How neural networks operate in the hidden layer of our brain

ln my previous post, I referred to the hidden depths of the brain without including much of a description of what goes on in those depths.

Neuroscience is still working on that problem. But even though Robert Burton, a neurologist and neuroscientist, wrote the book I spoke about in the blog post (On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not) in 2008, the basic points he makes are still valid.

(Neuroscience doesn't evolve that fast.)

Here's passages from his chapter on Neural Networks that will give you a good feel for how the hidden layer of the brain operates. Fascinating stuff. 

As you can read below, the brain operates very differently from how most people believe it does -- as a reliable instrument for knowing reality as it is, a phrase that often pops up in spiritual books that aren't grounded in neuroscience.

Yes, in large part we humans agree on the basics of how the world is. If that wasn't the case, traffic signals would be useless. Most of us see red as red, green as green, and know that red means stop and green means go.

But as Burton says in these excerpts, there's a tremendous amount of personal subjectivity in what our brain presents to us as reflective of reality. And this isn't a bad thing, not that we can do anything about it. Life would be boring if we all experienced the world in the same way.

In the human brain, a typical neuron receives incoming information from approximately ten thousand other neurons. Each bit of information either stimulates (positive input) or inhibits (negative input) cell firing. 

The neuron acts like a small calculator.

If the sum of the inputs reaches a critical threshold level, an electrical charge travels down the nerve fiber (axon) to the region where neurotransmitters are stored. The transmitters are released into the synaptic cleft -- a tiny gap between adjacent neurons. If a neurotransmitter finds  a receptive site (receptor) on the adjacent neuron, the process will be repeated on this adjacent neuron.

...Despite a veritable symphony of interacting mechanisms, the neuron ultimately has only two options -- it either fires or it doesn't. At this most basic level, the brain might appear like a massive compilation of on-off switches. But the connections between neurons are not fixed entities.

Rather they are in constant flux -- being strengthened or diminished by ongoing stimuli.

Connections are enhanced with use, weakened with neglect, and are themselves affected by other connections to the same neurons. Once we leave the individual synapse between two neurons, the complexity skyrockets -- from individual neurons to a hundred billion brain cells each with thousands of connections.

Although unraveling how individual neurons collectively create thought remains the Holy Grail of neuroscience, the artificial intelligence (AI) community has given us some intriguing clues as to how this might occur.

Using the biological neuron and its connections as the model, AI scientists have been able to build artificial neural networks (ANN) that can play chess and poker, read faces, recognize speech, and recommend books on Amazon.com.

While standard computer programs work line by line, yes or no, all eventualities programmed in advance, the ANN takes an entirely different approach. The ANN is based upon mathematical programs that are initially devoid of any specific values. The programmers only provide the equations; incoming information determines how connections are formed and how strong each connection will be in relationship with all the other connections (or weightings).

There is no predictable solution to a problem -- rather as one connection changes, so do all the others. These shifting interrelationships are the basis for "learning." The AI community has labeled this virtual space where the weightings take place as the hidden layer. 

...In the human brain, the hidden layer doesn't exist as a discrete interface of specific anatomic structure; rather it resides within the connections between all neurons involved in any neural network.

...The hidden layer, a term normally considered AI jargon, offers a powerful metaphor for the brain's processing of information. It is in the hidden layer that all elements of biology (from genetic predispositions to neurotransmitter variations and fluctuations) and all past experience, whether remembered or long forgotten, affect the processing of incoming information.

It is the interface between incoming sensory data and a final perception, the anatomic crossroad where nature and nurture intersect. It is why your red is not my red, your idea of beauty isn't mine, why eyewitnesses offer differing accounts of an accident, or why we don't put all our money on the same roulette number.

...Now let's up the ante and watch a human neural network in action. A bright light is briefly flashed into your eyes. The retina turns the flash of light into electrical data that travel along the optic nerves and into the brain (input).

But instead of a direct route to consciousness with a precise and unaltered duplication of the flash, the data first goes to a subconscious holding station where it is scrutinized, evaluated, and discussed by a screening committee representing all of your biological tendencies and past experiences. This committee meets behind closed doors, operating outside of consciousness in the hidden layer.

Consider each committee member as being one set of neural connections. 

One might represent a childhood memory of having seen a similar flash of light when a toaster shorted out and started an electrical fire; the second is a general alarm system that has recently become highly sensitive and vigilant to the possibility of terrorism; the third is composite memory of rock concerts; the fourth is a genetically based predisposition for a heightened startle reflex for bright lights.

