More on the Speed of Thought

[KIFIS]

Stagger:

As a layman with no scientific background I am having great difficulty in accepting that you say thought travels at only 432km/hour. I keep thinking that perhaps thoughts are only associated with neuronal activity if they ( the thoughts) are called upon to make something happen ie. thought tells brain to move big toe. This sequence perhaps moves along at 432km/hour. But surely it must be a different story if the thought just stays in the brain and only changes itself from one thought to another. It seems to me that this is instantaneous and I would go as far as to suggest that it might even be faster than the speed of light. If so, then it would be the only known occurrence that travels at such a speed ???

KIFIS

P.S. Icarus, what do you think ?

[gaunty]

KIFIS
Now that IS an interesting question.

Is this chemistry v metaphysics?

My memory, or "bunch of chemicals" tells me there is research on the "speed" of chemical reactions.
Do they, the chemical reactions, work at a quantum level as well as the atomic or molecular. If so, then there is evidence that suggests that all matter is part of a infinitely large fabric with instantaneous comms across "it".

Light may well have to take a back seat as just another electromagnetic phenomena to whatever "it" is. The latest research on the Big Bang suggests that the "speed" of light was different then to now and we may have to rethink our perception of what we call "age".

Now I need to go have a Bex, a cuppa tea and a good lie down.

As Obi Wan would tell us, "the answer is there for us to see, we must only know how to look"

[KIFIS]

Gaunty: greetings on our first contact.

I’ve been thinking about the speed of thought for years but have never found anyone to discuss it with. I’ve actually convinced myself it is faster than the speed of light yet I haven’t a scrap of scientific knowledge to back this up.
Stagger and Icarus both have some good ideas about the subject but unfortunately the moderator is not too keen on letting us discuss it. Perhaps this time he may feel in a gracious mood or perhaps he may even be away on a flight.

KIFIS

[stagger]

First a message to the moderators – the speed with which someone can react to a novel event when manually controlling a fast moving object (e.g. an aircraft) clearly depends on the speed of thought. Consequently, this topic is relevant – e.g. stop/go decisions close to V1. Please don’t delete!

[Grainger]

'Fraid not guys.

Neuronal activity in the brain consists of electrical impulses generated by flow of sodium and potassium ions across neuronal membranes.

For sure the ions are travelling at far far less than the speed of light

Neuron firing rates are typically milliseconds so unless your brain is 300 kilometres across you haven't got a leg to stand on so to speak.

[stagger]

KFIS - the brain is a big bundle of highly interconnected neurons. Communication between neurons in the brain involves similar processes to those involved in communication between neurons in the peripheral nervous system. Signals (action potentials) travel along long projections (axons) from the cell bodies. These projections form connections (synapses) with other neurons. At these synapses the arrival of an action potential causes chemicals (neurotransmitters) to be released into the gap between the two cells. These either stimulate or inhibit the generation of a new action potential in the post-synaptic neuron. So the speed at which action potentials propagate, and the speed of the chemical reactions that occur at synapses, are both constraints on the "speed of thought" assuming you accept that neuronal activity = thought.

[gaunty]

KIFIS
Hi I'm sure we've met before.

Stagger 'n Grainger
Yeah we know about the synaptic chemistry thingy but as you say it assumes that neuronal activity = thought.

We can demonstrate chemically that neuronal action = reaction, but I don't recall it being demonstrated in regard to "thought".
If it is possible to "think" without actually "doing" anything, ie synaptic neuronal activity causing something to "happen" then what constraint is present.

One only needs to study the development of primer cord to understand that "speed" in terms chemical is but a relative term.
Instantaneous comms via primer cord over a km or more?

Like KIFIS I think that there is more to "thought" than mere synaptic chemistry.

