Conscious Subconscious Memory Access

Why are memories in your subconscious so much harder to access than conscious memories?

If you consider times in your life when you are not consciously attentive, it seems that those memories are much more difficult to intentionally recall, than memories at times of conscious awareness. For eg, when someone is dreaming or drunk (to the point of loss of coherent thought), those memories seem to be quite difficult to recall. Or similarly, any times throughout a regular day, when a person is not paying attention, and just reacting to surroundings subconsciously. Even at times when someone is consciously aware, it seems to be only the specific things which they are focusing on, which are easily recalled afterwards. All the other data which the persons’ senses are perceiving without them being aware of, seems to be lost from easy conscious memory access.  

It seems as though conscious attention highly prioritizes those memories over others, for ease of conscious access in the future. The main cause of this may be due to the function of memory storage. In my last post; Fundamental Focus, I explained how focus seems to be fundamental to the function of memory. Focus on certain measurements within active sensory input, allows more distinction between various factors, so that certain factors can be more effectively recognized in the future. During the process of conscious thought, focus on certain details also causes those details to be saved more distinctly, via reinforcing ease of electrical flow to the neural combo which represents a separate factor. Additionally, focus during thought allows learning, through the process of new macro neural combinations being created, by linking memory of 1 factor to another, and memory of how 1 causes an effect on another. All this may explain why conscious access to subconscious memories seems to be so difficult.

If focus during conscious thought or attention, prioritizes electrical flow to specific factors within memory (including connections between the factors), then that would cause future electrical flow to neurons, to connect to those specific neural combos (representing factors) much easier than any other data in memory. Conscious attention seems to be generally, by default, stimulated by factors which are most important, so it seems like an effective process for the brain to prioritize those memories via ease of electrical flow to neurons. 

A lot of data perceived subconsciously, would likely be jumbled together without distinct factors being saved as a separate neural combo. Accessing memories within that mass combined data, would perhaps be like looking at a video or image with a lot of colors and forms, but nothing within the video is recognizable or distinct from anything else. If your brain did not make distinctions between various measurements, during a time of subconsciously recorded data, then there is that lack of individualized neural combos to represent certain factors within the data. If there is a lack of specific neural combos being accessed, then there is a lack of reinforcement and ease of electrical flow, in order to access those specific neural combos representing distinct factors. This should make it much more difficult to remember anything specific within subconscious memory, and make any memory less likely to be triggered without the neural connection from 1 factor to another.

It seems that the function of conscious attention and memory access, causes a significant priority for input and future recollection, for that which is focused on. By focusing on more specific factors and connections between them, this causes and allows more effective electrical flow to neural combos representing factors and their connections, which are likely to be more important. By default, this should cause difficulty of Conscious Subconscious-Memory-Access. 

Fundamental Focus

Why do our senses, and memory access, focus on specifics?

When we pay attention to our surroundings, we seem to focus on a small quantity of information, compared to the massive amount being input through our sensory perception. And when we use our minds to consciously think about anything in particular, or try to remember something, we seem to only access a small portion of our memories at any given time, compared to the vast quantity of data stored in our brains. Is there a benefit or requirement in the function of focusing on a smaller set of data? or else, why not access more data at once?

There is a connection between focus of senses and memories. When our senses focus on particular measurements they are receiving, it seems the measurements are saved more accurately as memory. Sensory focus itself does not seem to require conscious attention, since any animal can focus on a certain sense, without being consciously aware of that which it is focusing on. For eg, a deer can focus its hearing on certain rustles in the leaves, while ignoring the sounds of a creek, as perhaps its instinct is to naturally have alertfulness to that sound of leaves, for danger of a predator stalking it. But in this case, if focus on that particular sound, causes accuracy of saved memory, then that sound can be more accurately recognized in the future, to allow more accurate subconscious reactions to that sound, such as more effectively being ready to run from the predator.

