Posted by Adam on June 2, 2000, at 14:59:08
In reply to more science, Adam? bob? anyone?, posted by CarolAnn on June 2, 2000, at 8:49:27
I don't think what a thought really is has been adequately defined. I think what you can guarantee, though, is that thoughts are dependant on the action of neurons in the brain. This involves using energy to synthesize various molecules that either pass from one neuron to the other, or facilitate and detect that passage. So, technically speaking, thoughts include in their composition matter (the atoms that make up cells and neurotransmitters) and energy (in the form of the energy in chemical bonds, other electrostatic potentials, and heat). So, yeah, thoughts actually weigh something.
Whether or not thoughts are dependant on things outside of the brain, beyond other parts of the body, I have no idea, and nobody else does either, I'm guessing. I imagine many would consider the mere suggestion of meta-brain thought components to be superstition at best. There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence for such, but I'm hardly an expert. I know some people feel quantum mechanical effects are important for thought, and so it is conceivable that due to "entaglement", where two particles separated by potentially enormous distances still are "connected" by their mutually dependant quantum states, things that happen completely outside of the brain (even in another brain!) might have direct consequences on thought. What we're talking here is telepathy. Kind of makes one wonder, how can we then define the boundaries of the brain?
I'm rather doubtful about the idea of quantum thought, though. The brain is a pretty dense, warm place, and atoms and molecules are constantly flying around and slamming into one another. For one to detect a quantum effect at the thought level, a particular quantum state of a particle or molecule has to persist long enough for the change in state to be detectable. That means it can't be altered more than once in the amount of time it takes a neuron to fire. If an electron is spin up, then down, then up within the duration of the restoration of the action potential of a neuron, it may as well have been up the whole time, because the down state was missed. Particles in the brain interact way too frequently and chaotically, it would seem (and hence their quantum values won't stay constant), to allow quantum effects to be physiologically usable.
My guess is thoughts are the result of a certain number of neurons firing in a particular sequence and spacial pattern, triggering little stored programs in the brain (themselves composed of collections of interconnected neurons firing in some sequence), which could consist of memories or innate physiological arrangements of cells. There could be more to it than that, but I can't imagine that the process of thought wouldn't at least depend on the above.
> Adam, while I was reading, "The God Particle"(near the end), I suddenly wondered something that I don't think I've ever seen discussed scientifically.
> We know that all the universe is composed of certain, infinitly(so it seems) small particles. My question is, what is 'thought' composed of? I know, sort of, what *causes* a thought, the brain responding to specific stimuli. What I wonder is, once a thought exists, what is it comprised of? It is in my brain, but is it made of the same "particles" that my brain is made of? Does "thought" have a mass? Can it be measured? I suppose that "thought" would be a form of energy, but then wouldn't it still be measurable?
>
> Well, the basic question is, "What does 'thought' exist *as*? What does it consist of?
> Is this something that I should already know? Maybe I never learned it, because I didn't go to college?
> Can't wait to hear the replies. CarolAnn
poster:Adam
thread:35642
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000526/msgs/35694.html