[stagger]

The brain is an information processing machine and when lay-people use the term "thought" they are generally referring to those aspects of the information processing that are accessible to introspection. When you refer to thought that occurs when you’re not actually “doing” anything I assume you mean information processing that doesn’t immediately lead to some sort of motor output. Well, it’s certainly possible to demonstrate that there is neural activity associated with this sort of processing using various techniques (e.g. EEG, EMG, PET, fMRI).

Is there more to thought than “mere” synaptic chemistry? Well of course, how information is processed depends on how the connections are arranged into a network.

[ 18 August 2001: Message edited by: stagger ]

[A Very Civil Pilot]

When I was under line training my speed of though was 432 kmh. Shame the a/c was doing 450 kmh, which explains rather alot.

[Mr moto]

I wonder if there isn't a difference between what we call 'thought' and what we might call 'inspiration', the former being what goes on in our heads all the time and the latter being the complete idea, finished, coming to us in a flash.

Furthermore, in the accounts of psychics and others 'in the know' so to speak, telepathy is something which seems to take this form. Rather than being a language based communication it is a complete message/picture being received.

Also refered to earlier, the bond between particles which assures that the more accurately you measure the properties of one particle the less you can know of the other. I believe it is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory otherwise known as 'action at a distance'.

I was sorry to had to drop out of the previous debate but I got married last week. I had mentioned that Richard Bach had some interesting ideas on the subject at a more philosophical level in his book 'ONE'.
For a more scientific view I recommend 'In Search of Schrodinger's Cat' by John Gribbon.

Any other literature worth a read?

[CAT MAN]

Moderator ...Where are you?????

[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: TR3 ]

[gaunty]

TR3
For somebody who professes their interests as "everything" perhaps you already know the answer. You couldn't help enlighten us praps.

[Icarus]

I believe the essence of KIFIS's question is with regard to thoughts and not the reaction to a thought, so I 'think' we can dispose of chemical reactions and electrical charge pulses as the basis for the 'speed of thought'.
I would hazard a guess at the need to focus more on 'conciousness' if we are to attempt to understand the process behind the creation of a thought and the time that process takes.
I for one believe that we create thoughts at a far greater speed that that of light (if we are to accept that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant at 299'792'458 m/s (metres per second)).
Contemporary physics states that no object should be able to travel faster than the speed of light, are thoughts objects?

[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: Icarus ]

[Icarus]

Having quite a slow day at work today so I have been giving this some more (concious)thought and would like to postulate;

I believe it may be reasonable to class a thought as a wave function, in which case we could take a 'Schroedinger' approach to the whole thing.

i.e. a concious thought is the thought that has been observed which leaves all other thoughts as being 'crashed wave functions'.

Logically the next step would be to say that, at any one moment in time all possible thoughts exist and once one (mind) becomes aware of a thought all the other (possible) thoughts die, to be reborn again once the concious thought led to some kind of (physical/chemical) action (reaction).

There must exists therefore at anyone time in any one 'mind' an infinitesimal number of possible thoughts. When one becomes aware of a thought (through conciousness) then [infinity-1] thoughts have crashed simultaneaously.
The questions that arise are;
How long does it take for a wave-function to crash?
How do you measure the speed of something that does not actually (physically) travel?

In conclusion I would offer the speed of thought as:

1/[infinity-1], which is infinitesimally small; whatever the unit of measurement and is therefore far greater than the speed of light (which is finite).

[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: Icarus ]

[stagger]

Why bother with neuroscience when you can come up with speculative theories about how the mind works sitting at home in the comfort of your own armchairs? Who needs to talk about all those synapses, neurotransmitters, and neural networks when there are crashed wave functions to think about? Who needs to do experimental work when you’ve got an active imagination? Pity those poor fools who actually work in the behavioural and brain sciences and are involved in the serious job of finding out how the brain actually works. They just don’t get it do they?

