Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
A Small Place to Start: Some Thoughts About Thoughts
A Small Place to Start: Some Thoughts About Thoughts: "I was thinking about an article I read about brain activity. How certain parts of the brain become active and create our thinking process. ..."
Some Thoughts About Thoughts
I was thinking about an article I read about brain activity. How certain parts of the brain become active and create our thinking process. What struck me was that there was no mention in this article about what causes brain activity, with the exception of other brain activity.
Science, I always thought, was about cause and effect. As an engineer I was trained in cause and effect relationships. For example, if I observe some electrical activity in a radio circuit (other than the affect of oscillators, which carry no intelligence)I can assume that what caused the activity was some kind of external radio signal.
In the case of the radio, any electrical activity is caused by a source external to the radio (even if it is atmospheric noise). I naturally thought that there could be a similar explanation for the activity observed in the brain. That contrary to current brain theory, brain activity is caused by a source external to the brain.
I considered an example of what people would have thought several hundreds of years ago if I had a radio and another person a remote radio transmitter that my radio could receive. If people of that time heard a voice coming from my radio (from the person at the transmitter) they would most likely assume that there was a tiny person inside my radio (for which I would have probably been burned as a witch).
The point I am trying to make here is that the people of that era would not consider that what caused the voice in the radio actually originated at a source external to the radio. That it would be natural to them to assume the radio itself was the source of the voice and not an actual receiver of external information. People would make this conclusion because they would have no knowledge of what a radio transmitter was or its relationship to a radio receiver.
I think that folks of today in the brain sciences also make the same assumption, that the source of what they observe is the brain itself and not the result of some external influence that the brain activity is simply reflecting. I believe they do this because they have no idea of the existence of an external source that would cause such activity.
I could post a theory of brain transmitters (like radio transmitters) and then see if this theory has any utility in the brain sciences. Keep in mind that a theory, in and of itself, does not have to be accurate to be useful. There are many examples of this in science, where for example, the Bohr theory of the atom is not a correct model but serves very well in predicting chemical and electrical phenomena.
So the point here is not if the proposed theory is correct but if the theory has utility in explaining and predicting observed brain phenomena and perhaps even human awareness and behavior. In its simplest form the theory states that brain activity is caused by one or more sources external to the brain.
For example, when a person is in a coma our theory would say that the source for that person's brain activity is no in tune with the brain (like changing the dial on a radio away from a transmitting station). That person's body still functions, and with external care can continue to function (just like our radio can still be active but not receiving any signals).
Our theory could also be used to explain why a person in a coma has no memory of the event. This would be because there was no external source to use the brain's memory capabilities. We could conclude, using our new theory, that the external source makes use of the body's capabilities when the brain is in tune with that source. That when the brain is not in tune with that source, the body still functions but its capabilities to respond to the environment are severely limited (perhaps to automatically catching an object, or other base activity).
So now the question becomes is it important in this theory to identify the source? I don't think it is, because any attempt to do so could result in great controversy and distract us from the utility of the theory itself. Suffice it to say that the Theory simply states that brain activity (the kind associated with awareness) is cause by a Source external to the brain.
The next question that comes up is what is the transmission medium between the Source and the Brain? Again, I don't think this is important because our point is not to prove the accuracy of the theory but to simply see if it has utility in explaining and predicting observed brain phenomena.
I hope this short essay produces an essential discussion concerning an important topic of our quest to understand what we observe. I hope others find this some kind of a positive contribution to that better understanding.
Science, I always thought, was about cause and effect. As an engineer I was trained in cause and effect relationships. For example, if I observe some electrical activity in a radio circuit (other than the affect of oscillators, which carry no intelligence)I can assume that what caused the activity was some kind of external radio signal.
In the case of the radio, any electrical activity is caused by a source external to the radio (even if it is atmospheric noise). I naturally thought that there could be a similar explanation for the activity observed in the brain. That contrary to current brain theory, brain activity is caused by a source external to the brain.
I considered an example of what people would have thought several hundreds of years ago if I had a radio and another person a remote radio transmitter that my radio could receive. If people of that time heard a voice coming from my radio (from the person at the transmitter) they would most likely assume that there was a tiny person inside my radio (for which I would have probably been burned as a witch).
The point I am trying to make here is that the people of that era would not consider that what caused the voice in the radio actually originated at a source external to the radio. That it would be natural to them to assume the radio itself was the source of the voice and not an actual receiver of external information. People would make this conclusion because they would have no knowledge of what a radio transmitter was or its relationship to a radio receiver.
I think that folks of today in the brain sciences also make the same assumption, that the source of what they observe is the brain itself and not the result of some external influence that the brain activity is simply reflecting. I believe they do this because they have no idea of the existence of an external source that would cause such activity.
I could post a theory of brain transmitters (like radio transmitters) and then see if this theory has any utility in the brain sciences. Keep in mind that a theory, in and of itself, does not have to be accurate to be useful. There are many examples of this in science, where for example, the Bohr theory of the atom is not a correct model but serves very well in predicting chemical and electrical phenomena.
So the point here is not if the proposed theory is correct but if the theory has utility in explaining and predicting observed brain phenomena and perhaps even human awareness and behavior. In its simplest form the theory states that brain activity is caused by one or more sources external to the brain.
For example, when a person is in a coma our theory would say that the source for that person's brain activity is no in tune with the brain (like changing the dial on a radio away from a transmitting station). That person's body still functions, and with external care can continue to function (just like our radio can still be active but not receiving any signals).
Our theory could also be used to explain why a person in a coma has no memory of the event. This would be because there was no external source to use the brain's memory capabilities. We could conclude, using our new theory, that the external source makes use of the body's capabilities when the brain is in tune with that source. That when the brain is not in tune with that source, the body still functions but its capabilities to respond to the environment are severely limited (perhaps to automatically catching an object, or other base activity).
So now the question becomes is it important in this theory to identify the source? I don't think it is, because any attempt to do so could result in great controversy and distract us from the utility of the theory itself. Suffice it to say that the Theory simply states that brain activity (the kind associated with awareness) is cause by a Source external to the brain.
The next question that comes up is what is the transmission medium between the Source and the Brain? Again, I don't think this is important because our point is not to prove the accuracy of the theory but to simply see if it has utility in explaining and predicting observed brain phenomena.
I hope this short essay produces an essential discussion concerning an important topic of our quest to understand what we observe. I hope others find this some kind of a positive contribution to that better understanding.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Hello
Well, this is my first post to my Blog... A Small Place to Start. Hope you will find this a good place to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)