Tag: brain science

Disruption of neurotic response in FIML practice

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

By analyzing minute emotional reactions in real-time during normal conversation, FIML practice disrupts the consolidation, or more often the reconsolidation, of “neurotic” responses.

In FIML, a neurotic response is defined as “an emotional response based on a misinterpretation.” The misinterpretation in question can be incipient (just starting) to long-standing (been a habit for years).

The response is disrupted by FIML practice and, thus, tends not to consolidate or reconsolidate, especially after several instances of learning that it is not valid.

A neurotic response is a response based on memory. The following study on fear memories supports the above explanation of FIML practice.

Memories become labile when recalled. In humans and rodents alike, reactivated fear memories can be attenuated by disrupting reconsolidation with extinction training. Using functional brain imaging, we found that, after a conditioned fear memory was formed, reactivation and reconsolidation left a memory trace in the basolateral amygdala that predicted subsequent fear expression and was tightly coupled to activity in the fear circuit of the brain. In contrast, reactivation followed by disrupted reconsolidation suppressed fear, abolished the memory trace, and attenuated fear-circuit connectivity. Thus, as previously demonstrated in rodents, fear memory suppression resulting from behavioral disruption of reconsolidation is amygdala-dependent also in humans, which supports an evolutionarily conserved memory-update mechanism.

~Disruption of Reconsolidation Erases a Fear Memory Trace in the Human Amygdala

FIML practice works by partners consciously and cooperatively disrupting reconsolidation (and initial consolidation) of neurotic memory (and associated behaviors). FIML both extirpates habitual neurotic responses and also prevents the formation of new neurotic responses through conscious disruption of memory consolidation.

FIML probably works as well as it does because humans have “an evolutionarily conserved memory-update mechanism” that favors more truth. Obvious examples of this update mechanism can be seen in many simple mistakes. For instance, if you think the capital of New York State is New York City and someone shows that it is Albany, you will likely correct your mistake immediately with little or no fuss.

Since FIML focuses on small mistakes made between partners, corrections are rarely more difficult than the above example though they may be accompanied by a greater sense of relief. For example, if you thought that maybe your partner was mad at you but then find (through a FIML query) that they are not, your sense of relief may be considerable.

Psychopaths don’t EXIST – and Ted Bundy was simply misunderstood, scientist claims

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

…according to Dr Rasmus Larensis, a forensic scientist from the University of Toronto Mississauga in Canada, psychopathy might not exist at all.

The big issue, as Dr Larensis points out, is that every single claim which has ever been made about the nature of psychopaths has been systematically disproved.

Ideas, such as the notion that psychopaths don’t feel fear, have either been flat–out disproved or faltered as rigorous evidence in their support failed to emerge.

Dr Larensis even argues that famous ‘psychopaths’ such as the serial killer Ted Bundy are really just misunderstood.

Dr Larensis told the Daily Mail: ‘After decades of research, we still lack compelling evidence for the specific type of person described by the traditional psychopathy model.’

link

Networks of words, semiotics, and psychological morphemes

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Words and semiotics are held together in networks. “Psychological morphemes” are also held together in networks.

A “psychological morpheme” is the smallest meaningful unit of a psychological response. It is the smallest unit of communication that can give rise to an emotional, psychological, or cognitive reaction.

Of course word networks, semiotic networks, and emotional, psychological, and cognitive networks all intertwine with each other.

FIML practice is designed to help partners untangle unwanted emotions from these intertwined networks. FIML practice focuses on psychological morphemes because they are small and thus rather easily understood and rather easily extirpated from real-time contexts (when partners are interacting in real life in real-time).

The hard part about FIML practice is it is done in real life in real-time. But the easy or very effective part about FIML is that once partners learn to do it, results come quickly because the practice is happening in real life in real-time. It is not just a theory when you do it in that way. It is an experience that changes how you communicate and how you understand yourself and others.

