>The measurement you could do is something like the ratio of maximal
>glucose use vs. average glucose use. Or maximal firing rate for a neuron
>vs. average. Obviously, if you knew anything about how the brain works,
>one realizes that this is stupid, which is why no card carrying
>neuroscientists ever actually state it. The only time the brain would
>actually be in full use is when you are about to die, having a stroke, or
>having a grand mal seizure. So this is why it's silly. The assumption is
>that the brain is something akin to a power plant, which it is obviously
>nothing like.
>glucose = on
no glucose = off
on = 1
off = 0
0 = 0
1 = 1
10 = 2
11 = 3
100=4
Notice that when you think four, one unit of nerve cells are on, and two units
of nerve cells are off. Therefore off means the brain is being used.
Now for the bad news. One is a maximum reading of on. Use and meaning
is also wavelet in nature and is an analog of partial values. In a wavelet
system zero is extremely important. So is summation of partial values. The
situation becomes more complex when any one value of on is being controlled by
the reciprocal inhibition of a value of one. Neural then becomes the most
important value
in the brain suggesting that off is using the brain at 99% level an the 1% on
has meaning only in comparison of the background of offs.
PET scans of expert chess players illustrates the point. Very low use of
glucose
as they play chess has been observed.
Ron Blue