locations, creating the next point in time, all frozen. Then the whole thing repeats, it happens again, moving that frozen point in time to the next. The parlif tries to do something, fails, rearranges everything and tries again.

The whole thing is of course connected to the brain activity bit, and using a couple of ideas from that to help us along. For example, and this goes back decades, I was thinking that the unique pattern of synaptic activity created when seeing a photo would make a nice organic unit of memory. But how could I record the pattern? First I redefined the problem to one where I needed to measure and record the unique locations of molecules across an area. So I come up with this parlif and set it about this task. With time frozen it gathers up information concerning the particles’ locations and stores them in a way that would be useful. This turns out to be the dismantling/changing of a point in time.

What’s also quite helpful is what happens after the parlif makes a measurment. Suppose each such measurement you’ve ever made were arranged in a line. The current measurement is similar to and attracted by others in the line. At first, as you look at the photo, all the very similar measurements are in the recent past. Then after a while a measurement, when it is complete, is attracted to something further back, something made at the time when you first saw the photo. Then the line buckles at the midpoint between those two, with those two measurements coming together and then smashing down to the midpoint. It’s like three things meet there, maybe the fluid, logical and imaginative parameters combine to fire a neuron, and as well they pass by another parlif coming the other way, and that parlif is just beginning the process of making a new measurement.

For the psychologist it means once a memory is accessed, you can only get half way back to it with each firing. That’s no big deal, a couple dozen firings and you’re there. You are now somehow privy to that original measurement and in particular what followed it, somehow forming the logic parameter.

It’s interesting that I never did try to figure out which neuron would fire next. I only wanted to know what the effect that the firing of a neuron would have on the others. Like it was always a surprise which neuron fired. Each neuron has a fluid parameter, a logic parameter and an imagination parameter. When a neuron fires it changes the parameters of a lot of other neurons. Which particular one fired and when is not that important. The impact is important and it’s the overall sequence that matters, but it’s funny, a lot does come out in the wash.

If you want to try to find algorithm for the construction here are the rules as best I can remember them. I think it’s the imagination parameter that you’ll need to find if you want to get further then the point when life became two celled, but I don’t even remember how the logic parameter is employed so ... , yes, one great big massive guess with tons of massive mistakes. My mind changes as to what I think as I read through these contradictions. Best of luck.

The parlif is a sphere, it shrinks and grows in size, and it can not stop. If it goes far enough in either direction it will arrive at the place where it started. It can speed up, slow down, change directions. When it changes directions it leaves a sphere where it turned. It hits and passes through these other spheres but only when everything is of a medium size. There is nothing to hit when the parlifs’ really big or small. it can pass through these other spheres one at a time or it can take them all with it as it moves. Sometimes it’s like a collection of almost concentric spheres, at other times it’s like we drilled the spheres for a core sample of almost parallel planes. That core sample can fold.

The parlif is moving through this stuff, passes itself going the other way or something, is attracted to itself, an algorithm starts up whereby it starts making spheres and moving them around trying to do this thing. It starts time.

[Strange]

 

There’s going to be a new fad in physics, especially cosmology. People are going to try to figure out how to make the universe out of a parlif. They will start at the beginning with nothing but a single parlif, no mass, no energy, no time, make some rules, find an algorithm, and presto, the big bang.

 

 

As there is no such thing as a "parlif" (and your posts are incoherent nonsense) my prediction is that physics and cosmology will stick to following the evidence.

 

Also, note that the "big bang" is not an event, not an explosion, not something created from nothing (nor from a "parlif"). The big bang model describes the ongoing evolution of the universe from an earlier hot dense state.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Strange

[Perfict_Lightning]

I’m sorry if my posts are incoherent. The concepts are difficult, very difficult to put to paper and I don’t remember my theory very well at all. The parlif model is just a different model then the big bang. It’s bigger. It contains the big bang, going back further as well as speaking more to the present. There’s a challenge here too, the challenge to put it together, and that's worth sharing, and maybe or maybe not worth looking in to depending on your tastes.

