/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4328231]

If there are a hundred billion neurons in our brains, why do we feel like we are a single individual? seems counter intuitive to me

[Anonymous No.4328248]

dunlol no

[Anonymous No.4328332]

>why do we feel like we are a single individual?


Consciousness/Individuality is a quantum effect resulting from interactions of neurons in the brain. We don't really know how it works yet.

[Anonymous No.4328337]

What good would more than one consciousness in the same brain do?

[Anonymous No.4328343]

>>4328337
multitasking?

[Anonymous No.4328353]

>>4328343
Too bad we didn't evolve for modern tasks. Hunting and gathering didn't take much more than a bit of focus and instinct.

[Anonymous No.4328379]

>>4328231
Because certain chunks are dedicated to creating that illusion.

[Anonymous No.4328411]

can the brain multitask?

[Anonymous No.4328419]

>>4328411
The brain does, you can't.

[Anonymous No.4328428]

>>4328411
You probably have to narrow down "multitask" a bit. For example I know I can have multiple projects going at once but I can't actually be thinking about more than at the same instant. Women on the other hand blow my mind the way they can literally listen two two conversations at once and understand both.

[Anonymous No.4328450]

We are a single individual. The self is not the same kind of thing as a neuron or number of neurons.

[Anonymous No.4328456]

>Consciousness/Individuality is a quantum effect resulting from interactions of neurons in the brain. We don't really know how it works yet.

Don't assert your speculative science as fact, it's stupid.

[Anonymous No.4328458]

if there's a hundred billion atoms in a baseball, why does it feel like there's one centre of gravity?

[Anonymous No.4328459]

>>4328428
How is that autism working for ya?

[Anonymous No.4328461]

>>4328456
>Dear /sci/, allow me to demonstrate that I don't know what the word "quantum" means

[Anonymous No.4328487]

Because of our SOULS

[Anonymous No.4328488]

>>4328461
That was a good demonstration.

[Anonymous No.4328498]

the individual is an effect, not a single entity.

[Anonymous No.4328506]

>>4328498
>individual
>not a single entity

That's kind of what "individual" means

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.4328531]

The short answer is that we don't exactly know how subjective experience emerges from neural activity.

How unity in function can emerge from mass neuronal activity is a bit more easy to explain though. At first glance it would seem quite the paradox, all these neurons being active in a semi-discrete fashion: spiking.

The interesting thing is though that even though single-neuron activity might be somewhat discrete, activity on a larger spatial scale has a different appearance. The summed activity of large populations of neurons seems to oscillate. These rhythmical fluctuation in mass neuronal excitability are what binds discrete firing of singe of neuron together. The local field potential determines the likelihood with which a given neuron within a group will spike, so even though every single neuron fires discretely, this activity is regulated in a continuous and unitary manner.

Hope that makes sense. Sorry I don't have time to elaborate a bit further, but I have to go.

[Anonymous No.4328534]

>>4328531
>lurk to find CNS posting to ask him a question

>find CNS

>he's leaving

FML

[Anonymous No.4328550]

Because most of them are used for movement and internal shortcuts, with a relatively small percentage used for genuine personality and such, as for feeling like a single individual, its a matter of perspective and doesn't necessarily always apply.

[Anonymous No.4328998]

its a wave bro

[Anonymous No.4329013]

>>4328231
Humans are a composite life form, made of literally trillion of other lifeforms. Yet, you think you are are "one" life form.

LMFAO

[Anonymous No.4329061]

>>4329013
One mental being. Different thing, bro.

[Anonymous No.4329079]

>feel like we are a single individual
We aren't. That's why you're asking, saying it seems counterintuitive to "me", but you're asking us to answer you. That means, as a social animal, you're not really an individual.

[Anonymous No.4329086]

There's no individual without dual.

>But aren't the neurons made of many atoms?

Yeah, like when you buy a car. Do you show up and say: "Hi, give me four wheels, a cam shaft...."???

[Anonymous No.4329485]

>>4329013
He didn't say life form he said individual. Everyone took high school biology, asshole.

[Anonymous No.4329544]

>>4329485
>individual = not a scientific term, NO ACTUAL QUANTITATIVE MEANING IN THE WAY OP TRIES TO USE IT. Useless in the realm in science. OP might as well just be talking about "magic".

>lifeform = scientific term with strict meaning

I would rather talk science, then OP's misunderstanding of what science is and what is not.

[Anonymous No.4329560]

>>4329544
>if it's not already in a textbook it doesn't belong in /sci/

stay retarded, anon

[Anonymous No.4329572]

Because if each of us needed to reach a consensus with multiple personalities before acting we would have been eaten by dinosaurs a long time ago

i know dinosaurs and men didnt coexist i just wanted to make you mad

[Anonymous No.4329578]

>>4329560
How to you expect to have a scientific discussion using TERMS WITH NO SCIENTIFIC MEANING?

If you can't even define the terms, you will never get science done.

