Instinct, Intuition, Memory and Legacy

Please note, that this article is not finished, yet the context is complete.

How does one 'remember' things, that could not be from one's own memory?

What is instinct, but an 'imprinted memory', passed on by DNA?

So how can a species with 'cognitive abilities' imprint memory into its offspring?

Evolution of Learning

First off, one must understand that the human being is evolved from animal state. This means we are no different in base. We just have..added features.

This means our most basic organism instruments and methods are derived from the same ancestral functioning as other animals (though with deviation). The biggest difference between humans and animals is, that animals are fully functioning on emotion, while humans have to ability to choose to do so.

The learning method is still the same, by emotional charge. Cognitive learning is in the brain, but doesn't get passed to next generation. It is in a too complex state of neuron connections to be placed in any gene/DNA sequence. This is why many things we have to learn again each generation. But how can sometimes, people have past knowledge from previous generations? Does it require extreme emotions, like pain or fear to have it placed into DNA by the species defense mechanism? I think there is something different in place.

Creating a response

I think there is a system creatable that can cause a human brain work like a catalyst. Meaning as long as it is brought up in the same environment as its ancestors and the environment hasn't change contextual nor semantically, the signals received by the brain after several generations can cause the brain to run identical pathways after learning exactly the same semantics. 

In a sense, I think this has been done around the world, more or less conscious of the cause, result and effect on the subjects. This is also the reason many don't have the 'neuron flexibility' after learning a specific amount of structures.

The how, why and what?

So, what warrants this view? I hear you say.

Well, the learning by emotion is sure. The more pain an organism experiences in a situation, will cause it to adapt to the situation, either by physical adjustment, or neurological imprinting a response to a pattern. If the organism survives after the extreme situation, the response will be imprinted in DNA.

So, how do children remember something about past ancestors, while not having been part of that society? Well, the central point here is 'society'. See, culture and society make all signals (music, language, behavior) coherent to each individual within it. So, if a society doesn't change much, the signals stay the same, the results by the individual brain stays the same. As an analogy, you could think of any animal or plant that responds to the same events in its environment (society/culture) the same way, each generation, because the signals (sun, food, danger, procreation) are the same. A flower will always turn towards the sun. The mouse will always hide away when a shadow falls upon it. All part of survival and its instincts. But imagine the more intrinsic patterns of monkeys and other social species. They respond to emotions, but there are recognizable responses that even humans have to specific events (darkness, predators, animals with known dangerous venoms). 

Now, how do you get from this, to a child remembering cognitive things from before its own past?

Actually, by the same means, but the signals it will receive are first build to be addressed on a cognitive level by the previous generation. Learning how to interpret signals with 'foreknowledge' of what they will mean. Learning this well enough, will cause the mind/brain to respond by filling in the gaps, when certain information is provided. We see this in deja vu, but also in children that seem to remember ancestors they can't have known. How? Because of the intuitive nature of how we expect things to equal how we ourselves respond to things. If signals from society have confirmation biased imprinted responses of society itself, the chances that this results in insights of a new generation that someone WOULD have responded the way they would (cloning imprint response), is very high.

Where do we see this kind of behavior? Actually everywhere, but in many cases we aren't conscious about it, because it is our own brain that has to register that a brain that behaves like ours, is not acting as we (our brain) thinks it does (confirmation bias breaking), but more likely to more general (none confirming) methods.

Basically, what I say is: 

Psychology is divided in psycho-analysis, behaviorism, biopsychology and many more fields, yet many of them have observable value. Yet many feel that their way of viewing answers all questions, which we know it doesn't. Each field leaves out items that the other field includes, simply because they are viewing the whole field in exclusion. In all, I feel we should combine the fields and take the observed causalities to answer the questions, taking the base on 'how' rather than 'why'. How does something get caused by society or the context of it, and then Why does it happen this way (which in a sense is an extended 'how').