About following the evidence, I agree physicists should but here’s the thing. The invisible need for sleep is evidence that there is more to brain activity then the fluid parameter alone. This to me this is a glaring example of the physicists failure to understand the present point in time, never mind the earliest stages of the big bang. If you believe the liquid parameter explains everything then how is that following the evidence?

How can the spherical orbit of the electrons be explained? If physicists were following the evidence wouldn’t they argue in favour of discrete changes in time because if time were analog then wouldn’t the orbit of an electron would be circular? In the parlif model there is a place where the universe is frozen in time, then a wave passes through it and leaves it still frozen, but the position of each electron is changed 90 degrees, like if it started at the north pole now it’s at the equator. This comes into play when the parlif sets out to gather info on where the molecules are. It takes the original molecules away and leaves a copy with the electrons moved.

Sorry for jumping around and contradicting myself. What a pain for you and me both but if you have a chance just try and get that parlif model up and running, forming the first photons and so on. I mean why do physicists waste so much time looking into such fruitless theories as _______ , when the real challenge to understanding the present, the real gold mine, is right between their ears. Not to take away from the great work done on the liquid parameter by psychologists and others, but this problem is seriously for abstract thinkers.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Since there are more non-mainstream assertions here than questions, I'm moving this to Speculations. Please take the time to read the special rules, and please either support your assertions with evidence, or perhaps ask questions where you aren't sure instead of guessing.

 

It's up to you to support your ideas with as much evidence as possible. It's the only thing that counts since anybody can throw a wild-ass guess out there.

 

If you feel this note is wrong, Report it, but don't talk about it in this thread. This thread is for you to support your ideas rationally.

[Perfict_Lightning]

The parlif model predicts both that you will need sleep and that the electrons orbit will be spherical. When we look at the evidence we see the parlif model is supported 100%. The parlif model makes predictions that are bore out by the evidence.

 

The reason we need sleep,

 

There is a function that maps every neuron onto a point in space. The function behaves for practical purposes much like a collection of pointers. Each pointer going from a neuron that fired to the neuron that fired immediately after it. If neuron x fires and then neuron y, a pointer is created from x to y. If the next time neuron x fires it is neuron z that follows then the pointer from x to y is destroyed and a pointer from x to z is made. The pointers form loops of neurons and every time a neuron fires the loops change. The loop that contains the last neuron to fire is called the power loop. if the next neuron to fire is on the power loop, that loop will split into two. If the next neuron to fire is not on the power loop those two loops will join. There is actually a parlif burning donuts on the power loop. Neurons are encouraged or discouraged from firing to the degree that their firing will increase the size of the power loop. The loops give you imagination. Because of the demands of other parameters, while you are awake the loops shrink in size and while you sleep they grow.

 

This was all something I figured out while doing that exercise where you build the big bang out of a parlif. I got to the point in the construction where the one-celled life form was evolving into a two-celled. I needed a power loop type of thing, and lo and behold the reason we sleep fell right into my lap. Interesting that the two-celled form has the ability to sleep long before neurons evolve, and it was the process of acquiring this ability that made the step from one-celled to two-celled so long and arduous. Another prediction made by the theory is supported by the evidence.

 

 

Is it out of the question for a respected physicist to believe in these pointers? I don't think so. The psychologists haven't got any thing better to explain the reason why we sleep, plus if you throw this parameter on top of the fluid parameter you'll get both sleep and imagination. This improves our understanding of the fluid system because we'll stop trying to use it to explain stuff it's not responsible for.

 

 

When I first started looking into this I had no interest in finding out why an elections orbit is spherical either. I was just looking for a model that worked, that could explain memory. Find the software and worry about the hardware after, and if the software is the correct software the hardware is going to be there.

