Consciousness; power supply

[HydrogenBond]

Many analogies have been drawn between the brain/consciousness and computers. The one thing that all computers have in common is that they all need a power supply to operate. Without power even the best computer will stop working. The question becomes, if this analogy is correct, what is the power supply of consciousness?

 

To help answer this question, one needs to consider what it means to be brain dead; there are no brain waves. These brain waves are the cyclic firing of a wide range of neurons. The energy output due to background neuron firing, as reflected by the brain waves, is a reasonable source for the power supply of consciousness.

 

To eextrapolate this line of thinking further, when we sleep our conscious mind is often shut down. It may regain some level of consciousness in dreams but with limited functionality. This implies that the power supply of the ego is reduced during sleep. Dreams are not a bunch of random firings of neurons. This conclusion is one of the primary thesis of the science of psycho-analysis. Dreams have been shown to have symbolic meaning that can help the ego overcome neurosis, etc.. What the directed purpose of dreams implies is that at the lower brain power of sleep, there is still an unconscious consciousness at work, called the inner self. If there is a little extra power generated beyond the sleep background level, i.e., via the inner self inducing dreams, the ego can become partially conscious in their dreams.

 

The sensory systems all fire, loosely analogous to neurons, when gathering sensory data. The current output from the firing of the sensory systems, flows into the brain, as axun signals. These cause dentrites within the sensory cortex to fire. This induced cerebral firing increases the background power level of the brain allowing the ego more power and functionality, such as occurs during the day. At night during sleep, the sensory organs fire much less, lowering the power level of the brain and the ego.

 

It has been estimated that the brain operates at about 80-100 watts. With the ego controling up to 10% of the brain, the ego's daytime power supply might be in the order of 10 watts. At night this wattage will drop.

 

Merry Christmas

[Turtle]

___I have noticed that during periods of intense sedentary study, I burn as many calories as I do during periods of intense physical exertion. I only realized this when my diet didn't change while taking a full load of classes & my weight started dropping dramatically. I remedied the situation by eating more.:)

 

PS Happy New Year

[questor]

HB, i would like some elaboration on your treatise or summation of brain activity. could i read the source of your information? i would think that brain cells work off the same energy sources as other cells in the body and need rest to eliminate waste products of metabolism or reconstitute their energy stores. sleep affords this rest period and the low power activity during sleep may be controlled more by the parasympathetic nervous system.

[GAHD]

Yeah, but if i remember correctly (Help me here Racoon) the brain and nervous system in general can only burn glucose, while your muscles and organs can live off of other stuff (like protein) but burn glucose first. Isn't that what causes 'the burn', the lactic acid retarding the processing of glucose in the body when blood levels get criticaly low??

[questor]

Google KREBS CYCLE for a full explanation of energy production and cell activity.

[HydrogenBond]

All cells burn food materials via their metabolism to create ATP energy, which is used to drive cell dynamics. The power supply for consciousness is one step removed from metabolism, and appears to more connected to the firing of neurons and movement of cationic currents within the brain. The metabolic energy is used to restore the status quo. A lot of neuron firing can burn a lot of calories, but much of this firing is down potential of the ego and will not contribute to its power supply. The ego's up potential position allows it to fire lower potential neurons.

[Zilali]

The brain cells or neurons obtain energy like every other cells by splitting ATP into ADP and P which like questor said is made in the kreb cycle.

 

However a current is not generated directly by the hydrolysis of ATP but the energy is used in moving sodium and potassium ion in and out the neuron by active transport. As a potential difference is made the neuron has the chance to depolarise and pass on an impulse in the form of an elctrical current

[billg]

Many analogies have been drawn between the brain/consciousness and computers. The one thing that all computers have in common is that they all need a power supply to operate. Without power even the best computer will stop working. The question becomes, if this analogy is correct, what is the power supply of consciousness?

 

Yeaaaaaargh.

 

I don't think it's fair to directly equate the brain to consciousness. I consider consciousness to be a property of the brain, rather than the brain itself, analagous to the way a magnetic field is the property of a magnet, but it's not a magnet.

 

As a property of a complex system, consciousness does not directly need a power source. But it does need the brain, and the brain, in order to be an active and changing organ that "generates" consciousness, does need power. The electrical activity of the brain, as well as the chemical activity, is powered by chemical processes; that is the breakdown of fuel (i.e. glucose) to generate energy to do the work required.

