[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by cadmar

The neural patterns are finite. To mean that means the pattern does not change, does not move.

Ahh, you mean permanent? "finite" refers to quantity, and bounds or limits. If you're talking about not changing, then a more appropriate word would be permanent.

Originally Posted by cadmar

As the neural patterns are finite, then, the patterns do not influence others.

The influence and interaction I'm referring to is the activation of one pattern in response to the activation of another. In more precise terms, the excitation and inhibition of connected neurons. The excitatory/inhibitory configuration of networks of neurons directly influences the patterns of activity which occur in the network.

As an example, within the Basal Ganglia in a network of brain regions which is involved in movements. The network is set up in such a way that there are two pathways which signals can take, depending on where signals enter. One pathway is excitatory, which means signals coming in to the network result in more activity at the output of the network. The other pathway is inhibitory, resulting in less activity at the output. Thus a two pathways within the one network produce patterns of activity which lead to opposing outputs; it's not correct to say patterns don't influence each other otherwise the activity would always be the same.

Further, they do change each other. This is the concept of neural plasticity. What it means is that some neural connections do change over time, and thus the patterns do change. We've observed these changes most clearly in the hippocampus. We've also observed changes as a result of cell death, and those changes have been observed throughout the brain. So it's not true that patterns don't change; they do, when the cells involved change.

Originally Posted by cadmar

The grandmother cell used to be a theory that memory is physical with a physical location. Now, it is an energy. The amount of energy, even if it takes up only one cell, determines the thought.

That conclusion doesn't follow from the observations. It is true that energy is required to invoke a thought (or memory), however the cells in which that energy flows are also required. There is no evidence that I know of of one without the other. There is also no evidence that I know of that different amounts of energy in one cell will result in different thoughts. Different degrees of attention devoted to the thought, perhaps, but that's a difference of quantity, not quality. Do you have any evidence that supports your understanding?

Also, what is energy? Energy as described in scientific terms is a physical property. In neurological terms it's chemical and electrical, both of which are physical.

Originally Posted by cadmar

The brain stem and other nearby regions are central in the way, as I see it, to provide sufficient energy for the brain to function. I compare it to the light bulb. It needs a source for the light to be turned on.

The light bulb analogy isn't quite appropriate, because the energy source which powers our brain cells is glucose, and our blood supplies that glucose, and the blood flows through a complex system of arteries. The brain stem has nothing to do with that.

What the brain stem region (specifically the myelencephalon, more specifically the reticular formation) seems to do is manage the levels of arousal in various areas of the brain. Those various areas then take up more blood, consume more glucose, and use up more energy.

Originally Posted by cadmar

Unconscious, to me, is the patterns not becoming "thought", ie. aware through words.

How is that a "fudge"?

Originally Posted by cadmar

Subjective experiences are all the same as we all have the same physical makeup. That is, the brain and the source of energy is constant from body to body, brain to brain. What has become individualized is the experiences we all have and the values we place on these experiences. Thus, to me, all patterns will be the same, but the combinations of the patterns are different due to our values and experiences.

I think you may have taken the mechanical approach a little too far here. The issue is that there are so many factors involved at every level from molecular interactions up to communication of subjective experience, and as you get further and further away from the molecular level the lines which differentiate between distinct subjective experiences become blurred such that by the time that experience is communicated, two seemingly identical descriptions of an experience could match to extremely different patterns of activity at the molecular level. So while all humans have the same neural substrate, and all neural processes operate according to the same principles, the way that substrate and those processes interact in response to the environment does result in very different neural structure (i.e., patterns), even when the experiences are seemingly identical.

This is illustrated by the varying degrees of lateralisation of various functions which still allow people to exhibit similar behaviours. For example most of my language functions might be controlled by the left part of my brain, while for someone else their right hemisphere might be dominant. Yet despite that difference it's entirely possible that our language abilities would be similar.

An even more telling example is that of patients with severe (but progressive) hydrocephalus. There are some rare patients whose ventricles are so enlarged that most of the content of their skull is cerebrospinal fluid, while their brain matter was squeezed into the remaining space during development. Yet their behaviour might be indistinquishable from an average person without the condition. Clearly the "patterns" that person developed could not be the same as someone with a brain which developed normally.

Originally Posted by cadmar

What I find interesting is that all "thoughts" are connected to sound/labels (which we call words). They are the same sound/labels we use when we are talking. I believe that to the brain, it does not matter if the sound/labels are vocalized (being actually spoken)or not.

I agree. Verbalised thought is definitely not the sum of mental activity. I know of one person who suffers from epilepsy who has progressive seizures which, at their worst, shuts down his language abilities. He can't read or write or speak. Yet even in this state it's possible for him to check into a hotel, go to a restaurant, order food, realise he ordered something he didn't like yet decide to finish it anyway because he was too miserable to persist in trying to communicate, then make his way to his room to sleep. All by miming, guesturing and a shared understanding of what the specific situations and roles of people involved implied. There is no way all of those complex activities could be accomplised without some form of thought.

Originally Posted by cadmar

Connecting one finite pattern to another, I think is quite straightforward. By using feedback loops, the energy released by the brain, attaches to the already finite pattern.

This implies that all patterns are formed during development and their connection is all that's necessary to allow all the complex behaviour we're capable of as adults. This again belies evidence provided by hippocampal neurogenesis, not to mention raising the problem of what makes a permanent pattern if two patterns can be connected by the same neural components which form each previous pattern. What makes a pattern then? More than one neuron? No single neuron can be considered permanent because, at least up until around the age of 20-25, our brains are still undergoing the process of development which began before birth. So if a neuron can't be considered permanent until initial development stops, and neurogenesis and cell death rules out any further kind of permanence, how could energy patterns be considered permanent?

Perhaps only in respect to the lifetime of the cell in comparison to the lifetime of the individual, and only after taking into account the changes which deny absolute permanance even within that limited timeframe. And even then there's no guarantee; scientists used to think that once a brain cell was fully formed, that's how it stayed until it died, or you did, and that was the case for every single brain cell. That theory has been refuted.

Originally Posted by cadmar

This adding on creates the continum of a thought. The feedback loop continues if the connections are "confusing" that the combined patterns do not complete some experiences/pattern.

I agree, though I think "confusing" is limiting; there are many things which might influence the strengthening of a particular 'pattern', e.g., attention, repetition, meaning...