 

When I first set out to capture and store information about the locations of molecules here is an oversimplification of what I was after. With time frozen and In two dimensions, a circle starts growing. The diameter is a line with one end, x, at the origin, and at the other end, y. The circle grows, the line lengthens, y moves away from the origin, away from x. The circle hits another circle wherever, called z. The circle then shrinks to y, and then grows from y to z, shrinks at z, then grows from z to x, does some stuff to the left of x, before it comes through x agian, to continue as a growing circle. An oversimplification yes but I was just trying illustrate the 90 degree angle. The original circle goes y z x every time it hits another circle and that angle is always 90 degrees. The act of doing this moves an electron 90 degrees from where it was before. I was just trying to get some information about the locations of these molecules, and store the information somehow but lo and behold I can't do that unless electrons have spherical orbits.

 

I was just lucky to be on the right track, and find the evidence support both predictions made by the theory, that we need sleep and that electrons orbit spherical.

Here's a link to a short video of how the parlif sets out to measure and store information about the locations of the molecules, all simplified. It packs up the universe into a collection of almost concentric spheres, and leaves a copy with the electrons moved. The video shows an interesting phenomena. See how the process pushes all the uncaptured circles away. After the parlif captures a circle and stows the line behind x, it comes through x agian and starts to grow. It grows till it gets to the size it was when it first contacted the circle. Then it pushes everything in front of it away until it reaches the size it would have been in order to loose contact with the circle, had it of just passed over it. This way the parlif is only in contact with one circle at a time, it pushes the others out of the way till it is free. The upshot of that is that it will behave as though it has captured half the molecules in the universe, when in fact it has only gotten a minuscule fraction of that.

 

 

As always, caveat emptor.

Sorry I got all the letters mixed up, the x y z o, in my last post ... , and that I said physicists waste their time ... ,, and that I rambled on a little too much over the course of this thread. Hopefully there's enough good bits to spark your curiosity. If you believe in those loops, then as a physicist you sure got your work cut out for you.

[Perfict_Lightning]

K, this is a great theory.

When I try to weigh the pros and cons there are a lot of pros and only one con. The con is that it is incomplete. A person could really throw their support behind it if it really were more complete and solid in every way, but especially the mechanics behind the memory parameter. It is only alluded to with respect to the present time, and as to how it’s used, or what’s going on in the far past is MIA, at best “claimed to be doable”. Am I to just accept that the incomprehensible events are the work of some incomprehensible particle?

No, not really, but maybe if we talk about it more it will help. It does look good in terms of whether or not it’s going along the right track.

If you refuse to accept the idea there is more to brain activity then the fluid parameter than we are done here, and that’s OK. If on the other hand you’re willing to consider there is something more to it than just that, the sleep parameter comes naturally. It is; simple enough to explain in one paragraph, easy enough to visualize the mechanical process by which one becomes tired (that is how the demands to remember and sense are at odds with the demand for sleep), comprehensive enough to begin at conception/evolution of multi cellular life, and it feels right (when taken with the idea that each time a neuron fires it captures a moment in time) that the power loop is happy when it is large and exists over more moments/longer time period but if you stay up too late the loop gets too small covering less and less time till eventually it can take absolute priority.

The video of the parlif is a beauty. I’m not so sure about what’s going on to the left of the origin, like the exact motion the sphere takes to properly come through the origin doubtful, but I like the rest. It is kind of exciting if it really is the “time wave” exposed. I can see the wave is steady state, at least it appears to expand as much as it collapses, but does it give the change that would look to us like the big bang? Although originally I constructed the present time from the past, from the beginning of the big bang, one step at a time, using a single parlif, once the present time was made the ancient past was unnecessary. The present time just goes to the next present time, a steady state with a red shift. Can this wave expand some into the future, collapse some into the past, and move the electrons in spherical orbits?

I honestly didn’t know what to say about this theory, I have defended this theory, a theory if nothing else of why we need sleep, many times with no real success. Here it is pretty good really because 2 weeks and no criticism. I think it is a good theory, an extremely difficult one even to see the need for. Using the fluid parameter alone just try to visualize the process by which you are able to remember a photo you’ve seen before, the actual mechanics involved. It can’t be done, and it’s difficult to see why, but a necessary exercise a person has to attempt before understanding how memory really does work. At least that has been my experience.

