The Brain, Chaos and Whatnot

[Mission]

Sorry about that. After reading through my first post, my sister, the genetic research doctor, decided to print it out. (Hey Suzanne, if you're still reading this: (Whatever this guy means.))

I must confess that half of this is me solidifying my thoughts by way of text and the other half is sharing ideas with those who enjoy such discussions. I love discussing things like this with those who can add to the ideas. (I'm still pondering the bicameral mind. Perhaps it is that each person reaches an interstice in their life where they choose to discard their bicameral mindset? Could it be an individual rather than societal event?)

[blackjohn]

I love discussing things like this with those who can add to the ideas.

Me too. Do you like discussing things with people who will subtract from your ideas. I'm a minimalist. I believe in simple theories.

[Not so young jim hawkins]

Careful, I once badly cut myself using occam's razor.

[Mission]

If someone can show me a better way, I'm open to that. The simpler the theory, the better - so long as it accurately describes the event or object.

However, Chaos Theory is not simple at its roots. Nor is it intuitive; in fact, I have found it to be repeatedly counterintuitive. Unfortunately, it's also appears to be correct in describing many events and therefore must be carefully considered.

Our minds are not simple. We cannot yet understand how they function. I find this fascinating. The workings of my own mind is sometimes counterintuitive and complex. As I watch myself making decisions, I find that my actions aren't aligned with my decisions - indicating a possible bifurcation - two alternating states of mind. What part of my mind doesn't agree with the conscious decision made and why?

[blackjohn]

"On a philosophical level, [chaos theory] struck me as an operational way to define free will, in a way that allowed you to reconcile free will with determinism. The system is deterministic, but you can't say what it's going to do next. At the same time, I'd always felt that important problems in the world had to do with the creation of organization, in life or intelligence."

Wow! I love this statement. I don't know if it's true or not, but it makes more sense than anything I've heard about the issue of free will vs. determinism. I think we've even discussed this issue on the forum - are we self-guided and able to choose our path or are we destined to follow some pattern codified in our minds? Does our make-up somehow guide our decision-making process?

Good quote. Interesting theories. What follows is my randoms musings...

But, imho, models are models, not reality. I deal with models of reality on a daily basis. Thus, I know something about how models compare with the real thing. A model might function perfectly, and describe everything it needs to describe, but still, in the end, it is just a model. Not the real thing. And the human mind, being what it is (whatever that is) has a tendancy to grasp a model and turn it into dogma. I try to be open to any whacky idea, because any whacky idea might have a glimpse of reality to it. Or it might not. Or one day it might, and another day it might not. Because, I'm not even sure I know what reality is. Ymmv, obviously. (And kids, don't try this at home.)

I don't believe I ever stuck my Calico Mather into the free will versus determinism discussion. Does the future exist? No. Does the past exist? No. Or, yes and yes. Does the cat exist? More importantly, what color is it in the dark?!?

Farmer suggests, then, that our minds operate in a chaotic fashion ( ), where determinism gives way to chaotic free will. He is telling us that chaos theory - which, as previously noted, indicates that there is order underlying what we perceive as chaos - explains how free will and fate can coexist. The system is deterministic in nature (fated to wind up at the same end point regardless of what happens), but the path is chaotic in that we can't predict the path of the system successfully (the path is free to go whatever way it will in getting to the end point.) This is either silly nonsense or it's a huge idea.

I bet Farmer was one of those guys who want to have their cake and eat it too!

And... It reminds me of something I once read about alternate realities, and how some decisions don't matter. They fall into the general background noise of the universe.

Of course, it reminds me of alot of other whacky stuff I've read too. Like the thing I once read likening omniscience as the ability to see all frames of a movie at the same time.

Pick one, Mission my friend, Determinism, or Free Will? Doesn't Determinism totally revolve around the idea of a "god" and his "grand plan"? Are you willing to say you agree with that notion? Or are you trying to come up with something in between? Have you been watching Star Wars again?

It's interesting that this point, which I have been pondering for a week and a half, should be presaged by the concept of the bicameral mind (which is something I am still thinking about, John. I was explaining the concept to another friend of mine named John only last night over several bottles of wine. He suggested that the bicameral mind is still among us. But then, John is a cynic. (And proud of this fact.))

I'm of two minds on this...