The reason that focus increases accuracy in memory recordings, seems to be; creating an accurate neural set for measurements of more particular factors. For a brain to create a neural combination set which represents a particular factor, it needs focused measurements. Without focus on a certain measurements, all the other data being input would be included. For eg, if you see a bird on a tree in a forest, without focus on the bird, your memory would save everything within vision, including the trees and branches and leaves (as a neural combo representing all the lightwave measurements). But if you focus on the bird, the visual measurements of the background can be diluted out, to save only the measurements of the bird, as a separate neural combo. With a more accurately separate neural combo for just the bird, your memory will recognize that same combo easier, in the future, when another bird is sighted and similar measurements are input.

Accessing focused memories, seems it may have a similar relevant function, as focused senses. Focusing on a particular neural combo, which represents a memory, is what causes the significance and function of memory. I further explained neural combos and their relation to memory, in a post from last month; Conscious Neural Combo. If a brain always simultaneously accesses neurons representing memories of many factors, then the measurements which are recalled, are all combined, meaning measurements of each factor is inaccurately distinct from other factors. Accessing neural combos for only 1 factor, causes a distinct recollection of measurements for that factor. In all, the only way a memory is significant, is that it is represented by a certain combo of neurons, rather than an indistinct mass of neurons. 

Focusing on specific neural combos, causes recognition, and also causes that combo to be easier to access in the future, due to ease of flow of electrical signal to that particular combo. When it comes to conscious thought and learning, this concept is relevant because we create new macro neural combinations, via ease of electrical flow. We can focus on certain factors (represented by a neural combo), then through memory of that factors’ interaction with another factor, we create a macro neural combination. With ease of flow from memory of 1 factor to another, and how factors interact, comes the larger combination of how 1 thing causes the effect of another. Building these macro combos, is virtually building intellect, comprehension, and understanding. 

Based on the memory system which brains use, it seems that saving memories via sensory input, recalling memories, and conscious comprehension, all function Fundamentally, on Focus.

Grate

Should we be grateful to God during times of difficulty?

If someone gives you $100, and then the next day, takes back $10, would you be angry at them? The concept should be similar. Existence and everything we have is something, rather than nothing, so it generally equates to positives gifted. I explained more detail of the concept of positives, in a post from a couple months ago; Positron. If we lose some positives, or lack some positives, it seems irrational to be angry, or upset, or complain that we should have more positives. 

Why should anyone deserve any positives to begin with, or be entitled to positives? Existence is the base gift, where otherwise you would not be. There’s no reason to think we deserve additional positives. We all do bad things in life, so assuming you should get more positives defies logic. It’s a common perspective to feel entitled to have a lot in life, when noticing what others have. But just because someone else has a higher quantity of positives, doesn't mean they, or you, or anyone is entitled to those positives. 

If you compare your positives to others with more, you should also compare yourself to those with less. Most people in the past have had less opportunity for positives, with a lack of healthcare for living longer and more comfortably, for the individuals themselves, and for friends and family of the individual. With a lack of technology, most people in the past lacked the ease of accomplishing tasks, and the quality of comfort. With the lack of organized society, and knowledgeable understanding in the past, they lacked as much freedom and security. Beyond that, if initial existence is considered a positive, then that can be compared to the (nearly?) infinite quantity of people who could possibly exist, yet don't, and lack that positive. If comparison was your measure to perceive how much positives you have, then its a few who have more, and infinite who have less. By comparison, existence is infinitely better than lack thereof. 

Regarding the few who have more; is God to blame for the inequality? Assuming we all have free will, everyone who has more positives, has the free will to distribute their positives more equally to those who have less. Based on the bible, distributing positives to others seems to be a major suggestion from God. If we defy that suggestion, by the use of free will, we are the ones to blame. Free will is a component of the base positive gift of existence, and conscious awareness, which makes existence relevant. Without the option for people to deny God's suggestions, means without free will, which means without the relevance of existence, and without any positives to begin with. 