It’s OK if you like this theory, and it’s OK if you don’t, or you don’t even think there is a theory here, but maybe talk about it, and if it’s wrong find out why. There might be somebody working on this and if other people were talking about it then it could be better, maybe build some confidence. I think it is parts of a great theory, incomplete but someday the kind of thing that could benefit us all a great deal, so it is worth having the conversation, abstract as it may be.

What do you guys think?

Maybe it just doesn't fly, and that's OK. People are going to believe what they want to believe, but maybe some people want to have the discussion and that's OK too, it could maybe even lead to something.

The task of figuring this out really is the ultimate test of physics prowess, and not just the inventive kind but so much just physics is involved. When visualizing a neuron firing in response to a photon coming off the photo you might have 6 neurons fire in the time it takes for the photon to travel its’ distance. There are small periods of time in-between each one an enormous amount of stuff has to happen for the parameters to change. An enormous amount of going back to the theoretical beginning of time, (when the big crunch stops and the big bang begins), and moving stuff around, inside out, forwards and backwards, all of this between the firings of each neuron, so how many times do you have to go through it till recognition occurs? WOW What a challenge trying to figure out how it’s done while hanging onto so many places in time, with so much stuff happening in addition to the apparent passage of time.

Plus on top of that, the present time where? If it takes that long for the photon to get to my neuron then I can only be sure there was a photo there some time ago. For all I know the photo has moved and is at the present time not there any more.

Once somebody else figures this out it won’t be so bad for the average guy. It will be difficult describing what is really going on at first. The way things are held by this theory is so different then the traditional view of reality that in the end it truly is jaw dropping, utterly amazing, but a lot of the awe for the subject comes from the not knowing, and that will change.

The theory as it stands doesn’t contradict any known facts and only contributes to our understanding by explaining stuff about sleep, electrons, time, and in particular how we might move towards being able to use time differently. That is so cool.

[Perfict_Lightning]

About the eyes,

 

Time changes in discrete steps but not so much over large areas, rather you as a living being are responsible for changes in your vicinity and the rest is cumulative. You change time because that’s the way your memory works, you pack up a region of frozen space and store it in the past, somewhere small. Doing that changes time. The only place to live is on is the frozen space so you’ve developed loops to string together various chunks of frozen space.

You can survive while the large size thing is compressed into a small thing, if you first find just past the edge of the known universe the next neuron to fire. The pointer is a very long line connecting two neurons but also connecting two frozen chunks of space that are vastly different sizes from one another, so much so that one chunk contains the other. A lot of stuff is moving very very quickly.

To find this point at the edge of the universe I had one eye moving, the thought/time eye, while the other eye was fixed in space motionless, the memory/mass eye. You have two sets of neurons, one positive in thought while the other is negative in memory, and every time a neuron fires all the neurons change charge. The thought eye becomes the memory eye fixed in space solidifying that connection, while memory eye becomes the thought eye, set free to wander/capture circles, till it finds the next neuron to fire.

______

 

 

It's just a long road, so I hammered away at the idea that only one neuron fires at a time. Everything else comes from that. The belief does in no way interfere with the achievements of "collectively" firing neurons, what we traditionally attribute our entire being to, that is the fluid parameter alone. Some of those achievements are just attributed to more palatable sources. Which it must be because the fluid parameter alone fails.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Perfict_Lightning, it's clear that you need to study some science basics. You don't have a model, since you have no maths. You don't have a theory, since theories are the best explanations science has, and a theory has been thoroughly tested by many people over time, and maintains a preponderance of evidence to support it.

 

You really should study what has been discovered instead of just making things up to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. You sound like a very intelligent person, and science could use people like you, but not for making wild guesses or wishful thinking.

 

I can leave this open for a bit if you think you can find some support for your ideas, but it's pointless to discuss any idea that doesn't have a solid grounding in reality. Our rules require a bit more rigor. Can you pick one of your concepts and support it?

