Abhijit, you claim that the selection of modules is "totally humanly random" which as a statement doesn't make sense to me. Instead I suggest that the selection of modules is made by the fronto-parietal network and is not random at all. In the neuronal workspace model, there is only self-selection of modules in that all modules are sent the same data, and the ones that make the most sense of it are voted up until they can self-select their own inclusion in the workspace. The difference between this and what I suggest is one of protocol, one is data driven and the other is selectively driven.

When some one focus his/her mind on something new, his sense organs (sight, sound, taste, smell and touch) first gather the information on the object, and then transfers those to intellect or conscious mind (located on the brain surface around middle of cortex), which as the most sophisticated computer then matches these with the available information (subconscious memory bank) to see the description best fitting the object, if new both picture as well as its characteristics are stored.   This overall mechanism is revealed to a person under deep meditation as has been described in ancient Vedanta and verified by numerous yogis and scientists like Einstein worldwide through out the ages. This is what is called "subjective" investigation, in contrast to the "objective" one, verifiable in any appropriate laboratory around the globe.  Hope I could make you grasp the idea. If you want to pursue further I can help you.     

Dear Tushar,

If the mechanism of brain in thinking is unique and not change, why in different times the think and decisions may be different?

It depends on what you consider thinking is.

My definition is that thinking is a certain type of sequential organization of brain network outputs into something called a train of thought.

There are two types of trains of thought, Task Related Thought or External trains of thought, and Task Unrelated trains of thought or Internal Trains of Thought There has recently been considerable work done on trains of thought, especially in Mind Wandering Studies. MRI work suggests that trains of thought are associated with Networks in the Brain specifically Internal Trains of thought are associated with the Default Mode Network, and the fronto-parietal Network, and external trains of thought are associated with the Dorsal Activation Network, and the Fronto-Parietal Network

Dear Ehsan,

the question you asked might seem simple, but don't fool yourself by thinking that you'll get the answer even in your lifetime, because in neurology it is the hard question of consciousness. How exactly we conceive and perceive anything that's in our surrounding and process the info within the brain. Basically we can say all our logical thinking are processed in the left hemisphere of the brain, but it is the most childish yet so far mature answer you can get. For instance if we cut the inter-hemispheric connection then you'd literally express two different personalities one of which would be logical and the other would be emotional and creative. One would be theist and the other would be atheist. With the recent fMRI studies we are finding out different regions of the brain responsible of different activities. Neuroscience - the study of brain is still in its infancy, we have just started to explore the functioning of the brain. Keep up your curiosity.

Best Wishes

Abhijit Naskar

Ehsan and Abhijit,

That is why I say it depends on what you think thinking is. If you want to understand the complete workings of the brain, then my answer is understandably incomplete, but if you want to understand thinking alone, and accept my definition, then the answer is more complete, although still somewhat incomplete in that it doesn't describe how the trains of thought are formed. I can go on with my description if you are interested but at some point I need to dip into theory because the science is not yet caught up to the theory.

Dear Graeme Smith,

As a researcher of neurophysiology and cognitive & behavioral neurology I must clarify that no scientist on earth presently can explain the complete functioning of the brain, nor anybody will in the coming several decades. Neurology is still in infancy. Neurology has started to understand the working of the brain very recently and we have only scratched the surface of brain mysteries. What we know presently on the processing of thoughts and human perceptions might seem a lot to layman, but it's nothing compared to what lies ahead for us to explore. We only know some primitive concepts and causalities behind qualia.

However, I'd like to hear your awareness on this matter as well.

Best Wishes

Abhijit,

I agree with you that no scientist on earth, presently can explain the complete functioning of the brain. Perhaps I was understating that fact by saying my answer was "Understandably Incomplete". However if you read what I said again you will find that I am not describing the complete functioning of the brain, but just one aspect of it, that of Internal and External trains of thought.

Even there it is somewhat incomplete and Science has not caught up to theory yet.

My work is on a theory of how Attention in the three networks works together to create the "trains of thought". To stand against this theory is an existing theory called The Neuronal Workspace Model, in which it is thought that attention is created simply by the relative loudness of the individual modules competing for transmission. I Say that this doesn't deal well with the differences between the DMN and the DAN outputs and that having a tripartite attention system works much better.

The DMN and DAN may compete within themselves for expression, but the F-PN seems to select between them so that only one of the two is expressed at a time. That there is more going on than a simple selection between two networks is suggested by the size of the F-PN. In my "complicit attention model" I suggest that the F-PN also selects functional modules to process the data that is selected for by the DMN and DAN.

