Brain and soul. How nervous activity shapes our inner world Chris Frith

(No ratings yet)

Title: Brain and Soul. How neural activity shapes our inner world

About the book “Brain and Soul. How neural activity shapes our inner world." Chris Frith

The famous British neurophysiologist Chris Frith is well known for his ability to talk simply about very difficult problems psychology such as mental activity, social behavior, autism and schizophrenia. It is in this area, along with the study of how we perceive the world, we act, we make choices, we remember and we feel, today there is a scientific revolution associated with the introduction of neuroimaging methods. In Brain and Soul, Chris Frith talks about all this in the most accessible and entertaining way.

On our site about books, you can download the site for free without registration or read online book“Brain and soul. How neural activity shapes our inner world" by Chris Frith in epub, fb2, txt, rtf, pdf formats for iPad, iPhone, Android and Kindle. The book will give you a lot of pleasant moments and a real pleasure to read. Buy full version you can have our partner. Also, here you will find latest news from the literary world, learn the biography of your favorite authors. For beginner writers there is a separate section with useful tips and recommendations interesting articles, thanks to which you yourself can try your hand at literary skills.

Quotes from the book “Brain and Soul. How neural activity shapes our inner world." Chris Frith

And yet in Everyday life we are as interested in the thoughts of other people as we are in the objects of the material world. We interact with other people by exchanging thoughts with them, much more than we physically interact with their bodies. By reading this book, you will know my thoughts. And I, in turn, write it in the hope that it will allow me to change the way you think.

The consequences of damage to the primary visual cortex depend on where exactly the injury occurred. If the upper left part of the visual cortex is damaged, then the patient is unable to see objects located in the lower right part of the visual field. In this part of the visual field, such patients are blind.

There is a deep connection between our perception of ourselves as free agents and our willingness to act altruistically, rejoicing when we ourselves act honestly and upset when others act dishonestly. For these feelings to arise, it is essential that we perceive ourselves and others as free agents. We believe that we are all capable of making informed choices. This is the basis of our willingness to cooperate with others. This final illusion created by our brains - that we exist apart from the social environment and are free agents - allows us together to create a society and culture that is so much larger than each of us individually.

They are able to see and describe various characteristics object, but do not understand what it is. This impairment of recognition is called agnosia.

But whatever it is, we can conclude that in our minds there can be no knowledge about the world around us that is not represented in the brain in any way.

This disease is associated with a disorder of the brain, as a result of which the electrical activity of a large number of neurons gets out of control from time to time, causing a seizure (seizure).

Do not believe what others tell you, no matter how high their authority may be.

Whether we are awake or asleep, the 15 billion nerve cells (neurons) in our brain are constantly sending signals to each other.

But with the CT scanner, I can get into his brain. And I can see that when he imagines walking down the street and turning left, there is activity in his brain of a certain kind.

Our brain consumes about 20% of the energy of the entire body, despite the fact that its mass is only about 2% of body weight.

Free download of the book “Brain and Soul. How neural activity shapes our inner world." Chris Frith

(Fragment)

In the format fb2: Download
In the format rtf: Download
In the format epub: Download
In the format txt:

This book was chosen among other similar ones in order to look at the state of mind of a modern neurophysiologist, recognized as an outstanding one, who, of course, traces all the works on the description of mental phenomena that are sufficiently known today and made an attempt to generalize them, albeit in a popular form, but this after all means - in the most confident form for him.

Fragments of the book where the quotes are taken from are available in the scan archive (1.5 mb). The quotes correctly convey the context that defines the meaning of the book's statements, but if there are inaccuracies, signs of my misunderstanding or unsubstantiated comments, then please leave a message (specifically about this, and not in general) in the discussion below.

It may give the impression of my excessive pickiness. However, on the contrary, he omitted a lot just so as not to get bogged down in trifles.

Quotes from the book highlighted in brown.

So the comments.

I promise that everything I talk about in this book will be convincingly proven by rigorous experimental data. nym. If you would like to see this information for yourself,you will find at the end of the book detailed list links to all primary sources.

Unfortunately, a lot of the book is given declaratively, like in a textbook, without directly referring to the actual data, so that it can be impossible to understand where this or that statement comes from. Despite the fact that the book is popular, it clearly claims to be of interdisciplinary value, so it should be possible to see the validity of the assertion.

