Hierarchical Brain

What’s new

This is a summary of ideas and terms that I have proposed on this Hierarchical Brain website that I think are new. My original intention in creating this website was to try to write an explanation in my own words of the workings of the brain based on my reading of books, magazines and scientific papers over a number of years. It was not my intention to create any new terms or definitions or come up with any new ideas, but I found that it was necessary in a number of areas.

My ideas could be wrong or may not agree with evidence that I am not aware of, or the ideas or names may not be new and I haven’t come across them in my reading and research. For more details, please click on the relevant links below.

• I have created the following new terms or phrases:
  • The terms “symbol schema”, “self symbol schema”, “afferent processing” and “efferent connections”.
    • There were already-existing names for these concepts (several in some cases), but I found them either unsuitable, too vague, or just too confusing,
    • I created these new names so that I could define them more precisely.
    The qualifier “elemental” for the lowest-level of symbol schemas create directly from single sense inputs.
  • The term “cognoception” meaning the processing of meta-data relating to the processing of the brain, and also the end result of this processing (which is a symbol schema that represents the process).
    • I created this term because, to my surprise, I could not find a suitable name for it.
    • Obviously the name is based on it being comparable to perception.
    • The proposal that models of brain processes created by cognoception can only include those parts of the process that are conscious, i.e. known to the self symbol schema, is new, I believe. This has interesting implications for how we understand brain processes such as attention, perception, action, memory and, particularly, free will.
  • The rather lengthy phrases “memory-enhanced coincidence detection and lateral inhibition” and “abstraction and prediction-enhanced selection”.
    • These describe the two lowest levels of description of the afferent processing of incoming sense data and internal meta-data.
    • I acknowledge that they are long and cumbersome phrases, but a single word or short phrase could not impart the full meaning that I wanted.
  • The concept and name ABCD neuron (Absolutely Basic Coincidence Detecting neuron) describing a very simple model of what I consider to be a basic functionality of a real neuron.
    • An ABCD neuron has just two input connections and one output, and performs basic coincidence detection on the two inputs.
    • I invented this concept to assist in understanding the coincidence detection role that real neurons have in analysing data.
    • I am aware that many different model neurons have been proposed by others for various reasons, including for computer modelling, so it is certainly possible that this invention is not new, but I have not myself come across a model quite as simple as this.
• I have devised seven levels of description (that are summarised in a table at the top of the summary page) as a description for the workings of the brain, including four separate ones for the afferent processing of sense and other internal data. The following ideas within these levels are also new:
  • The proposal that the afferent processing of data is, at the lowest level of description, the recursive, hierarchical application of memory-enhanced coincidence detection and lateral inhibition, and that this can also be described at several higher levels as abstraction and prediction-enhanced selection, correlation, application of symmetries, statistical learning, extraction of invariance, the creation of representative symbol schemas and their connections, or at the highest level as the creation and maintenance of a model of my world.
  • The conclusion that the inevitable end result of afferent processing is many symbol schemas, networks of neurons and the connections between them that represent concepts. Symbol schemas have been built in my brain for every concept that I have ever come across.
  • The idea that all higher-level functions of the brain make use of efferent connections - pathways back towards where the data came in that are inevitably created and strengthened by afferent processing. The higher-level functions that depend on these connections include reinstatement, attention, perception, cognoception, action and self-awareness.
• I have broken-down illusions (things that the brain gets wrong) into three categories, and then used each of them to draw conclusions about possible intermediate levels of description for a model of the brain and also to give useful clues about how the brain actually works, helping to close the so-called explanatory gap.
• I propose that memory consolidation happens when linkages between different symbol schemas that are initially only to my self symbol schema are transferred to become direct linkages between the relevant symbol schemas by a process of replay that usually happens during sleep.
• I propose that consciousness is not a single feature, but multi-faceted. The core requirement is self-awareness; the other facets dependent on this are attention, memory and feelings (my definition of feelings here includes emotions, qualia, pain and meaning). The following new ideas relate to consciousness:
  • Self-awareness is enabled when the self-referential self symbol schema is built as an inevitability using the same afferent processing that is carried out on all incoming sense data to create all other symbol schemas.
