FAQ

To date Mind Brain Insights, LLC hasn’t participated in any neuroimaging experiments. However I believe they would generate significant evidence supporting the method.

Consider task-based neuroimaging. To predict a subject’s brain activity, you need to know not just what the task is, but the mental states and processes active. And this requires a mind model: its components + their activity through space and time.

In turn, the mind expressed during a task is influenced by context: person, environment, situation (home, work, social…) etc.

Once defined, a set of mind components can be connected to brain activity (via the literature, consulting with experts, and new neuroimaging experiments.

Predicting a subject’s brain activity can be done by repeating the task & mental states and process set, to develop a mind, and corresponding brain signal, “signature.” The latter signature can be used to predict future brain activity.

Overall, defining a much larger % of the mind, more accurately, allows predictions of future brain activity to be more accurate. As the accuracy and precision of the mind/brain signal signature increases, brain activity & signal feature prediction (location, frequency, amplitude, band power…) increases accordingly.

Mind-based predictions could be compared to those of (conventional) cognitive neuroscience models. For example, a “reach arm forward intention” is a good start for a mind/brain signature, and predictor of brain activity. But a more precise and comprehensive one is “reach arm forward intention” as part of a larger state of mind: typical perception (visual, somatosensory), emotion (calmness, reward, anxiety, frustration…), imagination, motivation, level of fatigue & attention, inner speech etc.

Comparing brain signal classification (during a task) is another type of experiment that can generate statistically significant evidence in favor of the MA Method. If a mind-based classifier decodes & classifies the brain signal with higher reliability and robustness, this can be demonstrated via neuroimaging. Is the classifier activated by the subject more strongly? Consistently? More specifically? With less noise? Is this state of mind, and brain signal (range) easier for the subject to produce? Does the classifier require less data to classify signals accurately? Can it be used to more reliably control a BCI device? Such predications would be simple to test experimentally.

In addition, when it comes to applied neuroscience, proving the MA Theory and Method (experimentally, or logically) is beside the point. A more important issue is utility. If the method works, and adds value to a BCI project, then using it would be a good idea, proven or not. (Mind Brain Insights, LLC has already used it to build classifiers that enhance a variety of projects in BCI, neuroprosthetics, CNS biomarkers and other applications).

Generating experimental proof of the MA Method, or believing in the underlying theory, isn’t needed to see its practical use. It can be demonstrated when applied to a specific project.

Yes, just far from optimally.  They are actually doing amazing work considering the lack of a mind model, brain theory, or solution to the mind/brain problem. And the data and knowledge being generated is of great value.

However, it’s well-known brain signal decoding (what does the signal mean?) is in its early stages. Here a mind model is needed. Without a subjective definition of it, how could “it” ever be connected to the brain? Accurate and precise subjective categories are necessary to know what the signal represents.

The good news is quick and dramatic progress is possible — in light of a new conceptual framework. This involves moving beyond task-based neuroimaging, to mind-based neuroimaging. After all a mental or behavioral task represents only a small % of the mind, except for the simplest of tasks. Task-based neuroimaging has made great progress but is far from optimal. This can change with a (precise and comprehensive) mind/brain model.

It’s true brain scientists are highly skilled with vast knowledge and expertise.

However my mind/brain model is based on understanding. Some knowledge is required. But mostly it requires a new way of thinking. It starts with constructing a mind model, and then connecting it to the brain. It’s a mind-centered approach to defining (encoding or decoding) the mental states and functions of the brain.  Detailed training in neuroscience isn’t required; beyond understanding neural networks, neural oscillation, and large scale coordinated neural activity.

In fact I’d argue the mind is a direct path toward a deeper understanding of the brain. Once the mind is understood, neural networks and (large scale) neural activity can be understood much more clearly and thoroughly.

Second, with a paradigm-shifting theory, knowledge can be a drawback. It’s a little known fact that newcomers to a field are as likely to develop paradigm-shifting theories as professional scientists with impressive credentials and knowledge. This is detailed in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn (Kuhn, 1962). It’s usually someone young or new to a field — someone with “fresh eyes” — that develops such theories. For example, Newton and Einstein were both young men and relative outsiders during the creation of their foundational ideas. The point is a relative amateur is just as likely to develop an overarching new theory as an experienced professional.

