+ 1 - 0 | § ¶More thoughts on the brain.
The MIT Press recently sent me an update concerning some books they've recently published that I might be interested in, one of which is a kind of introductive series of primer articles on human consciousness. Reading through the introduction sample chapter they have online I was struck by a bit of an insight, and remembered an earlier article I had written about the brain.
I had talked about creating an artificial brain, and I had come up with two levels of brain function that would communicate between the various brain 'processors' such as vision, memory, feelings and so on. I figure there's a symbolic network that allows for fast communication of concepts and emotion (A blue car) and a detailed network carrying hard data (A blue 1989 Renault 5 GTE).
The book MIT offered has a list of the differences between conscious and unconscious thought. By the time I'd reached item #3 I was reeling from some part of my brain saying "Yo, here's an idea!" By #4 I had to stop and sort out this idea pinballing through my head, force myself to sort the idea into words like putting a shirt on a hyperactive child (At this point I'm resisting the urge to digress into a discussion on labels and the way language determines what and how we think only because I think the first idea is more important).
The MIT book excerpt concentrated on the idea that since we cannot yet define consciousness the best way to work on it was to focus on the difference between conscious and unconscious. Here's the first four items on the conscious/unconscious list from the MIT book:
The very idea of these different states seemed to directly correlated to my idea of a detailed and symbolic network within the brain (note that there need not be only two networks). Conscious thought seems to be exactly what I imagine would result from a focus on the detailed network's communication. Conscious: Explicit, immediate, informative, attended. This car is blue, slightly darker than sky blue. It's a Renault five, you can tell by the boxy shape and hatchback configuration. Unconscious: Implicit, long-term, predictable, unattended. This is a blue car, it's mine, I've been driving it for years, it's a friendly, warm, reliable car.
I imagine someone whose faculties are impacted, perhaps by injury, and in a state where the base brain, the symbolic part is functioning more than the advanced, detailed part, and I see how closely their actions seem to coincide with the unconscious list. They can't answer complex questions, but know old memories by heart. They know their address, but couldn't give you directions. They know you're a friend, but can't tell you why, or where you met, or perhaps your name.
An example of the opposite state, someone with an overactive higher-level network focus might be the professor so intent on noticing details of the car that he fails to realize it will knock him over if he does not move. The lower brain performs the gross calculations, the higher brain checks the details, does the math. Between the two a balance is struck and action - or inaction - is chosen based on available data. Two networks, both mandatory for complete operation of the brain.
Herein lies the crux of my internal debate on the algorithm for creating a synthetic brain, and what seems to be the question among scientists trying to study the nature of consciousness: What is the mechanism for evaluation and decision? What part of the brain receives and processes the different layers of thought and arrives at a conclusion?
One idea I had was that there is no such part, and that the body is merely a puppet of the out of control mind, constantly warring between the primitive mind (Eat, hate, fuck) and the advanced mind (it's tuesday, I have a 3:30 appointment). When the signals from one brain network become significantly energetic or forceful that network is given priority of the body, a kind of "Incoming rock, flee!" vs "What's Jimmy doing bending over and moving his arm like that?".
Food for thought...
I had talked about creating an artificial brain, and I had come up with two levels of brain function that would communicate between the various brain 'processors' such as vision, memory, feelings and so on. I figure there's a symbolic network that allows for fast communication of concepts and emotion (A blue car) and a detailed network carrying hard data (A blue 1989 Renault 5 GTE).
The book MIT offered has a list of the differences between conscious and unconscious thought. By the time I'd reached item #3 I was reeling from some part of my brain saying "Yo, here's an idea!" By #4 I had to stop and sort out this idea pinballing through my head, force myself to sort the idea into words like putting a shirt on a hyperactive child (At this point I'm resisting the urge to digress into a discussion on labels and the way language determines what and how we think only because I think the first idea is more important).
The MIT book excerpt concentrated on the idea that since we cannot yet define consciousness the best way to work on it was to focus on the difference between conscious and unconscious. Here's the first four items on the conscious/unconscious list from the MIT book:
| Conscious | Unconscious | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Explicit cognition | Implicit cognition |
| 2. | Immediate memory | Longer term memory |
| 3. | Novel, informative, and significant events | Routine, predictable, and nonsignificant events |
| 4. | Attended information | Unattended information |
The very idea of these different states seemed to directly correlated to my idea of a detailed and symbolic network within the brain (note that there need not be only two networks). Conscious thought seems to be exactly what I imagine would result from a focus on the detailed network's communication. Conscious: Explicit, immediate, informative, attended. This car is blue, slightly darker than sky blue. It's a Renault five, you can tell by the boxy shape and hatchback configuration. Unconscious: Implicit, long-term, predictable, unattended. This is a blue car, it's mine, I've been driving it for years, it's a friendly, warm, reliable car.
I imagine someone whose faculties are impacted, perhaps by injury, and in a state where the base brain, the symbolic part is functioning more than the advanced, detailed part, and I see how closely their actions seem to coincide with the unconscious list. They can't answer complex questions, but know old memories by heart. They know their address, but couldn't give you directions. They know you're a friend, but can't tell you why, or where you met, or perhaps your name.
An example of the opposite state, someone with an overactive higher-level network focus might be the professor so intent on noticing details of the car that he fails to realize it will knock him over if he does not move. The lower brain performs the gross calculations, the higher brain checks the details, does the math. Between the two a balance is struck and action - or inaction - is chosen based on available data. Two networks, both mandatory for complete operation of the brain.
Herein lies the crux of my internal debate on the algorithm for creating a synthetic brain, and what seems to be the question among scientists trying to study the nature of consciousness: What is the mechanism for evaluation and decision? What part of the brain receives and processes the different layers of thought and arrives at a conclusion?
One idea I had was that there is no such part, and that the body is merely a puppet of the out of control mind, constantly warring between the primitive mind (Eat, hate, fuck) and the advanced mind (it's tuesday, I have a 3:30 appointment). When the signals from one brain network become significantly energetic or forceful that network is given priority of the body, a kind of "Incoming rock, flee!" vs "What's Jimmy doing bending over and moving his arm like that?".
Food for thought...