JohnAs you already probably know, in the Indian systems, there is a tremendous amount of literature on Mind, Brain,intellect, applying reasoning, state of alertness and cognition levels, attention span and like.I am a listener to many of these dialogs embedded in the knowledge system, and have studied brain lobes size enhancements through recitations and repetitions over years.Are there fMRI or PET studies that confirm the role of Central Executive relating to:
- Level of cognition and awareness,
- Decision making and outcomes or response handling,
- etc.?
Regards.Thanks.Ravi(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)NASA Apollo Achievement AwardFormer Scientific Secretary iSRO HQOntolog Board of TrusteesParticle and Space PhysicsSenior Enterprise ArchitectSAE Fuel Cell Standards MemberOn Sun, May 5, 2024 at 6:52 PM John F Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net> wrote:Lars, List,The Homunculus is a totally different concept proposed by philosophers. It has no relationship to anything that the psychologists and neuroscientists have been studying. The origin is an idea that goes back to the 1960s with George Miller and his hypothesis about short-term memory and the "Magic Number 7, plus or minus 3".The psychologists Baddeley & Hitch wrote their initial article in 1974. They wrote in response to Miller's hypothesis. They realized that there is much more to short-term memory than just words and phonemes. They called Miller's storage "the phonological loop" and they added a "visuo-spatial scratchpad" for short-term memory of imagery and feelings. And they continued to revise and extend their research for another 20 or 30 years. Neuroscientists, who are specialists in different aspects, have been working on related issues. The consensus is not a single hypothesis, but a branch of research on issues related to conscious control of action by a central executive in the frontal lobes vs. subconscious control by the brainstem and the cerebellum.For example, when you're walking down the street and talking on your cell phone, several different systems are controlling your actions: (1) the central executive is in charge of what you're doing on the phone in talking and pushing buttons; (2) the cerebellum is guiding your steps in walking and maintaining your balance; (3) the brain stem is maintaining your breathing, heart beat, and other bodily functions; and (4) the nerves running done the spine and branching to all parts of your body are controlling every movement and monitoring any abnormalities, such as a burn, a scratch, or a more serious injury.In Freud's terms. the central executive is the ego, and the lower-level systems are the id. Those ideas are much older, but they illustrate the kinds of issues involved. The more recent research relates the observational data to actual neural functions in specific regions of the brain. Since aspects of those functions can be traced back to the earliest bacteria, worms, and fish, there must be something fundamental about them. AI systems that do not support related functions do so at their peril.In my notes and the articles I cite, there are many references to ongoing research. For more background, don't use those GPT-based things that summarize surface-level trivia. You can start with Wikipedia, which cites the original research. Then continue with more detailed studies in neuroscience.JohnFrom: "Dr. Lars Ludwig" <mail@lars-ludwig.com>John,if I remember correctly that what you propose here via a central executive was rejected in the cognitive sciences as the so called "homunculus theory of cognition", meaning, in short, that the "decision making" of a system cannot be explained by an instance (central executive) making decisions.LarsJohn F Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net> hat am 05.05.2024 21:23 CEST geschriebeLars, Doug, List,There is a huge difference between a reasoning system and a decision system. Give a set of axioms and raw data, a reasoning system derives conclusions. It does not make any value judgments about the any of them, And it does not take any actions based on any conclusions.But every living system from bacteria on up must make decisions about which of many sources of information must be considered in taking action. I agreed with Mihai Nadin that the sources of knowledge are distributed among all components of the brain, but I should have added "brain and body". Every part of the body generates signals of pain and pleasure of varying strength. And the most brilliant or pleasurable thoughts must be deferred when a pain signal from a finger touches a hot stove.In any animal, there are an immense number of signals coming from every part of the brain and body. There must be something that decides which one(s) to consider immediately and which ones may be deferred.The central executive is not my idea. But I have done a fair amount of studying of all the branches of the cognitive sciences, and I have learned important ideas from comparing different ways they deal with common problems.I'm not asking anybody to believe me. But I am asking everybody to consider the wide range of insights that come from the different branches of all six: Philosophy, psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and anthropology. Please look at the references. And if you don't like the references I cited, look for more.As for the central executive, please let me know of any other mechanism that can decide whether it's better to (a) read a book, (b) take a nap, (c) eat lunch, or (d) duck and cover.JohnFrom: "Dr. Lars Ludwig" <mail@lars-ludwig.com>Doug, John,I am just reading this catching up: I think it is noteworthy that in modern (autopoietic) system theory (Humberto Maturana, esp. Niklas Luhmann) any (not only societal) systems basically operate and evolve without a central executive. Systemic intelligence is thus independent of any central control instance, which is sometimes understood as a weakness of modern societies. The memory system as the central conscious reproductive (intelligence) system of humans is also not centrally controlled in any meaningful way I could think of (I have written about/explained the (functioning of the) memory sytem and its central importance for any technology in my thesis on "extended artificial memory", which is basically a general autopoietic theory of all memory sub-systems). Thus, theoretically, I don't yet get John's point. I guess these are relicts of pre-systemic sequential/hierarchical operational