About This Website
This website explores the unknown,
based on a simple, but powerful insight about the enigma of the human
mind. Many eminent scientists, in the fields of quantum mechanics,
neural networks, artificial intelligence and cognitive science have sought to uncover the underlying mechanism of the mind. Surprisingly, among numerous theories, there is not a single one, which can
explain common sense, or love and compassion. In order to understand the functions of nerve cells, scientific research should move away from its present computational model and seek to evaluate a pattern recognition model.
It is impossible for computation to explain the massive subtlety of the mind. Can an adding
machine feel compassion? This website presents the brilliant insight that your mind senses patterns. By evaluating molecules in
the air, your nose senses the fragrance of a flower. From that
humble beginning, you can understand why you stand in awe of a
sunset, or weep in anguish at the loss of a loved one. The concept
can lead to innumerable explanations of how the mind works.
- The "Mind Computes" view of
science makes it impossible to explain common sense, or love.
Neither do the current scientific theories explain the subtlety of a
smile. But, the creative concept that the mind recognizes patterns logically explains a million such mysteries.
- Funding limitations compel science to take
small incremental steps rather than attempt an uncertain leap into a new
view of the mind. A focus on pattern recognition by the mind can offer an opportunity for many resounding successes for the scientific establishment.
- The maths approach fails to explain the mind. Yet many dedicated
portions of the nervous system are acknowledged to recognize unique
- Only a prodigious memory and not computation can
explain the subtlety of the mind. The existence of a massive memory has already been uncovered with the recently
discovered principle of combinatorial coding for pattern
- Intuition enables the mind to extract contextual
knowledge from its own galactic database. Intuition remains to
be the elemental discovery of science.
- In presenting this fundamental insight,
this website does not follow the traditional scientific methods of
presenting this data. If these concepts correlate to your experience
and link together in a common sense way, then imagine how that global
view can benefit you!
- By avoiding medical/software
terminology, external references and jargon, this website seeks to
enable an interested reader to grasp the power of a grand concept.
Science does point to the complexity of
the mind. Typically, Karl Friston compared the assembled knowledge in
the nervous system to the accumulated complexity of waves in a pond. He
suggested that those waves carried memories of turbulences created by
all the raindrops, or even pebbles, which ever fell into the pond.
The concept powerfully pictures an unimaginable complexity. But, it
completely fails to explain instant identification of a single memory; or your ability to comprehend the difference between
a smile and a grin.
Sadly, the simple idea that the whole mind
senses patterns is unlikely to be accepted by mainstream science any time soon.
Because, the concept covers too wide a territory and demands too many
explanations. It is as untimely as a round earth theory would have
been 2300 years ago. Those were the times of Aristotle, the founder
of modern science. Gravity was yet to be discovered. If earth was
round, why didn't people fall off? It needed a huge leap of faith to
ignore that issue. There are other reasons, why such a broad concept remains unattractive to science.
At the outset, science
sensibly avoids broad visions. Scientists, who speed read journal
abstracts by the hour, mean no ill. They painfully trudge for years
up varied alleys and peer through, mostly to find they are blind.
Thousands of failed experiments burden their minds. Faced with
constant and tedious toil, they know that beaten paths save valuable
time. In such a world, it is annoying to suggest leaps of faith.
Only small incremental visions are accepted. Not huge insights, like
pattern sensing by the mind.
There are still more problems for this
concept. Science worships maths. Large sections of the scientific
community fondly hope to discover a maths formula to explain the
mind. So, the idea that the mind does not compute, but recognizes
patterns can hardly be popular. But, does the mind use recognition,
or maths? Consider the evidence:
With damage to a small
sliver of your cortex, you cannot keep your eyes closed and recognize
a pair of scissors by touch. Medical text books place responsibility
for recognition of objects by touch to that bit of your cortex.