The fields of psychology still miss parts, because many of the 'experts' working in it, are limited in their fields. Actually as result of what I explained to some limited way above.

Fear the first: How do emotions relate to our organic being and in what order are they prevalent.

Ever wondered, how the brain learns to contain information? Ever wondered how we, as humans 'learn' empathy and use emotions to respond to our environment?

I will start of with an eye opener: Fear is the first emotion. ALL, without any exception, organisms are embodied with fear. Why? because it is the most basic and primal survival instinct.

Before animals were able to see, everything it touched could be instant death, or slow death. Imagine you are a single cell. You have no arms, no legs, no eyes, no nose, no ears, no brain. You consume, but not much else. When you have gathered enough proteins and building blocks, your RNA/DNA starts to split, diffusing the amount of 'weight'. But if something would touch your cell, or start to lower the fluidlevel inside the cell, you would start moving away from the place where that started to happen. You would try to find a safe place. You would go heads on. How would you do that? 'Bore me to death?'

Is fear a good thing, or a bad thing?
Well, lets see, for a single cell organism it is the only thing that will indicate to the core that it is in danger of perishing. What about a larger organism? A snail, or an worm?
Though more complex, the response mechanism is still the same. A trigger when something touches the outer skin, which takes away either density or causes dehydration of the cells (salt on the finger of a human will cause the fluids from a snail to compensate for the solution difference within a cell and outside. Also a snail is not used to warmth, so it will 'shy away' from it.) In all, the initial response from such organism is still the same. It will 'fear' the change in environment. All organisms after come from the same genepool. Some changed their response to how fear influences the internal system. Predators, for instance will get forced by their hormone levels and neuron response to attack, instead of retreat, unless the situation contains signals or causes enough pain (like the dehydration of a single cell) to make it choose the safer route for survival.
So, though the quote above, comes from a seemingly very intelligent person, it is not entirely right. What we should fear, is losing touch with our ability to respond to signals that are cause for fear to survive and to fear too much.

Human history has shown what happens when you are cognitively enabled (self aware and can 'think') and still have a very strong sense of fear response for survival. It means that in a changing world, with less dangers, more false positives will occur. False positives are 'detections of danger', which aren't really dangers. This is what we now call 'superstition'. This caused the early man to see dangers in wind waving the grass, or a bush. And as we know, as a child with limited cognitive understanding of processes of nature, we had little way to see anything more in those false positives, than projections of our fears. Of ourselves.

Eventually, in different parts of the world, where humans traveled and settled, different social growth and different cultures caused different ways to fill the false positives. The oldest agreed within the community to different 'animism' to cause the wind to howl, or the sun to shine or thunder to strike. Eventually humanity grew and and its freedom from fear of predators in nature, gave it the possibility to explore different ways to survive. But all these new emotions and ways to interact with our surrounding, within our groups, with problems, with opportunities, were still based on the very first: fear. Love for others, is often showing its real face: fear of losing. Fear of losing offspring, fear of losing protection, fear of losing the posibility to be empowered by sheer number (social group dynamics). Anger, love, sorrow, all come from fear. 

But as Lucas Jonkman said: Fight your fears and you'll be in battle forever (fears don't go away, you can't kill fear, it is a symptom. Most often for the unknown), face your fears and be free forever (accept that your body and mind responds to something with fear, and find out what that thing is, is it really to be feared?)

When Logically inclined, Honesty frames the view of Reason

Did I just lose a braincell?

There seems to be controversy about the 'size' and 'matter' of the brain these days. Here is my view on it.


