I've been watching The Royal Institution for many years now and it occurs to me how many of the lectures' work overlaps. I would love to hear what Mr. Humphries and Mark Solms, who gave a lecture here a couple months ago about the emotional root of human consciousness, would say about each others work. Can anyone say if there has been any commentary similar to this?
There should always be overlap, so that knowledge can be comprehensive and as all encompassing as one can accomplish. Without those overlaps, we end up with gaps, where guesses and pseudoscience would thrive.
Thanks. I trained as a physicist but I love they way he explains now the old noggin works. The neurons network reminds me of galaxy filaments This channel is my go to source for. understanding!
One dimensional processes within a 3-dimensional space? 3-dimensional information broken down into multiple 1-dimensional concepts then returns multiple 1-dimensional outputs that can be built out 3-dimensional expressions over time? A system can be built to work in a similar manner, though the number of pre-programmed responses takes time build and the process of growth would have to be emulated through time responsive reinforcement/deconstruction. The 'spikes' reinforce adding time to the existence of the path? Deconstruction happens naturally through 'atrophy'; use it or lose it basically.
87 billion neurons plus or minus 15%, that do fast, long-range, and complex signalling, and 100 billion glial cells plus or minus 50%, that do additional signalling which the brain relies upon and respond to signal conditions indicating reallocations of function, upgrades or downgrades in neurons (such as adding myelin coatings or allowing them to degrade) are needed. Glial signalling and operations are exclusively short range and somewhat slower than neural signalling, but very mportant to overall function and plasticity.
is the memory/spikes when the mice is getting the wrong direction/light... stronger/weaker/the same/faster/slower fall off that when it gets it right??
My guess is our neurons are only responsible for weighting and directing sensory input, the more urgent/important, the more weight is given to the path the neurons take to enable a response. I think the real magic lies in the microtubules in terms of memory storage and retrieval & that memory may even be stored in the grey matter. The brain is indeed a very fascinating electro-chemical device. Their is some suggestion at a quantum level that its the collapse of the wave function in the microtubules that gives rise to momentary consciousness. Given enough millions of microtubules, each giving millisecond moments of conscious experience per second, would feel like a constant stream of persistent consciousness since you cant distinguish the time between millions of wave function collapses, the brain cant differentiate such at those short time scales.
This was refreshingly excellent. ❤️🔥 Finally someone who gets that the brain as we see it in human sensory contexts and measurements makes little sense as currently conceived. I love all the question marks!! You actually understand the problems better than most people I have ever seen. It’s like the Pareto distribution in there. I actually figured out why there are so many paradoxical things associated with the brain and how to solve them. No one believes me though. I know why they don’t believe me but that doesn’t make it any less vexing. The brain and reality are not what people conveniently think they are… not at all. It’s super important to our future survival. Maybe only the very few who “spike” are the ones who survive… 🤷♀️ I’m not entirely joking. If you knew what language was, then you would understand why I can’t say what it is here. Not in a comment: the problem is not a “piece of data” it’s the configuration of an entire contextual world view. So I wrote 2 books on it instead. 😂 OMG I LOVE YOU 💕😘 KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK !!! The reason we have abstract thinking ability is so that we don’t have to die for everything to change. We have wars and famines and social strife because people don’t get this. They don’t listen to the people who are CLEARLY DEFINED in their roles by standardized testing of personality and IQ. DEFINITELY NOT IQ ALONE. Yet these same people have the most extreme difficulty in surviving the modern world. That tells you about the future of us all. It actually really does. Thanks again.
"That's not the road - it is only a map." If he was being honest he would tell you nobody has any idea what ideas are or where they come from. Scientists are no closer to understanding the nature of consciousness than they were when brain waves were first discovered.
The mind and brain barrier is due to the 4% matter and 96% non matter of this universe. I hesitate to say matter/ spritual (non matter)barrier. This barrier is why we may never 100% understand the mind and conscious like we have with understanding Newtonian classical physic.
@@richb2752 that would be 4% matter, 96% vacuum. And that's a massively incorrect thing, as there's a lot more space than there is matter in the universe. What you are exhibiting is simply magical thinking, there is no such thing as magic, because the laws of thermodynamics have proven, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Isn’t it possible that seemingly unnecessary neuronal activity is about indicating activity through the cells that are the supporting structure (attached to axons along their length) of the brain which I recall from an article years ago seems to be part of a secondary communication pathway that perhaps registers area activity or even consciousness?
Yes, mostly the same combination of neurones will fire in synchrony. I say mostly because as you know memories are malleable, it can change or be modified. However the process of memory formation in neuronal population occurs via a process called long term potentiation.
Similar question to previous question.When a single neuron spikes causes other spikes, if that original neuron spikes again does it cause spikes in the same neurons as before?
My understanding is that when a single neuron spikes, it does so as the result of the inputs from many other neurons. So, it doesn't cause another neuron to spike by itself, but could inhibit another neuron from firing, or it could be the one that puts another neuron over its activation threshold.
