On the Idea of Neural Networks

Have you ever stopped to think about your existence. To think about your conscious mind and the fact that it exists when it more easily could have not. Each of us is here by chance. We were the lucky egg. And what does it mean to even have a conscience? This is the question that troubles both scientists and psychologists today. It revolves around the idea of cognitive science. But what even is cognitive science? One comprehensive definition is that cognitive science is the study of the mind and its interdisciplinary processes. But as we have started to notice in our class and discussions, the mind can be a confusing topic of conversation. “Handy Guide”, by Dean Young, puts an interesting twist on the idea of cognitive science, and I believe the poem successfully embodies one of the reasons the mind is so difficult to understand. This is because the world looks different to each beholder.

            In “Handy Guide” Young stresses the theme that what we see in the world is based completely on the viewer’s perspective and mind.

“My dragon may be your neurotoxin

Your electrocardiogram may be my fortune cookie.”

What does it even mean, to compare a dragon to a neurotoxin?! Dragons symbolize strength and power, and a neurotoxin is something that has the ability to infect the mind. Not only does this image outline the idea that people see the world differently, but it also plays on the idea that the mind is easily tainted. This serves to tie the idea of cognitive science to neuroscience. If the mind is truly a manifestation created by the brain, then one would think that altering that part of the brain responsible for creating the mind would indeed affect our cognitive abilities. We saw this in Jane Austen’s “Persuasion”, where damage to Louisa’s brain led to a personality shift, thus making her seem like an entirely different person. So where does the connect between the neurological part of the brain start? This is a questions that has puzzled researchers for decades, and solving this mystery would bridge the gap needed to make advances in terms of understanding of cognitive science, theory of mind, and development of AI.

            Furthermore, my favorite line from the poem is, “The minor adjustments in our equations/ still indicate the universe is insane.” The idea that the universe can even be “insane” suggests that it has a mind. Whoa. There’s a thought. Can the universe think? Or does this, perhaps, suggest that there is a universal train of thought? I’m not suggesting that people all think the same. In fact, if anything, Young shows us how individual differences cause us all to see the world in our own unique way. But there are some things that are indeed universal. People believe that they are mortal. People believe that the Earth is real, and that they are not the only person here. There are universal, seemingly natural, thoughts that we all share. But what does this mean for cognitive science? It seems to suggest that maybe there is a possible model for the mind that can be created. While we are not there yet, several advances have been made in this area in recent years.  

            One of these models involves the idea of neural networks. Neural networks are thought to essentially “map” human thought. Here is an example of a connectionist model, which is a theory about how human thoughts may be mapped in the brain: http://itee.uq.edu.au/~cogs2010/cmc/home.html. Specific pieces of information have connections in the brain, which overlap and connect to other pieces of information. The idea is that this would basically create a giant web of thoughts, which our mind can navigate in the blink of an eye when retrieving information.

            But what becomes complicated is when these networks are not the same for everyone. One person may connect the idea of skydiving with joy, while another connects it with the death of a family member – “My dragon may be your neurotoxin.” This relationship could lead to different mappings. Brain plasticity may allow for changes in neural maps as well. This makes it extremely difficult to come up with models that work for all human cognition, which leaves much room for discussion and exploration.