This essay summarized the human mind and how it can be mapped to the brain. It’s called the MA (Memory Activation) Model. It features the mind’s “parts” or cognitive ontology, and how these act (and interact) through space and time, within the brain. The model is based on a new cognitive neuroscience theoretical framework. Both the model and underlying framework enable practical insight and analysis that can improve nearly any applied neuroscience project, value that can be clearly demonstrated.
1. The mind exists. Clearly, mental states and processes exist as subjective phenomena. Every waking moment we sense and perceive, (including sight, sound, somatosensation — pain/pleasure, temperature, hunger, fatigue…), recognize, identify, create meaning, engage in thought, think (compare & contrast, analyze, explore possibilities, evaluate…), and experience and direct emotion, motivation, imagination, belief, executive control, the self, goals, attention, prediction, language, and learning. The mind includes any aspect of human experience, knowledge or capabilities — conscious or unconscious.
2. The mind is inside the brain. The main purpose of the brain is to enable the mind. Consider motor control. The basal ganglia & motor cortex receive input directly from the lower sensory systems, premotor cortex and other areas near it. The resulting efferent (away from) brain signal is then relayed to the spine and body, creating the desired movement. Although a physical (neural oscillatory) signal creates movement, the mind heavily influences it. Sensation and perception, along with our understanding of activity & task, goals, attention and immediate intention initiate and direct our movement. Also influencing movement less directly are our beliefs and meaning ascribed to the situation, the self & executive functions (planning, decision-making…) and prediction. Pain or pleasure, fatigue, emotion, motivation and other states can influence movement as well. In fact our entire state of mind can be seen to influence movement, including our body language and facial expression. This is the mind at work — inside the brain.
3. The mind has a neural correlate. If the brain is physical, then the mind within must take a physical form. How could the mind operate to control the efferent signal, yet it (or its connection to the brain) remain non-physical? Indeed the mind is well-known to influence the brain, via a strong and reliable mind-to-brain connection. (Below I argue the mind’s neural correlate is the dominant electrochemical force of the brain: coordinated neural ensemble activity, and accompanying synchronous neural oscillation i.e. function neural networks.)
4. The mind and its neural correlate are the same phenomenon. If the mind occupies space in the brain, yet is non-physical, then how could it exist in the brain in the first place? One answer is dual-aspect monism. Here the mind and the brain’s activity are two views of the same phenomenon. The mind is, simultaneously, 100% subjective AND 100% physical. The mind is the first person subjective view; its neural (FNN) correlate the third person objective perspective. The (active) components of the mind = a set of FNNs.
5. Because mind has a neural correlate, it can be used to functionally map (encode) “it” to the brain, and vice-versa (decode). Any legitimate model or decoding of brain activity in real time would include a parts list of the mind it represents. In other words a set of mental states and processes (cognitive ontology) presumed to be active. It would also include their function through space and time, in the brain. Once defined, “it” can then be connected to the brain’s activity. Without a parts list however it’s impossible decode or encode the mind accurately — since its components are not defined or labeled in the first place.
6. The mind CAN be defined — with accuracy and precision. Any mental component or combination thereof, active during a task & context, can be defined. These components can also be weighted, and connected into a “mind network.” How it changes according to context (person, environment, situation, recent task history…) and passage of time can also be understood and defined. This is great news! Now the mind can be used as a “roadmap” for labeling the neural activity corresponding to it. For example, the FNN during a “move the cursor to the right” intention represents a set of mind components. These include “the perception of my hand resting gently on a mouse,” “imagine my arm/hand/mouse moving to the right,” and “I intend to do this — now.” The FNN set also represents associated components, such as perceptual prediction (visual & somatosensory), the subject’s emotional state (calmness/excitement, happy/sad…), and reasons for moving the cursor, immediate goals and attention. Mind maps allow for FNN maps.
