Given that brain is able to perform a multitude of operation at a given time, why our attention only allocates one task a top priority and others are actually distracting? I know it may be a silly question, but those are often most intriguing...
Let us approach this problem from a slightly different direction. Let us see if we can identify an exception and then work backwards to see if we can establish a rule.
I believe that there is a at least one example of an animal that can multi-task - the octopus. When the animal is stationary but foraging for food, each tentacle is able to behave independently of all the rest and perform complex bi-lateral asymmetric behaviours. Examination of the octopus's nervous system reveals that it has nine-brains! It has a large bi-laterally structured central nervous system surrounded by eight smaller 'brains' each of which controls a separate tentacle.
Now, taking a small diversion:- anyone who has tried to learn how to play the piano will remember the awful angst of trying to get the left hand to do something different from the right hand - it was torture!
A great deal of research over the last twenty years or so, is pointing to the idea that it is the implicit order embodied by stimulus that is the primary structuring 'agent' of the brain. Because of the high degree of symmetry between the left and right side of our bodies, there would be a tendency for strong but, perhaps, inflexible connections to be stablished between them if they were forced to interact in the same area of the brain - especially during the development phase.
The evolution of the bi-neural brain allowed for the left and right side of bilaterally structured animals to be integrated independently during the development phase and allowed for higher level (real-time) integration subsequently. This gave bi-laterally structured animals the ability to exploit environments that were asymmetrically structured.
Interpreting the structure of the octopus in this light reveals that the animal evolved from a previous form that had a more bilateral structure. However, as evolutionary pressure favoured a more eight-fold symmetry a problem was posed that could not be solved by the bilaterally structured brain. Each hemisphere was being required to integrate independently four tentacles with identical structures - difficult. The solution - what we see today.
So, as far as the debate as to whether there is a real issue here or not - I think that the empirical evidence suggests that there is! For further evidence we might look to the eyes of the chameleon. They seem to behave quite independently suggesting that the animal's has two independent and coexistent 'attention modes'!! However, closer examination reveals that the eyes of the chameleon do not move at the same time! The animal's attention is directed to one visual hemisphere and then the other! But, of course, this just begs the question. To make further progress depends upon how the brain actually works.
The fractal catalytic model equates mental states with states of mediation - the brain mediates transitions be they physical or purely mental. All transitions are mediated about 'fixed points' or points of invariance between one state and the next. The so called 'attention' is the principle 'fixed point'.
The neural correlate of consciousness equates to a coherent wave function. The existence and persistence of this wave function depends upon it being an integrated solution to a set of boundary conditions (eg - stimulus). Because coherent conscious states can only be solutions to problems that do, in fact, have solutions - i.e - that are integratabe, this prohibits dynamic coherent solutions to separate and unrelated modes of mental behaviour that do not share 'fixed points'. In other words, the idea that there could be two independent and un-related functional modes that share a single point of attention is a physical (and mathematical) contraction!
Perhaps schizophrenia is the exception to this rule..
That agenda is often discussed in single task and multitasking discussions. As a personal opinion, I think human beings can only use one consciousness for one thought at a time. Under consciousness, I think that the consciousness of a person can only pay attention to one thing (only one thing can be thought). Instead, humans can think very deeply. Even when you are focusing on one thing, you can of course do some parallel tasks (notice the phone, scratch your back, keep walking). However, they are limited to things that do not require deep thinking, ie events that can be executed unconsciously. Complex tasks can not be accomplished under unconsciousness. Since humans only hold one consciousness, only one task can be executed at a time. Suppose that there are people who had special training to divide "consciousness" or who have two "consciousness", that person would be a truly multitasking person. However, such case may have a serious effect on mentalhealth.
In contrast, lower animals, such as insects or some fish, live with thinking not so deeply. In that level of thinking, I think that it is possible to do multitasking by using parallel processing such as neural ganglion. Therefore, I always think that I would like to see through their consciousness once.
Let us approach this problem from a slightly different direction. Let us see if we can identify an exception and then work backwards to see if we can establish a rule.
I believe that there is a at least one example of an animal that can multi-task - the octopus. When the animal is stationary but foraging for food, each tentacle is able to behave independently of all the rest and perform complex bi-lateral asymmetric behaviours. Examination of the octopus's nervous system reveals that it has nine-brains! It has a large bi-laterally structured central nervous system surrounded by eight smaller 'brains' each of which controls a separate tentacle.
Now, taking a small diversion:- anyone who has tried to learn how to play the piano will remember the awful angst of trying to get the left hand to do something different from the right hand - it was torture!
A great deal of research over the last twenty years or so, is pointing to the idea that it is the implicit order embodied by stimulus that is the primary structuring 'agent' of the brain. Because of the high degree of symmetry between the left and right side of our bodies, there would be a tendency for strong but, perhaps, inflexible connections to be stablished between them if they were forced to interact in the same area of the brain - especially during the development phase.
The evolution of the bi-neural brain allowed for the left and right side of bilaterally structured animals to be integrated independently during the development phase and allowed for higher level (real-time) integration subsequently. This gave bi-laterally structured animals the ability to exploit environments that were asymmetrically structured.
Interpreting the structure of the octopus in this light reveals that the animal evolved from a previous form that had a more bilateral structure. However, as evolutionary pressure favoured a more eight-fold symmetry a problem was posed that could not be solved by the bilaterally structured brain. Each hemisphere was being required to integrate independently four tentacles with identical structures - difficult. The solution - what we see today.