To be clear this only applies to a paradigm shift — a new way of looking at a topic. Once an expert is open to working within a new paradigm, their skills and knowledge becomes a valuable asset in using the paradigm to solve practical problems.

Being an independent researcher has its advantages. One was lack of knowledge. When I started 17 years ago I knew almost nothing about the brain. This allowed me to examine the system in an objective way, absent pre-conceived notions.

Working independently was another asset. I had freedom to pursue research at my own pace, choosing topics most relevant to the task at hand. I could cover the (very broad) range of topics involved: psychology, phenomenology, cognitive science, neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, neuroimaging, neurodynamics and related topics. Deep expertise in one or two fields is not as helpful as (targeted, relevant) knowledge in many.

Overall brain knowledge — though required — is only one part of developing a new mind/brain theory.

First, the brain’s vast capabilities make this challenging. It can express (during a short period of time) a combinatorial explosion of rich, complex, interconnected subjective content. The brain stores all of a person’s knowledge and capabilities. This includes perception (sight, sound, smell, taste, somatosensation), recognition, identification, meaning, thought, thinking (understanding, planning, analysis, conceptualizing, comparing & contrasting, decision-making, problem-solving, imagining…), emotion, motivation, executive control, the self, goals, intentions, attention, language, short term memory, learning, motor control and so on. Everything a person knows about the world and themselves is included.

These mental states and processes are (continually or intermittently) active, to varying degrees. They act and interact, compete, excite and inhibit one another, through every moment of the day. Even a 50 page paper would cover only a small amount of what the brain does.

Second, new theoretical frameworks are very difficult to understand. Mainstream science, though successful in many ways, is poorly-equipped to evaluate a paradigm-shifting theory. This is no one’s fault but rather a flaw inherent in the system. To obtain an objective evaluation of a new idea historically has been impossible. The difficulties involved are also described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Here Kuhn shows that paradigm-shifting theories, when eventually proven correct (or more so than the previous conceptual framework), take years if not decades to become accepted.

Why is a new paradigm so difficult to judge? For one, any idea outside the established paradigm creates a conflict. A new theory will clash and is incompatible with the existing one. Therefore, how could the latter be used to judge the former?

To evaluate a new paradigm one has to first learn and understand it. This requires (temporarily) setting aside the old conceptual framework. This can be challenging to one’s patience or ego, especially if one’s identity is strongly tied to their ideas and profession.

The third reason I haven’t offered a complete description of the theory involves IP protection. A small percentage of the core ideas I can’t discuss at this time.

I’m less concerned with how it sounds than how it works. Making something sound “smart” by using unnecessary jargon for the purpose of swaying people to your side is not something I’m interested in.

The terminology of cognitive neuroscience is incompatible with the MA Method. Terms such as “visual processing,” “semantic memory” or “executive control” I argue represent only a small fraction of the mind/brain system. The same goes for “cognits” and “neurocognitive networks.” Although these concepts and terms are useful within the current paradigm, they’re incompatible with the method.

I argue everyday terms more accurately represent the mind. Is “apple” a “semantic memory?” Yes, within the existing paradigm. But it’s much more accurate to define it using specific subjective content such as “red, round, food, fruit, healthy food, I like apples, take a bite, crisp,” and so on. The former definition sounds more sophisticated. But which is more precise? Accurate? Comprehensive? And useful?

Because the human mind has subjective contents (a cognitive ontology), it’s critical to define this ontology accurately, and use its meaning the way most people would.

I’m not saying brain science terms have no value. They are a repository for a tremendous amount of experimental data and knowledge. And conceptually they can be a useful starting point. However they paint only a small (< 5%) part of the overall picture of the human mind.

No not at all. People are complex. I’m not minimizing this in any way. A person 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?

My proposed mind/brain model I argue has great potential to enhance brain science, and vice-versa. All of the existing data and knowledge of the brain (in relation to the mind) can be seen anew. At first a professional will have to set aside his assumptions in order to learn the basics of and work within the new paradigm. But applying brain science skills and knowledge within a correct theoretical framework is a powerful combination.

As knowledge of the mind/brain system is enhanced, dramatic advances in BCI, neuroprosthetics, neurotech, CNS medicine, AGI and other applied neuroscience projects can be realized.