A Challenge to Cecil

Great Debates
1

Fact: There are about 10 billion neurons in the human brain (with a higher concentration in the cortex area, compared to other species).

Fact: When we learn something, we make a new connection between some (previously disconnected) neurons in our brain.

Fiction: Human beings use only X % of their brain capacity.
To-date, no neuroscientist nor any brain specialist has been able to measure what X is. It could be anywhere between 1% to 100 %. Does anyone know what X is? Can you give me a web site that even addresses the issue, let alone measuring X?

Conjecture: There is something weird about the number “10 billion”. According to the scientific community, our heart is made up of 10 billion cells, so is our kidney, so is our lung, our brain, etc. It appears that when there are around 10 billion cells, in harmony, they inherently create an organism/entity with capabilities well beyond any one of those single cells. Of course, cancerous cells (such as Hitler) can do a lot of damage, but you eventually develop a defense mechanism against them.

Fact: In year 2000, the population of earth is 6 billion. We will reach the “magical” number of 10 billion by year 2050 (and according to United Nation’s projections, we will not exceed 10 billion).

Subject of Debate: In 50 years from now (if we are alive), will we finally reach a point where each one of us would be a mere “one cell” of a healthy (harmonious) organism, much more intelligent than any one of us?

Challenge to Cecil: I have a realistic and doable plan (with funding) to achieve the above objective. Let’s stop your ridiculous cult business and get on with realistic action plans to make exciting and interesting things happen.

2

Fact: You are an idiot.

Fiction: Cecil Adams is an actual human being.

3

[Moderator Hat: ON]

Fact: Ablett has broken the rules by directly insulting another user in Great Debates.

Fact: If he does it again, there will be Hell to pay.

David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

4

First off, how certain are you about the number of cells present in different organs?

According to the site http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/what.html , there are about 100 billion cells in the human nervous system. The Encyclopedia Brittanica says 10 billion at http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/8/0,5716,119938+7+110703,00.html, but contradicts that number at http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,119942+1+110704,00.html, where the figure one trillion neurons is used.

Yet another page, http://www.nanomedicine.com/8.5.html, discusses the task of estimating the number of cells in the human body. May I ask where, exactly, you read that so many organs in the human body all have roughly 10 billion cells?

If it is true that each human organ contains 10 billion cells, does this imply that there is something special about the number 10 billion? Might there not be a simpler explanation for this, such as similar numbers of cells in similarly sized structures? How would this theory apply to other animals, whose number of cells may be either much greater than or much lower than the number of cells in a human being? For that matter, how would it apply to animal populations whose own numbers already exceed ten billion?

I must admit, I am dubious as to the magic nature of the number 10 billion. Do you have any other evidence to support your claim?

As for the idea of only using X% of our brains, that question was covered in Cecil’s column. You can find that one here: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_028.html. It was also covered in my introductory psychology course at University.

It appears to me that the statement “We only use X% of our brains” relies upon a misunderstanding of basic brain physiology. It may be that you have simply stated your case too generally. Could you be more specific as to what the value X% refers to?

5

I guess you don’t get to The BBQ PIT very often.

6

To save David B. the trouble:

Fact: There are rules for what’s acceptable in the Great Debates forum

Fact: There are different rules for what’s acceptable in the BBQ pit forum

Fact: You posted your message in Great Debates

Fact: Your message contained content appropriate only in the BBQ pit.

Therefore:
Fact: David gave you a warning.
Fact: Fenris

7

[anti-hijack-hijack]
To (attempt to) address to OP.

This sounds like something like a Gaia hypothesis twisted with a distortion of basic physiology.

Let’s say the brain has x number cells. These cells impart “consciousness” or “intelligence” to a person by interacting and responding to stimuli.

We, as humans, are somewhat similar. We interact and respond to stimuli. When we have x number of humans, will we gain a “collective consciousness” or something?

IMHO: No. Neurons are extremely specialized and work in a narrow fashion. They are spatially organized and their connections have been culled by evolution and development so that they can process signals in fixed pathways. A neural net is all fine and dandy, but it does nothing without being “trained” to process signals. Otherwise, you can stimulate all you want, but the stimulus is not appropriately processed.

So, human population is more like an untrained neural net. Given the nature of society and the complicated reactions people already have to stimuli, this neural net can never be trained.

8

Are you saying that calling people an idiot in this forum results in an official warning? I guess David B has got some catching up to do then. He can start with the offenders in this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=43676

9

Are you saying that calling people an idiot in this forum results in an official warning? I guess David B has got some catching up to do then. He can start with the offenders in this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=43676

**
[/QUOTE]

Yup.