Any times that we have in life, of difficulty and a lack of positives, shouldn’t be reason to blame God or be ungrateful. Those positives which we have received, no matter how few, are virtually infinitely greater than lack thereof. Some positive, rather than none, seems it should always be something to relate to Grate.

Conscious Recognition

What is recognition, and how relevant is it to the function of the brain?

A technical definition of “recognition” is; identification of something from previous encounters or knowledge. Depending on the interpretation of the word “identification’, this could include or disclude simpler subconscious mind processes. As the word is broken down, it could be considered, literally the “re”-occurence of “cognition” of the same thing, since the definition of “cognition” is; the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses. But, this definition of “cognition” includes the requirement of understanding, which would require a higher degree of intelligence and comprehension, and would disclude subconscious mind functions. Another definition of “recognition” could be; noticing a strong similarity, which indicates a repeated perception. In other words, perceiving something which has been perceived before. This would include subconscious functions. It seems that it could go either way, but for the sake of simplicity, I’ll assume recognition includes subconscious function, since from my experience, it seems the common interpretation of the word would include an animal “recognizing” another animal or a person. So, the word basically describes the process of perceiving something which is already in memory. 

This should be fundamentally significant in the function of any brain with subconscious or conscious processes, since these processes seem to be dependant on memory. Subconsciousness basically functions by saving experiences in memory, linked with positive or negative reinforcement, then on the occasion of recognition of something within the memory of that experience, reactivating the reinforcement. Every action or reaction taken by any animal, which is triggered in any way by memory, would be based on recognition. 

Recognition tends to be a beneficial function. It allows the subconscious to cause any individual to avoid or pursue factors, depending on which has proven to be more beneficial in past experiences. As a lack of recognition tends to cause stress of the unknown, it makes sense if recognition causes some sense of relief through cognitive ease. If you personally think about any experiences, the sense of recognition, tends to seem much preferable over the unknown. 

A more complex process of recognition would be comprehension. Comprehension of knowledge of circumstances seems to tend to cause further relief. With comprehension, comes the ability to make more beneficial decisions regarding the circumstances. Is comprehension anything more than conscious recognition of function? When someone comprehends something, they basically understand how it functions. Understanding how something functions is basically knowing the cause and effect of factors involved, which is recognizing how factors interact (or effect other factors), in memory. 

If recognizing 1 factor in memory, causes relief and cognitive ease, it seems logical that recognizing multiple factors would increase this preferable sense of relief. Since understanding is a process of recognizing multiple factors, including their interactions, it seems to follow that this should cause a further sense of relief. If conscious mind functions involve understanding and comprehension, then it seems this would cause an increase in the preferable sense of cognitive ease and relief. Would an amplified sense of recognition, not be a logical explanation for the feeling which we tend to consider so significant yet mysterious, which we call: consciousness? 

Categorically

How are various categories saved in memory?

A category is basically a label applied to an outlined maximum variance for attributes. The attributes can be for pretty much anything (object, substance, concepts etc), and the maximum variance would be the limit that any of the attributes can vary, while still being considered part of that category. 

The method that categories are saved and accessed as memory in the brain, seems like it would function similarly to the method for concepts. As I tried to understand in my last post; Concept Neural Combo, concepts seem to be a label applied to a maximum variance of interactions. As long as an interaction has the cause and effect relevant to the concept, it can be considered within the grouping of that label. Categories should be somewhat less complex than concepts, since they don't necessarily require comprehension of cause and effect. 

If categories are saved in a similar process of function, then it would likely be by method of; various combinations of neurons and synapses, each representing the sensory input recordings of an example of something that fits into the particular category. The neural combos for various examples, would be linked in memory with the short form reference label for that category. Any given label of category would be saved as a neural combo which is saved via sensory input of hearing or seeing that word. This neural combo would be linked with memories of various examples which fit that category. 

