How the brain (at least the important parts of it) works

[bascule]

Jeff Hawkins, creator of the Palm Pilot and founder of the Redwood Neuroscience Institute presents an hour long discussion on how the human neocortex and thalamocortical loops work:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2500845581503718756

 

He's also implemented this in software (see my other thread)

[pioneer]

To model the brain in way that allows us to integrate it one needs to look at something very fundamental. The easiest way to begin is to look at a basic neuron. The neuron has two basic branching processes, the axon and dendrites. Typically, current as cations, enters the dendrite, flow through the cell body and out the axon. The axon, in turn, dumps the cations back into the dendrites.

 

What this configuration implies the axon is at higher potential than the dendrite, which is why it can dump the charge directly. The dendrite uses the cell body to act like gates in a canal, to push the charge up the hill. Once it reaches the axon hill, the axon pours it down the dendrite tubes. The dendrites can pump out charge directly but not into the axons.

 

Wit the dendrite at lower potential and axon at higher potential, this configuration also causing potential to flow from axon to dendrite on the same neuron, via the migration of potential on its outside surface. It is a big loop with respect to a single neuron. It goes out the axon, along the outside of the neurons body, down the dendrite tubes, through the body of the neuron, and then back out of the axon, etc.. This neuron circulation helps the dendrites recover from firing, since the loop allows surface charge, on that neuron, to flows to the dendrite to help speed recovery.

 

This basic schema is important, because it is also used by the brain. The primary firing matter of the brain is the cerebral matter. Although it is using both dendrites and axons, net current flows into the thalamus region, located at core of the brain. There are axon bundles for this net flow of current to the brain's core. The net result is that the cerebral is analogous to the dendrite (lower potential) and the thalamus analogous to the axon (higher potential). Although we wish to make the cerebral the top dog, we need to look in terms of where the current flows. To keep the analogy to neuron function going, there is also a backwash current from the thalamus back to the cerebral, that is analogous to the flow on the surfacce of a neruon from axon to dendrite.

 

One may ask why this is important? Around the thalamus are features that are responsible for the creation of long and short term memory. Here is the flow. The cerebral fires. The current goes to thalamus or core. This signal triggers the memory storage mechanism. Finally, the backwash current goes back up to the cerebral and helps physically store memory.

 

If you look at neurons and their branches these look like trees. As the branches get smaller they will increase their curvature. The higher the curvature, the higher the surface tension, the more potential. Since the smallest branches is what the synapses use for memory, the backwash current, by being higher in potential, increases surface tension making it easier for new branches to grow into new memory connections.

 

Our brains constantly bulk fire as reflected by brain waves. This implies a constant background current to the thalamus and a constant backwash current, even when one is just staring off into space. With humans we tend to focus on a limited number of things at one time. This narrow range of attention, in light of the brainwaves bulk firing, results is a much more concentrated backwash where we are focusing. In other words, brain waves assures a steady current and backwash. If we dam the backwash, with our concentration, we can get more pressure at the point of focus. This is what allows humans to learn to quickly. An animal can not dam up the backwash like humans. It tends to distribute for slower learning.

[iNow]

The neuron has two basic branching processes, the axon and dendrites. Typically, current as cations, enters the dendrite, flow through the cell body and out the axon. The axon, in turn, dumps the cations back into the dendrites.

 

What this configuration implies the axon is at higher potential than the dendrite, which is why it can dump the charge directly. The dendrite uses the cell body to act like gates in a canal, to push the charge up the hill. Once it reaches the axon hill, the axon pours it down the dendrite tubes. The dendrites can pump out charge directly but not into the axons.

So, how does your theory fit with existing knowledge of the sodium/potassium channels?

 

 

It's not electricity, it's chemoelectricity complete with myelination.

 

 

Around the thalamus are features that are responsible for the creation of long and short term memory. Here is the flow. The cerebral fires. The current goes to thalamus or core. This signal triggers the memory storage mechanism. Finally, the backwash current goes back up to the cerebral and helps physically store memory.

 

Hmmm... This seems to use important words in the right places, but definitely comes across as contrary to what I've read. Can you please share a few sources detailing this mechanism so I can ensure my knowledge is as current as yours?

[pioneer]

Irregardless of the mechanisms of ion pumping and the affect of neuro-transmittors and such, the surface of the neuron is full of cations. I am only following the potential flow and not concerned with mechanisms. The fact remains when synapses fire the direction of Na+ is down the dendrite tubes. This occurs because the dendrites are at lower potential than the axon. All the details of the mechanism are important, but not necessary when it comes to following the potential. This potential is generated by ATP and the Na+K+ pumping. It is stored within the accumulation of the cations on the exterior of the neuron. The movement of this potential along the surface of neurons and into/out of neuron is more important to help us understand and simplify the potential movements of the brain.

