Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
From Memory System to Mind, How Mind Might Work
Graeme Smith
Thursday, 16 July 2009 21:15 UTC
This is a companion to From Neuron to Memory System: How Memory Might Work Questions about memory should be fielded on that topic, rather than this one, this one is about mind, or as some have taken to calling it Consciousness.
There has been a lot of discussion about consciousness here in BPCC, and I admit I haven’t kept abreast of it, if only because I disagree with a lot that has been said. I am hoping to present in this discussion topic my ideas around consciousness. I expect that I will be stepping on some toes when I do.
My Philosophical Viewpoint is simple and I have held it for a number of years so I don’t expect it will change. Consciousness is probably something that can be explained physically, and we shouldn’t look for a non-physical solution until we have explained enough about the rest of the brains function to eliminate consciousness from the brains normal function.
We haven’t, so I don’t look for a non-physical or even exotic physical solution.
Further, I believe that it is possible to create a machine that is conscious
because once we have explained most of the brain function, we will have a blue-print for a conscious machine.
However I do not believe that we have conscious machines yet, if only because we have not yet designed one that is based on a sufficiently sophisticated model of the brain to meet my ideas of consciousness.
What happened a few years back, was I went from feeling that this was true, to feeling that I had an idea of how we could build such a machine, it was an intuitive jump, that I have been years trying to prove was actually possible.
My earliest theories were easy to shoot down, but as I have begun to study the brain, it has become harder and harder to convince me that my ideas are wrong. They are however to some extent novel, and coming from nowhere as I am, I expect more than a modicum of resistance to them.
The basic intuitive jump is still valid, what has changed is the architecture by which I try to achieve it. Today, my theory involves a basic cognitive architecture based on a hybrid memory model, and a Virtual Machine that sits on top of that architecture, to actually implement consciousness.
The Mind Model begins of course with my memory model which in turn is based on a model of how cortex tissues work. Mature Isocortical Tissue is seen as a three laminae implicit memory, and a two layer interface that allows it to be explicitly accessed.
Of importance to the memory model is the constraints on implicit memory, and how they limit the implementation of an explicit memory complicating the interface. As a result of this, and other parallel memory loops in the larger system, I trace somewhere around 9 separate forms or phases of attention.
The first level of attention, the quick response network, is instinctively driven and operates at about the level of a conditioned reflex. The second level of attention, the Functional Cluster level, is instinctively driven again, and consists of selecting zones of salience for later processing.
The zones are individually prioritized and the zones with the greatest salience are then converted into chunks. Automatically by the Bottleneck.
Making sense of the chunks however, is not a pre-programmed function and so we should see in the fourth and later attention stages some sort of control progression being implemented.
The progression I have suggested, is the Random Impulse, Intention, Volition progression. Random Impulse based motivation depends on limbic bias, to steer it and this starts out to be instinctively steered in the naive state.
As a library of sequences of action/processing begins to form in the cerebellum, it becomes possible to pre-activate sequences according to context. As more sequences are stored, it becomes necessary to select from among many parallel sequences. The Intention System which controls the selection of which sequence is best for which novel situation, is born. However in some cases the selection from among pre-recorded sequences is not sufficient, and so a system that can create programs to order is needed, and we call that system consciousness, and the control system it creates volition.
Now it is important to realize that this model of the control systems, is based on the function of the ACC, which selects from among multiple targets which pre-activated sequences will be allowed to complete. So Intention and Volition are actually responses to the problems of the ACC resolving a problem in selection.
This means that it is probably the circuitry around the ACC in the prefrontal cortex that controls whether we experience Intention or Volition.
Those that see Consciousness and Volition as being the primary cause of activity, will not be willing to accept this model.
Now I am going to shift perspective on this model from control, to programming. Essentially any sequence of action/processing commands, is a program in the command language. A sequence of commands if inserted as a lump, into the stream of commands, can act as a macro command. All that is needed is a two-loop interpreter. In this model we see the inner loop as being achieved by the cerebellum, and the outer loop being achieved by the SMA.
