{"componentChunkName":"component---src-templates-book-page-js","path":"/intelligence/6/","result":{"data":{"mdx":{"id":"55b0df2e-57d4-5f97-a707-5cc78015e978","body":"function _extends() { _extends = Object.assign || function (target) { for (var i = 1; i < arguments.length; i++) { var source = arguments[i]; for (var key in source) { if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(source, key)) { target[key] = source[key]; } } } return target; }; return _extends.apply(this, arguments); }\n\nfunction _objectWithoutProperties(source, excluded) { if (source == null) return {}; var target = _objectWithoutPropertiesLoose(source, excluded); var key, i; if (Object.getOwnPropertySymbols) { var sourceSymbolKeys = Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(source); for (i = 0; i < sourceSymbolKeys.length; i++) { key = sourceSymbolKeys[i]; if (excluded.indexOf(key) >= 0) continue; if (!Object.prototype.propertyIsEnumerable.call(source, key)) continue; target[key] = source[key]; } } return target; }\n\nfunction _objectWithoutPropertiesLoose(source, excluded) { if (source == null) return {}; var target = {}; var sourceKeys = Object.keys(source); var key, i; for (i = 0; i < sourceKeys.length; i++) { key = sourceKeys[i]; if (excluded.indexOf(key) >= 0) continue; target[key] = source[key]; } return target; }\n\n/* @jsxRuntime classic */\n\n/* @jsx mdx */\nvar _frontmatter = {\n  \"author\": \"Jeff Hawkins\",\n  \"bookTitle\": \"On Intelligence\",\n  \"isBook\": false,\n  \"numSections\": 16,\n  \"tags\": [\"a\"],\n  \"templateKey\": \"book-page\",\n  \"title\": \"3. THE HUMAN BRAIN\"\n};\nvar layoutProps = {\n  _frontmatter: _frontmatter\n};\nvar MDXLayout = \"wrapper\";\nreturn function MDXContent(_ref) {\n  var components = _ref.components,\n      props = _objectWithoutProperties(_ref, [\"components\"]);\n\n  return mdx(MDXLayout, _extends({}, layoutProps, props, {\n    components: components,\n    mdxType: \"MDXLayout\"\n  }), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 0,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, mdx(\"strong\", null, \"So\"), \" what makes the brain so unlike the programming that goes into AI and neural networks? What is so unusual about the brain\\u2019s design, and why does it matter? As we\\u2019ll see in the next few chapters, the brain\\u2019s architecture has a great deal to tell us about how the brain really works and why it is fundamentally different from a computer.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 1,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Let\\u2019s begin our introduction with the whole organ. Imagine there is a brain sitting on a table and we are dissecting it together. The first thing you\\u2019ll notice is that the outer surface of the brain seems highly uniform. A pinkish gray, it resembles a smooth cauliflower with numerous ridges and valleys called gyri and sulci. It is soft and squishy to the touch. This is the neocortex, a thin sheet of neural tissue that envelops most of the older parts of the brain. We are going to focus most of our attention on the neocortex. Almost everything we think of as intelligence\\u2014perception, language, imagination, mathematics, art, music, and planning\\u2014occurs here. Your neocortex is reading this book.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 2,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Now, here I have to admit I am a neocortical chauvinist.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 3,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_41\"\n  }), \"I know I\\u2019m going to meet some resistance on this point, so let me take a minute to defend my approach before we get too far in. Every part of the brain has its own community of scientists who study it, and the suggestion that we can get to the bottom of intelligence by understanding just the neocortex is sure to raise a few howls of objection from communities of offended researchers. They will say things like, \\u201CYou cannot possibly understand the neocortex without understanding brain region \", mdx(\"em\", null, \"blah,\"), \" because the two are highly interconnected like so, and you need brain region \", mdx(\"em\", null, \"blah\"), \" to do such and such.\\u201D I don\\u2019t disagree. Granted, the brain consists of many parts and most of them are critical to being human. (Oddly, an exception is the part of the brain with the largest number of cells, the cerebellum. If you are born without a cerebellum or it is damaged, you can lead a pretty normal life. However, this is not true for most other brain regions; most are required for basic living, or sentience.)\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 4,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"My counterargument is that I am not interested in building humans. I want to understand intelligence and build intelligent machines. Being human and being intelligent are separate matters. An intelligent machine need not have sexual urges, hunger, a pulse, muscles, emotions, or a humanlike body. A human is much more than an intelligent machine. We are biological creatures with all the necessary and sometimes unwanted baggage that comes from eons of evolution. If you want to build intelligent machines that behave just like humans\\u2014that is, to pass the Turing Test in all ways\\u2014then you probably would have to recreate much of the other stuff that makes humans what we are. But as we will see later, to build machines that are undoubtedly intelligent but not exactly like humans, we can focus on the part of the brain strictly related to intelligence.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 5,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"To those who may be offended by my singular focus on the neocortex, let me say I agree that other brain structures, such as the brain stem, basal ganglia, and amygdala, are indeed important to the functioning of the human neocortex. No question.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 6,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_42\"\n  }), \"But I hope to convince you that all the essential aspects of intelligence occur in the neocortex, with important roles also played by two other brain regions, the thalamus and the hippocampus, that we will discuss later in the book. In the long run, we will need to understand the functional roles of all brain regions. But I believe those matters will be best addressed in the context of a good overall theory of neocortical function. That\\u2019s my two cents on the matter. Let\\u2019s get back to the neocortex, or its shorter moniker, the cortex.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 7,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Get six business cards or six playing cards\\u2014either will do\\u2014and put them in a stack. (It will really help if you do this instead of just imagining it.) You are now holding a model of the cortex. Your six business cards are about 2 millimeters thick and should give you a sense of how thin the cortical sheet is. Just like your stack of cards, the neocortex is about 2 millimeters thick and has six layers, each approximated by one card.