I would disagree with the idea that the neurons are simply using electrical impulses to communicate. That is misleading and not actually reflective of what is happening at the cellular level. Cells are not electrical circuits, they are bio chemical units that can generate minute amounts of energy as electrical signals. But most of the information passed between neurons and cells within those neurons are complex chemical compounds corresponding to some biochemical encoding of physical stimuli. And that is the basis of residual memory in the brain not the small electrical discharge associated with these movements of chemical exchanges across cell boundaries. As physical impulses come in and get converted to chemical signals these ripple through the cells and alter the connections between neurons. This alters the pathways in the brains on a microscopic level so that common signals and patterns of signals form a 'connection' in the brain which is a form of learning. So because of that, the brain does not actually see a pixel because the chemical activation in the brain corresponding to visual light hitting the retina is not a "pixel". It is a distinct chemical activation pattern that gets connected with other similar signals as a set of connected neural chemical compounds and connections between neurons. This group of compounds and associated bio-electric signals represent the grouping of sets of neurons based on patterns of chemical activation So these low level microscopic chemical compounds traveling through the brain and forming pathways and connections are basically doing a form of segmentation of data. Low level features like that edge you mentioned would correspond to a 'learned' set of connections between neurons corresponding to certain patterns of chemical compounds. This process happens recursively all the way to the top level of learning about things in the real world which are represented as a network of connections between neurons based on biochemical compounds. That process has no analogy in computer software or hardware because a pixel is nothing but a set of numbers with no inherent chemical properties to distinguish between colors of the light spectrum. And that is why there is so much energy consumed in computer software to try and make sense of what pixels represent by running mathematical algorithms. But that extra work is not required because of the way the brain dynamically and automatically generates, propagates and stores this chemical information at a cellular level.
Have you explored using carbon fiber as probes? Carbon fiber is 20 microns diameter but electrically is like an axon ie conductive core with a high resistance sheath but also chemically inert.
The problem would be lessened, but they also have to be insulated until the desired neuron is reached, thickening them and with each probe, you're damaging or destroying healthy tissue that might be a target that you'd want to monitor too.
Mark, you're saying _"billion billion"_ a lot. Is that because, in your opinion, the viewers wouldn't be familiar with *_quintillion?_* In any case, I don't think most people can conceptualize such a big number. I can't either. I can do calculations with it, but I can't conceptualize it.
I was here to see the electrical part of the neurvous system, since the hype is usually on the neurotransmitters and there is no insight by researching them. Probably because this seems to be even farther from the essence. There must be some physical carriers of thoughts and perceptions, which combined I believe are consciousness. Why we endlessly focus on following the signal: electrical, chemical, electro, chemo, E,C,E,C. At best we will eventually end up outside of the nervous system in that way. While all the indications point at CNS. The only part of our bodies, which we do not understand. This actually makes sense, since it must be the part producing us(proper), and unraveling its mystery basically would mean that we have exceeded our creator, have beaten the final boss, and have won the game of life. Does anyone research what is changed in the receiving neuron itself, not whatever goes down its axon? Sounds like a logical place for searching, at least to me. The answer to M.Humphies first mystery is obvious: Speed of Light. Nothing can be faster than photons(electromagnetic waves), not even thought. Especially if the latter had worked only on chemistry.
So is it possible that a neuron releases a specific amount of chemicals across the synaptic gap based on the amount of energy running through it? For example, a neuron having more energy running through it if it receives a signal from say three other neurons than it would if only receiving a signal ( Chemicals ) from one? If so then each neuron would have different energy levels because of it.
Yeah that is kinda what happens. The lecturer didn't go much into the deep molecular details. When excitatory neurotransmitters are exchanged from one neuron to another, they open sodium channels that locally depolarize the membrane (there's way more to it than that, but that's the general idea). That charge decreases with distance, and you have to reach a threshold at the axon to initiate a spike in the receiving cell. So generally, receiving neurotransmitters from a single spike of another neuron isn't enough to initiate a spike in that cell. The situation that you describe, with multiple neurons exciting the same cell to make that one initiate a spike, is exactly what happens. Biologists call it summation. So good on you for guessing right. I know you asked this months ago, but hopefully that answers your question.
I saw a video about the neuralink device reading neural spikes in a pigs brain in real time. How much will this technology impact our understanding of the brain?
It’s both compression and the mic. Any public talk should use a good boom or freestanding condenser mic. Definitely not one that clips on the collar. Especially if they ever take a drink. 😖 I think collar mics should be banned. Smacking and swallowing sucks. In this case, bad mic and compression made it so it was actually difficult to understand the words yes.
For the dark neuron problem, I would guess that it's an information thing. Not firing is still information and is less costly than firing. Further, the distribution 10% providing 75% of spikes might be similar to zipf's law - where for example in our language the letter e is very common and the letter x is not therefore the information conveyed by an infrequent firing neuron is higher than a frequently firing one. but the combination provides context.