In FIML practice partners are mindful of their emotional reactions and learn that when one occurs, it is important to query their partner about it. They are mindful of psychological morphemes and as soon as one appears, but before the morpheme calls up a large network leading to a strong reaction, they query their partner about it.

This practice leads to a fairly smooth and effortless extirpation of unwanted psychological responses. This happens because the data provided by the partner that “caused” the reaction shows the partner who made the FIML query that the psychological morpheme in question arose due to a misinterpretation. Seeing this repeatedly for the same sort of neurotic reaction causes that reaction and the psychological network that comprises it to become extinguished.

A fascinating study from the University of Kansas by Michael Vitevitch shows that removing a key word from a linguistic network will cause that network to fracture and even be destroyed. An article about the study and a link to the study (pay wall) can be found here: Keywords hold vocabulary together in memory.

Vitevitch’s study involves only words and his analysis was done only with computers because, as he says, ““Fracturing the network [in real people] could actually disrupt language processing. Even though we could remove keywords from research participants’ memories through psycholinguistic tasks, we dared not because of concern that there would be long-term or even widespread effects.”

FIML is not about removing key words from linguistic networks. But it is about dismantling or removing psychological or semiotic networks that cause suffering.

Psychological or semiotic networks are networks rich in emotional meaning. When those networks harbor unwanted, inappropriate, or mistaken interpretations (and thus mistaken or unwanted emotions), they can cause serious neurotic reactions, or serious mistaken interpretations.

These mistaken interpretations, and the emotions associated with them, can be efficiently extirpated by revealing to their holder the “key” psychological morphemes that set them off.

The psychology of a semiotic network hinges on repeated reactions to key psychological morphemes and that this process is analogous to the key words described in Vitevitch’s study.

Vitevitch did not remove key words from actual people because it would be unethical to do so. But it is not unethical for consenting adults to help each other find and remove key psychological morphemes that are harmfully associated with the linguistic, semiotic, cognitive, and psychological networks that make up the individual.

NASA scientist who ‘died three times’ saw the same thing every time… and it wasn’t the pearly gates of Heaven

~ ABN ~ 2 Comments

A NASA scientist has claimed she did not just die once, but three times, and saw the exact same thing each time.

Ingrid Honkala, 55, an oceanographer who has worked with NASA, said she had near-death experiences at the ages of two, 25 and 52.

While each incident unfolded differently, she said the outcome was identical: she entered a state of complete calm, with no fear, no sense of time, and a feeling of separating from her physical body.

Honkala described becoming ‘pure awareness,’ immersed in what she calls a vast, interconnected consciousness filled with light, clarity and peace.

She claimed this was not a fleeting hallucination, but a consistent experience she returned to every time she came close to death.

The scientist now believes these moments offered a glimpse into what lies beyond human life, challenging the idea that consciousness ends when the body shuts down.

link

__________

The highlighted paragraphs above describe a samadhi state, which the Buddha said is available to virtually all human beings. Samadhi, or the training for it, is the Eighth Path of the Noble Eightfold Path. To use Honkala’s words, the fourth and highest samadhi state in Buddhism is an experience which transforms human consciousness by ‘immersing‘ us in ‘a vast, interconnected consciousness filled with light, clarity and peace.’ ABN

A challenge to the cognitive model of the mind: Paul Cisek questions the dominant scientific paradigm and the current theory of artificial intelligence

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

…human language is a tool for communicating our thoughts, but is separate and distinct from thought itself. Evelina Fedorenko, a neuroscientist at MIT and lead author of the paper laying out the empirical evidence for this claim, was kind enough to let me interview her. Her basic argument is that we know language must be separate from thought because (a) people who lose language ability can still think and reason, and (b) different parts of the brain activate when we engage in different types of thought, and often the “language part” remains idle when we’re thinking. In my view, this evidence deals a serious blow to the hopes of achieving “artificial general intelligence” through the scaling of large-language models since, after all, they are language tools (it’s in the name).