A) Mods can’t be everywhere, and they may have missed that one.

B) The thread you referred to was from October, in my opinion only the whole board has taken a stricter stance on it’s rules recently. And, IMHO, this has improved the board.

C)The rule in Gread Debates is: You can insult the idea, but not the person. So someone could say that “All Skeptics are Jerks” and get away with it, but if someone said “Fenris is a Jerk” they’d get a warning, or tossed, if the offense is repeated. There’re some grey areas, but the mods go out of their way to be even-handed in enforcement and it generally raises the level of discussion here. (Recent political threads notwithstanding…:slight_smile: )

D) Technically, this discussion should be in About This Message Board if you want to discuss the general policies and rules of the forums, or, if you want to single out David for giving you a warning (and I’m not saying you do/did/are), ‘discussions’ about specific moderatiors or their actions go in the BBQ Pit.

Fenris

10

I wish you had more to add, rather than merely questioning the basis of my remarks. Without going into too much technical details to bore everyone in this forum, I refer you to the following:

1- Check on the works of the world famous neuroscientist: Wilder Penfield. You’ll find 100s of references on any Internet search engine. He spent his entire career on determining the % utilization of brain capacity.

2- Beyond the Encyclopedia or Internet surfing, I suggest you dig deeper by joining the following organizations to keep up with the latest findings in neurocybernetics research:

Brain Research Institute @ UCLA
The Neuroscience Institute in New York
Cognitive Science Society in San Diego
Society for Psychphysiological Research
American Electroencephalogram Society in Atlanta
Man-machine Systems Society @ MIT
Institute of neurological signal processing

The latest finding from the joint neuroelectric and neuropharmacoligal societies measure the number of human brain cells at 10 billion based on the following assumptions:

Packing density @ 10 to the power of 7 (in circuits/cm3)
Power dissipation at 10 to the power of -9 (in W/gate)
Speed of 100 cycles per second
Ten to the power 9 Switching/cm3/second
Switching per joule of 10 to the powe 11
Memory density of 10 to the power 16 bits per cm3
Computing power at 10 to the power 12 switches per second

As you can see, many explainatins in real life are not as simple as the common man’s answer: “God knows”

If you need further insight, please contact me out-of-this forum through my E-mail.

I will be in Seoul, Korea, during the week of January 14. If you have something to add, I could meet you there.

11

I am sorry, but after reading the OP again, i think we have to take another look at my suggested rule: “Any user caught posting while on drugs… must share with everyone who tries to read his post”.

Ablett- you are so very right, and yet so very wrong.

12

[Moderator Hat: ON]

Fenris: Thank you for your posts explaining things to Ablett. However, please leave the moderating to the moderators. When you post to try to explain things, the person to whom you are posting inevitably tries to argue, and it sends the whole thread spiralling out of control (as it has here). I would much rather you e-mail Gaudere and I to let us know that we are needed. You had good intentions, and I appreciate it, but I ask that you leave it to us.

Ablett: Yes, I am saying that calling people an idiot in this forum results in an official warning. Was I somehow unclear in my official warning? I’m glad to see that you were able to use the search function to find a thread in which we missed an insult. However, the fact that we missed one does not make yours okay. Perhaps your mother has at one point told you that two wrongs don’t make a right?

If you have any other questions about the moderation, please send them via e-mail. Further discussion of the moderation that is posted in this thread will be deleted.

David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

13

I’m going to task a wild guess here.

The number 10 billion has nothing more special to it than “forty days and forty nights,” does in the Bible.

The latter means it lasted quite some time, but we’re not sure how long. The 10 billion number is just a rough aproximation that is commonly accepted, becuase it’s workable, but not precisely true.

10 billion is a good rough aproximation for a largis human organ sized batch of cells to have.

If you have a site that suggests that all organs are made of 10 billion or so cells, that might mean something. I suspect that things like the appendix, bladder, and prostate, which are somewhat smaller don’t come close to that figure.

14

(completely off-topic comment)

With the way my doctor has been concerned about it lately, I wouldn’t be surprised if my prostate were approaching the 10-billion cell mark…

15

If anyone is truly interested in your ideas they will be glad to hear the technical details. As for questioning the basis for your remarks, do you regard this as a bad thing or as an oppurtunity to explain and develop your theory? In my opinion, it hardly does any person any good to be surrounded by “yes-men”, who accept anything that person says without question. Agree or disagree?

**
You may be confusing this with Penfield’s mapping of the sensory-motor cortex. And, while it is indisputable that Penfield was a brilliant man and an important figure in neuroscience, his work is hardly the most modern or cutting edge research done on the subject.

