Strange neural oscillations in the human brain

This is surely an indicator of just how much we still don't understand about the human brain;

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-11-neuroscience-evidence-brain-strobing-constant.html

Although there is much speculation, the real function of these neural oscillations is still unknown and I do wonder.
No doubt their true function will one day be discovered and just maybe someone will get a Nobel prize for nailing and proving that function.
I also wonder exactly what might go wrong if those oscillations where disrupted so that they were replaced with 'smooth and continuous' neural activity? -would there cease to be any consciousness or mind? or would it have only some miner effect because those oscillations have only some function of miner importance?

Originally posted by @humy
This is surely an indicator of just how much we still don't understand about the human brain;

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-11-neuroscience-evidence-brain-strobing-constant.html

Although there is much speculation, the real function of these neural oscillations is still unknown and I do wonder.
No doubt their true function will one day be discovere ...[text shortened]... e only some miner effect because those oscillations have only some function of miner importance?

According to this piece, it has to do with auditory response, 1/6th second, 160 millisecond sloshing between cycles and seems to have been corollated with more sensitivity in hearing during certain parts of that cycle. It happens so fast we can't tell the difference but they have specialized audio equipment that can apparently deliver well timed audio pulses of various amplitudes that can be used to tell the difference between more sensitive parts of the cycle and less sensitivity in hearing in certain time slots.
So if they used a pulse width of say 50 milliseconds at 1000 hertz, that would represent 20 complete cycles of that frequency which the ear would probably hear as a click but they can make that amplitude lower or higher and see where you can't hear it any more.

Originally posted by @humy
This is surely an indicator of just how much we still don't understand about the human brain;

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-11-neuroscience-evidence-brain-strobing-constant.html

Although there is much speculation, the real function of these neural oscillations is still unknown and I do wonder.
No doubt their true function will one day be discovere ...[text shortened]... e only some miner effect because those oscillations have only some function of miner importance?

Plausibly it's origin is to avoid burning out the circuitry, the neurones get a small amount of downtime to recover.

Originally posted by @humy
This is surely an indicator of just how much we still don't understand about the human brain;

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-11-neuroscience-evidence-brain-strobing-constant.html

Although there is much speculation, the real function of these neural oscillations is still unknown and I do wonder.
No doubt their true function will one day be discovere ...[text shortened]... e only some miner effect because those oscillations have only some function of miner importance?

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics

"In your book The Emperor’s New Mind, you posited that consciousness emerges from quantum physical actions within the cells of the brain. Two decades later, do you stand by that?
In my view the conscious brain does not act according to classical physics. It doesn’t even act according to conventional quantum mechanics. It acts according to a theory we don’t yet have. This is being a bit big-headed, but I think it’s a little bit like William Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of blood. He worked out that it had to circulate, but the veins and arteries just peter out, so how could the blood get through from one to the other? And he said, “Well, it must be tiny little tubes there, and we can’t see them, but they must be there.” Nobody believed it for some time. So I’m still hoping to find something like that—some structure that preserves coherence, because I believe it ought to be there."

Originally posted by @metal-brain
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics

"In your book The Emperor’s New Mind, you posited that consciousness emerges from quantum physical actions within the cells of the brain. Two decades later, do you stand by that?
In my view the conscious brain does not act a ...[text shortened]... hing like that—some structure that preserves coherence, because I believe it ought to be there."

String theory might or may not be wrong but;

1, as far as I am aware, Roger Penrose never said or believed quantum physics is wrong. I suspect that claim is just made up nonsense.

2, regardless of his theory, there is NO evidence or reason to believe that 'consciousness' requires some kind of fundamentally new physics of the world that in same way contradicts what we know about quantum physics.

Quantum physics, not to be confused with the Neil Bohr metaphysical interpretation of it which may well be wrong, is a proven scientific fact by an overwhelming mountain of evidence and, to date, there isn't a shred of evidence implying it may be wrong.

Originally posted by @humy
String theory might or may not be wrong but;

1, as far as I am aware, Roger Penrose never said or believed quantum physics is wrong. I suspect that claim is just made up nonsense.

2, regardless of his theory, there is NO evidence or reason to believe that 'consciousness' requires some kind of fundamentally new physics of the world that in same way contra ...[text shortened]... ing mountain of evidence and, to date, there isn't a shred of evidence implying it may be wrong.

One line of evidence against the quantum consciousness bit: Right now we have electronic neuron circuitry enabling computers capable of beating world champion Go players and there is nothing even vaguely quantum about transistors and such except maybe tunnel diodes but still the whole artificial neuron circuitry could in theory be run on Eniac level tube run computers, transistors and such are just used to make the things buildable in the real world. If we had to, like with some kind of artificial neuron circuit based on tubes in some kind of Manhattan project level exercise, could make neuron circuits, even if the thing was a mile long to do it. There is nothing fundamenal preventing tubes from doing the job of transistors and IC's in modern neuron circuits.

Originally posted by @humy
This is surely an indicator of just how much we still don't understand about the human brain;

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-11-neuroscience-evidence-brain-strobing-constant.html

Although there is much speculation, the real function of these neural oscillations is still unknown and I do wonder.
No doubt their true function will one day be discovere ...[text shortened]... e only some miner effect because those oscillations have only some function of miner importance?

The methods of this experiment are confusing. Is this a behavioral test for whether or not participants can identify a tone generated at a random time interval? The sinusoidal plots represent the average accuracy of each participant to correctly identify the pitch of each tone at each time interval?

The error bars seem huge compared to the actual differences between peaks and valleys of the strobes.

If real, it is likely that, as the authors suggest, the sinusoids represent alternative sampling of left-ear vs right-ear stimuli in the brain. This would make sense given that if you sum the right ear + left ear data it is a straight line.

Originally posted by @humy
String theory might or may not be wrong but;

1, as far as I am aware, Roger Penrose never said or believed quantum physics is wrong. I suspect that claim is just made up nonsense.

2, regardless of his theory, there is NO evidence or reason to believe that 'consciousness' requires some kind of fundamentally new physics of the world that in same way contra ...[text shortened]... ing mountain of evidence and, to date, there isn't a shred of evidence implying it may be wrong.

I agree. Here is a quote from him.

"My own view is that quantum mechanics is not exactly right, and I think there’s a lot of evidence for that. It’s just not direct experimental evidence within the scope of current experiments."

Not exactly right is not the same as wrong. Could be interpreted as partly wrong, but not completely.

String theory has no experimental support. Until that changes we will never know.

If you think you are smarter than Penrose just say so. Ironically, his credentials are far greater than your own, something you like to point out to others far too often. Try resisting that urge in the future.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
The methods of this experiment are confusing. Is this a behavioral test for whether or not participants can identify a tone generated at a random time interval? The sinusoidal plots represent the average accuracy of each participant to correctly identify the pitch of each tone at each time interval?

The error bars seem huge compared to the actual diffe ...[text shortened]... This would make sense given that if you sum the right ear + left ear data it is a straight line.

It would be an interesting control to run the experiment again on people deaf in one ear.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
If you think you are smarter than Penrose just say so.

I don't.
If you think you are smarter than the vast majority of scientists that say you are wrong then just say so.

Originally posted by @humy
I don't.
If you think you are smarter than the vast majority of scientists that say you are wrong then just say so.

What vast majority? What am I wrong about? I don't recall having an opinion you disagree with on this thread.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
What vast majority?

the majority of scientists

What am I wrong about?

global warming + me

I don't recall having an opinion you disagree with on this thread.

perhaps you are so stupid as not to comprehend your own posts.
"If you think you are smarter than Penrose just say so."
is expressing your hypocritical opinion that I am arrogant when it is you who arrogantly thinks he knows better than the scientists, not me.

Originally posted by @humy
the majority of scientists

What am I wrong about?

global warming + me

I don't recall having an opinion you disagree with on this thread.

perhaps you are so stupid as not to comprehend your own posts.
"If you think you are smarter than Penrose just say so."
is expressing your hypocritical opinion that I am arrogant when it is you who arrogantly thinks he knows better than the scientists, not me.

Wrong thread. This is not about GW.

Majority of scientists means nothing by the way. They have to be climate scientists for it to be relevant. Since no poll has been done of only climate scientists that does not omit most of them, you have no proof I am wrong.