Brain structure that deals with the organization of knowledge

[rousseau]

Was just reading some Piaget and he mentioned the idea that humans have a psychological ability to organize concepts into a framework to better adapt to their environment. The example that he gave in the book was of a baby that knows how to look at an object and how to touch an object. Eventually the baby learns how to incorporate those two concepts together to look at and touch the object at the same time. Effectively the two concepts have been integrated together.

I have studied a bit of neurophysiology so understand the basic structure of the brain and neurology, but I don't understand the anatomy and functions of different parts of the brain very well. What I wonder then is what part, if any, of the brain deals with organizing knowledge. In the context of knowledge this part of the brain would presumably be very powerful, as those with a better ability to organize knowledge would be able to piece together better frameworks, and those with less of an ability would mature much more slowly intellectually.

In my small understanding of how the brain works I've always liked to look at it by describing the ways in which it works in terms of processes that we are aware of rather than by anatomy/function, but in this case I'm curious if there is particular anatomy that affects this part of human experience and how it does it.

 

[Musing Man]

That bit (organization of knowledge, as you say) is not attributable to any specific area of a brain; it's an inherent property of any working brain.
Wiring/rewiring is done continuously, 24/7, all over the available place.
It's a matter of function, not structure.

 

[rousseau]

That bit (organization of knowledge, as you say) is not attributable to any specific area of a brain; it's an inherent property of any working brain.
Wiring/rewiring is done continuously, 24/7, all over the available place.
It's a matter of function, not structure.

What about a structure of the brain that facilitates the firing of thought. The rate of something like that might lead to greater inter-connectivity, in your terms?

 

[Musing Man]

You're going at it again, and again I will tell you there is no such structure. Is it poor wording on my part?
The very fabric of the whole brain is what facilitates the firing of thought - not just one particular area. It evolved that way.

I am not sure what you mean with the „greater inter-connectivity”. Of what? Neurons? People?
Or maybe you want to define a neurotransmitter as a „structure” - but that won't fit your initial description.
Please, be more specific.

 

[rousseau]

You're going at it again, and again I will tell you there is no such structure. Is it poor wording on my part?
The very fabric of the whole brain is what facilitates the firing of thought - not just one particular area. It evolved that way.

I am not sure what you mean with the „greater inter-connectivity”. Of what? Neurons? People?
Or maybe you want to define a neurotransmitter as a „structure” - but that won't fit your initial description.
Please, be more specific.

Not poor wording, you're answering my questions just as I hoped. I am literally clueless about the anatomy and physiology of the brain besides some regulatory stuff, so pardon me if the questions seem a little strange.

In terms of the last post I made I assume that greater inter-connectivity would mean more connections between neurons due to an increased rate of thought, so the presumption I was making is that there may be some feature in the brain that could lead to less or more thought in general, that as an aside might end up causing quicker 'organization of conceptual frameworks' or 'inter-connectivity'. Before that I thought that there may be some 'organizing structure' in the brain that could increase or decrease the rate of neural inter-connectivity directly.

 

[Togo]

The brain learns by association - strengthening and weakening connections. So to learn to touch an object involves muscle control and a sense of touch. The ability to see an object involves the visual cortex. So learning to handle objects via visual cues involves building connections between the muscle control and touch patterns of activation for objects with the visual patterns for objects. The capability, and the memory, is made of the connections, rather than being a particular area in it's own right. A memory of that object would then be triggered by anything that feels the same, looks the same, or involves the same kind of muscle movements.

Because these associations are between very different areas of the brain, and have several different kinds of linkage, they are spread across large areas, rather than contained within a particular anatomical structure. This makes them very resistant to damage.

If you're curious about how this works in practice, some of the most dramatic examples come from so-called 'split brain' patients. These are patients where the corpus collosum, the large bundle of fibres that connects the left hemisphere to the right hemisphere, have been severed. They end up with remarkably few practical problems in coordinating their movements, because they can still coordinate their body using external cues. However, if you stop them from doing them, by flashing information to just one side of their field of vision, so it only gets picked up by one hemisphere of the brain, you get some strange results. They may find themselves indicating an answer with one hand, and not the other, and not being able to say why they chose the answer they did.

 

[rousseau]

The brain learns by association - strengthening and weakening connections. So to learn to touch an object involves muscle control and a sense of touch. The ability to see an object involves the visual cortex. So learning to handle objects via visual cues involves building connections between the muscle control and touch patterns of activation for objects with the visual patterns for objects. The capability, and the memory, is made of the connections, rather than being a particular area in it's own right. A memory of that object would then be triggered by anything that feels the same, looks the same, or involves the same kind of muscle movements.

Because these associations are between very different areas of the brain, and have several different kinds of linkage, they are spread across large areas, rather than contained within a particular anatomical structure. This makes them very resistant to damage.

If you're curious about how this works in practice, some of the most dramatic examples come from so-called 'split brain' patients. These are patients where the corpus collosum, the large bundle of fibres that connects the left hemisphere to the right hemisphere, have been severed. They end up with remarkably few practical problems in coordinating their movements, because they can still coordinate their body using external cues. However, if you stop them from doing them, by flashing information to just one side of their field of vision, so it only gets picked up by one hemisphere of the brain, you get some strange results. They may find themselves indicating an answer with one hand, and not the other, and not being able to say why they chose the answer they did.

Thanks.

To further the original idea: I wonder what would be the main difference between person A and person B, where one has a better ability to organize frameworks than another. Based on the responses I've gotten I'm assuming that it would be a case of genetic expression and greater potentiation.

 

[Musing Man]

Thanks.

To further the original idea: I wonder what would be the main difference between person A and person B, where one has a better ability to organize frameworks than another. Based on the responses I've gotten I'm assuming that it would be a case of genetic expression and greater potentiation.

It can't be just one, there are always two main differences - usually expressed as nature and nurture. Nature means vastly the genetic build of one given individual, but also the huge amount of natural occurrences to which the said individual is subjected. Nurture is basically education in its broadest possible sense - and this includes the totality of personal experiences within any environment, especially the social one.

This is „the butterfly effect” at its finest. Anything and everything, no matter how tiny and insignificant in itself it may seem, can lead to a substantially different outcome. Sure, there can be similar outcomes from different backgrounds, but they're just similar, not identical. Not even in the most quoted case of all times, that of identical twins. Or, as a thought-experiment (for now), that of clones. Yes, there are identical twins who live strikingly similar lives, but there will always be differences. Not even one single individual cannot produce two identical outcomes - be it a painting, a song or a cake. There will always be minute (or major) differences.

Now, nature is seen more like a canvas, and nurture as the painting. With the unfortunate exception of those individuals whose canvas is too fucked up to be manageable, the painting can be adjusted via education. A better ability can be trained in most people. Some abilities more than others in some people and not in others. But the quantum effect is also social, and while you can have two or more similar people, one will never get two identical „somethings” - there is no such thing. No screws, processors, capacitors, cakes etc. will be perfectly identical, not even if we machine them.

 

[rousseau]

Yea that makes sense.

So the brain is a learning machine, sometimes better or worse at learning, and the more rapidly it comes across new concepts the more rapidly it learns, some concepts having an exponential effect.