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 8,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Stretched flat, the human neocortical sheet is roughly the size of a large dinner napkin. The cortical sheets of other mammals are smaller: the rat\\u2019s is the size of a postage stamp; the monkey\\u2019s is about the size of a business-letter envelope. But regardless of size, most of them contain six layers similar to what you see in your stack of business cards. Humans are smarter because our cortex, relative to body size, covers a larger area, not because our layers are thicker or contain some special class of \\u201Csmart\\u201D cells. Its size is quite impressive as it surrounds and envelops most of the rest of the brain. To accommodate our large brain, nature had to modify our general anatomy. Human females developed a wide pelvis to give birth to big-headed children, a feature that some paleoanthropologists believe coevolved with the ability to walk on two legs. But that still wasn\\u2019t enough, so evolution folded up the neocortex, stuffing it into our skulls like a sheet of paper crumpled into a brandy snifter.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 9,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Your neocortex is loaded with nerve cells, or neurons. They are so tightly packed that no one knows precisely how many \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_43\"\n  }), \"cells it contains. If you draw a tiny square, one millimeter on a side (about half the size of this letter \", mdx(\"em\", null, \"o\"), \"), on the top of your stack of business cards, you are marking the position of an estimated one hundred thousand (100,000) neurons. Imagine trying to count the exact number in such a tiny space; it is virtually impossible. Nevertheless, some anatomists have estimated that the typical human neocortex contains around thirty billion neurons (30,000,000,000), but no one would be surprised if the figure was significantly higher or lower.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 10,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Those thirty billions cells are you. They contain almost all your memories, knowledge, skills, and accumulated life experience. After twenty-five years of thinking about brains, I still find this fact astounding. That a thin sheet of cells sees, feels, and creates our worldview is just short of incredible. The warmth of a summer day and the dreams we have for a better world are somehow the creation of these cells. Many years after he wrote his article in \", mdx(\"em\", null, \"Scientific American,\"), \" Francis Crick wrote a book about brains called \", mdx(\"em\", null, \"The Astonishing Hypothesis.\"), \" The astonishing hypothesis was simply that the mind is the creation of the cells in the brain. There is nothing else, no magic, no special sauce, only neurons and a dance of information. I hope you can get a sense of how incredible this realization is. There appears to be a large philosophical gulf between a collection of cells and our conscious experience, yet mind and brain are one and the same. In calling this a hypothesis, Crick was being politically correct. That the cells in our brains create the mind is a fact, not a hypothesis. We need to understand what these thirty billion cells do and how they do it. Fortunately, the cortex is not just an amorphous blob of cells. We can take a deeper look at its structure for ideas about how it gives rise to the human mind.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 11,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Let\\u2019s go back to our dissection table and look at the brain some more. To the naked eye, the neocortex presents almost no \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_44\"\n  }), \"landmarks. There are a few, to be sure, such as the giant fissure separating the two cerebral hemispheres and the prominent sulcus that divides the back and front regions. But just about everywhere you look, from left to right, from back to front, the convoluted surface looks pretty much the same. There are no visible boundary lines or color codes demarcating areas that specialize in different sensory information or different types of thought.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 12,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"People have long known there are boundaries in there somewhere, though. Even before neuroscientists were able to discern anything helpful about the circuitry of the cortex, they knew that some mental functions were localized to certain regions of it. If a stroke knocks out Joe\\u2019s right parietal lobe, he can lose his ability to perceive\\u2014or even conceive of\\u2014anything on the left side of his body or in the left half of space around himself. A stroke in the left frontal region known as Broca\\u2019s area, by contrast, compromises his ability to use the rules of grammar, although his vocabulary and his ability to understand the meanings of words are unchanged. A stroke in an area called the fusiform gyrus can knock out the ability to recognize faces\\u2014Joe can\\u2019t recognize his mother, his children, or even his own face in a photograph. Deeply fascinating disorders like these gave early neuroscientists the notion that the cortex consists of many functional regions or functional areas. The terms are equivalent.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 13,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"We have learned a lot about functional areas in the past century, but much remains to be discovered. Each of these regions is semi-independent and seems to be specialized for certain aspects of perception or thought. Physically they are arranged in an irregular patchwork quilt, which varies only a little from person to person. Rarely are the functions cleanly delineated. Functionally they are arranged in a branching hierarchy.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 14,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"The notion of a hierarchy is critical, so I want to take a moment to carefully define it. I\\u2019ll be referring to it throughout the book. In a hierarchical system, some elements are in an \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_45\"\n  }), \"abstract sense \\u201Cabove\\u201D and \\u201Cbelow\\u201D others. In a business hierarchy, for example, a mid-level manager is above a mail clerk and below the vice president. This has nothing to do with physical aboveness or belowness; even if she works on a lower floor than the mail clerk, the manager is still \\u201Cabove\\u201D him hierarchically. I emphasize this point to make clear what I mean whenever I talk about one functional region being higher or lower than another. It has nothing to do with their physical arrangement in the brain. All the functional areas of the cortex reside in the same convoluted cortical sheet. What makes one region \\u201Chigher\\u201D or \\u201Clower\\u201D than another is how they are connected to one another. In the cortex, lower areas feed information up to higher areas by way of a certain neural pattern of connectivity, while higher areas send feedback down to lower areas using a different connection pattern. There are also lateral connections between areas that are in separate branches of the hierarchy, like one mid-level manager communicating with her counterpart in a sister office in another state. A detailed map of the monkey cortex has been worked out by two scientists, Daniel Felleman and David van Essen. The map shows dozens of regions connected together in a complex hierarchy. We can assume the human cortex has a similar hierarchy.