Tag Archives: cognition

relating to brains and their limitations

Decisions, Decisions

Posted on by
37
Which way will the coin decide to land? Image by ICMA Photos.

In my continuing pursuit of humility as an antidote to modernity’s human supremacy illness, the atoms that constitute who I am take issue with lofty and self-aggrandizing concepts of idealism, dualism, and free will—replaced by the unflattering material world and its staggering wealth of emergent complexity. I have argued that opposite of lacking imagination and being reductionist, such a view far exceeds our imaginative capacity and is in fact rather expansive and open-ended next to facile short-cut cop-outs that sweep mind-boggling complexity under the rug by pretending that constructs like mind, consciousness, soul, God, or Santa Claus are real.

One stubborn sticking point is the beguiling illusion that “we” are separate from “our” corporeal bodies, owning and controlling them, somehow. This notion is prevalent, despite zero evidence that we are anything but corporeal, and heaps of evidence to the contrary. A less supremacist variant allows that all life, down to microbes, are endowed with this material override to exert control and autonomy over their environments, but still demand a line of separation between life and inanimate collections of matter. An amoeba suddenly changing course in reaction to its environment is, in this view, ontologically different than a hurricane changing course in reaction to its environment.

Granted, life is amazing and exhibits unambiguous behavioral differences compared to, say, rocks (hint: check the complexity of internal structure). A materialist, mechanistic basis does not in any way diminish life, although that’s often the regrettable reaction from someone who takes it on faith that transcendent mystery accounts for life’s splendor—rather than intuition-busting eons of emergent material fabulousness. Well, it turns out that life is incredible no matter what inconsequential thoughts we form about it. In any case, the point that I will develop in this post is that “decisions” are carried out at every level from electrons to ants, but are at no point fundamentally operating on a different basis.

Depending on how one defines “decisions,” either electrons and bats carry them out by the same rules, or neither can be said to be making “free” decisions. Whatever the case, electrons and bats are on similar footing when it comes to “decisions,” albeit at vastly different scales of complexity. Given enough information and background, the decisions by either are not surprising, even if not precisely predictable. Now, I do identify a difference between living decisions and inanimate decisions, importantly, but it’s a subtle one that I’ll wind my way toward.

Continue reading →

Views: 1125

Egregious Inequality

Posted on by
Image by Doris Rohmann from Pixabay

We’ve all heard the outrageously skewed statistics. The top 1%, or 0.1%, or even 0.01% of humans control an outsized fraction of total wealth (something like 30%, 15%, and over 5%, respectively). Because our culture values the fictional construct of money far more than is warranted, and the ultra-rich have a hell of a lot of it, they acquire status and access to power unavailable to almost everyone else. How can such a small fraction of the population possess such a disproportionate share of this resource—one that we’ve decided bestows influence and power? It doesn’t seem at all fair.

But, money isn’t the only disproportionate power-conferring asset on this planet. What else does our culture value above almost all else? Brains. What—are we zombies?! Large brains are what (we tell ourselves) set us apart from mere animals—taken to justify a sense superiority. Earth belongs to us. We can do whatever we want, because we’re the ones with the big brains: the self-declared winner of evolution—as if it’s even possible to have a winner in an interdependent community. Through innovation and technology development, we now wield god-like power over the rest of life on Earth—for a short time, anyway, until it becomes obvious that “winning” translates to “everybody loses.”

Given our similar tendencies to overvalue money and brains, I was motivated to compare inequality in brain mass within the community of life to the gross inequality we abhor in financial terms. Is it as bad? Worse? Humans constitute 2.5% of animal biomass, and 0.01% of all biomass on the planet. We are also one of perhaps 10 million species, which in those terms means we represent only 0.00001% of biodiversity. Any way you slice it, we are a small sliver of Life on Earth—while managing to dominate virtually every ecological domain. As our culture tells it, humans are the deserving elites.

What fraction of the planet’s brain wealth do we possess? To be clear, in performing this analysis, I am not making the case that brains are what matters—far from it. But in our culture, our brains are cherished and essentially worshiped for their unique capacity in terms of ingenuity, allowing us to defy the limits that all other species “suffer.” What is our disproportionate share of brain mass? Is it as bad as 15% or 30%, like our egregiously-lopsided wealth inequality?

Continue reading →

Views: 2228

Shortcut Brains

Posted on by
Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

Brains. What are they good for? Why do we—and loads of other animals—have them? What is the point of evolving increased neural complexity? Brains obviously confer advantages, or they would not survive the gauntlet of evolution. They must also exact a cost, or every creature would boast a headpiece of enormous potential. If every living being had a giant brain—or even a modest one—the ecological web of life would surely fail, so that brains are a niche evolutionary strategy possessed by a small minority of species, enabled only by the presence and support of the whole.

Early brains—and I’m thinking worms, here—facilitated regulation of bodily functions, and humans preserve those essential features in the brain stem. Reptiles developed the capability for more complex calculations, assessing a number of simultaneous inputs to guide decisions of fight or flight, for instance. Selection (evolution) saw to it that these calculations were, on average, functionally “correct,” becoming more nuanced over time. We, too, preserve these well-honed instincts deep in our brain structure. As animals evolved (e.g., mammals, but not exclusively so), they developed a cerebral cortex and limbic system to navigate social arrangements and better adapt to varying conditions. This is where emotions originate. Some mammals then doubled-down on this nifty cerebrum thingy to develop a neo-cortex with all sorts of cool lobes (like the frontal one) capable of forming ever-more sophisticated mental models of the wider world—allowing flexible adaptation informed by years of development and model-building during a long process of individual maturation. Among other things, culture arises from this cerebral capability (culture being socially-learned behaviors that are not stamped in genetically, as practiced by many social animal species).

In short, brains serve to form mental models of the world that help us flexibly adapt and survive. Our models are not constrained to be correct, as long as they are useful in some functional, adaptive, average sense. I’ve taken to using the term “meat-brains” to help drive the point that brains are just organs—however sophisticated—and to poke at our cultural worship of brains, to the point of being dismissive of any life not boasting comparable cognitive capacity. But having a large brain is not everything, and in fact has demonstrated itself to be one of our greatest liabilities—by conceiving and enacting modes of living not ecologically contextualized and vetted to, you know, actually work in the long term—to the tune of initiating a sixth mass extinction. Like any evolutionary adaptation, it can be taken too far.

Incidentally, I wrote this and last week’s post roughly in parallel a few weeks back, and did not carefully coordinate their order of appearance: they might have been arranged either way. Some themes are common to both, but they might be thought of as siblings that belong together.

Continue reading →

Views: 2064

A Mind-Blowing Leap

Posted on by
Image by Shelley Evans from Pixabay

As I settle into and continue to explore the perspective that modernity is destined to fail, was never a long-term-viable idea, and therefore represents a giant blunder, I keep running into thoughtful writings about what exactly went wrong, at its foundations.

A recurrent culprit—and I tend to agree—involves human supremacism (anthropocentrism), connected to a perceived separateness from nature. This separateness relates to a dualism that began with agriculture, eventually finding full expression during the Enlightenment. Its Enlightenment framing, chiefly associated with Descartes, drives a wedge between mind and matter—as different “substances,” for instance. Thus, while not my main interest, I keep getting routed back to the question of “mind,” as it continues to be a sticking point in dismantling the dualism that is generally agreed to get in the way of appropriate ways of living on this planet.

So, this post is about mind and consciousness, offering my reactions. Now, I should be clear that it doesn’t really matter if we arrive at the Correct Truth on this issue, to the extent that the recommendations emerging from whatever framework result in better alignment to the living world. Any prescription that advocates humility, right-relationship, reciprocity, being part of a whole—fantastic! I may have suspicions and disagreements about the underlying metaphysics, but who cares, in the end? Surely multiple paths can lead to similar ends. Thus, I don’t want to die on that hill, or subvert migration to a better way of living in a crossed-arm philosophical sulk. Nor do I wish to see efforts that claim theirs is the only way, rooted in Truth. Who are we to demand knowing the ultimate truth, anyway? Why should we—or any creature of evolution—expect to? Humility, remember?

Indigenous cultures adopted a diverse universe of stories upon which their well-integrated practices rested, and that’s all for the good—even if the stories are not True in a modern sense. What matters is the practices and attitudes the stories motivate. I suspect that we can likewise tolerate a diversity of metaphysical underpinnings, to the extent that they allow compatibility with the community of life.

That said, I will now address what I see as an unfortunate tendency in the drive to abolish dualism. Maybe it can lead to similar, good outcomes, but I worry that it preserves a tinge of supremacy, while failing to destroy the chief horcrux of dualism. Be prepared to lose your mind, as I have done.

Continue reading →

Views: 3486

Political Perfection

Posted on by
Image by Leo from Pixabay

No matter which candidate won the U.S. Presidential election, about half the citizens were set to fear the end of the country. Rather than argue about whether each side’s concern is similarly credible, I’ll address a broader question. What, exactly, does a voter/citizen imagine the goal to be, and—given modernity’s transient status—is the goal anything more than unfounded fantasy?

I have difficulty listening to political rhetoric of any stripe, carrying as I do the conviction that the entire modernity project is an incoherent amalgam of stunts that is inherently incompatible with ecological health, and thus fated to self-terminate. Besides offering promises of more houses, more jobs, more money, more material comfort—which only moves us closer toward ecological collapse—the dream being sold is such a self-deluded fantasy as to sound like Santa Claus and Easter Bunnies to my ear. It has a similarly infantilizing effect on the population.

Continue reading →

Views: 4985

Evidence, Please?

Posted on by

I spend a fair bit of time asking myself the question: Am I crazy?

I mean, without really wanting to do so, I seem to have landed on a fringe view within our culture, which is not a comfortable place for me in a social sense. I don’t love it. The easiest—seemingly most likely—explanation for the glaring mismatch is that I’m the one off kilter.

My statement: Modernity (even if defining starting 10,000 years ago) is a short-lived phase that will self-terminate—likely starting this century.

Common response: That’s crazy. Just look around you! We’ve created a new normal. Humans have transcended the bounds of nature—no longer mere animals. Ingenuity has unlimited potential, and we’re really on our way now. This changes everything, and we will never lose our technological mastery, now that we have found it. Modernity is our destiny—and kind-of the whole point of it all.  It’s what makes us truly human.

But let’s look at evidence: like evidence that modernity is a new normal that can go on at least as long as our species is around (relevant timescales are 106±1 years, or a million years plus-or-minus an order of magnitude).

What’s that? Zero evidence? Of course we can’t know. The future is not kind enough to present evidence to the present. Hmmm—maybe that’s because we’re so mean to the future, frantically robbing its lives of Earth’s bounty and biodiversity.

The basic observation that we can receive no evidence from the future cuts both ways, of course. I have no future evidence that modernity will begin shutting down within a century.

However, we are not completely in the dark, here. We know some things (see my previous post on things about which I can be relatively certain).  As obvious illustrations, we can be super-confident that day will follow night in a consistent cycle throughout our lives, that we will each die someday, and that the sun will render Earth uninhabitable on its way to spending its fuel.  In a similar fashion, we can lay claim to a host of other near-certainties even without evidence from the future.

Continue reading →

Views: 3813

Certainty

Posted on by

Image by Victoria from Pixabay

I struggle to strike a balance between certainty and circumspection. Our culture has a tendency to favor certainty, while one of my favorite and frequent fall-backs—seldom wrong—is: “we don’t know.” Certainty is often the hobgoblin of decontextualized, rigid, (only) logical thinking: an artificial by-product of incomplete mental models. That said, I feel that I can do more than throw up my hands on every issue. I can be fairly certain that I will never perform a standing jump to the moon or breathe underwater (without apparatus) like I often do in dreams.

Thus, I write this post in full appreciation of the red flag around certainty. Yet, in full consideration, I can indeed identify some elements of reality about which I can be fairly certain—to a reasonable degree. At the very least, these things would appear to be consistent with a robust account of how the world appears to work.