Intention is a method of selecting from among macros, a stream of macros that meets the limbic biases of the individual. Part of this process is the evaluation of a macro to see if it will invalidate the comfort zone of the individual. Part of this process is the creation of a log, that allows the system to automatically rewind a program that has gone astray. To do that we need to have a listing of all the processes started during intention. Part of the problem is that we may have multiple processes ongoing at the same time, and so there might be a competition for place on the more or less serial log. I have called this log the “Awareness” buffer because the processing of the log in order to determine whether or not to rewind, makes us aware that we were processing information, and Echoes that information to our awareness.
Awareness is required simply because we allow macros to be formed automatically, and they might exceed the comfort zone of the individual organism and have to be rewound so that we can protect ourselves from extreme situations that were errors in the automatic programming.
Beyond intention lies the rewind script, and the problem of how to select a new macro, that does not have the flaws of the old one. To deal with this, we need to be able to monitor the parameters under which the old macro ran, and have some sort of feedback to the limbic system that allows us to adjust limbic biases. Further we need some way to evaluate, whether we have adjusted the limbic biases correctly, and we need some way of fabricating a new program around the new limbic values. One way of doing this is to have limbic meta-cognitive signals that indicate the strength of the limbic biases, Awareness plus these meta-cognitive signals, gives us a greater number of options for redirecting intention. We can then experiment with different variations of intention, and see how they interact with the model of self.
Of interest here is the “Consciousness” Buffer which reflects the richer feedback environment including the meta-cognitive signals so that second order processes can be rewound as easily as first order processes.
By presenting the meta-cognitive signals as “Feelings” the system assures that the organism adjusts it’s parameters in ways that increase the comfort rather than making it worse, unless there is a valid reason why not. This allows the brain to readjust the “model of self” if it gets out of range.
To be able to do that however, the brain has to recognize which elements it caused itself and which came from the outside environment, and to do this, it uses a meta-cognitive signal associated with the Awareness/intention mechanism to indicate which functions it pre-approved. One of the ways that we might be able to tell if we are experiencing awareness or consciousness is by testing whether or not we are aware of a feeling of self. If the feeling exists we are probably experiencing consciousness rather than awareness.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
One of the aspects of this model, is the illusary nature of consciousness. Because feedback of the awareness and consciousness buffers are the main regulatory mechanisms at this level of control, and because awareness is only distinguishable from Consciousness by a lack of meta-cognitive feedback, the illusion is that whenever the brain is aware it is also conscious.
Since Consciousness is also the mode in which time passage is remarked, there is no way of determining how much of the time the brain is using intention versus Volition, and so the illusion is that we use more Volition than we do and therefore that we must be conscious more than we probably are.
-
If this model of Mind is correct, then we can see why philosophers and scientists are struggling with the nature of perception as reflected by consciousness.
They are trying to find evidence for primary perception, when it is secondary reflection that is being reflected into the tertiary functions. Thus there is no mapping to memory elements in the primary perception areas, and it is not obvious what processing is being done in the Belts, that could be reflected into the tertiary perception or Association areas.
Obviously something is being stored in the belt, and when they analyze the belt areas they can see how they connect to the core areas, but the actual content, is still stored as a neural network and that doesn’t relinquish its contents in a recognizable form. The question becomes how does the brain represent such a diffuse and difficult represtation to itself?
I think the answer lies in Laminae I. Eccles in his paper The horizontal (Tangential Fibers) System of Laminae I of the Cerebral Neocortex, suggests connections via laminae I to the collossum, and to other cortical areas, my interpretaion is that Laminae I interprets these signals from inside the brain back into implicit memory. Igor Aleksander in one of his many attempts to build axioms around consciousness, Called these internal signals imaginational, while I personally dislike the implication that all imagination is, is an internal representation, the ability to link an internal representation to an external stimuli allows us to interpret the internal representation with the same mechanisms as the external one.
