Micro-impulses, the pattern-to-action links and absent-mindedness

In my recent speech at Mensa I talked about these three topics, but I don't think I have had the opportunity to mention them here in writing as well.

Let's begin with the second one: the pattern-to-action links.
The easy way of describing this is saying it is very similar to the action-reaction concept. In physics you have a reaction for every action. In the brain you may have an action for a specific pattern that you identify; meaning that whenever you see a specific set of patterns, you immediate try to act in a specific way, without trying to think about it and analyze it.
Well, it's not exactly that simple, but I wanted you to get the "cause-and-effect" concept of it. Action => Reaction. Pattern => Action.
This is possible in the human brain if:

• the pattern is in-context
• the link from the pattern to the action mesh has been created in the past via the DP mechanisms

You  need both prerequisites for it to work. It has to exist (ii) and it has to be as expected (i). In other words, you must have done this action in the past: the first time a DP was created, it stole some battery power, you tried some actions, you found one suitable, you got feedback, the neurons were strengthened and a weak link from the pattern to the action mesh was forged. The next time, the out-of-context experience was less, the DP smaller, the action easier, but still the extra feedback made the link even stronger. Thus, in time you build links from patterns to specific areas in the action mesh, that serve as purpose to propel yourself from identifying the pattern directly to acting on it in a specific way, that you know from past experiences that was useful to you (this was proven by the fact that you got feedback).
But the pattern has to be very similar to what you're used to seeing when you learned to react in this way. If all other external stimuli from the environment are different, then the "combined traversal" of them into your brain won't be the same and the signals will end up in different areas of the brain, and thus they won't reach this P-A link, and the action won't be performed.
It's like asking you to play bowling with a bolleyball. It might still be possible to somewhat play, but the weight of it in your hand feels different and the way you have to throw it is different, thus you can't just pick it up and perform the same moves as you're used to. This situation is out-of-context and the P-A links that you have already built from your previous bowling experiences are only partially useful. You have to build new P-A links in this new context!
If you're following thus far and know the rest of my theory as well, then you probably already understood that this pattern-to-action links are the instruments upon which the Helix mechanism (the ex snail mechanism, I have renamed it :) is created; it would not be possible to have a choreography of consecutive moves that one causes the other, if you didn't have P-A links for each one.
So now the Helix can be described as follows: you get some external stimuli, if they are in-context and you have P-A links in place, no DP is created, you perform a spontaneous action, which alters the environment (outer loop) but also alters your expectations of what will come next (of what will be in-context). If the new external stimuli continue to be in-context and you have P-A links for this, you do another action, and so on and so forth.
This choreography of spontaneous actions that come naturally to you and you don't even realize/remember them is the Helix, and it is composed of the P-A links, the inner&outer loop and the Selector.

Now that we have this in place, we can describe the micro-impulses as well.
This mechanism actually generalizes the concept of Driving Pockets and gives a better explanation as to how we can perform difficult actions or new actions by combining the previous "kinetic" knowledge of our brain. Actually this topic would be very helpful in robotics and neural networks, I suppose.
To explain the micro-impulses, you have to take one thing that I'll tell you as a fact: when the brain decides to make a move, it does not know beforehand exactly how it will do it. It gives a general order, a vague "description" of how it wants to move and makes it more specific along the way. How does it do it? It's very simple! It has an idea of what it wants to perform (by "projecting" the outcome through the inner loop into the pattern mesh). It observes the effects of its abstract command for action on the environment and the external stimuli that it now gets (through the outer loop) and spots minor differences that will create small DPs (or large, if we don't know at all how to do it, or very small if we have done this many, many times in the past). These small DPs, steal a small amount of the battery power and in the known way try to fix this out-of-context thing by adjusting the details of the action. In other words, they create micro-impulses; minor muscular adjustments to the original kinda vague movement order.
Since these micro-impulses are done by small DPs, the current available to the battery for other, big DPs is enough and this does not disrupt our regular processing ability, unless while trying to perform something ordinary we spot something extra-ordinary (out-of-context) that is important (relates with a DF) and thus deserve our specific attention.
If this is not the case, all regular/usual actions are handled by a combination of Helix, the P-A links and micro-impulses to perform minor adjustments to our movements.


Finally, if you want to have a kind of proof for the fact that our brain "orders" abstract moves and adjusts them along the way, you can think of this:
what happens when we hear a loud noise, while performing an action. If this let's say sounds dangerous and we get alarmed, a big DP gets formed, steals all battery signal and our movement gets disrupted. But we don't stop moving instantly! We continue for maybe about a second or so more. And this last second of movement is not very precise (because we have lost focus and we don't continue to make adjustments with micro-impulses). So there you have it: the fact that we continue to do a general movement is kind of proof for the fact that the brain gives abstract move commands and the fact that this move is not precise when we lose all battery power (that gets stolen by the big DP), is proof that we need microDPs to do micro-impulses and make our moves precise.

Moving on to the third one, we will describe why we act in an absent-minded way sometimes (we needed the first two to understand this better).
If we are focused on something that is important (i.e. we have a big DP that steals almost all current of the battery), then we don't have a lot of battery power left for the micro-impulses. This means that something that is quite in-context (but not 100%) will create a movement via the P-A links, but this movement won't be adjusted by the micro-impulses (because all the battery power is stolen by our big DP) and thus our movement will be done only approximately correct, or "muzzy", blurry (στο περίπου in Greek).
And by another example we can understand how this also translates to the thought process as well, because (I'm tired of saying it again and again) actions and thoughts are the same thing for the brain in terms of mechanisms. When we are performing an action that is very out-of-context, but is important (and thus we have a big DP that steals all battery current) we cannot think of something at the same time. We are focused on our action. It is not necessary to have to do difficult and abstract/advance thoughts to perform this action. No, this effect happens even when we just do a difficult action without using our thinking process too much. So it's not like we're using our capacity for abstract thoughts in another way; no it is not used at all. Nevertheless, we cannot use it because we don't have battery power, and if something asks us a question, we might reply with a very generic/vague/simplistic answer, just because we didn't have the battery power to think of something better/more-elaborate to answer. In other words, when we're focused in an action, our thinking process and our answers are muzzy/indistinct/inaccurate/non-elaborated, exactly as our actions are muzzy when we're thinking. Q.E.D.