I’ll skip an exhaustive list of certainties, and stick with points that have some bearing on the meta-crisis of modernity.  But for illustration that certainty is not misplaced, I think most would agree that we can function under certainty that in the next billion years, say, gravity won’t turn off; the sun will continue to shine; Earth will keep rotating to produce the familiar day/night pattern; if I pound my fist on the table my hand won’t sail through it, etc.  We are justified in “taking these to the bank.”  The items below are not all as completely iron-clad, but are helpful in forming a basis.  I have asked myself for each one: “could I be convinced otherwise?”  Generally the answer is “yes, I suppose,” to varying degrees, but some would be a tough pull, requiring solid evidence.  Most of the content is a repackaging of points I have expressed before, but I hope in a useful, consolidated form.

So let’s get to it: here are things I am reasonably (functionally) certain about:

Continue reading →

Views: 3149

The Big Question

Posted on by

A short story of fiction by Tom Murphy

Almost any nerd worth their salt has read Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, relishing its innovative and unpredictable humor.

So it was with Adam Lundquist and Alex Ford: top-level coworkers at the Institute for the Future of Artificial Intelligence Learning, who—besides being project leaders—were widely regarded as the principal talent behind an exciting new AI platform on the verge of becoming operational.

Because they were fans of the Hitchhiker’s Guide, and because it was not hard to see a parallel between their creation and that of Deep Thought—the supercomputer from the book designed to answer, once and for all, The Big Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything—it was perhaps inevitable that they began playfully referring to each other as Lunkwill and Fook after their analogs in the story. The close alignment to their real names only reinforced for them a sense of destiny. Ford even toyed with legally changing her name to Fook, but dropped it in light of the headaches such a move would bring to her life. Plus, it would only be epic if Lundquist changed his name as well, but he wasn’t having any of it.

Nerds gotta nerd. But silliness aside, what these two and their team created was indeed extraordinary. Inspired by insights from neuroscience, and having acquired an industry-shattering awareness of the different configurations of left and right hemispheres in animal brains, they managed to break free of traditional architectures that strictly focused on algorithmic, exact, logical methods characteristic of all previous efforts in computing—which had only doubled-, tripled- and millioned-down on left-hemisphere cognitive habits. Such strategies were fine in narrow domains like chess and language construction, where a finite space of rules and limited contextual complexity allowed complete mastery and tidy solutions to problems. But these approaches were dead-ends in terms of tackling the really thorny, more open-ended problems pertinent to human life on Earth.

In this new effort, what was truly remarkable and inspired was the admission by the designers that they themselves had no real mastery over cognition and deep thinking. Therefore, they fashioned a machine that could design elements of its own architecture, engaging in a process similar to the one employed by evolution in building our own brain machines. It might seem rude or pejorative to slap the “machine” label on our amazing brains, but that’s only because the artificial, technological machines we have built tend to be pathetically simple compared to what evolution can produce after billions of years of proven functionality and honing. Yet, our brains and bodies—and microbes for that matter—are still physical machines in a strict sense, just far too complex for us to comprehend or design—putting our puny and fragile non-living machines to shame (not a one will last millions of years like a species can).

* * *

Continue reading →

Views: 2530

MM #13: A Species out of Context

Posted on by

This is the thirteenth of 18 installments in the Metastatic Modernity video series (see launch announcement), putting the meta-crisis in perspective as a cancerous disease afflicting humanity and the greater community of life on Earth. This episode unpacks the great Wes Jackson aphorism that modern humans are a species out of context. Well, what’s the right context, and how are we out of it?

As is the custom for the series, I provide a stand-alone companion piece in written form (not a transcript) so that the key ideas may be absorbed by a different channel. The write-up that follows is arranged according to “chapters” in the video, navigable via links in the YouTube description field.

Continue reading →

Views: 1842

MM #12: Human Supremacy

Posted on by

This is the twelfth of 18 installments in the Metastatic Modernity video series (see launch announcement), putting the meta-crisis in perspective as a cancerous disease afflicting humanity and the greater community of life on Earth. This episode confronts the thorny topic of human supremacy. My intention is not to rile folks up, but some of that may be unavoidable. It’s something we must face to understand modernity.

As is the custom for the series, I provide a stand-alone companion piece in written form (not a transcript) so that the key ideas may be absorbed by a different channel. The write-up that follows is arranged according to “chapters” in the video, navigable via links in the YouTube description field.

Continue reading →

Views: 3154