Thus we get the illusory image that we have the real world reflected in our minds when really what we have, is an incomplete model of it, that is constantly being updated and interpreted, and includes inner stimuli just as much as external stimuli.
Because there is no separation at the Cerebral Cortex level between inner stimuli and external stimuli being stored in the implicit memory, the inner stimuli must pass through the same sensory modality processing as the external stimuli, and so, suffers from the same limitations as the external stimuli did.
However because the stimuli are not raw stimuli, but have been put through some processing already, one of the possible effects is a reduction in the richness of the representation. This however would be offset by the richness of the implicit associations with the signal, if it was recognized by the content addressable aspect of implicit memory.
It is this feedback that makes the internal memories richer, and in a sense answers the question of why we have a rich inner life.
-
“They are trying to find evidence for primary perception, when it is secondary reflection that is being reflected into the tertiary functions. Thus there is no mapping to memory elements in the primary perception areas, and it is not obvious what processing is being done in the Belts, that could be reflected into the tertiary perception or Association areas.”
;-) your getting there.
The IDM work shows that we process information using recursion. The INITIAL dynamics are mechanistic and as such reflect establishment/use of categories without extension – IOW the categories lack the differentiation of literal/figurative and in doing so are biased to being literal in form – very ‘hard science’ focus.
The recursion will get to a point, given depth, where there is a sudden shift from the mechanistic to the organic, akin to physics/chemistry into biology. Most ‘hard science’ is too focused on the mechanistic levels of information processing and any study of consciousness, and so, IMHO the realm of mediation and language creation, needs to be at the organic levels to get good results etc.
Most in these sorts of lists are, IMHO, over-educated ‘hard science’ people; too mechanistic in their points of view and not aware (or ignoring) the properties and methods of the neurology in the derivation of meaning etc. See the link the below for a summary of the IDM work:
I have also set up a facebook group:
…and there has been a yahoo group for some years.
The difference between “MIND” and “BRAIN” is in neural hierarchy dynamics where movement from the literal to the figurative, and so emergence of rich symbol utilisation etc, makes the difference. The IDM work shows that the base level of the neurology is still active where there are no symbols and we can use such to translate one set of symbols into another – the Emotional I Ching work being an example of such where fight/flight patterns used to assess some context can be translated into yang/yin patterns when we use the IDM template that covers the possible classes of meanings available at the base level neurology.
Move UP the neural hierarchy and we move into increased abstractions and the realm of WHY, move DOWN the neural hierarchy and we move into increased concreteness and the realm of HOW. In the movement we will cross-over the literal/figurative boundary and so move from the organic to the mechanistic/mechanistic to the organic. The shift is sudden and brings out the development of language from recursion (and so recursion into ‘self-referencing’) where the categories formed through mechanistic means form a set able to describe itself by reference to itself (gets into such as group theory etc)
Chris.
-
To add more to the ‘emergence’ of consciousness and the differentiating from our more integrating species nature:
The following references/video bring out a general development path of consciousness from our species nature where the latter is parallel, holistic, immediate, but can lack sequence precision that comes out of consciousness, to the development of language and symbols. As such we have a focus on asymmetry/anti-symmetry and serial, consciousness, natures compared to the pattern matching skills of our parallel, primate, natures.
Jung noticed the issues of an emergent consciousness from a species ‘collective’ mental state. In my EIC book introduction we have:
“As a species that has developed rich consciousness so each of us, within ourselves and within a specialist collective, develops a high degree of subjectivity in our dealings with the everyday; our applications of yang/yin. The more developed our consciousness the more subjective our nature. Carl Jung (a user of the I Ching and author of the introduction to Richard Wilhelm’s famous translation/interpretation of the I Ching) covered this well:
“We can say that individuals are equal only in so far as they are in a large measure unconscious – unconscious, that is, of their actual differences. The more unconscious a man is, the more he will conform to the general canon of psychic behaviour. But the more conscious he becomes of his individuality, the more pronounced will be his difference from other subjects and the less he will come up to common expectations. Further, his reactions are much less predictable. This is due to the fact that an individual consciousness is more highly differentiated and more extensive. But the more extensive it becomes the more differences it will perceive and the more it will emancipate itself from the collective rules, for the empirical freedom of the will grows in proportion to the extension of consciousness.