Interestingly, when asked what the problem with the world was, no less than Jonas Salk said that the trouble was that most men today don't think. (As reported by Earl Nightingale.) Nightingale went on to expound upon the idea, saying that many people never get out of the non-thinking "follow the leader" role. He opined that the trouble was that they aren't following a leader at all, they are following other followers. (Hey John! Perhaps we can now explain collective consciousness!  )

Oh man that's funny! And I'll agree. Well, but now I'm following a follower. Shoot. Ok, my personal observations will back it up. I've seen plenty of cases of the blind leading the blind. I've even done it myself a few (thousand) times. It often strikes me while driving in to work, when I think to myself, "wait! what are we doing people?!?" There we are, the human race at it's greatest, scurrying along like viruses in the blood stream.

Anyhow, in the theory of the bicameral mind, there was some point in time where Jaynes suggests that we became self-aware and autonomous. According to him, before that time we were basically non-thinking automatons who did the will of the gods or voices or perhaps even some convoluted instinct (although Jaynes doesn't use this last point to illustrate his theory). The implication is that we could not have free will until we shed our reliance on the gods/voices/instinct and that didn't occur until (I'm guessing) the Age of Enlightenment for Europeon people and much later for more "primitive" people. It's a rather tidy way to explain instinct, really.

I'm not sure I buy it. A friend of mine once had this discussion. (Funny, he reminds me of you. You both have... very "tight" minds.)

And... I'm loosing my train of thought and thinking about food instead. Mmmm... primates... once I have food, I can go back to sitting in my tree, where I'll be safe from most predators, and think big thoughts again.

What if, supposing, free will is instead an artifact of chaos theory at work? We have a system that's going along smoothly (non-chaotic in nature) that suddenly starts to diverge as we choose a different path (chaotic in nature) until it settles back into routine (returning to non-chaotic).

Hey, it works for me. See above, about models and so-called reality.

This is how chaos appears in most chaotic systems. It goes along linearly for awhile, then it "splits" (called a bifurcation in the graph) and alternates between two points (Two ideas? A choice?). Then it splits again; and again, etc, until it becomes unpredictable and chaotic in nature (free will?). It is neigh impossible to predict where the next point will be on the graph at this point. However, within the chaos are pockets of organization that eventually give way to more chaotic behavior. (Determinism interrupted by free will?)

Eh... I'd be just as happy with some goofy theory of alternate realities. Where every time a yes is made, a no is made and an alternate reality created.

This might also better explain some Jaynes theory - perhaps there was less chaotic mental activity in the past than there is today - but I am more and more inclined to discard Jaynes' idea. There were flashes of non-god driven thinking throughout history which defies his basic premise. His theory suggests that the bi-cameral mind exists up to a point in the history of a people where they discard their gods or instinct or whatever. This doesn't explain the aberrations. (I may still read his book if I can find it at the local library.)

I am too. Or should I say, without having read his book, based on my limited experience, my opinion is, "interesting theory, can I built it into something that fits my experience?"

Anyway... I hope my random musings weren't too off topic. They are worth what you paid for them.

And to think, I was going to sit back at lunch and enjoy some flowery prose...

[Mission]

But, imho, models are models, not reality.  I deal with models of reality on a daily basis.  Thus, I know something about how models compare with the real thing.  A model might function perfectly, and describe everything it needs to describe, but still, in the end, it is just a model.  Not the real thing.  And the human mind, being what it is (whatever that is) has a tendancy to grasp a model and turn it into dogma.

Dogma - death of free will. Yet we cling to it so.

What's interesting about chaos theory is that it does describe certain real world systems quite well. The human nervous sytem. The beating of the heart and the irregular beating of the diseased heart. Smoke dissipating in the air. The coastline of England (that might interest you, John). Cloud patterns. It's better than most theories - in fact it flies in the face of many systems where most things are held constant or ignored due to their non-linear nature (noise in electronics, friction in pendulum systems, etc.) At it's heart it is just another theory, but there is more realism imbedded than usual.

Complex systems are fascinating. I used to write off the complexity as irrelevant, just as we were taught in Physics and Engineering classes, but Chaos Theory focuses on them.

The question (to me) becomes: is there a mathematical system that can describe the workings of our minds? Or shall we give up and ascribe it to some mystical process (and attribute it to some god or God or modern substitute for g(G)od?