The brain is evolved from millions of years of neural synapses integrating (as said by others much like the processors we create for computers etc), when life was but worms, there were still only a few strands of nerves. A small lump in the 'seat'. What was (and still is) the 'brain' set to? For food. The worm is one long intestine and basically we are a intestine with vertibrates. Our brain has been evolving ever since life became multiple celltypes with specific functions. When complex animals arose, the brain was already a complex neural box. It was so intrinsic that even mice have basically selfawareness options (who says they aren't?). But the brain still has the same function over all those millions of years: Making sure the body gains food and survives dangers in doing so. We as mammals have been on lower steps of the food chain for thousands of thousands of years. (imagine that. A life span of about 40 years and so generations every 15 to 20 years....imagine how many ancestral generations have gone before THAT point.). Then the weather changed, climate changed and we got less predators to take care of, but we still needed to find food. We ate what was in trees, bushes, die with failure, live with good food. Those choices are all embedded in the blueprint of our brain. They are the unlearned reflexes. Many of them come to pass each generation, without being triggered. And from that moment on, the brain needs less for certain type of reflexes. Eventually we are in our current era and we are the top of the food chain and we changed the ability of running from danger, to preparing for danger for many hundreds of thousands of years. Now, we don't have to run anymore, but some of the reflexes don't die that easily (hence religion and other fear aspects, causing diversion and anger).

We are in a time where the brain evolves on. It might become smaller, but not 'lighter' per se. The density changes, but also its functions 'narrow'. Who of us still know from instinct what to do with babies? With a wild animal attacking us? With how the weather predicts the effects on crops tomorrow? We are all losing parts that are 'irrelevant' to the specific 'bloodline'. Those in cities don't know about carpenting or farming, while in the suburb there will be those that still know. Life still requires it from them to sometimes build something themselves. The same happens for many things, not just 'job' related, but also personal. In the country, people are welcoming to new (new blood, information, etc), but also cautious of differences (dangerous behavior, different unknown bloodlines and physical attributes). In the suburbs where all come together, it is a mediate, while in the city it is the same as in the country, but reversed. They are less welcoming (busy lives, close quarters and thus more shortlived interhuman contacts), but also less cautious. In all, the brain grows smaller, but not around the globe. There are likely locations where it grows.

It will also still depend on the activities within the bloodlines, whether there is either higher density or loss of reflex/cognitive abilities.

Deja vu (or there you fool)

Deja vu (as far as I have been able to investigate and incorporate existing research) is the moment the mind recognizes a pattern that has been (at some prior time) 'considered'. This means that the brain has a response structure for it and at the moment of deja vu, it fills in the blanks. That is why the consciousness feels everything that transpires is predicted. But this only goes for the very basic response to stimulus. 

We as humans are evolved from a long line of organisms that were (for a long time) not the top of the food chain. This means that as most other species, our primal driving emotion was fear. Fear of death. Our body is prepped to try and survive in any case of fear. Our brains is the evolved version of the brain of other primates. However, our line has had the luxury to gain so much overhead in responses, that we could counter possible threats, before they occurred. This means that our system has space and basal response blueprints (instincts) embedded that are not used anymore. These options made us, as species become self aware. The same options caused us to become 'religious' (seeking a parent outside, or generally called animism), plan extensive, become verbal in more complex ways and sometimes have Hotwired in the complex structure of neurons. Our brain is behaving primarily to respond to threats. As we don't have those in all levels of society anymore, there are levels where most of these parts of the brain are used for more cognitive options. However, the structures in which the brain is wired is inherited to extend. The decisions are caused by impulses coming in initially. As we come to a moment of deja vu, some arbitrary part of such a decision tree, is activated and the brain shoots hormones and other neurotoxins into the bloodstream to activate defenses of the organism. Such gives the organism a hastened response (heightened awareness) and the moment the brain sees something, the organism has the idea it has already transpired. We as humans are aware of direction of time and know that we can't act what has already transpired, so our consciousness tries to make the event fit and you get the 'idea' that it was a repetition of an earlier event (but as we KNOW we haven't been in that specific situation, we tell ourselves it must have been a dream).

Dreams

How do dreams fit into the decision tree model? 