As the individual differentiation of consciousness proceeds, the objective validity of its views decreases and their subjectivity increases, at least in the eyes of the environment, if not in actual fact. For if a view is to be valid, it must have the acclaim of the greatest possible number, regardless of the arguments put forward in its favour. “True” and “valid” describe what the majority believe, for this confirms the equality of all. But differentiated consciousness no longer takes it for granted that one’s own preconceptions are applicable to others, and vice versa" p83 C. Jung, The Nature of the Psyche (RKP)"
Jung’s focus on a ‘collective unconscious’ covers:
“…it must be pointed out that just as the human body shows a common anatomy over and above all racial differences, so, too, the human psyche possesses a common substratum transcending all differences in culture and consciousness. I have called thus substratum the collective unconscious. This unconscious psyche, common to all mankind, does not consist merely of contents capable of becoming conscious, but of latent predispositions towards identical reactions. The collective unconscious is simply the psychic expression of the identity of brain structure irrespective of all racial differences. This explains the analogy, sometimes even identity, between the various myth motifs and symbols, and the possibility of human communication in general. The various lines of psychic development start from one common stock whose roots reach back into the most distant past.” From “Commentary on ‘Secret of the Golden Flower’” CW 13 par. 11
To the above thoughts we add a focus on differences between Caucasian children and aboriginal children; the former strongly educated symbol development etc, the latter strongly educated in ‘direct experience’ of a desert life – This research occurred back in the 80s at the University of Western Australia
There was another paper in 1986
To summarise the texts (if you don’t have access), Psychologist Judith Kearins conducted experiments to discover any differences between the way aboriginal children think and the way Caucasian children think. She conducted tests whereby aboriginal and Caucasian children are shown a tray on which are placed various objects. She then got the children to close their eyes and she then jumbled the objects on the tray. The children were then asked to open their eyes, look at the trays, and put the objects back in their original positions. The aboriginal children always outperformed the Caucasian children.
One of the differences found by Kearins what that the Caucasian children muttered to themselves whilst doing the test whereas the aboriginal children remained quiet and impassive.
Given the above then view this video where we see a similar form of test but now between humans and chimps.
The IDM model of brain function covers the emergence from our species nature of our consciousness. In this dynamic we move from parallel to serial methods in processing data and this is a function of EDUCATION (left hemisphere biases to differentiating/serial emerge from a right hemisphere bias present at birth. Pressure to differentiate in a competitive context elicits the shift and in doing so moves us away from holistic/organic processes to partial/mechanistic processes.
As such we move from a dynamic covering symmetry/anti-symmetry and pattern matching (sameness) to a mediation focus that is asymmetric and associated with delay and language development.
The brain biases cover an integrating nature that is organic/holistic/relational focused and symmetry prone but lacking the point precision of differentiating (there is a VISION bias, we take a picture of the whole and work on that). The development of abstraction (through differentiating) increases the use of symbols and delay for the benefits of precision in communicating beyond the immediate context but this comes with a price if we don’t maintain our holistic skills as well.
Work on the primitive languages of tribes in the Amazon have brought out the SAME differences where the more ‘primitive’ brains had integrating ties with the context as compared to the high levels of differentiating of more ‘educated’ brains.
The emphasis here is not on any ‘genetic’ differences across races etc but on levels of development either due to lack of neural connectivities/mass (as in the chimps) or in lack of education of ‘primitive’ tribes to more differentiating perspectives. As a SPECIES so our determined nature is grounded in SYMMETRY. As education bring out our consciousness so we become more ASYMMETRIC due to mediation and language development. In this shift we can lose contact with our holistic, organic, immediate, experiences of reality.