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 15,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"The lowest of the functional regions, the primary sensory areas, are where sensory information first arrives in the cortex. These regions process the information at its rawest, most basic level. For example, visual information enters the cortex through the primary visual area, called V1 for short. V1 is concerned with low-level visual features such as tiny edge-segments, smallscale components of motion, binocular disparity (for stereovision), and basic color and contrast information. V1 feeds information up to other areas, such as V2, V4, and IT (we\\u2019ll have more to say about them later), and to a bunch of other areas besides. Each of these areas is concerned with more specialized or abstract aspects of the information. For example, cells in V4 \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_46\"\n  }), \"respond to objects of medium complexity such as star shapes in different colors like red or blue. Another area called MT specializes in the motions of objects. In the higher echelons of the visual cortex are areas that represent your visual memories of all sorts of objects like faces, animals, tools, body parts, and so on.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 16,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Your other senses have similar hierarchies. Your cortex has a primary auditory area called A1 and a hierarchy of auditory regions above it, and it has a primary somatosensory (body sense) area called S1 and a hierarchy of somatosensory regions above that. Eventually, sensory information passes into \\u201Cassociation areas,\\u201D which is the name sometimes used for the regions of the cortex that receive inputs from more than one sense. For example, your cortex has areas that receive input from both vision and touch. It is thanks to association regions that you are able to be aware that the sight of a fly crawling up your arm and the tickling sensation you feel there share the same cause. Most of these areas receive highly processed input from several senses, and their functions remain unclear. I will have much to say about the cortical hierarchy later in the book.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 17,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"There is yet another set of areas in the frontal lobes of the brain that creates motor output. The motor system of the cortex is also hierarchically organized. The lowest area, M1, sends connections to the spinal cord and directly drives muscles. Higher areas feed sophisticated motor commands to M1. The hierarchy of the motor area and the hierarchies of sensory areas look remarkably similar. They seem to be put together in the same way. In the motor region we think of information flowing down the hierarchy toward M1 to drive the muscles and in the sensory regions we think of information flowing up the hierarchy away from the senses. But in reality information flows both ways. What is referred to as feedback in sensory regions is the output of the motor region, and vice versa.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 18,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Most descriptions of brains are based on flowcharts that reflect an oversimplified view of hierarchies. That is, input \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_47\"\n  }), \"(sights, sounds, touch) flows into the primary sensory areas and gets processed as it moves up the hierarchy, then gets passed through the association areas, then gets passed to the frontal lobes of the cortex, and finally gets passed back down to the motor areas. I\\u2019m not saying this view is completely wrong. When you read aloud, visual information does indeed enter at V1, flows up to association areas, makes its way over to the frontal motor cortex, and winds up making the muscles in your mouth and throat form the sounds of speech. However, that isn\\u2019t all there is to it. It\\u2019s just not that simple. In the oversimplified view I am cautioning against, the process is generally treated as though information flows in a single direction, like widgets being built on a factory assembly line. But information in the cortex always flows in the opposite direction as well, and with many more projections feeding back down the hierarchy than up. As you read aloud, higher regions of your cortex send more signals \\u201Cdown\\u201D to your primary visual cortex than your eye receives from the printed page! We\\u2019ll get to what those feedback projections are doing in later chapters. For now, I want to impress upon you one fact: although the up hierarchy is real, we have to be careful not to think that the information flow is all one way.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 19,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Back at the dissection table, let\\u2019s assume we set up a powerful microscope, cut a thin slice from the cortical sheet, stain some of the cells, and take a look at our handiwork through the eyepiece. If we stained all the cells in our slice, we\\u2019d see a solid black mass because the cells are so tightly packed and intermingled. But if we use a stain that marks a smaller fraction of cells, we can see the six layers I mentioned. These layers are formed by variations in the density of cell bodies, cell types, and their connections.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 20,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"All neurons have features in common. Apart from a cell body, which is the roundish part you imagine when you think of a cell, they also have branching, wirelike structures called axons \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_48\"\n  }), \"and dendrites. When the axon from one neuron touches the dendrite of another, they form small connections called synapses. Synapses are where the nerve impulse from one cell influences the behavior of another cell. A neural signal, or spike, arriving at a synapse can make it more likely for the recipient cell to spike. Some synapses have the opposite effect, making it less likely the recipient cell will spike. Thus synapses can be inhibitory or excitatory. The strength of a synapse can change depending on the behavior of the two cells. The simplest form of this synaptic change is that when two neurons generate a spike at nearly the same time, the connection strength between the two neurons will be increased. I will say more about this process, called Hebbian learning, a bit later. In addition to changing the strength of a synapse, there is evidence that entirely new synapses can be formed between two neurons. This may be happening all the time, although the scientific evidence is controversial. Regardless of the details of how synapses change their strength, what is certain is that the formation and strengthening of synapses is what causes memories to be stored.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 21,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"While there are many types of neurons in the neocortex, one broad class of them comprises eight out of every ten cells. These are the pyramidal neurons, so called because their cell bodies are shaped roughly like pyramids. Except for the top layer of the sixlayered cortex, which has miles of axons but very few cells, every layer contains pyramidal cells. Each pyramidal neuron connects to many other neurons in its immediate neighborhood, and each sends a lengthy axon laterally out to more distant regions of cortex or down to lower brain structures like the thalamus.