Skip to main content
Log in

Toward a Model of Functional Brain Processes I: Central Nervous System Functional Micro-architecture

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Axiomathes Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Standard semantic information processing models—information in; information processed; information out (in the form of utterances or actions)—lend themselves to standard models of the functioning of the brain in terms, e.g., of threshold-switch neurons connected via classical synapses. That is, in terms of sophisticated descendants of McCulloch and Pitts models (Bull Math Biophys 7:115–133, 1943). I argue that both the cognition and the brain sides of this framework are incorrect: cognition and thought are not constituted as forms of semantic information processing, and the brain does not function in terms of passive input processing units (e.g., threshold switch neurons or connectionist nodes) organized as neural nets. An alternative framework is developed that models cognition and thought not in terms of semantic information processing, and, correspondingly, models brain functional processes also not in terms of semantic information processing. As alternative to such models: (1) I outline a pragmatist oriented, interaction based (rather than reception or input-processing based), model of representation; (2) derive from this model a fundamental framework of constraints on how the brain must function; (3) show that such a framework is in fact found in the brain, and (4) develop the outlines of a broader model of how mental processes can be realized within this alternative framework. Part I of this discussion focuses on some criticisms of standard modeling frameworks for representation and cognition, and outlines an alternative interactivist, pragmatist oriented, model. In part II, the focus is on the fact that the brain does not, in fact, function in accordance with standard passive input processing models—e.g., information processing models. Instead, there are multiple endogenously active processes at multiple spatial and temporal scales across multiple kinds of cells. A micro-functional model that accounts for, and even predicts, these multi-scale phenomena in generating emergent representation and cognition is outlined. That is, I argue that the interactivist model of representation outlined offers constraints on how the brain should function that are in fact empirically found, and, in reverse, that the multifarious details of brain functioning entail the pragmatist representational model—a very strong interrelationship. In the sequel paper, starting with part III, this model is extended to address macro-functioning in the CNS. In part IV, I offer a discussion of an approach to brain functioning that has some similarities with, as well as differences from, the model presented here: sometimes called the predictive brain approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Einstein (1990, p. 31).

  2. For discussions of emergence, see Bickhard (2004, 2009a), Clayton and Davies (2006), Deacon (2006, 2012).

  3. For extended critiques of standard models, including Fodor, Millikan, Dretske, Cummins, computationalist, connectionist, and information processing models, see Bickhard (1980, 1993, 2000a, 2009a, 2014), Bickhard and Terveen (1995).

  4. Note that representation did not exist 13+ billion years ago, and it does now. So it has to have emerged. Any model that cannot account for the emergence of representation is thereby refuted.

  5. Technically, transduction refers to a change in the form of energy. How that could possibly generate a representation, e.g., a sensation, is just as mysterious as how the signet ring impression could do so.

  6. “Transduction, remember, is the function that Descartes assigned to the pineal gland.” (Haugeland 1998, p. 223).

  7. I have (in this discussion) skipped over a preliminary normative emergence—that of normative function. I argue that normative function emerges naturally in living systems, in a manner differing from the standard etiological model of function, and that interaction indication is the crucial (normative) function from which representation emerges (Bickhard 1993, 2004, 2009a; Christensen and Bickhard 2002). Interaction indication is the interface between functional normativity and representational normativity.

  8. Bickhard (1993, 2004, 2009a, b), Bickhard and Terveen (1995), Campbell (2009), Hooker (2009), Levine (2009), Seibt (2009), Vuyk (1981).

  9. This is just an illustration, and leaves multiple issues unaddressed. For example, how can abstractions, such as the number three, be represented within an interactivist framework? The answer is again roughly Piagetian in spirit, though with more changes from Piaget than for small physical objects (Bickhard 2009a). The general programme of modeling the myriad kinds of representational phenomena requires addressing each kind in its own terms.

  10. There are numerous models today that posit effects of action on perception, but not that attempt to model the emergent constitution of representation in terms of (potential) (inter)action. Piaget is among the few who have made that attempt.

  11. The central idea is that processes that are inherently far from thermodynamic equilibrium must be maintained, perhaps via (recursive) self-maintenance, in those far from equilibrium relationships with their environments. Examples range from candle flames to living organisms. Maintenance of such far from equilibrium conditions is, thus, contributory to—normatively functional for—the existence of the system (Bickhard 2009a).

  12. There can also be a distinction between the anticipation and the environmental conditions that would support it. It is the latter conditions that might be called implicit ‘content’.

