Farther to Go!

Brain-Based Transformational Solutions

  • Home
  • About
    • Farther to Go!
    • Personal Operating Systems
    • Joycelyn Campbell
    • Testimonials
    • Reading List
  • Blog
  • On the Road
    • Lay of the Land
    • Introductory Workshops
    • Courses
  • Links
    • Member Links (Courses)
    • Member Links
    • Imaginarium
    • Newsletter
    • Transformation Toolbox
  • Certification Program
    • Wired that Way Certification
    • What Color Is Change? Certification
    • Art & Science of Transformational Change Certification
    • Certification Facilitation
    • SML Certification
  • Contact

Making Sense of
Sensory Information

December 21, 2023 by Joycelyn Campbell Leave a Comment

On a continuous basis, our brain receives multiple streams of exteroceptive sensory data about the physical world and other people. At the same time it receives a steady stream of interoceptive data about us: our physical, mental, and emotional states.

We don’t have the necessary machinery, and we wouldn’t even want it, to process carefully all of the amount of information that we’re constantly bombarded with. —Susana Martinez-Conde, neuroscientist

We have to filter it, sort it, and make sense of it. The lenses or filters through which our brain views and processes the streams of information include:

  • Our mental model, which consists of our personality (much of which is genetically determined), our beliefs, and our experiences.
  • Our current situation or circumstances.
  • What we know or don’t know that’s relevant in the moment.

All of this data processing takes place in an environment in which everything everywhere is in motion all the time, everything is a process, and everything is an interpretation.

Perception vs. Reality

However, the previous statement, while true, does not reflect our experience. Our experience is that the world is full of relatively stable things that are inherently meaningful (that is, we’re not interpreting them; they simply are as we perceive them to be).

My brain manages to create for me the experience of a constant, unchanging world through which I move. —Chris Frith, neuropsychologist

Our brain creates this illusion and many, many more, all of which we take for granted. But in fact, nothing is static, fixed, or permanent; nothing is unchanging.

Because nothing is fixed or unchanging, there are no things—tangible or intangible—there are only processes. Each of us is a process composed of multiple processes: purely physical processes (blood flow, digestion) as well as personal identity, emotions, memories, thoughts, and relationships. Processes, both physiological and psychological, are a result of the multiple interactions (motion) of complex adaptive systems. Each of us is continuously in the making, becoming, being constituted.

Identity as a programmatic—but not deterministic—process welcomes innovation through small, recurring changes. Under these metaphysical assumptions, a meaningful life is less about finding your ‘real’ self than expanding its boundaries. —Celso Vieira, philosopher

The solar system, climate, ecosystems, life cycles, plants, and also the device you’re reading this on, your vehicle, and the mug you drink coffee or tea from are processes, too. Some of them just happen to be much longer processes than the process of you or the process of me.

The Interpreter Explains Everything

As previously stated, in order to make sense of what is happening externally and internally the brain has to interpret the data it’s exposed to.

[Your brain is] locked inside a bony skull, trying to figure what’s out there in the world. There’s no lights inside the skull. There’s no sound either. All you’ve got to go on is streams of electrical impulses which are only indirectly related to things in the world, whatever they may be. So perception—figuring out what’s there—has to be a process of informed guesswork in which the brain combines these sensory signals with its prior expectations or beliefs about the way the world is to form its best guess of what caused those signals. The brain doesn’t hear sound or see light. What we perceive is its best guess of what’s out there in the world. —Anil Seth, Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience, University of Sussex

Since the conscious brain only processes about 40 bits of information at a time, it has no idea of what the unconscious is dealing with. Thousands (perhaps millions) of brain activities go on relatively independently of one another and all outside the realm of conscious experience. Once these brain activities are expressed [action, thought, emotion], the expressions become events that the conscious system takes note of and that must be explained.

That is the job of an interpreter, so-called, in the left hemisphere of the brain that essentially explains us to ourselves. The interpreter constructs theories about why we act and behave the way we do based on the limited and fragmentary data available to it. (It’s a little bit like listening to a play-by-play announcer calling a game over the radio.)