There is another organ, which recognizes the significance of a smell
and still another, dedicated to just recognizing hand movements. Can
you imagine a mathematical formula, which can recognize the anguish
in a colleague's face? Mirror neurons do exactly that. Science
acknowledges that huge sections of your mind just recognize
Recognition can also explain human memory. Actually,
nature's miracles depend on vast coded memories. If the DNA codes in
the human body were written into 500 page books, those tomes will
fill the Grand Canyon 50 times over! Those codes build your eyes and
your finger nails, among other things. You can recognize a pair of
scissors by touch, because you remember how it feels. Which means
your system has a memory for that feel.
Memories are the key
to intelligence. In 2004, a Nobel Prize was awarded for the
discovery that the mind recognizes smells using a combinatorial code.
In theory, such codes can store astronomically large memories.
Actually, the whole mind senses patterns and acts using the the same
process. But an acceptance of that idea again needs a huge leap of
These pages suggest that intuition is a routine, which
enables your mind to recognize patterns. Every instant, it is
intuition, which enables the machine to process cubic miles of
information to manage your life. When you begin to speak, it
generates a feeling, organizes the concept, chooses words, arranges
the sentence, retains grammar and manipulates your muscles to guide
the tone and tenor of each uttered word. All this is done before you
can even begin to say “But, ...”
But, intuition itself is
yet to be discovered and evaluated in detail by science. Professor
Carver Mead of CalTech once predicted that science could discover it
by 2050. This website offers an explanation, without your having to
wait that long. Again, you need a leap of faith to accept the
possibility that intuition is a simple algorithm.
also breaks with science to suggest that specifc regions in the brain
focus on specific functions. Scientists report activity in many
regions, when any function is performed. They reject the concept of
functional independence, viewing the mind to be an integrated
computational network. But these pages build the structure of the
mind on functional regions. The olfactory system distinguishes odors.
The amygdala triggers fear, or anger.
The insula initiates
social emotions. The cerebellum coordinates habitual actions. The
prefrontal regions deliver unemotional judgments. These regions must
be independent, because their damage cause the related functions to
largely disappear. Intuition and combinatorial coding, as explained
in these pages can enable complex teamwork among such regions. This
view of functional separation brings clarity to how the mind
perceives, interprets and responds to the environment. If this is
“over simplification,” then, so be it!
This website also
does not follow the scientific route in presenting experimental data.
A science paper has to be peer reviewed and extensively tested.
This website does refer to the success of its ideas elsewhere. But,
many of its concepts have not been scientifically tested. Yet they
reflect general personal experience.
The results are presented
on the assumption that human minds are similar and what is applicable
for one will be generally applicable for another. You are bound
evaluate your own experience and decide if the ideas are valid. That
is the best way to recognize the overall pattern of the concepts
It was Glen Kezwer, who advocated using your mind as a
research lab to study experience. "The cost to the government
exchequer and the people is nil, no research grants need be applied
for, no progress reports are necessary and there is no need to be
concerned about the renewal of funding. There is also no pressure to
publish papers, technical reports or books on the experiment."
pages contain both known scientific data and a host of assumptions.
Except in a few places, references to scientific journals are not
provided to validate data. Such explanations have been avoided,
because wading through a mixture of "scientific certainties"
and "unproved theories" could prevent you from sensing the
grand underlying pattern. But, in every case, "unproved
theories" refer to Kezwer verifiable experiences. You can
personally ascertain its applicability.
The objective of this
website is to make the contents readable to a lay person with an
abiding interest in improving the quality of his life. An
explanation aimed at pure science will contain medical and software
terminology associated with neurology, computers and the mind. That
will make it obscure and inscrutable to the layman. Such jargon has
been avoided. For the sake of simplicity, explanations of internal
linking mechanisms of the mind have also not been detailed.
Terminology has been minimized to avoid subtle barriers to
understanding. These pages aim to enable an ordinary person to
genuinely benefit from a new global view of complex neural
This page was last updated on 19-Oct-2015.