Enter now stage left Dr. Paul Cisek, a neuroscientist at the University of Montreal, to throw some gasoline on that fire. Cisek first came across my radar last year when a pithy observation he made about LLMs started making the rounds on social media. You can read his full comment here, but to summarize:

  • We know that humans in general can falsely impute intelligence and agency to complex events that take place in the world, as we’ve seen humans do this in the past when interacting with a chatbot such as ELIZA, or claiming the gods make volcanoes explode.
  • But although modern-day LLMs are complex, researchers know quite a bit about how they function, through pattern-matching and use of mathematical theories (among other things).
  • Thus, although the public may be inclined to attribute sentience and agency to LLMs, scientists should know better. Cisek: “We are like a bunch of professional magicians, who know where all of the little strings and compartments are, and who know how we just redirected the audience’s attention to slip the card in our pocket…but then we are standing around backstage wondering, ‘Maybe there really is magic?’”

There isn’t any magic. But a big challenge we face is that the companies that produce LLMs are willfully trying to convince us otherwise, and are working to take advantage of the human impulse to ascribe agency to these tools.

Cisek’s main claims as I understand them:

  1. The simple model of the mind as an information processor that takes input and produces output is mistaken.
  2. We should instead see minds as control systems that guide behavior as part of a continuous process, like a circuit.
  3. Over hundreds of millions of years, biological evolution has expanded the range and depth of behaviors that our minds can control.

…

link

__________

I have taken several excerpts from the essay above to provide a sense of the overall discussion. It’s an interesting read, not very long, not hard to follow. Well-worth reading. ABN

Student Finds the Psychedelic Fungus the Inventor of LSD Spent His Life Searching For

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The discovery could reshape how we study psychedelic compounds in nature and medicine

At West Virginia University (WVU), Corinne Hazel, an undergraduate major in environmental microbiology, examined morning glory plants for signs of protective chemicals. She wasn’t looking for new drugs or anything psychedelic. But nestled in the folds of a tiny seed coat was a hint of white fuzz.

That fuzz turned out to be a fungus that scientists had been seeking since the 1930s. And this included Albert Hofmann, the Swiss chemist who first synthesized LSD.

Hofmann offered the world LSD in the late 1930s by modifying a compound called lysergic acid, which he extracted from the ergot fungus Claviceps purpurea. That fungus grows on rye and other grains and is well-known for producing ergot alkaloids, a group of chemicals that can be toxic or medicinal depending on the dose.

Hofmann and others searched the plants for a fungus related to Claviceps purpurea, the rye-dwelling microbe that produces ergot alkaloids, a group of potent compounds with powerful biological effects. But for decades, that fungus remained a phantom.

Hazel found it almost by accident.

“We had a ton of plants lying around and they had these tiny little seed coats,” she said. “We noticed a little bit of fuzz in the seed coat. That was our fungus.”

With Panaccione’s guidance, Hazel extracted DNA from the fuzz and sent it for sequencing. The results confirmed what generations of chemists and botanists had only suspected: the morning glory harbored a previously unknown species of ergot-producing fungus.

“Sequencing a genome is a significant thing,” Panaccione said. “It’s amazing for a student.”

link

FIML and cerebral efficiency

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

This article argues that the human brain saves energy by predicting or imagining “reality” more than actually perceiving it: Do Thrifty Brains Make Better Minds? The article argues that this way of using our brains allows us to work more efficiently with complex data or in complex situations.

I think this general premise is pretty well known and agreed on, but the linked article puts it in a new way. The following sentence caught my eye: This… underlines the surprising extent to which the structure of our expectations (both conscious and non-conscious) may quite literally be determining much of what we see, hear and feel.

The article uses visual perception as an example, but the idea applies just as well, and maybe more so, to what we hear in the speech of others. FIML practice works by inserting a new mental skill between the first arising of a (stored) interpretation and its full-blown acceptance as “reality”.