Our conscious life is essentially an “afterthought” constructed by the interpreter.

In truth, when we set out to explain our actions, they are all post hoc explanations using post hoc observations with no access to nonconscious processing. Not only that, our left brain fudges things a bit to fit into a makes-sense story. Explanations are all based on what makes it into our consciousness, but actions and the feelings happen before we are consciously aware of them—and most of them are the results of nonconscious processes, which will never make it into the explanations. The reality is, listening to people’s explanations of their actions is interesting—and in the case of politicians, entertaining—but often a waste of time. (Michael Gazzaniga)

If you recall from the last article, our brain is more concerned with utility than with accuracy. As a result, the most satisfying explanations are the ones that are simple, straightforward, and unambiguous. If we find a satisfying explanation, we accept it as true and move on. Consider the implications.

Filed Under: Brain, Creating, Experience, Meaning, Mind, Perception, Reality, Wired that Way Tagged With: Anil Seth, Celso Vieira, Chris Frith, David Eagleman, Michael Gazzaniga, Susana Martinez-Conde

Hooked on The Brain with David Eagleman

October 30, 2015 by Joycelyn Campbell Leave a Comment

david eagleman brain3

I’ve just finished watching the third episode of this PBS series and I think I’m more hooked on David Eagleman and the brain than I was on J.R. Ewing and Dallas back in the 1980s. I’ve spent the past three and a half years intensely focused on learning as much as I can about brain, mind, and behavior, so I’m not really surprised that so far I’m familiar with everything that’s been presented in the first three episodes of The Brain. However, that hasn’t dampened my enthusiasm for the series. Quite the opposite. I’ve pre-ordered the DVD and look forward to many future viewings and to sharing the episodes in my classes. I’m thrilled to see this information put together so beautifully and made so widely available. Not everyone is hooked on the brain—at least not yet, anyway. Maybe more people will be after watching.

When I look back on the path to creating Farther to Go! a number of moments stand out. Of course, memory is a bit of a crapshoot when it comes to accuracy, but I do have physical evidence that these things actually happened when I recall them happening.

More than 20 years ago, when I was working as a substance abuse counselor, I came across a book by Richard Restak, The Brain Has a Mind of Its Own. The chapter of the same name described experiments in the 1980s by Benjamin Libet that identified a readiness potential that was observed in the brain prior to the subjects’ awareness of their desire to take a specific action. Quite a few people in a number of different disciplines seemed disconcerted by these findings, concerned about the fate of our so-called free will. I was fascinated. The implication was that things are not as they seem—or as we feel them to be. Restak’s a good writer and the rest of the chapters in his book were no doubt interesting, but all I recall is the information on Libet’s experiments. If you watched Episode #3 of The Brain, you saw some of the current research in this area.

A few years later, I took a biological psychology class that further whetted my interest in how the brain and mind (if they are indeed separate from each other) actually work. That’s where I first encountered the split-brain research of Michael Gazzaniga and Roger Sperry. I don’t know whether the instructor made a point of this particular research or whether I was particularly fascinated by it. But Gazzaniga’s name and research clicked into place for me when I came across them again several years ago. He’s the person who came up with the concept of the Inner Interpreter, which Eagleman alluded to when he mentioned how the conscious part of the brain comes up with a good story about why we’ve just done something.

In 2011, The New Yorker ran an article, titled The Possibillian, about a neuroscientist named David Eagleman, who had spent time living in Albuquerque, which is where I live. He had attended Albuquerque Academy, which is practically within walking distance, and lived in roughly the same part of town. At the time, he was studying “brain time”—essentially how and why our experience of time differs from the actual passage of time. I found the article interesting enough to have torn it out of the magazine and saved it, which isn’t something I do very often. A year or so later, I was browsing the shelves of a local bookstore and saw Eagleman’s name on the spine of a book titled Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain. Had I not known who he was, I might not have pulled the book off the shelf. And had the book I was actually looking for been available, I doubt I would have purchased Incognito.