-
Ok, Chris
Good match with the IDM model, although I found the original article hard slogging, it might just be because I didn’t sleep last night, and you were bringing in so many outside sources on the problem that I was overwhelmed.
The Neuron, is often expressed as an integrating device. The Computational Neuroscience guys are working on a theory that is a little more accurate than the assumption that neurons just integrate. One article I just read in Journal of Computational Neuroscience, suggests that the two layers in the superficial layer pattern of the ISOCORTICAL and ALLOCORTICAL Tissues. The reason there are two layers is that Laminae II acts as an error generator that indicates how closely the pattern from Laminae I matches the pattern stored in Laminae III
Two approaches one where the error signal acted as a negative feedback signal blocking the expression of the third layer, and one where the error signal was used in an inverted form to encourage the firing of the third layer, and a case was made for both being the same formulae just expressed in different numbers.
However we can see in the belt/core/association pattern some support for IDM
in that the core is likely to be integrative only, the belt can differentiate and the Association areas can associate specific data elements from the belt to specific functions.However one problem I have with the IDM hypothesis, is the concept of Meaning It probably isn’t the same as association, and so implies a jump of some sort in processing that I don’t see being there.
-
“However one problem I have with the IDM hypothesis, is the concept of Meaning It probably isn’t the same as association, and so implies a jump of some sort in processing that I don’t see being there.”
Firstly IDM covers the RECURSION of differentiating/integrating and so an emerging dimension of categories mixing the elements of the dichotomy. This dimension is ASYMMETRIC where differentiating/integrating reflects aspect/whole patterns rather than the more traditional form of dichotomy that is part/part or whole/whole in form and grounded in the exclusive OR.
Secondly, the meaning element is emergent and occurs with some depth in the recursion – as covered, we move from the mechanistic to the organic where the categories derived are found to ‘suddenly’ form into classes of meanings that allow for the set of categories to describe each category in depth and so we move into self-referencing and the emergence of language.
Thus at the mechanistic level the categories formed are ‘literal’, symmetry focused and so ‘resonating’ as ‘meaning’; the immediacy of experiencing ‘wholeness’ or ‘partness’ within the single context of direct sensory experience. With DEPTH in the recursion emerges SEQUENCING of the categories that allows for abstractions and communications out of the single context realm of direct sensory experience – we move into abstractions and symbol manipulation that allows for out of context communications.
ALL dichotomies map to the template and as such we include the dynamics of positive feedback (differentiating) and negative feedback (integrating). The hierarchy involved brings out what is differentiated by positive feedback, an so discretised and amplified, contains negative feedback within the boundary of differentiation UNTIL we get down to differentiating a POINT. Since integrating requires at least TWO points for its definition so we lose the definition and move into ‘infinities’ and the potential run-away nature of positive feedback.
The ‘jump’ focus is brought out when we focus on the emergence of patterns of ‘interdigitation’ of elements of a dichotomy – such being a natural product of recursion and identified across, for example, the amygdala of our brains where fight/flight is interdigitised (and so present as ‘banding’). (Covered in such texts as:
Gainotti, G., and Caltagirone, C., (eds) (1989) “Emotions and the Dual Brain” Springer-Verlag )
Using a probe across the interdigitation brings out behaviours of ‘fight’ XOR ‘flight’ but general behaviour does not work like that and so indicating a summing of layers of differentiations to elicit ‘meanings’ (cortical layers being fundamental and different across ‘sub brains’:RAS level – one layer
Limbic – three layers
Cingulate cortex – four layers
Neo cortex – six layers)Thus we have a hierarchy of fight/flight moving general to particular – e.g. (F = fight, f = flight) using just four layers:
differentiating – integrating
FFFFFFFF – ffffffff generic, core brain level – diffuse, vague
FFFFffff – FFFFffff
FFffFFff – FFffFFff
FfFfFfFf – FfFfFfFf strong interdigitation level, concentrated, particular, surface levelIT is the COLUMNS that derive different classes of meanings; the ROWS just make finer differentiations of the original F/f dichotomy. Can we see the implied ‘diffuseness’ of the banding as we drill down from a surface? Yes we can. Banding across the brain surface become ‘diffuse’ as we scrape away layers of the brain. IOW at a surface level distinction of FfFf, scrape that away to present a more diffuse expression of FFff etc.