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 22,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"A typical pyramidal cell has several thousand synapses. Again, it is very difficult to know exactly how many because of their extreme density and small size. The number of synapses varies from cell to cell, layer to layer, and region to region. If we were to take the conservative position that the average pyramidal cell has one thousand synapses (the actual number is \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_49\"\n  }), \"probably close to five or ten thousand), then our neocortex would have roughly thirty trillion synapses altogether. That is an astronomically large number, well beyond our intuitive grasp. It is apparently sufficient to store all the things you can learn in a lifetime.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 23,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"According to rumor, Albert Einstein once said that conceiving the theory of special relativity was straightforward, almost easy. It followed naturally from a single observation: that the speed of light is constant to all observers even if the observers are moving at different speeds. This is counterintuitive. It is like saying the speed of a thrown ball is always the same regardless of how hard it is thrown or how fast the individuals throwing and observing the ball are moving. Everybody sees the ball moving at the same speed relative to them under all circumstances. It doesn\\u2019t seem like it could be true. But it was proven to be true for light, and Einstein cleverly asked what the consequences of this bizarre fact were. He methodically thought about all the implications of a constant speed of light, and he was led to the even more bizarre predictions of special relativity, such as time slowing down as you move faster, and energy and mass being fundamentally the same thing. Books on relativity walk through his line of reasoning with everyday examples of trains, bullets, flashlights, and so forth. The theory isn\\u2019t hard, but it is definitely counterintuitive.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 24,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"There is an analogous discovery in neuroscience\\u2014a fact about the cortex that is so surprising that some neuroscientists refuse to believe it and most of the rest ignore it because they don\\u2019t know what to make of it. But it is a fact of such importance that if you carefully and methodically explore its implications, it will unravel the secrets of what the neocortex does and how it works. In this case, the surprising discovery came from the basic \", mdx(\"em\", null, \"anatomy of the cortex\"), \" itself, but it took an unusually \", mdx(\"em\", null, \"insightful\"), \" \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_50\"\n  }), \"mind to recognize it. That person was Vernon Mountcastle, a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. In 1978 he published a paper titled \\u201CAn Organizing Principle for Cerebral Function.\\u201D In this paper, Mountcastle points out that the neocortex is remarkably uniform in appearance and structure. The regions of cortex that handle auditory input look like the regions that handle touch, which look like the regions that control muscles, which look like Broca\\u2019s language area, which look like practically every other region of the cortex. Mountcastle suggests that since these regions all look the same, perhaps they are actually performing the same basic operation! He proposes that the cortex uses the same computational tool to accomplish everything it does.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 25,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"All anatomists at that time, and for decades prior to Mountcastle, recognized that the cortex looks similar everywhere; this is undeniable. But instead of asking what that could mean, they spent their time looking for the differences between one area of cortex and another. And they did find differences. They assumed that if one region is used for language and another for vision, then there ought to be differences between those regions. If you look closely enough you find them. Regions of cortex vary in thickness, cell density, relative proportion of cell types, length of horizontal connections, synapse density, and many other ways that can be tricky to discover. One of the moststudied regions, the primary visual area V1, actually has a few extra divisions in one of its layers. The situation is analogous to the work of biologists in the 1800s. They spent their time discovering the minute differences between species. Success for them was finding that two mice that looked nearly identical were actually separate species. For many years Darwin followed the same course, often studying mollusks. But Darwin eventually had the big insight to ask how all these species could be so similar. It is their similarity that is surprising and interesting, much more so than their differences.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 26,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_51\"\n  }), \"Mountcastle makes a similar observation. In a field of anatomists looking for minute differences in cortical regions, he shows that despite the differences, the neocortex is remarkably uniform. The same layers, cell types, and connections exist throughout. It looks like the six business cards everywhere. The differences are often so subtle that trained anatomists can\\u2019t agree on them. Therefore, Mountcastle argues, all regions of the cortex are performing the same operation. The thing that makes the vision area visual and the motor area motoric is how the regions of cortex are connected to each other and to other parts of the central nervous system.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 27,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"In fact, Mountcastle argues that the reason one region of cortex looks slightly different from another is because of what it is connected to, and not because its basic function is different. He concludes that there is a common function, a common algorithm, that is performed by all the cortical regions. Vision is no different from hearing, which is no different from motor output. He allows that our genes specify how the regions of cortex are connected, which is very specific to function and species, but the cortical tissue itself is doing the same thing everywhere.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 28,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Let\\u2019s think about this for a moment. To me, sight, hearing, and touch seem very different. They have fundamentally different qualities. Sight involves color, texture, shape, depth, and form. Hearing has pitch, rhythm, and timbre. They feel very different. How can they be the same? Mountcastle says they aren\\u2019t the same, but the way the cortex processes signals from the ear is the same as the way it processes signals from the eyes. He goes on to say that motor control works on the same principle, too.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 29,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Scientists and engineers have for the most part been ignorant of, or have chosen to ignore, Mountcastle\\u2019s proposal. When they try to understand vision or make a computer that can \\u201Csee,\\u201D they devise vocabulary and techniques specific to vision. They talk about edges, textures, and three-dimensional representations. If they want to understand spoken language, they build algorithms \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_52\"\n  }), \"based on rules of grammar, syntax, and semantics. But if Mountcastle is correct, these approaches are not how the brain solves these problems, and are therefore likely to fail. If Mountcastle is correct, the algorithm of the cortex must be expressed independently of any particular function or sense. The brain uses the same process to see as to hear. The cortex does something universal that can be applied to any type of sensory or motor system.