The first chapter in Eagleman’s book, titled “There’s Someone In My Head, But It’s Not Me” (a tip of the hat to Pink Floyd), had enough references to things I already knew about, but expanded beyond anything I had previously been aware of, that I read all 19 pages standing next to my dining table without even taking my jacket off. I’ve since learned he studied literature before turning his full attention to neuroscience, which may explain his talent as a writer.

Just glancing through the pages of the book now and noting what I highlighted or earmarked reminds me of how excited I was to read and think about some of these things for the very first time. Concepts that seemed new or difficult to comprehend or somewhat improbable have become part of my mental model of the way the world—and my brain—work.

He closes the book with these words:

What a perplexing masterpiece the brain is, and how lucky we are to be in a generation that has the technology and the will to turn our attention to it. It is the most wondrous thing we have discovered in the universe, and it is us.

That’s exactly how I feel. I’m definitely hooked on the brain, with or without David Eagleman, but he’s a most excellent tour guide. Everyone should be watching this series!

Filed Under: Brain, Choice, Consciousness, Living, Mind, Unconscious Tagged With: Benjamin Libet, Brain, David Eagleman, Incognito, Michael Gazzaniga, Richard Restak

Why Right-Brain Left-Brain Is Wrong-Headed

May 6, 2015 by Joycelyn Campbell 1 Comment

left brain right brain

Conventional wisdom has it that some people are right-brained, meaning they tend to be creative, intuitive, and emotional, while others are left-brained, meaning they tend to be logical, analytical, and methodical. But once again conventional wisdom has vastly oversimplified and overstated the situation. (There’s a reason why conventional wisdom tends to function this way, but that’s another blog post.)

It’s true that the two hemispheres of the brain function differently. Much of what we know about the differences between the two hemispheres is the result of research conducted in the 1960s on patients with split brains. Normally the two hemispheres are in ongoing communication with each other via the bridge of fibers called the corpus callosum. But the corpus callosum was surgically severed in some epilepsy patients in a last-ditch attempt to relieve their symptoms.

Michael Gazzaniga, Roger Sperry, and two other researchers conducted the testing on these individuals that revealed some of the effects—many of them quite surprising—of cutting off communication between the hemispheres. Later on, Gazzaniga conducted additional research with Joseph LeDoux.

To me, the most interesting thing they discovered is what happens as a result of visual information no longer being passed from one hemisphere to another. Language is primarily a function of the left hemisphere. So although the right hemisphere could recognize an image not shown to the left hemisphere, it couldn’t communicate about it verbally. David Eagleman summarizes these experiments in his book Incognito. Remember that brain wiring is contralateral, which means that the right hemisphere processes information from the left visual field and controls the movements of the left hand—and vice versa for the left hemisphere.

In 1978, researchers Michael Gazzaniga and Joseph LeDoux flashed a picture of a chicken claw to the left hemisphere of a split-brain patient and a picture of a snowy winter scene to his right hemisphere. The patient was then asked to point at cards that represented what he had just seen. His right hand pointed to a card with a chicken, and his left hand pointed to a card with a snow shovel.

The experimenters asked him why he was pointing to the shovel. Recall that his left hemisphere (the one with the capacity for language), had information only about a chicken, and nothing else. But the left hemisphere, without missing a beat, fabricated a story: “Oh, that’s simple. The chicken claw goes with the chicken, and you need a shovel to clean out the chicken shed.”

When one part of the brain makes a choice, other parts can quickly invent a story to explain why. If you show the command “Walk” to the right hemisphere (the one without language), the patient will get up and start walking. If you stop him and ask why he’s leaving, his left hemisphere, cooking up an answer, will say something like “I was going to get a drink of water.”

The chicken/shovel experiment led Gazzaniga and LeDoux to conclude that the left hemisphere acts as an “interpreter,” watching the actions and behaviors of the body and assigning a coherent narrative to these events. And the left hemisphere works this way even in normal, intact brains.

One important thing to remember is that for people with intact brains, the two hemispheres remain in constant communication with each other. We are whole-brained people who use both parts of our brain all the time, including during the creative process and in the course of logical problem-solving.

