Neurology of psychology (cognitive science)

Jump in with comments/disputes any time.

Like I said, the purpose I'm trying to present with is offering better neurological clarification on behavioural presentations that historically are not well characterized as per their purely physiological origins

So up to now, having firmly established that our behaviour, functionality, personality, "performance", etc. is mediated through the nervous system, in much the same way as the behaviour of a computer is coded through its elaborate network of semi-conductors;

Focusing on the externalized presentation of a person, to cumulatively characterize said functionality or "performance", I believe one of the most accurate means to do is via the term, "emotional expression".

Ability of a person to adequate express themselves emotionally (which obviously affects human communication, contact, social ability, behavior, etc.)

.......

The reason this is so pertinent to performance/functionality/well-being of the nerve/neurological system, is because ability to express oneself (communicate), is at it's core mediated through the potency of nerve pulses, action potential.

Potency of action-potentials - these:

......

Expression comes not only in verbal communication, but feeling.

When a nerve depolarizes (propagates an electrical spike), it generates an electromagnetic wave.

These technically propagate to infinity, but decay with distance (inverse square law).

So when people say, "I dig your vibe man", what they're referring to is the sense of electromagnetic vibration induced as a function of another organisms propagating "wave-field", which is a function of their neural-networks electrical activity.

..........

The overall take away point is that EMOTION and NEURAL ACTIVITY are intrinsically linked, dependent on one another.

.......

So ultimately what I'm conveying here is that, despite the wide variety of mood and behavioural characterizations - neurologically - they all ultimately originate from one of two binary actions:

1) excitation

2) depression.

i.e. neural signals up, or neural signals down.

This shows a neuron with vs without a sheath called myelin (it was intended to demonstrate the quality of the electricity when myelin integrity is good).

But the point is the clip shows electrical propagation through the cell.

This is the "signal" or "action potential", "neural spike", "excitatory spike".

...........

It's essentially the fundamental "binary process" of our behaviour.

1) So when those spikes propagate frequently and powerfully = "excitation".

2) Slow and weak (or not at all) = "depression".

In neurological terms.

........

When we extend/extrapolate that outwards to our behaviour/presentation

• good excitation = having fun, feeling positive, "positive vibe", high energy, good concentration, healthy, attractive, laughter.
• depression = weak, slow, lethargic, poor concentration, weak "vibe", unattractive energy.

Cognition:

So we're at the point of having established "cognition" as being the optimal intervention to render the optimal function and productive outcome (optimal excitation = optimal neural function = optimal self/situational awareness, neural capacity and associated decision making).

• So, we must define cognition.

Thoughts -> emotions -> actions.

• Cognition = intervention at the level of thoughts, consciously/"cognizantly" implementing thoughts to cascade down that chain of events and ultimately affect our behavior/actions.

Emphasizing that what we're ultimately going for is optimization of PERFORMANCE.

Thus optimization of neural electricity (determinant of CNS performance).

That is to say, optimization of EXCITATION. (in a sense the optimal counter-measure to regressive neural-depression or down-regulation of electricity).

i.e. a cognitive intervention to render this.

(cont)...........

So how does this (sexuality) tie in with Cognition?

As above, cognition is intervention at the level of thoughts, to ultimately affect behavior, actions, by extension personality, and performance.

• As with consistent cognitive application, impacted emotional affect - mediated in neurology (and by extension gene expression),
• Essentially we biologically adapt to our cognitive state, the cognitive intervention.
• A form of "morphology", we become more functional and proficient human beings.
• Could also characterize it simply as, "development".

The form of therapy CBT, cognitive behavior therapy is kind of evidence of this. It's as I understand, working with a therapist to determine a cognitive intervention (self rationalization relative to a difficult situation which perhaps one was having difficulty coping with), which ultimately impacts our feelings/emotions in that situation, therefore affects the outcome - how we behave:

Thus how we manage or perform in that situation.

......

So quite simply relative to sexuality - sexual performance is based on "excitation" of ones partner, mediated in nerve stimulation.

i.e. sexual orgasm, pleasure associated with such is simply signalling of the nervous system, pleasure transmitter like beta-endorphin, endogenous opioids, dopamine, etc.

These are discharged through stimulation of nerve-excitation (powerful action potentials), these:

a feeling - cause by behavioral excitation.

Thus sensory stimulation by way of visual observation, "vibe", as above, etc. = responsible for physical/sexual attraction.

And the effective intervention to positively impact this outcome = Cognition (intervening in the thoughts-emotions-actions cascade, at the level of thoughts).