[Perfict_Lightning]

(Some of this is a bit of a repeat agian so if the moderator wants to kill this thread and I’ll start a new one that’s OK too, but there’s some good stuff above, and in an effort to clarify and reduce the discussion to one concept ... )

On the brain activity problem.

Assume the neurons fire one at a time. That is to say the pulse that travels down the axon is a consequence of the firing. There are millions of pulses traveling at any given time but only one starts at a time.

A lot of people don’t like this assumption of sequential firing but we use it to make the problem solvable. Everyone has for decades gone the other way, used the other assumption, that neurons are strictly independent stimulus/response type of cells with millions firing at any given time. There is no higher coordination among them. There are serious problems with this assumption which doesn’t prove anything itself, reductio ad impossibile, sequential firing is our savior, but it’s a start.

On Monday I show you a photo and you say “sweet! “On Tuesday I show you the same photo and you say “I’ve seen it before”. The same stimulus produces a different response. The same stimulus produces a different response. This can’t happen in a strictly stimulus/response system. Yes, there is always new growth, some new synaptic/neural generation going on constantly, but I find it hard to believe that all our learning is down to the new synapses and other visible changes.

Notwithstanding the complete lack of skull growth to accommodate that kind of system, where is the memory of the photo contained in the brain and how is that memory accessed, the mechanics. Go ahead, throw down 500 or 1000 new synapses or how ever many you think it would take and follow the trail. In the 35 years since we first got decent photos of synapses no one has been able to visualize the entire process of visual recognition. Where is the memory and how is it accessed? It can’t be done. The closest we have gotten is descriptions of neural architecture/physiology combined with descriptions of how it feels to remember. Describing the mechanics behind how memories could regularly change the direction of this juggernaut of a brain by using only a little bit of tissue growth in a strictly stimulus/response system is too much to ask. No one has ever done it.

Plus sleep, in the stimulus /response world wouldn’t the lack of sleep come down to a lack of the cells ability to respond or something like that. We don’t see that, nor do we find a natural inclination towards sleep in neural nets.

The strictly stimulus /response world fails to explain sleep and leads to a contradiction with memory, the same stimulus producing a different response when memories exist. This is not any kind of endorsement of sequential firing but it looks like there is more to brain activity then just what we can see with our microscopes and we are going to have to open up the world if we want to make some progress. The sequential firing doesn’t give you anything extra right away but it is a valuable tool with which to explore.

Define “state of mind” to be, at a point in time, the precise level of activity for every single synapse and neuron in your entire system. It enables you to envision a point in time when a particular neuron fires and exactly what your precise state of mind was when it fired. Where all the molecules were. We know that when you were in this particular state of mind this particular neuron fired, and now we can compare that to a later event when in a different state of mind a different neuron fired.

We can define one of the parameters in the likelihood that a particular neuron will be the next one to fire as the “fluid parameter”. It is the potential that the fluid inside the neuron has relative to the fluid outside. Stimulus raises the potential and the neurons response is to fire which lowers the potential. It is the world of stimulus response, and it is the world we know best having studied it for decades. People have for the longest time thought the fluid parameter was the only one.

With sequential firing and in a strictly stimulus response world, the fluid parameter is the only parameter in the system, and the cell with the highest fluid parameter, highest potential between its’ inner and outer fluids/surfaces is always the next to fire. This is a system that fails. We think there are other parameters in the system, 2 others, memory and sleep. The existence of other parameters would mean that sometimes a neuron with a low potential fires before one with a higher potential. It fires to satisfy the requirements of one or both of the other parameters, and just like when the firing of one neuron changes the fluid parameter in a great many receiving neurons, we expect the firing of one neuron to effect the other parameters in other neurons as well. How we don’t know yet.

There is something about how we see things. The recognition can be so immediate and absolute that It feels like you honestly took a different node. It is primal with us, the importance of the direction of light to an organism. Something to consider when looking for a unit of memory. We need a unit of memory because the memory of the photo has a location. The location is not in the brain per say, because organic means alone don’t seem to be able to handle memories, but the memory does have a location, and if that location is not in the brain then what is the brain? Intelligence is not the size of memory, it’s the access to memory. The brain is so intelligent, so good at accessing memories that the entire organ is devoted to the task. It is an access machine, creation and access but not storage. What is a liberating thought!

