Brains of Sand       X          Consciousness and Reticular Formation

This section continues to explore the links between emotions and consciousness introduced in the previous section C. The multilevel relationship depicted in figure C.3 is an abstraction of behaviorist concepts, as the following text shows. 

Consciousness and emotionality are presented by TDE theory for the very first time in their proper context - as evolution's main achievements for animals (ie cogmata whose highest fractal order is TDE level 2). We humans also use this system - indeed, for many modern activities, such as commuting using self-drive vehicles, level-2 governance is more than adequate for short-term, tactical interactions. When the journey's goal-pursuit involves strategic planning (eg using maps, electronic or paper), this is no longer true, strictly speaking. The map is a prosthetic form of TDE level #3 data representation, normally referred to as 'memory', or 'knowledge'.

The Consciousness-Emotionality adaptation loop is at its most transparent (and therefore more easily learned) at the Behaviourism  level,  where the operation of the unit sensorimotor loop or reflex  is given as the simple formula IF stimulus > threshold THEN motor/glandular response. Initially, the self, whose mechanism is the QOLEM, or qualiate GOLEM, captures the temporal sequence between a distal Conditioned Stimulus (CS) class and a proximal Unconditioned Stimulus (UCS) unit, a mapping known as Classic Conditioning (CC), and associated with John B. Watson. If this temporal correlation passes the viability criteria as causation, the learned CS* --> UCS associative link becomes a useful predictive tool. The empirical exemplar most frequently used for this process is Pavlov's Dog - when the bell rings initially, the dog hears it but experiences no visceral response. Then the experimenter performs the temporal pairing, ringing the bell and then putting minced meat in the dog's dinner bowl, leaving as small a time interval as is practical^^. In more realistic situations, it will be the appearance of the food source (eg the smell of the blood of a recently slaughtered animal, or the sound of a can being opened) which is associated with the smell and taste of the food itself.

The important factor to remember when learning these paradigms**, is to understand how they help animals to survive in the wild, both individually and together. CC and OL are the afferent and efferent constituents of the compounded form of behaviour, the extended reflex. CC is the representational phase, performing a predictive, cybernetically feedforward, role. In this 'front-end' role, single conscious tokens of a given perceptual property class are dynamically linked to their appropriate (and unconscious, of course) endocrine function, thenceforth acting as its sensory trigger. OL is the second, trial-and-error phase. The goal seeking mechanism (a cybermaton) recursively decomposes the drive-state differential into trial and error TOTE cycles*** . These cycles test-and-reject various UCR-CR* candidates, until the test-and-accept step, indicating  that the correct CR* (the one that triggers the CS* to a sufficient degree) has been identified. This can happen very quickly indeed- witness the rodent placed into a metal box (called a Skinner Box after B.F. Skinner- see Figure X.a below) in which the floor is (mildly) electrified. The animal jumps around in discomfort, making random movements (a form of non-directed experimentation). After a short period of time**, it accidentally pushes the 'off' switch (usually a foot pad or lever) -after all, it is a small box. On each subsequent occasion it takes less and less time to cancel the aversive stimulus, until it goes directly to the off-switch. The animal is deemed to have learned the 'operant'. O.L. demonstrates Thorndike's Law of Effect.

Figure X.a

So what is really going on here? The selection of the right target CR* represents the most basic type of behavioural evaluation (feedback). Each reflex 'thread' or unit is being judged on the basis of its ability to satisfy the endocrine drive (the  autonomic,  homeostatically governed UCS, eg thirst, hunger, which are all types of pain reduction) which lies at its core, and is in fact the very reason it exists in the first place. At higher levels of abstraction, this simple act of performance evaluation (did it work?) morphs into the far more complex, and multi-hued system-state evaluation we call Emotionality. This idea is depicted in figure X.1 below. Feelings about ourselves and feelings about our current situation are not independent- indeed, the former is in most, though not all cases dependent on the latter. Therefore we seek those situations familiar enough to to win our interest and fealty, yet novel enough to be profitable. 

*Cogmata is a hybrid of Cognitive and Automata. The degrees of neology are- (a) inventive wordsmithing and acronymony, freed from conservative authorship practices, yields terms which are short, memorable and punchy, thus significantly improving the readability of dense and impenetrable  text, but may alienate academic peers (b) unique combinations derived by hyphenating existing terms is the safe middle ground (c) just say no- instead, append long-winded, nested explanatory phrases on to standard taxonomic words and expressions, the least acceptable option, which sacrifices readability on the altar of tradition.

**if the animal's experimental search for the operants is ultimately unsuccessful, it lapses into a condition called 'forced passivity', in which it accepts the pain level as inevitable, and refrains from further, wasteful, exploratory activity.

Figure X.1

What good does it do us to experience emotions, whatever the level of abstraction? The answer is that the Emotions are the primary authors of Consciousness. They rank the contents of Consciousness according to both environmental relevance and inherited preference equally.

WHAT emotionality and consciousness are must not be confused with the analysis of HOW they are implemented (emulated and/or simulated). The HOW appears in a separate section below, and serves as a road map toward the ultimate goal of the manufacture of a human brain, a duplex hierarchical reticulum which (a) supports mind, the bilateral functional stratum responsible for behaviour goal authorship, planning and governance (b) supports self, the unilateral functional stratum responsible for semantic goal generation and communication (speech, thought) via memory (ie knowledge state hierarchies) authorship and governance.

*This explanation has been very long-winded because it has to lay firm foundations for multi-level understandings.

