Untitled Document

The Unified Theory of the Nervous System
and Behavior

Cognitive Philosophy /Brain Theory by Steven Michael Harris

Communications With That Neuroscientist - Part 3

My comments on Marvin Minsky's new book in progress - The Emotion Machine continue here. (The Emotion Machine - he invites commentary on the book - and is linked at http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/)

Because Dr. Minsky did not respond to my previous two essays concerning his writings, I will not be writing to him directly anymore about his ideas because I don’t want my writing to be considered as “spam.” But I will continue to write my commentary about his theories and book on this website. As I am not writing this essay as a letter, the voice of the following essays will now change.

Referring to section 1-4 (“Infant emotions”):

It is an enormous task, this task of explaining such an enormity of macro observations of complexity coming from the same theory of activity at the micro level starting with the concepts of what is happening at the level of the nerve cell and the changes occurring with nerve cell activity, structure and organization, but it is the only way you can explain any unified theory. The principles at the micro level repeat, but create all manner of emergent properties with patterns that reflect what is happening at the smaller level of scale. The observations in this section of Minsky’s new book about infant emotions as explained by combinations of new theory by Minsky and by previous and new explanations of evolved function using the evolutionary psychology approach can be better explained by my theory.

First, I need to get back to explaining some of the basic concepts of what happens in the networking of cells.

My basic tenet of this theory is that nerve cells are mathematically designed to create the most likelihood of spending the most amount of time during any period at an ideal range of frequency compared to time spent not firing or firing at other frequencies. This leads to a math where every subset of functioning cells (or the entire set as well) is a cumulative calculation leading to the most cells coming as close to as much time spent at the ideal frequency as possible. Identifying this ideal frequency as the state with the greatest amount of time per unit in the pleasure/health/stasis state accounts for all qualia as well, and brings in the philosophical and psychological components of this math being an accumulation of the greatest amount of state of health/happiness/pleasure/stasis in the calculations of the entire set or any isolated subset as well. (But bear in mind that the isolation of any subset in a system that is connected to other subsets - other functions and purposes and interests - will create an equation of a different sort. Remove any part of an equation of any sort and the whole equation is contorted and corrupted from the original meaning. The current medical approaches of assuming that different functions can be isolated into modules in different parts of the brain is a corruption of logic in a system where the firing of every cell has some range from extremely small to extremely large effect eventually on the firing of any other cell in the system as they are all connected.)

Cells that have a design that leads to the greatest likelihood of achieving a particular frequency will achieve a massive amount of different activities in frequency that are nothing like the ideal frequency for as much time as possible when the cells apply that logic to signals with a massive range of different frequencies applied to different realms when that nervous system is in partnership with the many different types of cells that send and receive different signals from the various body parts responding to the many different frequencies of information coming from the variety of the outside world. You will not see this universal goal of the cells in their individual designs when looking at the variety of activity in observing the nervous system through the various medical technologies. The first requirement for understanding is the right theory that you can then start applying to those observations.

To prove that this frequency exists, a variety of experiments are possible but not necessary because nature has already provided evidence that it exists. One experiment would be to take a large number of nerve cells from a young rat - cells that have not yet created strong patterns of connectivity relating to particular subject matter, perhaps newly formed from stem cells - and isolate those cells so that they receive all of the sustenance needed to fire and live in the brain of the rat but cut them away from the inputs from the rest of the nervous system that is connected to other cells in the body. If I am right, eventually this group of cells that are firing and can only make new connections to each other (and not new connections to cells connected to the rest of the body) will most often find a synchronized frequency for the whole group that is similar to the frequency of firing that happens with the cells at the center of an epileptic seizure as they start to fire in unison, and, similar to the epileptic seizure, the group of cells will find this frequency in concert with each other and the frequency will gradually increase to a higher frequency (because of the accumulation of “stress” coming from the mathematical edge towards inhibition over excitation) until the group stops firing in synchronicity for a rest, and then the pattern will start again, like a seizure that keeps repeating.

[I came to the conclusion that an experiment to find cells seeking an ideal frequency was necessary out of ignorance of what is, apparently, common knowledge in the laboratory. My impression that this frequency was out there was the result of a lot of logic looking at macro behaviors and coming up with this theory. I did not know that it was often observed that if you put a group of any kind of cells into a Petri dish that they find a frequency. Because this is a common observation it has been considered insignificant. This I discovered when a scientist wrote to insult my theory stating that my prediction was “trivial” because it was already common knowledge. But they have no idea of the significance of this frequency that cells find as applied to the mathematics of cognition, a theory I found that predicted this observation and applies significance to these common events. (Common events are the most important to consider!) So should the insult be directed my way, because of my ignorance of the already known frequencies that cells organize into, even though I concluded that this frequency must be there from a variety of other evidence, or should the insult be directed at the entire scientific community that has witnessed this frequency but has never assigned any value or significance to it as a participant factor in how our bodies work? Besides, I do predict a treatment that will cure disorders - something that I consider a very significant and non-trivial experiment that will validate my theory - but it is too dangerous to be fully explained on the web because of the depression and suicidal possibilities that are part of a medication-forced "withdrawal from stress" experience.]

