How does brain predict future?

Quanta Magazine is a real treasure trove. The gem was at this time titled " To Make Sense of the Present, Brains May Predict the Future" (see this). The article gives links to various research articles: here I mention only the article " Neural Prediction Errors Distinguish Perception and Misperception of Speech" by Blank et al > (see this) .

According to the article, brain acts as a prediction machine comparing predictions with what happened and modifying the predictions accordingly. Sensory perception would not be mere 3-D sensory time=constant snapshot as believed in last century but include also a prediction of future based on it that would be outcome of sensory perception and brain is able to modify the prediction by using the difference between prediction and reality.

In TGD framework one can go even further (see this). Sensory organs are the seats of sensory mental images constructed by repeated signalling between brain (maybe also magnetic body) and sensory organ using dark photons propagating forth and back with maximal signal velocity and contributing to the sensory input a virtual part. Nerve pulses would create by synaptic bridges connecting flux tubes to longer flux tubes acting as waveguides for dark photons to propagate. Sensory mental image would be essentially self organization pattern nearest to the actual sensory input. The percept itself would be artwork, a caricature selecting and emphasizing the features of sensory input important for the survival.

The term predictive coding used about the process reveals that the view about how brain achieves this relies on computational paradigm. This is one possible view. Personally I do cannot regard classical computation as a plausible option. A more neutral view relies on rather obvious assumption that that temporal sequences of associations giving rise to predictions. But how does this happen?

Neuroscientists speculate about deep connections between emotions and learning: the dopaminergic neurons are indeed very closely related to the neural reward system. If the difference between the predicted and actually perceived is large the reward is small - one might also call it punishment. "Surprise" would be rather neutral word to express it. Big discrepancy causes big surprise. The comparison of predicted and what really happened would be essential. This is was one of the first predictions of TGD and might apply to simple emotions but - as I have proposed - emotions such as experience of beauty, compassion or love need not correspond to emotions need not be mere reactions.

The finding suggests a connection with the ideas about the fundamental role of emotions in learning. I have already developed this theme in this article.

1. The first finding made for snails (see this) was that RNA somehow codes the experience and induces epigenetic change at the level of DNA in turn inducing a change in behavior. The popular article " Scientists Sucked a Memory Out of a Snail and Stuck It in Another Snail" tells about the finding (see this).

   This led to a TGD based model based on the notion of bio-harmony for music of dark photon triplets representing 3-chords predicting genetic code correctly. Music expresses and creates emotions: same would happen already at RNA level. DNA would get in the same mood and by resonating with the 3-chords of RNA music and changing its harmony/mood coded by resonance frequencies of nuclei, which would slightly change. Epigenetic change would take place as a consequence and change the genetic expression in turn changing the behaviour.

   This brings in something genuinely new: TGD based view about dark matter, realizations of genetic code by dark proton sequences defining the dark analogs of DNA, RNA, tRNA, and amino-acids at the magnetic flux tubes of magnetic body of living system plus realization of the genetic code.

   It must be emphasized that magnetic body is 4-D and corresponds to a preferred extremals connecting to two 3-surfaces at the boundaries of causal diamond. Hence the basic objects are deterministic time evolutions, analogous to programs or behavioral patterns. The sequence of associations assignable to percept could be seen as space-time surface, a predicted space-time time evolution.

2. Just a couple of days before writing this I learned about slime molds (this) , which are monocellulars, which contrary to expectations learn new behaviours. Nervous system is not therefore necessary for learning. Emotional RNA could be at work also here.
3. RNA would be naturally also behind the learning in CNS as a change of synaptic strengths generating effectively different synchronously firing neuron groups representing mental images and new sequences of associations providing predictions. The mismatch between prediction and real percept would we represented in terms of dopamine concentration and this in turn would generate at RNA level emotion, which would be negative for mismatch and induce corresponding DNA emotion generating epigenetic change in turn changing synaptic strengths in turn changing the prediction as a sequence of associations regarded as temporal sequence in turn changing the behavior! Long sequence of causations!

Motor action would be generated by a negative energy signal to the geometric past which would correspond to mental images with reversed arrow of time in TGD inspired theory of consciousness. This duality would mean that in opposite time direction motor action would be a perceptions about say hand moving in desired direction! The counterpart of predictive coding would take care of comparisons and modifying the predicted "sensory percept" so that it corresponds to reality. This sounds strange but maybe the motor actions is just passive perception from the point of view of time reversed self!

See the chapter Emotions as sensory percepts about the state of magnetic body? or the article with the same title.