Brain Tricks
Jul. 27th, 2011 09:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trickykittyI was lent Brain Tricks to read. I read the first chapter last night.
The problem with me reading a book published in 1993 (or published any time, for that matter) about brain and neuroscience stuff is that I start going on a rant regarding things that even today are still a "mystery" to scientists about how the brain works.
I'll give you a hint - it's not a mystery.
The one primary feature that I have been pushing since I started learning about the brain is, "I am, therefore I think." Descartes had it all backwards, but then again, he was trying to put fourth a proof for the existence of a soul by first assuming that a soul exists (aka, begging the question).
The common theme I keep hearing in neuroscience is, "We still don't know where thoughts come from. All we know is that the brain lights up like a Christmas tree when thoughts occur." I cringe every time I hear this kind of talk. There is one underlying assumption that is incorrect in that line of reasoning - thoughts originate out of nothing. It is part of the thought-movement that we somehow have a soul, a will, or some other form of autonomy running things. Most people will NEVER admit that they are no different than a toaster doing what it's supposed to do after the button is pressed.
Here's the deal: Thoughts are responses* to stimuli.
Thoughts DO NOT come before the stimuli. Movements DO NOT come before the stimuli. Creativity DOES NOT come before the stimuli. The toaster gets hot because the button was pressed, just as you have a thought because you are reacting to stimuli, both internal and external. Internal dialog (thoughts with words to describe them) is emergent, and does not exist until language is learned.
The thought, "I'm hungry," is a response to the parasympathetic nervous system sending signals back to your brain on the status of your body. The thought without the words attached to it was the exact same thought you had as a baby crying for your milk. The thought happened because your brain received stimuli in the form of a regular systems status check.
Here's one of those false examples people like to use (specifically, it's the same example used in the book that caused this rant to begin with): I tell you to wiggle your thumb, you do so, and then I ask you where did that thought originate to cause you to wiggle your thumb. Off you go trying to introspect the ontology of your soul, because that's how people have been looking at it all this time. No one has an answer because they keep looking in the wrong place - they keep looking for the soul, or whatever that part of their brain is towards which they are prone to attribute their will, consciousness, and creativity.
At least we're getting to a point where intelligent people are likely to think that it is at least some physical part of their brain, rather than some metaphysical radio wave beaming down from The Places Of Souls. I have actually been told once, "I know that the receptor must be in my brain; I just don't know where the signal comes from." *grumbles*damnedmotherships*grumbles*
When I ask you where the thought came from to wiggle your thumb, the answer is that it came from the stimulus of me asking you to wiggle your thumb and the internal stimulus of your brain agreeing to comply.
[The next question that always comes up is, "Well, how did I agree to it?"] *sigh*
* You could even go so far as to say reflexes, although then you're getting into some nitty-gritty semantics. Besides, calling it a response instead of a reflex will give it a little more of that autonomous feel that naysayers will cling to so tightly - I'm quite aware that this is a "politically correct" way to try and gain converts.
By the way, after reading only the first chapter, I like this book. I will read more.
The problem with me reading a book published in 1993 (or published any time, for that matter) about brain and neuroscience stuff is that I start going on a rant regarding things that even today are still a "mystery" to scientists about how the brain works.
I'll give you a hint - it's not a mystery.
The one primary feature that I have been pushing since I started learning about the brain is, "I am, therefore I think." Descartes had it all backwards, but then again, he was trying to put fourth a proof for the existence of a soul by first assuming that a soul exists (aka, begging the question).
The common theme I keep hearing in neuroscience is, "We still don't know where thoughts come from. All we know is that the brain lights up like a Christmas tree when thoughts occur." I cringe every time I hear this kind of talk. There is one underlying assumption that is incorrect in that line of reasoning - thoughts originate out of nothing. It is part of the thought-movement that we somehow have a soul, a will, or some other form of autonomy running things. Most people will NEVER admit that they are no different than a toaster doing what it's supposed to do after the button is pressed.
