How the brain processes new information

A new paper provides fascinating insight into how our brains amass information and organize and assess it in real-time.

The paper—Cliques of Neurons Bound into Cavities Provide a Missing Link between Structure and Function—proposes that “the brain processes stimuli by forming increasingly complex functional cliques and cavities.”

The full intro to the paper:

The lack of a formal link between neural network structure and its emergent function has hampered our understanding of how the brain processes information. We have now come closer to describing such a link by taking the direction of synaptic transmission into account, constructing graphs of a network that reflect the direction of information flow, and analyzing these directed graphs using algebraic topology. Applying this approach to a local network of neurons in the neocortex revealed a remarkably intricate and previously unseen topology of synaptic connectivity. The synaptic network contains an abundance of cliques of neurons bound into cavities that guide the emergence of correlated activity. In response to stimuli, correlated activity binds synaptically connected neurons into functional cliques and cavities that evolve in a stereotypical sequence toward peak complexity. We propose that the brain processes stimuli by forming increasingly complex functional cliques and cavities.

The cliques of neurons that grow and connect in real-time make up the transient “architecture” of awareness as it changes and responds to stimuli.

You can observe a process that seems to fit this description by simply turning your head and looking around. As your eye settles on something to consider in more detail, neuronic cliques will grow in your brain based on that stimulus.

Depending on the significance to you of what you are looking at, further associations drawn from memory and emotion will aggregate around it.

Interestingly, the concept of transient neuronal cliques that grow into larger structures fits very well with the Buddha’s Five Skandhas explanation of the path between perception and consciousness.

This paper also seems to explain why FIML practice works. FIML interrupts the (re)formation of mistaken neuronal cliques in real-time, thus preventing the (re)association of (mistaken) established mental states with new perceptions. If there was no mistake FIML affirms that truth.

By consciously interfering with habitual neuronal cliques, FIML eliminates the false and unwanted psychological structures that give rise to them.

FIML works because large (mistaken) psychological brain structures rely on reconsolidation through the continual processing of “new” information that falsely reconfirms them.

As such, human psychology to a large extent is an ongoing self-fulfilling prophesy.

Here is an article about the paper: Brain Architecture: Scientists Discover 11 Dimensional Structures That Could Help Us Understand How the Brain Works.

The derived EDAR allele

A derived G-allele point mutation (SNP) with pleiotropic effects in EDAR, 370A or rs3827760, is found in ancient and modern East AsiansNorth Asians, Southeast Asians, Nepalese,[5] and Native Americans but not common in African or European populations.

Experimental research in mice has linked the derived allele to a number of traits, including greater hair shaft diameter, more numerous sweat glands, smaller mammary fat pad, and increased mammary gland density.[6] A 2008 study stated that EDAR is a genetic determinant for hair thickness, and also contributed to variations in hair thickness among Asian populations.[7] Derived variants of EDAR are associated with multiple facial and dental characteristics, such as shovel-shaped incisors.[8][9][10][11] This mutation is also implicated in ear morphology differences and reduced chin protrusion.[12]

A 2013 study suggested that the EDAR variant (370A) arose about 35,000 years ago in central China, a period during which the region was then quite warm and humid.[13] A subsequent study from 2021, based on ancient DNA samples, has suggested that the derived variant became dominant among Ancient Northern East Asians shortly after the Last Glacial Maximum in Northeast Asia, around 19,000 years ago. Ancient remains from Northern East Asia, such as the Tianyuan Man (40,000 years old) and the AR33K (33,000 years old) specimen lacked the derived EDAR allele, while ancient East Asian remains after the LGM carry the derived EDAR allele.[14][15]

It has been hypothesized that natural selection favored this allele during the last ice age in a population of people living in isolation in Beringia, as it may play a role in the synthesis of Vitamin D-rich breast milk in dark environments.[16][17][18] One study suggested that because the EDAR mutation arose in a cool and dry environment, it may have been adaptive by increasing skin lubrication, thus reducing dryness in exposed facial structures.[19]

link

The power of words and habit formation

How we use and hear words becomes a habit.

A recent study on personal space, reported in Personal Space Is a Fear Response, shows that this fear response can be stimulated by words alone.

When placed in an MRI—and told a person was standing over the machine—[people with normal amygdalae] showed heightened activity in their amygdala; when they were told the person was further away from the machine, the activity returned to normal. This shows, says the study’s leader, Ralph Adolphs, that the belief that someone is too close for comfort is enough to spark the same activity as if they actually are.

You could also say that just hearing the words that “someone is too close for comfort is enough to spark the same activity as if they actually are.”

I doubt I need to illustrate this idea as most readers are surely aware that all people have many strong emotional responses to words, gestures, facial expressions, as well as personal space encroachments.

Another recent study, unsurprisingly, shows that forming a habit leaves a lasting mark on specific circuits in the brain. In more detail:

In the basal ganglia, two main types of paths carry opposing messages: One carries a ‘go’ signal which spurs an action, the other a ‘stop’ signal.