If we take the model as base for the working of the conscious, based on feedback of the neural network in the brain, we can deduct what could cause images, sound and emotions to be received by the Claustrum, even (or as the model will explain: especially when) if the brain is highly inactive.

Cause of dreams

When the brain stops receiving impulses and stops processing signals through the network, the brain will still hold requests to the different parts of the network to give to the Claustrum and/or Prefrontal Cortex. This active residue, to my expectation, is result from the fact that activation of certain parts require a specific type and amount of energy. If the energy doesn't match the thresholds, it will cause 'cognitive dissonance', or emotional discomfort and feed back to the PC and Claustrum. Because the signals come from areas of the brain that process specific types of 'data', the return value will cause the Claustrum to build an 'consciousness' from that data. Because this data is not visual or auditive in nature, most of the time, it will be processed on emotional level. Causing them to activate memory segments, to receive an emotional feedback to adjust the neural network levels for the specific area.

A dream can be seen as a strong feedback signal from a brain segment, that causes the Claustrum (and by lucid dream to extend the Prefrontal Cortex as well) to present the subconscious with an emotional balance issue. The outcome will feed the energy back into the the brain segment that it was meant for and cause adjustment to it.

So, why do we see items and people in our dreams that we have never met before ? 

Because the mind will fill in 'the blanks' from memory, but the quality of the memory and how emotions change the visuals, can cause us to see things we never seen before. Remember, that during our life time we go through a tremendous period of magical thinking, where everything is possible.

~~

The effects: Results measurable with the model

The decision tree model/theory provides (in my opinion) a possibility to research what causes a person to emotional/cognitively fall into certain decision patterns.

One of the things I feel is best diagnosed and treated with the model for instance, is Multiple Personality Syndrome.

When the model is extended with the emotional/cognitive inheritance model (actually the 'pre-conscious' model) it also gives insights into the base of schizophrenia, and religiosity (which in my opinion are closely related, due to the 'whisper' effect.


A quick example how MPS is explained by the model: The second personality mostly is a person who is fully functional regarding language and agility, but lacks 'morals' or decision that one makes depending on emotional results. This shows that in cases of sever trauma (mostly emotional trauma), the branch or sometimes a whole tree of a personality's ethical/emotional decisions are 'unrooted'. The new personality is a choice of the brain, to ignore the initial branch/tree results, meaning other parts of the brain will be used to 'rewrite' these choices. Hence the observed effects of a person with such trauma having less moral conflicts or regressing to childlike behavior. Why the person can alternate between the two branches, might have to do with the 'mending' of the mind, or the fact that the impulses are sent to both trees, but at certain moments will have more chances of initiating a result from the initial tree, instead of the new tree.

The basics: A small description

The decision tree theory takes the following premises:
1. The brain and nerve system are evolved as a response system to protect the organism from dying.
2. The Claustrum is the center of all neural nodes and due to its place, houses the consciousness.
3. The Prefrontal Cortex is what causes the organism to be 'self conscious'.

The model of decision trees, works around the build up of actual decisions depending on other decisions before them. As if the whole brain is molded into a 'electronic' circuitry AFTER each learning part gets added.

The results of how this relates to mental disorders etc will be explained in 'The effects'.

The model starts a single node of decision. This is based in the initial blueprint of the biological organism (genetically inherited brainpatterns).
The brain is a network of nodes, which will respond to a certain amount of tension (like a resistor). The tension will result in a (current visualisation) sonar like result to the claustrum.
So, the autonomous vital functions don't fall within the decision tree's context. The initial 'breath of life' is caused by the initial functions of the body (compression of the chest and decompression, causing first breath), the heart cells are responding to electrical stimulation, so while the body is alive, the heart will receive electrical impulses. 
The first decisions are 'etched' (fixed pathway for the (neural) electrical current to create a certain response from the stimulus) based on input received from all the senses. The body's receptors are evolved to respond to the same impulses as it's parent's body, adapted to perhaps small differences which have influenced the parent's body with heavy pain or fear (Emotional hard etching). This is why children start to learn from the moment the neural network reaches a certain level of completion.
Lets call this period (the womb based learning period) the blueprint etching. This means the period, where most of the learning is 'testing' the 'ancestral' learning or 'genetic inherited' brain pattern. Here the most basic of neural paths that the species/family parent brain has passed on, are most easily activated. These will be the initial decision root. From these initial markings, the rest of the tree is based on these response fixes.