What could a memory look like? If we take a step back and ask what the brain is doing we see it is moving a lot of molecules around. It’s the most curious thing. The brain has evolved in such a way that it creates unique patterns of synaptic activity but it has no visible way of using them. By that I mean yes, sure when I look at a photo then across some region of the brain and by way of the fluid parameter alone a pattern of synaptic activity unique to the photo is created. And in turn by way of the fluid parameter alone that pattern will generate some thoughts, but the thoughts are different the second time the pattern is created then the first.

What is it that is different about the brain that the same pattern would generate different thoughts the second time around? There has been some growth of tissue but not enough to account for such a drastic difference in thoughts. What is significant is that the second time the pattern was created it was one that had appeared before. The first time it was a pattern that had never appeared before. The brain can tell when a pattern repeats, and uses this somehow. When working with a repeat pattern it’s almost as if the brain knows in advance what thoughts are going to be generated. It’s easy to know you’ve seen something before without knowing where exactly you saw it. You know when you’re working with a pattern that has existed before because it’s having an effect on your thoughts outside what’s capable through the fluid parameter alone.

All this would all be just fine except the brain has no visible way to tell specifically if a pattern is a repeat and it hasn’t even tried to evolve a way. It just evolves different ways to make more and more intricate patterns. It loves to create these patterns, and I can argue that the pattern itself is the significant thing, but there is no apparent way for the brain to access a pattern as to whether or not it has existed before, nor for it to take advantage of the situation if it has.

So change that and say every time a neuron fires the precise state of mind across some region is captured and stored. Create a unit of memory. You could give each neuron a number and write that number down every time that neuron fired, and beside each number on the list attach a 3D photo of where the molecules were over some region of the brain at the time when that neuron fired. Your entire life is one long such list. Now you’ve got a memory.

As to how that memory is used and accessed, created, my speculations are in the above posts. The ideas quickly spiral into stuff that’s difficult to believe. The sleep parameter is something I figured out along the way so I don’t know how much good it does you knowing all that right from the start, but it is so sweet the idea that only one eye moves at a time, and of course I’d be willing to discuss any of the ideas introduced in previous posts. The Parlif video is my idea for a unit of memory, how the state of mind is captured and stored so although it quickly ties in with cosmology concepts there is a direct connection to the question of what and where the memory is, and is therefore appropriate here.

There are some great posts above made by people with the best intentions, and I was glad to read every one of them so this comment is not directed towards you guys and don’t take it the wrong way, but people, don’t try to kid me with flowery phrases about how neurons decode signals, past associations and the ebb and flow of numerous voices in concert. Show me the actual mechanics because like it or not memories really are stored somewhere, they really do have locations. The system can not function without this. If you want one concept to discuss it would be “Where is your memory located, and how is it created/accessed”.

[Delta1212]

The fact that you don't think there is a way for the brain to tell whether it has seen a pattern before shows a profound lack of knowledge of how neural networks work.

[DrmDoc]

(Some of this is a bit of a repeat agian so if the moderator wants to kill this thread and I’ll start a new one that’s OK too, but there’s some good stuff above, and in an effort to clarify and reduce the discussion to one concept ... )

On the brain activity problem.

Assume the neurons fire one at a time. That is to say the pulse that travels down the axon is a consequence of the firing. There are millions of pulses traveling at any given time but only one starts at a time.

A lot of people don’t like this assumption of sequential firing but we use it to make the problem solvable. Everyone has for decades gone the other way, used the other assumption, that neurons are strictly independent stimulus/response type of cells with millions firing at any given time. There is no higher coordination among them. There are serious problems with this assumption which doesn’t prove anything itself, reductio ad impossibile, sequential firing is our savior, but it’s a start.