For eg, the category of “insect” would be a neural combo of memory for the label (of audio of hearing, and or visual of seeing the word), connected with neural combos of memory of seeing various insects. The maximum variance of attributes would be all the physical features required to fit our definition of “insect”. 

Even though each category label is linked with the various neural combos for examples within the category, the neural combos for all examples would likely not be accessed at the same time that the neural combo for the label is accessed. The various combos would be linked through neurons and synapses for potential to be accessed, but the specific combo of neurons would likely depend on various aspects of electrical flow and triggering. Just as when you think of a generalized word, and there is often no distinct memory for that word, the neural combo representing that word, would be an imprecise combo of neurons, and therefore create the perception of inaccurate recognition. But some examples which fit that word, are sometimes saved more precisely to cause more accurate memory recognition, if a particular memory is accessed. The way a memory of a particular example is accessed, is because of the connection of the neural combo for the word, allowing potential to trigger more precise combos representing examples. 

Labels of language seem to be quite significant for the advanced functions of memory access of our brains. Labels allow a short form reference within memory, for groupings of memories of things which fit a labelled category, and allow the potential to trigger the various memories of examples which are grouped, Categorically. 

Concept Neural Combo

What combination of neurons would be required for comprehension of a concept?

By “concept” I basically mean a generalized idea. An idea will typically have a cause and effect, so for it to be generalized, means it should be stated in a way which can include various factors which will still cause the same effect indicated by the idea, and therein concept. I further explained concepts and their relevance to intelligence, in a post from a yr ago; Carry the Concept. Basically, concepts require the mental ability to comprehend the cause and effect outlined by the concept, and to compare variables which would fit the concept, in order to cause the indicated resulting effect. 

The method of function of this mental ability is the question at hand. According to my understanding, it seems plausible that all memory could be saved and accessed by the brain, using combinations of neurons and synapses. Included in memory access could be the process of conscious comprehension of cause and effect, as I hypothesised in my last post; Conscious Neural Combo. If we are able to be conscious of cause and effect, through the process of accessing neural combos representing factors and the interaction of those factors, then comprehending a concept, should be plausible as an additional step of this method of function.

Since a concept involves various factors which can cause the same effect, it seems likely that someone would need to 1st save multiple “conscious combos” of neurons, which each represent the interaction of cause and effect of factors. Any of the interactions saved in memory, must have the same resulting effect, with different factors, for them to be relevant to the same concept. 

For eg, the concept of flight, requires comprehension of the effect of an object sustaining height in the air. For someone to save the concept of “flight” in their memory, they would have to access memory of multiple interactions of objects, which have the same cause and effect of sustaining height. If someone accesses memory of the interaction of a bird flying, but not other objects flying, then they will only remember specifically a bird for the word “flight”. If they additionally access memory of the interaction of a butterfly flying, they will be able to remember that other objects could have the same interaction with the air (of flight), and save the labelled concept as its intended meaning of cause and effect, which could include various factors.

Since concepts involve multiple factors causing the same interaction, the neural combos which represent the concept, seem they would be less distinct or accurate, than other memories of specific objects or occurrences. The neural combo for a concept, seems it would consist of interactions with multiple objects, therefore the neural combos representing the factor which can vary, would be less distinct or precise. The neural combo could become more precise when an example of the concept is remembered, but since multiple examples represent the same concept, the neural combo would generally be less precise. 

Typically there is a common element for a concept, which should improve effectivity of saving the concept as an overall memory. A concept can have various factors, but since a certain cause and effect defines the limits of the concept, that effect would be 1 common element. For eg, the concept of an object stretching, involves the interaction of one of the objects dimensions becoming longer, relative to its other dimensions. The common element is the object becoming physically longer, so the common memory of objects becoming longer, makes the concept more effective to be saved and accessed in memory. The neural combo representing visual measurements of the shape of objects becoming longer, would likely be a linking element to various interactions saved in memory, of other objects stretching.