Interoception, proprioception, and perception of dynamic mental states

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Interoception means our “perception or sense of internal body states,” including the states of our cardiovascular, digestive, respiratory, and thermoregulatory systems among others.

Proprioception means “one’s own” or “ones’ individual” (Latin proprius) “perception.” We normally use this word to refer to our physical position in the world—whether we are standing or sitting, how we are moving, and how much energy we are using.

Both interoception and proprioception generally refer to physical states of the body though, of course, how we interpret those states may involve much more than immediate physical considerations.

Erroneous interoception or the misinterpretation of internal states is is generally thought to be an important contributing factor to many psychological disorders, including anxiety, depression, panic disorder, and more.

Consider some other levels of interoception—our states of mind; our mental impressions of other people and of ourselves; our senses of our own psychologies.

These levels of psychological reality are normally accessed through introspection, meditation, mindfulness, and psychotherapy. All of these methods are good, but each of them lacks ongoing, real-time input from another human being, thus missing the dynamic functioning of the human mind in real-life situations.

FIML corrects this problem by providing objective, dynamic access to real-time psychological functioning. FIML is a method or tool for optimizing human psychology by honing our perceptions of our mental states as they actually function in real-world situations.

Brain networks act dynamically, rapidly reorganizing on both spatial and temporal scales

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

A new model of the brain is emerging from research that shows that:

The brain is highly dynamic, reorganizing its activity at different interacting spatial and temporal scales, including variation within and between brain networks.  (The spatial chronnectome reveals a dynamic interplay between functional segregation and integration)

Traditionally, models of brain activity have assumed networks were spatially more fixed. More information about this study can be found here: Structure of Brain Networks Is Not Fixed, Study Finds.

In Buddhist literature, it is frequently stated that one’s karma can be completely changed in the “duration of a single thought,” or words to that effect.

If we understand karma to mean the work or ongoing functional habits of the mind, and consider that in light of the above findings, we may fairly conclude that thousands of years of Buddhist practice have been based on valid insights into how our brains actually operate.

Buddhist concepts of non-attachment, emptiness, and impermanence can also be seen in this light. And this would apply both to individual psychology, group psychologies, or the cosmos itself from a Mind Only perspective.

A good tool to have is the understanding that even deep psychological states can be transformed in a moment’s time. Consider also that the Buddha did describe some individual traits as “persistent” or unchanging even after enlightenment.

Conscious of what?

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

A primary question about consciousness is “conscious of what?”

What if your consciousness is based on an error?

If you become conscious of the error, you will most likely correct it and thus change your consciousness.

Metacognition is a word that is sometimes used in place of “consciousness.”

Metacognition implies awareness of how our consciousness is functioning.

Buddhist mindfulness can be defined as “active metacognition.” This implies awareness of what is in our consciousness, what the elements of its functioning are in the moment.

Buddhist practice assume that if while being mindful we perceive error in our consciousness, we will correct the error.

Metacognition requires “self-awareness” or “awareness of the functioning of consciousness.” It seems that most people do this better than most animals in most situations.

Metacognition or mindfulness requires training or practice. But training and practice can also be wrong, based on wrong views.

Many forms of selfhood are based on wrong views.

Right mindfulness is used to perceive these mistakes and correct them.

For example, a person can be trained to have an identity. They can practice having this identity and learn the emotions that go along with it.

With wrong training and practice an identity can become explosive, violent, crazy.

This is a major part of what is meant by delusion in Buddhism, having a wrong view about your identity.

Notice, that a person can have a very wrong identity and be fully conscious of it and the world around them without realizing their identity is wrong.

