https://archive.is/Ac0HJ

I would like to suggest that the mind has a holographic property, which means the more neurons in a cluster the more resolution they exhibit, at the same time as different parts of the minds specialize, and are dominant in various behavior loops, and these do raffle for consensus.

The illusion that is the singular self can run separate perspectives concurrently (sic., driving while self assembling a story narrative in the mind)

The random layperson's mind is a hodgepodge of their development. A well trained mind can compartmentalize, become sensitive to the slightest internal cognitive dispositions, and self specialize in ways you will accuse of being science fiction.

First, I was surprised Minsky's Society of Mind isn't mentioned. Worth checking out, if you are unfamiliar.

> A single “dictator neuron” can take charge of complex behaviors

My term for this theory is "Brain Pilots": https://breckyunits.com/brain-pilots.html

For me it's self evident the argument is false by way of contradiction. Assume it's true. There exists a consciousness nerve cell, with a nucleus and such as all nerve cells have, somewhere in the mind. As far as how the brain is "built" during the embryonic stage, you'd expect that cell to have a typical "home" in the brain or brainstem somewhere. Then that "home" would be a known spot where if a stroke occurs, or other damage, at once eliminates forever that persons consciousness. But not so common core area such as this has ever been found, suggesting our assumption in the first place, that such a cell exists, is false.

Now that's one extreme, the all commanding cell. It's also self-evident that cells aren't some 'set of equals' commune. Of course there are master cells that activate other cells in certain conditions. This is seen even in our deep learning nets where you may have a "I see a cat" neuron and "I see a dog" neuron that triggers the response program for those things.

That's all to say, reality is a place in between

Original (and updated) source: https://theconversation.com/is-your-nervous-system-a-democra...

> Is the nervous system a democracy?

I don't know much about neuroscience but right now democracy seems like a very nervous system.

> Scientists have long used the metaphor of government to explain how they think nervous systems are organized for decision-making.

I've never seen this happen and I can't imagine anyone in the present day using "government" to describe "organized decision making."

[flagged]

No? It's a meritocracy - evolution wouldn't spit out something that inefficient.

I suspect it's equivalent to a Universal Turing machine but I haven't seen any models or proofs on this. If that's the case then just like computers some nerve cells are switches that activate "programs" of thousands or more neurons, just like the article mentions.