Our eyes and ears like a video camera, collect information about the material world and convey it to consciousness .

those. camcorder collects information? It is a pity that the word "information" is so carelessly used, and even - as an essence that is transmitted to "consciousness". In the book, signals carrying some kind of information are constantly called information, i.e. information of some significance. In a book that should follow the sequence: signals -> recognition of their significance -> information for response, the most important thing is neglected ... In the fifth chapter there will be an attempt to apply to mental phenomena the "information theory" with which problems with information theory". For example: Theorem Bayes gives us a criterion for judging whether we are adequately using new knowledge- even the concept of "Bayesian brain" is used, which implies the use of this mechanism, and not at all the fundamental criterion of truth - the correspondence of the alleged to the real (it is worth looking at the link what is meant).

It is clear that the book is popular, as it does not require the rigor and correctness of the scientific message, but ... it would be nice if such things (the concepts of information, truth, etc.) were nevertheless taken into account, at least hinted on a correct understanding ... I will try not to pay attention to this in such cases. But here it is, in the same vein:

We need to take a closer look at the relationship between neck psyche and brain. This connection must be close. .... this connection between the brain and the psyche is imperfect.

those. Is there such an entity as the psyche that is connected with the brain? Even in a popular article, such ideas should not be given. Psyche - intangible form brain processes (that is, what we single out purely subjectively and there is nothing else like it in nature - as a kind of essence) and to raise the question of some kind of close connection is absurd. Such liberty is somewhat justified by the phrase: "I am deeply convinced that any changes in the psyche are associated with changes in the activity of the brain.".

Light falls onlight-sensitive cells (photoreceptors) in our eyes, andthey send signals to the brain. The mechanism of this phenomenon is already well known. Then, the activity that occurs in the brain somehow creates a sense of color and shape in our mind. The mechanism of this phenomenon so far completely unknown .

however, in spite of completely unknown "There will be specific statements on this score. In addition, today there are already models of ideas about this mechanism. Although, in fact, they are still far from axiomatic conviction.

Wondering in asking about the brain, and not about consciousness, we can put aside for a whileresolving the issue of how knowledge about the world by fall into our minds . Unfortunately this trick doesn't work. To find out what is known your brain about the environmentre, I would first of all ask to you question: "What do you see?"I appeal to your mind to find out what is displayedis in your brain.

So, having proclaimed a complete misunderstanding of how it happens, let's move on to statements about it.

The person with whom Iworked, the experience gained earlier clearly had a long-terma different effect on the brain, because he was able to do it day by daymore and more successfully complete the task. But these are longthe urgent changes taking place in the brain had no effect on his consciousness. He couldn't remember anything that happened.dealt with him yesterday. The existence of such people testifiesabout what our brains can know about the environmentworld something unknown to our consciousness.

This is a very valuable factual material showing the different mechanism of "motor" learning (formation and correction of unconscious automatisms) and traces of memory left by consciousness.

Expé the immentator asked her to reach out and take hold of this wand.coy. It worked out fine for her. At the same time, she in advanceturned the hand so that it was more convenient to take the wand.At whatever angle the wand is located, it is without problemscould take her hand.This observation shows that the brain D. F . "knows" at what angle the stick is, and cancan use this information to control the movements her hands. In the example, the use of unconscious automatism is observed, i.e. well-adjusted program of action, while:

The experimenter held a stick in his hand and D asked. F ., how this wand is located. She couldn't saydecide whether the stick is horizontal or vertical,or some angle....D. F . cannot use this information to understand where the wand is located. Her brain knows something about the world around her that her mind does not know..

Unfortunately, before talking about consciousness, nothing is done to at least conditionally define what "consciousness" is.and what is "knowledge" for the brain (cf.about it). It's just that for the time being, everyday representation is used and without hints of something more correctly understood ... And both of these concepts in the context of the book are very important. Accordingly, when trying to compare, there are poor-quality assumptions that "consciousness" may or may not have "knowledge". Only by defining the mechanisms and functions of what outwardly manifests itself as consciousness, one can assert about its properties and abilities. The effect can be generated by completely different reasons that interfere with recognizing the position of the object during awareness (which, apparently, happened once the patient was conscious and did what she was asked to do).

Sometimes a person can be absolutely sure of realitytheir feelings, which are actually false.

...hallucinations associated with schizophrenia have onevery interesting feature. It's not just a false feelingconcerning the material world. Schizophrenics don't just seesome colors and hear some sounds. Their hallucinations themselvesrelate to the phenomena of the psyche ki. They hear voices that aremonitor their actions, give advice and give orders. Our brains are capable of forming false inner worlds of other people.

.... So, if something happens to my brain, my perception of the worldcan no longer be taken at face value.

A rather lengthy text concerning illusions of perception and false belief in reality, both in case of brain damage and illusions of a cognitive nature, is given only as a statement: there are such glitches in the brain. There are no ideas about the mechanisms for correcting recognizers in the brain during adaptive efforts, nor the corresponding loss of elements of such recognition, nor the difference in the unconscious formation of the hierarchy of recognizers and conscious correction (“learning with a teacher” - that is, using consciousness).

But it cannot be said that this question has not been studied at all and remains virginally open. Theoretically, and very close to the realities of the neural network, it is well developed in perceptron models, and there are many works on operating artificial neural networks. Of course, they do not address the very important functionality of consciousness. But consideration of the hierarchy of recognizers in the brain is a very studied area, and it has long been known that the specialization of such recognizers goes far beyond the specifics of sensory areas, but includes such functionality as error, confidence, novelty detectors, i.e. in the form of specific recognizers, everything that we "realize" subjectively is represented, including the feeling "it was invented by me" and "it was perceived in reality". It is quite possible to imagine what will happen if the association of such marks with the image of perception is lost.

At the same time, Chris Frith himself gives examples of the existence of recognizers of such specialized types:

In the parietal lobes of the cortex of somemonkeys (presumably humans too) have neurons thatwhich are activated when the monkey sees something near its hand. It doesn't matter where her brush is at the same time.Neurons are activated when something is from her inclose proximity. Apparently, these neurons indicate the presence of objects that the monkey can reach with his hand.

Of course, everything is complicated by a lack of understanding of how conscious memory is generally represented, among all that is not conscious, although there are many works in this area that allow one to make well-understood holistic assumptions that most likely correspond to the realities of the brain.

For me, the most amazing in these illusions - this is whatthat my brain continues to give me false information even when I know that this information is false, and even when II know what these objects actually look like. I can't stoptwist yourself to see the lines in Hering's illusion as straight.

Chris Frith should remember that the "straight line" recognizers are located in the primary brain region of the visual cortex, and they formed without conscious correction during a critical period of development that preceded the emergence of consciousness. These illusions are the result of misperceptions at a pre-conscious level. However, with the help of recognizers corrected by consciousness, we are able to make sure that the lines are parallel and take this into account in practical activities so that the automatisms that have arisen (no longer conscious skills) will use precisely higher-level recognizers and there will no longer be any illusions that attract attention. But consideration of the features of recognition of different areas of the brain should just touch on the specifics of the book.

But more than that, it turns out: our brainthis opportunity is twofoldth interpretation hides from us and gives us only one of thepossible interpretations. Moreover, sometimes our brain does not take into account at allmania available information about the world.That's what it is - the enemy of our brain :)

Most of us different feelings are completely separated from each other friend. But some people who are called bluesteths, not only hear sounds when sound enters their earswaves, but also feel colors.

Again, for the sake of presentation, reality is neglected? .. There are secondary and tertiary brain areas where recognizers use different types receptions transmitted from primary zone recognizers. Complex images are formed there, consisting of different types of receptors. Another thing is that with some pathologies (not necessarily organic), inadequate combinations are possible.

In this way, brain activity indicated that the subject was about to raise his finger in 300 milliseconds before that, as a testMy said that he was going to raise his finger.

From this discovery follows the conclusion that by measuring the activityof your brain, I can find out that you will have a desire underlift your finger before you yourself know about it. This result has sparked so much interest outside of the psychology community.because he seemed to show that even ourthe simplest conscious actions are in fact predetermined. We think we are making a choice, when in fact our brain has already made that choice.. Therefore, the feeling thatthis moment we make a choice, nothing more than an illusion. And ifthe feeling that we are able to make a choice is an illusion, then thatwhat an illusion is our feeling that we have freedom will.

