How do we think?

[Connor]

not every animal experiences pain. Sure, dogs and cats do, and sharks and octopi, and birds and maybe even C elegans, but an animal must have a neural network to feel pain

[redunprinter]

i dont see it! please explain i dont understand not clear

[Skye]

With smaller multicelluar creatures, thy tend to respond to pain stimulii, in parallel to the way human pain stimulii is experienced. Then other than our 'advanced' congitive function, we in most ways, ar nearly the same as other animal species. No pain, other than perhaps cognative pain, any other, is strictly human. Think about it, each animal responds to pain and pleasure, also think about operant conditioning.

Not necessarily, our observed responses to things that cause us pain may well be similar to the observed responses of other animals to certain stimuli because they are both appropriate responses. What the animal actually experiences is difficult to determine.

[bascule]

Wah? Does an individual neuron experience pain? Or little objective processing units, palpitated processors?

 

Neocortical columns

[Glider]

With smaller multicelluar creatures, thy tend to respond to pain stimulii, in parallel to the way human pain stimulii is experienced. Then other than our 'advanced' congitive function, we in most ways, ar nearly the same as other animal species. No pain, other than perhaps cognative pain, any other, is strictly human. Think about it, each animal responds to pain and pleasure, also think about operant conditioning.

Well, firstly there is no such thing as a specific 'pain stimulus'. Almost any stimulus can evoke pain if it is sufficiently intense, but whether or not it does so is due to factors other than the stimulus itself.

 

"...respond to pain stimuli in in parallel to the way human pain stimulii is experienced."

 

This doesn't make sense really. They may respond to intense stimuli in a similar way to humans (e.g. by withdrawing), but that doesn't mean they share the same experience. If you poke the gill of an aplesia (sea slug) it will withdraw the gill. Can you say that it experienced pain?

 

The reality is that even in humans, you can't make absolute judgements concerning their experience based upon their behavioural response. A human may withdraw from an intense stimulus, but that doesn't mean they experience pain.

 

The stimulus is not pain, nor is activity in 'nociceptive' receptors or fibres. Pain is a psychological state.

[ski_power]

in reply to the original question,

 

I personally feel that like the computers process things in binary, our brain also has a "system" or "language" of processing information. Maybe I'm not able to express my thoughts clearly, but doesn't the base system depend on how many types of impulses are present?

[Cognition]

in reply to the original question' date='

 

I personally feel that like the computers process things in binary, our brain also has a "system" or "language" of processing information. Maybe I'm not able to express my thoughts clearly, but doesn't the base system depend on how many types of impulses are present?[/quote']

 

I am glad we are coming back to the original topic again, although pain is interesting, but there is so little one can say with certainty about pain...

Ofcourse it is a psychological state, but what does that mean? Does it mean that you have to understand pain before it is there? No, ofcourse not. Pain is a basic Quale, and therefore not well understood yet, and we can make a difference between (what we can call) physical pain, and emotional pain. Both are feelings, but there are differences. I would rather say that emotional pain is a psychological state and physical pain is not.

 

What you are saying about thinking is correct. There is a system or "language". And probably the main building blocks of our thought are cell-assemblies. We know that concepts are the fundament of thinking and concepts are represented by cell-assemblies in the brain. The flow of activation between cell-assemblies is what is considered in common sense languge as thinking and although there is no consensus about the details of all this, there are no reason to think about some mysterious aspect like "muscles" to explain how we control our thoughts: lots of activation is happening at one moment in the brain and our thoughts are guided by that and that alone....you may experience a train of thought and then suddenly be distracted by something significant in your surroundings, which may cause you to shift your thinking to that.....

[ski_power]

yeah i mean muscles in thinking would be like sticking a spanner(read: asking for a spinning hard drive platter) in a processor.

 

Processors don't have moving parts now do they?

Same way, while thinking we don't need muscles or anything. Just like 10001010101011101001010.....keep streaming through the processor back and forth, the same way the energy impulses keep going past the brain's processing unit back and forth to make us "think".

Although I "think"(get it?) that when one thinks of a certain problem mentally, a lot of complex and trial & error simulation is done in the brain. That's thinking I suppose.

[Nashyboyo]

The most basic trigger for a neuron to fire is the previous neuron firing. However' date=' if it was as simple as that, every time one neuron fired, they all would.

 

To allow processing, there are a number of mechanisms which control activity. For example, not all neurons are exitatory. Many are inhibitory and their firing inhibits the next neuron by raising its firing threshold (creating an inhibitory post synaptic potential, or IPSP).

 

Further, many neurons won't fire in response to a single incoming action potential. They require many incoming impulses, each creating an exitatory post synaptic potential (EPSP), each of which which lowers the firing threshold, but on their own can't trigger the cell.

 

These cells require the summation of many incoming impulses to trigger them. Sometimes it's the number of impules within a certain period of time (temporal summation), that triggers them.