In any event, neither my knowledge of Penfield from university nor an internet search turned up anything about using only X% of our brains. I must ask you again, what exact measurement does this number X refer to? If it were clear what quantity you were talking about it would be easier to discuss the other aspects of your idea.

**
Although I have a great interest in neuroscience, I do not have the time to do as much reading as I would like on the subject. Could you be so kind as to provide some cites for research which support your position?

**
In my previous reply, I did not deny that 10 billion is a valid estimation for the number of cells in the brain. I did, however, point out that other valid estimations place the number of cells there at up to two orders of magnitude different.

It seems that your original post relies upon the number 10 billion as having some sort of magical property. Am I correct in asserting this? If the quantity you used to determine this magic number (namely the number of cells in the average human brain) cannot be accurately expressed within a power of ten, how does this affect your calculations?

I am still, as I said before, skeptical about the magical properties of 10 billion or any other number. Do you have any further evidence that this number is special? By what mechanism could the number 10 billion provide a superior organizational principle to any set containing that many elements?

A story which shares many elements with your theory may be found at http://www.csicop.org/si/9605/monkey.html. What is your opinion of the hundredth monkey hypothesis?

**
I agree wholeheartedly. That’s why I ask so many questions. I wish to understand.

**
I have to apologize, but I cannot in good conscience do that. This is a public discussion, and I cannot help but feel that there are people other than yourself and myself who may have useful things to add to the conversation.

16

This hypothetical was addressed incredibly well By Douglas Hofstader [sic?] in “Godel Escher Bach: Eternal Golden Braid”.

Any serious wonderers should apply within.

17

To: Pyrrh012

First. General observations on your comments.
Second. Some answers to your specific questions.

1- Please note that when I used the number 10 billion, I prefaced it with the word “about”. The number could be easily off by a factor of 10. It could be 100 billion or only 1 billion. If you look at the United Nations’ projection of world population through year 2125 http://www.popin.org/longrange/tab1.htm , you will see that it could be anywhere between 10 billion to 100 billion. Similar error margins probably apply to the counting of brain cells.
2- Please note that the OP used 3 statements of facts, one fiction, one conjecture and a proposed subject of debate. It appears that in your zeal to “want-to-know-it-all-right-now” in a hurry (since you apparently “do not have the time”, and only want web sites, with no hard work of researching through the tons of work in the 9 organizations I cited) you are questioning validity of some remarks that were part of the fiction and the conjecture. Please note that the number ‘X” appeared in the Fiction, not the Facts. Also note that “a conjecture”, by definition, is a supposition. Is has a long way to go to even become a theory.

And now to some specifics.

1- Measurement of the number of cells in human organs (especially the brain) is a subject of current research in the scientific community. For an up-to-date “cutting edge research” on the subject, you may want to start at http://nervenet.org/papers/3DCounting.html#Introduction Once you start on that journey, you’ll realize that there is more to this baby than a straight/easy answer you’d love to have RIGHT NOW.

2- There could be many definitions for “percentage utilization of brain capacity”. I propose: Number of connections made between any two active cells through synapses and neurotransmitters, no matter what the number of total cells are in the brain. Note that the essence of SDMB is Eradication of Ignorance. That implies education and learning. And that could imply making new connections among brain cells where there is none.

3- You assume that people, including the SDMB audience, is really interested in this subject, like you and I are. Well, I have news for you. So far, there are only 363 viewers and 15 posts to this thread, and the thread is fast going at the bottom of the current debates, meaning that the participation will soon die down to zero. By contrast, there are thousands of viewers and posters to the subjects “Penile Lengthening Column” and “Circumcision Thread” and these threads are still actively alive. What does that tell you about the interest in “increasing % utilization of brain capacity” and the current state of human interest, let alone the current state of human ignorance.
4- The reason I suggested that you and I take any follow-on discussion out of this forum was because of the item 3 above.

18

Since this is your conjecture, I would expect you to be able to support it with specific references to specific pieces of research. Is this an unreasonable expectation? If you believe it to be so, how much or how little evidence would be needed before your conjecture would seem a reasonable topic for serious discussion? Is it necessary that there be any evidence at all?

As for my own “no hard work”, I would like to state that in my many years of reading about psychology and the human brain I have never come across anything which would lend credence to the conjecture you wish to discuss. By asking questions I am seeking to establish a baseline of knowledge along which discussion may continue.

See my question above regarding how much evidence is required before this conjecture becomes worthy of discussion. Is it correct, or even possible, to intelligently discuss any randomly generated conjecture about the state of the universe?