Experiments by Duke neurobiology graduate student Justin O’Hare found that the stop and go pathways were both more active in the sugar-habit mice. O’Hare said he didn’t expect to see the stop signal equally ramped up in the habit brains, because it has been traditionally viewed as the factor that helps prevent a behavior.

The team also discovered a change in the timing of activation in the two pathways. In mice that had formed a habit, the go pathway turned on before the stop pathway. In non-habit brains, the stop signal preceded the go.

These changes in the brain circuitry were so long-lasting and obvious that it was possible for the group to predict which mice had formed a habit just by looking at isolated pieces of their brains in a petri dish. (same link as just above)

The study on habits is about mice with sugar habits, but I think it is fair to hypothesize that something similar happens with humans in their use of communication cues.

Humans, in my view, habituate to semiotic stimuli in much the same way that mice habituate to sugar.

The Duke study shows that the stop pathway grew as much as the go pathway in the mice, the main difference being that the go pathway turned on before the stop pathway.

Since human language and its uses is more complex than mice habituated to too much sugar, there must be many more stop and go pathways within the language and communication networks of human beings.

Many of these pathways will be similar among people in the same culture, but many of them won’t. Each human being is a repository of a multitude of idiosyncratic emotional and semantic responses and outputs.

So how do you figure out what your pathways are? And how do you correct ones that aren’t working well? And similarly, how do you figure out your partner’s pathways?

FIML practice helps partners to both identify their idiosyncratic communication habits and correct ones that are not working well. FIML finds and corrects pathways through micro-analysis.

It seems very likely to me that a FIML-style analysis corrects mistaken communication pathways by bringing the stop pathway to the fore. When a particular mistaken response is stopped a few times and under analysis seen to be wrong, the go pathways for that response will tend to be extirpated.

By using words to analyze micro units of miscommunication, FIML partners tap into the power of words to change actual pathways of neurons in their brains, thus reorganizing the deep linguistic basis of habitual psychological responses, no matter how idiosyncratic.

We Can Now Answer the Question – Did NSA Director Mike Rogers Warn Donald Trump on November 17, 2016?

The short answer is no; he did not.

Was NSA Director Mike Rogers aware that political spying was conducted through the use of searches on the NSA database?  Yes.  Did NSA Director Mike Rogers take action in April 2016 to stop the searches within the NSA database that were entirely due to political surveillance?  Yes.

Six months later, October 20, 2016, the extensive review of all the political surveillance searches done from November of 2015 to April of 2016 was completed; the NSA compliance officer briefed Director Rogers. Six days later on October 26, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers then informed the FISA court of the unlawful searches and his action to address the issue.

One month later on November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers went to see President-Elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower, New York.  –SEE HERE– Director Rogers never told his boss DNI, James Clapper.  The very next day, Friday November 18, 2016, The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position.

“The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.  The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.  […]  In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters.”

Notice how the WaPo conflates the two issues. (1) Meeting with Trump (Nov), and (2) the recommendation to fire him (Oct).  The October recommendation to fire Rogers was likely based on the outcome of his decision to fully stop “about queries” of the NSA database and speak to the FISA court.

The recommendation to fire Rogers preceded his visit to Donald Trump, though the IC effort may have provided some additional motivation for the Rogers visit itself.

NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York November 17, 2016, when a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) was set up for President-elect Trump to use following the November 8, 2016, election.

The next day, November 18, 2016, the Trump Transition Team announced they were moving all transition activity to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. –SEE HERE– Where they interviewed and discussed the most sensitive positions to fill.  Specifically, Defense, State, CIA and ODNI.

There was a great deal of speculation at the time surrounding the visit by Director Rogers and the move from Trump Tower to New Jersey.  Did Rogers tell President Trump about the political surveillance from November 2015 to April 2016?  We now know the answer is no, he did not.

Director Rogers did recommend an easier venue for the SCIF to operate with secured communication channels; but Rogers did not notify President Trump about the use of the NSA database for political spying.

Continue reading “We Can Now Answer the Question – Did NSA Director Mike Rogers Warn Donald Trump on November 17, 2016?”

Woman accused of calling child a racial slur at Rochester playground is now charged

ROCHESTER, Minn. (FOX 9) – A woman accused of using a racial slur against a child at a Rochester, Minnesota, park after he took an applesauce pouch from her bag earlier this year is now facing charges in Olmsted County Court. The woman’s outburst went viral on TikTok.

Shiloh Marie Hendrix, 36, of Rochester, is facing two misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct in connection with the case.

link

Covid vaxxes aftermath

Woman who fled Ukraine to escape horrors of war tragically stabbed to death at North Carolina train station

link to article

Revealed: The bizarre belongings King Charles III travels with from his own bed to his luxury toilet roll

link