The why: Heritage of development

So, why and how did I come to the realisation of decision trees?

Well, I assume I am not the only one who has come across this venture and moment of clarity. So here goes and likely you have heard/thought it all before. I just write it down, so my own mind makes sense.

I have two children and they evolve. Before my eyes, they become bigger, they learn and they come across every awareness level, we all have at moments in our lives. Sometimes more often when we 'rediscover' some clarity. Seeing my children evolve and recognizing the moments from before their birth, as the phases they are changing, I began to realize that humanity and from that actually all of the universe and life on Earth in specific, wasn't really evolving much different. Of course it doesn't, because every current state of species grows along the same line. But not just physically, we as humans evolve in mind, along the same path. Humanity as a whole follows the same path. I guess someone already made some 'great unification' theory, explaining how this is true. Children first learn of input, then of acquiring the necessities to survive physically (cry, find a caretaker). After the moment it feels secure it will live, it learns of its body (aware of ability, not of self), it learns of the world close by, small steps in grasping things, seeing things, then interacting with things. It finds out, that there is a 'Pavlovian' effect, Cry and food comes. Cry and attention comes, attention is activating neurons, feeling good. Then it starts to feel comfortable about its abilities and recognizes its interaction and its results. Stimuli and response, but also intent and reaction.

So, that is all fine, it is how a child gets to know itself and learns to be human. YES, but not just humans have this. EVERY species has this. They learn up to their abilities. The closer their neurological network resembles ours and their physical abilities resemble ours, the closer their learning/adapting process seems to ours. This means that it is not the human conscious that causes learning and adapting, but something earlier. Children with low cognitive abilities, still are able to act on simpler impulses. They are still able to adapt, to respond. Life is all about responding.

What I have named above, is actually the fact that humanity grows like all species, and even the whole of life on earth grows in awareness. Like every individual organism that starts live, it has to come to understand what it can do, where it is, how to interact. What it is, depends on whether it becomes self aware. To understand how our psyche works, it is imperitive to understand that our drives, our inner nature, comes from...nature. From the first photosynthetic plantlike organism that consumed sunlight to mix chemicals, up to the actual animals of any size and complexity, it had specific responses to stimuli. Our brains are created after milions and millons of years and millions and millions of generations adjusting into a neural network that is able to respond to stimuli of its surrounding and, in our case, also able to act upon its environment. The responses are the basic results when a stimuli is processed by the body and nervous system. The brain is the center of action, because the signal will be sent there for a decision to be made. As Michael Shermer explained already with Patternicity, it is simply a response to a complex amount of stimuli that might cause the organism harm. If something touches the skin, the skin will send a signal to the brain, the brain will send the haptic values (heat, cold, pinch, puncture) to different parts of the brain that have been previously activated by comparative signals. The build up of the brain is generally the same with every human, when they are growing up, because the same pathways/decision trees are build, based on cultural structure. This is no different with an amoebe or a coyote, just the level of intrinsic complexity differs. Now, this is the base on which I seat my theory of decision trees and I will work this out as I continue to find objective reasoning for it.