  13. The impossibility of emergent representation in standard models, e.g., information semantics models, is reflected in arguments for the innatism of a base level of representations (Fodor 1981). But such a position assumes that representation emerged in evolution, and there is no model of how that could occur, nor is there any argument that such evolutionary emergence could not also occur in a single organism’s learning and development (Bickhard 2009c). Instead:

    I am inclined to think that the argument has to be wrong, that a nativism pushed to that point becomes unsupportable, that something important must have been left aside. What I think it shows is really not so much an a priori argument for nativism as that there must be some notion of learning that is so incredibly different from the one we have imagined that we don’t even know what it would be like as things now stand. Fodor in Piatelli-Palmarini (1980, p. 269).

  14. As mentioned, it is not a spectator model (Dewey 1960/1929; Tiles 1990).

  15. The second (macro-level) part of the brain model is discussed in the second of this pair of papers.

  16. The literature on astrocytes has expanded dramatically in the last decades: e.g., Bushong et al. (2004), Chvátal and Syková (2000), Hertz and Zielker (2004), Nedergaard et al. (2003), Newman (2003), Perea and Araque (2007), Ransom et al. (2003), Slezak and Pfreiger (2003), Verkhratsky and Butt (2007), Viggiano et al. (2000).

  17. Note that some models may posit a dynamics by which the threshold per se can be changed. So, in that sense, the threshold is passive relative to whatever changes it, but the focus here is on the sense in which the threshold is passive relative to its inputs, and that form of passivity holds whether or not the threshold per se can be changed.

  18. For mathematical dynamic systems theory, see, e.g., Galves et al. (2002); Hale and Koçak (1991), Hirsch et al. (2004), Ivancevic and Ivancevic (2006), Jost (2005), Lyubich et al. (2001).

  19. This is a simplification of a more complex dynamics: (1) there are not just two levels, but, rather, a range of temporal and spatial scales of processes, and (2) influences occur from faster to slower as well as from slower to faster. But the focus here is on the sense in which the slower processes set parameters for faster processes, and that is an asymmetric functional relationship. Faster processes can influence slower processes, but, because they are faster, they do so with a kind of moving average of activity, if at all. Furthermore, as will be discussed in the second paper, the slower processes tend to be modulated by processes external to the local domains, and, thus, potentially less malleable to the influences of local faster processes.

  20. E.g., Zacks et al. (2007).

  21. In doing so, they participate in larger scale oscillatory/modulatory processes. They do not engage in the transmission of semantic information.

  22. Such coupling via larger scale processes will be a meta-modulation of local coupling modulations among small scale processes that occur via shared local extra-cellular environments.

  23. New non-standard modulatory phenomena are today discovered with startling frequency, and these need to be integrated into an overall model. The interactivist model is uniquely suited to be able to address this integration. It is an ongoing, always-under-construction, project.

References

  • Agnati LF, Bjelke B, Fuxe K (1992) Volume transmission in the brain. Am Sci 80(4):362–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Agnati LF, Fuxe K, Nicholson C, Syková E (2000) Volume transmission revisited. Progress in brain research, vol 125. Elsevier, Amsterdam

  • Ashby WR (1960) Design for a brain. Chapman and Hall, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bermudez JL (2010) Cognitive science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH (1973) A model of developmental and psychological processes. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago. Also Bickhard MH (1980) A model of developmental and psychological processes. Genet Psychol Monogr 102:61–116

  • Bickhard MH (1980) Cognition, convention, and communication. Praeger Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH (1988a) Piaget on variation and selection models: structuralism, logical necessity, and interactivism. Hum Dev 31:274–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH (1988b) The necessity of possibility and necessity. Review of Piaget’s possibility and necessity. Harv Educ Rev 58(4):502–507

  • Bickhard MH (1993) Representational content in humans and machines. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 5:285–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH (1997) Cognitive representation in the brain. In: Dulbecco R (ed) Encyclopedia of human biology, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 865–876

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH (2000a) Information and representation in autonomous agents. J Cogn Syst Res 1:65–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH (2000b) Review of B. Shanon, the representational and the presentational. Mind Mach 10(2):313–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH (2004) Process and emergence: normative function and representation. Axiomathes Int J Ontol Cogn Syst 14:135–169. Reprinted from: Bickhard MH (2003) Process and emergence: normative function and representation. In: Seibt J (ed) Process theories: crossdisciplinary studies in dynamic categories. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 121–155