_________________

Related subjects:

Re-representing consciousness: dissociations between experience and meta-consciousness

Consciousness Goes Deeper Than You Think

There Is an ‘Unconscious,’ but It May Well Be Conscious

Transcendental experiences during meditation practice

Brain Waves Synchronize when People Interact

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The minds of social species are strikingly resonant

Collective neuroscience, as some practitioners call it, is a rapidly growing field of research. An early, consistent finding is that when people converse or share an experience, their brain waves synchronize. Neurons in corresponding locations of the different brains fire at the same time, creating matching patterns, like dancers moving together. Auditory and visual areas respond to shape, sound and movement in similar ways, whereas higher-order brain areas seem to behave similarly during more challenging tasks such as making meaning out of something seen or heard. The experience of “being on the same wavelength” as another person is real, and it is visible in the activity of the brain.

Researchers are discovering synchrony in humans and other species, and they are mapping its choreography—its rhythm, timing and undulations—to better understand what benefits it may give us. They are finding evidence that interbrain synchrony prepares people for interaction and beginning to understand it as a marker of relationships. Given that synchronized experiences are often enjoyable, researchers suspect this phenomenon is beneficial: it helps us interact and may have facilitated the evolution of sociality. This new kind of brain research might also illuminate why we don’t always “click” with someone or why social isolation is so harmful to physical and mental health.

link

FIML increases and improves brain synchrony.

In the beginning of learning it, FIML may also disrupt or alter brain synchrony.

Altered synchrony is probably the reason FIML is difficult to learn and understand at first.

When FIML practice is accepted as a natural form of speech—and partners have trained themselves in it—a more accurate and powerful synchrony will emerge. ABN

from article linked above

When we interact socially, what we fundamentally do is display and receive semiotics. We share them to greater or lesser extents.

What we do not do nearly enough is investigate this sharing at the level of real-time micro and meso semiotics.

FIML does precisely this and you do not need fMRI to do it.

From a Buddhist point of view, FIML is the dynamic sharing and analysis of subtle and very subtle states of mind.

The synchronies you share with your FIML partner will be deeper and richer than any others because you have worked and trained at fully understanding them. ABN

Evidence-based dual-attention switching exercises

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Bimanual classic: Write numbers 1-20 (left hand) + alphabet A-T (right hand) at once, no rhythm. Builds flexibility; dual-task studies show prefrontal gains.

Here are several additional evidence-based dual-attention switching exercises (also called dual-task or task-switching activities) that rely purely on your body, voice, simple household objects, or mental effort—no apps, devices, or technology required. These build on prefrontal cortex engagement, executive function (like flexibility, inhibition, and working memory), and motor-cognitive coordination, similar to the ones mentioned earlier. Many draw from physical therapy, neurorehabilitation, and aging/fitness research showing benefits for attention switching, balance, and cognitive reserve.

Perform each for 1–5 minutes per set, 3–5 sets a few times per week. Start easier and gradually increase difficulty (e.g., faster pace, longer duration, or more complex cognitive elements). Safety first—use support if needed for balance tasks.