..........

So in a sense, optimizing our neuro and physiological performance (thus sports performance)

= dependent on optimizing our potential sexual performance.

What it will then ultimately come down to,

.... is what is this?

How does one implement such a cognitive intervention?

Well intervening at the level of how we think is essentially self instruction.

i.e. cognitive intervention = self instruction (self rationalization, basically what all of us do all the time, 6:54 of following clip with Noam Chomsky, language is the basis for internal thought, but thus far in evolutionary terms, used only with questionable efficacy)

Thus the general cognitive-science contention that, language itself is the core defining property of what makes us human:

Language is the basis of cognition (functionality, being civilized, evolution, situational management, intellect, defining property of a culture, etc.)

• The quality of our internal/thought/rationalization/self-instruction - our cognition - therefore determines the quality of our neural excitation, quality of our nervous system, and acts as the determinant of our performance, most notably sexual.

Nerve activity determines our feeling (what we feel in our body/mind/"soul" is the cumulative effect of neural spikes throughout our physiological system).

We're aiming to increase/optimize that = optimal functionality, performance, health and well being.

That is to say, we're increasing excitation.

........

The principle of behavioral excitation follows the exact principle of neural excitation at a molecular level.

• Hyperpolarization
• Depolarization
• = generates electrical flow, "excitation".

Behaviorally (actions) is no different.

Therefore emotionally, is no different (emotions).

Therefore the thought implementation or cognition must reflect this principle = to cause this affect (thoughts).

• Thoughts - emotions - actions framework.

i.e. thought-implementation or cognition = emotion based, specifically to cause/induce a hyperpolarization and subsequent depolarization affect in others (excite/stimulate them).

i.e. our behavior/"vibe" ultimately reflects this (subsequent to sufficient biological adaptation/morphology by way of the cognitive implementation), having this affect.

This is the basis for potentially optimizing sexual stimulation/gratification in others/sexual-partners - optimizing nerve stimulation.

Where optimization of nerve-activity/stimulation = the basis for optimal health/well-being and physiological performance, in us.

Let me just punctuate these contentions with a short clips from Trinity's Ian Robertson.

Focus on

• cognition,
• self instruction,
• excitation,
• performance and
• physiological responses:

Time stamped to be concise but worth rewinding to watch the entire clip.

......

In this case he's applying a cognitive state/intervention, as per the clip.

Whilst any cognitive application is better than none, this particular one is not really going to be massively sustainable, or really lend itself to world class, revolutionary health and physiological benefits, and it's unlikely to dramatically impact downstream gene-expression giving rise to any meaningful biological morphology.

But the point is, identification of cognitive intervention, to boost neural signalling (which translate as feeling/"mood" of excitation - which boosts performance).

So this particular cognitive intervention isn't massively advanced, but it's the general approach/concept being acknowledged, is why I found it interdasting.

Revising (really reducing the explanation to the core concepts):

 - Primary source of excitation (mediated in neural action potentials) = getting laid (that oh-so-difficult-and-awkward topic to address).

Therefore, cognition (self instruction, mediated in language) which facilitates this optimally = facilitate optimal excitation, therefore optimal well being, CNS activity.

- This is all mediated in emotion (as excitation is) = cognitive application is all based in emotional relevance.

i.e. emotional self instruction.

Thoughts/emotions/actions - optimal thought framework application, which is of emotional relevance, rendering the optimal behavioral outcome:

..........

Now humanity is about more than just "getting laid"; we're about cultivation, evolution, innovation etc etc.

But this is the core driving influence and motivator (despite us pretending it's not, all the time), the fuel to our machine (that which is responsible for firing up our CNS).

The only legit person I've heard openly and publicly acknowledge this is Dr Ciara Kelly of Newstalk-breakfast.

Not exactly. As per the video clip, cognitive intervention isn't exactly a new concept. But optimization of it, that's what I'm contending.

Some of what I'm presenting with lacks absolute definition such as, our thoughts are mediated/transmit-through our neural system, therefore to essentially reverse-engineer that dynamic, we can implicate/affect our neural system by specific "cognitive"/thought-process intervention (self-awareness, taking control of what we're thinking - thus how we behave, how we're "cultivating" ourselves, in some respects our own development and gene expression, morphology).

As to neuropsychology, the researcher in that specific field I have followed is Heather Berlin of Mt Sinai, whose specific focus is characterized as "impulse control".

As our reflex/impulsive responses are again mediated through neural-action potentials, what I'm contending is basically an intervention in that capacity, to regulate and ultimately optimize said "impulses" - which is encapsulated in behavior.