 

Let me add something to the model presented. Because the cerebral is at lower potential, the backwash current will not only induce surface tension for possible branching, but in the short term it will increase the potential around dendrite and can cause them to fire. For example, we think, or use our sensory systems and that fires cerebral neurons. This goes to the core. The backwash, by being at higher potential, than the cerebral, needs to lower potential when it accumulated in the cerebral. The best way is down dendrites. This implies, firing which spontaneously triggers other memories that become conscioous. The result is a loop that becomes self perpetuating. This gives us an easy place to add consciousness.

 

The current models are way too complicated and make the brain sterile in the sense that they don't even make provision for consciousness. The simple movement of potential and backwash current gives us a mechanisms for interactive and self sustaining loops. This gives a way to add consciousness the picture without having to get unconscious.

[iNow]

I am only following the potential flow and not concerned with mechanisms. The fact remains when synapses fire the direction of Na+ is down the dendrite tubes. This occurs because the dendrites are at lower potential than the axon. All the details of the mechanism are important, but not necessary when it comes to following the potential.

 

I'll take your respones to mean, no, you cannot provide evidence of the mechanism you propose and that your theory does not fit with chemoelectric gating. That's fine. I didn't realize this thread had been placed in the Speculations forum. For your own reference, dendrites actually receive signals and transmit them inward, but who needs details when one is working on speculation.

 

 

For the reader who is interested in existing and accurate knowledge, you may wish to start with the following primer:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?db=Books&rid=mcb.section.6108

 

 

Isn't backwash what happens when you take a sip of your drink and spit it back in?

[Glider]

Irregardless of the mechanisms of ion pumping and the affect of neuro-transmittors and such, the surface of the neuron is full of cations. I am only following the potential flow and not concerned with mechanisms. The fact remains when synapses fire the direction of Na+ is down the dendrite tubes. This occurs because the dendrites are at lower potential than the axon.

No they're not. The resting potential of the entire neuron is around -70mv. There is no difference from one end to the other. The potential is transmembranous (i.e. between the inside and outside of the cell membrane), not between different parts of the cell.

 

All the details of the mechanism are important, but not necessary when it comes to following the potential. This potential is generated by ATP and the Na+K+ pumping.

The negative potential comes from the presence of large anionic proteins inside the cell. The resting potential is maintained, by the sodium/potassium pump.

 

It is stored within the accumulation of the cations on the exterior of the neuron. The movement of this potential along the surface of neurons and into/out of neuron is more important to help us understand and simplify the potential movements of the brain.

 

Let me add something to the model presented. Because the cerebral is at lower potential, the backwash current will not only induce surface tension for possible branching, but in the short term it will increase the potential around dendrite and can cause them to fire. For example, we think, or use our sensory systems and that fires cerebral neurons. This goes to the core. The backwash, by being at higher potential, than the cerebral, needs to lower potential when it accumulated in the cerebral. The best way is down dendrites. This implies, firing which spontaneously triggers other memories that become conscioous. The result is a loop that becomes self perpetuating. This gives us an easy place to add consciousness.

What?

 

The current models are way too complicated and make the brain sterile in the sense that they don't even make provision for consciousness. The simple movement of potential and backwash current gives us a mechanisms for interactive and self sustaining loops. This gives a way to add consciousness the picture without having to get unconscious.

[pioneer]

I do not doubt the validity and the usefulness of all that is known about brain function, down to the tiniest detail. What I was trying to do was think in terms of the movement of potential.

 

Let me give an analogy between where I am heading and what is the state of the art. Picture an automobile (brain). We know how the various parts work and how they all function together. We can even takes parts and dig deeper and are able to determine how its componets work. This is all very useful information. What is left out is the driver. This variable is not part of the analysis, even though that is the purpose of the auto.

 

Picture this, we have a car in the garage. We know every square inch. The next day, we notice their are dents in the fender. Since consciousness is not one of the variables of primary concern, we need to explain this in terms of what we know for sure. Maybe during fabrication, the metal of the bumper had built in stresses that are now being released, causing the bumber distortion. This is a good explanation based on just the variables we include in our analysis of the auto. If we included a driver, the explanation changes quite a bit. It had nothing to due with built in fabrication stresses, but rather it was due to teenager taking a joy ride.

 

The driver of the brain is consciousness. It is easier to ignor this and just investigate the auto sitting in the garage. You can still start the motor and describe how the brakes work but now brake wear is evaporation and not the young teen driver braking and steer hard around corners. With the garaged auto model, we need to come up with a better brake pad that doesn't evaporate, instead of teach the driver to brake easier.