  1. Walking + Serial Subtraction / Backward Counting
    Walk at a steady pace (indoors or outdoors) while counting backward by 3s, 7s, or another number from 100 or 200 (e.g., 100 → 97 → 94…).
    Variations: Name months of the year backward, recite the alphabet skipping every other letter, or list items in a category (animals, cities) while walking.
    This is a classic motor-cognitive dual task that improves gait stability, executive function, and attention switching, especially effective in studies on older adults.
  2. One-Leg Balance + Verbal Fluency or Alphabet Recitation
    Stand on one leg (hold a chair or wall lightly for safety if needed) while reciting the alphabet backward, spelling words backward (e.g., your name or common words), naming as many items as possible in a category (fruits, tools), or counting backward from 50 by 2s.
    Switch legs after each set.
    This targets balance + rapid cognitive flexibility and is frequently used in dual-task balance training protocols.
  3. Ball Toss + Category Naming / Word Association
    Toss a soft ball (tennis ball, rolled-up sock, etc.) up and catch it repeatedly with one or both hands while naming items in a category (e.g., vegetables, movies), saying words that start with a specific letter, or alternating categories every few tosses.
    Solo version: Bounce it against a wall or floor. Partner version: Toss back and forth while keeping the verbal task going.
    This combines hand-eye coordination with verbal fluency and quick switching—very common in cognitive-physical dual-task programs.
  4. Marching in Place + Head Turns or Directional Commands
    March in place (high knees if able) while slowly turning your head side to side or up/down, or follow self-given commands like “left, right, forward, back” (pointing or saying directions). Add counting backward or naming opposites (hot/cold, up/down).
    This works vestibular input + attention shifting and appears in many balance + cognitive dual-task routines.
  5. Tandem Walking / Heel-Toe Line Walk + Mental Math or Memory Recall
    Walk heel-to-toe in a straight line (like on an imaginary tightrope) while doing simple mental math (e.g., add/subtract serial numbers), recalling a short shopping list backward, or reciting a poem/lyrics from memory.
    This challenges dynamic balance and working memory/attention switching simultaneously.
  6. Bimanual Coordination + Auditory-Verbal Switching (No Sound Needed)
    Perform alternating hand movements (e.g., one hand taps thigh while the other makes circles in the air, then switch) while naming days of the week backward or alternating between two categories (e.g., “boy name → girl name → boy name…”).
    This is a pure motor + cognitive switch task that trains bilateral coordination and rapid task alternation.

These are straightforward, free, and adaptable to different fitness levels. Research (including reviews in journals like Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience and PMC sources on dual-task interventions) shows consistent gains in executive function, reduced dual-task interference, and better real-world multitasking from regular practice. Track your progress—many people notice easier daily switching (e.g., conversations while moving) after a few weeks. If you have any balance or mobility concerns, check with a healthcare provider first. Which type appeals most, or want tweaks for a specific goal?

Our brains take time to update unless we are shown the update

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Our perception is continuously biased toward the past to help stabilize the chaotic world we live in.

Watch the video below (1 min, 32 sec) to see this illusion in real-time:

This video illustrates how our brains ignore change or incorporate it into our perceptions somewhat slowly through a “continuity field,” as described below:

Our brains are constantly uploading rich, visual stimuli. But instead of seeing the latest image in real time, we actually see earlier versions because our brain’s refresh time is about 15 seconds, according to new UC Berkeley research.

The findings, appearing in the journal Science Advances, add to a growing body of research about the mechanism behind the “continuity field,” a function of perception in which our brain merges what we see on a constant basis to give us a sense of visual stability.

“If our brains were always updating in real time, the world would be a jittery place with constant fluctuations in shadow, light and movement, and we’d feel like we were hallucinating all the time,” said study senior author David Whitney, a UC Berkeley professor of psychology, neuroscience and vision science.

link

The study—Illusion of visual stability through active perceptual serial dependence—focuses on the illusion of visual stability:

Despite a noisy and ever-changing visual world, our perceptual experience seems stable over time. How does our visual system achieve this apparent stability? Here, we introduce a previously unknown visual illusion that shows direct evidence for a mechanism continuously smoothing our percepts over time.

As a result, a continuously seen physically changing object can be misperceived as unchanging.

In the video above, you can notice two things: 1) the slowness and blurriness of our perceptual change as we watch the video, and 2) that we can and do accept that change the moment it is shown to us in comparative stills.

If vision behaves this way, it is fair to assume our psychologies or, more precisely, our psychological memories do something similar on both points.

I was intrigued to see that the authors of the study calculated a time-span of 15 seconds:

We find that online object appearance is captured by past visual experience up to 15 seconds ago. 

This is roughly the ‘speed’ or duration of our working memories.

FIML works most of all with the working memory because when we correct a mistake in our working memory or upgrade the data in our working memory while it is still present, we are able to make large changes in our psychologies almost effortlessly.

FIML leverages the working memory to make large changes in our whole brain memories.

It works well because changing your working memory to fit the obvious reality staring you in the face is easy.