Dear Graeme,

your perception on the concept of trains of thought is impressive. Again I must clear a few points on the selection of different modules is totally humanly random, over which the cosmos impacts a great deal. This kind of state of different modules or simply trains of thoughts is called as QUANTUM SUPERPOSITION of thoughts. At all times during the selection of each module of neural network to reproduce a specific thought, the cosmos acts on the outcome through QUANTUM GRAVITY.

In this matter I'd like to discuss with you more. You can message or mail me as well.

Best Wishes

Abhijit Naskar

Abhijit, you claim that the selection of modules is "totally humanly random" which as a statement doesn't make sense to me. Instead I suggest that the selection of modules is made by the fronto-parietal network and is not random at all. In the neuronal workspace model, there is only self-selection of modules in that all modules are sent the same data, and the ones that make the most sense of it are voted up until they can self-select their own inclusion in the workspace. The difference between this and what I suggest is one of protocol, one is data driven and the other is selectively driven.

Dear Graeme,

I understand your perception. The word "random" itself is confusing. To make it simple I'd mention that, it is humanly random because, the result of module selection can come different at different times as it doesn't. Which means that although the physiological structure of the fronto-parietal network is same, the output is different. This implies that the impact of the cosmos, or more specifically Quantum Gravity on module-selection is most crucial. The neuronal workspace model has always been and will always be immersed within  the Cosmos or Quantum Gravity. Environmental factor or the cosmic factor can make humans take a decision in the way it wants. Or to say it in a phrase, "Free Will Doesn't Exist". Like to hear from you more dear friend, as this is not a debate, rather this is reproductive scientific discussion.

Best Wishes

A. Naskar

Abhijit what you say does not make any sense there is no reason to assume that selection of thought is random, has anything to do with Quantum Gravity or predeterminism. You are right, this isn't a debate, it seems religious gobbeldygook.

What that has to do with reproduction, I have no idea. Let alone scientific discussion.

Dear Graeme,

Perhaps you misread my answer. If we start to talk about predeterminism, then it'd no longer be a scientific discussion. It'd just become yet another religious debate. Let me clear the air. As we neuroscientists are exploring new possibilities and pathways of consciousness, we are getting to know that selection of thought is not never random, rather different factors influence the neural network to make a specific thought more intense, and fade out the others. On the other hand, while taking a decision, it's not the genetic traits or evolutionary characteristics that play the role; there's more to it than that. The cosmos, quantum gravity or to make it more simple and narrower - the geophysical parameters play a key role in coming up with a specific decision (my upcoming paper will cover that matter to some extent) . If a person is put to the same stressful situation over and over again, each time, he'd take different decision.

Best Wishes

A. Naskar

OK, I am willing to accept stochiometric processes, but I maintain that selection is anything but random. Uncertain perhaps, variant definitely but not random. We are getting into chaos theory where information is hidden by complexity rather than randomness where information is missing altogether. We are talking about rich information resources making decisions that are not "Logical" and seem random to the uninitiated.

Dear Graeme,

In this answer, you are right about the uncertainty, rather than being random. Just because we do not understand the complex interactions that come up with a decision, it doesn't mean that we should just leave it to the concept of the Supreme. There are too many factors, so it is quite early to create any "Unified" Theory of all. Neuroscience is still in infancy, we don't know nothing yet. But we are exploring every moment.

Abhijit, it is not that we know nothing, it's that we don't yet know what that we know is the most important. As we learn more, what we already know becomes less obviously all that we should know, but still we know what we know.

One of the problems with biological mechanisms is that they are so complex that information about one aspect of them, makes another aspect of them seem less interesting. It is tempting to throw out the baby with the bath water, and ignore what we already know, because some new fact seems to fly in its face.

My new book The Art of Neuroscience in Everything has recently been published. The book deals with a lot of mysterious characteristics of the human brain. Grab your copy and embark on a journey of scientific revelation through the mysterious human experiences, behaviors, feelings and instincts. like faith. love, religion, lust, attraction, sex, kindness, empathy, good and evil.

Best Wishes

A. Naskar

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Neuroscience-Everything-Abhijit-Naskar/dp/1508888779/

I do not know how brain thinks, but I know due to what it thinks. Please see: My answer to the question of Vitaly Voloshin in RG: ‘Is the end of our civilization encoded in human genome?’ DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2634.1605

And also: Discovery of Dozy Chaos and Discovery of Quanta: Analogy Being in Science and Perhaps in Human Progress, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-33914-1_6