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 ------------