AN example of integrating is the IDM III category that covers “Integrating in general to then again integrate so I can then again integrate in particular” – as compared to “Integrate in general to then differentiate so I can then integrate in particular” (IDI category).
Just three loops of recursion give us qualities mapping to:
wholeness through integration
wholeness through differentiation
partness through integration
partness through differentiation
static relatedness (sharing of space) through integration
static relatedness (sharing of space) through differentiation
dynamic relatedness (sharing of time) through integration
dynamic relatedness (sharing of time) through differentiationMove into the symbolic realm and we find the above seed the qualities of the types of numbers we use in mathematics and, by association, all that is described mathematically. (and so the ease in emotional experience of mathematics etc) – as they do the basics of emotional expression, categories of personas, categories of socio-economics, categories if yang/yin etc etc etc. Thus from basic recursion at the neurological levels we move into rich meaning generation at the more abstract levels of the neural hierarchy. The ESSENTIAL feature is the shift from single context, mechanistic dynamics to an organic level that allows for symbol development and so out of context communications. If you stick to ONE level of analysis all you can see is the interdigitation. It is the summing of levels, covering general to particular, that bring out the full meanings/experiences-of-such.
Chris.
-
To cover the focus on a ground of integrating – we are a genetically-determined species. Determinism associates with symmetry, symmetry with the ‘best fit’ for existing in a thermodynamic, asymmetric, universe in that the essential adaption is conservation of energy and so such an adaptation introduces all the other forms of conservation.
As a species we are energy-conserving, social, symmetry grounded. An extension of that symmetry is the development of a topological nature that allows for symmetry distortion in the form of anti-symmetry, ‘difference within sameness’ in the form of aspects analysis. This anti-symmetry nature is present and the anti-symmetry/symmetry dynamic is our being as a determined species. BUT an emergent property of the dynamics of difference/sameness is that of mediation and from THAT position, grounded not in symmetry (perfection etc) but in uncertainty and the asymmetric, is the ‘home’ of consciousness and language creation.
The genetic code takes on a form covering production through recursion (pyramidine/purine asymmetric dichotomy) and so coding of genes. The same process applied at the level of neocortex introduces ‘memes’ etc. IOW a common ground for ‘code/language’ creation is in recursion. The differences are in the level of activity, the neural mass and huge connectivity of our neurology introduces language creation etc. and somatic determinism is reflected in a form of psyche determinism as ‘fixed’ classes of meanings open to local contexts for customisations through use of symbols – IOW we use the ONE set of classes of meanings in ALL contexts with labels identifying ‘difference’ – the genetic level dynamic is of genotype to phenotype – local context ‘guides’ genetic expression etc.
Our focus on SCIENCE is a focus on properties of symmetry – repeatability, reflection, falsifiability etc etc and so a grounding in SAMENESS and a CLOSED system where all is ‘known’ but with different sets of labels (and so a focus on metaphors where they are all interchangable in representing reality etc – a very post modernist perspective of ‘any metaphor will do’)
OTOH our unique consciousness is a focus on OPEN system dynamics, the mediation with local contexts and so the play of difference/sameness. As a conscious species we have to be wary of our ‘instinctive’ attractions in that an attraction to symmetry can be step ‘backwards’ ;-) – like moths to a light, total belief, an attraction to ‘perfection’ can get one burned or at least led astray in attempts to understand the universe and ourselves.
Chris.
-
Ok Chris, now I know I disagree with you.
That is what I thought, but you hadn’t dumped your ideas of what meaning were on me yet.
If you look at my model more closely, you will see that the Association areas are brought into play at about the time that my Complicit Attention begins to process the data. Further, you will note that not long after, the Cerebellum starts recording the processing sequences, and turns them into automations.