Exactly. Looking at the brain and asking "what are those dark neurons good for?" seems to me like looking at a book and asking "what are those rare words good for that the author only uses once or twice?"
At the beginning of this very enlightening lecture we have 87 billion neurons; at the end Mark says 17 billion. Does anybody know which is most accurate?
Being has a tendency to 'return' to clusters ='the nature of solidarity' -a desire for empathy -(Wave)-(yin) and also, Being has a tendency to 'exist' as individuals ='the nature of self-expension' -a desire for breed-(Particle)-(Yang) Likewise, humans have two elements. We must realize that we all have both left and right elements =Solidarity and Self reliance No one has only one element. so 'Sum' derived from 'two poles' , (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) To develop intellect and ethics by harmonizing the two, It is good to realize it and balance it properly But A few people polarized the crowd(political partisanship) without balancing themselves. And They stole only the sum, only the synthesis from the triangle composition. Now We all have to get out of this deceptive situation. This is not the time for us to hate each other. We have to track down those who have been manipulating us.
I find it fascinating that there is a group of neurons that are firing specifically when you try to envision neurons. Like they are firing to think of themselves. 🤪
Do you think that one day we will manage to implement telepathy? Capturing impulses from brain, filtering, amplifying and transmitting them, where somebody in a special cap :) will be able to receive and filter them? 🤔
87 is the estimate for the entire brain (including the "old brain" shared with ancestors); 17 is the estimate for the "thin layers" on the surface of the brain (where interesting things about being 'human' happen). While there are often 'bugs' in these docos, this one is not wrong (as far as I know...)
@@nirbhay_raghav - Because DNA self organizes into multiple layers of information including the information only available due to how it’s folded? 😂 God not only created it, He is a genius beyond comprehension, compressing and stacking information 4 fold onto molecules. It’s not linear, it’s 4 dimensional information storage. You can’t change one part without destroying 3 more layers. It’s like multiple books written with the same letters and read like folding origami on the same piece of paper so that you read a different story depending upon how you fold it. That’s not even mentioning the proteins that DNA codes for that not only have to be assembled in the correct order, they have to be folded correctly by another molecule that is also coded for by the DNA. All of those processes have to be turned on and off at the right time based upon signals from other molecules then transported to the correct location. The cell is infinitely more complex than Darwin’s concept of a simple blob of protoplasm.
OMG some one explain we TALK...IT IS OUR BRAIN TALKING... wow amazing insight...Did I Hear that right??? IM TALKING??? Wowsers 👌🤭 look ma my brains speaking
Interesting piece. Here's a laymanesque view. The brain, the entire body really, is an avatar by which the life force, energy, manifests a physical form. As such the you inside any one avatar isn't just that form. You are so much more. Yes a piece of you inhabits a physical form, but that which informs your totality, energy, can never die or be destroyed. It merely transforms. This is the basis of the First Law of Thermodynamics. So enjoy yourself in your current form, follow all the muse you can. But recognize that you never, truly, die. You go on for as long as Time exists. Make of this what you will. As for me I say hallelujah? John~ American Net'Zen
Almost everything in this presentation us wrong. Mist if the cells in the brain are not neurons but glial cells that are actually respobsibke for most of netabolic abd electric activity in the brain, the dendrites are not generating inputs sigbal tranfre as the spike start soacially and temporally far off the dendrites, and start on neuron body. There us no recognizable signsl processing in the brain as there are not tags to signals and it is impossible to backtrack a signal after it “jumps” from one neuron to another or mixed with signals from different regions of brain. There is absolutely no idea how brain represents information, nobody ever has seen a bit of memory. The directionnsensing neurons send spikes depending on the sensed line direction but the spike trains are just statistical correlates that require much longer time to detect than time the brain needs to complete a response to the visual stimulus. There is a truckload of data on neurons and neuronal activity: but none makes sense… regardless what kind of fairy tale is being told in this presentation.
Fansinating subject, I got about 6mins in. However, from that point on, all I could hear/focus on was how many times he 'tut'-ed while talking. 😲 Why was he so disappointed at the beginning of each of his sentences? -- Shame really, as I was looking forward to this. 😥
I guess your neurons are programmed differently then. I didn't lose focus. I would also assume that he has not given many talks yet to find an epic flow like Szydlo :D
Unreal that a claim like, @00:49 "and it is these 87 billions neurons and their connections that underpin everything that you can do," is widely accepted. It should be ardently dismissed as no where near the truth, and to act as if it is a self evident fact is absurd.
@@gabrielconybearemarsh I've thought often about that hard problem. Can you think of anyways to provide positive proof of that separation? Also, in some way I think, the reality that there is no proof of a causal connection hints at the idea that they may very likely be separated. However, personally, I subscribe to Idealist ontologies, mostly due to the fact that modern quantum theories have disproved the existence of objective matter. So, in a way, there is nothing to separate, because it's all mind. Thoughts? Side note, what do you think of my original post? Do you agree that this speaker's claim is outrageous and unfounded in any fact? Or do you think neurons "underpin" everything that we do?
