How does the conscious mind keep a consistent train of thought?
If you have been in, or watched, an in depth discussion on a topic, maybe you have noticed how amazing the mind can be at referencing details which combine to make a particular point, which combines with other points to suggest an overall idea. How can the brain function with such temporary consistency involving such complexity?
In order for the brain to perform a function with such consistency, it seems there must be a network of combinations involved. Since the mind of someone can have an output of communication of information which is a combination construction of many smaller portions, which combine for a larger portion, which can combine with other larger portions to make an overall pinnacle, the mind must be performing in a similar manner to create this output construction.
Assuming all thoughts and ideas function by neurological memory access (as further thought through in a post from 3+ yrs ago; Theory of Thought), it seems rational that the mind’s consistency would function through memory access using neurological combination constructions (as I further constructed in a post from 1.5 yrs ago; Concept Neural Combo). If the mind's consistency is a large neurological combination of smaller combination portions, it seems each level of combination of memories must be connected through relativity.
In any construction of memory of factors, the connections must be relative, otherwise the combination and overall thought is not significant. The relative connections of factors which are being accessed in memory, would be cause and effect. If there is no interaction of cause and effect between factors, then it seems there is no relevance, and it is just random pointless disorder. Relative connections and orderly combinations seem to be a consistent concept in this world which is the source for virtually any meaning (as I further further considered in a post from about 1 month ago; The Meaning of Meaning).
For the brain to keep the consistency of memory access of detailed factors which are relevant to a more generalized point, the neurological combination must consistently involve many connections throughout the overall combination. The various connections throughout the overall combination could each be considered conscious thoughts, as well as the overall combination of mind access, assuming that conscious thought functions through memory access of multiple factors and their interaction of cause and effect (as I hypothesized in a post; Conscious Comprehension).
So throughout a discussion (or perhaps written topic…), the brain seems it will often access memories of an overall generalized categorical point or purpose, then through neural pathways, connect to memories of examples through memory of details of what causes the effect of the overall point. From creating a neural combination between the topic and examples, the brain would then consciously access neural pathways to memories of words representing the factors within the example. The neural access would then make connections between how the factors within the example interact in order to cause the effect which is relevant to the concept of the overall topic.
Perhaps the mind continues to make the subconscious connection to the topic concept, after conscious thought has pioneered those neural pathways, allowing easy access. In this case the brain would persist in a subconscious neural access connection from various detailed examples, to the topic concept. As the mind focuses conscious thought on specific examples, and the interaction of factors within that example, the brain could continue to use the less prominent subconscious neural access to the overall topic. As conscious focus moves from one example, to another example of cause and effect of factors which fits the overall concept, those recently used neural pathways could have some continued subconscious neural access.
This would create a very complex neural access combination, involving the conscious focus accessing a more specific combination of memories of factors and their cause and effect, as well as continued neural access to recent combinations and the connections to the overall topic. The intricacy of connections and combinations of neural access seem suitable in relation to the complexity of in depth topics involving multiple facets of related reasoning of cause and effect. Complex combinations seem to be a significant component of Conscious Consistency.