I have more tripe to peddle on this topic, but I submitted it to batch this weekend and am awaiting results.

A friend of mine once had this discussion. (Funny, he reminds me of you. You both have... very "tight" minds.)

What does this mean? I like to think I am somewhat open to new ideas. You've just got to prove they have value.

If you like Nightingale's ideas, check out his processionary caterpiller essay, John.

My basic problem with infinite realities is that you alone have googleplex of decisions to make, literally thousands each day ("Yes, the Idea Man! What're his hopes and dreams, his desires and aspirations? Does he think all the time or does he set aside a certain portion of the day? How tall is he and what's his shoe size? Where does he sleep and what does he eat for breakfast? Does he put jam on his toast or doesn't he put jam on his toast, and if not why not and since when?").

Each decision you make would reset all the decisions you will make, leading to an almost infinitude of other decisions branching off from each decision you make, producing an infinitude of decisions for you alone! Multiply that all the people that have, do and will exist and it's mind boggling. Plus there are interactive decisions that will affect other people leading to an increasingly complex branchings of decisions. Where the hell are all these alternate realities? ("You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!" "Yeah, I know, I got a real problem with that.")

It doesn't seem logical to me. Perhaps this is why you think I have a "tight" mind.

[blackjohn]

A friend of mine once had this discussion. (Funny, he reminds me of you. You both have... very "tight" minds.)

What does this mean?

Maybe I should have said orderly, logical and... scientific. Sharp might have been a better word.

I like to think I am somewhat open to new ideas. You've just got to prove they have value. 

Yes, he's the same way. And there's nothing wrong with that, unless you want me to prove something to you, because that's not really me.

He's an interesting character with an interesting background. He majored in religious studies, then went into high level mathmatics. He's a tough cookie in an argument. :)

[Mission]

He's an interesting character with an interesting background. He majored in religious studies, then went into high level mathmatics.

You'd be amazed at how closely those two things can align. Simply amazed. (At least he didn't switch from math at the eleventh hour and get his doctorate in Electrical Engineering. I had a professor for Communication Theory who did that. We spent the whole class examining proofs of LaPlace and Fourier transforms. What a wasted class! Who the hell cares about the proofs of Fourier transforms? (Not me. ) I mean, what are they really good for?).

My ex-wife (a math major with an MBA) wanted me to take a class in topology. She thought I'd like it, but I couldn't figure out what I'd do with it. In retrospect, she was probably right. Topology is quite interesting and has applications to the things I'm reading about.

[Duchess]

We spent the whole class examining proofs of LaPlace and Fourier transforms. What a wasted class! Who the hell cares about the proofs of Fourier transforms? (Not me. ) I mean, what are they really good for?).

Well, just as a bizarre point of fact, if there were no Fourier Transforms there would be no meaningfull Quantum Mechanics.

[Mission]

Well...then...um...that's what they're good for! You know, I seem to remember reading something about that in Feynman's bio.

Oh boy. I may have a hard time with those Feynman tapes...we shall see. Maybe now that I'm interested I shall thank my long gone prof. Perhaps I should go back and re-read chapters 2 & 3 of my Intro to Comm Theory book. (Nothing tastier than crow, now, is there? )

John, I'll bet you're an I or E NTP.

[blackjohn]

John, I'll bet you're an I or E NTP.

Try this thread.

https://pyracy.com/forums/index.php?showtop...5&hl=entp&st=90

I test very borderline I/E and F/T. I test pretty deep into N and P. My religious/mathmatics friend tested almost straight down the middle. But I think he's smart enough that if he wanted to, he could've placed his answers to get that result.

I was once cool with math. Then some bad teachers got ahold of me and destroyed my math brain.

[Mission]

Say, I started that offshoot topic, didn't I? See, Ps have a more developed ability to learn for the sake of learning. Js tend to search for purpose in everything. I am in INTJ, very strongly typed all the way across the spectrum. But I can also make the test come out however I like it to as well. Still, before I understood it well enough to do that, I took it and came out strongly typed.

NTPs and NTJs often make for good pairings in that the Ps create all this marvelous stuff and then move along to the next thing. When paired with a J, the Js are good at ideating with the NTP and then will apply the idea - NTJs can help NTPs to focus. Or so I read.

[blackjohn]

The question (to me) becomes: is there a mathematical system that can describe the workings of our minds? Or shall we give up and ascribe it to some mystical process (and attribute it to some god or God or modern substitute for g(G)od?

I believe human nature is such that an individual will try to describe "things" using a system using familiar and comfortable (oooooh... how profound ). Thus, mathematicians will try to describe the universe through math, musicians through music, mystics through mysticism. I suspect brains are attuned to or become attunded to a certain way of seeing the world, and try to explain the world in those terms. I can't say that I find any fault in that. Unless someone points a gun at me and tells me I have to subscribe to their system. Everyone sees things differently. As an example, I "suffer" from Deuteranopia. Not only don't I see the same world you (i.e., 99% of the population) see, I can't. And... am I wandering again???

My basic problem with infinite realities is that you alone have googleplex of decisions to make, literally thousands each day ("Yes, the Idea Man! What're his hopes and dreams, his desires and aspirations? Does he think all the time or does he set aside a certain portion of the day? How tall is he and what's his shoe size? Where does he sleep and what does he eat for breakfast? Does he put jam on his toast or doesn't he put jam on his toast, and if not why not and since when?").

Each decision you make would reset all the decisions you will make, leading to an almost infinitude of other decisions branching off from each decision you make, producing an infinitude of decisions for you alone! Multiply that all the people that have, do and will exist and it's mind boggling. Plus there are interactive decisions that will affect other people leading to an increasingly complex branchings of decisions. Where the hell are all these alternate realities?    ("You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!" "Yeah, I know, I got a real problem with that.")

I would think a fan of chaos theory would jump onboard the infinite realities train. Could each infinite reality be a layer of the chaos?

Wait! I feel a quote coming on!

Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus and I'd still have to bum rides off of people.

Dude... I think my brain is getting ready to rupture. All this, coupled with something I saw once while in a state of deep meditation, joined together with this is making me want to... take a long walk on a deserted beach.

[blackjohn]

NTPs and NTJs often make for good pairings in that the Ps create all this marvelous stuff and then move along to the next thing. When paired with a J, the Js are good at ideating with the NTP and then will apply the idea - NTJs can help NTPs to focus. Or so I read.

I believe it. Of course, I believe my type also sounds like the description of my astrological sign!

So are you good at finishing things? Seeing things through to completion?

[Mission]

So are you good at finishing things?  Seeing things through to completion?

Better than most people, I suspect. At least I reach of level of completion where I am content to move on to the next creative venture.

Now for the obverse point: Ps help Js to break out of their staid, hidebound ruts. NTPs and NTJs connect on the (highly) theoretical level as Thinking and iNtuitive types, where most types just roll their eyes. Like this.

So here we have the many minds theory. Now that, to borrow a phrase, "in the end, it is just a model. Not the real thing." I don't like it, personally. There's no way to prove it's even true if I understand it correctly.

The problem with Schrödinger's mangy cat is that it is a deterministic event: the damned thing is either dead or it's not. It's only indeterminate in the observer's mind. This "viewer affects the results at the quantum level" thing sounds awfully bizarre to poor old Mission. It has given way in several cases to what appears to me to be mysticism. I have heard religious maunderings where the speaker tries to coopt quantum mechanics as proof God is at work and man cannot control his destiny, etc. I wonder if God created us to amuse him - "Look at what they've come up with this time!"

Duchess (if she reads any of this tripe) may take me to task on these points because my understanding of Quantum Mechanics is pretty neanderthal and hers is not. I am awaiting Feynman's tapes on Basic QM (among several other tapes) with the optimistic hope that I will be able to understand enough of them.

However it did lead me to the phrase "quantum decoherence" which I love. It basically means that quantum mechanical behavior becomes simple system behavior. Or the indeterminate is determined to become determinate.

BTW, chaotic systems are examples of how order becomes chaotic, which contains pockets of order that become chaotic, which contains pockets of order that become chaotic, which...

The beaches at Nevis were quite nice when I was last there. Several are practically deserted.

[blackjohn]

The problem with Schrödinger's mangy cat is that it is a deterministic event: the damned thing is either dead or it's not. It's only indeterminate in the observer's mind. This "viewer affects the results at the quantum level" thing sounds awfully bizarre to poor old Mission.

Noooo.... there's that danged cat again!!! Lets just collapse the wavefront and get on with it.

Duchess (if she reads any of this tripe) may...