@@S.G.Wallner Positive proof of separation between mind and body would be if a complete analysis of brain function did not provide a complete analysis of the mechanisms underlying consciousness. When asking about a lack of proof, remember that proving things is hard. Modern quantum theories have not disproved matter, they have provided an alternate explanation for what matter is. As for the separation of mind and body itself, I would pass no fast judgement on this topic.
@@gabrielconybearemarsh Completely agree with your statement about proof. I don't agree with your presumption that neural mechanisms "underlie" consciousness. (I could share evidence if you'd like.) We have glimpses of correlations between preprocessed images on a computer screen of a particular type of brain activity, (often embarrassingly weak correlations) but zero evidence for causation. Assuming neurons give rise to consciousness is mistaking the map for the territory. I disagree with your take on quantum physics. I think the concept of quantum fields disproves the theory that objective matter exists. However, if you are simply saying that matter is a name for what we see and interact with in our environment, I can accept that. But to assume there are physical molecules, atoms, particles, and subatomic particles that exist objectively on their own, outside of a subjective consciousness as material, is a mistake in my opinion. Modern quantum theories clearly posit that their are no particles anywhere, only the universal field, and what we see as matter requires an observation.
I am affraid, the experiments on spikes contaminated the way of speaking of this speaker....he speaks in a spiky way.....very fast...slow...very fast...slow, LOL
VERY VERY ANNOYED. This is unacceptable that lately the RI has been posting lectures purely to promote a book by the presenter. Whatever happened to 'Science for Sciences Sake' with the latest research by Scientists who haven't got a book out? I've unsubscribed to your channel in disgust at the way it seems to be heading.
I think you got it the wrong way around. He wrote the book, like a lot of scientists do to make the information more accessable for normal human beings, and Ri invited him to give a basic talk about the topic. If you search for his lab, which is part of the university of nottingham, you will find all the papers they produced. The book is just compiling them to something understandable and his talk makes it even understandable for younger people, which is a lot of times the point of Ri. You wouldn't believe how many scientists get invited or famous because of their book and deep dive into a topic. Darwin, Newton.. just to name some obvious ones. Scientists write books and we are greatful for it.
@@ddpxl - Darwin’s dad can’t fund everyone. Wallace was self funded and was more through and accurate than Darwin but hardly anyone talks about his work because he didn’t have a promoter with an agenda like Darwin did.
I've been watching The Royal Institution for many years now and it occurs to me how many of the lectures' work overlaps. I would love to hear what Mr. Humphries and Mark Solms, who gave a lecture here a couple months ago about the emotional root of human consciousness, would say about each others work. Can anyone say if there has been any commentary similar to this?
There should always be overlap, so that knowledge can be comprehensive and as all encompassing as one can accomplish. Without those overlaps, we end up with gaps, where guesses and pseudoscience would thrive.
At fisrt I read "How Your Brain Uses Electrical Impulses to Communicate with Mark Humphries"
Then your neurons miscommunicated what was written.
lol
Fantastic lecture! Thanks Mark Humphries & RI!
Clear concise and well illustrated presentation. Deliberate effort to reach out to readers of popular science. Thank you very much
Thanks. I trained as a physicist but I love they way he explains now the old noggin works. The neurons network reminds me of galaxy filaments
This channel is my go to source for. understanding!
I like the little eyes on the neurons. It makes them relatable
One dimensional processes within a 3-dimensional space? 3-dimensional information broken down into multiple 1-dimensional concepts then returns multiple 1-dimensional outputs that can be built out 3-dimensional expressions over time? A system can be built to work in a similar manner, though the number of pre-programmed responses takes time build and the process of growth would have to be emulated through time responsive reinforcement/deconstruction. The 'spikes' reinforce adding time to the existence of the path? Deconstruction happens naturally through 'atrophy'; use it or lose it basically.
You are not unimportant we need more people like yourself
congratulations @the royal institute on 1 million subs, bet your reward centers are spiking all over!
87 billion neurons plus or minus 15%, that do fast, long-range, and complex signalling, and 100 billion glial cells plus or minus 50%, that do additional signalling which the brain relies upon and respond to signal conditions indicating reallocations of function, upgrades or downgrades in neurons (such as adding myelin coatings or allowing them to degrade) are needed. Glial signalling and operations are exclusively short range and somewhat slower than neural signalling, but very mportant to overall function and plasticity.
Thank you for that interesting talk, I especially liked the parts about the things we don't quite understand.
There is must be a point to this presentation? Would you summarise your findings and the use of them?
I would say we ARE our neurons and the rest of neurons in our body. We ARE the impulses.
Thanks for the informative information 😊
is the memory/spikes when the mice is getting the wrong direction/light... stronger/weaker/the same/faster/slower fall off that when it gets it right??