 

There is also spatial summation. This is where of the huge numbers of inhibitory and exitatory synapses contacting one cell, sufficient numbers of exitatory synapses trigger at once in the same region to outweigh the inhibitory activity and the membrane depolarises at that point.

 

There is also long-term potentiation (a key factor in learning). This is where chains of cells that fire frequently are reinforced, i.e. the firing threshold of the cells in the chain is lowered and that particular combination of cells becomes more likely to fire in sequence when one is triggered.

 

Beyond the single cell events, there are also group phenomena, for example, where the activity of a cell or group of cells inhibits activity in the cells around it (this can be seen in retinal ganglion cells), and so-on.

 

So, the brain is full of positive and negative feedback systems. If you take combinations of the four basic modifiers I've outlined above; IPSPs, EPSPs, temporal summation and spatial summation you can see that there are a huge number of possible modulatory effects.

 

If you include the more subtle modulatory effects of neurotransmitters and NT receptors (for example 5-HT has four or five known receptors, each of which responds differently to serotonin) and differences in NT effect according to location then you have a mindblowing number of possible modulatory mechanisms.

 

The brain does generate an electrical field. It is detectable using EEG, however, EEG it quite a 'blunt' instument (it lacks resolution) and detects only the net field associated with higher areas of activity on the cortex. This field occurs as a direct result of neuronal actvity and so both dependent and related to that activity, which is quite handy as EEG is a useful diagnostic tool and if the field was independent of activity, then EEG would be pretty useless.[/quote']

 

 

did you cite this from a book called 'human physiology' by 'vander, sherman and luciano's' ? it sounds almost identicle to the neuron chapter (or any physiology book for that matter). Its just that everything you said and the oreder it introduced the topics reminds me of my first year exam revison.

[Glider]

No. If I had quoted from any particular source, I would have cited it and provided a reference.

 

Physiology is one of those 'it-is-what-it-is' subjects with little room for debate, particularly in the basics, so any basic information presented is going to be the same as can be found in most basic physiology texts.

 

By happy coincidence, I give lectures on psychobiology: Introduction to the Nervous System, Neurons: The building Blocks of the Nervous System, and The Brain. These are all basic structure and function lectures, so in this instance I didn't need to refer to a text, although of course, the information would replicate that which could be found in any appropriate text (e.g. Kalat).

[bombus]

yeah i mean muscles in thinking would be like sticking a spanner(read: asking for a spinning hard drive platter) in a processor.

 

Processors don't have moving parts now do they?

Same way' date=' while thinking we don't need muscles or anything. Just like 10001010101011101001010.....keep streaming through the processor back and forth, the same way the energy impulses keep going past the brain's processing unit back and forth to make us "think".

Although I "think"(get it?) that when one thinks of a certain problem mentally, a lot of complex and trial & error simulation is done in the brain. That's thinking I suppose.[/quote']

 

Good analogy, but the point is, micro processors are just a set of logic switches and computers cannot excercise free will. However, it would seem that many people believe that neither do we!

 

However, for those that don't like the idea of us being in life just for the ride with no ability to excercise free will, try this web page:

 

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

[Quantum]

So by assuming we do not feel pain, people only experience pain and neurons do not? Cuz I think each neuron experiences pain and then work together as a system, people should check out the info in the website below.

 

http://www.stevenharris.com/theory/

[Cognition]

So by assuming we do not feel pain' date=' people only experience pain and neurons do not? Cuz I think each neuron experiences pain and then work together as a system, people should check out the info in the website below.

 

http://www.stevenharris.com/theory/[/quote']

 

Why should a neuron experience pain? What arguments do you have for such a ridiculous idea?

[redunprinter]

i need help with some theories plese be more specific

[lrokwild]

Pain is a neurological reaction to a stimulus. The experience of feeling physical pain is only pain if our brain perceives the experience as pain. Of course, the feeling of pain is normally a subconscious reaction. It’s a trait that has been developed and passed down in evolution to help keep species alive.

 

If a particular species cannot be conscious of pain and inevitably fear pain, they will not be able to act accordingly and avoid potentially deadly situations. Therefore this inherit trait has been passed down through evolution.

 

Experiencing pain is nothing more than a chemically induced feeling. Our brain sends neuro peptides to the wounded area that trigger a variety of cells to start performing biological and chemical reactions among the cells. This is observed when blood-clotting proteins begin to forum in the wounded area on cuts. The peptides are triggering all sorts of cellular changes to occur. Therefore one can argue that the brain is chemically altering other cells in our bodies. Many scientists have then hypothesized that the brain can control other cells in the body and even modify or mutate them into new cells.

 

An example of this idea is witnessed when dealing with a placebo. The brain actually believes that it is curing a damaged cell enough that it must send the correct neuro peptides to surrounding cells and to the damaged cells themselves in a way that it "fixes" the problem.

 

So yes, I believe that our conscious and subconscious thoughts can genetically alter our bodies on a cellular level.

