Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
FlyingAngel

Thoughts and neurons

17 posts in this topic

So human's brain has a limited number of neurons. Thoughts are electric-chemical that run through neurons to neurons. Is it possible to have an unlimited different thoughts? It seems not because we have a limited number of set of possible possible. But what if our neurons is created and destroyed continuously in time? That make the set of possible path always change.

Another question. Is it possible to think about something, some action or some decision that you never done, never thought about; that it never existed in a book, a film or that no one, no animal have every thought about? If yes, what's the method to achieve it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Carl Sagan in his book the dragons of eden and in his series cosmos explains this using bits. Im currently holding the book in my hand but it is too much of a drag to write the information I am refering, if you look for it in pdf format it is on pages 24 and 25 on chapter 2.

Edit: Sorry, in that case he talks specifically about dna, but the book is all about the human brain so if your interested

Edited by Palmy-Ra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The neurons are too many different figures are quoted by experts,

But connections can have several patterns ,permutations and combinations,

The unconcious captures information continuously, We are only semiaware of the concious mind,

The ability to watch our thoughts till the awareness increases can help ,i say that on my own experience,If we can

watch our thoughts we can have greater creative power,Energy gets wasted in random thoughts,

clear mind has greater power to create original ideas ,retful minds can achieve more,

the strong desire to explore the mind can unravel hidden potential..................... Just my opinion

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another question. Is it possible to think about something, some action or some decision that you never done, never thought about; that it never existed in a book, a film or that no one, no animal have every thought about? If yes, what's the method to achieve it.

I'm not sure that this is possible. Our minds are full of what we have learned and observed. In the arts we can create something original, but but it will always be familiar in some way. In science we can discover something new, but all discoveries have antecedents from which their are extensions of.

There have always been some new form of music being created that had not been heard before. Jazz, Big Band, Rock and Roll, new genres of music being developed, but all of these are an evolution of something that had come before.

If there were a method to create something totally new I'd like to learn what it is. I think even if we met some aliens from another star system, their culture would not be totally unique.

I think the problem with today's culture is everything has already been done. All we have now are variations of what we have accomplished in the past. I've not seen any new revolutions in the arts or in society in general in the past 30 years or so. I think the last Big Thing culturally was the music of the late '60's and '70's.

I've been waiting for the next Big Thing to happen but now I think it's no longer possible. Unless someone comes up with a method, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If we look at it the same way as StarMountainKid, which I agree with to a certain point, then everything already has an antecedent which will begin with nature, all ideas are evolution of other ideas and this goes on and on until we get to the point where an idea started with something related to nature.

Himalyanmistic is right, there are different types of neurons, each with their own purpose, the information that we get and that is stored in our brains is thanks to their interconnections with each other and the synapses along with different flow of chemicals in different parts of the brain. Creativity can be considered a cognitive function and at the same time it would be a result of other mixed cognitive functions if we take these to the biological point of view

Edited by Alekx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So human's brain has a limited number of neurons. Thoughts are electric-chemical that run through neurons to neurons. Is it possible to have an unlimited different thoughts? It seems not because we have a limited number of set of possible possible. But what if our neurons is created and destroyed continuously in time? That make the set of possible path always change.

How different? Many thoughts are related or related to things you have experienced.

How would you have unlimited thoughts within a limited amount of time?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

flyingangel, unlimited or countless?

On the second question,

We believe that infants are born with expectations about the objects around them, even though that knowledge is a skill that's never been taught. As the child develops, this knowledge is refined and eventually leads to the abilities we use as adults.

http://www.scienceda...20124113051.htm

There's also this theory that babies are born with infinite knowledge but fall out of it when they start to talk. Not sure where i read about it but i'm sure i watched a movie based on it.

Edited by goodconversations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's also this theory that babies are born with infinite knowledge but fall out of it when they start to talk. Not sure where i read about it but i'm sure i watched a movie based on it.

As ridiculous as that sounds wouldn't infinite knowledge include knowledge of how to communicate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As ridiculous as that sounds wouldn't infinite knowledge include knowledge of how to communicate?

Indeed! And they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Indeed! And they do.

And yet they can't communicate this infinite knowledge. How convenient.

If babies possess infinite knowledge, learning is rather redundant.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How different? Many thoughts are related or related to things you have experienced.

How would you have unlimited thoughts within a limited amount of time?

Different as it never existed before. For example we have computers today, but 100 years ago, no one know what the heck it is. In term of neurons and atoms, it's different because it's not the same set of neurons. Within a set of neurons, there is a limited path for electricity to run from point A and B, and probably in circle.

Like with the set of neurons (A,B):

(A,B) => AAABBABABBAAB.... (infinity)

If you cut down into different pieces:

AA, BB, AB, BA is a set of 2 characters that keep on repeating. Analogically, call it the number of possible combination or the number of different thoughts possible.

But, AAA, BBB, AAB, ... is another set but with 3 characters. They may look similar because of A and B (is what you called "related to things you have experienced") but the outcome is a different thought.

It's a completely different thought if you inject another character C in the set.

Time is limited yes because we can die, but within our lifetime, neurons are created and destroyed constantly, thus the set. Imagine if you inject a millions of different characters into the set like above, how much different thoughts would you have?