7. The mind is (mostly) ignored. The obvious fact that encoding and decoding requires a cognitive ontology & its activity is mostly ignored by the brain science community. Why? In part because no one understands the mind in the first place.
On one hand, brain scientists have great insight into the mind/brain system. Their highly refined knowledge and skills are invaluable.
On the other hand conceptual understanding of the mind/brain system is in its infancy. There’s no agreed-upon definition of what consciousness or the mind even is. Existing definitions are vague and unclear. A precise or comprehensive description (or summary) of the mind’s states and processes during a task is (outside of phenomenology) very rare.
In this “mind vacuum” the study of the brain has filled the void. This makes perfect sense. Why study a subject in which there’s little understanding, and no agreement?
8. A flawed conceptual framework hinders mind understanding. The current cognitive neuroscience framework is incomplete. There’s still no solution to the mind/brain problem. The fundamental problem here I argue is the view of human experience. When acknowledged to even exist, it’s viewed as a phenomenon apart from the brain, something it “processes.” Experience is translated in some kind of neural code or set of algorithms. Consciousness and the larger mind are “reduced” to brain activity. Both experience and the mind disappear — or at least its contents do. The brain is all there is, isn’t it? The physical brain exists; while the mind — being immaterial — doesn’t.
In addition to minimizing the subjective or experiential mind as much as possible, the current framework also minimizes the content of memory. Memory is seen as a neural “process.” However memory — all memories — have subjective contents that can be understood, defined and categorized in various ways. Memory content not only exists, but is essential to everyday life. The ability to recognize, identify, or understand the meaning of the world, or any aspect of it, is based on the subjective information of memory. These contents allow the prediction of the next bite of food experience, the ability to identify it via its texture and taste, and the understanding of what it might mean to eat “too much.” The contents of experience dominate memory, the mind and by extension the brain as well.
9. The main function of the brain, especially during common tasks, is to activate memory. Consider the task “taking a sip of coffee while reading.” The reader’s mind might include recognition (my hand, my coffee cup), meaning (hot, delicious coffee), thought (caffeine, mental alertness), goals (read, learn something new, take a sip), emotion (desire — for coffee, knowledge about what I’m reading), state of motivation (I want to understand this sentence, paragraph, essay), intention (reach my right hand toward the cup), prediction (temperature & taste of liquid) and so on. Each mental component is a memory of a group of (similar) past events. “My hand,” “coffee,” “desire” etc. are all memories built from those events. The task “(me) taking a sip of coffee while reading” is accomplished using a set of (component & associated) memories.
10. The mind = (mostly) a set of general memories, built from past experience. Recognition, identification, meaning, understanding, concepts, goals, intentions, and even emotions are mostly memory (in an active state). This is particularly true of everyday tasks. For example, the intention “reach for my coffee cup” triggers memories such as “my right arm and hand,” “grasp,” “my fingers,” “liquid,” “caffeine,” “smell & taste of coffee” and “drink.” These are all general memories — based on past experience of those same events.
The content of a general memory is built from a (similar or matching) past experience, and/or unconscious event. Most have perceptual, intellectual, and emotional contents and associations.
11. A general memory represents a range of similar experience. The relationship between episodic and general memory is common knowledge. A “dog collar” is a general memory built from episodes of a person’s experience of those collars. It has a range of perceptual content: size, shape, texture, color, weight, sound when dropped on the floor etc. It has meaning: dog, leash control, walking, exercise, health, socialization etc. It has a range of emotional associations, particularly for dog owners, dog trainers etc.
This memory is general because it represents not a single collar, but a range of collar experience and information. In other words, it represents the ways in which “dog collar” is typically expressed when activated. “Dog collar” = a range of “dog collar” experience.
12. The contents of a person’s (conscious & unconscious) mind are converted to memory. This includes sensation and perception, recognition, meaning, thought, thinking, state of arousal, motivation, goals, the self, executive functions, attention, intention and motor control. All of this (and more) is converted to memory, continuously and automatically. This allows a person to describe what their lived experience was for the last 10 seconds, or what they were doing 5 minutes ago.