 

I could have done it the easy way, but I realized this is incomplete and can lead to explanation that may not jive with reality. We need to begin developing ways to include the driver. The parked auto analysis of the brain is still very important. Once we add the driver then we have man and machine.

 

When I looked at the ideal neuron, I only followed the current. Many of the mechanisms that you presented are important but would be more appropriate for a second pass through the model after the basics are set. Again, in the ideal and simple neuron the positive current flow goes into the dendrites. There are resistances, but the net flow goes that way. I extrapolated the current into a rough loop around the neuron. In other words, if we drew a black box around the neuron and only looked at the flow the primary input is dendrite and primary output is axon.

 

When we scale up to the brain, this basic mechanism does not change. We follow the net flow of current and see where it is going. What many don't like is making the cerebral the zone of lower potential. We pride ourselves with having big brains with the cerebral the biggest factor. What the big cerebral allows is the amplication needed to flow up hill. With the core at highest potential is can flow back but needs to focus.

 

If we reverse the potentials and make the cerebral at higher potential and the core at the lowest potential, current could only go down. The first model provides the possibities of focus and loops. This accomodates the counter position of the unconscious mind. The second model would only be implict of a single point of reference, which is not observed.

 

Let me run through a consciousness experiment to show how it adds up. One is a stanger in paradise such that everything is new. There is no hard data in memory that corresponds exactly to what you are seeing. The input in the sensory systems, fire dendrite analogs and current flows toward axons. There is cerebral divergence, but the sensory firing and the path through the cerebral, net increases the core potential. This higher potential is lowered by current flowing back up cerebral. This will trigger Ideas and association to pop into one's head, as the backwash current triggers associations within the memory we already have available. What I called the backwash current are the pathways of the unconscious mind.

 

We can add the center of consciosness . I will call this the ego. The ego can only be part of the total core backwash. Some has to go to the unconsious mind to create energy for that dynamics. Irregardless this makes human consciousness a high potential phenomena. In very simple terms, we stir this ego potential around the cerebral. Theis high potential flows down low potential dendrite tubes, and can cause them to fire. Picture it this way. The ego has x-potential. To ge that down the tubes may require a very complex firing sequence to absorb that potential.

 

Let me put it all together. The brain waves fire a wide spectrum of memories in a very cyclic way. This global firing not only defines who we are, in a nutshell, but it contantly sends high potential to the core. The backwash current provides steady power for the center of conscious (ego) and the complementary unconscious. When sensory input occurs these also fire neurons. The selective firing induce lower time average potential in these zones, due to time average membrane reversal. These become the lowest potential zones that attract ego current. Or the sensory induction gets our attention, by causing our ego current to preferentially down these tubes. The recycle of the ego current and all the cerebral firing increases the core potential. The backwash current has it own pathways, also firing cerebral memories. It will also become attracted to the lowest potential zones, i.e., other stuff firing unconscious pathways. Psychology has indirectly mapped out some of the backwash pathways.

 

What we current have is the sports car called the brain. It is parked in garage. Once we include the potential loops of consciousness, now we have a driver.

[bascule]

Around the thalamus are features that are responsible for the creation of long and short term memory. Here is the flow. The cerebral fires. The current goes to thalamus or core. This signal triggers the memory storage mechanism. Finally, the backwash current goes back up to the cerebral and helps physically store memory.

 

That's not my understanding of how memory works.

 

You might have a look at Green's Theory of Geometrical Phenominalism in which the thalamus provides a global workspace in which various parts of the neocortex can collaborate within shared working memory. This compliments the otherwise shared-nothing architecture of the neocortex, which shows repetition of Layer I in certain regions chained into Layer VI in a continuous hierarchical structure.

 

At the top of this hierarchical structure (in each hemisphere) is the hippocampus. The cortical hierarchy passes unrecognized patterns upward. At the very top, the hippocampus archives patterns which were not recognized at any other level of the cortex. These patterns are continuously replayed backwards down the hierarchy, at the greatest intensity during REM sleep.

 

In this respect, short term memory is effectively stored in the thalamus, whereas long term memory represents patterns which the rest of the cortex failed to predict or classify, which are reprogrammed into the various levels of the cortex as a whole, which continually replay them in different invariant forms:

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=75631972-E7F2-99DF-3FF928A23B2CCBCD&chanID=sa007

[iNow]

I must say, Pioneer, that you do take some pretty extensive liberties with the metaphor. While I appreciate using the occasional example out of context of a discussion to lend to understanding, you seem to have made an art form out of creating complete models, near system level designs, and expansive postulates rooted entirely in unrelated examples (and, often, faulty premises). Ta boot, you even manage to use existing terminology which holds very clear and recognized definitions in a given arena to support your points, even when the accepted meaning of these words is vastly different. Call me old-fashioned, but this manner of information sharing is better over a beer than in a science environment.