In contrast changing whole brain memories and psychologies through rumination and recollection typically only entrenches them further and deeper.

While it is easy to see how this happens visually as in the video above, it may be difficult to see how to do this with our complex psychologies as they are functioning in real-time.

FIML completely solves this problem and yet it may be hard to see how and why.

It works like this:

The how is done by pausing real-life in real-time so you can compare your own mind’s percept with your partner’s percept of the same thing and make corrections as warranted.

The why is psychologically analogous to correcting the illusions produced by our brains “continuously smoothing our percepts over time.” This “continuously smoothing over time” prevents wholesome, realistic change. It lies at the heart of many psychological problems.

Very small decisions and what they show about us

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

A very small decision I make on many mornings is which coffee cup is going to be mine and which goes to my partner.

The two cups we normally use are the same and I cannot tell one from the other. If I thought one was better than the other, I would give it to her.

What happens is at some point while I take the cups from the cupboard and set them on the counter, I incline toward deciding that one of them will be for me and one for her. This “decision” is so small I describe it as “incline toward deciding.”

As I continue preparing morning coffee, my very small decision about which cup is mine spends more time in my mind. By the time I pour the coffee, I am generally always mildly set on which one is going to be mine for the morning and which hers.

My initial “inclining toward deciding” has changed into my being “mildly set on” which cup is mine. I might even feel a bit possessive toward “my” cup as I pour the coffee.

The main point is that once we make even a very weak decision or incline toward a weak decision it requires energy to change that.

Of course, I do not really care which cup I get and yet I have inclined toward one or decided on one of them. At some point in this process you have to do that.

If I try to change my decision once the coffee is poured and give “my” cup to my partner, I am aware of expending a bit of energy.

The energy required to change which cup is mine is greater than the energy required to decide which cup is mine. I only fell into my initial decision but must climb out of it if I want to change it.

I bet you do this or something like it, too. Just watch yourself and observe it happening. Once you see it, try changing to the other cup or whatever it is you have chosen.

It’s not hard to change your decision but it decidedly requires a little bit of energy. That may be some of the smallest mental energy you will ever exert, but you will have to exert it.

I find I feel a bit awkward when I change my initial decision. It seems my mind is already set at some lower level so the meta-level that  changes that does not have the right networking or connections for the transition to be completely smooth. This is the opposite of the initial decision which seems to have required little or no energy. And has managed to grow bigger all on its own, outside of my awareness.

Notice also, if you are like me, you will happily give your partner the better cup if one of them is better. That decision, too, will require energy to change, maybe even more energy than if the cups are the same. This probably happens because if you change your decision to the better cup (for yourself), you will also feel a bit selfish in addition to the above considerations. This will happen even if your partner wants you to change cups.

So either way—changing between two cups that are the same or changing from the worse cup to the better one—you will need to expend a bit of energy, even though your initial decision probably required none at all.

Is consciousness continuous or discrete?

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Is consciousness a continuous flow of awareness without intervals or is it something that emerges continually at discrete points in a cascade of micro bits?

The Buddhist answer has always been the latter.

The Buddha’s five skandha explanation of perception and consciousness says that there are four discrete steps that are the basis of consciousness.

Thefive skandhas are form, sensation, perception, activity, consciousness. A form can arise in the mind or outside of the mind. This form gives rise to a sensation, which gives rise to perception, followed by activity (mental or physical), and lastly consciousness. In the Buddha’s explanation, the five skandhas occur one after the other, very rapidly. They are not a continuous stream but rather a series of discrete or discernible moments. A form arises or appears, then there is a sensation, then perception, then activity, then consciousness. (The five skandhas and modern science)

The first four skandhas are normally unconscious. Buddhist mindfulness and meditation training are importantly designed to help us become conscious of each of the five skandhas as they actually function in real-time.