Each member has his own opinion and each gets one vote.

After hearing all the arguments, each committee member casts his vote and they are tallied (weighted). At the most elemental level, a decision is made -- either to entirely suppress the flash or send it on to consciousness (output). The degree of awareness generated is yet another function of this decision -- ranging from a barely noticed flash at the periphery of vision to a bright flash, front and center.

The childhood memory votes yes: Send the flash into awareness. The terrorist alarm network, fearing that the flash could indicate an explosion, votes yes. The rock concert memory is blasé, has seen the same flashes a zillion times at rock concerts, and feels the flash should be ignored. It votes no. The genetic predisposition reflexively votes yes.

The third member is outvoted, and the flash is sent on high priority into consciousness. You look around, heart pounding, on high alert for everything from a gunshot to a terrorist bomb exploding. But you are at a wedding, and everyone is taking pictures of the bride. You sigh and tell yourself not to be so anxious.

...To get an idea of the magnitude of this process, imagine billions of committee members, each with at least ten thousand hands reaching out to shake hands, prod, poke, seduce, or fend off the other members. Miraculously, this orgy of utter chaos is transformed into a relatively seamless and focused stream of consciousness.

...The schema of the hidden layer provides a conceptual model of a massive web of neuronal connections microscopically interwoven throughout the brain. Such neural networks are the brain's real power brokers, the influence peddlers and decision makers hard at work behind the closed doors of darkened white matter. How consciousness occurs remains an utter mystery, but conceptually, it must arise out of these hidden layers.

The concept of neural networks also helps explain why established habits, beliefs, and judgments are so difficult to change. 

Imagine the gradual formation of a riverbed. The initial flow of water might be completely random -- there are no preferred routes in the beginning. But once a creek has been formed, water is more likely to follow the newly created path of least resistance. As the water continues, the creek deepens and a river develops.

...The brain is only human; it, too, relies on established ways.

As interneuronal connections increase, they become more difficult to overcome. A hitch in your golf swing, biting your nails, persisting with a faulty idea, not dumping your dot.com stocks in late 1999 -- habits, whether mental or physical, are exasperating examples of the power of these microscopic linkages.

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

It's even more complex than Burton writes.

The brain's conditioning affects the neurons in the senses.

When you perceive you are in the presence of a friend the neurons in your skin react differently to touch than if you perceive you are in the presence of a stranger. So the information goes both ways and alters our perception.

The brain is still, however, a great mystery, because it functions far faster than the fastest super computers attempting to model ANN, which, in scientific tests, has failed.

https://www.livescience.com/42561-supercomputer-models-brain-activity.html#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20world's%20most,world%2C%20to%20simulate%20brain%20activity.

One second of brain functioning requires 40 minutes of time for a super computer of 700,000 proccesors and 1.4 million gigabytes of ram, simulating 1.73 billion nerve cells and 10 trillion synapses (just one percent of the human brain's neural network).

Let's do the math. One gigabyte of memory is 10^10 bytes. One million of those is 10^16 bytes of memory.

One billion brain cells is 10^9, less than the bytes used by the computer.

Ten trillion is 10^13 neural connections. Still smaller than the bytes used in the supercomputer.

The supercomputer used 1,000 times more memory than the neural connections in the human brain it simulated.

But the computer ran 40 minutes x sixty seconds = 2,400 times slower than the human brain.

Now for the mind blowing part.

The electrical signals in the supercomputer run at a speed between 360 and 670 Million miles per hour (50-100% of the speed of light).

But neuron signals in our biochemical brain run at a measly 268 miles per hour!

The computer signals run at least 360,000,000 / 268 = 1.3 million times faster than the human brain's.

But, the human brain runs 2,400 times faster than the fastest supercomputer!

How can a biochemical electrical process running 1.3 million times slower than a super computer, using less memory, perform 2,400 times more work in one second?

This is the great mystery today. Our biochemical brains are too tiny and slow to function as fast as they do. Therefore, current models of consciousness are woefully incomplete and flawed, and simply fail to explain the performance of the human brain and consciousness as it stands in research today.

Something else quite different from these models is happening, which the models fail to explain.

[Spence Tepper]

One more point. The models and research work of actual neuroscientists and physiological psychologists is painstaking work and moves along with evidence. Theories are tested, proven, disproven, and revised all the time.