thinking (that is classic information science) not yet touched by the pradoxical problem of closed cycles of (control /) system operations.LarsJohn F Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net> hat am 11.04.2024 02:44 CEST geschrieben:Doug,The central executive controls all the processes that are controllable by the human ego. But the term 'executive' should be considered the equivalent of what the chief executive officer (CEO) of a business does in managing a corporation. There are intermediaries at various points.Baddeley & Hitch wrote their initial article in 1974. They wrote that in response to George Miller's "Magic Number 7, plus or minus 2." They realized that there was much more to short-term memory than just words and phonemes. They called Miller's storage "the phonological loop" and they added a visuo-spatial scratchpad for short-term imagery and feelings. And they continued to revise and extend their hypotheses for another 20 or 30 years. Other neuroscientists, who are specialists in different aspects, have been working on related issues.The idea is an important one that the Generative AI gang has not yet latched onto. But some AI people are starting to take notice, and I believe that they are on the right track. In summary, there is more to come. See the references I cited, and do whatever googling and searching you like.JohnFrom: "doug foxvog" <doug@foxvog.org>John,Baddeley & Hitch's "central executive" (CE) is described as an attentionalcontrolling system. I have just briefly glanced at it, but it seems thatthe point is coordinating and accessing memory through an episodic buffer,phonological loop, and visio-spatial "sketchpad". The hypothesized CEdeals with information, language, memory, imagery, & spatial awareness.That covers a lot, and i assume it would also cover conscious actions andprocesses.But i don't see it covering neurohormone production or things likeheartrate. Lower level processes like basal signaling between neuronswould have no need of a central executive, as they are just basalprocesses.It's the word "all" in "all processes" that indicates to me that the claimis excessive.FWIW, i note that sharks also have brains -- as do "higher" orders ofinvertebrates.-- doug f> On Wed, April 10, 2024 18:38, John F Sowa wrote:> Doug,>> The central executive was proposed by the neuroscientists Baddeley &> Hitch, not by AI researchers. There is nothing "machine-like" in the> idea, by itself. Without something like it, there is no way to explain> how a huge tangle of neurons could act together and coordinate their> efforts to support a common effort.>> It reminds me of a neighboring town (to my residence in Croton on Hudson,> NY), which was doing some major developments without hiring a general> contractor. They thought that their local town employees could schedule> all the processes. It turned out to be a total disaster. All the> subcontractors did their tasks in a random order, each one interfering> with some of the others, and causing a major mess. There were lawsuits> back and forth, and the town management was found guilty and had losses> that were many times greater than the cost of hiring a general contractor.>> It is certainly true that there is a huge amount of computation going on> in the brain that is below conscious awareness. Most of that is done by> the cerebellum (little brain), which is physically much smaller than the> cerebral cortex. But it contains over four times the number of neurons.> In effect, the cerebellum behaves like a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit)> which is a superfast, highly specialized processor for all the perception> and action that takes place without conscious awareness.>> For example, when you're walking down the street talking on your cell> phone, the cerebellum is monitoring your vision, muscles, and strides --> until you step off the curb and get run over by a bus. That's why you need> a central controller to monitor and coordinate all the processes.>> Sharks and dolphins are about the same size and they eat the same kind of> prey. Sharks have a huge cerebellum and a small lump for a cerebellum.> Dolphins have a huge cerebral cortex and a huge cerebellum. They are as> agile as sharks, but they can plan, communicate, and coordinate their> activities. When the food is plentiful, they can both eat their fill.> But when it's scarce, the dolphins are much more successful.>> Please look at the citations in my previous note and the attached> Section7.pdf. The cycle of abduction, induction, testing, and induction> depends on a central executive that is responsible for planning,> coordinating, and integrating those steps of conscious feeling, thinking,> reasoning, and acting. With a central executive, an AI system would be> more intelligent. But much, much more R & D would be required before> anything could be called "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI). That's> why I have very little faith in anything called AGI.>> John>> ----------------------------------------> From: "doug foxvog" <doug@foxvog.org>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] The central executive>> On Wed, April 10, 2024 14:07, John F Sowa wrote:>> In today's ZOOM meeting, I objected to the term 'neuro-symbolic hybrid'>> of>> artificial neural networks (ANNs) with symbols. Hybrids simply relate>> two>> (sometimes more) distinctly different things. But all the processes in>> the mind and brain are integrated, and they all operate continuously in>> different parts of the brain, which are all monitored and controlled by>> a>> central executive. ...>> This seems to me to be modeling the body as a machine and not an accurate> description.>> There are a wide variety of processes in the mind and brain -- many> processes in the brain occur independently without being integrated either> with each other or with the mind. I am excluding standard cellular level> processes that go on in every cell and the processes of the circulatory> system in the brain. Every neuron regularly chemically interacts with> adjacent neurons & passes electrical signals along its surface.>> As far as i understand, much that goes on in the brain we are unaware of,> neurohormone production, for example. Sensory input processing does not> seem to be integrated with a number of other processes. I have seen no> evidence of a central executive in the brain that monitors and controls> all the other processes. I'm not sure how such a central executive could> have evolved.