4 ms·
> I still fail to see why having a single neuron that circumnavigates the brain should lead to consciousness. The number of neurons you can trace is limited by
by nacc 10y ago
> I still fail to see why having a single neuron that circumnavigates the brain should lead to consciousness.
The number of neurons you can trace is limited by the methods: traditionally you can only stain a couple of neurons at most, otherwise the mangling axons and dendrites just make it impossible to differentiate between the neurons. Although now there are better methods (e.g. "brainbow" for barcoding neurons, "CLARITY" for whole-brain imaging).
In this case although it's just a couple sample neurons from claustrum, but given that same type of neurons in the brain tend to cluster together (which is how we differentiate brain regions anyway), it is likely that there are many, many more neurons like this in claustrum.
Claustrum has long been hypothesized to play a role in conciousness, however we know so little about this region (it was only a couple years ago people first recorded neural activity from that region!). This provides support about it because consciousness contains information about just all sensor/motor/cognition, therefore a neuron that computes consciousness should have access to a large amount of brain regions. So finding this neuron which basically connects the whole brain is supportive to this hypothesis. What's more supportive is the fact we have never seen neurons like this anywhere else: so even if it's just a couple of neurons in the claustrum, the potential bayes factor favouring their role in consciousness can be quite high.
- pm_s_mp 10y agoWhile you are not incorrect in that consciousness stems, in part, from the interaction of various lobes/regions of the encephalon, consciousness as we perceive it subjectively (I realize this is a bit tenuous logically, but I am being both as accurate and precise as I can be) is a mixture of the world without and the world within our physical bodies. I realize this is a little metaphysical, but the truth of consciousness is one that Penrose and many others refer to in a sense of entanglement, the sense that we are connected beings and that connection drives consciousness inasmuch as what we perceive, how we perceive it, and the reactions to that perception are all part of what Feynman describes extraordinarily well in his work regarding Q.E.D. That is to say, and I'll try to use the most layman-esque terms I can while maintaining scientific integrity: what you know, what you perceive with your mind, is known because of how it is and how you are. The mental connection between those two things is very real. Here's a nice little "thought" experiment for you. Take a walk somewhere. If you can, note what you are thinking in relationship to your memory of the things that you are observing (with all of your senses) in terms of their metaphorical juxtaposition and/or relationship. That metacognition is a good example of the entanglement that comprises our consciousness. Therefore, the Claustrum (and I love that name, Santa Claus-esque, very apropos) is merely (ha) the network hub if the senses, but it does not direct consciousness. The interaction of the senses, the external (autonomous as it is and therefore unregulated by the Claustrum) world, and all of your memories, imagination, theorizing, etc, are what comprise your consciousness. Inordinately complex, yes, but nonetheless a definite phenomena that we can seek further to define, understand, and recognize as something we can model and learn more from as we meander our way to enlightenment. If this seems a bit dense, or a bit abstract, it's because the knowledge is incredibly knew and has less grounding than even something as nascent as Dark Matter, Quantum Computing, or whether global temperatures are steadily on the rise.......
- snowwrestler 10y agoYou can look at it like this: you carry around in your brain a computational model of the world, and the model includes yourself, because you are part of the world. The apparatus for receiving and making sense of input from our external senses, and input from the rest of the brain itself, is the same. Consciousness is the brain perceiving and modeling itself. If that sounds totally recursive, it's not, because there is much more to the brain than consciousness. For example consider recent research showing that emotions are essential to making decisions. We don't consciously choose which emotions to experience. But take away emotions, and people find it very difficult to make decisions. They can evaluate the options, but can't choose which one to take action towards. Our conscious minds spend most of their time reacting. After all most people don't think to themselves "I consciously choose to like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla." But they might think "I consciously choose to not eat ice cream tonight."
- red75prime 10y agoThe bayes factor favoring their role as part of nonspecific overall brain activity regulation is high too.