You definitely should remove the first sentence
This post is probably nothing new probably contains lots of mistakes. I am not an expert on any of this stuff,
Why? I immediately closed the post upon reading it. I usually don't react that strongly but it was the last on my reading list for today and I am kind of tired. But I noticed my strong reaction and thought: Something is wrong here. If I react that strong on that cue by being tired, then the same effect but weaker will be working on most readers and prime them negatively or turn a fraction away.
Personally I think of the mind as a mathematical entity. And I think the manifestations of different personalities or behavior patterns are also of mathematical nature. [...]
What I'm talking about here is that the internal structure of the brain produces a dynamic that is based on vectors of different strengths, and things should be modeled from that type of perspective, and they probably are, even if I dont know it.
You can say that the brain is mathematical in the sense that you can describe 100 billion very complex neurons with very complex formula. You haven't provided any good reason why your proposed "vector" model that seems much more simple would describe the workings of the brain well.
Intelligence is complicated. There no reason to believe that the system that you propose that's much more simply could also provide for the intelligence that a human brain is capable of providing.
If intelligence would as simple as you propose we already would have AGI.
"Intelligence is complicated. There no reason to believe that the system that you propose that's much more simply could also provide for the intelligence that a human brain is capable of providing."
I'd like to point out that this isn't exactly about intelligence
I thought you wanted to talk about how humans make decisions. If that's not what you wanted to point out, what do you wanted to say in your post?
You might look into all the work that's been done with Functional MRI analysis of the brain-- your post reminds me of that. The general technique of "watch the brain and see which regions have activity correlated with various mental states" is a well known technique, and well enough known that all sorts of limitations and statistical difficulties have been pointed out (see wikipedia for citations.)
This post is probably nothing new probably contains lots of mistakes. I am not an expert on any of this stuff, I've just read about it online bit by bit every now and then. I tend to present my thoughts in a confident manner but in practice I don't really know or understand any of this stuff very well or specifically. I'd still like to offer my thoughts in this thread, and I hope it at least will get you thinking, even if that was all.
Personally I think of the mind as a mathematical entity. And I think the manifestations of different personalities or behavior patterns are also of mathematical nature. Mostly for anyone who considers the world in general as mathematical, physical as opposed to mysterious and spiritual, it would naturally follow that the mind is also mathematical. Psychological patterns are described somewhat often with a mathematical approach, but in general scientific study around psychology everything is very mathematical, there are inventories which score traits and hypotheses are tested statistically and so forth. What I'm talking about here is that the internal structure of the brain produces a dynamic that is based on vectors of different strengths, and things should be modeled from that type of perspective, and they probably are, even if I dont know it.
For an example the amygdala seem to have some sort of a role in negative emotions as well as hijacking the hippocampus for encoding the memories with an association to a negative emotion. The function of the amygdala is therefore mostly to process negative emotion in one way or another as well as produce activities based on those negative emotions. And this is something that is of a quantifiable nature.
The limbic system, which of I certainly am not an expert on, has several subcomponents to it, and the way the limbic system in my opinion works is to produce multiple different vectors that work following an opponent-process theory -type logic. Continuing with the previous example a person with higher intensity for negative emotions and related amygdala functions, require stronger opposing vectors from the other parts of the brain to counteract them when that is necessary.
Neurotransmitters or some agents in CSF (Cerebospinal fluid) and/or the ventricular system produce vectors or a depletable and overtime-finite resource for those vectors.
Cognitive component and holism
These kinds of things are also related to what people believe and that has a complex effect on behavior. If you think some activity is socially inappropriate, then you would have a vector against socially inapprorpiate activity. But the strength of this vector could quantifiable and probably associatable with OFC. So in otherwords your knowledge's impact on your behavior can be described in quantifiable way.
So what good does thinking like this do then?
Providing profiles for behavioral disorders in a mathematical way, or allowing their consideration as such on a personal level.
So in addition simply reading symptoms you would have a list of vectors with expected ranges. For an example you might describe aggressiveness as both a heightened and a lowered vector - modulatory role for amygdala activity or lowered vector for PFC(Prefrontal cortex) activity or vector for OFC(Orbitofrontal cortex), or lowered vector for serotonergic activity, or socially appropriate behavior which I think goes for OFC too.
It could be possible to establish a logical framework of activies for different brain areas and components. This framework could then be converted from a logical construct into a smoother quantifiable construct following the logical framework, with reliability that could be converted to probabilities. When a person does some kind of activity it could be mapped into a chain of events in the brain.You have some activity and it causes an arousal in a certain region, that is processed by another part etc. This could be considered as a visual representation and dissecting behavior into sequences.
There's probably lots of mistakes here and probably there really isn't anything 'new' either, though I might have written thinking that way. Please correct mistakes when you notice such :D
Any thoughts?