Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

The_Sauce106 OP t1_j27ooko wrote

Reply to comment by philmo69 in The brain has a frame rate by The_Sauce106

Plank length dictates there must always be a limit to how much distance can be traveled at one time therefore there is a frame rate to everything *including the brain -is more what I’m getting at

9

philmo69 t1_j27p3es wrote

Nothing gets processed in that distance though. It would require multiples of the plank length to accomplish any given process in our brain so its not really a valid measurement of our brains processing abilities.

5

The_Sauce106 OP t1_j27plq1 wrote

Distance is distance no matter how much is gleaned from it yes? It may not be useful but it still happens does it not?

5

philmo69 t1_j27r64b wrote

Not entirely sure what you mean by that. Our brains don't work on a scale that runs up against planck length when it comes to forming thoughts. Our minds are a vast network of interconnected neurons and every thought, idea, subconscious stuff, it all happens by passing though multiple parts of this network in whats better described as waves of action that cascade though the brain and end in our perceptions and actions. Every wave branches out so may take a different path than the one before even with the same inputs. So the distance each wave travels is going to be different and they may also travel at different speeds based off conditions. On top of all that we have more then one wave of action traveling though the network of our minds at the same time so we are always in the beginning, middle, and end of processing multiple things at all times at the same time. Of all the metaphors for the mind you could choose frame rate is just doing it injustice.

6

The_Sauce106 OP t1_j27s38k wrote

Sorry for being confusing, I’m autistic and sometimes I don’t make as much sense as I’d hope I would. I meant an incomplete thought can exist as it takes time to form a complete thought, longer than it takes for an incomplete thought to form. In physics terms the plank length implies the existence of a plank time, meaning there is a minimum* amount of time required for an electron to move a plank length, even at the speed of light. Since the brain must follow the existence of a maximum speed (I.e. the speed of light) then the brain must not be able to interpret within the time it takes for the brain to react to stimulus aka there is a period between old stimulus and new stimulus that must exist in the single organ that causes a technical “stillness” that could be interpreted as “frames”

6

philmo69 t1_j27u9p9 wrote

Yeah you're to focus on individual electrons moving short distances... Nothing is accomplished on that scale in the brain. That's like counting the actual monitor frame rate as frames per billionsths of a second instead of how many frames per second. If you counted it as frames per billionsths of a second then almost every billionth of a second you wouldn't be able to draw a frame or do anything on a computers scale. We use the larger scale of how many frames we can draw on screen per second because its more meaningful as we usually only draw 30 to 120 frames every second. In our brains it takes hundreds of thousands of plank lengths or more spread out over thousands of connections to accomplish any given process so it's just a poor scale by which to measure things. Our brains processing flows more than frames. Theres never a given moment that can be interrupted as stillness and referenced as a frame at the scales that are meaningful to our minds. We don't ever exist within a frame and can only view our mind as its current state and never as a fully drawn and complete frame of reference.

5

The_Sauce106 OP t1_j27ugz8 wrote

Just because the number may contain hundreds of 0s doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist tho? I don’t mean there is a large limit, just that there is a limit. Humans and computers are pretty limited in the terms of the universe imo

By that I mean the universe exists before humans, on a scale that isn’t understandable by humans, implying humans are much too slow, or in this case live to short of a life span, to have continuous uninterrupted understanding at even the smallest possible physical point. The existence of knowing and not knowing implies the existence of pre-knowing that leads to knowing, even if that knowledge is not known at the time, does it not?

2

bragov4ik t1_j289tew wrote

I wouldn't call it a framerate though. A notion of frames (at least as it is in computer graphics) means that each picture is prepared with multiple procedures/processes and is fed to the output one-by-one. It's not what happens in the brain, is it? The stuff there is not divided in the same way

3

bocaj78 t1_j2an0wy wrote

Why would you use plank length when you could use the absolute refractory period of the neuron?

2

Ok_Dog_4059 t1_j2buf25 wrote

Definitely our eyes perceive and process at a certain speed because the theoretical limit would be lower than the frames on a TV or monitor otherwise motion video wouldn't work.

2