**
You stated in the OP that you wished to have a debate on this matter. Your exact answers to my questions are, at this time, of less concern to me than your methods of determining those answers. What sort of a debate did you actually wish to have? What kinds of questions would you consider appropriate at this time, and what kinds would you not?

**
Two questions about this statement. How could such a value be measured? What use would said number have, either scientifically or medically?

I realize that you labeled the statement about X% of the brain as fiction. However, you seem to think that there really is some number X which can be identified and which holds some significance. I do not believe this to be true.

The percentage issue may be irrelevant to the subject of debate in your OP, but still I must take exception to it as I still believe it to be founded on faulty assumptions about neurophysiology.

Have you read much of the circumcision discussion yourself? It is interesting that you lament the state of human ignorance, since JDT would often do that himself. I suppose that this thread lacks the mass appeal of a thread about penises.

19

To: Pyrrho12
Response to your post #3 in this thread

1- It appears that you and I have pretty well monopolized this debate as there are no other participants and few (if any) viewers. So much for your statement in your post #2: “This is a public discussion, and I cannot help but feel that there are people other than yourself and myself who may have useful things to add to the conversation”.

2- A quick check through your profile shows that you have blocked access to your E-mail address. I wonder why is that? Maybe you are Cecil Adams in disguise, trying to get a core dump from other people so that you may preserve your status (for your cult followers) as “Mr. God, who knows it all”. If you are indeed a mere curious researcher, perhaps you care to explain why you don’t want to take this discourse off-line when there are obviously no more interested participants or viewers. Why are you hiding behind a closet?

3- Since I started this thread, there have been many interested parties that have asked even more specific and pointed questions than you have. One of them is goldeneye1000@hotmail.com who is even offering funding to see my roadmap for implementation of the project (Another Cecil Adams in disguise?!). I have spent hours answering his (and other people) questions. I suggest either you send me an E-mail so that I copy you with all my answers, or contact directly people like goldeneye to get a copy.

4- Here is an answer to one of your main questions in your post #3.

Your question: “I would expect you to be able to support your conjecture with specific references to specific pieces of research. Is this an unreasonable expectation?”

My answer: Since you are a psychologist (Arts Major), as opposed to a psychiatrist (Science Major or an MD from a Medical School, requiring many more solid years of hard core science vs. soft “science” in psychology), I can give you an egocentric answer such as: When Einstein came up with M=C2, he provided few references simply because he was a genius.

However, since I am no Einstein, here is two reference background material that influenced the formation of my conjecture. Your profile says you are in Korea. I assume you can read Korean. But can you read German (Einstein’s language) or Spanish (the language of the highest % of earth inhabitants, after Chinese and Indian). The following are in German and Spanish. Good luck!

A. http://www.heise.de/bin/tp/issue/dl-artikel.cgi?artikelnr=2080&rub_ordner=special&mode=html

B. http://www.errepar.com.ar/internet/editorial/Catalog2/document/elreino.htm
Now, if you cannot read or understand the above 2 references, someone could interpret that as a possible measure of ignorance (I don’t). This brings me to answer your next question:

5- Your question: “How could X be measured? What use would said number have, either scientifically or medically?

My answer: To Eradicate Ignorance (which is the slogan of SDMB), one needs to first measure ignorance. Otherwise, you have no way of knowing whether you are making any progress in eradicating it. Since your profile says that you are interested in mathematics, the following (a very simplified representation of a very complex model) should be easy for you to follow:

Let Z be the number of neurons in your brain
Let Y be the number of current connections between any two cells in your brain.
Let T represent Time, where T0 is the point in time when you were conceived.
Let G represent your genetic profile.

Assuming when you learn something, you make a new connection between any two active neurons in your brain that were not previously connected, then:

X = % utilization of your brain capacity = f(Y,Z,T,G). (In reality, this is a much more complex function than the 4 variables above. There are many more variables including the rate at which your active cells become inactive).

To get my point across in a very simplified manner, let’s ignore T and G for the moment. Then, the simplified model can be expressed as:

X = % utilization of brain capacity = 100Y*(Z-2)!/Z! , where (!) denotes factorial.

Now, Pyrrh012, I am done answering your questions because you are now going to ask more of them, and I can go on forever behind the keyboard just because “some inquiring mind wants to know”. Maybe you now want to come out of your closet and show what you can bring to the table, rather than continuing with your endless questions?
(Are you, by any chance, interested in my consulting rates? Oops. I forgot that I am not allowed to sell anything through this medium).

BTW, your last comment refers to JDT. What is that?

20

Obviously a typ-o, Einstein’s equation should have read
E=MC2 (Energy = Mass x square of speed of light).