 

 

How do you feel about the HydrogenBond?

[pioneer]

I am a generalists and not a specialist. My knowledge of the jargon is a little weak so pardon my elementary neuro-speak. I understand things are not as simple as I make it. What I am drawing is a rough outline on the back of an envelop that discusses only positive potential. Once the design is settled there, then it is time to do a better architect drawing. The things that have been constructively added are better for a second pass.

 

A neuron uses upwards of 90% of it ATP energy to help maintain the membrane potential. The exterior postive charge try to get back into the neurons to lower this potential energy. This is done by distributing the potential to minimize the global potential within the brain. I am only talking about all the surface potential. If did a brain scan of someone doing a particular task, one can see the activity of the potential.

 

Say we were doing tests on the visual cortex. We use two different environments, one which is well known to the subject, and another that is unknown. The brain activity will be different in both these situations. We reverse, this experiment with another person, who knows the unknown environment of the first person, but doesn't know his known environment. This allows us to make sure the same input is the same in both. The results will be reversed for the same input. The affect of the input is not only based on the working of the sensory systems, but is also dependant on the driver inside the brain.

 

Most brain scan experiements use volunteers. Run the same tests with forced subjects. The results will come out differently. The visual cortex may be shunted by the person. They may be preoccupied by being forced to do this test against their will. The data, when averaged will now move the visual cortex (so to speak) or make it appear that the frontal lobe is now playing a greater role in the visual input. If this is accepted, due to the driver not included, science takes a left turn when it should have been going straight down the middle.

 

One can not always depend on the subject to tell us their state of mind, since there are also unconscious processes at work which they may be unaware of, which can cause the data to shift. For example, paying and not paying the test subjects will have an impact. Some will try to follow the experiment, while some are mercenaries who are only there for money. Consciousness needs to be part of any real model so we can filter out its impact of experiments.

 

The cerebral has its own surface charge potential trying to lower potential. Since it needs to lower potential everything is ready to fire. Once a breech occurs, there is a run at that zone that propagates like a chain reaction. Each neuron is trying to bail out its own ship and dump it in others. All the neruons help get rid of net potential but shifting it down to the core. The core distributes some of the potential into the body and some back up stream toward the cerebral. It has it own way to distribute the potential. The result are continuous loops of cerebral-thalamus-cerebral.

 

Say we hear a startling noise. The body often gets triggered into action before we even have time to think about what may have occurred. The loop is triggered by the noise, with the core already sending potential into a cascade to help prime the body for possible action. The recycle back to the cerebral can either fuel the imagination or can trigger an awareness in the imagination of a possible source of the noise. Reasoning comes later.

 

How do you feel about the HydrogenBond?

 

Hydrogen bonding is everywhere within the living state. This one variable allows one to simplify complex systems. It makes the model of the brain much easier. It interfaces the charge potential with all the biomaterials that are responsible for maintaining and tweeking via the H. Right now, I have to do this the hard way, since I am not yet allows to create simplicity. The hard way has the disadvantage of having to pull the potential out of the context of all the bichemical mechanism that we all know are integrated with it. If we analyse the hydrogen potential of structures, they add up to the potential hierarchy that I am trying to express without conventional data. I was hoping to build this background, in some of my original post, the cell in one variable, but got bogged down in details. I was up the challange but had to improve our understanding of ATP and DNA. That must have been taboo or something.

[iNow]

A neuron uses upwards of 90% of it ATP energy to help maintain the membrane potential. The exterior postive charge try to get back into the neurons to lower this potential energy.

No, it doesn't. ATP is used in the neuron to produce more neurotransmitters. The membrane potential is maintained by sodium/potassium gating. Didn't we cover this already?

 

 

http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/RITCHISO//301notes2.htm

Synapses usually occur between the axon of a pre-synaptic neuron & a dendrite or cell body of a post-synaptic neuron. At a synapse, the end of the axon is 'swollen' and referred to as an end bulb or synaptic knob. Within the end bulb are found lots of synaptic vesicles (which contain neurotransmitter chemicals) and mitochondria (which provide ATP to make more neurotransmitter). [/b']Between the end bulb and the dendrite (or cell body) of the post-synaptic neuron, there is a gap commonly referred to as the synaptic cleft. So, pre- and post-synaptic membranes do not actually come in contact. That means that the impulse cannot be transmitted directly. Rather, the impulse is transmitted by the release of chemicals called chemical transmitters (or neurotransmitters).

 

There I go with those details again though...

 

 

 

This is done by distributing the potential to minimize the global potential within the brain. I am only talking about all the surface potential. If did a brain scan of someone doing a particular task, one can see the activity of the potential.

