The Brain, A Decoded Enigma

by Dorin Teodor Moisa

As we already emphasized, MDT is just a tool, which is used here to see if there is any possibility to evolve from an animal brain to a human brain. The theory does neither support, nor reject such a possibility.

Based on MDT, the main difference between a human brain and an animal brain is the facility of the human brain only, to make and operate symbolic models. The common part of the two types of brains is the facility to make and operate image models.

The evolution problem is to see if there is any possibility to change some parameters in the structure of image-model devices to reach the capability of making and operating symbolic models. On the other hand, a new hardware that should be added to the animal brain is considered as not compatible with an evolutive process.

As we saw in the previous section, the highest level reached by the animal brain is level 2. With a peak on level 5, the superiority of the human brain is huge.

Let's see some arguments that support the evolutive process. For instance, let's analyze whether by increasing the level of conceptualization of the models, it will be possible to get closer to the ability to make and operate symbolic models. Thus, if a class of models is more and more conceptualized, such models should be so simplified that they could be very close to a symbolic definition. Therefore, a change from level 2 to level 3 could be reached by evolution.

But, let's analyze an example. So, we have "this apple", "an apple", "a fruit", "food". This is an example of increasing level of conceptualization with the last two items as symbolic elements. The animals have a shortcut by making a model to tell them if what they meet is or not food. In this way, the animals have a fast solution for problems based on image models. There is no advantage to increase the level of conceptualization. Thus the evolution could be blocked by a fast solution, based on image-models.

The advanced conceptualization should be supported in a group of vulnerable animals. To survive, the communication could be decisive. By increasing the level of conceptualization, the communication could be more and more precise. This seems to be the only serious argument for increasing the level of conceptualization. On the other hand, there is already a system of communication on level 2. Thus, a sound or a combination of sounds is associated with a label-type model. It can activate any ZM-model. This type of communication is faster than that based on symbolic models and usually precise enough for the normal necessities of a group of animals. Unfortunately, here we did not see again any advantage from increasing the level of conceptualization.

But, if, for a group of animals, there is a lot of information which comes in fast succession, then the animals will be forced to make more and more simplified models and this should force them to increase the level of conceptualization.

Let's see another example. A person goes somewhere in the desert. Without special equipment, his chance to survive should be very low. But, around him, could be some animals which survive without special efforts. For animals, it is more important "to invest" in "equipment" then to increase the level of conceptualization of the models.

Anyways, at least in theory, it is possible to evolve from an animal brain to a human brain based on an increase in the level of conceptualization. If the animals have or not the tendency to do this, is another issue.