Although this, too, is an oversimplification, it’s closer to the mark to say that if we did not have language or discernment, our creative ideas would be useless and possibly incoherent. And if we did not have emotion and imagination, we would have no context for decision making.

Not only is neither hemisphere “better” than the other, you may be surprised at the conclusion Gazzaniga has reached about which hemisphere is more “conscious” and which hemisphere is more literal.

After many years of fascinating research on the split brain, it appears that the inventing and interpreting left hemisphere has a conscious experience very different from that of the truthful, literal right brain. Although both hemispheres can be viewed as conscious, the left brain’s consciousness far surpasses that of the right. Which raises another set of questions that should keep us busy for the next 30 years or so.

I’m looking forward to the results of that additional research!

Filed Under: Beliefs, Brain, Consciousness, Creating, Living, Mind, Wired that Way Tagged With: Creativity, David Eagleman, Logic, Michael Gazzaniga, Right-Brain Left-Brain, Split-brain

The State of a Mind

March 27, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell 1 Comment

Mind Games no.171
(Photo credit: dek dav)

State of mind—the state of our cognitive processes—is a kind of framework within which we operate any time we’re awake. Some basic states of mind are:

Distracted
Mindful
Focused
Autopilot
Flow
Wandering/Daydreaming
Meditative
Ruminative
Reflective
Anxious

There are more states that could be added to this list, but these 10 cover a pretty wide swath of the territory. Obviously our minds are important to us. Where would we be without them? They are running at one speed or another, in one direction or another, all day long. And yet I doubt we pay much attention to the state our mind is in from one moment to the next.

When I started writing this post, I was somewhat distracted, but now I’m more focused. Focused seems like a more appropriate state of mind for composing a post on states of mind—or on anything, really. Anxious or meditative wouldn’t help get the post written, nor would daydreaming or being on autopilot. Some reflection would be helpful; in fact, I’m going to slip into a reflective state of mind in a minute. Rumination, on the other hand, would just slow the whole process down.

…

During my reflection, I realized that I engage in a lot of activities that require my mind to be focused. I find many of these activities enjoyable, but whether or not I enjoy being focused, focus and concentration use more energy than some other states of mind do. Being on autopilot is much easier, as is daydreaming and being in flow. It’s no accident that autopilot is the default state of mind; it consumes a pretty insignificant amount of energy.

Mindful and meditative states of mind, while unarguably and demonstrably beneficial, can’t be maintained indefinitely, which means they fall toward the high energy-using end of the spectrum.

Our states of mind come and go, ebb and flow, throughout any given day. Occasionally they do so by our bidding, but more often they shift on their own. We are not in charge of our brain, says Michael Gazzaniga, and this is simply more evidence of that.

If we were to pay attention to our state of mind to try to identify what it is, we might discover whether or not it’s a good match for what we’re trying to do in the moment. If it isn’t, maybe we could do that thing later, when our state of mind is a better match. Or maybe we could take a few minutes and change not our mind, but our state of mind. Simply recognizing that we are always operating within one state of mind or another—as is everyone else—might help to eliminate some of our inner and interpersonal conflict.Enhanced by Zemanta

Filed Under: Brain, Consciousness, Habit, Living, Mind, Unconscious Tagged With: Autopilot, Brain, Daydreaming, Distraction, Focus, Meditating, Michael Gazzaniga, Mind, Mindfulness, State of Mind

Subscribe to Farther to Go!

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new Farther to Go! posts by email.

Search Posts

Recent Posts

  • No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
  • Always Look on
    the Bright Side of Life
  • The Cosmic Gift & Misery
    Distribution System
  • Should You Practice Gratitude?
  • You Give Truth a Bad Name
  • What Are So-Called
    Secondary Emotions?

Explore

The Farther to Go! Manifesto

Contact Me

joycelyn@farthertogo.com
505-332-8677

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • On the Road
  • Links
  • Certification Program
  • Contact

Copyright © 2025 · Parallax Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in