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 30,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"When I first read Mountcastle\\u2019s paper I nearly fell out of my chair. Here was the Rosetta stone of neuroscience\\u2014a single paper and a single idea that united all the diverse and wondrous capabilities of the human mind. It united them under a single algorithm. In one step it exposed the fallacy of all previous attempts to understand and engineer human behavior as diverse capabilities. I hope you can appreciate how radical and wonderfully elegant Mountcastle\\u2019s proposal is. The best ideas in science are always simple, elegant, and unexpected, and this is one of the best. In my opinion it was, is, and will likely remain the most important discovery in neuroscience. Incredibly, though, most scientists and engineers either refuse to believe it, choose to ignore it, or aren\\u2019t aware of it.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 31,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Part of this neglect stems from a poverty of tools for studying how information flows within the six-layered cortex. The tools we do have operate on a grosser level and are generally aimed at locating where in the cortex, as opposed to when and how, various capabilities arise. For example, much of the neuroscience reported in the popular press these days implicitly favors the idea of the brain as a collection of highly specialized modules. Functional imaging techniques like functional MRI and PET scanning focus almost exclusively on brain maps and the functional regions I mentioned earlier. Typically in these experiments, a volunteer subject lies down with his or her head inside \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_53\"\n  }), \"the scanner and performs some kind of mental or motor task. It might be playing a video game, generating verb conjugations, reading sentences, looking at faces, naming pictures, imagining something, memorizing lists, making financial decisions, and so on. The scanner detects which brain regions are more active than usual during these tasks and draws colored splotches over an image of the subject\\u2019s brain to pinpoint them. These regions are presumably central to the task. Thousands of functional imaging experiments have been done and thousands more will follow. Through the course of it all, we are gradually building up a picture of where certain functions happen in the typical adult brain. It is easy to say, \\u201Cthis is the face recognition area, this is the math area, this is the music area,\\u201D and so on. Since we don\\u2019t know how the brain accomplishes these tasks, it is natural to assume that the brain carries out the various activities in different ways.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 32,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"But does it? A growing and fascinating body of evidence supports Mountcastle\\u2019s proposal. Some of the best examples demonstrate the extreme flexibility of the neocortex. Any human brain, if nourished properly and put in the right environment, can learn any of thousands of spoken languages. That same brain can also learn sign language, written language, musical language, mathematical language, computer languages, and body language. It can learn to live in frigid northern climes or in a scorching desert. It can become an expert in chess, fishing, farming, or theoretical physics. Consider the fact that you have a special visual area that seems to be specifically devoted to representing written letters and digits. Does this mean you were born with a language area ready to process letters and digits? Unlikely. Written language is far too recent an invention for our genes to have evolved a specific mechanism for it. So the cortex is still dividing itself into task-specific functional areas long into childhood, based purely on experience. The human brain has an incredible capacity to learn and adapt to thousands of \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_54\"\n  }), \"environments that didn\\u2019t exist until very recently. This argues for an extremely flexible system, not one with a thousand solutions for a thousand problems.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 33,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Neuroscientists have also found that the wiring of the neocortex is amazingly \\u201Cplastic,\\u201D meaning it can change and rewire itself depending on the type of inputs flowing into it. For example, newborn ferret brains can be surgically rewired so that the animals\\u2019 eyes send their signals to the areas of cortex where hearing normally develops. The surprising result is that the ferrets develop functioning visual pathways in the auditory portions of their brains. In other words, they see with brain tissue that normally hears sounds. Similar experiments have been done with other senses and brain regions. For instance, pieces of rat visual cortex can be transplanted around the time of birth to regions where the sense of touch is usually represented. As the rat matures, the transplanted tissue processes touch rather than vision. Cells were not born to specialize in vision or touch or hearing.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 34,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Human neocortex is every bit as plastic. Adults who are born deaf process visual information in areas that normally become auditory regions. And congenitally blind adults use the rearmost portion of their cortex, which ordinarily becomes dedicated to vision, to read braille. Since braille involves touch, you might think it would primarily activate touch regions\\u2014but apparently no area of cortex is content to represent nothing. The visual cortex, not receiving information from the eyes like it is \\u201Csupposed\\u201D to, casts around for other input patterns to sift through\\u2014in this case, from other cortical regions.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 35,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"All this goes to show that brain regions develop specialized functions based largely on the kind of information that flows into them during development. The cortex is not rigidly designed to perform different functions using different algorithms any more than the earth\\u2019s surface was predestined to end up with its modern arrangement of nations. The organization \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_55\"\n  }), \"of your cortex, like the political geography of the globe, could have turned out differently given a different set of early circumstances.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 36,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Genes dictate the overall architecture of the cortex, including the specifics of what regions are connected together, but within that structure the system is highly flexible.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 37,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Mountcastle was right. There is a single powerful algorithm implemented by every region of cortex. If you connect regions of cortex together in a suitable hierarchy and provide a stream of input, it will learn about its environment. Therefore, there is no reason for intelligent machines of the future to have the same senses or capabilities as we humans. The cortical algorithm can be deployed in novel ways, with novel senses, in a machined cortical sheet so that genuine, flexible intelligence emerges outside of biological brains.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 38,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Let\\u2019s move on to a topic that is related to Mountcastle\\u2019s proposal and is equally surprising. The inputs to your cortex are all basically alike. Again, you probably think of your senses as being completely separate entities. After all, sound is carried as compression waves through air, vision is carried as light, and touch is carried as pressure on your skin. Sound seems temporal, vision seems mainly pictorial, and touch seems essentially spatial. What could be more different than the sound of a bleating goat versus the sight of an apple versus the feel of a baseball?\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 39,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"But let\\u2019s take a closer look. Visual information from the outside world is sent to your brain via a million fibers in your optic nerve. After a brief transit through the thalamus, they arrive at the primary visual cortex. Sounds are carried in via the thirty thousand fibers of your auditory nerve. They pass through some older parts of your brain and then arrive at your primary auditory cortex. Your spinal cord carries information about touch and internal sensations to your brain via another million \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_56\"\n  }), \"fibers. They are received by your primary somatosensory cortex. These are the main inputs to your brain. They are how you sense the world.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 40,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"You can visualize these inputs as a bundle of electrical wires or a bundle of optical fibers. You might have seen lamps made with optical fibers where pinpoints of colored light appear at the end of each fiber. The inputs to the brain are like this, but the fibers are called axons, and they carry neural signals called \\u201Caction potentials\\u201D or \\u201Cspikes,\\u201D which are partly chemical and partly electrical. The sense organs supplying these signals are different, but once they are turned into brain-bound action potentials, they are all the same\\u2014just patterns.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 41,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"If you look at a dog, for example, a set of patterns will flow through the fibers of your optic nerve into the visual part of your cortex. If you listen to the dog bark, a different set of patterns will flow along your auditory nerve and into the hearing parts of your brain. If you pet the dog, a set of touch-sensation patterns will flow from your hand, through fibers in your spine, and into the parts of your brain that deal with touch. Each pattern\\u2014see the dog, hear the dog, feel the dog\\u2014is experienced differently because each gets channeled through a different path in the cortical hierarchy. It matters where the cables go to inside the brain. But at the abstract level of sensory inputs, these are all essentially the same, and are all handled in similar ways by the sixlayered cortex. You hear sound, see light, and feel pressure, but inside your brain there isn\\u2019t any fundamental difference between these types of information. An action potential is an action potential. These momentary spikes are identical regardless of what originally caused them. All your brain knows is patterns.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 42,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Your perceptions and knowledge about the world are built from these patterns. There\\u2019s no light inside your head. It\\u2019s dark in there. There\\u2019s no sound entering your brain either. It\\u2019s quiet inside. In fact, the brain is the only part of your body that has no \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_57\"\n  }), \"senses itself. A surgeon could stick a finger into your brain and you wouldn\\u2019t feel it. All the information that enters your mind comes in as spatial and temporal patterns on the axons.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 43,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"What exactly do I mean by spatial and temporal patterns? Let\\u2019s look at each of our main senses in turn. Vision carries both spatial and temporal information. \", mdx(\"em\", null, \"Spatial patterns\"), \" are coincident patterns in time; they are created when multiple receptors in the same sense organ are stimulated simultaneously. In vision, the sense organ is your retina. An image enters your pupil, gets inverted by your lens, hits your retina, and creates a spatial pattern. This pattern gets relayed to your brain. People tend to think that there\\u2019s a little upside-down picture of the world going into your visual areas, but that\\u2019s not how it works. There is no picture. It\\u2019s not an image anymore. Fundamentally, it is just electrical activity firing in patterns. Its imagelike qualities get lost very rapidly as your cortex handles the information, passing components of the pattern up and down between different areas, sifting them, filtering them.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 44,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Vision also relies on \", mdx(\"em\", null, \"temporal patterns,\"), \" which means the patterns entering your eyes are constantly changing over time. But while the spatial aspect of vision is intuitively obvious, its temporal aspect is less apparent. About three times every second, your eyes make a sudden movement called a saccade. They fixate on one point, and then suddenly jump to another point. Every time your eyes move, the image on your retina changes. This means that the patterns carried into your brain are also changing completely with each saccade. And that\\u2019s in the simplest possible case of you just sitting still looking at an unchanging scene. In real life, you constantly move your head and body and walk through continuously shifting environments. Your conscious impression is of a stable world full of objects and people that are easy to keep track of. But this impression is only made possible by your brain\\u2019s ability to deal with a torrent of retinal \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_58\"\n  }), \"images that never repeat a pattern exactly. Natural vision, experienced as patterns entering the brain, flows like a river. Vision is more like a song than a painting.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 45,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Many vision researchers ignore saccades and the rapidly changing patterns of vision. Working with anesthetized animals, they study how vision occurs when an unconscious animal fixates on a point. In doing so, they\\u2019re taking away the time dimension. There\\u2019s nothing wrong with that in principle; eliminating variables is a core element of the scientific method. But they\\u2019re throwing away a central component of vision, what it actually consists of. Time needs a central place in a neuroscientific account of vision.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 46,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"With hearing, we\\u2019re used to thinking about sound\\u2019s temporal aspect. It is intuitively obvious to us that sounds, spoken language, and music change over time. You can\\u2019t listen to a song all at once any more than you can hear a spoken sentence instantaneously. A song only exists over time. Therefore we don\\u2019t usually think of sound as a spatial pattern. In a way, it\\u2019s the inverse of the case with vision: the temporal aspect is immediately apparent, but its spatial aspect is less obvious.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 47,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Hearing has a spatial component as well. You convert sounds into action potentials through a coiled-up organ in each ear called the cochlea. Tiny, opaque, spiral-shaped, and embedded in the hardest bone in the body, the temporal bone, the cochlea was deciphered more than half a century ago by a Hungarian physicist, Georg von Beksey. Building models of the inner ear, von Beksey discovered that each component of sound you hear causes a different portion of the cochlea to vibrate. High-frequency tones cause vibrations in the cochlea\\u2019s stiff base. Low-frequency tones cause vibrations in the cochlea\\u2019s floppier and wider outer portion. Mid-frequency tones vibrate intermediate segments. Each site on the cochlea is studded with neurons that fire as they are shaken. In daily life your cochleas are being vibrated by large numbers of simultaneous frequencies \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_59\"\n  }), \"all the time. So each moment there is a new spatial pattern of stimulation along the length of each cochlea. Each moment a new spatial pattern streams up the auditory nerve. Again we see that this sensory information boils down to spatial-temporal patterns.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 48,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"People don\\u2019t usually think of touch as a temporal phenomenon, but it is every bit as time-based as it is spatial. You can carry out an experiment to see for yourself. Ask a friend to cup his hand, palm face up, and close his eyes. Place a small ordinary object in his palm\\u2014a ring, an eraser, anything will do\\u2014and ask him to identify it without moving any part of his hand. He won\\u2019t have a clue other than weight and maybe gross size. Then tell him to keep his eyes closed and move his fingers over the object. He\\u2019ll most likely identify it at once. By allowing the fingers to move, you\\u2019ve added time to the sensory perception of touch. There\\u2019s a direct analogy between the fovea at the center of your retina and your fingertips, both of which have high acuity. So touch, too, is like a song. Your ability to make complex use of touch, such as buttoning your shirt or unlocking your front door in the dark, depends on continuous time-varying patterns of touch sensation.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 49,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"We teach our children that humans have five senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. We really have more. Vision is more like three senses\\u2014motion, color, and luminance (black-and-white contrast). Touch has pressure, temperature, pain, and vibration. We also have an entire system of sensors that tell us about our joint angles and bodily position. It is called the proprioceptive system \", mdx(\"em\", null, \"(proprio-\"), \" has the same Latin root as \", mdx(\"em\", null, \"proprietary\"), \" and \", mdx(\"em\", null, \"property).\"), \" You couldn\\u2019t move without it. We also have the vestibular system in the inner ear, which gives us our sense of balance. Some of these senses are richer and more apparent to us than others, but they all enter our brain as streams of spatial patterns flowing through time on axons.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 50,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Your cortex doesn\\u2019t really know or sense the world directly.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 51,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_60\"\n  }), \"The only thing the cortex knows is the pattern streaming in on the input axons. Your perceived view of the world is created from these patterns, including your sense of self. In fact, your brain can\\u2019t directly know where your body ends and the world begins. Neuroscientists studying body image have found that our sense of self is a lot more flexible than it feels. For example, if I give you a little rake and have you use it for reaching and grasping instead of using your hand, you will soon feel that it has become a part of your body. Your brain will change its expectations to accommodate the new patterns of tactile input. The rake is literally incorporated into your body map.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 52,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"The idea that patterns from different senses are equivalent inside your brain is quite surprising, and although well understood, it still isn\\u2019t widely appreciated. More examples are in order. The first one you can reproduce at home. All you need is a friend, a freestanding cardboard screen, and a fake hand. For your first time running this experiment, it would be ideal if you had a rubber hand, such as you might buy at a Halloween store, but it will also work if you just trace your hand on a sheet of blank paper. Lay your real hand on a tabletop a few inches away from the fake one and align them the same (fingertips pointed in the same direction, palms either both up or both down). Then place the screen between the two hands so that all you can see is the false one. While you stare at the fake hand, your friend\\u2019s job is to simultaneously stroke both hands at corresponding points. For example, your friend could stroke both pinkies from knuckle to nail at the same speed, then issue three quick taps to the second joint of both index fingers with the same timing, then stroke a few light circles on the back of each hand, and so on. After a short time, areas in your brain where visual and somatosensory patterns come together\\u2014one of those association areas I mentioned earlier in this chapter\\u2014become confused.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 53,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_61\"\n  }), \"You will actually feel the sensations being applied to the dummy hand as if it were your own.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 54,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Another fascinating example of this \\u201Cpattern equivalency\\u201D is called sensory substitution. It may revolutionize life for people who lose their sight in childhood, and might someday be a boon to people who are born blind. It also might spawn new machine interface technologies for the rest of us.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 55,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Realizing that the brain is all about patterns, Paul Bach y Rita, a professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Wisconsin, has developed a method for displaying visual patterns on the human tongue. Wearing this display device, blind persons are learning to \\u201Csee\\u201D via sensations on the tongue.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 56,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Here is how it works. The subject wears a small camera on his forehead and a chip on his tongue. Visual images are translated pixel for pixel into points of pressure on the tongue. A visual scene that can be displayed as hundreds of pixels on a crude television screen can be turned into a pattern of hundreds of tiny pressure points on the tongue. The brain quickly learns to interpret the patterns correctly.