
How brain architecture relates to consciousness and abstract thought - jonbaer
http://www.kurzweilai.net/how-brain-architecture-relates-to-consciousness-and-abstract-thought
======
jhedwards
Jean Piaget's theories are pretty in line with this. In his book "Biology and
Knowledge" he sets forth the idea that higher level cognitive abilities are
built via the coordination and integration of basic sensory/motor behaviors.
The progressive construction of higher level behaviors eventually leads to
logico-mathematical thought.

He even did extensive biological experiments to demonstrate that these
concepts are valid interpretations of organic biological phenomena and thus
reasonably extendable into the domain of cognitive development. It's a shame
his work was reduced to the "stages" theory, which really doesn't do justice
to his work as a whole.

------
throwupper247
The discussed paper is
[http://www.nature.com/articles/srep18112](http://www.nature.com/articles/srep18112)
"The global landscape of cognition: hierarchical aggregation as an
organizational principle of human cortical networks and functions"

Consciousness is mentioned only once:

>Our current data-driven results holistically demonstrated expanding
amalgamation of function [sic!] over structural depth [...]

>Fascinatingly, results suggest why the insular and opercular regions are some
of the best candidates for awareness or consciousness [62] [63] or why parts
of frontal cortex are involved in higher cognition.

Wait, why is function uncountable?

>These conclusions are elaborated here:

>Sensory regions closest to inputs (bin1) in our hierarchy [include Insula and
opercular]

>[...] hypothesized to play a role in multi-sensory integration and
interoceptive awareness,

>[...] since it is the hub of the senses

>[...] the coordinating role awareness plays in cognition

>Further, middle regions, intermediate in distance from all sensory inputs
(bin5) included hippocampus and MTL known for memory and celebrity neurons

>Deep regions less connected to and farthest from inputs (bin10) [...] may
support more abstract cognitive functions.

Aren't the first two quotes contradicting? Surely, awareness or consciousness
is an amalgamation of function and distributed.

I'd rather thought the hippocampus was deemed central to cognition, as memory
seems essential for re-cognition. Self-awareness is deemd a function of higher
cognition and therefore an abstract concept. Why is it close to the concrete
input stage? They talk about recurrent networks, does the hippocampus give
feedback to the "input stage", maybe slowly as in conditioning? They
"simplified recurrence into a continuum of statistical connectivity to sensory
inputs" to probalisticly show a directional hierarchy.

Their methods are interesting, but far beyond me. They seem to build a model
of the brain into a NN and test that, where a modified NN is the control
group.

------
collyw
"The goal was to understand how abstract thought arises from brain structure"

Is there any evidence that it does?

~~~
mbrock
As a hypothesis, the evidence presented by the article seems to give some
support to it. What's the alternative hypothesis?

~~~
tomhoward
Note that the goal of the study was not to determine IF brain structure
produces attract thought, but HOW.

The point I think the commenter was making is that the statement "The goal was
to understand how abstract thought arises from brain structure" suggests there
may be some _begging the question_ in the study design.

If you start with the assumption that that brain structure produces abstract
thought, your evidence will support it, because you already believed it in the
first place.

The main challenge to any hypothesis about the nature of thought or
consciousness is that our fundamental tool for contemplating the topic is our
consciousness - which is precisely what we're trying to understand.

On that basis, the argument goes, it's impossible to objectively determine
what consciousness really is, because we have no way of separating the
consciousness we're studying from the consciousness we're using to study it.

Alternative theories to the one that says the brain _produces_ consciousness
are that the brain is a _carrier_ or _receiver_ of consciousness, which
somehow originates elsewhere.

Various forms of such theories have been proposed by reputable scientists
including Roger Penrose[1], John Eccles[2] and - somewhat ironically - Karl
Popper[3].

I personally don't have any strong opinions about the validity of these
theories; it's enough for me to know that they exist and to keep an open mind
until someone can develop a truly testable and falsifiable hypothesis.

