<p>Some types of <strong>meditation</strong> (when successful) can bring about states that can certainly be used for debugging purposes. One of the key factors is the ability to relax enough while maintaining sufficient focus to be able (a) to see why you are thinking or reacting in a certain way and (b) to stop immediately in your thinking tracks and choose a different path. While this approach may not be so low-level as desired, it can still serve meta-debugging purposes. Essentially you want to slow down enough to see individual thoughts while not being controlled entirely by them. I would imagine that certain <strong>drugs</strong> can also bring about debug-friendly states (when used correctly, of course). <strong>Psycho-feedback</strong> technologies could probably help as well, such as by making it easier to see when you are reacting emotionally to a thought or other stimulus.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain" rel="nofollow">Split-brain</a> patients sometimes give hints that perhaps different regions of the brain can possess consciousness (awareness) <em>independently</em> from other parts. In theory, it may be necessary to have one brain region debug another if <em>low-level</em> monitoring is needed. How to make this happen, on the other hand, is a big question of its own.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-01T21:17:21.177Z
2016-01-01T21:17:21.177Z
Michael
<p>Short answer: Not a debugger, but possibly a control flow override.</p>

<p>Long answer:</p>

<p>This is a common fallacy known as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion" rel="nofollow noreferrer">introspection illusion</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The introspection illusion is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly
  think they have direct insight into the origins of their mental
  states. ... In certain situations, this illusion leads people to make
  confident but false explanations of their own behavior (called "causal
  theories"<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1</a>) or inaccurate predictions of their future mental states.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It was long thought that self-focus, meditation, concentration, hypnosis, self-reflection, psychoactive chemicals, and similar techniques can help improve one's insight into their brain's functioning, mental state, decision-making process, cause of emotions, buried memories, and other such private information.  However, research has repeatedly demonstrated that this is not the case - it is at best an illusion, where people fill in gaps with confabulated self-knowledge that they do not actually have access to.</p>

<p>There are too many examples of this to list here, but check out <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion#Choice_blindness" rel="nofollow noreferrer">choice blindness</a> (people give explanations for decisions that they did not make), <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal" rel="nofollow noreferrer">misattribution of arousal</a> (people misattribute the causes of their emotions), and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">memory confabulation</a> (people confidently recollect incorrect memories) for some well-known cases.</p>

<p>More in-depth literature on the subject can be found in a review by <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/gpr/5/3/241/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Silva &amp; Gendolla (2001)</a> of over 30 years of research into an informal theory called the "perceptual accuracy hypothesis" that claims (but no evidence supports this) that self-focus increases accuracy of self-knowledge in a wide variety of aspects of the self.  Another review by <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14744224" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wilson &amp; Dunn (2003)</a>, notes the lack of evidence for any potential for improvement of self-knowledge using introspection.  A more modern review by <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3208397/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bollich, Johannet, and Vazire1 (2011)</a> comes to essentially the same conclusion:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>... we conclude that the road to self-knowledge likely cannot be
  traveled alone but must be traveled with close others who can help
  shed light on our blind spots.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>For some decades now, computer scientists have been attempting to reproduce the function of the brain using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience" rel="nofollow noreferrer">artificial neural networks</a>, with some success.  An interesting aspect of neural networks is that they, like the brain, also do not have a debugger - at least not a useful one.  Ask a programmer to explain why their neural network misclassified a training input, and they will respond with a statistical analysis and abstract mathematical model that describes the overall system, not a coherent reason like “it thought this R was an A, so assumed the word was gain instead of grin…”  The only way to get such an explanation is to look at the result, and then guess.</p>

<p>The kind of "talk therapy" psychotherapy (such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CBT</a>) that you ask about has been demonstrated to be more effective than placebo, so we know that something about it works, but what about it works is not well understood.  Perhaps even the illusion of insight has some therapeutic effect, or perhaps there is a cognitive override mechanism at work.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dual process theory</a> is a well established idea that suggests that we have such a mechanism of control override that allows us (like some debuggers) to change the progression of mental processes mid-way.  This is typically the role believed to be played by our "conscious" mind.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-17T22:11:02.287Z
2017-08-07T17:20:18.637Z
2017-08-07T17:20:18.637Z
Arnon Weinberg
<p>In computer programming we have a debugger that we can use to execute a program step by step. In that mode, the program can be suspended and we can analyze the state of the hardware, modify the state and control the flow of the program to experiment.</p>

<p>Now, the question: Does the brain have something similar? Like a "debugger mode" in which it can reflect about or analyze its internal structures?
I think this is the mode that therapists use to analyze behavior, isn't it?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-02T03:15:59.680Z
What would you consider as evidence (physiological, psychological or otherwise) that this "mode" exists?
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-02T04:13:57.373Z
Any answer's aptness will depend on how far you are willing to stretch that metaphor. I'd say the most reasonable answer is, no, the brain doesn't have anything remotely like a debugger.
Chelonian
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-18T17:08:42.017Z
The closest thing I to a brain debugger that I found is the quality of one's dreams. Not content, but the overall meta quality. For example dreams that feature bright daylight, coherent train of thoughts, use of logic and memory, including memory of waking world events are dramatically different from groggy recall of dim fragments of nonsense. One can gain insight into the function of one's brain by observing the quality of one's dreams like the ones described above. Once a pattern of dreaming changes, you know that something has changed in the brain.
Alex Stone
<cognitive-psychology><unconscious><metacognition><self-control><therapy>
Does the brain have a 'debugging mode'?
erdal.karaca
# Does the brain have a 'debugging mode'?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-12-23)

In computer programming we have a debugger that we can use to execute a program step by step. In that mode, the program can be suspended and we can analyze the state of the hardware, modify the state and control the flow of the program to experiment.