The neural construct representing a concept, seems it would be a neural combo of a generalized interaction. Multiple interactions would each have to be previously saved as neural combos, then the common link between the interactions (of the effect of the concept) would be the element which can trigger memory of various applicable interactions (each represented by a neural combo).The overall neural combo representing the concept, would be a group of neurons which does not accurately represent any sensory measurements, but specific examples of interactions can be triggered by the common element, in order to cause more accurate neural combo representations of measurements. The label of language itself is a neural combo which helps link and trigger the various examples of interactions

A concept seems to be a short form reference for multiple interactions which include the same cause and effect. In the same way we have labels to categorize various objects which have traits that are within the range outlined by the categories’ label, we also have concepts to categorize various interactions, which have a cause and effect that are within the range, outlined by the label which is applicable for that particular Concept Neural-Combo. 

Conscious Neural Combo

How are neural combinations involved in the function of being conscious of cause and effect?

It seems plausible that all memories are stored in the brain as information, represented by neuron combinations, as I hypothesized in a recent post; Memory Information. When it comes to the process of using memories to be conscious of cause and effect, the combinations of neurons and synapses involved, seems to be quite a bit more complicated than simple saving and accessing of basic memories of sensory input. To be conscious of cause and effect, I’m assuming the function basically involves a minimum requirement of memory access of 2 factors and their interaction, as I further explained in a post from early last yr; Conscious Comprehension. 

For this process to function using neuron combinations, an individual would access the neuron combinations for (at least) 2 factors, a time period of the interaction of the factors, and the resulting effect on (at least) 1 of the factors. Memory of each factor could be saved as a sensory perception measurement, represented by neuron combinations. Then the time period of interaction could be saved as a sequential neuron combination representing changes in measurement. Therein, the resulting effect on a factor, would be a new measurement, represented by a neuron combination. For the effect of interaction to be saved as a memory, an overall combination of all these combinations must be saved. The minimum overall combination seems to be: the neuron combination for each factor, then a sequence of neuron combinations for 1 of the factors changing (while the 2 factors are interacting).

This overall combination seems that it would be a similar neural combo to a basic memory of an action occurring. A basic memory of sensory input of a time period of an action, would be a sequential neural combo representing the changing measurements perceived through senses. The difference between this process (of a basic memory of a time period), and the process for being conscious of the cause and effect of an interaction, may be the focus of neural combinations. 

In order for a memory of any factor to be relevant and effective, there needs to be a focus of a fairly accurate combination of neurons to represent the accuracy of that factor. When a factor is being perceived by the senses, there needs to be a focus on the factor, in order to save an accurate neuron combo, to represent the measurements of that factor. If an accurate enough combo is saved, then next time that specific combo is accessed in memory, an effective and accurate recognition is made of that factor. 

In the case of being conscious of the effect of interaction of 2 factors, there would be an accurate focus of neural access, for the combo of each factor. Each factor would previously have been saved as a neural combo, so that during the time of being conscious of the interaction, the focused neural combos for each factor would cause recognition. This new overall combo of the factors’ interaction would also then be saved as a new “conscious combo”. Each factor would still have a separate combo for recognizing only that factor, but these combos would also be connected to the conscious combo, which includes the interaction with another factor. If the conscious combo is triggered, then (as may be the process) the neural combos for both factors would be accessed, then the sequence representing the time period of interaction of the factors, and the resulting effect on at least 1 of the factors.

A basic subconscious memory of an action would not have the same focus of accuracy of neural combos representing factors, and each factor would not be saved as a separate combo for recognition. Since a basic memory does not have the focus on each factor involved in the interaction, the overall combo (of the factors interacting and the effect on 1 of the factors) will not be linked to the particular factors, for the potential to be triggered by either factor individually. 

Focused neural combos, representing separate factors within an interaction, seem to be quite relevant for the function of conscious memory access of cause and effect. Factors seem to require focus, for the potential of recognition of that factor and any effects to or from that factor which are relevant to the interaction.