Monday, November 28, 2005

Neural Nets, Nihilism, and James

I'm feeling a little frustrated at the moment because when ever I have a good idea for a quick post on here it quickly grows into something bigger as I start to realize all the facets and insightful connections to other ideas for quick posts. I suppose this is a good thing really, but it's overwhelming to have so many ideas and try to keep track of them all. I've tried to make a point lately to write at least a few notes as soon as inspiration strikes me instead of trusting that I'll remember later. I've made it a fairly high priority to do this even when I have other stuff that I "should" be doing...like sleeping or school work.

I'm gonna try not to make this a long post cuz I have more important ideas to work on...but I will mention (in brief) one of the ideas I had the other day....

I've been thinking a lot about the inner workings of the mind (a fairly common topic to occupy my mind). I've had lots of ideas lately about how artificial intelligence might work. An interesting side effect of developing my theories is that I am coming to a better understanding of why people are the way they are. For example, I believe I understand why close-minded people like James exist. In all fairness, we are all close-minded to some degree (we have to be). Here's my explanation:

Our mind is based on the neural networks in our brain. When we learn something, some connections become stronger. The more these connections are used the stronger they get (because they are apparently important enough to be used often). When you are first trying to learn something, these neural pathways are rough and not necessarily very efficient. For example to get from point A to point B may require a lot of thought the first few times. So these neural pathways find shortcuts to skip over the gritty complex details of logic and get right to the point. In this way, getting from A to B becomes more intuitive, logic is no longer required.

Now, people like James have spent so much time thinking about the same thing (in this case, god) and relating everything to it. They may have used logic to make the initial connections, but logic has since been abandoned. All connections are so strong that all other bridges have fallen to disrepair. Furthermore, because every other idea or thought they have is so closely tied to one core assumption with such a strong neural connection, if that assumption were to fall, their entire reality would crumble with it.

I would be the first to admit that I have my share of closed-mindedness (likely to be addressed in future posts). However, I like to think that I am pretty open-minded relatively speaking. Consequently, I imagine that few concepts in my mind are very deeply rooted, and few shortcuts in reasoning exist.

This feels accurate to me. I often feel like I am slow, but thorough in my thinking. I don’t jump to conclusions quickly. Every issue is a complex one that must be considered from many angles. People like James see the world in black and white, good and evil. Everything can be easily categorized. I sometimes wish that I was a fundamentalist Christian because it makes the world seem much simpler and manageable. There’s a simple answer for everything. It is so much more difficult to be a nihilist because there is no firm ground to stand on. Ideas and concepts can change on a whim and there is an overwhelming amount of self doubt. Oh how wonderful it would be to have the simple outlook of James and to be so deeply rooted and confident in the binary good and evil of the world.

But it’s simply not an option for me. Why? Perhaps due to my own closed-mindedness and deep roots in science and logic. I really don’t have many answers, only questions that spawn more questions and mostly go unanswered. It leaves the neural pathways in my mind chaotic, yet flexible.

Anyway, this is pretty long already and it was only meant to be a quick side note. I better cut it short because I have other work to do and more important posts to make. This is not the one mentioned in the previous post, that one is about my rocky relationship with writing and it may be some time until I get it finished because it is one of the ones that is growing into something bigger than I originally intended. But that’s a good thing.

5 Comments:

On November 28, 2005 10:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah, you have to remember, that you see James as close-minded, simply because he doesn't agree with well, 100% of what you believe. I'm sure James sees you as close-minded for the same reason. I bet there is some truth to your theory, but at the same time, one can also make new pathways at later ages, and change/repair old ones. For instance, around teenage years, many kids realize they don't fully believe their parent's views of the world, politically, socially, economically, etc, and they develop their own views- thus creating their own neural pathways despite having existing neural pathways that would seem to contradict the new ones. Anyway I have more thoughts on this I might post later, here or at my blog.

 
On November 29, 2005 12:48 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

I agree with you. I am obviously biased and this should indeed be pointed out. I'm also sure that James would feel that he IS open-minded. However, me calling him close-minded is not based on his contradiction of my own personal beliefs, this I can accept. Most people who have interacted with him (yes also biased) would agree that he seems unable to even HYPOTHETICALLY consider other ideas presented before him. He just doesn’t seem to be able to wrap his mind around ANYTHING without bringing up the bible or god……or occasionally the red sox, but that’s neither here nor there. At any rate, I am not trying to make fun of James, it is more my intent to try to understand why people in general are like that and he is just an example.

As for the second part of your comment. I agree 100% that one can make new pathways at a later age. I’ll even go one step further and say you’re doing it right this instant and there’s nothing you can do about it. It happens even as you sleep. But you seem to be referring to more abrupt and extreme changes. I agree this is still possible. However it gets harder and harder to make such extreme changes as you get older because strong connections are already made around core beliefs. This is not to say that it can’t happen, but it usually requires deep introspection, therapy, or some jarring event or tragedy to shake the foundations.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts! I look forward to seeing more! It’s a fascinating topic to me.

 
On December 05, 2005 1:37 PM, Blogger Charles N. Steele said...