 

Its the old quantum story of if we never were told we couldn’t walk on water, and didn’t experience water as being less dense than us, then we be able to essentially "walk" on water..... I believe this to be more of a hallucination than a actual "physical" experience....but what is a” physical" experience? ... Its only physical until we interact with "it", until then its only a possibility of consciousness. LOL .... I think I explained that a bit wacko..... im still new to this stuff sry!

[Cognition]

Pain is a neurological reaction to a stimulus. The experience of feeling physical pain is only pain if our brain perceives the experience as pain. Of course, the feeling of pain is normally a subconscious reaction. It’s a trait that has been developed and passed down in evolution to help keep species alive.

 

Yes, pain is in the head, and without the brain, there would be no sensation of pain. But what do you mean that pain is normally a subconscious reaction? pain is in its core conscious, so there can never be pain that is not conscious. You have to call it differently, perhaps some kind of reflex?

 

Experiencing pain is nothing more than a chemically induced feeling.

 

That is not entirely correct: the experience of pain is something very different than "just" something chemical. It starts out as a chemical process, transmitting signals to the brain and there somehow (something still completely unknown) the sensation of pain is formed.

[lrokwild]

Pain starts subconsciously and then comes forth to our collective consciousness.....wouldn’t that be more accurate? - When I talk about the subconscious process I think im trying to describe the "hardwiring" of our species to, without conscious thought, experience the emotion of pain.

[redunprinter]

general discussion

[Quantum]

any updates, today?

[redunprinter]

?????????

[Peels]

All these answers are very interesting, but none seem to answer the basic question... I mentioned muscles just as an example because we lack any 'mechanical' way of controlling thoughts - so how am I able to control the flow of electrons in my brain? How is this possible without 'mechanical, intervention? It would seem that conciousness is able to affect the flow of electrons without ANY 'mechanical' intervention. Surely this is just not possible?

 

I know what you mean. It is, in fact, a very interesting question.

 

In my opinion, the brain stem is the powerhouse for brain and whole neuron system. Therefore, the answer to your question has to wait until a better understanding about the mechanism of brain stem.

 

However, I do think the idea of "mechanical intervention" is plausible for this "neuron heart", although electrical and chemical based driving force is surely involved.

[Horus]

I found a great calendar with neuron images in the brain. Lots of great science stuff. Lots of great animation showing how the body works to. You can download them if you have Quicktime Pro.

 

http://www.hybridmedicalanimation.com

[bombus]

I know what you mean. It is' date=' in fact, a very interesting question.

 

In my opinion, the brain stem is the powerhouse for brain and whole neuron system. Therefore, the answer to your question has to wait until a better understanding about the mechanism of brain stem.

 

However, I do think the idea of "mechanical intervention" is plausible for this "neuron heart", although electrical and chemical based driving force is surely involved.[/quote']

 

I'm glad you understand the wierdness of the question! You are right that nerve impulses are carried via chemicals, but apart from synapses, this is done by the transfer of electrons from positively charged ions to negatively charged ones along nerve fibres (can't remember which chemicals are invloved - possibly potassium ions??). Conciousness would appear to be able to influence this transfer and using conventional physics, I can't see how - unless of course, as has already been suggested, free will is an illusion and we are actually totally unable to make decisions, we just think we make them after the alogorithms in the brain go through their predetermined calcualtions. Not a nice thought really is it!?

[lrokwild]

First of all, there are more than just one chemical that is used to "think". It's a number of different chemicals that cause different reactions between different neurons.

 

Second of all, I agree with the statement about free will. Obviously we can only cognitively think or do things that our bodies can allow us. So we are always restrained to some degree. However, we have the ability to control parts of our brain more than any other living organism we know of. Evolutionary, if our species survive long enough, you could argue that we will develop an ability to have complete control over our thoughts/drives.

 

Since I am a Freudian, I believe that we all are still driven by 2 main motives, which are sex and aggression. Those 2 motives are the basis for all of our thoughts, actions, ect. We have the ability to experience these feelings through sublimation and with other emotions.

 

Anyways, if I where to take a crack at explaining how we think, I would fail miserably. As I can see, everyone else so far has also failed. Rest assure, there is a valid scientific answer to this question, but unless you study psychiatry for 15 years, your not going to be able to fully explain how we think. The reason being, there is obviously no easy answer to this question, which is why I’m surprised someone asked it and expected good answers.

 

There are biological, chemical and psychological processes that combine in such a way that allow us to "think". Study these 3 areas for 15 years, and you might be able to write a half decent paper explaining it. Until then, good luck piecing these forum posts together.

[Kedas]

just my opinion

If you figure out how a stone is rolling of a mountain then you have also answered your own question.

You say that isn't the same, well having an other set of relations doesn't mean it's executing them differently so it 'thinks' the same .

 

about free will

I don't believe it exist, but the fact that we wonder about it proves that we assume that it exist.

 

An illusion only exist if you created/have more than what there is.

since we can't create/change the laws of nature, nor free will nor illusions exist. (but we gave both words a meaning anyway)

 

This message is only here because you pushed me of the mountain.