A neurological basis for randomised non-logical thought generation: a speculative hypothesis
A neurological basis for randomised non-logical thought generation: a speculative hypothesis
Dr. Sebastian Mathew, DO, DNB, FRCS(GLASG)
Definition: A randomised non-logical thought generation (RNTG) refers to any conclusion or derivation arrived at without any objective or even subjective basis and in the absence of a conscious or deliberate thought process to arrive at the same.
What I mean by this are processes like ‘guesses’, ‘hunches’, ‘intuition’ and by a rather long extrapolation even phenomena like ‘extra-sensory perception’. What I find intriguing is the fact that these do turn out right at times and there may be even individuals who rather consistently get it right. I do believe that there is more than the laws of probability at work here. And I think I might even have a plausible explanation for this.
I am theorising that association fibres between different areas of the brain are the key here. My understanding of neurological development is that there are innumerable association fibres/pathways in the developing brain. The ones that get reinforced stay on while the rest undergo atrophy or do not undergo further development. Any sensory stimuli to be recognised needs to be picked up by the perceptive apparatus, transferred to the corresponding sensory area of the brain and ‘recognised’ by the relevant recognition area. If there is no association between these areas, there is perception without recognition. Here, I would like to digress into synesthesia where a particular sensory stimulus invokes not just the relevant perception but also one in a different modality of sensation. For e.g. A music note may bring on the perception of a colour. This is thought to be due to an aberrant association between these areas.
I think RNTGs also occur due to a similar aberrant association between different areas of the brain. The reasons may be congenital or acquired. Acquired aberrant association would be a kind of inadvertent ‘learning’ where repeated similar situations cause reinforcement of an aberrant association. Now this might be a ‘valid’ association where the perception is accurate in that the stimulus is a true association of the original situation and the process holds true every time it is repeated. Or it might be an ‘invalid’ association where the reinforcement takes place because of a coincidental association and the process does not hold true each time it is repeated. I believe it is because of these ‘invalid’ associations that RNTGs go ‘wrong’ at times.
As mentioned earlier, by a quantum extrapolation, perhaps even phenomena like extra sensory perception might be explained. It is quite possible that for every event there might be a number of valid associations which are perceived but not recognised due to an absence of the relevant association fibres. This non-development may have been due to confounding coincidental ‘invalid’ associations or due to some unknown reason. If the relevant association fibres have developed, the ‘aberrant’ connection can induce an extra perception. The subject ‘senses’ this. Take the example of an astrologer who seeing a person predicts illness for him. Perhaps he perceives a valid association which he is not aware of but at the same time recognises. It might be a pallor of the skin, or liver spots or something similar (the smell of rotten apples!??).
There seems to be some linguistic basis for this too. Phrases like ‘the smell of fear’, ‘green with envy’ I believe reflect valid associations. Rather than representing a valid association for the general population at large, it might have been a valid association for popular litterateurs which later due to socio-cultural factors got integrated in the language.
Would it be possible to prove this?
If a subject with a repeatable RNTG is identified can PET Scans identify the ‘aberrant’ association fibres? Or is there any other way it can be done?
Any suggestions about this?
Dr. Sebastian Mathew, DO, DNB, FRCS
What I mean by this are processes like ‘guesses’, ‘hunches’, ‘intuition’ and by a rather long extrapolation even phenomena like ‘extra-sensory perception’. What I find intriguing is the fact that these do turn out right at times and there may be even individuals who rather consistently get it right. I do believe that there is more than the laws of probability at work here. And I think I might even have a plausible explanation for this.
I am theorising that association fibres between different areas of the brain are the key here. My understanding of neurological development is that there are innumerable association fibres/pathways in the developing brain. The ones that get reinforced stay on while the rest undergo atrophy or do not undergo further development. Any sensory stimuli to be recognised needs to be picked up by the perceptive apparatus, transferred to the corresponding sensory area of the brain and ‘recognised’ by the relevant recognition area. If there is no association between these areas, there is perception without recognition. Here, I would like to digress into synesthesia where a particular sensory stimulus invokes not just the relevant perception but also one in a different modality of sensation. For e.g. A music note may bring on the perception of a colour. This is thought to be due to an aberrant association between these areas.
I think RNTGs also occur due to a similar aberrant association between different areas of the brain. The reasons may be congenital or acquired. Acquired aberrant association would be a kind of inadvertent ‘learning’ where repeated similar situations cause reinforcement of an aberrant association. Now this might be a ‘valid’ association where the perception is accurate in that the stimulus is a true association of the original situation and the process holds true every time it is repeated. Or it might be an ‘invalid’ association where the reinforcement takes place because of a coincidental association and the process does not hold true each time it is repeated. I believe it is because of these ‘invalid’ associations that RNTGs go ‘wrong’ at times.
As mentioned earlier, by a quantum extrapolation, perhaps even phenomena like extra sensory perception might be explained. It is quite possible that for every event there might be a number of valid associations which are perceived but not recognised due to an absence of the relevant association fibres. This non-development may have been due to confounding coincidental ‘invalid’ associations or due to some unknown reason. If the relevant association fibres have developed, the ‘aberrant’ connection can induce an extra perception. The subject ‘senses’ this. Take the example of an astrologer who seeing a person predicts illness for him. Perhaps he perceives a valid association which he is not aware of but at the same time recognises. It might be a pallor of the skin, or liver spots or something similar (the smell of rotten apples!??).
There seems to be some linguistic basis for this too. Phrases like ‘the smell of fear’, ‘green with envy’ I believe reflect valid associations. Rather than representing a valid association for the general population at large, it might have been a valid association for popular litterateurs which later due to socio-cultural factors got integrated in the language.
Would it be possible to prove this?
If a subject with a repeatable RNTG is identified can PET Scans identify the ‘aberrant’ association fibres? Or is there any other way it can be done?
Any suggestions about this?
posted by Sebastian at 7:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home