In other words I don’t expect sudden emergence of meaning, so much as storage of Associations over time that become meaning. Although every mother thinks her baby is a genius, we don’t expect babies to go from ga ga to discussions of the meaning of life in sudden bursts of understanding. It might seem sudden from a storage point of view, but really, the nature of the storage changes because the original storage on which it is based is still available for reference. What we get is many more simpler clusters of storage versus fewer more complex clusters. There is an explosive gain in the number of details to the associations, but little overall gain in the size of the storage required to store them.
I am much more interested in how the fringes of the various domains combine than I am in the association areas themselves. For instance, there might be a belt joining the Optical processing areas with the Auditory processing areas, but where are the associated association areas? As well where do the “where” and “what” data routes that are claimed connect to the core/belt/Association areas. There is room in the Temporal Lobe for the what route to be absorbed because the Auditory complex is so small but the models I have seen do not deal well with connecting the dots from both processing centers.
No Chris if the meaning were so simple to generate the cerebral cortex would be a lot smaller.
-
“In other words I don’t expect sudden emergence of meaning, so much as storage of Associations over time that become meaning. Although every mother thinks her baby is a genius, we don’t expect babies to go from ga ga to discussions of the meaning of life in sudden bursts of understanding”
The dynamics covered is represented in network development – a regular network covers a symmetric form where all is connected as POTENTIAL. Exposure to a random network – i.e. our environment – elicits the actualisation and customisation of potentials and that will form a ‘small world network’ – and we DO see this in the brain with the banding patterns reflecting customisation. For example the ideal interdigitation of dichotomies such as Fight/flight reflect customisation and so fitting in to local contexts. e.g.
ideal interdigitation: FfFfFfFfFfFf
customisation : FfFfffFFfFFfThese patterns cover ANY dichotomisation and recursion – e.g. left/right fields of vision in the occipital lobe or left/right hemisphere connections in the frontal lobes or fight/flight connections in the amygdala.
(see such work from invasive studies as:
Goldman-Rakic, P.S., (1984) “Modular organization of the prefrontal cortex” IN Trends in Neurosciences Nove 1984 pp 419-424
Glas,A., (ed) (1987) “Individual Differences in Hemispheric Specialization” Plenum Press.
Hutcheon, B., & Yarom, Y., (2000) “Resonance, oscillation and the intrinsic frequency preferences of neurons” Trends Neurosci. (2000) 23, 216-222
Constantine-Paton, M., and Law, M.I.,(1982) “The Development of Maps and Stripes in the Brain” IN “The Workings of the Brain” A.H. Freeman. )
Modern-day fMRI etc require behaviour to elicit patterns – invasive studies allow for coverage of the full range of POTENTIAL expressions rather than the limitation of trying to elicit ACTUAL expressions so these may be old but they are still valid.
The classes of meaning generated from the neurology require neural mass and connectivity to develop into language where the words etc learnt to REPRESENT these classes come from exposure to context. Thus our sense of self is not completed as a ‘whole’ until about age 2 and then comes years of education that customises the general into particulars. BY age 5 we have a ‘theory of mind’, by age 7 we have started to develop reasoning skills. Our brains do not ‘finish’ connecting up until our early 20s and by that time we HAVE moved into ‘complex thought’ given a context that encourages such ( and that includes considering introducing philosophy studies from 7 up!)
Furthermore, our inefficiency due to NOT understanding brain dynamics has led to a focus on metaphor creations and the taking of the figurative literally, our symbolic realm has developed from the basics of a single context, integrated, nature (our species nature) and covers repeated acts of ‘reinventing the wheel’, different words for the same things.