Here's the deal: Thoughts are responses* to stimuli.
Thoughts DO NOT come before the stimuli. Movements DO NOT come before the stimuli. Creativity DOES NOT come before the stimuli. The toaster gets hot because the button was pressed, just as you have a thought because you are reacting to stimuli, both internal and external. Internal dialog (thoughts with words to describe them) is emergent, and does not exist until language is learned.
The thought, "I'm hungry," is a response to the parasympathetic nervous system sending signals back to your brain on the status of your body. The thought without the words attached to it was the exact same thought you had as a baby crying for your milk. The thought happened because your brain received stimuli in the form of a regular systems status check.
Here's one of those false examples people like to use (specifically, it's the same example used in the book that caused this rant to begin with): I tell you to wiggle your thumb, you do so, and then I ask you where did that thought originate to cause you to wiggle your thumb. Off you go trying to introspect the ontology of your soul, because that's how people have been looking at it all this time. No one has an answer because they keep looking in the wrong place - they keep looking for the soul, or whatever that part of their brain is towards which they are prone to attribute their will, consciousness, and creativity.
At least we're getting to a point where intelligent people are likely to think that it is at least some physical part of their brain, rather than some metaphysical radio wave beaming down from The Places Of Souls. I have actually been told once, "I know that the receptor must be in my brain; I just don't know where the signal comes from." *grumbles*damnedmotherships*grumbles*
When I ask you where the thought came from to wiggle your thumb, the answer is that it came from the stimulus of me asking you to wiggle your thumb and the internal stimulus of your brain agreeing to comply.
[The next question that always comes up is, "Well, how did I agree to it?"] *sigh*
* You could even go so far as to say reflexes, although then you're getting into some nitty-gritty semantics. Besides, calling it a response instead of a reflex will give it a little more of that autonomous feel that naysayers will cling to so tightly - I'm quite aware that this is a "politically correct" way to try and gain converts.
By the way, after reading only the first chapter, I like this book. I will read more.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-27 05:20 pm (UTC)I'm in favor of Dennett's dismissal of the Cartesian Theater (and Cartesian Dualism) for the Multiple Drafts theory as to how thoughts enter and are organized in the brain.
There have been several studies that show an amazing habit of the human brain: immediately misremembered experiences.
Dennett mentions at least one in his book "Consciousness Explained" about red/green lights that I can't quite remember the details of it at this moment.
There is another by Thomas Gilovich about split-brains that this link explains better than I could. (second paragraph)
For a long time brains were thought to have a memory process like a film strip and at a certain point it is projected into consciousness. It's a linear process that we can rewind to watch past thoughts and perceptions as a movie that does not change. The idea of the Multiple Draft theory is that our thoughts have no single point of origin but are like silly putty. That the simple process of recalling a memory or explaining a thought will change it. This happens with long stored memory as well as instant observations.
People function on a daily basis with the assumption that what they experience is factual. Maybe not all inclusive, but generally an accurate representation. Yet it appears without being aware of it we change our memory to fit the perceived facts (or stimulus).
It's a hard concept for people to grasp. It's something that we're completely unaware of doing as it happens. We like to think we know our own thoughts and what made them happen. That, however, maybe one of the biggest mysteries of all.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-27 06:16 pm (UTC)"I know what I saw!!!"
The cognition lab was run under the direction of Dr. Valerie Reyna, so I had quite a lot of exposure to her fuzzy-trace theory of memories. Fuzzy-trace, multiple drafts, and other similar theories are all starting to finally grasp the idea of a distributed, feed-back and feed-forward processing system. It feeds onto itself so continuously, it's difficult (if not impossible) to distinguish between experience, memory, and thought (and dream and hallucination, in the case of some individuals with thought disorders like schizophrenia). After all, while having an experience you are making a memory of it and having thoughts about it - it's becoming more and more difficult to treat these as separate entities.