The field is not ready yet to discuss where consciousness arises from, or the presence or absence of the human soul, but we know now a lot about levels of consciousness, sensory response, human memory and judgment. The field is a rich source of solid information.

Some writers have an agenda to promote Atheism rather than to constrain themselves to scientific fact.

The problem with this is that doing this are promoting three very unscientific practices.

1. They use limited information to draw conclusions about areas science has no data for. They over reach shameless ly.

2. They ignore data from scientific studies that disproves their hypotheseis: ANN is at best limited and at worst wrong.

3. They are satisfied with a nice sounding conjecture that meets with their personal sentiments and those of their less informed audience, but has little science to back it, implying the science is there. But there is no 'there' there.

That becomes the religion of science. Not real science, but sold as real science.

[Spence Tepper]

So what is this limited brain doing?
It's functioning here. It's constraining our awareness to its own constructed model of reality.

We are living in a controlled hallucination built with references to reality that are at best indirect, but generally selected around our personal interests and fears.

Take a photo of the moon on your phone and compare it to what you actually see looking at the moon.

Your brain magnifies the image out of all proportion. You can see the hallucination in your walking state directly for itself.

[Sonya]

I never can find the link to the most recent open thread… so much to share about hoe beautiful my brother’s Celebration of Life service and burial ceremony was. So many lessons learned. So grateful. 🙏 💗 🙏

[Appreciative Reader]

Great article, Brian. Enjoyed reading.

[Sonya]

The human brain is PHENOMENALLY fascinating. Naturally it would have to be to process all the data it receives. But most of the data it processes is external.

I find it interesting that there are more Tech and Cyber people who believe in the possibility of a God than neuroscientists. I guess because cyber focuses so much on the human factor—the intentions of people.

Intentions are formed by thoughts which cannot be programmed entirely genetically.

We all have choices. We CAN choose. And that’s what makes us human.

[Appreciative Reader]

That's great, Sonya, that the service/ceremony went off well, and seems to have brought you peace. Here's the link to the Open Thread, if as you've said you'd like to share: https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2022/03/open-thread-42-free-speech-for-comments.html.

Grief is such a personal thing. Any way one can make it easier for oneself, is to that extent a good thing, a great thing. I'm very touched with how very close you'd been to your brother. It's truly a great blessing, for both of you, that you'd been so very close; unfortunately not all siblings are remotely as close or as fond of one another as that.

[Appreciative Reader]

Sorry, link's borked apparently? Here's the link to the last comment on that thread: https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2022/03/open-thread-42-free-speech-for-comments.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e20282e14e7754200b#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e20282e14e7754200b

[Ron E.]

What appeals to me about science discoveries is the fact that the more we learn about life the more it opens up a grandeur of life as Darwin expressed it – and Robert Burton here adds to that wonder and grandeur. For those who follow findings revealed by science it can only add to a greater appreciation of the vastness of the universe and ourselves.

What also appeals to me about science is that many scientists exhibit an almost childlike enthusiasm in their pursuit of their interest and a similar enthusiasm in conveying this to others. In my work in nature conservation I would often call upon the expertise of the scientists who worked at the nearby Institute of Terrestrial Ecology who would give their own time to help identify difficult species and give advice toward management.

Neuroscience, is a fascinating area of science as Burton and others admirably communicate it. I have been reading about ‘construction theory’ which offers some insights into emotions. The author Lisa Feldman Barrett in ‘How Emotions Are Made’ basically says that emotions are made, not triggered. It is usually accepted that emotions are generated in a single brain area but Barrett’s findings strongly suggest that they take place throughout the whole brain at once. She points out that what we perceive of the world is a simulation. “. . .your brain uses concepts to simulate the outside world. It is well known that the brain simulates our reality but she includes emotions in such simulation – fascinating.

Geneticist and cell biologist Paul Nurse who through his discipline explains his take on the geneticists’ findings in a book called ‘What is Life’, interestingly he explains life not only as being the ability to change and adapt but also (from the cell to our human brains) as having the ability to gather and disseminate information – which brings one to a clearer view of how the brain produces mind.

[Appreciative Reader]

"...life not only as being the ability to change and adapt but also (from the cell to our human brains) as having the ability to gather and disseminate information – which brings one to a clearer view of how the brain produces mind."

Great comment, Ron. That is, that does not say anything new; but putting it in those terms does, as you say, bring one to a clearer view of how, and why, the brain produces mind.