Studies on savants lead us to consider the use of rote learning through dichotomisation and recursion as representing information processing mixed with degrees of indeterminacy (the random element) where such allows for the emergence of a rich associative memory system from constructive/destructive wave interference patterns (the language of the neuron being with frequencies/wavelengths/amplitudes and the use of spectrum exchange etc)
As such our memories take-on the ‘form’ of the patterns we see in EPR experiments in quantum mechanics. These experiments reduce to what you get when you combined dichotomisation, recursion, indeterminacy, and storage of such. This can be shown using pen and paper – as done in the section in the IDM summary – Brain Oscillations, Indeterminacy, and Emergence of the ‘Particle/Wave’ Duality – we see here the mix of local plus distributed encoding of information (and THAT gets us into flocking behaviour patterns, cymatics, emotional resonance, mirror neurons etc etc )
The regular network dynamics has its roots in the chaos game, where ANY containment of noise will elicit spontaneous order through recursion and our senses are containers as is our brain a container of containers – and so hierarchy.
There are two basic forms of hierarchy – the more symmetry focused, semantics focus of network/web-like hierarchy and the more anti-symmetry/asymmetry focused, syntax focus of pyramid/tree-like hierarchy. These two classes cover relational space (semantic web) and object space (syntactic tree) as they do WHERE-when-how and WHAT-who-which.
The overall scale of development covers the ‘fractal’ nature of information processing grounded in the neuron (pulse-axon/wave-dendrites, aka AM/FM biases) that is repeated all the way ‘up’ into the same FM/AM patterns found in the neocortex and out into the dynamics of our social collectives.
“No Chris if the meaning were so simple to generate the cerebral cortex would be a lot smaller.”
What you call the brain is in fact a multitude of brains, ordered general to particular, back to front, RAS, limbic, cingulate cortex, neocortex. Each has developed in an ad-hoc manner out of/over the previous and reflects increase in resolution power and so making of finer and finer distinctions. The hierarchy allows for semi-independent functioning of levels and reflects different biases in hormone class and signalling (e.g. older areas focus on noradrenalin/serotonin, move into more precision and we have limbic/cerebellum with a focus on dopamine. Move into more precision and we have the neuropeptides of the neocortex.)
It requires high neural mass and ESPECIALLY high degrees of neural connectivity to get to a level of rich differentiation allowing for ‘joining the dots’ that allow for advanced methods of communication covering symbol creation in a local context FM clarity from non-local context AM diversity – summing of relational data into ‘thingness’ – extractions of patterns of potentials into actuals. (For the brain as a high/low band filter see refs in such as:
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/general.html )Thus the symmetry position is a position of vagueness, of AM waves. Move into the anti-symmetry/asymmetry and we move into FM pulses and the high precision of the discrete.
Move down to your basic neuron and the glutamate/GABA dynamic covers expand/contract, differentiate/integrate, positive-feedback/negative-feedback. Recurse these to get a rich set of classes that seed meaning generation.
Across ALL of these scales the recursion dynamic is present and so comes with the DEPTH factor identified in IDM where the mechanistic becomes organic.
Chris.
-
Well chris, IDM is your baby and I understand your adherence to it. but really, using AM/FM technology as a metaphor gets a little thin.
And that combinational stuff, you keep pushing, seems rather contrived when you consider that the locations of signals is indeterminate at each level of organization in the brain. The problem is that it is so easy to see patterns in processes, because we as humans expect to see patterns in processes.
I wish you could be more direct about what you are trying to say, I find myself overwhelmed with the prospect of trying to tie all the threads of your work together into a cohesive concept.
Recursion is an important factor in learning, but it is not magical, everything that is done by recursion can be done by iterative means, perhaps not as efficiently, but without a doubt.
There is a lot going on in the brain, and while it comes in sections that each work independently in parallel, there is a need to understand that the control processes are shared among the sections not individual for each section. Calling the sections each their own brain is a little much.
The possible exception to that rule is the hemispheric sections where indeed the control mechanisms are bilaterally symmetric and used to form a Bicameral Mind. However in my model the shift to modelling the future, broke the bicameral nature of the mind, which is important to the sophistication of consciousness, and might be an option unique to humans. It is important that we understand the changes in the brain that broke the bicameral nature, but until we have a working model of how the brain works, we are left with only hints as to what it means that the brain is divided in this way.
Results
-