On Monday I show you a photo and you say “sweet! “On Tuesday I show you the same photo and you say “I’ve seen it before”. The same stimulus produces a different response. The same stimulus produces a different response. This can’t happen in a strictly stimulus/response system. Yes, there is always new growth, some new synaptic/neural generation going on constantly, but I find it hard to believe that all our learning is down to the new synapses and other visible changes.

Notwithstanding the complete lack of skull growth to accommodate that kind of system, where is the memory of the photo contained in the brain and how is that memory accessed, the mechanics. Go ahead, throw down 500 or 1000 new synapses or how ever many you think it would take and follow the trail.

 

You've written quite a lot here and, unfortunately, I was not inclined to read its entirety. The comments I've read thus far suggests to me how little you may understanding neural anatomy and development. Generally, the human brain achieves its peak development around age 25; therefore, "skull growth" or cranial expansion is fixed at that age. Our brain organizes new data by creating new connections (synapses), which isn't the same as requiring additional cell growths or neuronal growths to accommodate new data. New data is maintained and retrieved via a series of new connections that have no upper limit. Think of these new neural connections as highways and our brain as Earth. Using this analogy, developing thousands of new synapses doesn't expand brain volume any more than thousands of new roads and highways across our planet expand Earth's volume. Although I'm not entirely sure what perspective you're trying to convey here, you'd probably convey it more cogently with empirical science on brain development.

[Perfict_Lightning]

The fact that you don't think there is a way for the brain to tell whether it has seen a pattern before shows a profound lack of knowledge of how neural networks work.

 

The pattern will generate thoughts and In a strictly stimulus response system the same pattern will produce the same thoughts unless you grow new tissue, there is no physical explanation for a different response without the new tissue but,

 

and this to drmdoc as well in response to "New data is maintained and retrieved via a series of new connections that have no upper limit."

 

 

But for the same stimulus to produce a different response the amount of new synapses required is profound. Lets say one neuron receives input from 5000 synapses. For new synapses to change only that one neurons behaviour to any noticeable amount would require something of the order of 500 new synapses, and that would have to happen to about 5000 different neurons to effect the overall course of firing, which comes to 2.5 million new synapses to account for the memory of a single photo. Numbers could vary but you get the idea, and add to that the speed at which the synapses need to be grown, and the fact that the more synapses you have the more new ones it will take to make a difference. A curious thing about evolution is that if what you are suggesting is what is actually happening then why do neurons have so many synapses in the first place? Your kind of system would be so much more efficient with fewer synapses. Like if your plan really was to grow new synapses in order to effect the way another neuron reacts then why pray tell does the other neuron already have 5000 synapses to contend with?

 

Add to that the thing you both missed, the location of the memory. In 35 years no one has been able to say where the memory of the photo is located. Based on the fluid parameter alone just try to answer these questions; which are the new synapses, where are they grown and why, what causes their growth, how are those locations related to the input from the photo, how do the neurons receiving the new synaptic input change the thoughts enough, and most important of all perhaps is how does your model account for memories in animals who don't have our capacity for new growth? This software has to be backwards compatible and run on a variety of different units you know. In short, go ahead, make your case ... , like once a pattern comes into existence such and such synapses grow here and there, in such a way so that if and when the pattern ever repeats these few new synapses will enable the brain to ascertain it is in fact a repeat pattern, and bestow onto the brain all the benefits of having memories of the first time you saw the photo. I don't think it can be done.

 

Your explanation that new tissue is at the root of it all may be correct, but it's not what I think and especially not when you look into what is actually involved and answer the above questions. You say if I had more knowledge I would side with you, I say show me the memory.

( plus of course there is an upper limit on the number of synapses and the amount of roads you can build. In both cases the product takes volume and volume is limited. Like if you divide the volume of the skull by the volume of a synapse, I can guarantee you can't have more synapses then that. But I also agree that in a practicle sense you are absolutely correct, there is room for tons, I just don't think the new ones can do as much for the system as you guys claim. I will add that with motor control it is a little different, there is a lot more of the "When I go you go" type of thing required and in turn more synaptic as well as dendrite growth. My knowledge is OK, )

[Strange]

Assume the neurons fire one at a time.