This is an example of bewilderment due to the lack of definitions, in this case, the concepts of "we", "consciousness", "choice". The brain is unjustifiably separated from the mechanisms that make it up. The conscious and the unconscious are contrasted, while these are completely inextricably linked phenomena of the organization of memory. The concept of a homunculus clearly dominates, which, unlike the brain, decides something on its own, and it is surprising that it turns out that it is not he who decides, but the brain - this is such an absurdity :) Although further a phrase will flash, as if correcting such an understanding:. .. when we separated brain and consciousness and consideredthem separately, I'll try to put them together again...

Automatisms of perception-action, including automatisms that determine consciousness itself, are inextricably and causally interconnected in the general system of adaptability to new conditions. But, unfortunately, the functions of consciousness are not even close to being presented - as a combination of just such mechanisms, which manifest themselves evolutionarily from the "orienting reflex" and lead to the effect of motivation and "will". Yes, these ideas are far from shared and generally little known. But this is not a reason to believe that they do not exist at all.

In that mo moment when we think we are making a choice in favor of committingactions, our brain has already made this choice .

Actually, you should say: While we are aware of the moment of choice, it has already been largely prepared by the active phases of current automatisms, which does not negate the opportunity, if necessary, to comprehend the problem more deeply, creatively find options for new possible actions and take the risk of implementing them., which is the most important adaptive function of consciousness, and not its simplest mode of tracking the most relevant in perception-action, which is described in this fragment of the book.

The fact that unconscious automatisms continue to monitor what is happening and correct actions is well shown below:

Reach out and graba person can easily and very quickly. But focus here in that in some cases, as soon as the subject begins to extend his hand, the wand moves to a new position.location. The subject can easily correct movementmovement of your hand and accurately grasp the wand in its new positionresearch institutes. In many of these cases, he does not even notice that the stickka has moved. But his brain notices this shift. Handstarts to move in the direction of the original positionwand, and then, about 150 milliseconds afterhow her position changes, the movement of the hand changes,allowing you to grab the wand where it is now. TaHow does our brain notice that the target has moved, andadjusts the movement of the hand to reach the target in its newposition. And all this can happen without us even noticing it. We will not notice any change in the position of the wand,nor change in the movements of one's own hand.

... our brain can make adequateactions, even though We do not see the need for these actions.

Again, the wrong opposition between the brain and us. Skills fixed in automatisms are fundamentally the most adequate, unless new conditions have arisen for which options have not yet been worked out, which is the main function of consciousness.

In other cases, our brain can make adekwadded actions, despite the fact that these actions are differentfrom those that we consider necessary to commit.

Again, this is a question of how well practiced skills are applicable to the current situation, and if we paid attention to the moment so much that we doubted, then it may turn out that previous skills will do us a disservice. This is clearly illustrated in the article About dangers.

These observations demonstrate that our body canto interact with the outside world even thenyes, when we ourselves do not know what it does, and even whenour perceptions of the world around us do not correspondreality.

Well, yes, a person in severe alcohol intoxication, "on the machine" can " interact with the environment", get to the house, etc. due to their unconscious automatisms, without the work of consciousness. But it is worth understanding why consciousness is needed at all and, accordingly, not to miss its adaptive functionality, and even in the book, (in fact, and not declaratively) devoted to these issues.

The subject, like his partner, puts his index finger right hand on a dedicated mouse. By moving this mouse, you can move move the cursor on the computer screen 1 . This screen has many the gesture of various objects. Through the headphones, the subject heard shit, as someone calls one of these objects. The subject thinks about moving the cursor towards this object. If at this moment his partner (who also receives no instructions via headphones) moves the cursor to the side well, this object, the test subject with a high probabilitymelts that he himself made this movement. Of course, for this experience of fundamental importance is the coincidence in time.

What should prove that... Everything that we we know- that we have an intention to perform some other action, and then, after a while, this action aboutcomes out. Based on this, we we assume that our intention was the cause of the action.

The mechanism for correcting inadequacies (inconsistency between what is supposed and what is received) is not considered at all, and it is precisely this mechanism that is able to correct any of our illusions that lead to a noticeable inadequacy to the level of unconscious automatic execution of actions already without inadequacies, .

Do you know aboutbe anything? What remains of "you" if you don't feel own body and are not aware of your own actions? ... how are things going with actions that require thought, then mu that you find yourself in a new situation and cannot resortgo to completed operations ?

Here! this is already an approach to the functionality of consciousness. The following is about basic criteria fixing positive and negative experiences that correct our behavior, adapting it to reality:

Pavlov showed that any stimulus can become a signal for the appearance of food and cause animals to strive for this stimulus .... In addition, Pavlov showed that exactly the same learning occurs if punishment is used instead of a reward. If you put something unpleasant in your dog's mouth, he will try to get rid of it by shaking his head, opening his mouth and working his tongue (as well as salivating) .... Pavlov found an experimental method that allows him to explore the most basic forms of learning ... This mechanism allows us to learn what things are pleasant to us and what are unpleasant .... We also need to learn what to do to get pleasant things, and what to do to avoid unpleasant things.

The main sign of the need to correct the experience is correctly noted:

If... the signal tells us nothing new, so we do not pay attention to it attention .

But ... a decisive generalization, a complete picture does not occur ....

Instead, wandering in dead-end directions begins:

Wolfram Schultz tracked the activity of these cells in an experiment to form conditioned reflex and discovered that they were not actually reward cells. In this experiment, one second after an extraneous, as in Pavlov's experiments, signal (light flash), a portion of fruit juice. Initially, dopamine nerve cells played the role of reward cells, responding to the intake of juice, but after the training was over, they ceased to be activated at the time of the injection of juice. Instead, they now fired immediately after the monkey saw the flash, a second before the juice arrived. Apparently, the excitation of dopamine cells served as a signal that the juice should be received soon. They did not respond to the award, but predicted to receive .

It was not taken into account in any way that Pavlov considered "anticipatory excitation" as predictive mechanisms in the same place. And the ability to foresee depends on the wealth of life skills in different situations, which occurs during awareness of the situation in the form of prognostic preexcitations.

The quote refers to the separation with the help of neurotransmitters of different styles of response for various conditions, i.e. refers to the emotional context of a behavior. Of course, the emotional context highlights those parts of the neural network that were formed with the participation of a given neurotransmitter, and it is they that come to the fore among all prognostic subexcitations in a given emotional state(It should also be taken into account that, in addition to the neurotransmitter separation of emotional contexts, more particular contexts are being developed based on the separation of attention).

And, of course, it is not neurotransmitters that serve as a reward or punishment. For this, special recognizers of the significance system , . It is their irritation that causes the appearance of one or another state of significance, positive or negative, and not very important cells that secrete the neurotransmitter dopamine. These cells are often referred to as reward cells. when the rat will willingly press the lever.So here Chris Frith is a big mess, and hoping for a good, holistic generalization in this case there is no chance. Yes, he directly contradicts himself, confirming:The activity of these cells does not serve as a reward signal.

Phrase-apotheosis: dopamine activitynerve cells serve as a signal of error in our prediction niyakh - a far departure from the actual mechanisms, and there is not even an attempt to bring everything into a single non-contradictory system ...

Thus our brain studiesassign a certain value all events, objectthere and places in the world around us. Many of them at this remain indifferent to us, but many acquired value high or low.

In fact, only a part of the brain is engaged in this, representing the mechanisms of consciousness and the development of new (correcting old) reactions in new conditions. And, of course, not everything in perception, but only in its conscious part, at moments of awareness, is involved in the mechanisms of such an assessment.

At the same time, Chris Frith does not deliberately blurt out about emotions right there, and this is already happening with him more reasonably:

We experience sensations that reflect this value card tei, enclosed in our brain when we return from the valleytrip abroad: we feel a rush of emotions, growing as the streets we move throughbecome more and more familiar.

But it turns out that this map of values ​​is presented as something in the form of a separately existing model:

The brain mapsthe surrounding world. Essentially, it is a value map. On the objects of high value are marked on this map tew, promising a reward, and objects of low value, promising punishment. It also highlights high-value actions that promise success, and actions of low value that promise failure.

If we take into account that there are ancient structures in the brain, the activation of which directly shows their purpose as primary recognizers of positive or negative significance, if we take into account that all recognizers of the primary areas of the brain eventually converge into complex recognizers with representation of all primary ones, then it was It would not be difficult to assume that there is no special part of the brain for constructing a certain map of the world in the form of a relationship to it, but simply that all tertiary recognizers have an association with significance recognizers. Of course, all this is not an end in itself, but is used in chains of behavioral automatisms (which include the automatisms of thinking, i.e., those that form the redistribution of attention, and do not have access to effector reactions). The model of the world, consistent with the significance attached to the acts of awareness, is the automatisms of life experience, branching for all the specific conditions for their implementation of any greatest complexity, which do not require awareness in already known situations. Associated with each phase of automatisms of significance and direct their development or inhibit them for a given emotional context and perception-action. That's why As soon as I see that mug over there, my brain alreadystarts to play with muscles and bend my fingers in case euif I want to take it in my hand.

not a picture at all.