Well, to be clear, you were speaking of ATP at the cellular level a moment ago. Which is it? Also, these brain scans are related to blood flow and oxygen use, not "distributed potential" which is in place to "minimize global potential within the brain."

 

 

Say we were doing tests on the visual cortex. We use two different environments, one which is well known to the subject, and another that is unknown. The brain activity will be different in both these situations.

Yes, because it is more than just the occipital cortex being activated. Recognition involves memory and object type, which brings in activity in the frontal and temporal cortex, as well as the hippocampal and amydalal regions.

 

 

We reverse, this experiment with another person, who knows the unknown environment of the first person, but doesn't know his known environment. This allows us to make sure the same input is the same in both.

What are you even saying? If you use the same input, then you have the same input. However, you cannot make a 1 to 1 comparison across the perception of two different subjects, nor can you make a 1 to 1 alignment across the same subject at different times.

 

 

Most brain scan experiements use volunteers. Run the same tests with forced subjects. The results will come out differently. The visual cortex may be shunted by the person. They may be preoccupied by being forced to do this test against their will. The data, when averaged will now move the visual cortex (so to speak) or make it appear that the frontal lobe is now playing a greater role in the visual input. If this is accepted, due to the driver not included, science takes a left turn when it should have been going straight down the middle.

What are you talking about? A subject under duress will show cortical activation in areas that an otherwise calm subject will not. That's about all.

 

 

Consciousness needs to be part of any real model so we can filter out its impact of experiments.

How does one filter their data for something they have not yet defined? Your statement is all well and good in the abstract, but it's garbage in the context you're using it.

 

 

The cerebral has its own surface charge potential trying to lower potential.

What?

 

 

Since it needs to lower potential everything is ready to fire.

What?

 

 

Once a breech occurs, there is a run at that zone that propagates like a chain reaction.

 

Haven't we discussed sodium/potassium gating and neural cascade? I don't see why you need to postulate a completely new mechanism for something that's already quite well researched and understood.

 

 

Each neuron is trying to bail out its own ship and dump it in others. All the neruons help get rid of net potential but shifting it down to the core. The core distributes some of the potential into the body and some back up stream toward the cerebral.

What?

 

 

It has it own way to distribute the potential. The result are continuous loops of cerebral-thalamus-cerebral.

Oh... yeah... Of course. That.

 

What?

 

 

 

 

You know what? There were other points in your post that were a load of crap, but I'm tired now. I have real work to do. How about you stop making shit up in the science forums and leave your interesting speculations for... the Speculations forum?

 

 

You might as well being saying that everything is "because God did it."

[bascule]

Oh... yeah... Of course. That.

 

What?

 

To be fair to pioneer, cortico-thalamo-cortical loops do exist and many speculate they play an important role in consciousness, including Jeff Hawkins in this video.

[pioneer]

Obviously I don't know by brain parts like I used to, but I do have a handle on the potential flow. I am too lazy to refresh my memory unless there is a need for my creative skills to get more focused.

 

The next important thing is explaining how memory is organized in the brain. When memory is created the core (limbic system) assigns an emotional-instinctive valence to the memory. For example, when one gets hungry, memories that had been assigned that hunger valence, will be the ones that become conscious first. This allows each valence, i.e., combination of instinctive-emotional potential, to have its own memories. Each of these valence/memory spectra is then distributed throughout the brain. The result is a type of memory layering which allows full brain access at any valence. Using the example of hunger, it triggers the hunger memories, while also allowing us to use the entire capacity of the brain at the same time.

 

What this valence tag also does is allow one to think of a memory and use the valence tag to get the core to trigger the valence potential. I can think of food in my imagination and cause myself to become hungry. This dynamics induces cortico-thalamo-cortical loops focused at that valence. You think of food and get hungry. The hunger induces the valence that causes other hunger tagged memory to become conscious. We then focus on these, to cause the core to induce more valence potential, etc.,

 

If thoughts with hunger valence popped into our heads, we can ignor them and focus elsewhere. It works the same way, but consciousness changes it focus to memories that have a difference valance potential. The result can be a change of valence, two valence potentials (mixed feelings) or an even average of the two (eating like its your last meal).

[iNow]

I am too lazy to refresh my memory unless there is a need for my creative skills to get more focused.

 

You're clearly a bright fellow, pioneer, but I do sincerely believe your creativity would prove more fruitful if it were grounded in existing knowledge. There are so many parts about which you speculate incorrectly, and that is a definite limitation in what you offer.

 

 

Tell us more about how one can measure this hunger valence with anything other than self-report.

[bascule]

The next important thing is explaining how memory is organized in the brain. When memory is created the core (limbic system) assigns an emotional-instinctive valence to the memory.

 

The only part of the limbic system to my knowledge which we're sure plays an active role in memory (specifically long-term memory) is the hippocampus. What parts of the limbic system are you suggesting are involved in memory?