I think this is the power of the brain that we are unable to unlock. The electricity of our brain keep running from point A to point Z without searching for another new path.

flyingangel, unlimited or countless?

Seems unlimited to me, and it's also countless by humans

Edited by FlyingAngel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Agree with RIyeh, plus babys brains are known to still be in development process after birth, are you referring this infinite knowledge as literally to know everything about anything?

It is actually more important the interconnections between neurons than the number of neurons itself because of synapses, that's how electrical information is transmitted. The regeneration of neurons is not even a well known fact yet, if you look at various books about neurocience you will most likely find they do not regenerate but you look at update sourced you'll find that they really do regenerate

Edited by Alekx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different as it never existed before. For example we have computers today, but 100 years ago, no one know what the heck it is. In term of neurons and atoms, it's different because it's not the same set of neurons. Within a set of neurons, there is a limited path for electricity to run from point A and B, and probably in circle.

You realise computers are based on concepts that existed centuries before? Kind of the whole mathematics thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And yet they can't communicate this infinite knowledge. How convenient.

If babies possess infinite knowledge, learning is rather redundant.

Agree with RIyeh, plus babys brains are known to still be in development process after birth, are you referring this infinite knowledge as literally to know everything about anything?

In that sense i suppose you're right. However, here are some links that discuss other senses:

http://www.psycholog...1/brainy-babies

http://www.ted.com/c...t_memories.html

http://www.abovetops...hread544315/pg1

http://www.godlikepr...ssage516208/pg1

http://www.yougabspo...Babies/blog.htm

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

And here's the opposite:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Tabula_rasa

Edited by goodconversations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that sense i suppose you're right. However, here are some links that discuss other senses

(first time quoting, hope I did it right lol)

You got that right goodconversations, even if they are still in development, there are still theories and investigations going on about a baby's memories, which you are some that you listed there. I'd like to focus specially on the first and last link that supports the theories about babies knowing things.

The articles tell us about babies knowing basic things such as the inability for solid objects to go through walls, corporal and sign language, some social interactions and such. Though it's true that they seem to know these things, I think they are due to intelligence. All cognitive abilities together is what forms intelligence, so I think is valid to say that babies use intelligence because they are using natural cognitive abilities to know these things, being this said, I dont think it's knowledge, I think its because of natural capacities using enviornment to produce the first knowledge.

Remember, knowledge is only a small part of intelligence, the rest is brain development, which is the most likely reason why people are naturally more good on certain subjects than others. UM has featured news articles about IQ not determining actual intelligence. Here is the latest one: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html

I'd also like to add that primitive reflexes are a related example of what I'm saying. Thanks for the links :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(first time quoting, hope I did it right lol)

You got that right goodconversations, even if they are still in development, there are still theories and investigations going on about a baby's memories, which you are some that you listed there. I'd like to focus specially on the first and last link that supports the theories about babies knowing things.

The articles tell us about babies knowing basic things such as the inability for solid objects to go through walls, corporal and sign language, some social interactions and such. Though it's true that they seem to know these things, I think they are due to intelligence. All cognitive abilities together is what forms intelligence, so I think is valid to say that babies use intelligence because they are using natural cognitive abilities to know these things, being this said, I dont think it's knowledge, I think its because of natural capacities using enviornment to produce the first knowledge.

Remember, knowledge is only a small part of intelligence, the rest is brain development, which is the most likely reason why people are naturally more good on certain subjects than others. UM has featured news articles about IQ not determining actual intelligence. Here is the latest one: http://www.independe...ds-8425911.html

I'd also like to add that primitive reflexes are a related example of what I'm saying. Thanks for the links :)

Neat quoting :)

How do you define cognitition? What are the "natural capcities using environment"? How do intelligence and cognition relate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you define cognitition? What are the "natural capcities using environment"? How do intelligence and cognition relate?

Good question :)

Cognition are mental processes with which beings adquire information and/or manage learning new thin ( cognitive mental processes; also : a product of these processes) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognition) Within these processes we can find learning, attention, memory, problem solving, decision making, observation, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/f/cogpsych.htm

Since these are mental activities, the amount of usage of these abilities affect intelligence, specially problem solving, so they constitute a big part of it. In fact, Howard Gardner has a interesting theory about people with different natural skills and how they relate to this, his theory about multiple intelligences http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm

As for babies and the environment. They seem to use these primal cognitive abilitites to recognize logical things via observation and/or simple reasoning, one can have a good idea about this with Piaget's theory, who studied babies behavior as a root for grown human's behavior (though many aspects may have already "expired" it's a good basis) http://psychology.about.com/od/piagetstheory/a/keyconcepts.htm

One more thing I'd like to add is that is thought that babies begin to use their brain independently soon after their brain is developed which happens to be one of the first organ-developments but sensory systems develop later, here's some info http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm It is attributed to these how babies can recognize the voice of their mother and also music tones, voice tones, emotions, etc (though this is not 100% proven I think) http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97635&page=2#.UWGx-6L-Hg8 The article states that babies can recognize sounds in differente languages but start loosing this when they begin to grow up, Myabe they do have e keen hearing by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.