  • Self-awareness comes about with the model of attention within the self symbol schema. The proposal that self-awareness is created as a model of attention is not new, but what I think is new is my proposal that this model is created in exactly the same way as all other incoming data is processed, using the same afferent processing.
  • The storing or recalling of explicit or declarative memory (personal experiences or factual information) requires both attention and self-awareness. This is the main evolutionary advantage for consciousness.
  • The proposal that my core consciousness, my sense of my continuing existence, resides in a model of me and my brain processes: I am my self symbol schema.
    • This idea has been considered by some other writers, but has been dismissed because they have said that the self-symbol is a mirage or a fiction or an illusion.
    • My proposals conclude that the self-symbol is as real as any other symbol schema, each is a real network of neurons that has cause and effect.
    • The implications of this do not seem to have been discussed.
    • I believe that my argument that a self symbol schema is required for consciousness is new.
  • The suggestion that attention is not only single-threaded but also of one modality (one sense at a time) is not completely new, but seems to be rarely acknowledged.
    • Attention requires neural oscillations, because attention lasts more than a few milliseconds. This idea may not be completely new, but I have not seen it explicitly stated.
    • Reinstatement is how these oscillations are created, by signals going from the symbol schema that is the focus of attention, and from there to sensory areas, before returning to the symbol schema.
    • It is well-known that attention and awareness can be separated; my proposal is that attention only becomes conscious (i.e. I become aware of something) when the oscillations are connected to my self symbol schema.
    • Both external and internal attention use the same reinstatement connections from the relevant symbol schema. So attention can only be on things that are already understood.
  • The proposal that feelings, qualia, emotions, pain and meaning all arise from the same processes of connections between symbol schemas and reinstatement.
    • Any of these feelings are manifested only when an attention becomes conscious.
    • Meaning can only come from attention via modality-specific (sense specific) data.
      • I can’t have feelings about an abstract concept such as “evil” unless it is associated with other more concrete concepts that have connections to data that came from the senses that represents those closely-connected concepts.
  • All this suggests that consciousness, as we know it, is only available to those with a body and incoming sense data that can be recalled. Therefore computers and “The Internet” cannot be conscious, but a robot, built with the right connections, could be. It also means that all animals have some self-awareness and some level of consciousness.
• I have specified a notation for describing symbol schemas using curly braces as in {frisbee} or {self} (although very few pages use this notation as yet).
• I propose that language uses what might be called meta-symbols, i.e. symbols for symbols, and that the ability to create meta-symbols is a basic capability of the brain, driven by exactly the same afferent processing. Language is an example of a cultural facility - it is learnt and passed down the generations.
• I argue that neural oscillations (brain waves) do not and cannot carry or represent information in the brain (they have sometimes been treated and researched as if they can).
  • Brain waves are simply the result of the accumulated electrical fields from millions of neurons (see background page, reference 3).
  • In order to be able to carry information, a wave has to be generated by something and have the information added to it (called modulation), and then also received by something else and have the information extracted (called demodulation), but there are no easy ways for the brain to do these things, and it would be an extremely inefficient way for the brain to process information.
  • Oscillations are caused by loops or circuits of neurons, and the frequency of an oscillation simply depends on the number of neurons in the loop.
• I propose that free will is an emergent property that allows me to have (a form of) free will at the level of description of my self symbol schema, even though at the lower level of atoms and molecules, the brain is fully deterministic.
  • The free will I have is not what I inherently think I have, because I do not have full control over my attention, although with any considered decision, I do have control over my choice.
  • The behaviour of my brain is not totally predictable, even though it is theoretically deterministic.
  • My choices are always affected by previously-stored aspects of my self, such as my motivations, beliefs, desires, preferences, previous experiences, my upbringing, my culture, other people’s advice or opinions, and traits or desires built into my DNA by evolution.

---

Go back to where you last came from or return to the top level summary.

These web pages have no adverts and no cookies, no data is collected or processed so there is no privacy policy, and access is not secure. You are free to use any material on these pages provided it is credited to this site and referenced to the correct page.

The views, opinions and statements in these web pages are my own personal opinions. I am an amateur neuroscientist with no formal training, and I have no accounts on any social media platform. Any comments, corrections or criticisms are welcome, although I don’t guarantee to reply - email me at info@hierarchicalbrain.com.

Page last uploaded Sat Mar 9 12:29:17 2024 MST