  • Bickhard MH (2006) Developmental normativity and normative development. In: Smith L, Voneche J (eds) Norms in human development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 57–76

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH (2007) The evolutionary exploitation of microgenesis. Interactivist Summer Institute, The American University in Paris

  • Bickhard MH (2008a) Is embodiment necessary? In: Calvo P, Gomila T (eds) Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 29–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH (2008b) The microgenetic dynamics of cortical attractor landscapes. Workshop on “Dynamics in and of Attractor Landscapes”, Parmenides Foundation, Isola d’Elba, Italy

  • Bickhard MH (2009a) The interactivist model. Synthese 166(3):547–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH (2009b) Interactivism. In: Symons J, Calvo P (eds) The Routledge Companion to philosophy of psychology. Routledge, London, pp 346–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH (2009c) The biological foundations of cognitive science. New Ideas Psychol 27:75–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH (2014) What could cognition be, if not computation … or connectionism, or dynamic systems? J Theor Philos Psychol 35(1):53–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH (in preparation) The whole person: toward a naturalism of persons—contributions to an ontological psychology

  • Bickhard MH (in press) Toward a model of functional brain processes II: central nervous system functional macro-architecture. Axiomathes

  • Bickhard MH, Campbell RL (1989) Interactivism and genetic epistemology. Arch Psychol 57(221):99–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH, Campbell RL (1996) Topologies of learning and development. New Ideas Psychol 14(2):111–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH, Richie DM (1983) On the nature of representation: a case study of James Gibson’s theory of perception. Praeger Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickhard MH, Terveen L (1995) foundational issues in artificial intelligence and cognitive science: impasse and solution. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner JT (2000) First signals: the evolution of multicellular development. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Brann DW, Ganapathy KB, Lamar CA, Mahesh VB (1997) Gaseous transmitters and neuroendocrine regulation. Neuroendocrinology 65:385–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RA (1991) Intelligence without representation. Artif Intell 47(1–3):139–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JW (1991) Mental states and perceptual experience. In: Hanlon RE (ed) Cognitive microgenesis: a neuropsychological perspective. Springer, New York, pp 53–78

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock TH (1981) Spikeless neurones: Where do we go from here? In: Roberts A, Bush BMH (eds) Neurones without impulses. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 269–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Bushong EA, Martone ME, Ellisman MH (2004) Maturation of astrocyte morphology and the establishment of astrocyte domains during postnatal hippocampal development. Int J Dev Neurosci 2(2):73–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell RJ (1992) Truth and historicity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell RJ (2009) A process-based model for an interactive ontology. Synthese 166(3):453–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey S (2009) The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson NR (2013) Physiology of behavior, 11th edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen WD, Bickhard MH (2002) The process dynamics of normative function. Monist 85(1):3–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen WD, Hooker CA (2000) Autonomy and the emergence of intelligence: organised interactive construction. Commun Cogn Artif Intell 17(3–4):133–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland PM (1995) The engine of reason, the seat of the soul. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Chvátal A, Syková E (2000) Glial influence on neuronal signaling. In: Agnati LF, Fuxe K, Nicholson C, Syková E (eds) Volume transmission revisited. Progress in brain research, vol 125. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 199–216

  • Clayton P, Davies P (2006) The re-emergence of emergence. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosson B, Haaland KY (2003) Subcortical functions in cognition: toward a consensus. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 9:1027–1030

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins R (1996) Representations, targets, and attitudes. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio AR (1995) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. Avon, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio AR (1999) The feeling of what happens. Harcourt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Deacon TW (1997) The symbolic species. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Deacon TW (2006) Emergence: the hole at the Wheel’s hub. In: Clayton P, Davies P (eds) The re-emergence of emergence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 111–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Deacon TW (2012) Incomplete nature. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1960/1929) The quest for certainty. Capricorn Books, New York

  • Di Paolo EA (2005) Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 4(4):429–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling JE (1992) Neurons and networks. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske FI (1988) Explaining behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman GM, Tononi G (2000) A universe of consciousness. Basic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein A (1990) Math Intell 12(2):31; from a letter written in 1916

  • Fodor JA (1975) The language of thought. Crowell, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor JA (1981) The present status of the innateness controversy. In: Fodor J (ed) RePresentations. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 257–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor JA (1987) Psychosemantics. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor JA (1990a) A theory of content and other essays. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor JA (1990b) Information and representation. In: Hanson PP (ed) Information, language, and cognition. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, pp 175–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor JA (1991) Replies. In: Loewer B, Rey G (eds) Meaning in mind: Fodor and his critics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 255–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor JA (1994) Concepts: a potboiler. Cognition 50:95–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor JA (1998) Concepts: where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor JA (2003) Hume variations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman WJ (1995) Societies of brains. Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman WJ (2000a) How brains make up their minds. Columbia, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman WJ (2000b) Mesoscopic brain dynamics. Springer, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman WJ, Barrie JM (1994) Chaotic oscillations and the genesis of meaning in cerebral cortex. In: Buzsaki G, Llinas R, Singer W, Berthoz A, Christen Y (eds) Temporal coding in the brain. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman WJ, Skarda CA (1990) Representations: Who needs them? In: McGaugh JL, Weinberger NM, Lynch G (eds) Brain organization and memory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 375–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuster JM (2004) Upper processing stages of the perception-action cycle. Trends Cogn Sci 8(4):143–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuster JM (2008) The prefrontal cortex, 4th edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuxe K, Agnati LF (1991) Two principal modes of electrochemical communication in the brain: volume versus wiring transmission. In: Fuxe K, Agnati LF (eds) Volume transmission in the brain: novel mechanisms for neural transmission. Raven, New York, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Galves A, Hale JK, Rocha C (2002) Differential equations and dynamical systems. American Mathematical Society, Providence

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham DW (2006) Explaining the cosmos. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Haag J, Borst A (1998) Active membrane properties and signal encoding in graded potential neurons. J Neurosci 18(19):7972–7986

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale J, Koçak H (1991) Dynamics and bifurcations. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hall ZW (1992) Molecular neurobiology. Sinauer, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugeland J (1998) Having thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertz L, Zielker HR (2004) Astrocytic control of glutamatergic activity: astrocytes as stars of the show. Trends Neurosci 27(12):735–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch MW, Smale S, Devaney RL (2004) Differential equations, dynamical systems, and an introduction to chaos, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooker CA (2009) Interaction and bio-cognitive order. Synthese 166(3):513–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppensteadt FC, Izhikevich EM (1997) Weakly connected neural networks. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppensteadt FC, Izhikevich EM (1998) Thalamo-cortical interactions modeled by weakly connected oscillators: could the brain use FM radio principles? Biosystems 48:85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivancevic VG, Ivancevic TT (2006) Geometrical dynamics of complex systems. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Izhikevich EM (2001) Resonate and fire neurons. Neural Netw 14:883–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izhikevich EM (2002) Resonance and selective communication via bursts in neurons. Biosystems 67:95–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izhikevich EM (2007) Dynamical systems in neuroscience. MIT, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Izhikevich EM, Desai NS, Walcott EC, Hoppensteadt FC (2003) Bursts as a unit of neural information: selective communication via resonance. Trends Neurosci 26(3):161–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost J (2005) Dynamical systems. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Koziol LF, Budding DE (2009) Subcortical structures and cognition. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levine A (2009) Partition epistemology and arguments from analogy. Synthese 166(3):593–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyubich M, Milnor JW, Minsky YN (2001) Laminations and foliations in dynamics, geometry and topology. American Mathematical Society, Providence

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marder E (2012) Neuromodulation of neuronal circuits: back to the future. Neuron 76:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marder E, Thirumalai V (2002) Cellular, synaptic and network effects of neuromodulation. Neural Netw 15:479–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzinzik F, Wahl M, Schneider G-H, Kupsch A, Curio G, Klosterman F (2008) The human thalamus is crucially involved in executive control operations. J Cogn Neurosci 20(10):1903–1914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matlin MW (2012) Cognition. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana HR, Varela FJ (1980) Autopoiesis and cognition. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maturana HR, Varela FJ (1987) The tree of knowledge. New Science Library, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch W, Pitts W (1943) A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bull Math Biophys 7:115–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middleton FA, Strick PL (2000) Basal ganglia and cerebellar loops: motor and cognitive circuits. Brain Res Rev 31:236–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millikan RG (1984) Language, thought, and other biological categories. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan RG (1993) White queen psychology and other essays for alice. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno A, Etxeberria A, Umerez J (2008) The autonomy of biological individuals and artificial models. BioSystems 91:309–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mourelatos APD (1973) Heraclitus, parmenides, and the naïve metaphysics of things. In: Lee EN, Mourelatos APD, Rorty RM (eds) Exegesis and argument: studies in Greek philosophy presented to Gregory Vlastos. Humanities Press, New York, pp 16–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Nauta WJH, Feirtag M (1986) Fundamental neuroanatomy. Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedergaard M, Ransom B, Goldman SA (2003) new roles for astrocytes: redefining the functional architecture of the brain. Trends Neurosci 26(10):523–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman EA (2003) New roles for astrocytes: regulation of synaptic transmission. Trends Neurosci 26(10):536–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwenhuys R (2000) Comparative aspects of volume transmission, with sidelight on other forms of intercellular communication. In: Agnati LF, Fuxe K, Nicholson C, Syková E (eds) Volume transmission revisited. Progress in brain research, vol 125. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 49–126