I believe you are saying that ideas are embodied by particular neural pathways. Close-mindedness, then, refers to the ability of existing neural pathways (presumably representing particular sets of ideas) to represent/embody additional ideas, right?

It's hard for me to believe that there's a one-to-one relationship between neural networks and ideas, although the notion that they are linked, and that some networks are better able to handle a wider range of ideas than others (generating "open-mindedness") seems likely to me.

I have nothing substantive to contribute here, but am reminded of when I was preparing for a PhD filed exam in Game Theory, and put myself through a process that was a 6 month sort of self-imposed brainwashing in the subject. By exam date I was unable to even discuss the crossing the street or the weather w/o connecting it to game theory. I realized at the time that had I been studying fundamental Christianity, Islam, etc. I'd have had the same effect. But why should I be (or have been) able to recognize this? Would I have been able to recognize that my filter/prism had been altered had the doctrine been a religious one that denies other interpretations of reality? How can a religious dogma, or any other idea, shut down connections in the brain?

 
On December 05, 2005 6:11 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

First, thanks for your comment! Up until now I believe it has only been my friends commenting on here so it's nice to get a post from someone new. I should also note that I am no expert. I’m an art major in college. But I consider myself a thinker/philosopher, and I read a lot of things about AI and neural nets. I appreciate that I am being taken seriously despite my lack of classical expertise. After all, one of the fallacies in thinking that often leads to closed-mindedness is the appeal to an authority figure as the only source of valid ideas.

Your first statement has me intrigued, "I believe you are saying that ideas are embodied by particular neural pathways." I guess I am not exactly sure what you mean by ‘embodied’. In the mind I most certainly would say that ideas are the result of many connections between different neural structures representing abstract concepts and feelings. But ideas can be communicated from person to person in the forms of verbal and written language as well as music and imagery. So then when do we call it an idea? I would say only in the mind because any mode of communication is just an arbitrary pattern of stimuli. It takes the mind to organize these stimuli and make the connections.

Close-mindedness, then, refers to the INability of existing neural pathways to represent/embody new ideas that fall outside a person’s limited worldview. Instead these ideas may be skewed to fit or ignored completely.

Your experience is interesting and I think we have all had times in our lives where our mind is stuck on one thing. You say you were able to recognize that your mind was stuck on it and ask why. I’m guessing that you are a fairly introspective person like me. It is my guess that we both have little programs (for lack of a better word) in our neural nets that constantly analyze our thoughts and actions.

Allow me to make an analogy: I always like to think about the parallel between the consciousness of the brain and the collective consciousness of society. Both arise from the interaction of basic units. Neurons communicate simple pulses and their cumulative effect is a thought or idea (e.g. violence solves nothing). Individual people communicate thoughts and ideas and their cumulative effect is a movement (e.g. anti war sentiments). Both neurons and people organize themselves to serve different purposes (e.g. anti war protesters)

That little voice in your head saying “I’m brainwashing myself” is those protesters screaming, “This is wrong!”

You also ask about how this relates to religious dogma and closed-mindedness. Well That’s like the movement to be patriotic and support the war movement without question.

Essentially the point is that any mind is a set of basic interacting units organized into higher level systems or structures. These structures vary from mind to mind the same way different cultures have different social structures. Some cultures are more open-minded to new ideas, some are more traditional. It’s the same with minds. It’s all depends on the organization and structures that have been organized over time.

 
On December 06, 2005 8:33 PM, Blogger Charles N. Steele said...

I'm an amateur on these issues as well (an economist); I do read a little of the literature on neuroeconomics, and the role of culture and tacit knowledge in societal organization, so am not shooting entirely in the dark.

Because ideas can be communicated, it seems appropriate to think of them as having existence apart from the mind. Hence ideas can be embodied in the mind in the mind (given representation). (And I admit that perhaps this is a mistaken way of looking at it.) So I think you are saying neural networks are the means of this representation.

But why would some forms of pathways or structures innoculate one against developing other new ones (close mindedness) while other forms generate or permit open mindedness? One can have very deep, solid, well-developed core beliefs, and yet still remain open-minded.

I'm reminded of Richard Dawkins comparison of certain religious doctrines to mind viruses -- they 1. lead those "infected" to try to spread the infection, and 2. innoculate the infected against invasion by alternative ideas.

Figuring out how this really works might give a clue to generating better ideas of the alternative, mind-opening type, or at least understand what seems to be irrational behavior -- as in when people reject logical, empirically defensible ideas. ...although perhaps this is the wrong level at which to be tackling the question.

Your analogy between individual and collective consciousness is interesting. I suggest that "collective consciousness" is ultimately embodied in the consciousness of individuals...it is the whole of what is stored our heads. But this whole is more than a simple additive sum, since there are mutually reinforcing learning and expectations, synergies, emotional connections, etc. that do not exist in an isolated individual.

I again realize I have no substantive contribution, just speculation and comment, but I find this stuff very interesting.

I came across your blog when "Amorphous Sentiency" flashed across the "just updated" list on Blogger.com -- this is not a blog title I could let pass.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home