The Mechanics of Thinking
Richard,
It's rare that we get such a long message from you. <g> Your ideas are usually so complex that the extra exposition is always welcome. Assuming my recent explanation of my understanding of analogy hasn't horrified you, I have a question on - of all things - structure.
>>> Maybe emotions are internal motor substitutes enabling the story to be latched onto a motor type base, hierarchies of success/failure codes guiding the next similar "situation". <<<
It sounds like you see emotions as a mediator between thoughts (contexts) and actions.
>>> It does seem that the whole process of thinking may hinge around pattern matching of the success/failure codons. <<<
When you say pattern matching, are you suggesting identities? If not, any ideas on the mechanism at work - what constitutes and proves a match?
>>> Maybe emotions are internal motor substitutes enabling the story to be latched onto a motor type base, hierarchies of success/failure codes guiding the next similar "situation". <<<
It sounds like you see emotions as a mediator between thoughts (contexts) and actions.
Tony
Tony,
I've been thinking hard about a mechanism.
It seems to me that emotions are a special case of a sequential flow of neurotransmitters, what may happen is that as these flow past nerve endings, they open and close various circuits, in effect the whole brain is a shared neural network constantly rewired by this flow, I think this is also consistent with EEG data, and it would be very useful to correlate localised EEG activity with possible secretions of neurotransmitters.
Assuming that autonomic actions work the same way, through a controlled cyclical flow of transmitters, then we might expect actual memory to be stored in say the basal ganglia, and that a particular group of cells act together to produce the necessary control signals for a given task.
Most of the frontal cortex is then devoted to image building based on these flows in an analogous source and fashion to what was perceived as the memory was laid down, thus reproducing, as far as redundancy allows, the original image.
What is needed logically are associative sensor/motor cells, being activated by a thought process and building images as a motor substitute. Such cells might be labeled emotor cells, they are at the interface of emotion being considered cause or effect, something no one seems able to agree upon, they are BOTH!
Certain neurones having multiple receptor sites, would only trigger on a given sequence of transmitter flow, and assuming a thought consists of multiple parallel (but still subject to time shift) sensations, the effect of analogy is one of included thought processes, The analogy is a subset of the total thought.
We then come on to how memory is coded. There may be a stack of cells which are used for daily storage, acted upon by a very slow acting transmitter that sequentially loads them. What these might do is sample the neurotransmitter flow in a progressive time sequence, building long chains as a time base. During deep sleep these are dismantled and recoded elsewhere, but subject to a very precise and regular sequence of transmitters, this would be a form of multiplexing the data onto a standard time base. The coding is statistical I think, not all involved neurons automatically pick up every piece of data which they would react to. (Explaining how memory sometimes fails us or is inexact In reconstruction of the image certain assumptions are made to piece in the detail.).
Certain key situations would trigger release of an accelerator, that vastly increases the sampling rate, grabbing more detail than is normally required. The concept of suffering from shock, trembling etc, might support a motor neurone type base, the accelerator upsetting the normal flow of autonomic response signals as well (though motor neurone disease deserves some further consideration here).
Also this accelerator may immediately "hardwire" a response, such that normal memory recoding cycle cannot (chemically) take place. Such events also destroy self confidence, breaking whole loads of previously laid down positive responses.In other words as a defence mechanism the brain says, "what you thought was so wrong we need to start again on this one").
RK>>> It does seem that the whole process of thinking may hinge around pattern matching of the success/failure codons. <<<
TG>>When you say pattern matching, are you suggesting identities? If not, any ideas on the mechanism at work - what constitutes and proves a match?<<
In summary of the above, the match is provided by a (partial or complete) sequential flow of transmitters.
Regards
Richard
Richard,
>>> ... in effect the whole brain is a shared neural network constantly rewired by this flow .... <<<
An exquisite image.
>>> ... we might expect actual memory to be stored in say the basal ganglia, and that a particular group of cells act together to produce the necessary control signals for a given task. <<<
This sounds like a physical definition of a context. Substitute 'codes' for 'cells' and I think you have a fair approximation of Phil's project.
This is beginning to look very ... real. <g>
>>> Most of the frontal cortex is then devoted to image building based on these flows in an analogous source and fashion to what was perceived as the memory was laid down, thus reproducing, as far as redundancy allows, the original image. <<<
You are implying, I think, two modes here:
1) pre-existing image templates built from a) experience and b) genes;
2) new image templates (maybe cannabalized from existing templates, maybe 'networked' to higher abstract layers based on idea elements of existing templates - ie, new context [groups of ideas] organizations).
>>> What is needed logically are associative sensor/motor cells, being activated by a thought process and building images as a motor substitute. Such cells might be labelled emotor cells, they are at the interface of emotion being considered cause or effect, something no one seems able to agree upon, they are BOTH!