The chemical basis of neural firing, ion flux, action potential propagation is covered ad nauseum in the previous 19 or so posts.

In terms of the interaction between our psychology, how we think, our cognitive state, self-awareness, and how that interacts with or precipitates "excitation" (the aforementioned "neural firing"), the actual physiological basis of that...... again I believe it's due to reverse-engineering the thoughts-mediated-in-neural-activity dynamic.

Yes..... this is kind of the conventional hypothesis of "depression", mood based depression. That's at least part of what I'm trying to define.

If you look "upstream" of serotonin discharge from the axon-terminal, what is it that causes those storage vesicles to bind to the cellular membrane and discharge the chemical into the synapse for subsequent signalling?

It's the "neural spike", the electrical bolt, neuron firing..... whatever you want to call it.

In terms of the definition of "depression", what I'm CONTENDING is, it's insufficient neural spikes are the TRUE denominator.

i.e. "depressed" or lowered neural spikes -> not enough serotonin release. SSRI's cleverly circumvent this by blocking re-absorption.

But what if there was an intervention where instead of needing to block re-absorption, we could simply stimulate or increase release?

= increase exocytosis, excitatory release - mediated in neural-spikes.

.........

That's the point, neural spikes themselves - THEY are the feeling of excitation.

Thus, cognitively increase the FEELING OF EXCITATION, the actual "mood" of being excited (see again clip of Ian Robertson above) = increase neural spikes = increase signal/chemical (such as serotonin) discharge = improved mood/functionality/performance.

I'll just draw a line under post #24.

****************************************************************

****************************************************************

As up to there covers the primary (IMO easy to understand) core-concepts. Here forth is examining knock on implications and specifics.

Morphology, modification of signal pathways, genesis.

Big replicates small, large scales replicates macro scale.

Entire organism replicates a single cell.

=> behavior replicates the binary denominator in which all behavior is encoded in;

i.e. behavior replicates a neuron.

I had mentioned early that, social/emotional/behavioral but most critically and most often ignored, sexual - are the primary outward presentations determining health and well being, positive function.

Well the reality is, sexual is the one most of us pay attention most acutely to, but paradoxically pretend it's what we're almost oblivious to.

As we can see from the quotation, the emotional progression, a high emotional hypercharge and subsequent release/depolarization, lends itself to an explosive sexual outcome.

Therefore, it acts as a phenomenal motivator of the nervous system and human behavior in general.

Again, this being the most acute and optimized approach enhancing the performance outcome.

This was the contention I posited early in that, optimization of sexual performance by our primary means to do so, emotionally-relevant cognitive-intervention, thought-intervention = by default the means to optimize physio/neurological performance.

In relation to a presentation lending itself to emotional polarity (by way of cognitive intervention);

I guess another means to characterize this would be, attitude.

As in, "I don't like your attitude".

Perhaps not dissimilar to how many people don't like Conor McGregor's attitude (though he is a world famous sports star).

And of course some people love him.

i.e. polarizing.

.....

Otherwise may be characterized as "personality" in a sense?

The base purpose is performance enhancement, physical, intellectual and therefore situational/interpersonal.

Underwriting performance situationally, attitude I guess is something we historically consider central to that, ability re people management.

And ultimately, attitude = the affect we have on how others feel,

i.e. emotional affect - by way of cognitive based emotional-intervention.

Optimizing that = optimal attitude.

1/

This post is kind of, validation behind the entire concept as it's basically coming from a legit authority figure, endorsement as to the potential efficacy of performance related cognitive application.

That's the point to remember.

........

So what he's saying is, "before you perform, instruct yourself as such, and your performance will be better".

And said instruction is, "I feel excited".

Mmmmkay?

So what one could intuitively deduce from such a statement - "I feel excited" - is, it gets you fired up, ready to go, ready for action, flares up neural firing and you're ready to take on a serious task because a higher functioning nervous system can cope with higher stressors and taxation.

With me so far?

BUT;

Is it sustainable?

Could you go about all day every day and saying to yourself, "I feel excited", to elicit improved/optimal performance?

Would that expression affect the CNS on a consistent basis, or would it possibly work, a minority of the time, and then fade and ultimately you'd be confronted with other complexities a stressful situation presents with and be left wondering how to manage them?

........

Therefore, we're taking Prof Robertsons contention, "I feel excited" as a means to fire up the nervous system, and we're going to adhere to the concept of what he's doing, but slightly modify the approach.

cont: