Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think that thinking more demonstrably uses more energy. Brain scans show that all brain activity shows changes in blood flow and electrical currents in the parts of the brain involved in the thoughts. I believe that in most cases thoughts result in a significant increase in energy use.
Yes, however it is not evident that "thinking more" also increases the energy the brain uses (in any case, I think most energy is used simply to heat up the brain). It's also hard to quantify thought, which is something you need to do if you want to measure its energy usage.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you saying that the same line of reasoning (same series of thoughts) in all human beings require the exact same number of brain cells to discharge? That the thought "I'm going to write some nonsense here and now", looks exactly the same in your brain (in terms of how many brain cells must work) as it does in mine?
I find that very unlikely. What makes things easy or hard to understand is more a function of past experience and current brain wiring and probably has nothing to do with the amount of energy required.
There are tendencies to avoid unnecessary energy usage as this overall tendency results from evolution, but it is not to the extent that you seem to be implying.
Because if a different amount of cells need to work, the energy requirements change.
Though, yes, even so, probably not to the extent I suggested.
Originally posted by ZenarcticNo, I think different people having similar thoughts may have substantially different patterns, though I suspect that particular types of thoughts tend to be in particular parts of the brain for most people. Though even that has variation with the most notable difference being between males and females.
Are you saying that the same line of reasoning (same series of thoughts) in all human beings require the exact same number of brain cells to discharge? That the thought "I'm going to write some nonsense here and now", looks exactly the same in your brain (in terms of how many brain cells must work) as it does in mine?
Because if a different amount of cells need to work, the energy requirements change.
I agree. However, I disagree that more energy equals more difficult to think or harder to understand. How well we understand things is based on our past experience and our genes both of which affect how our brain is currently wired.
Thanks for thoughtful inputs, that help produce further the following;
I am still working on my thinking about thoughts, hence the openness of my question..
> Thoughts are a probably holistic outcome of the energetic performance, transmission etc of millions of neurons working together. Even one neuron requires numerous inputs usually before firing off to other neurons. But I don't think the activity of the neurons can be equivalent to a thought, which is a far less physical thing, and also depends on an inner awareness to assess concepts arising. Does this inner awareness watching our own thinking, require energy? Is it another set of neuronic interactions assessing?
Something doesn't make sense - there appears a hiatus.
> If we go with the neuronic interactions as the only source of energy, are they then responsible also for such important aspects of achieving this wall, such as intention, persistence, future projection, moods such as discouragement at the walls collapse, etc. It appears very machine like to see all that energy as neuronic only. Our living experience of such is different. It is dynamic, flowing, adaptable and sometimes quite subtle and creative. Do mass cellular neurones possess creativity?
> If we go with the thinking that thoughts have no energy at all, there appears this hiatius between the neuronic activity and the external actions that produce the wall, which we know require effective thinking, planning, decision-making.
Are thoughts something like a "cloud" that arises from the energy and holistic activity of the neurones? I am beginning to think that thoughts themselves do not have energy themselves, but it is not just the neuronic activity that produces the wall.
Is thought perhaps a sort of "catalyst" for the production, transference or alteration of energies outside of itself. The concept of enzymes and catalysts come to mind as possible conceptual analogies.
Energy is provided all over the body from our food and drink. The muscles convert chemical energy to kinetic energy to build a wall. The muscles do this based on instructions from the brain (which obtained energy from food and drink independently).
If you are flying a helicopter powered by radio remote control. The radio waves aren't providing the kinetic energy to the helicopter to fly (the helicopter has its own power source from batteries), although the radio waves provide instructions on what the helicopter should do. These radio waves also require a relatively small amount of energy, but none of this will be providing the energy for the actual flying. The remote control will independently be getting energy from batteries to transmit the radio waves.
You can imagine the helicopter is the muscles and the remote control is the brain in this analogy. The "thoughts" are the states of the buttons/joystick on the remote control which get converted to the instructions to be transmitted via radio waves.
Originally posted by lauseyIt seems we agree; methinks our brain is just a part of our body, and I think our mind is merely a sense -so our thoughts are just a by-product, our thoughts are just like the objects we see thanks to our eyes
Energy is provided all over the body from our food and drink. The muscles convert chemical energy to kinetic energy to build a wall. The muscles do this based on instructions from the brain (which obtained energy from food and drink independently).
If you are flying a helicopter powered by radio remote control. The radio waves aren't providing the kinetic ...[text shortened]... the remote control which get converted to the instructions to be transmitted via radio waves.
😵
Originally posted by lauseyYes, a good summary analogy. Much as I see it. But I don't think I am stretching the analogy to say that many scientists would not see any energy in thoughts per se at all. In radio waves there is some and without it the RC won't operate. In fact it is all about the radio waves, as its all about the thought, planning and decisions that make our energetic bodies build the wall and all the significant structuring of our lives.
Energy is provided all over the body from our food and drink. The muscles convert chemical energy to kinetic energy to build a wall. The muscles do this based on instructions from the brain (which obtained energy from food and drink independently).
If you are flying a helicopter powered by radio remote control. The radio waves aren't providing the kinetic ...[text shortened]... the remote control which get converted to the instructions to be transmitted via radio waves.
There appears to me to be some sort of hiatus between the demonstrable brain electro-chemical energy, and the external active bodily energy, with this apparent energyless but highly necessary "field" of thought in between? Our thoughts arise from neuronic activity but I do not think they are the exact equivalent. It starts to sound like we are bio-chemical neuronic-run automatons, and we just aren't!
Originally posted by TaomanCouldn't it be that we ARE bio-chemical neuronic-run automatons, but it is wishful thinking that we aren't? 😉
Yes, a good summary analogy. Much as I see it. But I don't think I am stretching the analogy to say that many scientists would not see any energy in thoughts per se at all. In radio waves there is some and without it the RC won't operate. In fact it is all about the radio waves, as its all about the thought, planning and decisions that make our energetic bodi ...[text shortened]... t. It starts to sound like we are bio-chemical neuronic-run automatons, and we just aren't!
Originally posted by black beetleSo, your agreement means nothing? A part of your body? Merely a sense? Just a by-product?
It seems we agree; methinks our brain is just a part of our body, and I think our mind is merely a sense -so our thoughts are just a by-product, our thoughts are just like the objects we see thanks to our eyes
😵
Does your agreement have any energy?
Originally posted by lauseyAll that literature, all that poetry, all that art, all that music, all that lovin.... nah!
Couldn't it be that we ARE bio-chemical neuronic-run automatons, but it is wishful thinking that we aren't? 😉
All the creativity and discovery, all that emotion, joy, despair, hope and inspiration...nah, can't buy it at all.
All that philosophy, all that courage and cowardice, all that evil and good,.. all just automatonic...nah, just nah.
Originally posted by TaomanConsider the Mandelbrot Set. Intricate patterns generated from very simple equations. It appears that there is intelligence and imagination that produced it.
All that literature, all that poetry, all that art, all that music, all that lovin.... nah!
All the creativity and discovery, all that emotion, joy, despair, hope and inspiration...nah, can't buy it at all.
All that philosophy, all that courage and cowardice, all that evil and good,.. all just automatonic...nah, just nah.
Extend this to the complexity evolved over billions of years. The by-product being literature, poetry, art and music. This is just an extension of many very complex equations.
The hope that we are anything more than just machines can still be just wishful thinking.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by TaomanJust because we are computers, doesn't make our lives less valuable, or meaningless...all the intricate complexities still exist.
All that literature, all that poetry, all that art, all that music, all that lovin.... nah!
All the creativity and discovery, all that emotion, joy, despair, hope and inspiration...nah, can't buy it at all.
All that philosophy, all that courage and cowardice, all that evil and good,.. all just automatonic...nah, just nah.
Originally posted by TaomanOh my agreement with our lausey means that his evaluation and mine regarding a specific matter is by and large the same.
So, your agreement means nothing? A part of your body? Merely a sense? Just a by-product?
Does your agreement have any energy?
I consider my brain a physical part of my body, and my thoughts a by-product of my brain-dependent mind. In my opinion, thoughts are to the mind just what the objects we are seeing are to our sense of sight; I argue that, just as the physical objects we see are mind-only by-products (in almost 1:1 correspondence to the physical world that we grasp as reality) of our vision-awareness that in turn is dependent to our physical eyes, the same way our thoughts are just a mind-only by-product of the mind in dependence to the specific wiring of our brain in relation to the epistemic object we observe with our mind.
However, I am not sure I understand your question. If you ask me how much energy did I spend in order to agree with our lausey, I clarify that the amount of the energy I spent it was very small in comparison to the energy I spend whenever I have to evaluate patterns/ thoughts/ conditions/ situations etc. that are not familiar to me. If I misunderstand your question, kindly please rephrase;
😵
Originally posted by lauseyYes
Consider the Mandelbrot Set. Intricate patterns generated from very simple equations. It appears that there is intelligence and imagination that produced it.
Extend this to the complexity evolved over billions of years. The by-product being literature, poetry, art and music. This is just an extension of many very complex equations.
The hope that we are anything more than just machines can still be just wishful thinking.
😵
Originally posted by TaomanWow, you knew exactly what we were thinking when we saw your name and the name of the thread.
What is the energy of a thought? Now before you hard scientists start with the bunkums, let me explain.
However, as you explain, you do have a very interesting question that is not all crapola mumbo jumbo.