Proposed Model of the Mind

I proposed a model of the human mind on a forum dealing with schizophrenia. I suspect they wont know what to think of it: they're dealing with this illness from a genetic and brain chemistry perspective, while I likened the matter to computers. Here's my submission.

In my 34 years of self-investigation (about 25 of it fully documented), I've had reason to consider the structure of the mind. I'd like to present this to you. Please forgive the layman terminology. Also, I use computer terminology that I'll try to explain as needed.

The mind is approximately organized into two parts: there is what I've called the Operating System - that which directs us without (much) conscious consideration, and the Editor of that Operating System.

The Operating System is originally implanted with innate coding that tells us how to suckle, breathe, eat, sleep, have sex, etc. I call these the hardwired operational directives. When sensory input is of a suitably nature, one of these directives, or routines is triggered or initiated. We evolved this much in order to survive within raw nature.

Then some 10 thousand years ago, we develop language. In the mind, this represents an area where the motor controls for speech, the linguistic symbols, the auditory deciphering, and later the written representations are kept, largely in a single area (though I have NO idea if this translates into an actual physiological region in the brain).

If the Operating System contained the executable code that got triggered as the sensory input from the environment demanded, then the Editor manipulated the source code (linguistic structures) to fabricate pseudo-executable code.

In computer programming, someone writing computer code does so in a high-level language, then compiles that code to achieve the executable code that actually does the processing. Virtually nobody writes directly executable code, written in the binary or hexadecimal that the computer processor actually runs with; this would be an onerous task, and one that would only work with the one microprocessor it had been written for.

Our conscious minds are similar: our editor writes directions for us which may or may not work practically. What then happens is that we will experiment with our proposed pseudo-executable code, and as we see success through repetition, that pseudo-code will become 'compiled' and will become our operational directive for the next time we encounter the same circumstance for which we generated that new directive (behaviour).

Given a mind that typically has these two parts, there are ways in which this operation can be compromised. If the mind has too much noise in it from say excessive sensory input, this would compromise the ability of the Editor to form properly, much like when we are in such a loud, noisy environment where 'we can't hear ourselves think'. This would be the circumstance that would lead such a person to be considered autistic.

Alternatively, a mind can potentially have too little sensory input, and with a great deal of emphasis on communication skills, some minds may be prone to developing more than one editor. In such a circumstance, there would be the primary editor, the one with the motor skills to communicate, but then there could be secondary editors that could only speak to the primary one. This is where someone would hear voices.

What would such voices say? Since all these editors still deal with the same Operating System, when a person suffering this problem encountered a situation for which s/he had no suitable behaviour (executable code), where the single Editor would step in and try to think up a new strategy (or ask someone else how to deal with the problem), now there are, in effect too many cooks, each with their own idea how to fix the problem.

Furthermore, if the primary editor tries to employ a possible solution, the secondary editor(s) can denounce and ridicule the primary.

If this model is genuinely workable, what tests could be done to deal with schizophrenia? First, there would need to be a revelation discussion with a schizophrenic patient explaining about the secondary editor. Then strategies could be discussed on how to deal with them.

One strategy would be to simply ignore such voices altogether, since in a mind that isn't trained to deal with secondary editors, they will be VERY distracting.

In order to pad out/ignore the voices, sensory triggers can be heightened, and even sequences like singing musical passages or dance steps can help swamp out voices (all voices).

A trickier approach might be to harness those voices in the same way that any person might journal (tweet) their daily occurrences: think of that secondary voice as another person giving an opinion on the patient's life, BUT DOING SO COLLABORATIVELY. I have absolutely NO idea if this would work.

For that matter, I present this as an abductive model that I know I'll surely evolve in my notes.

What would happen if those notes suddenly got moved into my head? With discipline, it might be a very powerful behaviour-modifying tool...

I have no idea if they'll even respond to this. I'm betting it's WAY too 'left field'. Doesn't matter: better proposed than not.