“Are you saying,” she replies, “that somewhere in my brain there are maps of all the places I have ever been, and instinstructions how to get my hands on all the objects that I have ever seen?"

I explain to her that this, probably, is the most important thing.a remarkable feature of these learning algorithms.

Patient I. W . as a result of a viral infection completely sweatryal the sensitivity of the limbs ...He knows the position of hislimbs only when he can see them. People from tosuch brain damage usually do not move, not lookto the fact that they can still control their muscles ....After many years of exercisehard work, he learned to walk again, although hedrops immediately when the light is turned off. He learned to takethrows with his hand, if he sees both the object itself and his hand .... These movements are not no automatic corrections are made . From start to finishfor any action, he has to consciously control every movement.

Here is another fragment that requires an understanding of the functionality of consciousness. Movement programs are developed in early age during the corresponding critical period of development and then only corrected, remaining unchanged in the basic elements. Each phase of muscle movement uses the same muscle receptors to be used as a starting stimulus for the transition to the next phase, forming chains of motor automatisms. In order to change them, to correct them for the new conditions, awareness is necessary, those same "mental efforts". But if muscle receptors are damaged, then all programs will not work. It is necessary to relearn at the most basic level of the simplest movements with the participation of consciousness. However, the critical period for the optimal passage of such training has long passed, and it requires constant effort, as if the maguli were trying to teach them to speak. In fact, automatisms, nevertheless, are formed, chains are already formed on the basis of visual signals. But it's very difficult.

Our perceptions depend on a priori beliefs.... Our perception is actually starts from within - from a priori conviction, whichis a model of the world where objects occupy certainlazy position in space. Using this model, our brain can predict what signals should come.into our eyes and ears. These predictions are compared with realsignals, and at the same time, of course,errors. But our brain only welcomes them. These mistakes teachhis perception. The presence of such errors tells him that histhe model of the surrounding world is not good enough. Characterbug tells him how to make a model that will be betterformer. As a result, the cycle repeats again and again, until the errors become negligible. For this, usuallyjust a few such cycles are enough for the brain tomay be required only 100 milliseconds .

And as if they forgot what was said earlier, that much more time is required for awareness:

It was so far It is known that some unconsciously perceived objects can have a small effect on our behavior. Butit is difficult to demonstrate this effect. To make sure that the subject did not realize that he saw some object, heshow very quickly and "mask" it, right after thatshowing another object in the same place.... If the interval betweenfirst person and second person less than approximately 40 milliseconds,the subject does not realize that he saw the first person.

So these cycles of adjustment are out of awareness? But, of course, as was recently stated, with the use of neurotransmitters? ... And if a person woke up and while he perception is not starts from within? Is he doomed not to recognize anything in his surroundings? Again, some kind of absurd dead end ... While the window of a holistic and interconnected understanding is nearby. Understanding is formed by a hierarchy of perceptual contexts (see Understanding context). Primary recognizers give primitives to secondary ones, significance recognizers recognize important features and prepare the emotional context of perception-action, which begins to determine the style of behavior and how the perceived will be interpreted.

We can't We can perceive nothing without knowledge, but we cannot know anything without perception. Where does our brain get the a priori knowledge it needs tofor perception? Part of this is innate knowledge written downin our brains over millions of years of evolution. Here are some assumptions to be made. And all this knowledge must fit into a very limited space. genetic code . There is a lot to take into account hereinheritance possibilities: trait inheritance.

How do we know what is real and what is not?how does our brain know when we actually see a face and when we just imagine it? In both cases, the brain creates an image of the face. How do we know one hundredIs there a real person behind this model? This issue appliesnot only to persons, but also to anything else.

But this problem is solved very simple. When we are onlyimagine a face in our brain no signals from sense organs with which he could compare hislegends. No errors are tracked either. When we see a real face, a model created by our brain,always turns out to be a little imperfect .

Here is another example of forced simplification, conjectures in the absence of understanding of the mechanisms... However, even from memory, without observing, we perfectly distinguish between those images that we actually saw and what we invented ourselves. So this hypothesis a no longer withstands criticism. And there is no need to continue to deepen the criticism of this absurdity. Again, the simplest thing is forgotten: the fact that literally all subjective sensations are represented by specialized recognizers (associated with the significance of what is perceived in given conditions), the activity of which is associated with the image of perception. What we imagined - with the label "I invented it," and what is perceived by the senses - with the label "I really observed it." And such associations can be lost for one reason or another (the most important of which is the significance associated with them, which can be overestimated), leading to a confusion of reality and reality. All this, upon comprehension, is fixed into the memory chain of the current perception (the mental chain) in the entire set of associated activities of recognizers, allowing subsequently to access such memory (and modifying it with each such access).

It turns out that's why Our imagination is completely uncreative. It doesn'tpredictions and does not correct errors. We do nothing in our head. We create by giving form to our thoughts.throws, strokes and drafts, allowing us to extractbenefit from surprises with which reality is full.Again, far from such an understanding: Basic Mechanisms of Creativity.

Perhaps the attempt to talk about the imagination was the most deplorable. Probably because imagination and imagination skills, more precisely, creativity, are part of the mechanisms for generating new behaviors - the mechanisms of consciousness. And Chris Frith deliberately avoids this topic:

Like from our mother's activitycan subjective experience arise in the brain? It wasMany solutions to this problem have been proposed, but none of them has proven to be entirely satisfactory. I knew that I hadnothing better will come of it. Therefore, this book is not so much aboutknowing how much about the brain. Instead of writing about consciousness, I paid special attention toattention to how much our brain knows without our knowing.

Those. this declared that the book is purely about the already accumulated unconscious automatisms. Which, in general, in fact, according to the text, is far from the case ... All the same, we are not insects and not lobotomized (not automata) and, considering the system of significance, emotions, motivation, "will" that provides trial behavior contrary to previously fixed unconscious assessments, it is impossible to get around why everything was created by evolution and how it is all aimed at the only thing: the development of those automatisms already tested by personal experience for conditions in which previous experience gives the unexpected and not desirable, or experience suggests uncertainty for these conditions.

And wherein:

Seems Xia that there is very little left for consciousness. Vmeone hundred to wonder how subjective experience may arise from the activity of neurons, I want to ask the question: " Why consciousness is needed?"

So, why do we need something for which there are “so few things to do”, but for some reason it has evolved long ago not only in humans? Here, it turns out why (of all the following text, the most claiming to be the answer was chosen):

This last illusion created by our brain is that we exist separately from the social environment.we are free agents, allows us to create together societies and cultures that are so much morethan each of us individually .... If our predictions about other people are correct, so we succeededread their minds. But all this complex activity is hiddenfrom U.S. This shouldn't bother us. Let's get back on ve blueberry and we'll have fun.

Summary.

On the example of Chris Frith's book, we have to admit that modern researchers of mental phenomena are still far from a holistic view of the mechanisms of the psyche, they do not have a plausible picture of the interconnections of these mechanisms based on a huge number of facts obtained, which makes it possible to connect everything not in an isolated fragmentary way, but consistently throughout collections of data.

In the 50s or so, many neuroscientists begin to feel that they have accumulated enough wisdom and experience to tackle the problem of consciousness. As neuroscientists, they seek to identify what is happening in nervous system processes associated with consciousness, and show how subjective experience can arise from the activity of our material brain. Many solutions to this problem have been proposed, but none of them has proven to be entirely satisfactory. I knew I couldn't do better. So this book is not so much about consciousness as it is about the brain.

On the whole, the book is reminiscent of pop works such as Amazing Chemistry Experiments: a description of the bizarre effects of the psyche without the slightest attempt to show their interrelationships and integral mechanisms. Most of the attention is paid to this, minor details are savored and ... that's it.

There is not only no chance to create a complete picture, but even to understand how consistent and plausible other people's generalizations are. The fact is that to capture the essence of the organization of a neural network, which represents the most complex physical and chemical formation, to single out adaptive functionality from the auxiliary at the level of interconnected local algorithms, to assess the plausibility of generalizing assumptions, sifting out what is not sufficiently interconnected and secondary, requires just such worldview base.