 

Not all the activity that constitutes thought is electrical. In fact, electrical signals operate only down the length of a neuron. Between neurons, chemicals called neurotransmitters bridge the gap and trigger and electrical signal in the next neuron. Individual neurons do not have thought, so thought is made of the larger and more complex interactions between neurons as a result of both electrical and chemical transmission. The brain/computer analogy is one that, while still recognised as a valuable research method, is increasingly being criticised as oversimplifying the incredibly complex organis processes of the brain.

 

Not entirely relevant anymore, but:

 

Dreams are not a bunch of random firings of neurons. This conclusion is one of the primary thesis of the science of psycho-analysis. Dreams have been shown to have symbolic meaning that can help the ego overcome neurosis

 

This "conclusion" of the "science" of psychoanalysis is based on the rather arbitrary and unscientific ideas of Freud, who while being valuable as a philosopher of mind, was not really a scientist and had a LOT of a crazy (and unsubstantiated) ideas. Dreams have not "been shown to have symbolic meaning that can help the ego overcome neurosis". The "ego" is another Freudian idea without even a clear definition let alone a scientific basis, and there is no empirical evidence that dreams are symbolic and can help to overcome neuroses.

[InfiniteNow]

Some interesting concepts:

 

NOVA - The Electric Brain

Power of a Human Brain

Energy Limits to the computational power of the human brain

[HydrogenBond]

The way I look at it, it is estimated that we (ego consciousness) uses 10% of the brain. The other 90% is not brain dead, but is functional but at an unconscious level. It is not too far fetched to assume that this other 90% of the brain, which the 10% is striving for, is a little more potent than the ego's mere 10%.

 

Innovation, "Eureka!", happens when the unconscious mind's 90% bubbles something into consciousness and consciousness is able to translate the hunch into something practical. Dreams are one such source. The practical problem is learning the language of the unconscious so these can make sense and be useful.

 

A good analogy would be like asking someone directions and having them give the directions in a unknown foreign language. The needed info could be very accurate, but it might seem useless, but only because one's inability to translate. I guess if dreams spoke in plain English, their value would be easier to see.

[billg]

The way I look at it, it is estimated that we (ego consciousness) uses 10% of the brain. The other 90% is not brain dead, but is functional but at an unconscious level. It is not too far fetched to assume that this other 90% of the brain, which the 10% is striving for, is a little more potent than the ego's mere 10%.

 

Innovation, "Eureka!", happens when the unconscious mind's 90% bubbles something into consciousness and consciousness is able to translate the hunch into something practical. Dreams are one such source. The practical problem is learning the language of the unconscious so these can make sense and be useful.

 

A good analogy would be like asking someone directions and having them give the directions in a unknown foreign language. The needed info could be very accurate, but it might seem useless, but only because one's inability to translate. I guess if dreams spoke in plain English, their value would be easier to see.

 

I agree, largely. But the parts of our brain that are preconscious do perform different tasks than the "ego" part in the frontal lobes. For example, a large part of our brain is devoted entirely to processing visual data, so photons hitting out eyes turn into shapes, movements, colours, objects, and environments. While "hunches" certainly exist, I expect they too are generated in a particular part of the brain that's closely associated with and possibly a part of the frontal lobe - limbic system of the brain. It might be that the difference between a hunch and a reasoned, conscious thought is simply a matter of attention, and it might be that the amount of power the mind has for developing hunches is considerably less than that of conscious thought. And those hunches will only be as valid as our normal conscious mind, which we all know makes plenty of mistakes on its own. I just think the brain does so much already that there's no need to attribute such an optimistic value to the part of the mind that's lower in the scale of consciousness.

[InfiniteNow]

I just think the brain does so much already that there's no need to attribute such an optimistic value to the part of the mind that's lower in the scale of consciousness.

Which is more powerful... the big machine that organizes all of the electricity or the collection of 10^x particles which make it all possible?

[billg]

I'm gonna say the big machine, because if you're going to differentiate between the two then you've got to mean the 10^x particles on their own, whereas the big machine is not just those particles, it's also the relationships between them, and that's why the big machine is capable of so much more than a similar mass that's disordered.

[InfiniteNow]

I'm gonna say the big machine, because if you're going to differentiate between the two

then you've got to mean the 10^x particles on their own

, whereas the big machine is not just those particles, it's also the relationships between them, and that's why the big machine is capable of so much more than a similar mass that's disordered.

Thanks billg... Great explanation of your point, but, nope. It 'twas the "collection of particles" to which I referred.

[billg]

I don't get it it then. So you mean the same thing by "collection of particles" and by "the big machine"?