To put it short:
The model came to be, based on my research/understanding of how humanity came about 'religious' ideas. Like children (or rather children like humanity, being an individual evolved from the ancestral relative), we started having very little ability to cognitively understand the world. We start with emotions. Our parents are our world. Then we start to become able to move ourselves and our parents become our protectors in the surrounding we now see as our world. Then we try to mimic cognitive abilities after we mimicked physical abilities. This will give us freedom, but we still hold to the affection of the parent/protector/ruler of our world. The emotions are still vivid, but we are then moving into a more cognitive phase. We start to understand the world, bit by bit on a cognitive level. But lacking language and the possibility to see causality, we fill in the blanks. We have a 'magical' world, because we don't know everything yet. We see a chair and it is an object, it moves if we move it, but when we kick it, we are surprised it didn't move. We expect it to behave as ourselves. 'magical thinking', agenticity as some scientifically knowledgeable people call it. This was the start on which I based my theory that the way humans think and evolve, is caused by the 'development' of inherited abilities. This means that in the same analogous way, humanity will grow as humans grow in their understanding of their life and abilities.

The how: The model of decision trees

Overall introduction

From the moment of conception, our body is build to respond to impulses. Though we could look at the neural responses and the way it influences our psychology from this point, I rather go a bit deeper.

The human neurology is based on millions of years of evolution. Starting (like the conception of our current organism/life) at it's conception. As humans we are often very easy to add emotions and thoughts to organisms that are not aware like us, don't have the same intrinsic responses as we have. However, like everything that evolves, our responses are all based on those of who came before us.

To explain what is meant by the inherited responses, I like to take the examples from research, where mice bred from mice that have walked a maze repeatedly. The next generation would be able to solve the maze more easily. Their neural pathways had adapted to possible stimuli. If they merely had the same pathways and had to learn, they would roughly need the same amount of time. This is what we already learned from research on the short term, but we haven't just come to this point of learning, adapting, living. These adaptions are caused by the way we have evolved. At each point they are the optimum mode of operandi for a species. Until the habitat changes to fast and the adaption within the culture is not possible within enough generations. When a species is the optimum of operandi, a stasis in development can be observed. It means that the neural pathways are optimally used for responding to the environment the organism is living in. We have already found the track back to the initial primates. But the actual decisions are based on much older neural choices/responses to stimuli.

Life is about consumption It is about continuing motion. In organical sense, our bodies have started somewhere as as simple an motion as the tides of the oceans.

The Layers

The human mind is currently the top level of several layers of processes that are going on within us as an organism. Though many other animals show signs of behavior that we describe to 'intelligence'. Intelligence isn't necessarily the same as mind/self awareness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence Reference to human and animal intelligence.

In all, we can say that because humans aren't the only ones with a minimum level of intelligence, it is NOT the mind (the cognitive decision taking) that holds 'intelligence'.

So, there is a layer before the layer of 'mind' that can hold 'intelligence'.

--------- insert from my other blog to be edited in -----
1. Animals don't have such valuation system (regarding good and bad/right and wrong). They learn what is healthy and what is not, but they are not making a conscious choice to implicate a future situation to mean this cause of effect to be positive or negative on their health. Water is to drink. Positive. No matter if it is poisoned. Some animals have a nose that will tell them that water is undrinkable, yet most don't have that luxury, because their ancestors lived in environments that had an abundance of clean flowing water, or very little water, so the 'society' of the species stayed so small, they would not evolve the reaction to a deadly situation, so that the species would act on instinct (this is a neural pathway created by genetic material).

2. This is also something that animals don't reasonably have. They can be fierce, deceiving, agressive, but that is from instinct and not by choice (we have choice, because of the abundance of neural options). So, how can we figure out what is objectively good or bad/right or wrong? Any action we do ourselves is with 'intent' and as such is already given value by acting. From the point of an animal, we will have to assume, the animal is not too much domesticated, that it will adher to human behavior and be deceitful by choice. Also, we now know that for instance dolphins have the option to choose to be nice to other animals (likely there are more). Now, what would be a thing to see without emotional value?a rock. But we know a rock will just lie and do nothing. Until we pick it up and act with it. It will not influence us, except when we interact WITH it. Automatically putting the value of action on our own part.

---------------- end ------------