**the Emotions are used to rank the contents of Consciousness according to both environmental relevance and inherited preference equally 

**While most psychology students have little difficulty understanding Classic Conditioning, they seem to falter with Operant Conditioning, CC's dual (ie complementary) learning paradigm. Often the lecturer is themselves unsure of the material, a result of their reticence toward a topic which belongs to Behaviorism's dark and distant past, right?. Unfortunately, CC and OL are keystone concepts in contemporary theories (including TDE).

^^ a small but positive latency gives (i) maximum strength and (ii) minimum asymptotic latency (learning time). 

Now consider the associative linkages (UCS <-- CS <-- CS' , and UCR --> CR --> CR' ) in figure X.1

Behaviourist theory assumed these were linear (ie chains of 1:1 links) with little or no divergence (1:m) or convergence (n:1), whereas in reality, they are richly branched data structures with multiple levels of abstraction. Computer scientists call this general class of representation 'trees'. They are made from branched neural circuits (brain level) because they must represent the recursive nesting of predicate semantics (mind level) in fractal memory systems. This nesting permits categorical addressing^, the use of names (high level) rather than locations (low level) to manage stored information in larger chunks. 

The central region of figure X.1 which encapsulates the instincts which are genetically inherited, ie the unconditioned stimuli and responses.  This way of depicting inherited reflexes (instincts) displays a uniformity which is deceptive. There are two separate parts of the organism which possess such instincts, the internal metabolism (roughly, the glands and visceral cavities) and the external sensorimotor apparatus^ (roughly, the muscular mechanism).  The external sensorimotor systems must be flexible enough to permit each individual to cope with a much wider variation in the characteristics of the physical environment over its lifetime. This is particularly relevant to individual and grouped humans, who possess not only the ability to use available materials as tools, and to find comfortable resting and working postures in all kinds of places, but to further optimise behaviour in a way that permits them to compete with the existing species in that ecological niche. This challenge has usually only one outcome- humans drive out all other occupants, and seize the resources for themselves. Therefore, the ability of the individual to modify instinctual behaviours may be the super-weapon which, over a mere million years, a blink of an eye in evolutionary time, transformed a once vulnerable bipedal ape* into the ultimate apex predator. 

In other words, the metabolic drive-state differentials in the L-lobe act as the internal drivers of external behaviour- agency flows outward from them to the generators of external behaviour- the F-, T- and P-lobes which surround the L-lobe. Figure X.1, which is based on a modified GOLEM model, attempts to describe this complex state of affairs, but fails to generate the clarity needed. The TDE fractal architecture (see figure X.2 below) is morphologically equivalent to the GOLEM, but is able to display the finer functional distinctions with greater clarity. The  TDE pattern also matches the actual arrangement of lobes in the real brain. The labels in figure X.2 (eg LCH as the global F-lobe, etc) have been explained fully in sections 1..9 of this website. 

^We find this idea reflected in the separation of medical science into physiology and anatomy.

*Zuberbuhler, K et al (2002) Leopard predation and primate evolution. Journal of Human Evolution, Vol. 43, Issue 6, 2002, p. 873-886

.

Figure X.2

Figure X.3

The reasons for the existence of the reticular formations (descending and ascending) are as follows- (a) that a 'standby' architecture is needed to prevent excessive time delays in bringing deeply nested meaning hierarchies up to full speed from rest, and (b) all behavior must ultimately serve metabolic needs. Figure X.3 above depicts the subsystems whose functions are described in the next section.

The first of these two systemic requirements means that during waking periods, the brain must generate meta-inhibition of default mode excitatory layers.  The task of the descending reticular formations (DRAS) is to maintain default (background) excitation of 'hardware'/body organisational hierarchies, together with superimposed inhibitory signals, resulting in tonic readiness of neural circuitry. This is sometimes called 'standby' mode after the design of digital televisions in which purpose of the handheld remote control is paradoxical- to 'switch off the off switch' if you will. The more technical term is meta-inhibition*. Meta-inhibitory, or standby, systems have very low latency, but rather high cost when 'idling'. Warm-bloodedness is the best known biological standby scheme, enabling mammals to get the 'jump' on their reptile competitors on cold frosty mornings. However, there is a cost- mammals must hunt for regular meals, unlike reptiles, which can lie in wait until the next opportunity.  

The second of these systemic requirements means that, in addition to maintaining 'standby' readiness of hardware layers, the DRAS must also command the ARAS to maintain the 'standby' readiness of the software layers responsible for conscious arousal functions. The curious reader may wonder why there are two branches of the reticular system when on the face of it, one would suffice. The answer is bound up in the chief reason we sleep - memory consolidation. In order to adjust effector subsystem defaults, in response to accumulated daily errors, the hardware and software layers must be separately switchable**. The hardware layer is switched off during REM sleep (a process called 'sleep paralysis') to allow hardware 'adjustments', while the (3 or 4, depending on who you believe) software layers are switched off in order, then switched back on in reverse order, during non-REM sleep episodes N1..N3..N1 
- see figure X.4 below. 

*A low-tech example invented in the 19th Century is the Bendix brake on railway carriages. The purpose of the pressurised air supplied to the braking system is not to apply the brakes, but to temporarily block the air supply to the cylinders which normally prevent large springs from applying the brakes. This is of course the famous 'fail safe' system which causes all carriages to screech to a halt when any of the emergency braking handles are pulled. 

**This is done for a similar reason as turning the electricity supply off before replacing faulty switches. 

Figure X.4

This is not the entire story, however. Figure X.5 below (which is figure C.3 reprinted for convenience) depicts the dependence of consciousness on emotionality. This multi-level relationship is the higher order abstraction of the DRAS-->ARAS link, and suggests a starting point for a more detailed explanation for the observed connection between RAS and emotions.

Figure X.5