  • Ogmen H, Breitmeyer BG (2006) The first half second. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Panksepp J (1998) Affective neuroscience. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Perea G, Araque A (2007) Astrocytes potentiate transmitter release at single hippocampal synapses. Science 317:1083–1086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J (1954) The construction of reality in the child. Basic, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J (1971) Biology and knowledge. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J (1987) Possibility and necessity, vols 1 and 2. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

  • Port R, van Gelder TJ (1995) Mind as motion: dynamics, behavior, and cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Purpura KP, Schiff ND (1997) The thalamic intralaminar nuclei. The Neurosci 3:8–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Ransom B, Behar T, Nedergaard M (2003) New roles for astrocytes (stars at last). Trends Neurosci 26(10):520–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N (1980) Scepticism. Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N (1996) Process metaphysics. SUNY Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts A, Bush BMH (eds) (1981) Neurones without impulses. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal SB (1983) Meaning as habit: some systematic implications of peirce’s pragmatism. In: Freeman E (ed) The relevance of Charles Peirce. Monist, La Salle, pp 312–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibt J (1996) Existence in time: from substance to process. In: Faye J, Scheffler U, Urs M (eds) Perspectives on time. Boston studies in philosophy of science. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 143–182

  • Seibt J (2000a) Pure processes and projective metaphysics. Philos Stud 101:253–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seibt J (2000b) The dynamic constitution of things. In: Faye J, Scheffler U, Urchs M (eds) Things, facts, and events. Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, vol 72, pp 241–278

  • Seibt J (2003) Free process theory: towards a typology of occurings. In: Seibt J (ed) Process theories: cross disciplinary studies in dynamic categories. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 23–55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Seibt J (2009) Forms of emergent interaction in general process theory. Synthese 166(3):479–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanon B (1993) The representational and the presentational. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Slezak M, Pfreiger FW (2003) New roles for astrocytes: regulation of CNS synaptogenesis. Trends Neurosci 26(10):531–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith Y, Raju DV, Pare J-F, Sidibe M (2004) The thalamostriatal system: a highly specific network of the basal ganglia circuitry. Trends Neurosci 279(9):520–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steriade M (1996) Arousal: revisiting the reticular activating system. Science 272:225–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steriade M, Jones EG, McCormick DA (1997a) Thalamus. Vol. I. Organisation and function. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Steriade M, Jones EG, McCormick DA (1997b) Thalamus. Vol. II. Experimental and clinical aspects, vol II. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen E, Smith LB (1996) A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiles JE (1990) Dewey. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder TJ (1995) What might cognition be, if not computation? J Philos XCII(7):345–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder T, Port RF (1995) It’s about time: an overview of the dynamical approach to cognition. In: Port RF, van Gelder T (eds) Mind as motion. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Varela FJ (1997) Patterns of life: intertwining identity and cognition. Brain Cogn 34:72–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E (1991) The embodied mind. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Verkhratsky A, Butt A (2007) Glial neurobiology. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Viggiano D, Ibrahim M, Celio MR (2000) Relationship between glia and the perineuronal nets of extracellular matrix in the rat cerebral cortex: importance for volume transmission in the brain. In: Agnati LF, Fuxe K, Nicholson C, Syková E (eds) Volume transmission revisited. Progress in brain research, vol 125. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 193–198

  • Vuyk R (1981) Piaget’s genetic epistemology 1965–1980, vol II. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner H, Kaplan B (1963) Symbol formation. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacks JM, Speer NK, Swallow KM, Braver TS, Reynolds JR (2007) Event perception: a mind–brain perspective. Psychol Bull 133(2):273–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to Cliff Hooker for comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark H. Bickhard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bickhard, M.H. Toward a Model of Functional Brain Processes I: Central Nervous System Functional Micro-architecture. Axiomathes 25, 217–238 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-015-9275-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-015-9275-x

Keywords

Navigation