FAQ

Consider task-based neuroimaging: accurately decoding brain activity requires more than knowing the overt task. It demands a detailed understanding of the full set of active mental states and processes, including their dynamics over space and time. This is only possible with a comprehensive mind model. The mental content during any task is also heavily influenced by context—such as the individual, environment, and situation.

Once mind components are clearly defined, they can be mapped to brain activity through literature review, expert consultation, and targeted experiments. Repeating specific mental state combinations allows the development of personalized “mind/brain signatures” that improve prediction of future brain signals. Greater accuracy and completeness in modeling the mind directly enhances decoding precision, feature prediction, and classification reliability.

These improvements can be tested experimentally—for example, by comparing mind-based classifiers against conventional ones on metrics like robustness, specificity, noise reduction, ease of use, and real-world BCI control. In applied neuroscience, practical utility often matters more than formal proof: if the method demonstrably adds value to BCI, neuroprosthetics, or CNS biomarker projects, it is worth using.

The field has made remarkable progress despite working without a complete mind model or brain theory. However, decoding remains in its early stages precisely because it lacks precise, comprehensive definitions of subjective mental states. Moving from purely task-based to mind-based neuroimaging—grounded in a detailed cognitive ontology and dynamic model—could unlock significantly faster and more impactful advances. 

Brain scientists possess deep expertise and valuable knowledge. My approach, however, is primarily mind-centered: it begins with building a detailed model of the mind and then connects it to brain activity. This requires a new way of thinking more than extensive specialized training (beyond basics like neural networks and large-scale brain dynamics).

History shows that paradigm-shifting ideas often come from relative newcomers with fresh perspectives, as Thomas Kuhn described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Independent research also offered advantages: freedom from established assumptions and the ability to integrate knowledge across multiple disciplines. 

The brain’s capabilities create a combinatorial explosion of rich, interconnected mental states—perception, thought, emotion, intention, knowledge, and more—that not even a 50 page document could fully capture.

Second, because my theory is based on a new paradigm, it’s inherently difficult to assess from within the old framework. It requires temporary suspension of prior assumptions, (often) emotional or ego challenges and a learning curve. 

Additionally, some core ideas are currently protected for IP reasons.

No not at all. People are complex. I’m not minimizing this in any way. A person’s consciousness has many aspects of self, experience and mind which extend beyond any physical brain process. These include deeper meaning, truth, morality, integrity, inspiration, intuition, passion, creativity, wisdom, humor, love, compassion, courage, peace, beauty, forgiveness, and religious or spiritual experience.

Deeper aspects of self not only exist, but are expressed within the brain as well. How else could they instantly affect behavior and movement — via the motor cortex signal sent to the body? How else could these higher aspects instantly affect the rest of the mind?

Even so, there is a mysterious or unpredictable aspect of the self I believe transcends the mechanical.