My guess is our neurons are only responsible for weighting and directing sensory input, the more urgent/important, the more weight is given to the path the neurons take to enable a response. I think the real magic lies in the microtubules in terms of memory storage and retrieval & that memory may even be stored in the grey matter. The brain is indeed a very fascinating electro-chemical device. Their is some suggestion at a quantum level that its the collapse of the wave function in the microtubules that gives rise to momentary consciousness. Given enough millions of microtubules, each giving millisecond moments of conscious experience per second, would feel like a constant stream of persistent consciousness since you cant distinguish the time between millions of wave function collapses, the brain cant differentiate such at those short time scales.
hello can u elaborate on those microtubules ? what are those structures ? thanks !
The first few minutes were pretty heavy on neurons talk to each other 😅
Wowsers so let's review...brain speaks volumes
Wow! Thanks for sharing the understanding, Mark. Recalling and recreating a pattern of spikes, after a long time intrigues me now...!
This was refreshingly excellent. ❤️🔥 Finally someone who gets that the brain as we see it in human sensory contexts and measurements makes little sense as currently conceived. I love all the question marks!! You actually understand the problems better than most people I have ever seen. It’s like the Pareto distribution in there. I actually figured out why there are so many paradoxical things associated with the brain and how to solve them. No one believes me though. I know why they don’t believe me but that doesn’t make it any less vexing. The brain and reality are not what people conveniently think they are… not at all. It’s super important to our future survival. Maybe only the very few who “spike” are the ones who survive… 🤷♀️ I’m not entirely joking.
If you knew what language was, then you would understand why I can’t say what it is here. Not in a comment: the problem is not a “piece of data” it’s the configuration of an entire contextual world view. So I wrote 2 books on it instead. 😂 OMG I LOVE YOU 💕😘 KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK !!!
The reason we have abstract thinking ability is so that we don’t have to die for everything to change. We have wars and famines and social strife because people don’t get this. They don’t listen to the people who are CLEARLY DEFINED in their roles by standardized testing of personality and IQ. DEFINITELY NOT IQ ALONE. Yet these same people have the most extreme difficulty in surviving the modern world. That tells you about the future of us all. It actually really does. Thanks again.
31:26 not clear how to differentiate if light was on from if got reward or not. I thought the light indicated the reward??🤔
"That's not the road - it is only a map." If he was being honest he would tell you nobody has any idea what ideas are or where they come from. Scientists are no closer to understanding the nature of consciousness than they were when brain waves were first discovered.
The mind and brain barrier is due to the 4% matter and 96% non matter of this universe. I hesitate to say matter/ spritual (non matter)barrier. This barrier is why we may never 100% understand the mind and conscious like we have with understanding Newtonian classical physic.
@Thé Royàl institution Thank you for the message I will.
@@richb2752 this is not the royal institution... They're scammers
@@WetDoggo Thank you, I just agree and move on. I never call a number given publicly. Thanks again fof your concern.
@@richb2752 that would be 4% matter, 96% vacuum. And that's a massively incorrect thing, as there's a lot more space than there is matter in the universe.
What you are exhibiting is simply magical thinking, there is no such thing as magic, because the laws of thermodynamics have proven, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
One brain Just add consciousness ..
... consciousness is poorly understood ... it's not clear how that works ...
Isn’t it possible that seemingly unnecessary neuronal activity is about indicating activity through the cells that are the supporting structure (attached to axons along their length) of the brain which I recall from an article years ago seems to be part of a secondary communication pathway that perhaps registers area activity or even consciousness?
Clearly, the eyes should have been put on the back of the brain, and not the front.
Excellent stuff, ordered the book straight away.
When a memory, of an image for example, is recalled do the same neurons spike, or does a somewhat different set of neurons spike?
Yes, mostly the same combination of neurones will fire in synchrony. I say mostly because as you know memories are malleable, it can change or be modified.
However the process of memory formation in neuronal population occurs via a process called long term potentiation.
@@dsoma1071 Thanks for the explanation. I will look out for descriptions of "long term potentiation".
Similar question to previous question.When a single neuron spikes causes other spikes, if that original neuron spikes again does it cause spikes in the same neurons as before?
My understanding is that when a single neuron spikes, it does so as the result of the inputs from many other neurons. So, it doesn't cause another neuron to spike by itself, but could inhibit another neuron from firing, or it could be the one that puts another neuron over its activation threshold.
I would disagree with the idea that the neurons are simply using electrical impulses to communicate. That is misleading and not actually reflective of what is happening at the cellular level. Cells are not electrical circuits, they are bio chemical units that can generate minute amounts of energy as electrical signals. But most of the information passed between neurons and cells within those neurons are complex chemical compounds corresponding to some biochemical encoding of physical stimuli. And that is the basis of residual memory in the brain not the small electrical discharge associated with these movements of chemical exchanges across cell boundaries. As physical impulses come in and get converted to chemical signals these ripple through the cells and alter the connections between neurons. This alters the pathways in the brains on a microscopic level so that common signals and patterns of signals form a 'connection' in the brain which is a form of learning.
