[extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain

[Adrian Tymes]

--- A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
> But even when taking into
> account this brain lag period
> , the outside stimulus (eg. a red light bulb) must be initiated by a
> single or a few neurons,

"A few" may be the root of your misunderstanding.  There are many many
many neurons in each eye alone.  It is the combination of them, firing
in close proximity, that is the initial signal.

Think of it like a computer screen - say, 800*600 pixels.  (Which is
probably coarser resolution than the eye can get - 1000*1000 might be
more like it - but just for visualization's sake.)  One red pixel, or
a few, would not by themselves suggest a red light source.  But place
those pixels in context of a larger picture (taking up at least 10*10
if not 100*100 pixels), and all of the picture's pixels can conspire to
suggest a red light source (even if only a few of them are actually
red; maybe others nearby are reddish, or black to suggest there's no
other light in the picture).  But that's 100 or 10,000 - hardly just a
few.

> IOW, how can a red light bulb (or the "present moment")

...actually, that gets even more complex.  Most human beings' present
moments are inherently colored by their extremely recent memory.  E.g.,
what was there a second ago?  If a second ago there was red light to
my front left and now it is to my front right, my present moment might
include the observation that said light is moving.  (Granted, there is
almost certainly a "first moment" where there is no previous memory.
But getting thoughts, memories, et al together into the level of
consciousness that anyone reading this has, is a process that takes
years; the first conscious moment thus has previous moments of sensory
data to draw upon.)

> And after it has done so, how
> does 
> the mind "recall" the activation pathway that has led to its current
> state?

There have been many studies on the biomechanics of memory, but - the
brain's current state is its current state.  Which includes any
inertia, buildup of charges, et cetera.

> The only answer I
> had come up with seems a little more far-fetched:
> 
> some kind of simultaneous quantum computing.

There's possibly some of that too.  Certainly, the various neurons of
the brain do their computations simultaneously.  Whether or not the
neurons count as "quantum" computers (given their sensitivity to
chemical and electrical levels, arguably at levels that can be
practically effected by natural quantum phenomena) is another story.

(It may play in that any given neuron - or more precisely, any given
ion gate or other component that makes up a neuron - doesn't
necessarily alter its state each Planck interval.  Instead, it has a
probability of altering its state, depending on relevant factors like
the proximity of certain neurotransmitters and the surrounding electric
charge.  Extensive redundancy helps prevent extremely unusual events,
like the simultaneous firing of all neurons at once, from happening
even once during the lifespan of any given brain, and in minimizing the
damage to the system when such things do happen.  Even so, some people
do go crazy or catatonic for no adequately explained reason; this could
be a factor in some of those cases.)