[Spence Tepper]

Does the brain produce mind?

I don't think scientists can say with any certainty.

That's really the subtext to all this. An atheist perspective, but not a scientific one.

The research cited above proves the current theory cannot actually be simulated in a working laboratory model.

It sounds nice, but it's missing something.

And therefore we cannot conclude that the findings of brain research can be used to conclude where and what mind actually is.

So, let's honor the beauty of what research there is without overreaching.

When such research results in an actual working model that really does function just like the human brain, in real time, then you may conclude on scientific grounds that you have isolated what makes for a functioning brain.

Until then, it's unscientific to claim so.

Mystery is not yet solved, though parts of the puzzle are coming to light.

[Spence Tepper]

The reason you should honor that mystery is not actually, so you may make statements about the existence or absence of soul or God. Give that up.

The reason is to discover the amazing things that make it possible for a biochemical blob, with less memory and slow transfer speeds, to outperform by several thousand times the fastest and largest computers on the planet.

Explain that first. No, demonstrate with evidence how that happens.

It happens. There will be an answer. But it may not look anything like what we have today.

The brain might just be an incredible filter of something far larger and more interesting, something that operates even faster.

[Ron E.]

As we have begun to discover that what our senses experience is a brain constructed reality or simulation. Equally constructed are our concepts, concepts such as atheism and theism, mind terms that do not exist in nature (hence concept!). Useful as they are for explaining ideas, they carry the possibility of believing that we understand who or what a person is and what they stand for.

A moments reflection can show that our thinking processes replay our past experiences – the information stored in the brain we have accrued over the years to survive in our particular environments and cultures. All activity, all planning and navigating this world relies, is this information Whatever we think (and perhaps results as action) emanates from this information. This is the mind. It is neither an atheist perspective, or a scientific one – just a human one.

There is no need to introduce hypothetical concepts for something that is natural to the organism and available to be seen and realised in action. It is the way of science to come up with ideas such as the brain being a filter for mind and consciousness but quite unnecessary in understanding ourselves. The brain is not a mystery, it is there and functioning as the natural order of things – although the scientist at some point will no doubt tell us how it does what it does. We know for ourselves that we walk, it is obvious and natural; the scientist can tell us the mechanics of walking – interesting and valuable for injuries and illness – but walking is not a mystery to us. Neither is the mind; it is a feature of the natural organism.

Concepts such as atheism and theism just do not apply where we are in harmony with the whole human experience; they simply do not have any place in the natural persons’ mind or body.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Ron!

You wrote:
"The brain is not a mystery."

Hmm. Trying to understand how that could be true. Like maybe all that exists beyond what we can see isn't a mystery. But that's only because we aren't aware of it. It doesn't exist in our conscious brain.

I would say everything beyond our daily thinking is a mystery. And even where that came from.

[Spence Tepper]

That reminds me of something Swami Ji wrote in Sar Bachan, that stole mystics got to a certain place and thought it was the all, the entirety of creation. And there they stayed. They thought that because that was all they knew. But they were just at a certain place or level, not the highest region at all.

Thinking that a dark room is empty is the problem.

But realizing what it could be opens the door to knowledge, but always first through the grand mystery of "I don't know."

[Spence Tepper]

Oops
... "that some mystics got to a certain place..."

[Dungeness]

@ Ron E. [ We know for ourselves that we walk, it is obvious and natural; the scientist can tell us the mechanics of walking – interesting and valuable for injuries and illness – but walking is not a mystery to us. Neither is the mind; it is a feature of the natural organism. ]

IMO the mind is one of the universe's ultimate mysteries. Even if science could
map every neural connection in the hidden layer and identify which inputs will
ultimately impinge on our consciousness, causal details remain elusive. This
doesn't depreciate the magnitude of such a scientific discovery were it made.
It's just a leap forward however, not a conclusive wrap-up of the mystery. What
explains why one young child is terrified of trains and his/her twin isn't in the
slightest for instance. Or why one's gifted mentally and the other not at all. The
mystics say answers are inside embedded in consciousness itself and are
found there.

@ Ron E. [ ... do not apply where we are in harmony with the whole human ex-
perience; they simply do not have any place in the natural persons’ mind or body. ]

That reductionist view would shut out the examination of one's own consciousness.
If anything's immersively bound up with the whole of human experience and thus
congruent with it, then it's consciousness. Studying it is as natural to our human
experience as walking.