This is right on it.
>>> ... assuming a thought consists of multiple parallel (but still subject to time shift) sensations, the effect of analogy is one of included thought processes, The analogy is a subset of the total thought. <<<
You know I agree with this.
>>> The coding is statistical I think, not all involved neurons automatically pick up every piece of data which they would react to. (Explaining how memory sometimes fails us or is inexact. In reconstruction of the image certain assumptions are made to piece in the detail.) <<<
The statistics of course are based on pre-existing filters (assumptions, genetic and learned). I wonder if they are themselves assumptions, or if they are built into the genetic coding.
>>> In summary of the above, the match is provided by a (partial or complete) sequential flow of transmitters. <<<
If you consider individual ' transmitters' as individual ' ideas' (not much a leap) we can map one onto the other.
All in all, a structural viewpoint is very clarifying, isn't it? <g>
<< 1) pre-existing image templates built from a) experience and b) genes;
2) new image templates (maybe cannibalized from existing templates, maybe 'networked' to higher abstract layers based on idea elements of existing templates - ie, new context [groups of ideas] organizations).>>
Type 1 Judging, Left brained
Type 2 Perceiving Right brained
<<The statistics of course are based on pre-existing filters (assumptions, genetic and learned). I wonder if they are themselves assumptions, or if they are built into the genetic coding.>>
When I said statistical I meant that there is only a partial success rate in activating appropriate receptors, due really to the nature of the chemical reaction, a certain randomness or partial saturation in the time available. In fact feeling clear headed and bright might indicate a full stock of nice fresh neurotransmitters, feeling befuddled a mixture of shortages and noise generated inappropriate responses.
In fact the mind might use varying mixtures of neurotransmitters as a means whereby probabilities can be tested against the neural network. Definites involve a full flow to saturation of receptors, Maybes a partial flow to test the response, and definitely nots, a zero flow or full flow of an opposite.
The capabilities of great thinkers may come through fine tuning of these partial flows, through perception of the detail of the "inbetween states" (though I recall that intelligence is fairly well correlated with faster neuronal responses, suggesting more sensitive thresholds) This needs to be argued out a bit more.
>>> In summary of the above, the match is provided by a (partial or complete) sequential flow of transmitters. <<<
More efficient internal coding would lead to shorter message chains, if the redundant bits can be ignored or removed, this is supportive of intelligence being principally ascribed to better (more efficient) organization of thought.
Possible questions.....
Do intelligent people have a greater number of transmitters.
Do they use less in quantity and hence more efficiently
Do they regularly use a wider range of transmitters
Are any of these processes highly temperature dependent, and do they use temperature as a means of speeding up the thought process
Richard
Richard,
You are cookin'. I'll have a swig of whatever 'mitters you're drinking. <g>
>>> Type 1 Judging, Left brained <<<
A clear operational definition (via comparisons) of the judging process. This design is an essential part of any complete definition of ' judgement '.
>>> Type 2 Perceiving Right brained <<<
I myself would not assign this word to this process, only because 'perception' seems (to me) to include the activity being described; ie, perception seems to be inclusive of more than this. Some sort of master building/learning process, combining rote, creativity, perception, etc seems to be at work here. No tag comes immediately to mind.
>>> In fact feeling clear headed and bright might indicate a full stock of nice fresh neurotransmitters, feeling befuddled a mixture of shortages and noise generated inappropriate responses. <<<
This is wide open when applied to the physical model you have proposed. Any disruption in the data channels, low power levels, unusual data inputs, etc would all affect computational results.
>>> In fact the mind might use varying mixtures of neurotransmitters as a means whereby probabilities can be tested against the neural network. Definites involve a full flow to saturation of receptors, Maybes a partial flow to test the response, and Definitely Nots, a zero flow or full flow of an opposite.<<<
In Tony's World neurotransmitters can be expressed as unique ideas via unique definitions. So I read this as ' varying mixtures of ideas'. And of course this then is makes perfect sense to me and correlates to the judgement design you have described.
>>> The capabilities of great thinkers may come through fine tuning of these partial flows, through perception of the detail of the "inbetween states" <<<
Fine tuning (to me) means building a new definition. Thinkers who have defined mathematical relationships are easy examples of this, but this applies also to any pioneer whose definitions/inventions have served as a organizer/magnet for other ideas.
>>> More efficient internal coding would lead to shorter message chains, if the redundant bits can be ignored or removed, this is supportive of intelligence being principally ascribed to better (more efficient) organization of thought. <<<
'Efficiently organized thoughts' are embodied in optimized templates.
The 'possible questions' you cite must of course be answered in the lab. I wonder if the Oxford all-in-one definition of C you mentioned can be understood in terms of this design.