The most salient & attended to components of mind are converted to episodic memory (hippocampus), while activating (and shaping) matching general memory.
13. Sets of general memories, when active, work to create the mind. To have any meaning the act “bite into an apple” involves the memory of “I or me,” “bite,” “into,” and “apple.” Other memories might include “hunger,” “feeling desire to eat,” and “nutrition.” Absent these memories, you are left with immediate yet meaningless (low-level) sensation and perception.
14. If the mind = mostly general memories, built from past experiential content, this means the brain runs (mostly) on experience. This seems to runs counter to what is known about the brain. Isn’t the activation of a memory manifest or computed as neural activity? Doesn’t it involve the activity of (networks of) neurons, dendrites, synapses, neurochemicals etc.? I argue that’s true from a third person perspective. But a first person view of memory is present simultaneously — the subjective information of that memory’s expression.
15. The main “processing” mechanism of the brain is memory activation. The brain’s hardware (structural neural networks & surrounding biology) and software (its activity) is very different from that of a computer. It’s an electrochemical organ, the wetware of which is based on (interconnected) biology and physics.
Though the brain is a physical organ, it simultaneously supports and mirrors the activity of the mind. And mind is mostly memory. In fact the brain works to activate, shape, and store (multiple) memories every moment of the day.
16. The ongoing neural oscillation patterns of the brain interact with both themselves and the sensory signal. This simultaneous interaction sustains a coordinated, partly-connected & partly independent (metastable) set of general memory network activation, or set of FNNs. This (active memory/FNN) set can be connected, weighted, and labeled excitatory or inhibitory.
17. The mind is partly mechanical, partly not. If subjective experience and the mind is represented in the brain, then isn’t it a physical entity? Aren’t (conscious & unconscious) mental states and processes mechanical phenomena? Isn’t a person a physical machine that — with the right set of algorithms — is 100% predictable?
I would argue no. Human beings are much more than the sum of their physical parts and activity. Higher aspects of mind – intuition, inspiration, passion, creativity etc. – play a large role in mind, consciousness and behavior. These higher states are unpredictable and somewhat mysterious. The higher self is not 100% comprehensible. People can act in ways that are not easily understood, and far from having a known “mechanism.”
It’s true much of human behaviors is based on conditioning and habit. Yet the higher mind — truth, insight, compassion, forgiveness, spontaneity, humor, courage, genius, humility, spiritual and religious experience etc. — can strongly interject into the mind. At any time it can express itself during daily living. The higher mind is connected to the brain in a non-predictable way.
18. Once general memory is understood subjectively, its neural correlate becomes obvious: a functional neural network (FNN) range. A FNN is a (local or global) population-level neural firing event. Groups of neurons (neural ensembles) in distributed regions of the brain act in concert and coordination, via neural synchrony, to produce population-level firing (a FNN). A group of similar FNNs (ex: a set of “that apple” experiences) expressed over time represents a FNN range (“an apple” memory).
Both general memories and FNNs are strongly associative. Each functions as a transmitter of its own signal, and receiver of associated signals, simultaneously. And each dominates its respective (mind/brain) system.
19. In summary: active mind = (mostly) a set of active general memories, based on past experience = a corresponding set of FNN range activity.
The MA Model represents a new cognitive neuroscience paradigm — a new way to define the mind and connect it to the brain. It’s also a practical brain science tool. It enables a scientist or research group to encode and decode brain activity with significantly greater accuracy than currently possible. This can be done for most aspects of the mind: across people, environments, measurement situations, tasks, disorders and other variables.
A memory-based view of the mind, one based on everyday experience and action, yields a deep, detailed and fascinating picture of both it and the brain that enables it. It enlivens the brain with the richness and complexity of the reality of human consciousness and behavior.