 

 

Why would anyone assume that when it is plainly wrong.

 

I couldn't see any point reading beyond that.

[Perfict_Lightning]

 

 

Why would anyone assume that when it is plainly wrong.

 

I couldn't see any point reading beyond that.

 

Because no one has ever proven that it's the wrong assumption to make, failure to make this assumption has been fruitless, and to be honest if you cut time into enough tiny pieces it's proly more likely that it's impossible for two pulses start at exactly the same moment, then it is for each pulse to have a time of its' own at which to start. In that respect all researchers should proly adopt the practice of discussing brain activity as sequential because even if there is no overall higher force coordinating everything you still have a more precise way of describing things. For example if a billion neurons fire in a second then how many fire in a billionth of a second. One. So go ahead and cut the second into a billion pieces, assign to each piece a neuron that fired at approximately that time. Now at least we can discuss a precise sequence and more easily compare the state of mind at precise moments.

 

I'll put the question back to you, Why would you assume that no matter how small a period of time you could imagine there is always going to be a case where more then one pulse starts during that small a period. Like my neurons fire one every billionth of a second but yours plainly fire 25 at a time every 25 billionths' of a second ?!? Where is the advantage to the brain, and where is the advantage to your understanding of the brain by adopting the unproven assumption, and why do you think the adoption of this particular assumption has been so fruitless with respect to understanding sleep and so on?

[Delta1212]

The whole point of a neural network is that you can reinforce or rewire pathways based on stimuli. Its advantage is that it can learn based on experience and is not a straight input-output machine.

 

If the brain operated the way you seem to think it does, it wouldn't be able to do basically anything that it does outside of maybe the autonomic processes like controlling heartbeat.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Delta1212

[Perfict_Lightning]

The whole point of a neural network is that you can reinforce or rewire pathways based on stimuli. Its advantage is that it can learn based on experience and is not a straight input-output machine.

 

If the brain operated the way you seem to think it does, it wouldn't be able to do basically anything that it does outside of maybe the autonomic processes like controlling heartbeat.

 

Yes you’re right about the value of your system, but proly I haven’t explained how my system fits in well enough, and sorry for lashing out at folks too because you guys are reading this stuff and taking the time to post, you’re obviously interested and I appreciate that.

What we have now is a system where the only parameter in the likelihood a particular neuron will be the next to fire is the potential of the fluid. What I suggest is a system with 3 parameters, so during the day neurons fire 45% of the time your way, to satisfy the fluid parameter, 45% to satisfy the memory parameter and 10% the sleep parameter. At night it changes and the sleep parameter is given the priority to motivate firing in 90% of the occasions. A lot of times a neuron would fire to satisfy all 3, and firing will always change all 3 in a number of other neurons too.

During the day when your driving to a place you’ve only been to once a long time ago, you give it up for the memory parameter and try to fire only for that reason, recreating a previous state of mind. If the car starts to slip on the ice, and you can’t brake with a slight bend in the road coming up, you give it up for the fluid parameter, your life depends on how well your finger tips feel the steering wheel for the next little while. All day long you go back and forth between fluid and memory till by the end sleep is so neglected you just drop.

I’ve mentioned the sleep parameter before, but lets just say hypothetically, the memory parameter, when the current state of mind is very similar and strongly attracted to one created in the past, neurons are encouraged or discouraged from firing to the degree they fired the last time you were in this state of mind.

Now the way a state of mind generates thoughts is different. Suppose I see for the first time a photo of a field with a barn, and an elephant in the background, and the elephant makes me think of the circus. The second time I see the photo I see the field with the barn, and my head is already getting some kind of circus ping, like a short cut, and I know I’ve see the photo before.

When I'm learning to sing a song the reinforced pathways play a big part because it's all about gaining the ability to fire neurons in a predetermined order, but it's more difficult to attribute remembering photos to the changing pathways. My system works together with your system, not against it.