So because of that, the brain does not actually see a pixel because the chemical activation in the brain corresponding to visual light hitting the retina is not a "pixel". It is a distinct chemical activation pattern that gets connected with other similar signals as a set of connected neural chemical compounds and connections between neurons. This group of compounds and associated bio-electric signals represent the grouping of sets of neurons based on patterns of chemical activation So these low level microscopic chemical compounds traveling through the brain and forming pathways and connections are basically doing a form of segmentation of data. Low level features like that edge you mentioned would correspond to a 'learned' set of connections between neurons corresponding to certain patterns of chemical compounds. This process happens recursively all the way to the top level of learning about things in the real world which are represented as a network of connections between neurons based on biochemical compounds. That process has no analogy in computer software or hardware because a pixel is nothing but a set of numbers with no inherent chemical properties to distinguish between colors of the light spectrum. And that is why there is so much energy consumed in computer software to try and make sense of what pixels represent by running mathematical algorithms. But that extra work is not required because of the way the brain dynamically and automatically generates, propagates and stores this chemical information at a cellular level.
I like your thinking. You are on the right track.
Have you explored using carbon fiber as probes? Carbon fiber is 20 microns diameter but electrically is like an axon ie conductive core with a high resistance sheath but also chemically inert.
The problem would be lessened, but they also have to be insulated until the desired neuron is reached, thickening them and with each probe, you're damaging or destroying healthy tissue that might be a target that you'd want to monitor too.
Mark, you're saying _"billion billion"_ a lot. Is that because, in your opinion, the viewers wouldn't be familiar with *_quintillion?_* In any case, I don't think most people can conceptualize such a big number. I can't either. I can do calculations with it, but I can't conceptualize it.
I was here to see the electrical part of the neurvous system, since the hype is usually on the neurotransmitters and there is no insight by researching them. Probably because this seems to be even farther from the essence.
There must be some physical carriers of thoughts and perceptions, which combined I believe are consciousness.
Why we endlessly focus on following the signal: electrical, chemical, electro, chemo, E,C,E,C. At best we will eventually end up outside of the nervous system in that way. While all the indications point at CNS. The only part of our bodies, which we do not understand.
This actually makes sense, since it must be the part producing us(proper), and unraveling its mystery basically would mean that we have exceeded our creator, have beaten the final boss, and have won the game of life.
Does anyone research what is changed in the receiving neuron itself, not whatever goes down its axon? Sounds like a logical place for searching, at least to me.
The answer to M.Humphies first mystery is obvious: Speed of Light.
Nothing can be faster than photons(electromagnetic waves), not even thought. Especially if the latter had worked only on chemistry.
@Thé Royàl institution what the hell u r doing??
So is it possible that a neuron releases a specific amount of chemicals across the synaptic gap based on the amount of energy running through it?
For example, a neuron having more energy running through it if it receives a signal from say three other neurons than it would if only receiving a signal ( Chemicals ) from one?
If so then each neuron would have different energy levels because of it.
Yeah that is kinda what happens. The lecturer didn't go much into the deep molecular details. When excitatory neurotransmitters are exchanged from one neuron to another, they open sodium channels that locally depolarize the membrane (there's way more to it than that, but that's the general idea). That charge decreases with distance, and you have to reach a threshold at the axon to initiate a spike in the receiving cell. So generally, receiving neurotransmitters from a single spike of another neuron isn't enough to initiate a spike in that cell. The situation that you describe, with multiple neurons exciting the same cell to make that one initiate a spike, is exactly what happens. Biologists call it summation. So good on you for guessing right. I know you asked this months ago, but hopefully that answers your question.
This 'spiked' my interest, there seems to be a deeper underlying meaning to this phrase.
Lol, indeed.
You will also need late Freud, so Winnicott and Lacan, and the epistemic break
I saw a video about the neuralink device reading neural spikes in a pigs brain in real time. How much will this technology impact our understanding of the brain?
It’s a shame that he didn’t use a good microphone for his talk.
The royal institution should simply mail a good microphone to its speakers beforehand.
It is the compression that is the problem. They need to send him a better internet connection...
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 no, it’s mic.
It’s both compression and the mic. Any public talk should use a good boom or freestanding condenser mic. Definitely not one that clips on the collar. Especially if they ever take a drink. 😖 I think collar mics should be banned. Smacking and swallowing sucks. In this case, bad mic and compression made it so it was actually difficult to understand the words yes.
I had no idea my brain communicated with Mark Humphries.
Hehe
I feel like I’m a few billion neurons short.
For the dark neuron problem, I would guess that it's an information thing. Not firing is still information and is less costly than firing. Further, the distribution 10% providing 75% of spikes might be similar to zipf's law - where for example in our language the letter e is very common and the letter x is not therefore the information conveyed by an infrequent firing neuron is higher than a frequently firing one. but the combination provides context.
Exactly. Looking at the brain and asking "what are those dark neurons good for?" seems to me like looking at a book and asking "what are those rare words good for that the author only uses once or twice?"