 

For example, when one gets hungry, memories that had been assigned that hunger valence, will be the ones that become conscious first. This allows each valence, i.e., combination of instinctive-emotional potential, to have its own memories. Each of these valence/memory spectra is then distributed throughout the brain. The result is a type of memory layering which allows full brain access at any valence. Using the example of hunger, it triggers the hunger memories, while also allowing us to use the entire capacity of the brain at the same time.

 

You're describing something similar to Minsky's idea of S-lines. It'd be nice if you could cite some source which backs up your ideas. You're speaking with a rather matter-of-fact tone while engaging in rampant speculation.

[pioneer]

My parts of the brain may be a little off base, but my data is something anyone can generate by looking how their own mind works. When you are hungry, a range of memory, connected to hunger and the appeasement of hunger comes to the forefront. If you go to a buffet, some things you like, some things you dislike, other things you hate, and some things can't eat enough off. Each has an emotional valence attached to it that give you these associations. Whether the tag is directly at the synaptic level, of is part of an extend range of connections, is not clear from this data. What is clear, is the emotional/instinctive valence of memory. Since the limbic system and hypothalamus are at the heart of emotional and instinctive reactions, these are involved in these valences.

 

There is another observation that indicates another memory feature that appears to be more connected to the (Jungian ego and not Freud's ego). The brain waves have a range of frequencies delta (slow) to beta(fast). When a person goes beta ,such as during rage, the mind gets very linear. Or they get very narrow with respect to adaptation. The reason this occurs has to do with the neruon firing rate. The ego appears to have a normal setpoint. The faster bulk firing causes most of the neurons or memories to fire to fast to be conscious. The ego is only able to focus on neurons, that normally go slow, which are now firing much faster and are able to the enter the range of the ego set point (more primate type memory).

 

The opposite is also true, when the brain waves frequency lowers, the average rate of firing of the memory shifts causing a different range of neurons to be at the firing rate that can be conscious at the ego set point. It is another type of layering.

 

The observation that is often reported of people, seeing their life flash before their eyes, during a near death experience, seems contrary. At the fast brain wave frequency, these memories should be too fast. The only way to explain this, is that the ego set point is not fixed, but can vary. Or the ego's normal set point became higher during such critical situations, so it can become conscious in the range of these very fast memories. The faster memory implies lot of information becoming conscious in a short time, to give the impression of time slowing.

 

An idiot savant can be explained as someone with a higher than normal ego set point. They can function at high data speeds at some tasks. But the normal day to day memory is going to slow and is hard to process. The person in a rage (beta) has his normal civilized behavior too slow. Civilized behavior usually occurs when we are calm and the brain waves are much slower. Therapy tries to shift the brain potential and slow the brain waves, so the civil memories can slow and enter the range of the ego set point.

 

It is not clear whether the emotional/instinct valance, of the first layer discussed, is tweaking the ego set point or whether these brings memories layers into conscious range at any given set point. The latter seems more likely since this memory is less brain wave dependant.

 

This is the my favorite layer but will lead to the most misunderstanding. It is connected to what could be described as behavior software. If you look at a bird during mating season, its song and dance is instinctive. This is due to behavior software, that is interactive, but programmed at birth. This software only plays during certain times of year. When the sensory input is correct, during say the spring, the brain activates this software.

 

If anyone has even had a kitten, for example, even if it was taken young from its mother and never sees another cat to learn from, it will still act like a cat when it grows up. Cats have a software jukebox, with a larger number of programs. My favorite to watch is a kitten chasing imaginary prey. The software not only controls the behavior, but projects imaginary prey to teach it hunting. By the time it is a cat, its software has taught it the skill it will need for the real world. These lessons do not have to be taught externally, but can occur internally. If it was still with the mother in the wild, it would still have the impulse to play hunt, but it would also collect additional data from the mother. But that data is not required since kittens can be develop most of their skills, without other cats.

 

When we get to humans, the human jukebox has even more software. Most of this software is interactive and typically uses the environment. Humans are a social animal with our software learning through interaction. If one was raised in isolation, the software still plays but it loses much of the interactive data it needs to collect, to evolve. The easiest software to see in action is connection to the software of love. All the drama and dynamics, that the ego could never generate on its own, is assisted by this interactive software of love. Being interactive, it will induce the ego to help manipulate the situation for better programming. When couples begin to settle, it is simply that software turning off. The software appears to have a connection to the instinctive-emotional potentials, therefore the core appears to house the software jukebox. The software appear to be similar to the ego, in that they are a potential. It is very likely the ego evolved from one of this potential projections. The ego is sort of interactive software that stays on all the time and has been able to develope autonomy in the sense that it can alter, tailor and induce the instinctive software out of phase with the rhythms of the core.