A study from 2014—Amygdala Responsivity to High-Level Social Information from Unseen Faces—supports the five skandha explanation. From that study:

The findings demonstrate that the amygdala can be influenced by even high-level facial information before that information is consciously perceived, suggesting that the amygdala’s processing of social cues in the absence of awareness may be more extensive than previously described. (emphasis added)

Some time ago, a new model of how consciousness arises was proposed. This model is being called a “two-stage” model, but it is based on research and conclusions derived from that research that support the Buddha’s five skandha explanation of consciousness.

The study abstract:

We experience the world as a seamless stream of percepts. However, intriguing illusions and recent experiments suggest that the world is not continuously translated into conscious perception. Instead, perception seems to operate in a discrete manner, just like movies appear continuous although they consist of discrete images. To explain how the temporal resolution of human vision can be fast compared to sluggish conscious perception, we propose a novel conceptual framework in which features of objects, such as their color, are quasi-continuously and unconsciously analyzed with high temporal resolution. Like other features, temporal features, such as duration, are coded as quantitative labels. When unconscious processing is “completed,” all features are simultaneously rendered conscious at discrete moments in time, sometimes even hundreds of milliseconds after stimuli were presented. (Time Slices: What Is the Duration of a Percept?) (emphasis added)

I support science going where the evidence leads and am not trying to shoehorn these findings into a Buddhist package. Nonetheless, that does sound a lot like a slimmed-down version of the five skandhas. Considering these and other recent findings in a Buddhist light may help science resolve more clearly what is actually happening in the brain/mind.

As for form-sensation-perception-activity-consciousness, you might suddenly think of your mother, or the history of China, or the spider that just climbed onto your shoulder.

In Buddhist terms, initially, each of those items is a form which leads to a sensation which leads to perception which leads to activity which leads to consciousness.

Obviously, the form of a spider on your shoulder differs from the form of the history of China. Yet both forms can be understood to produce positive, negative, or neutral sensations, after which we begin to perceive the form and then react to it with activity (either mental or physical or both) before becoming fully conscious of it.

In the case of the spider, the first four skandhas may happen so quickly, we will have reacted (activity) to it (the spider) before being conscious of what we are doing. The skandha of activity is deeply physical in this case, though once consciousness of the event arises our sense of what the first four skandhas were and are will change.

If we slapped the spider and think we killed it, our eyes will monitor it for movement. If it moves and we are sensitive in that way, we might shudder again and relive the minor panic that just occurred.

If we are sorry that we reacted without thinking and notice the spider is moving, we might feel relief that it is alive or sadness that it has been wounded.

In all cases, our consciousness of the original event, will constellate around the spider through monitoring it, our own reactions, and whatever else arises. Maybe our sudden movements brought someone else into the room.

The constellation of skandhas and angles of awareness can become very complex, but the skandhas will still operate in unique and/or feedback loops that can often be analyzed.

The word skandha means “aggregate” or “heap” indicating that the linear first-fifth explanation of how they operate is greatly simplified.

The above explanation of the spider can also be applied to the form skandhas of the history of China or your mother when they suddenly arise in your mind, or anything else.

We can also perceive the skandhas when our minds bring in new information from memory or wander. As we read, for example, it is normal for other forms to enter our minds from our memories. Some of these forms will enhance our reading and some of them will cause our minds to wander.

Either way, our consciousness is always slightly jumpy because it emerges continually at discrete points in a cascade of micro bits, be they called skandhas or something else.

The above explanation of consciousness is a good way to understand how and why FIML practice works so well. Ideally, the intention to make a FIML query will begin to arise at the sensation skandha or soon thereafter. A FIML query is based on wondering if the consciousness that has arisen from the form is correct or not.

This also shows why FIML does not presuppose theories on personality, mental illness, or psychotherapy. In this sense, FIML has no content; it is “just” a method, a way to rationally engage and analyze our minds as they function in real-time in the real-world. How you analyze the data you acquire is up to you and your partner.

See also: How the brain produces consciousness in ‘time slices’