Hey guys, I would add that the involvement of the other (older) parts of the brain must be accounted for too. Specifically, I would point to the amygdala which is strongly linked to emotional processing. In situations of high stress or overwhelming sensory stimulation, it is not uncommon for the information/orders processed by the neocortex (specifically frontal lobes) to be overridden by those sent by the amygdala. We have to keep in mind a surge of certain neurotransmitters can completely alter the way information is processed in the brain.
So, for someone who is untrained, the effect of the emotional reaction will easily override their “intelligent” conscious thinking. Train enough, and these emotional triggers and impulses can be dulled to the point where the overseer of the brain (thalamus I believe) will end up allowing the neocortex to remain in charge. As for reflexes, that is different as pointed out earlier. They stem from the spinal nerve bundles which are processed the fastest and are largely pre-trained (instinct). (Do forgive any inaccuracies :)) Nicholas On Nov 16, 2013, at 5:29 PM, Fergal Byrne <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marek, > > I think there are several elements to this. You're right about "fast > reactions" such as removing your hand to avoid burning - these reactions can > occur with zero brain involvement (reflexes are due to processing and motor > outputs in the spine, only passing the resulting motor data up to the brain > "for the record"). Slightly slower are reactions in the reptilian brain such > as those used to control muscles when your feet hit the ground after a drop, > for example. As you go up the hierarchy into the neocortex, the processing > becomes ever slower but you get more complex sequences of reactions being > produced. > > "Training" in the everyday sense of the word (e.g. soldiers drilling, > athletic training, ballroom dancing, musical rehearsal etc) is all about > converting knowledge of complex sequences (eg instructions in a book, > coaching, theatre directing, drill instructiors, etc) into sequence memories > which can be played back at full speed and generalised to fit the > circumstances. Thus the endless repetition of seemingly useless drills and > exercise routines, which are just formal, adult versions of the endless > repetition seen when children sit in the bath and pour the same water out of > the same containers for hours. > > Regards, > > Fergal Byrne > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Marek Otahal <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Stewart Mackenzie <[email protected]> > wrote: > ... > > When things get rough am I correct in assuming the lower levels in the > hierarchy become saturated with signals to the point nothing can be made out. > At this point the patterns instilled at higher levels of the hierarchy take > over. > I don't think this is correct. Do you have any support? > > I believe we have "hardwired" centers for critical operation - think of a > special CLA region whose output has priority (=higher permanences) before > others, we've developed these as "animals". These centers recieve low-level > input (bcs it's fast), that is directly from sensors, or from low level CLAs. > > The examples are, when you put your hand in fire, you move your hand, no > thinking. When we try to drown you :), you shut the mouth under water and > stop breathing. > > My support for why not higher level concepts - empirically, the idea of > Al-Queida bombing your house does not trigger such panic, while the examples > above do. And practical too, if you need an autopilot, you dont build it on > Windows 8 which asks FB API, but in an embedded device. > > Back to your training example, I think hard training (Pavlov's dogs, 10yrs of > kung-fu) makes the trained pathways in brain so strong to act sub-counsiously > like the survival centers. So if you were to scare such a trained soldier, he > can react automatically and kill you, even if you're his friend. Because he's > been trained to kill. > > You mention lower levels become (over-)saturated with signals to conclude we > must use higher levels for quick reactions. I think this is false, because > low levels operate always at the same speed - your eyes do percieve at a > given "frame-rate", no matter what happens, they don't become oversaturated. > When we act real quick (==automatic) it's because you don't wait for high > level concepts to decide "Hmm, this man with a gun pointing at me. He wears > enemy uniform. But he's smiling, maybe we should chat?" > > > > -- > Marek Otahal :o) > > _______________________________________________ > nupic mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org > > > > > -- > > Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT > > http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology > > e:[email protected] t:+353 83 4214179 > Formerly of Adnet [email protected] http://www.adnet.ie > _______________________________________________ > nupic mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
_______________________________________________ nupic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