[iNow]

My parts of the brain may be a little off base, but my data is something anyone can generate by looking how their own mind works.

What data? Which study? Who researched this? Where? ... is the beef?

[pioneer]

I never published my data because there was too much of it. What I was trying to do was approach the anatomical problem from the inside-out. The goal was to get a handle on the conscious dynamics. I did create a mathematical analogy that allows one to sort of plot all these things in one graph. Different parts of the graph imply consciousness and other part of the graph were the biochemical and anatomical. Those latter parts are what you guys are working on, so I tried to populate the rest.

 

Before getting into that I would like to describe behavior software by looking at a human baby. When a baby is born, it has no ego or center of consciousness. It is instinct using software for crying and nursing. The crying creates output for mom so she can input sensory data. For all practical purpose the infants software is driving the maternal dynamics. It may be helpless but its software's output, requires tending to.

 

As the infant gets a little older, it may start using software ,that gets the ball rolling, so the baby can learn to crawl. It begins by moving the arms and the legs. Eventually the software tries to flip the baby over to strengthen the arms. Then it begins to combine these activities and the babt begins to crawl. That goal was already set in the software at birth. The software only needed to collect data so it could wire the brain.

 

Here is the gist of what is going on. The brain waves, indicative of being alive, constantly output potential to the core of the brain. If the core merely sent it back, there would be sort of a steady state. Instead, the software causes the core energy to create focus, or many points of focus, that can then migrate within the cerebral. What is essentually happening is the focus causes the output of the cerebral to return and become more concentrated. The result is these sectors will increase potential, branch, and store memory. An analogy is having a hose. It you put in on mist, all the plants get a little. But if you focus it to a narrower stream you can soak some of the plants. Many won't get any water this pass, but these are not part of the software's need. They have their own memories, left at a steady state for now. Another software will focus on these and cause these to gain potential and learn.

 

For example, if one was learning a dance. You start at the basics and through repetition we focus on just a certain cerebral wiring. Once that is in place, that memory is now advanced enough to look smooth. Then we change our focus and saturate the periphreal neurons until cerebral connections hook up and these become very smooth, etc., If you were trying to multitask, on the phone, watching TV, etc., the focus would be spread out to wide. Learning would still occur, but much slower. The software has to help program complex things like walking and needs to focus. Try to program a robot to walk as smooth. It isn't that easy. Yet the software is designed to go through a series of stages until, perfect.

 

Besides helping to focus the potential to more quikcly process the memories and memory connection needed for complex human behavior, the physical progression of the memory increases cerebral potential. That means more core potential. It is a cascade affect where one hand washes the other, allowing the both to evolve and gain esculating potential. That is why children up to about 4 have a tremendous learning potential. The software is ideal for this quick learning, while the ego potential is much lower. As the ego potential increases, it has a mind of its own. The natural software is trying to continue this rise, but ego focus tends to narrow its focus on things that it likes. This short of shifts us toward linearity. But the software is still very stubborn and pushes us to be more complete. Many of the collective dramas and stages of life are software induced.

 

I going to add one final thing. If we place a magnetic on the table and then spread iron filings near the magnetic, these filings will distrubute themselves in the orientiation of the magnetic field. Even without the iron filings, the magnetic field already exists in space. The filings allow us to see it. The software and ego potential sort of work the same way in the sense they are an extrapolation, before it is actually wired. They sort of define forms into which the neurons will rough branch into, with the unique sensory input of the individual making that basic form unique. Human nature makes us all similar at fundamental levels. But at the same time, each of us comes out unique, do to our unique circumstances.

[iNow]

Jeff Hawkins, creator of the Palm Pilot and founder of the Redwood Neuroscience Institute presents an hour long discussion on how the human neocortex and thalamocortical loops work:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2500845581503718756

 

He's also implemented this in software (see my other thread)

 

Bascule,

 

I want to personally apologize for any role I played in your thread being hijacked. However, most of what appears below your OP does not belong in Anatomy.

 

The video to which you linked is no longer available. Can you find a URL that works and share it again?

[bascule]

I want to personally apologize for any role I played in your thread being hijacked.

 

It's certainly not your fault. pioneer appears primarily to blame. While I love to endulge in speculation regarding the brain, I at least try to study neuroanatomy and have articles or papers to substantiate my position. pioneer doesn't seem to care for that sort of thing.

 

However, most of what appears below your OP does not belong in Anatomy.

 

To be fair most of the video deals quite little with neuroanatomy. The neuroanatomical basis of HTM is detailed more extensively in Jeff Hawkins' book, On Intelligence. The majority of the neuroanatomical discussion in the video takes place at the very end, when a number of neurologists ask questions following his talk.