So, as far as the debate as to whether there is a real issue here or not - I think that the empirical evidence suggests that there is! For further evidence we might look to the eyes of the chameleon. They seem to behave quite independently suggesting that the animal's has two independent and coexistent 'attention modes'!! However, closer examination reveals that the eyes of the chameleon do not move at the same time! The animal's attention is directed to one visual hemisphere and then the other! But, of course, this just begs the question. To make further progress depends upon how the brain actually works.
The fractal catalytic model equates mental states with states of mediation - the brain mediates transitions be they physical or purely mental. All transitions are mediated about 'fixed points' or points of invariance between one state and the next. The so called 'attention' is the principle 'fixed point'.
The neural correlate of consciousness equates to a coherent wave function. The existence and persistence of this wave function depends upon it being an integrated solution to a set of boundary conditions (eg - stimulus). Because coherent conscious states can only be solutions to problems that do, in fact, have solutions - i.e - that are integratabe, this prohibits dynamic coherent solutions to separate and unrelated modes of mental behaviour that do not share 'fixed points'. In other words, the idea that there could be two independent and un-related functional modes that share a single point of attention is a physical (and mathematical) contraction!
Perhaps schizophrenia is the exception to this rule..
Real multitasking regarding the output of a structural oscillator is conceivable as a superposition of several structure waves of the same period length while assigning a specific task to each.
The said limitation is not due to limitated possibilities of Consciousness, but to an evolutive limitation of the brain Consciousness uses to interact with the environment.
Regarding the evolution of the species, real multitasking would have compromised their safety (ex. bigger response time...).
Great question.
I agree with you Taijun Hana . I wonder how would you explain driving a car. it is also multitasks that requires consciousness especially if you are driving a new road.
Dr Matoni,
Just because a task (eg - driving a car) can be broken down and described in terms of a number of sub tasks this does not necessarily imply that that these tasks are being performed independently - at the same time.
Playing the piano may seem to require a talent for doing two different things at the same time - one for each hand. Observation and deeper reflection reveals that each hand is actually integrated with the other and that this is possible because of the harmonic and temporal relations between them! In other words the behaviour of the hands are not integrated together directly - but indirectly through the unifying structure of the music.
I surmise that driving a car would involve a combination of task modes - both single task and multitask - some of which would require the attention alternating between one task and another. And other tasks that might seem to require two or more independent and simultaneous control (attention) modes, but, which, on examination would be seen to be integrated via a higher level functional mode - or task.
Dr. Matoni,
In my opinion, if a person is an experienced driver, driving itself is controlled by kinesthetic memory. In other words, it is brain activity involving the cerebellum and others.
The same as walking, stair climbing, and cycling, that person should be able to drive without thinking. As evidence, when driving a car home, mostly will arrive home without thinking anything. I also think that there are many reflexive controls for brake operations and reactions to traffic signals.
Conversely, when driving a whole new road, you need to concentrate your thinking on 'exploring the way'. Even in this case, as mentioned earlier, the "driving" of the car itself does not require "thinking". (If you are a novice driver, you may need "thinking")
However, I think that you can not do another work that requires thought during the thought of "exploring a new way". In other words, it will be quite difficult to modify the plan concerning the on-going land transaction project while searching for a new way. "Thinking" is deprived from either, it will overshoot the path, or forget the plan of revising the plan which he thought was thinking on the way. In some cases, even automatic operation may be affected, causing traffic accidents.
Ales Stuchlik, although one may not commonly find people who can truly multitask in the parallel sense (rather than rapid switching), they do appear to exist. One can find them by slowly adding tasks to a multitasking paradigm and waiting for task performance decrements. David Strayer's work shows this (here's a popular press writeup). They call them "supertaskers" and are supposedly representative of about 2-2.5% of people... my guess is it's actually a bit less, given the sampling methods used, but still; evidence it's possible. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170210-a-test-can-identify-supertaskers-but-only-a-few-pass-it
Another theory that may help explain your question is Threaded Cognition. Dario Salvucci & Niels Taatgen have a great book called The Multitasking Mind (https://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=9780199780396) which covers the theory and a continuum between concurrent and sequential multitasking, and their work in computer modeling of task switching between two tasks which supports their theory. For multitasking >2 tasks and some additional theory behind those more complicated applications, you might also check out the STOM model (https://www.researchgate.net/project/Strategic-Task-Overload-Model-STOM-Multitasking-Under-Load).
Dr Robert S. Gutzwiller
I am curious - supertaskers!!! -
Do you happen to know if these 'supertaskers' share anything else in common?
Chris
Christopher James Davia No, I don't. I think the work is pretty new... I imagine that they may share some high ratings on things like executive functioning tests, given the relationship to other task switching paradigms.
Dr Robert S. Gutzwiller
I was thinking more of autism!
Thanks for the reply.
Chris
15 hours ago Tim Bass - Thanks, i have updated the question. Thats what I had in my mind, the conscious processing.
Tim Bass there are relevant theories to account for some of your comments about listening to music vs. listening to an audio book. It is held within the notion of mental resources, which emerged out of debates about attention in psychology several decades ago. The theory has been proven out in a lot of different studies and remains highly relevant today -- see http://hci.rwth-aachen.de/tiki-download_wiki_attachment.php?attId=51
So the answer, from the applied psychology perspective, is that YES attention can be both serial (1 focused task at a time) or parallel in limited circumstances. The processing of information is part of the debate; you may perceive stimuli but not remember them unless cued, for example. Or you may "look but not see". And then there's the related phenomena of change blindness, which goes across modalities (both visual, audio, and recently - touch!).
- Badges
- Science topic