The seizure is the evidence for this frequency. When cells are firing in unison, they are closer to the ability to achieve the principals of the basic units of pleasure/pain for the good of the individual cell but they are further from emergent abilities of converting that basic unit into processing of pattern-recognition related to all manner of other subject matter to make the overall organism function and make sense of the world. The more synchronicity of cells, the less meaning for the cells activity relating to the outside world and the variety of the body. The individual cells in the group of cells that is enlisted into the firing of the seizure are no longer spotting patterns good for the whole of the organism and are then finding the pattern that gives the greatest good only for the individual cells (so that more cells keep enlisting into the seizure group for their own individual success).

And the cause for the development of a seizure disorder would be a massive amount of inhibition in the system such that certain patterns of signaling will inhibit all of the inputs from the outside world to an isolated grouping of cells that as a result are no longer able to respond to patterns coming from the rest of the body and the nervous system so that these isolated cells start finding the patterns they seek from other cells in the same isolation and that frequency begins. As this frequency is the best frequency for the health and growth of the individual cell (even though it is bad for the organism as a whole) the colony of cells participating in this activity grows a bit every time the seizure occurs. The synchronous activity interrupts and interferes with the emergent processing of information of cells outside of the original group of cells and causes a lot of conflict of logic and so a lot of stress in the whole system. Ironically, the cells involved in the focal point of the seizure are at a frequency of the greatest proportionate pleasure per unit of time, but this small minority of cells is a minority of the qualia of a complete being and the interference with the logic of the majority of cells creates a greater pain and interruption of function to the point of blacking out for the organism. If the group of cells firing in synchronous frequency becomes large enough, the interruption of function caused by the individuals reaching their desired frequency at the expense of the whole causes the organism to die.

Evidence is numerous that it is inhibition isolating the group of cells that causes seizures (which appears to be something the opposite of inhibition according to the current model of what looks like excitation to neuroscientists). Massive blows to the head can cause enough inhibition to cause coma, and can also cause seizures. Seizures occur for those recovering from a coma. Seizures are more common for those with greatly inhibited brain function caused by the more severe of disorders. Drug overdoses cause seizures.

So how does this relate to the subject of infant behavior and development?

A group of cells that is not connected to the outside world (a theoretical model of a fictional grouping as nerve cells don’t really exist in isolation from a body) will connect to other cells firing synchronously. The connections will not be developed with any specialization relating to particular patterns other that the ideal frequency. So the structures of the many cells in such a group will be much more alike to each other than that which will occur in a normal nervous system with cells growing and connecting in response to very different subject matters in different regions of the system and therefore creating very different kinds of cells or networks of cells compared to cellular structures and the structures of groupings of cells in other parts of the system. The growth of a body is this constant change from greater alikeness in the cells and their goals to greater diversity and greater rigidity as well as information is laid down in excitations of pathways for signaling and laid down in inhibitions of pathways that stop signals from going in other directions. If all of the cells had the same goal (as in the focal point for a seizure) a signal fired at one end would always reach the other end, but in a system that has matured and developed in a normal body the signals coming from one end (the ear perhaps) will not directly influence cells at the other end (the visual processing center, perhaps). So, in other words, the younger the age of development, the more the different parts of the system are directly connected to each other and the older the age of development the more the influences of the different parts of the nervous system are severed from each other through the many inhibitory influences of time that is a part of the ever-increasing specialization of different regions of the brain in response to different patterns (of ever-increasing complexity) that are being responded to.

The parts of the nervous system, and thus the parts of the body, are more connected to each other early in life (using the basic units of pleasure and pain) and more severed from each other later in life due to inhibitions that collect over time. This is pretty much a metaphor for all learning, this movement from greater uniformity in the structure and networking of cells to greater diversity: if you keep having the same experiences of the same patterns over and over you are not learning but you are learning when you are identifying the patterns in new experiences (which are encoded into new structural varieties in the brain).

This is pretty much everything I need to write to use as a launching point to start explaining the subject matter of child development and various observations of infants.

The evolution of a nervous system is the evolution of a logic that transfers the unity of the individual goals of each cell (to seek a frequency) into the diversity of pattern-recognition dealing with many different subject matters. The child is closer to the beginning, so there is more unity of subject matter and unity of function of the body. The baby is either all pleasure or all pain as the divisions of different subject matter (and the function of different parts of the body) are not as inhibited from each other yet.

The pleasure involves the whole body to the extreme. The pain involves the whole body to an extreme. The older you get (and the more you learn) the more the functions and the emotions involved are separated from each other. Ask any therapist about the differences in body language signals coming from younger people as opposed to older people. Children show a hidden feeling with the whole body while older people show it with just one body part. Older people can have a smile on part of their face but another emotion signaled from another part. Very old people will accomplish their attentions with just one body part but you don’t see that with children. (A child reaches for a butterfly with every part of the body involved, the elderly with just the hand and arm.)