...tell me to get back to playing pirate and leave the math and physics to those who know what they are doing.

As for the many minds theory...

I don't like it, personally. There's no way to prove it's even true if I understand it correctly.

Me? I don't know. That was my first encounter with it, and I quickly ran because I didn't want my brain to explode (too many exploding brains around here lately!) However, proof of something is not a requirement for me to like something. I take it it is for you? And if so, why? Why this desire to be correct?

(sorry man, if it sounds like I'm grilling you here, but I know you know that I'm not, I'm just seeking answers to questions, albeit in a different manner than you might seek them)

[Duchess]

So I was listening to an old recording of the NPR show "This American Life" a few months back. In this recording they interviewed a fellow who had come up with his own theory of physics (at this juncture I cannot recall the actual topic) that completely refuted all existing precepts of physics and making the whole subject understandable to the common person. All this with out ever having taken a course in physics. It struck me then that this is how most people approach physics. They come up with a theory that suits their own purposes and simply go with it. It seems to happen more frequently with quantum mechanics and astrophysics because, I think, of the plethora of publically consumable books written on the subjects. And particularly with quantum mechanics because the common person is completely unwilling to accept the fact that the acknowledged experts in the field admit that they don't understand it all. Thus the co-opting of quantum theory to justify mysticism.

The reading of Feynman's lectures will pretty much point out that this:

The problem with Schrödinger's mangy cat is that it is a deterministic event: the damned thing is either dead or it's not. It's only indeterminate in the observer's mind. This "viewer affects the results at the quantum level" thing sounds awfully bizarre to poor old Mission. It has given way in several cases to what appears to me to be mysticism. I have heard religious maunderings where the speaker tries to coopt quantum mechanics as proof God is at work and man cannot control his destiny, etc. I wonder if God created us to amuse him - "Look at what they've come up with this time!"

is all wrong. Or it will drive you batty. It's a tosser.

Actually I think it would be wonderful to publish a collection of peoples personal theories on physics. And maybe a companion piece on peoples theories about what Physicists are covering up.

[Mission]

However, proof of something is not a requirement for me to like something.  I take it it is for you?  And if so, why?  Why this desire to be correct? 

(shrug) Been like that for as long as I can remember: make order from chaos.

I knew the cat thing was wrong. I'm looking to closely at the model. Intuitively it does not make sense to me, but I respect Feynman as an expert and will do my best to keep up with him.

As for NPR...you get what you pay for.

[blackjohn]

However, proof of something is not a requirement for me to like something.  I take it it is for you?  And if so, why?  Why this desire to be correct? 

(shrug) Been like that for as long as I can remember: make order from chaos.

But does that answer why?

[Mission]

I believe (bicamerally) that we are each unique, bringing strengths and weaknesses to each situation at which we arrive. These strengths/weaknesses (for they're opposite sides of the same coin) are either genetic or they're not. They're either learned or they're not. The experts argue both sides with magnificent eloquence. My mind does not rest until I've settled on something. It can keep me up at night.

I can't explain it any further than that. It's mystical.

[blackjohn]

Mission, when we meet, and I do mean when and not if, the drinks are on me!!!

[Mission]

Deal. Just to warn you: I primarily stick to single malt scotch, cognac and wine.

(I'll bet you Ps never wake up in the middle of the night trying to integrate your bedsheets. I don't even read my Chaos books after 5pm, they just keep me awake late turning ideas over and over.)

[blackjohn]

No biggy, most of my friends have expensive taste in single malts.

Me? I sleep the sleep of the dead.

[Duchess]

In rereading my prior post, I realize I forgot to mention that the gentlemans theory was completely incorrect. Proven so by post doc down to freshman physics students. But the guy never cared, just mentioned that physics people have an interest in keeping this information from the public.

And since I'm not actually paying (directly anyway) for it, I'll take whatever I can get! hello, pirate!

[Mission]

Yes, I am very upset by the physics disclosure conspiracy in this country.

"We have to do something immediately!"

"Harumph, Harumph, Harumph!"

"I didn't get a harumph outta that guy!"

"Give the Governor a harumph!"

"Harumph harumph!"

"You watch your ass..."

The guy's probably upset because he couldn't understand the books he read. You physics folks are disguising what you know in a thicket of mathematical equations.

"Mongo only pawn in game of life."