The Logic of Human Thinking: An Interim Review

he cycle itself is an attempt to build a fairly complete model of the brain. That is, not just to describe the individual mechanisms, but also to show how human thinking can be born out of their interaction. What has already been published is the foundation of the stated concept. It shows how the basic information mechanisms are implemented at the neuron level. This foundation in a certain way sets the rules for the rest of the game. It determines what tools we have to implement more complex processes. I tried to show that, remaining within the framework of biologically authentic ideas, it is possible to create a model with high computational capabilities. As an example, the correspondence between the properties of the cortex and the capabilities of relational algebra was shown.

But we must understand that the described neural model is only the beginning of the narration. It is possible to draw an analogy with the hardware and software filling of computers. Although the hardware component is fundamentally important, but all the most important external manifestations are a consequence of the work of the software part.

Natural selection has created, I am not afraid of this word, ingenious mechanisms of information processing. Facing the same informational tasks as the brain, people came up with a lot of very interesting concepts and algorithms. But something elusive constantly interferes and does not allow to create a strong artificial intelligence. In the continuation of the cycle, I will try to “catch this elusiveness” and describe a fundamentally new approach to information processing. The approach, on the one hand, is ideologically different from traditional computer calculations, and, on the other hand, it is surprisingly well explaining what we know about human thinking.

Continuing the cycle, I plan to start approximately in a month. Most of the materials have already been written, but editing is required, illustrations are prepared, and if we manage with the team, then examples of program code. They say: you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans. Most likely, the month period is too optimistic, but we will try.

Thanks to all those who supported the article "pluses". I understand that ordinary readers of Habr find it difficult to find the time and effort to consistently read all the articles. Especially since the stated concept does not have the status of a theory recognized in the scientific world, which means that time is spent solely at your own peril and risk.

A video showing the propagation of wave patterns was watched by about a thousand people. This means that perhaps several hundred actually tracked all the published material. If you are one of them and want to participate in our project, then my website has an indicative list of topics for possible cooperation.

Today, if you do not take the research itself, there are several of the most relevant areas:

• The wave model executed on Visual Basic .NET has rested against speed. The work of the cortex is very well parallelized, but the transfer to parallel computing would be desirable to make it convenient for those who want to experiment with the model.
• The wave model is not quite obvious, especially in terms of how engrams look. We need animated videos that can illustrate each of the processes.
• Need a translation of materials into English. Text prepared for translation is in gdocs. Everyone who has the opportunity to make part of the translation or to verify what has been done is invited.
• Very interesting contacts with projects involved in the study and modeling of the brain. Now the main direction of modeling is the most accurate reproduction of physical processes in the neural networks of the brain in the hope that this will lead to an understanding of its work. It seems to me that the proposed wave model can greatly help in such projects. Most of these studies are English-speaking. Hence the need for translation (see above) and those who will be able to explain the main ideas enough to cause the projects interest in our work.

In conclusion, I'd like to address those who have already read the published articles in this series. I'd be very grateful if you could share your impressions in the comments. Your feedback could be helpful to other readers who are still deciding whether to dive into this material and take the time to read the entire series sequentially.

Especially valuable would be not just general assessments like "liked" or "disliked," but a few words about how clear, interesting, convincing, or, conversely, controversial the material was. You can write about which ideas you found most compelling, which passages raised questions, where the presentation was too complex, and where, on the contrary, it helped you better understand the topic.

Also, if possible, please indicate your education, professional field, or area of ​​expertise. This isn't required for formality, but to help other readers understand the perspective from which a particular review is being written. For example, the perception of the material may differ significantly for someone with a technical, biological, medical, philosophical, or humanities background.

Such comments will help new readers understand how accessible the text is without special preparation, how interesting it is for specialists, which sections require more attention, and whether it's worth starting from the beginning. Furthermore, feedback is important for further work on the project: it will help them better understand which topics should be explored in more detail, which explanations need clarification, and which ideas are most intriguing.