Thanks 👍
How my brain is feeling fascinated about brains
Probably just me; setting the playback speed at 75% allows me to catch every word.
thanks, i feel smarter now ^^
I never realized they're like little capacitors.
I think like everything in your body, You get like a feedback effect. When it reaches a threshold, something happens. I loved videos like these.
At the beginning of this very enlightening lecture we have 87 billion neurons; at the end Mark says 17 billion. Does anybody know which is most accurate?
88 billion +/- 5%, is the most accurate figure I've heard recently.
87 billion total in the entire brain; 17 billion in the cortex, which is just part of the brain. Roughly, of course.
Being has a tendency to 'return' to clusters
='the nature of solidarity' -a desire for empathy -(Wave)-(yin)
and also,
Being has a tendency to 'exist' as individuals
='the nature of self-expension' -a desire for breed-(Particle)-(Yang)
Likewise, humans have two elements.
We must realize that we all have both left and right elements
=Solidarity and Self reliance
No one has only one element.
so 'Sum' derived from 'two poles' , (thesis, antithesis, synthesis)
To develop intellect and ethics by harmonizing the two,
It is good to realize it and balance it properly
But A few people polarized the crowd(political partisanship)
without balancing themselves.
And They stole only the sum, only the synthesis from the triangle composition.
Now We all have to get out of this deceptive situation.
This is not the time for us to hate each other.
We have to track down those who have been manipulating us.
My brain is using electrical impulses to communicate with Mark Humphries? I hope he's ok with that...
I find it fascinating that there is a group of neurons that are firing specifically when you try to envision neurons. Like they are firing to think of themselves. 🤪
Fantastic
Bravo!
Do you think that one day we will manage to implement telepathy? Capturing impulses from brain, filtering, amplifying and transmitting them, where somebody in a special cap :) will be able to receive and filter them? 🤔
Why is it that 87 billions neurons becomes 17 billions neurons ?
87 is the estimate for the entire brain (including the "old brain" shared with ancestors); 17 is the estimate for the "thin layers" on the surface of the brain (where interesting things about being 'human' happen). While there are often 'bugs' in these docos, this one is not wrong (as far as I know...)
17 billion in the cortex, just part of the brain.
Cool
I am thinking about how virus might have bin important to the early stages of life on Earth
God wouldnt have created it if it wasnt important...
@@BlastinRope i know a lot of people whose existence is contrary to your assertion.
@@antondelacruz9362 even at the fundamental level everything boils down to atttactors and repulsors
@@BlastinRope indeed many people are quite repulsive.
@@nirbhay_raghav - Because DNA self organizes into multiple layers of information including the information only available due to how it’s folded? 😂 God not only created it, He is a genius beyond comprehension, compressing and stacking information 4 fold onto molecules. It’s not linear, it’s 4 dimensional information storage. You can’t change one part without destroying 3 more layers. It’s like multiple books written with the same letters and read like folding origami on the same piece of paper so that you read a different story depending upon how you fold it. That’s not even mentioning the proteins that DNA codes for that not only have to be assembled in the correct order, they have to be folded correctly by another molecule that is also coded for by the DNA. All of those processes have to be turned on and off at the right time based upon signals from other molecules then transported to the correct location. The cell is infinitely more complex than Darwin’s concept of a simple blob of protoplasm.
Drop culture as a stillness, work with Solms and Carroll, & Damasio, and me 😊
Our brains are mini matrix's in 1 giant 1 🙀
Lol, I like it! Thanks 🙏🏻
... the brain isn't technically just in the head is it? ... it spreads into the body ...
Good point.
nhans i cant rither but i would imagine the billions of beurons isvproberly covering the whole world three times over
OMG some one explain we TALK...IT IS OUR BRAIN TALKING... wow amazing insight...Did I Hear that right??? IM TALKING??? Wowsers 👌🤭 look ma my brains speaking
Speech: Needs Improvement. Constant extended pauses. Overly wordy. Talks fast, but pauses and repetitiveness makes it feel S L O W.
56:56 First thing to do is to let go of the existence of a 'mind'.
Actually that is the first thing to see, the central and all-encompassing ground of being. Like god. Obviously there is mind in all things.
@@spiralsun1
Quite. No gods, no minds.
Once we realise that, it all becomes very easy.
Interesting piece. Here's a laymanesque view. The brain, the entire body really, is an avatar by which the life force, energy, manifests a physical form.
As such the you inside any one avatar isn't just that form. You are so much more. Yes a piece of you inhabits a physical form, but that which informs your totality, energy, can never die or be destroyed. It merely transforms.
This is the basis of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
So enjoy yourself in your current form, follow all the muse you can. But recognize that you never, truly, die. You go on for as long as Time exists.
Make of this what you will. As for me I say hallelujah?