 

The video to which you linked is no longer available. Can you find a URL that works and share it again?

 

The video still works for me.

[iNow]

The video still works for me.

It looks like it was just down temporarily last night, but the message did not indicate the temporarality of the problem. It's working now for me as well, so no worries. Thanks again.

[pioneer]

I am not trying to hijack the discussion, but was trying to add the most important variable of any brain model, which is human consciousness. Where I originally got this angle was connected to the psychology of Jung. Jung was the star pupil of Freud. Freud expected Jung to carry on his work, but Jung wanted to approach the mind from a different angle. They had a parting of the ways, and Jung went out on his own.

 

Part of the reason Jung was always met with limited acceptance was that his approach relied heavily on symbolism from mystersism, alchemy and religon. Science was trying to break away from all these connections to the superstition past, such that any connection to this past was seen as regressive and not worthy of the evolving push for science.

 

What Jung didn't have in his time, was a way to make an analogy to something that was common to the scientific experience of the day. In modern times, we have computers, programs and subroutines. For example, one can start the memory defrag program on their computer and the computer goes off by itself. We do not have to control every step. The same appears to be true of the brain. For example, we can control breathing. But once we shift our focus, the breathing returns to default values. Depending on when we measure the anatomy of breathing will have an impact on the types of brain functions that appear to occur. There will be a common set of routines in both cases, but the first case will also add other subroutines to the picture.

 

When Jung would talk about the symbolism of say, mythology, he was talking about how aware the ancients were of these inner programs. They would presonify, for example, falling in love with a goddess. In other words, these programs and subroutines can override the will of the ego. The programs seem to have their own goal in mind with the ego often just there for the ride. They did not know about computers to create a logical explanation of what was occurring, but there were conscious of the affects that were occurring, which in modern times are far more unconscious. We either explain these with bio-chems or some type of esoteric philosophy.

 

A good analogy is someone playing an X-box game, who knows little about programming. To them you push this button and play the game. To a programmer, this button initiates a sequence of logic steps. It may be better not to know all these steps, since it does prevent tampering. If you know the logic steps of the programs and how they work, one can alter the program much easier with viruses that can take over game control. That was the problem with mythology. It made people very conscious of the background programs, but it also allowed conscious tampering until they would begin to add viruses to default to programs causing them to becoming more unnatural. The push into monetheism was an attempt to prevent tampering. All these polytheism systems, could trigger many of the program and harm the default values, such that the human brain/computer would go off into renegade programs, i.e, demons. At least in modern times, we just push the buttom and can do less harm.

 

But on the other hand, to see how these programs are organized did require differentiating the programs into their subroutines and then try to tamper. It was sort of reverse engineering that learned from mistakes. After messing up, one has to go back and debug and in the process learn how it works. Or at least allow things to return to default values. The anatomical approach is much safer and does prevent tampering. Although medication can have an impact on programs. It becomes sort of inevitable that to make directed progress in -neuro-medical selectivity, one needs to address these programs and determine what are the default values. It is not one or the other, but both approaches are addressing the integrated affects that we call the living learning brain, with human consciousness.

[bascule]

I am not trying to hijack the discussion, but was trying to add the most important variable of any brain model, which is human consciousness.

 

Even as a materialist I'm going to say that consciousness cannot be part of a scientific model of the brain because consciousness is ontologically distinct from the brain.

 

Trying to describe a model of the brain that includes consciousness is making a metaphysical statement, not a scientific one. As far as science is concerned the brain is a classical physical system.

 

There are scientists who study consciousness. They're called cognitive scientists and they study perception. They perform double blind experiments, toggling different perceptual experiments on a randomly wired switchboard, and record what the subject says. They can later correlate the perceptual experiments with what the subject reported, and compare them across multiple subjects. This is as close to a scientific investigation of consciousness as humans have come so far.

 

All that said you are trying to hijack the discussion.

[pioneer]

An analogy to the brain is a computer. Neuroscience investigates the hardware. It has done a good job at knowing how semi-conductors work (synaptic analogy). It also knows about the mother board and can determine the function of all the components that are connected. This is important information. This hardware knowledge is up to quad core speed.

 

The cognitive scientists look at the output response using various inputs. They click the mouse in a vary scientific way. During this time, neuroscience, investigates, how the hardward handles this input and output, and is able to correlation almost any simple mouse click.

 

What we have currently is the hardware and the BIOS. With the hardware and the BIOS you can test a computer without an operating system. The investigation that is lacking is investigating the operating system. The operatiing system of a computer is not part of the hardware. But the brain is different. The hardware appears to be able to generate its own operating system. Or genetic factors that define the brain include a bulit in operating system.

[yasitha2]

It's very complex but it is done by interaction between many nurones. this link will provide you more information. Science2day