The total emotional involvement of the baby in response to whatever (and without any language for communication) is reflective of the basic algorithm of the nervous system as that of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, which is the basis for all pattern recognition.

The ideal frequency for the greatest health/pleasure/success of a cell would apply to nerve cells and also to other cells as well. Such an ideal, when reached would lead to the greatest amount of growth and replication of cells. Because learning requires the connection of cells with this design to inputs of many different frequencies in response to the world and body, and therefore transferring the seeking of ideal frequencies to the seeking of patterns as the system of cells makes changes in connectivity in response to all this information, then it is necessary that avoidance of diverse information be prolonged as long as possible during early development.

The adjustment to diverse information leads to reductions in growth and the movement from greater plasticity to greater rigidity and specialization (and collects stress and is the aging process as well). To achieve any significant abilities in any realm of information such as visual processing or language development, then a greater amount of time will be required to grow enough cells with enough plasticity to make significant mental development a possibility. For this reason humans require a significant amount of time in the uterus where an atmosphere of constant uniform exposure to influences of consistent and non-diverse influences that inspire as much of the ideal frequencies as possible.

The ideal frequency of the optical receptor must be in alignment with the ideal frequency of the nerve cells connected and that frequency must be a reaction to the dark rather than light so that as much growth without diversity of structure can occur before the baby is born and must start processing the various patterns in a visual field into pattern recognition using the visual processing centers. The same would be required of touch receptors finding an ideal frequency of consistent and non-varied characteristics in the fluid of the womb to allow for the greatest and most healthy growth of the body and the skin and the brain that is connected. It is the variety of different patterns that occur after birth that causes massive change in the brain that adds stress and reduces the plasticity of the brain in partnership with learning.

As for the perception of the parent, the parent’s nervous system has an easy time recognizing the basics of cognition as reflected in the many body systems when witnessing the activity of the baby (so much closer in development to the basics of the cellular mechanisms of pleasure/pain in assignment with different functions and perceptions) and the empathy is very strong. We feel more pleasure with the pleasure of the baby and we feel more pain with the pain of the baby (at least at first until some habituation takes place with a lot of night feedings). All of the stresses that cause age and disease and ugliness are less in a healthy baby than with older individuals, so that we find the baby beautiful when it is in a non-stressed state (and the baby looks much older when it is crying and showing a completely stressed state).

My argument is for this all-or-nothing expression of pain or pleasure in the baby as evidence for the basic units of how the nervous system processes everything using the pain/pleasure dichotomy. But Minsky comes up with a conclusion that is on the opposite end of the scale:

“Nevertheless, we still need to ask how could an infant change so much between one moment and the next? The Single-Self model has no way to explain this. However, the suddenness which with infants switch from contentment or calmness to anger or rage suggests that (at least to some extent) an infant’s mind could be seen as composed of substantially separate entities.”

After my thoughts on this subject, I have to admit that this conclusion of Minsky’s has me totally befuddled. He states that the suddenness of change of emotion is evidence of separate entities, but a greater number of separate entities should increase the time of response and make any responses less unified than what is witnessed in the all-or-nothing pain or pleasure response of the infant.

In fairness, what Minsky is writing about here is a slightly different subject matter than what I am writing about, although he might not be seeing the difference, because there is a lot of paradigm shift involved in embracing my theory. He writes about separate entities in the brain as opposed to a “single-self” and his intention is to explain how different subsets of complex architecture in the brain take on different functions. He is both right and wrong here. Yes, there are many subsets of thinking and a single-self is an illusion, but not in the way that he proposes. There is not a great diversity of structures doing different tasks of cognition that create the many selves of his writing but the different structures or calculations or evolved specializations of attention to different subject matter are the product of as many “selves” as there are cellular connections in the nervous system down to basic units that are all doing the same thing from which emerges a great diversity of attention to different patterns and subject matter. I agree with Minsky that a “single-self” is an illusion, but he is wrong that the components of the brain are the summation of an evolutionarily evolved and controlled complex structure of different architectures doing different things as if they are preordained constructions coming from a map in genetics. His basic unit is at the wrong level of scale. The basic units are at the smallest level of scale starting with the cellular connections, and the different modules of function he describes are emergent constructions that the cellular relationships self-create through the mathematics of pattern recognition that occurs in partnership with body development (which is learned as part of pattern recognition as well).

He then goes on to provide some argument for his ideas with a theoretical position that fills in none of the blanks and increases the complexity of the description of how the brain functions and is unsatisfying for addressing the particulars of many of the observations (is very vague). His argument is not fleshed out in his writing and so my response does not need to be fleshed out either.

[Click to Go Back to Unified Theory More Essays Page]

[Click to Go Back to Unified Theory Directory Page]