Now, the question: Does the brain have something similar? Like a "debugger mode" in which it can reflect about or analyze its internal structures?
I think this is the mode that therapists use to analyze behavior, isn't it?

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, unconscious, metacognition, self-control, therapy

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What would you consider as evidence (physiological, psychological or otherwise) that this "mode" exists?  
> **username_2**: Any answer's aptness will depend on how far you are willing to stretch that metaphor. I'd say the most reasonable answer is, no, the brain doesn't have anything remotely like a debugger.  
> **username_3**: The closest thing I to a brain debugger that I found is the quality of one's dreams. Not content, but the overall meta quality. For example dreams that feature bright daylight, coherent train of thoughts, use of logic and memory, including memory of waking world events are dramatically different from groggy recall of dim fragments of nonsense. One can gain insight into the function of one's brain by observing the quality of one's dreams like the ones described above. Once a pattern of dreaming changes, you know that something has changed in the brain.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2016-02-17. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

Short answer: Not a debugger, but possibly a control flow override.

Long answer:

This is a common fallacy known as the [introspection illusion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion):

> The introspection illusion is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly
> think they have direct insight into the origins of their mental
> states. ... In certain situations, this illusion leads people to make
> confident but false explanations of their own behavior (called "causal
> theories"[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion)) or inaccurate predictions of their future mental states.

It was long thought that self-focus, meditation, concentration, hypnosis, self-reflection, psychoactive chemicals, and similar techniques can help improve one's insight into their brain's functioning, mental state, decision-making process, cause of emotions, buried memories, and other such private information. However, research has repeatedly demonstrated that this is not the case - it is at best an illusion, where people fill in gaps with confabulated self-knowledge that they do not actually have access to.

There are too many examples of this to list here, but check out [choice blindness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion#Choice_blindness) (people give explanations for decisions that they did not make), [misattribution of arousal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal) (people misattribute the causes of their emotions), and [memory confabulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation) (people confidently recollect incorrect memories) for some well-known cases.

More in-depth literature on the subject can be found in a review by [Silva & Gendolla (2001)](http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/gpr/5/3/241/) of over 30 years of research into an informal theory called the "perceptual accuracy hypothesis" that claims (but no evidence supports this) that self-focus increases accuracy of self-knowledge in a wide variety of aspects of the self. Another review by [Wilson & Dunn (2003)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14744224), notes the lack of evidence for any potential for improvement of self-knowledge using introspection. A more modern review by [Bollich, Johannet, and Vazire1 (2011)](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3208397/) comes to essentially the same conclusion:

> ... we conclude that the road to self-knowledge likely cannot be
> traveled alone but must be traveled with close others who can help
> shed light on our blind spots.

For some decades now, computer scientists have been attempting to reproduce the function of the brain using [artificial neural networks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience), with some success. An interesting aspect of neural networks is that they, like the brain, also do not have a debugger - at least not a useful one. Ask a programmer to explain why their neural network misclassified a training input, and they will respond with a statistical analysis and abstract mathematical model that describes the overall system, not a coherent reason like “it thought this R was an A, so assumed the word was gain instead of grin…” The only way to get such an explanation is to look at the result, and then guess.

The kind of "talk therapy" psychotherapy (such as [CBT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy)) that you ask about has been demonstrated to be more effective than placebo, so we know that something about it works, but what about it works is not well understood. Perhaps even the illusion of insight has some therapeutic effect, or perhaps there is a cognitive override mechanism at work.

[Dual process theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory) is a well established idea that suggests that we have such a mechanism of control override that allows us (like some debuggers) to change the progression of mental processes mid-way. This is typically the role believed to be played by our "conscious" mind.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-01-01. Score: 3

Some types of **meditation** (when successful) can bring about states that can certainly be used for debugging purposes. One of the key factors is the ability to relax enough while maintaining sufficient focus to be able (a) to see why you are thinking or reacting in a certain way and (b) to stop immediately in your thinking tracks and choose a different path. While this approach may not be so low-level as desired, it can still serve meta-debugging purposes. Essentially you want to slow down enough to see individual thoughts while not being controlled entirely by them. I would imagine that certain **drugs** can also bring about debug-friendly states (when used correctly, of course). **Psycho-feedback** technologies could probably help as well, such as by making it easier to see when you are reacting emotionally to a thought or other stimulus.

[Split-brain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain) patients sometimes give hints that perhaps different regions of the brain can possess consciousness (awareness) *independently* from other parts. In theory, it may be necessary to have one brain region debug another if *low-level* monitoring is needed. How to make this happen, on the other hand, is a big question of its own.


---

