5 ms·

To anyone interested in this article I highly recommend “The Cerebral Code” by William Calvin. (https://williamcalvin.com/bk9/index.htm https://williamcalvin.co

To anyone interested in this article I highly recommend “The Cerebral Code” by William Calvin. (https://williamcalvin.com/bk9/index.htm https://williamcalvin.com/bk9/index.htm) It’s the only theory of how the brain works that I’ve come across that seems like it could be valid. Unfortunately, like other posters have already mentioned, neuroscience is incredibly complex and we just don’t have the tools to test it. Even if it ends up being completely wrong, it’s a beautiful theory and well worth checking out!

dleeftink 2y ago
The cerebral code as an ensemble of signals, music. Or rather, music as metaphor of neuronal patterning. Gives another dimension to being 'in tune' with someone. I think the clinical shift to focus on 'the individual' instead of the ensemble has overlooked the importance of inter-brain synchronisation, the process of which we are only start to grapple [0]. A feeling all to familiar to fellow musicians, and no doubt anyone involved in activities in which timing coordination is key. [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763424002811 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01497...
- calepayson 2y ago
  > Gives another dimension to being 'in tune' with someone. Love this. > I think the clinical shift to focus on 'the individual' instead of the ensemble has overlooked the importance of inter-brain synchronisation My sense is this is also the case for our cultural story of neuroscience. We can run massive analysis of the brain and what brain regions or neurons or transmitters are being used/activated and it all boils down to something we can't conceptualize. Even the principal components seem to be too complex for us to grock. With this barrage of complexity I feel like we have a (bad but understandable) habit of reducing to the individual. We talk about the grandmother neuron or what region x is responsible for. We harp on the cog sci of individuals and we run experiments where we try to isolate them for "confounding factors" (other people). I keep coming back to evolutionary theory as the middle ground between this over and under simplification of cognition.
  - dleeftink 2y ago
    I cannot find the source right now, but the past 20 years has seen a marked shift from individual to ensemble brain imaging, as individual brain responses (and by extension our imaging data) do not fully reflect or capture our natural state that is often far less compartmentalised. It took some advocacy for the field to move towards multi-brain imaging, not the least due to its technical challenges. On a deeper level, I also think the prior discrepency stems from how we perceive the world as individuals rather than a collective, our research methods implicitly reflecting this bias. In regards to synchronisation, you might find the following interesting: "Brain Waves Synchronize when People Interact" [0]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-waves-synchronize-when-people-interact/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-waves-synch...
n4r9 2y ago
Thanks for the link. Have you come across Dennett's multiple drafts model of consciousness, and if so how would you say this compares with that? Scanning the intro section of your link suggests that perhaps Calvin is modelling at a lower-level, but I don't pretend to understand either very deeply. > Even if it ends up being completely wrong, it’s a beautiful theory Not just that, but I think it's vitally important to be able to demonstrate how much we can potentially explain. There are some people that will never accept a physicalist model, but I suspect there are many who will happily accept it once they conceive of the possibilities. At least, that's the process I went through when originally learning about evolution by natural selection.
- calepayson 2y ago
  I love Dennett. I think he’s a n incredible philosopher, at least when it comes to biology, but philosophy always leaves me wanting for the actual mechanisms. On a high level, I think Calvin’s theory is in the exact same vein as Dennett’s. Seems like we could sum them both up by saying the brain is paralleled and there is competition between thoughts? What grabs me about Calvin’s work is he gets much closer to how this might work than anything else I’ve seen. Even cooler, I think he provides enough depth that we could potentially design a new architecture around his theory.
alok-g 2y ago
Am curious, how deep or detailed is this? Is there enough material there that someone could understand and write a program out of it to simulate or make something useful? (My sense looking at the book contents is that it isn't.) Thanks.
- calepayson 2y ago
  It provides a clearer direction than any other theory of how the brain works that I have come across. But no, it’s not going to be simple project to implement. Maybe if you’ve got a strong background in ML you could hack something together? Still I can’t recommend it highly enough. Act I is enough to grock the concept and you can crush it in an evening.
Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 2y ago
Have you read Stanislas Dehaene's book Th Code Of Consciousness? I'm super curious about your opinion.

dleeftink 2y ago

The cerebral code as an ensemble of signals, music. Or rather, music as metaphor of neuronal patterning. Gives another dimension to being 'in tune' with someone. I think the clinical shift to focus on 'the individual' instead of the ensemble has overlooked the importance of inter-brain synchronisation, the process of which we are only start to grapple [0]. A feeling all to familiar to fellow musicians, and no doubt anyone involved in activities in which timing coordination is key. [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763424002811 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01497...

calepayson 2y ago
> Gives another dimension to being 'in tune' with someone. Love this. > I think the clinical shift to focus on 'the individual' instead of the ensemble has overlooked the importance of inter-brain synchronisation My sense is this is also the case for our cultural story of neuroscience. We can run massive analysis of the brain and what brain regions or neurons or transmitters are being used/activated and it all boils down to something we can't conceptualize. Even the principal components seem to be too complex for us to grock. With this barrage of complexity I feel like we have a (bad but understandable) habit of reducing to the individual. We talk about the grandmother neuron or what region x is responsible for. We harp on the cog sci of individuals and we run experiments where we try to isolate them for "confounding factors" (other people). I keep coming back to evolutionary theory as the middle ground between this over and under simplification of cognition.
- dleeftink 2y ago
  I cannot find the source right now, but the past 20 years has seen a marked shift from individual to ensemble brain imaging, as individual brain responses (and by extension our imaging data) do not fully reflect or capture our natural state that is often far less compartmentalised. It took some advocacy for the field to move towards multi-brain imaging, not the least due to its technical challenges. On a deeper level, I also think the prior discrepency stems from how we perceive the world as individuals rather than a collective, our research methods implicitly reflecting this bias. In regards to synchronisation, you might find the following interesting: "Brain Waves Synchronize when People Interact" [0]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-waves-synchronize-when-people-interact/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-waves-synch...

n4r9 2y ago

Thanks for the link. Have you come across Dennett's multiple drafts model of consciousness, and if so how would you say this compares with that? Scanning the intro section of your link suggests that perhaps Calvin is modelling at a lower-level, but I don't pretend to understand either very deeply. > Even if it ends up being completely wrong, it’s a beautiful theory Not just that, but I think it's vitally important to be able to demonstrate how much we can potentially explain. There are some people that will never accept a physicalist model, but I suspect there are many who will happily accept it once they conceive of the possibilities. At least, that's the process I went through when originally learning about evolution by natural selection.

calepayson 2y ago
I love Dennett. I think he’s a n incredible philosopher, at least when it comes to biology, but philosophy always leaves me wanting for the actual mechanisms. On a high level, I think Calvin’s theory is in the exact same vein as Dennett’s. Seems like we could sum them both up by saying the brain is paralleled and there is competition between thoughts? What grabs me about Calvin’s work is he gets much closer to how this might work than anything else I’ve seen. Even cooler, I think he provides enough depth that we could potentially design a new architecture around his theory.

alok-g 2y ago

Am curious, how deep or detailed is this? Is there enough material there that someone could understand and write a program out of it to simulate or make something useful? (My sense looking at the book contents is that it isn't.) Thanks.

calepayson 2y ago
It provides a clearer direction than any other theory of how the brain works that I have come across. But no, it’s not going to be simple project to implement. Maybe if you’ve got a strong background in ML you could hack something together? Still I can’t recommend it highly enough. Act I is enough to grock the concept and you can crush it in an evening.

Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 2y ago

Have you read Stanislas Dehaene's book Th Code Of Consciousness? I'm super curious about your opinion.