how to maximize the number of neuron connection?

[AntonioLao]

Neuroscience believes there are about 20 billion neurons in a typical human brain. But it is the connection of two neurons that starts the cognitive process. The number of neural connection can be calculated by the following formula where n is the number of neurons.

[math]C^n_2 = \\\\frac{n(n-1)}{2}[/math]

[Guille]

Then, in a normal brain, are there more neural-conections or more neurons??

[AntonioLao]

More connections. Once neurons are connected it is almost impossible to disconnect them without damage to the neurons. But once a neuron is destroyed it cannot be produced again. Neurons are a type of cells that cannot be regenerated. It can be repaired but not creating new ones.

[Guille]

But, do we then have the same number of neurons when we are 5 than when we are 25, and 45, and 75??? Of what I know, we transmit knowledge via electrical charges in our brains. Then, are the connections just electrical connections and can a neuron have more than one connection?(If so, how many?)

[AntonioLao]

Everybody was born with a fixed number of neurons, say 20,000,000,000. The total number of connections is given by 20,000,000,000(19,999,999,999)/2 = 199,999,999,990,000,000,000 connections. As we grow older, the number decreases due to death of neuron cells, the disease known as Alzheimer's.

The electrical agents are chemical ions.

[JAK]

Everybody was born with a fixed number of neurons, say 20,000,000,000. The total number of connections is given by 20,000,000,000(19,999,999,999)/2 = 199,999,999,990,000,000,000 connections. As we grow older, the number decreases due to death of neuron cells, the disease known as Alzheimer's.

The electrical agents are chemical ions.

Some neurons have upwards of 20,000 connections. From a memory perspective, each connection allows for a separate circuit and a separate memory. The number of connections may relate to the number of memories in a "factorial" manner.

Interestingly, in theory, just as one pixel on a computer screen can be part of a red shirt in one image and also be part of blue sky in another image, one neuron could participate in a multitude of images as well as sounds, tastes, smells, feelings and behavioral processes. Too little is known at this time to verify this. The only related work was by Wilder Penfield during the 1940s when he inserted an electric probe into the exposed brains of conscious patients. When touching various points on the cortex surface, different memories in each patient were produced. However, when retouching a specific point of the same patient, the same memory was evoked over and over again.

One other idea from earlier in this thread, comparisons were being made between computers and the brain. As a long time database designer, I am quite familiar with encoding patterns and the processing thereof - images, music, subroutines, etc. The one aspect of consciousness that is missing is the ability to assign "value" or "weight" to stored information. The brain, on the other hand, appears to do this nicely via Hebb's Law. Though the "all-or-none" law indicates whether or not a neuron fires, the frequency of firing is adjustable. With stronger connections (Hebb's Law), higher firing frequency may be enabled. This would enable a "survival of the fittest" competition as theorized by Bernard J. Baars and James Newman (occurring in the nucleus reticularis thalami region of the brain). The ideas of greatest circuit strength would then gain control of our thoughts.

However, for the competition scenario to work, it would require two other factors. First, ideas cannot be permanently "on." (Entropy and other factors seem to prevent this.) Second, the energy enabling an idea somehow must be enabled by external data collection (the 5 senses). O.G. Selfridge's "Pandmonium Model" and Dominc Masaro's "Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception" seem to accommodate this.

[AntonioLao]

JAK,

Thanks for your informative post and the web link.

I started this post about neural connection in order to establish an analogy for the connectivity of spacetime points. If there are finite points, and the number of connection between two points is greater than the number of points, then the connections belong in a superset reality than the points. This superset can be said as analogous to higher level of dimension.

For the neurons, they are the gray matter in the brain but their connections, which is the basis of cognition and knowledge, exist in a higher plane of existence. So, the brain must be acting as a dimensional gate between matter and something beyond matter of a mind.

[subversion]

For the neurons, they are the gray matter in the brain but their connections, which is the basis of cognition and knowledge, exist in a higher plane of existence. So, the brain must be acting as a dimensional gate between matter and something beyond matter of a mind.

A very interesting point Antonio. It reminds me I believe that the definition of consciousness is that it is a network of communication (which takes on a higher dimension as you say). The reason we are conscious creatures is because the neurons throughout our body create a network of communication. As such, this definition of consciousness allows us to infer other levels of consciousness. For example, a populace of human beings who interact through language communication could create a sort of world consciousness, what some might refer to as the collective unconsciousness (see Carl Jung). As humans have become more adept at communicating over time our collective cohesion has grown stronger as well. Now things like the internet, this forum no less, are driving our collective consciousness to new heights of awareness.

In this scheme, all levels of consciousness are likely to be like one neuron in a more incorporated "brain" of consiousness, which in turn is just one "neuron" in an even more incorporated "brain." In this sense, I believe that gravity creates the ultimate system of communication, the one which the all-knowing universe uses to keep track of everything in reality. So the entire universe, using this definition of consciousness, can be seen as an ultimate macro-consciousness. In line with what you said, this macro-consciousness may be allowed to work through a higher dimension, which is in reason with the idea that gravitons (or just gravity) can travel "higher-dimensionally"

[AntonioLao]

subversion,

You also have very good points. But I seem to understand that our brain can never truly achieve maximum number of connection individually and collectively, for the human race, it is also difficult to achieve maximum connectivity. The barriers are languages, cultural differences, age differences, distance separation, temporal separation, educational differences, personal biases. There seems to be an impossibility to put all consciousness at the same place and at the time. In quantum mechanics, this is called Pauli's exclusion principle for fermionic quantum states.

At first, I thought the cell phones were a way for an eventual collective awareness until the terrorists used them for 9-11 regressing the collective minds into distrusts, suspicions and paranoia.

[subversion]

Communication is always imperfect. That is its nature, and what makes things so quirky.