When I was in school, chemistry was the worst for me. met.....

Knowledge of only physiology extremely narrows the possibilities of generalization to ideas that do not go far beyond the framework of physiology, which is clearly observed in many generations of physiologists who are trying to holistically describe the mechanisms of mental phenomena.

The famous British neuroscientist Chris Frith is well known for his ability to talk simply about very complex problems of psychology - such as mental activity, social behavior, autism and schizophrenia.

It is in this area, along with the study of how we perceive the world around us, act, make choices, remember and feel, that today there is a scientific revolution associated with the introduction of neuroimaging methods. In Brain and Soul, Chris Frith talks about all this in the most accessible and entertaining way.

Foreword

I have an amazing labor-saving device in my head. My brain is better than Dishwasher or calculator - frees me from the boring, monotonous work of recognizing things around me and even saves me from having to think about how to control the movements of my body. This gives me the opportunity to focus on what is really important to me: friendship and the exchange of ideas. But, of course, my brain doesn't just save me from tedious daily work. It is he who forms the me, whose life takes place in the society of other people. In addition, it is my brain that allows me to share with my friends the fruits of my inner world. So the brain makes us capable of something more than what each of us is capable of individually. This book is about how the brain performs these miracles.

Why psychologists are afraid of parties

Like any other tribe, scientists have their own hierarchy. The place of psychologists in this hierarchy is at the very bottom. I discovered this in my freshman year at university where I was studying science. It has been announced to us that college students - for the first time - will have the opportunity in the first part of the course natural sciences practice psychology. Inspired by this news, I went to the head of our group to ask what he knew about this new opportunity. “Yes,” he replied. “But it never occurred to me that one of my students would be so stupid that they would want to study psychology.” He himself was a physicist.

Because, probably, I was not quite sure what "stupid" means, this remark did not stop me. I left physics and took up psychology. From then until now, I have continued to study psychology, but I have not forgotten my place in the scientific hierarchy. At parties where scientists gather, from time to time the question inevitably pops up: “What do you do?” - and I tend to think twice before answering, "I'm a psychologist."

Of course, much has changed in psychology in the last 30 years. We borrowed a lot of methods and concepts from other disciplines. We study not only behavior, but also the brain. We use computers to analyze our data and model mental processes. My university badge doesn't say "psychologist" but "cognitive neuroscientist."

And they ask me: “What do you do?” It seems to be the new head of the physics department. Unfortunately, my response “I am a cognitive neuroscientist” only delays the denouement. After my attempts to explain what, in fact, my work consists, she says: “Ah, so you are a psychologist!” - with that characteristic facial expression in which I read: “If only you could do real science!”.

Professor joins the conversation in English and raises the topic of psychoanalysis. She has a new student who "doesn't agree with Freud in many ways." In order not to spoil my evening, I refrain from saying that Freud was an inventor, and his reasoning about human psyche have little to do with the case.

A few years ago, the editor of the British Psychiatric Journal ( British Journal of Psychiatry), apparently by mistake, asked me to write a review of a Freudian article. I was immediately struck by one subtle difference from the articles I usually review. As with any scientific article, there were many references to the literature. Basically, these are links to works on the same topic, published earlier. We refer to them partly in order to pay tribute to the achievements of their predecessors, but mainly in order to support certain assertions contained in our article. own work. “You don't have to take my word for it. You can read a detailed rationale for the methods I used in Box and Cox (Box, Cox, 1964)." But the authors of this Freudian article did not at all try to back up the cited facts with references. References to the literature were not about facts, but about ideas. Using references, it was possible to trace the development of these ideas in the writings of various followers of Freud up to the original words of the teacher himself. At the same time, no facts were cited by which it would be possible to judge whether his ideas were fair.

“Perhaps Freud did big influence to literary criticism,” I say to the professor of English, “but he was not a real scholar. He was not interested in facts. I study psychology by scientific methods.”

“So,” she replies, “you are using a monster of machine intelligence to kill the human in us.” On both sides of the gulf that separates our views, I hear the same thing: "Science cannot investigate consciousness." Why can't?

You can download an introductory fragment of the book (~20%) at the link:

Brain and Soul - Chris Frith (download)

Read the full version of the book in the best online library of Runet - Litres.