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 57,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"One of the first people to wear the tongue-mounted device is Erik Weihenmayer, a world-class athlete who went blind at age thirteen and who lectures widely about not letting blindness stop his ambitions. In 2002, Weihenmayer summited Mount Everest, becoming the first blind person ever to undertake, much less accomplish, such a goal.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 58,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"In 2003, Weihenmayer tried on the tongue unit and saw images for the first time since his childhood. He was able to discern a ball rolling on the floor toward him, reach for a soft drink on a table, and play the game Rock, Paper, Scissors. Later he walked down a hallway, saw the door openings, examined a door and its frame, and noted that there was a sign on it. Images initially experienced as sensations on the tongue were soon experienced as images in space.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 59,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"These examples show once again that the cortex is extremely \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_62\"\n  }), \"flexible and that the inputs to the brain are just patterns. It doesn\\u2019t matter where the patterns come from; as long as they correlate over time in consistent ways, the brain can make sense of them.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 60,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"All of this shouldn\\u2019t be too surprising if we take the view that patterns are all the brain knows about. Brains are pattern machines. It\\u2019s not incorrect to express the brain\\u2019s functions in terms of hearing or vision, but at the most fundamental level, patterns are the name of the game. No matter how different the activities of various cortical areas may seem from each other, the same basic cortical algorithm is at work. The cortex doesn\\u2019t care if the patterns originated in vision, hearing, or another sense. It doesn\\u2019t care if its inputs are from a single sensory organ or from four. Nor would it care if you happened to perceive the world with sonar, radar, or magnetic fields, or if you had tentacles rather than hands, or even if you lived in a world of four dimensions rather than three.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 61,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"This means you don\\u2019t need any one of your senses or any particular combination of senses to be intelligent. Helen Keller had no sight and no hearing, yet she learned language and became a more skillful writer than most sighted and hearing people. Here was a very intelligent person without two of our main senses, yet the incredible flexibility of the brain allowed her to perceive and understand the world as individuals with all five senses do.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 62,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"This kind of remarkable flexibility in the human mind gives me high hopes for the brain-inspired technology we will create. When I think about building intelligent machines, I wonder, Why stick to our familiar senses? As long as we can decipher the neocortical algorithm and come up with a science of patterns, we can apply it to any system that we want to make intelligent. And one of the great features of neocortically inspired circuitry is that we won\\u2019t need to be especially clever in programming it.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 63,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_63\"\n  }), \"Just as auditory cortex can become \\u201Cvisual\\u201D cortex in a rewired ferret, just as visual cortex finds alternative usage in blind people, a system running the neocortical algorithm will be intelligent based on whatever kinds of patterns we choose to give it. We will still need to be smart about setting up the broad parameters of the system, and we will need to train and educate it. But the billions of neural details involved in the brain\\u2019s ability to have complex, creative thoughts will take care of themselves, as naturally as they do in our children.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 64,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"Finally, the idea that patterns are the fundamental currency of intelligence leads to some interesting philosophical questions. When I sit in a room with my friends, how do I know they are there or even if they are real? My brain receives a set of patterns that are consistent with patterns I have experienced in the past. These patterns correspond to people I know, their faces, their voices, how they usually behave, and all kinds of facts about them. I have learned to expect these patterns to occur together in predictable ways. But when you come down to it, it\\u2019s all just a model. All our knowledge of the world is a model based on patterns. Are we certain the world is real? It\\u2019s fun and odd to think about. Several science-fiction books and movies explore this theme. This is not to say that the people or objects aren\\u2019t really there. They are really there. But our certainty of the world\\u2019s existence is based on the consistency of patterns and how we interpret them. There is no such thing as direct perception. We don\\u2019t have a \\u201Cpeople\\u201D sensor. Remember, the brain is in a dark quiet box with no knowledge of anything other than the time-flowing patterns on its input fibers. Your perception of the world is created from these patterns, nothing else. Existence may be objective, but the spatial-temporal patterns flowing into the axon bundles in our brains are all we have to go on.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 65,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"This discussion highlights the sometimes-questioned relationship between hallucination and reality. If you can hallucinate sensations coming from a rubber hand and you can \\u201Csee\\u201D \", mdx(\"a\", {\n    id: \"page_64\"\n  }), \"via touch stimulation of your tongue, are you being equally \\u201Cfooled\\u201D when you sense touch on your own hand or see with your eyes? Can we trust that the world is as it seems? Yes. The world really does exist in an absolute form very close to how we perceive it. However, our brains can\\u2019t know about the absolute world directly.\"), mdx(ContentRef, {\n    id: 66,\n    mdxType: \"ContentRef\"\n  }, \"The brain knows about the world through a set of senses, which can only detect parts of the absolute world. The senses create patterns that are sent to the cortex, and processed by the same cortical algorithm to create a model of the world. In this way, spoken language and written language are perceived remarkably similarly, despite being completely different at the sensory level. Likewise, Helen Keller\\u2019s model of the world was very close to yours and mine, despite the fact that she had a greatly reduced set of senses. Through these patterns the cortex constructs a model of the world that is close to the real thing, and then, remarkably, holds it in memory. It is memory\\u2014what happens to those patterns after they enter the cortex\\u2014that we\\u2019ll discuss in the next chapter.\"));\n}\n;\nMDXContent.isMDXComponent = true;","fields":{"slug":"/intelligence/6/"},"frontmatter":{"isBook":false,"title":"3. THE HUMAN BRAIN","bookTitle":"On Intelligence","numSections":16,"tags":["a"],"author":"Jeff Hawkins"}}},"pageContext":{"id":"55b0df2e-57d4-5f97-a707-5cc78015e978"}},"staticQueryHashes":["4080856488"]}