How we're able to think

[A-wal]

Use them as they pass through? That makes no sense...

I don't know much at all about them to be honest, but I was thinking that maybe they loose a bit of energy after they've passed through brain matter and that bit of energy is what thoughts are. This really is just wild speculation. It's fun though.

 

Just a suggestion, but you might want to consider doing a bit of research into what's already been learned about the brain before creating your own theories. Neuroscience is a fascinating and ever-changing field, and the experiments/results show that our brain is not just "mush".

 

Check this video out" about what we know about how the brain learns, or this article about how memories are stored and retrieved. You may also want to consider looking up how scientists define consciousness.

Cheers, I'll take a look.

[John Cuthber]

The most notable thing about neutrinos is that they don't do much.

 

NEUTRINOS, they are very small.

They have no charge and have no mass

And do not interact at all.

The earth is just a silly ball

To them, through which they simply pass,

Like dustmaids down a drafty hall

Or photons through a sheet of glass.

They snub the most exquisite gas,

Ignore the most substantial wall,

Cold shoulder steel and sounding brass,

Insult the stallion in his stall,

And scorning barriers of class,

Infiltrate you and me! Like tall

and painless guillotines, they fall

Down through our heads into the grass.

At night, they enter at Nepal

and pierce the lover and his lass

From underneath the bed-you call

It wonderful; I call it crass.

 

From

http://www.phys.psu.edu/~cowen/poetry/cosmic-gall.html

[Bignose]

Sorry Bignose. You were asking unanswerable questions but I shouldn'd have over reacted.

 

Apology accepted. And I don't think my questions are unanswerable, they are just questions that need some answers should this idea be pursued in a scientific manner. They may not be immediately answerable, but they are questions that could be answered if someone should try to actually develop this idea.

[A-wal]

How are they detected? They must interact with something or we wouldn't know that they exist. If fact if they didn't interact with anything then they wouldn't exist. That's the definition of existance. Wow, that was quite deep.

[jeskill]

Off topic from neutrinos, but on the subject of consciousness....

Behavioural scientists spent a lot of time trying to figure out how we perceive our surroundings, and how our perception differs from other animals. This is related to consciousness in the sense that perception is the ability to take in information from our surroundings (e.g. light), recognition is the ability to relate the information we perceive to a mental map of that information in the brain (e.g. we have a mental map of what a "pen" looks like) and cognition ... "consciousness", is the ability to perceive, recognize, and also conceive a new idea by relating previously unrelated mental maps to each other, or reason, or judge, or imagine.

 

Our ability to do all these things is entirely affected by how the brain is wired. At least, that's how I remember it from my behaviour class.

Edited October 9, 2012 by jeskill

[A-wal]

That would still be the case though whether the idea is right or not.

[Moontanman]

How are they detected? They must interact with something or we wouldn't know that they exist. If fact if they didn't interact with anything then they wouldn't exist. That's the definition of existance. Wow, that was quite deep.

 

 

They do interact, the point is that they rarely do interact and something as small as the human brain is unlikely to interact with them in any way, not that they do not interact at all.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

 

Neutrinos do not carry electric charge, which means that they are not affected by the electromagnetic forces that act on charged particles such as electrons and protons. Neutrinos are affected only by the weak sub-atomic force, of much shorter range than electromagnetism, and gravity, which is relatively weak on the subatomic scale. They are therefore able to travel great distances through matter neither affecting the matter nor being affected by it.

[A-wal]

An increase in the amount of neutrinos isn't really a fair test because we could only be using a fraction of the ones available to us under normal circumstances. What we really need is to reduce the amount available to us, and possibly by quite a large percentage. The only way to really do it I think is to put some mice (sorry mice) in a rocket, shoot it far away from the sun and just see what happens.

 

I did actually know that neutrinos only interact with the weak nuclear force but it was ages ago that I read that and I'd forgotten. So the only difference between neutrinos and the theorised wimps is that wimps have mass? Do they have electrons? I don't think they can or we'd know for sure that they don't exist. I don't think it's possible for something to have mass without electrons.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't think it's possible for something to have mass without electrons.

 

I believe your statement makes even more sense if you eliminate all but the first three words.

[A-wal]

And people wonder why I get pissed off when I come here! I said I don't think because I'm not sure and you use that to attack without making an actual point. Black holes don't count if that's what you meant because they don't exist for any length of time unless viewed from a distance. I think that maybe the actual cause of gravity might be that the electrons create length contraction and time dilation that's angular, which works differently from linear velocity and it radiates outwards, pulling everything in. If you haven't got anything constructive to say then piss off!

[Ophiolite]

And people wonder why I get pissed off when I come here! I said I don't think because I'm not sure and you use that to attack without making an actual point.

I'm sorry if my point was not clear: here it is in plain English. "What is the source of your arrogance that leads you to propose radical ideas in science when you apparently lack even a grasp of a few fundamentals."

 

Now you add a clarification to your intent and I offer a new point: If you are uncertain it would be better to state "As I understand it electrons need to be present for something to have mass. Would someone like to confirm that for me." As written you appear to be expressing an opinion which you hold confidently.

 

Black holes don't count if that's what you meant because they don't exist for any length of time unless viewed from a distance. I think that maybe the actual cause of gravity might be that the electrons create length contraction and time dilation that's angular, which works differently from linear velocity and it radiates outwards, pulling everything in.

The nuclei of all atoms have mass whether or not they are surrounded by electrons. Each neutron and proton in those nuclei has mass. I am bemused that you could be unaware of this.

 

If you haven't got anything constructive to say then piss off!

Do you have a mirror?

[A-wal]

What makes you think I sounded confident? That wasn't how it was meant. I know very little about particle physics because I haven't looked in to it, and wouldn't state anything about it confidently. It didn't interest me like relativity did. It was just an idea. You see I'm not scared of being wrong. I like it because it means I've learned something.

 

Yes I love mirrors. (:

 

 

[Ophiolite]

What makes you think I sounded confident? That wasn't how it was meant.

The expressions "I think", or "I don't think" are used by most people to indicate a high level of confidence in the assertion that follows. Examples:

 

I think plate subduction rates have remained in broadly the same ranges as we observe today.

I think gas giants require a terrestrial style core in order to form before T-Tauri activity expels the accretion disc gas cloud.

I think the fact that Mendel's work was overlooked for many decades can be primarily attributed to the obscure journal he published his results in.

 

I would never phrase these statements as, for example, "gas giants require a terrestrial style core in order to form before T-Tauri activity expels the accretion disc gas cloud." That allows for little disagreement. Inserting the "I think" introduces flexibility. It equates to "On the balance of the evidence and the thinking I have done on this subject I have reached the following provisional conclusion which I believe to be highly likely"

 

If I was not sure about the statement it would be phrased like this. "Is it true that gas giants require a terrestrial style core in order to form before T-Tauri activity expels the accretion disc gas cloud."

 

Therefore your posted statement "I don't think it's possible for something to have mass without electrons." came across as confident assertion with a high probability of truth.

[A-wal]

Okay, maybe I should be clearer when it's speculative. I'll try to do that in future. I should add that I'm not sure about the physical constants bit in the relativity thread where I also said 'I think'.

[Ophiolite]

Okay, maybe I should be clearer when it's speculative. I'll try to do that in future.

I think - actually I know - that could go a long way to removing some of the problems you've encountered in the past. You are still going to have your ideas attacked, but there will be more inclination to try to explain things to you.

Cheers

[Bignose]

An increase in the amount of neutrinos isn't really a fair test because we could only be using a fraction of the ones available to us under normal circumstances.

 

It is always a possibility. To really look into this, you need to propose a good mechanism for the interaction, and from that explain why we 'only use a fraction of the ones available'. And, again, as above, what this really needs is a quantitative prediction, not just a qualitative phrase like 'a fraction'.

[Dekan]

The OP might have a valid and valuable idea. Perhaps the human brain does work as a kind of lens. Like a magnifying lens, or "burning glass". In such a lens, the glass itself, doesn't do anything. It's just a lump of silica.

 

But what if you hold this silica lump up against the sun's rays. Then it serves to concentrate the solar rays. So they're focussed into a fierce hot point of solar energy. This energy can produce a dramatic effect at the focus. It will, for example, pop an ant into quick combustion (I speak for all childhood crouching lens-wielding formicides).

 

The point is that the glass lens by itself, doesn't generate any energy. It just picks up and concentrates energy from an external source.

 

Now A-wal refers to an aerial, or antenna. This seems quite a good analogy. Like in a radio-set. The radio has to pick up a signal coming in from outside, before it will function. The radio can't do anything by itself - it's just a box of transistors. Just as a lens is just a lump of glass.

 

They both need external energy in order to function. Then they can do wondrous things.

 

And it might be the same with the human brain. It's just a lump of organic mush, in that brilliant and memorable phrase. Can it really produce the wonders of human thought, without any external input?

 

 

 

[A-wal]

I'm not really sure how I can make a more quantative prediction than shooting mice away from the sun to see if their brains are affected in some way. There's no way to predict how far away they'd have to be before it become noticable or what their physical reactions would be, but at least it's a definite, if not precise prediction.

 

As for the actual mechanism, I'm out of my comfort zone here. It would obviously have to be something to do with the atoms in brain matter taking a small amount of energy/momentum from the neutrinos as they pass through, so there would have to be a reduction in at least some of the neutrinos relative velocities, but I'm not sure if this would be realistically measurable? I doubt it.

 

Edit: Hold on. If they don't have mass then they have to move at the speed of light. They'd just loose energy then. If I'd have used that logic with electrons I'd have know that they couldn't be responsible for mass in any way. So neutrinos are really just a form of light basically?

Edited October 13, 2012 by A-wal

[Moontanman]

The OP might have a valid and valuable idea. Perhaps the human brain does work as a kind of lens. Like a magnifying lens, or "burning glass". In such a lens, the glass itself, doesn't do anything. It's just a lump of silica.

 

You realize we are talking about neutrinos, by what mechanism could the human brain focus neutrinos?

 

But what if you hold this silica lump up against the sun's rays. Then it serves to concentrate the solar rays. So they're focussed into a fierce hot point of solar energy. This energy can produce a dramatic effect at the focus. It will, for example, pop an ant into quick combustion (I speak for all childhood crouching lens-wielding formicides).

 

The point is that the glass lens by itself, doesn't generate any energy. It just picks up and concentrates energy from an external source.

 

The point is that focusing neutrinos is not the same thing as focusing photons...

 

Now A-wal refers to an aerial, or antenna. This seems quite a good analogy. Like in a radio-set. The radio has to pick up a signal coming in from outside, before it will function. The radio can't do anything by itself - it's just a box of transistors. Just as a lens is just a lump of glass.

 

They both need external energy in order to function. Then they can do wondrous things.

 

And it might be the same with the human brain. It's just a lump of organic mush, in that brilliant and memorable phrase. Can it really produce the wonders of human thought, without any external input?

 

The human brain does receive external energy, it's called chemical energy ie food... Human thoughts are made by the brain, they do not come from an outside source. I see no reason to suggest human thoughts come from an outside source...

 

 

I'm not really sure how I can make a more quantative prediction than shooting mice away from the sun to see if their brains are affected in some way. There's no way to predict how far away they'd have to be before it become noticable or what their physical reactions would be, but at least it's a definite, if not precise prediction.

 

As for the actual mechanism, I'm out of my comfort zone here. It would obviously have to be something to do with the atoms in brain matter taking a small amount of energy/momentum from the neutrinos as they pass through, so there would have to be a reduction in at least some of the neutrinos relative velocities, but I'm not sure if this would be realistically measurable? I doubt it.

 

Edit: Hold on. If they don't have mass then they have to move at the speed of light. They'd just loose energy then. If I'd have used that logic with electrons I'd have know that they couldn't be responsible for mass in any way. So neutrinos are really just a form of light basically?

 

 

No, neutrinos are not just a form of light, light is made of photons, photons interact with matter quite readily, neutrinos do not readily interact with matter, in fact they almost never do... Most researchers think neutrinos do have a tiny amount of mass...

 

I want to ask, Why do you think some sort of outside source is needed for thoughts to begin with?

[A-wal]

I just think it makes sense. I know we get chemical energy but I find it slightly easier to believe that thoughts come from a high energy external source. The fact that they might have mass is very encouraging.

 

 

[Ringer]

I haven't seen this mentioned but there is nothing fundamentally different in a human's brain than, say, a mouse's brain. Sense a mouse has a larger neuronal density to body mass ratio they should be able to absorb more of the neutrinos and think much better than we do. If it isn't the ratio and only a matter of brain size, than a elephant or whale should be able to out smart us pretty easily.

[A-wal]

So what's the difference between a neutrino and a wimp then? Sounds like neutrinos are just high energy wimps.

 

I haven't seen this mentioned but there is nothing fundamentally different in a human's brain than, say, a mouse's brain. Sense a mouse has a larger neuronal density to body mass ratio they should be able to absorb more of the neutrinos and think much better than we do. If it isn't the ratio and only a matter of brain size, than a elephant or whale should be able to out smart us pretty easily.

You could apply that logic independently of this idea though, so it's not really relevant.

 

The OP might have a valid and valuable idea. Perhaps the human brain does work as a kind of lens. Like a magnifying lens, or "burning glass". In such a lens, the glass itself, doesn't do anything. It's just a lump of silica.

 

But what if you hold this silica lump up against the sun's rays. Then it serves to concentrate the solar rays. So they're focussed into a fierce hot point of solar energy. This energy can produce a dramatic effect at the focus. It will, for example, pop an ant into quick combustion (I speak for all childhood crouching lens-wielding formicides).

 

The point is that the glass lens by itself, doesn't generate any energy. It just picks up and concentrates energy from an external source.

 

Now A-wal refers to an aerial, or antenna. This seems quite a good analogy. Like in a radio-set. The radio has to pick up a signal coming in from outside, before it will function. The radio can't do anything by itself - it's just a box of transistors. Just as a lens is just a lump of glass.

 

They both need external energy in order to function. Then they can do wondrous things.

 

And it might be the same with the human brain. It's just a lump of organic mush, in that brilliant and memorable phrase. Can it really produce the wonders of human thought, without any external input?

I missed this before because it was just before I posted. Thanks for the support. (:

[mississippichem]

A-wal,

 

Ringer's comment IS relevant. He is using a modus tollens on you. He's showing that your hypothesis has implications, and those implications are absurd! So if your hypothesis (A) necessarily leads to Ringer's implication of your hypothesis (B), and it does, and B is false (it is) then A is necessarily false. Understand?

 

If animal brains are powered by solar neutrinos, then larger and denser brains (per animal body mass) will interact with more neutrinos (per animal body mass) and presumably be more "powered" (this is so silly I can't type it with a straight face). This ain't the case. Your hypothesis is false.

 

The only place you may have any recourse is were I said "presumably" above. I made an assumption that more neutrinos leads to more brain power. The only hope you have of not being falsified is if my assumption does not represent your hypothesis. I'm sure you'll say it doesn't because all the "evidence" you've presented thus far has required you to ignore physics and substitute it with your particular brand of gobeldy-gook deep fried insanity.

 

You may think I'm insulting you A-wal. Let me assure you that I am not. I'm merely frustrated that you've simply ignored the fact that there is NO WAY an appreciable amount of neutrinos can interact with biological tissue with a collision frequency comparable to the rate at which neurons fire in the brain. Have you ever read anything about neuroscience or neutrino physics? If not, you are insulting all of the hard working scientist and students who are striving to better those fields or who have already bettered it.

 

Science is not a: let's see who can make up the coolest story contest. That is just nonsense.

 

Do you want to be a pusher of nonsense or a collector of knowledge who is willing to learn from others? All of us who get paid to do science began as people who didn't know jack-shit and we learned from authoritative books and professionals. Please join us.

Edited October 14, 2012 by mississippichem

[A-wal]

[mississippichem]

 

Don't be angry. Just provide valid evidence. I have no hostility toward you friend. Your idea is just not so good.

Edited October 14, 2012 by mississippichem