Until then, it's all pretty much philosophy.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Physics_and_cons...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Physics_and_consciousness)

[2] [http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-
bra.htm](http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-bra.htm)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem#Popp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem#Popper)

~~~
throwupper247
Is it also impossible to research matter, because we can't seperate the matter
we study ... ? Am I missing the analogy?

~~~
tomhoward
It's a complex topic that's really one of philosophy not science, and to try
to discuss it in depth in an HN thread is to risk going down a very unedifying
rabbit hole.

But in short, we can study matter to the extent that we can observe it from
the outside using established scientific techniques. So we can form reasonably
objective observations of the nature and behaviour of matter, because (at
least for the sake of this argument), it is separate from our consciousness.

However, science is system of techniques and tools developed out of the
consciousness of humans, so to study consciousness, you need to use science,
which was created by consciousness, which we're trying to study using
science... and so on.

So, short answer: we can use science to objectively study matter because it's
separate from consciousness. It's harder to objectively study consciousness
with science because that thing very we call science is a construct of
consciousness.

~~~
throwupper247
>for the sake of the argument

That's begging the question. There's researchers writing a 18 page report
about a 100 manyears of development and you stumble in here without really
reading it, saying it's wrong on account of it not being right. Well, your
circular logic leaves me unimpressed.

I think the uncertainty principle makes pretty clear, assuming for the sake of
the argument that it is correct, that we can't observe matter without
interfering. Ofc that's a matter of believe

The whole presumption of the article is that consciousness is related to
matter. You are, if anything, changing the subject. You probably don't have a
clue what consciousness is, no offense, I really don't. Sadly the quoted
papers are not open access and I can't figure out sci-hub. Also, they are from
a philosophical faculty, while I tend to the hard sciences.

Where would the inability to figure out conscioussness leave us, anyhow, do
you just give up?

~~~
tomhoward
Hi there, I think you've read too much into what I was trying to say (which
was my concern before I started answering you).

I'm not saying the research isn't useful, but rather that the way it was
described in this article raised doubt about just how far the findings go in
answering the deepest questions about consciousness (at least compared to what
was implied in the headline).

I agree with you that I'm in no position to refute the countless hours of work
by people far more more educated on the topic than me.

And I'm not saying we have no way of understanding consciousness, just that
there's a limit to how deeply we can ultimately understand it, as at some
point you'd have to step outside of your own consciousness. But if your
position is that the same may be true for matter because fundamentally matter
and consciousness may be inseparable, well I'm very open to that.

The comment of mine that you responded to was just answering someone else's
question on the issue of whether the brain generates consciousness, or carries
it in some other form.

I have no strong opinion on the matter; I take great interest in reading
various hypotheses and philosophies and research studies, and the outcome is
that just as you say, I don't have any idea what consciousness really is,
because nobody else seems to either (though Roger Penrose's hypothesis about
"quantum microtubules" is kinda cool, and seems to have some evidence to
support it [1]).

Also, I'm with you on the uncertainty principle and the inability to observe
matter with complete objectivity. But I resisted going there in the comment
because, like I said, it's a rabbit hole.

But I really do look forward to more being discovered and debated about it.

[1]
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm)

~~~
throwupper247
You keep speaking of "the outside", implying that there is any outside that's
inaccessable to us. This's not scientific. It's not mumbojumbo either, but
it's just not provable. It's glaringly obvious, too. It's tedious to still try
to derive any insight from that. What you want maybe is an outlook, so to
speak, to expand your horizont.

Consciousness is binary in my mind. To say that there is an understanding of
consciousness sounds redundant to me, although understanding carries a notion
of direction.

~~~
tomhoward
I don't disagree with you, and I think we're more on the same page than not.

In case you're interested, a writer (and scientist) whom I've found very
insightful and thought-provoking on this topic is Bernardo Kastrup:

[http://www.amazon.com/Bernardo-
Kastrup/e/B004OFGCA4](http://www.amazon.com/Bernardo-Kastrup/e/B004OFGCA4)