[Anonymous No.4329583]

>>4329578
i dont need to define shit, you know you are a single consciousness, i know im a single consciousness, the definition of consciousness is irrelevant because you know its just ONE inside your head

[Anonymous No.4329590]

I once challenged myself to have multiple thoughts at once, I was recalling a tune from Bit Trip runner whilst juggling several topics in my mind.

Wasn't that hard tbh. (I was very bored in bed that night.

[Anonymous No.4329607]

>>4329560
Stay in /x/ where you belong.

[Anonymous No.4329611]

There is no evidence or empirical research to describe what I'm about to say but I've generally accepted it as common sense since I was a kid.

As something gets more complex in it's nature, "new properties" of that thing emerge.

I believe that conscience is an emergent property of some sort, similarly to how organs work together to form organ systems, and organ systems form an organism, the more it advances in it's complexity it gives birth to new things.

This can even be traced down to a fundemental level where atoms create molecules, or cells create tissues.

and my own bit of speculative science is that on the largest astronomical scale the universe will revert back to being a gravitational singularity, it will emerge from a cumulative complexity of the universe's expansion.

[Anonymous No.4329620]

>>4329013

The question itself has purviews in both philosophy and science also, this is a very open-ended, broad question, if you want a specific answer you would have the propose a more specific question otherwise you will just get a bunch of retarded kids trying to assert their flawed understandings, while missing the point entirely.

[Anonymous No.4329646]

>>4329611
You don't know the difference between conscience and consciousness, but thanks for your opinion I guess.

[Anonymous No.4329650]

>>4329583
>you know you are a single conscious
>i know i'm a single consciousness
>you know its just ONE inside your head

Without an actual definition of conscious, YOU DON'T KNOW ANY OF THIS SHIT. You are assuming shit, based of your "idea" of what consciousness is. But your "idea" is unique to you, and since there is no ACTUAL fucking definition, your "idea" is pretty much WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT IT TO BE. No ones "idea" of consciousness being more right or wrong then others. It is then just an opinion.

Other have different ideas of consciousness, that are totally unrelated to your idea. And according to there personal definitions, maybe they aren't a single conscious, maybe your aren't. Maybe you aren't even conscious at all. Or maybe to them consciousness = being a Chinese-Australian. So, unless you are a Chinese-Australian YOU ARENT FUCKING CONSCIOUS!

DEFINITIONS MATTER DUMBFUCK! You can't do science without definitions for shit, else you are just talking about nonsense.

[Anonymous No.4329652]

>>4329646

was a typo on my part...

[Anonymous No.4330076]

Isn't half of science based on making speculations? Why are you guys bitching that everyone's not reading straight from a text book? If I wanted to read about safe, accepted facts I would go somewhere else. I come to threads like this to hear about peoples' rough unedited ideas.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.4330082]

>>4328534
I'm back. I'll take a look at your question if you're still around.

[Anonymous No.4330090]

>>4330082
OP here, can you expand on this:
>this activity is regulated in a continuous and unitary manner.

[Anonymous No.4330127]

>>4330082
I'm not him but I had a question too

>The short answer is that we don't exactly know how subjective experience emerges from neural activity.
Does anybody even have the remotest idea of how to tackle this problem?

[Anonymous No.4330133]

>>4330127
>find a homeless guy
>poke his brain
>write results
>profit or conviction

[Anonymous No.4330148]

>>4328231

>why do we feel like we are a single individual

Because If you are plural then you cant be an individual since you can be divided.

[Anonymous No.4330149]

>>4330133
That's not quite what I was getting at. We can say, "oh this part is responsible for this subjective experience" (or, not, I don't know), but in terms of explaining HOW it arises that doesn't seem like it would ever work.

It seems to me like so much of science is, when you get to the meat of it, "what happens when I poke this?". I can't help but feel like our normal methods are useless here.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.4330156]

>>4330090
Sure.

The principle component of the system - the neuron - largely operates in a discrete fashion. Its output is in the form of spikes. So that raises the question of how a collection of discrete outputs can form something (more or less) continuous, such as behavior, or more on topic, consciousness.

The mechanism I described answers that question to a certain extent. The activity of any single neuron within a population of neurons is intrinsically modulated by the summed activity of all other neurons. A spike causes a change in the concentration of ions of the surrounding extracellular space, thereby influencing the field potential, and thus the excitability of surrounding neurons. It is a fundamental principle that binds the activity of many neurons together to orchestrate population activity. The local field potential is a continuous variable, even though spiking is not. Thus, a unitary property can emerge in a system of relatively separate constituent components to govern continuous phenomena such as behavior and consciousness.

[CNS !MT.CNS.YRY No.4330170]

>>4330127
>Does anybody even have the remotest idea of how to tackle this problem?
This is the hard problem of consciousness we're talking about. By definition it is no longer solely an empirical question. Many scientists stay away from this, because it is more a philosophical question than anything else. I don't know too much about philosophy, so I'm afraid I can't answer your question very accurately.