[KIFIS]

Grainger and Stagger:
I have to agree with Gaunty that your assumptions are based on the fact that neuronal activity is a requirement for thought. Perhaps thought does not require that ever so slow process involving ions and membranes and if you accept this then it is a distinct possibility that thought could exceed the speed of light. Icarus raises a very interesting question when he asks if , quote: “ Are thoughts objects ? “ unquote. If thoughts are not objects then the old formula does not apply and the argument for the speed of light is enhanced.

Icarus:
You’ve managed to put into good prose exactly what I was trying to say. I feel Grainger and Stagger are referring to the chemical process. I think of thought as an entirely enclosed reaction. I don’t know where it’s enclosed or how it’s enclosed but I do know it’s awfully fast. To include consciousness as you suggest may make a difficult issue even more complicated.

Gaunty:
You are possibly right, we may have met, especially if you flew in South East Asia.
It’s a small world that we of aviation are privileged to be part of.

KIFIS

P.S. Icarus: I wrote this just before reading your latest and I am impressed but I am not enlighten. It's kind of baffling but you've got me thinking.

[Icarus]

KIFIS, you are too kind. I am but a humble being thinking too deeply!

Stagger, it appears as though you have some kind of a scientific background. Perhasp you would care to read through this:
http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Fall98/close9802.html

I think I have good grounds for what I said earlier (which by the way is my own work, as I have just found this whilst searching the web in retort to your 'attack' of sarcasm).

[stagger]

Icarus, I do indeed have some kind of scientific background. To lay my cards on the table - I have a PhD in experimental psychology and have done teaching in neuropsychology, neuroanatomy, sociobiology and cognitive neuroscience. So yes – I’ve been trained in the “current paradigm” which you seem to believe is so misguided.

KFIS, is neuronal activity is a requirement for thought? Well, thought tends to be restricted to things that possess neurons - i.e. humans, dogs, cats, mice etc. Rocks, tables and bowls of soup don't do much thinking. Moreover the processes involved in thought tend to be localised within those parts of an organism that contain bundles of neurons. Chopping off someone’s leg doesn’t tend to impair their ability to think all that much – but circumscribed lesions to specific areas of the human brain tend to produce specific cognitive deficits. Experimentally if you chop out chunks of an organism's brain this will tend to restrict its ability to think in fairly predictable ways – i.e. there is a certain amount of functional localisation within the central nervous system. Finally, by blocking specific aspects of neuronal functioning at the cellular level it is possible to interfere with specific aspects of cognitive functioning. All in all there’s pretty compelling evidence that neurons are a requirement for thought.

[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: stagger ]

[Icarus]

I don't believe I have said anything is mis-guided have I?
All I have done is put forward my opinion/thoughts/theory whatever you wish to call it (them).
I haven't seen anything else that offers as much to think about. All you seem to have done is lower the tone of what is an interesting topic and one deserving respect and where appropriate respectful critique.

[THUD]

Not sure where, but I believe I read an article by some bigwig claiming that
the _mind_ is much more complex than we ever believed because it is a quantum
computer. ie: all the neurons are _entangled_ (as electrons are entangled in
a quantum computer to create qubits). Thus the mind is capable of incredible
things because it has unbelievably parallel computation capabilities.
Interesting, no?

Also, these pilots seem to be forgetting that a thought is not just a single
neuron firing, but thousands/millions. The brain is just like a parallel
computer, which is only partially limited by the speed of communication
amongst its nodes (neurons). A thought (or program) executes (exists) in all
of the nodes (neurons) at once, and not on any specific one. So, trying to
come up with a 'speed of thought' is pretty useless. All that matters is the
external point of view - what actions the person takes based on his thoughts,
and how fast they occur. And, as pointed out, they are on the order of
milliseconds.

Perhaps you can compare our senses to peripherals in computers - we are
limited by how fast data flows from our senses to our brain, just as
computers are limited by how fast data flows from its memory/nic/harddisk to
its cpu. So in the end, the speed of thought is dictated partly by its cpu
(brain), but is completely limited to the speed of its peripherals (senses).
Our brains cannot act if they don't have the information, can they?