John~
American Net'Zen
why do you sound like that? Like your under water !
he is using a gaming headset, give the man a break, his words are valuable, his equipment isnt expensive
i was not trying to put him down ...i just wanted to know why he sounded like that
👍
Almost everything in this presentation us wrong. Mist if the cells in the brain are not neurons but glial cells that are actually respobsibke for most of netabolic abd electric activity in the brain, the dendrites are not generating inputs sigbal tranfre as the spike start soacially and temporally far off the dendrites, and start on neuron body. There us no recognizable signsl processing in the brain as there are not tags to signals and it is impossible to backtrack a signal after it “jumps” from one neuron to another or mixed with signals from different regions of brain. There is absolutely no idea how brain represents information, nobody ever has seen a bit of memory. The directionnsensing neurons send spikes depending on the sensed line direction but the spike trains are just statistical correlates that require much longer time to detect than time the brain needs to complete a response to the visual stimulus. There is a truckload of data on neurons and neuronal activity: but none makes sense… regardless what kind of fairy tale is being told in this presentation.
Stopped reading your comment after 5 typos in the first 2 sentences.
Eye koodn’t hav said it beter miself.
neurotic" at best, old news at any stage, wont bother with the book, i no how to make bread its very simple like this video, the knoledge is ancient.
Try reading books on syntax, spelling, and punctuation instead.
Fansinating subject, I got about 6mins in. However, from that point on, all I could hear/focus on was how many times he 'tut'-ed while talking. 😲
Why was he so disappointed at the beginning of each of his sentences?
-- Shame really, as I was looking forward to this. 😥
I guess your neurons are programmed differently then. I didn't lose focus. I would also assume that he has not given many talks yet to find an epic flow like Szydlo :D
My guy.... greatest footballers you say and the three you chose aint even top three of their respective position for all time 😂🤌🏼
Unreal that a claim like, @00:49 "and it is these 87 billions neurons and their connections that underpin everything that you can do," is widely accepted. It should be ardently dismissed as no where near the truth, and to act as if it is a self evident fact is absurd.
Prove separation between Mind and Matter and win a shiny new nobel prize!
@@gabrielconybearemarsh I've thought often about that hard problem. Can you think of anyways to provide positive proof of that separation? Also, in some way I think, the reality that there is no proof of a causal connection hints at the idea that they may very likely be separated. However, personally, I subscribe to Idealist ontologies, mostly due to the fact that modern quantum theories have disproved the existence of objective matter. So, in a way, there is nothing to separate, because it's all mind. Thoughts?
Side note, what do you think of my original post? Do you agree that this speaker's claim is outrageous and unfounded in any fact? Or do you think neurons "underpin" everything that we do?
@@S.G.Wallner Positive proof of separation between mind and body would be if a complete analysis of brain function did not provide a complete analysis of the mechanisms underlying consciousness.
When asking about a lack of proof, remember that proving things is hard.
Modern quantum theories have not disproved matter, they have provided an alternate explanation for what matter is.
As for the separation of mind and body itself, I would pass no fast judgement on this topic.
@@gabrielconybearemarsh Completely agree with your statement about proof.
I don't agree with your presumption that neural mechanisms "underlie" consciousness. (I could share evidence if you'd like.) We have glimpses of correlations between preprocessed images on a computer screen of a particular type of brain activity, (often embarrassingly weak correlations) but zero evidence for causation. Assuming neurons give rise to consciousness is mistaking the map for the territory.
I disagree with your take on quantum physics. I think the concept of quantum fields disproves the theory that objective matter exists. However, if you are simply saying that matter is a name for what we see and interact with in our environment, I can accept that. But to assume there are physical molecules, atoms, particles, and subatomic particles that exist objectively on their own, outside of a subjective consciousness as material, is a mistake in my opinion.
Modern quantum theories clearly posit that their are no particles anywhere, only the universal field, and what we see as matter requires an observation.
I am affraid, the experiments on spikes contaminated the way of speaking of this speaker....he speaks in a spiky way.....very fast...slow...very fast...slow, LOL
Why does he repeat himself so much?
VERY VERY ANNOYED. This is unacceptable that lately the RI has been posting lectures purely to promote a book by the presenter.
Whatever happened to 'Science for Sciences Sake' with the latest research by Scientists who haven't got a book out?
I've unsubscribed to your channel in disgust at the way it seems to be heading.
I think you got it the wrong way around. He wrote the book, like a lot of scientists do to make the information more accessable for normal human beings, and Ri invited him to give a basic talk about the topic. If you search for his lab, which is part of the university of nottingham, you will find all the papers they produced. The book is just compiling them to something understandable and his talk makes it even understandable for younger people, which is a lot of times the point of Ri.
You wouldn't believe how many scientists get invited or famous because of their book and deep dive into a topic. Darwin, Newton.. just to name some obvious ones. Scientists write books and we are greatful for it.
@@ddpxl - Darwin’s dad can’t fund everyone. Wallace was self funded and was more through and accurate than Darwin but hardly anyone talks about his work because he didn’t have a promoter with an agenda like Darwin did.
you say neurons underpin everything. But that's just an assumption
So your trying to read and control rat brains.
1st