A claim is put forward in "Fractal Neurodynamics and Quantum Chaos: Resolving the Mind-Brain Paradox Through Novel Biophysics", in Chapter 6.2, Chaotic Excitability as a founding Eukaryote Characteristic,
"It is thus possible that chaotic excitation dates from as early a period as the genetic code itself and that the first eukaryote cells may have been excitable via direct electrochemical transfer from light energy, before enzyme-based metabolic pathways had developed."
Chaotic excitations preceding the evolution of enzyme-based metabolic pathways? Why not? Nowadays, sustaining complex life can not be imagined without the enzymes. Could life forms, before the advent of enzymes, have utilised the creative potential, inherent in chaotic dynamics?
It is mentioned further, that
"We have seen how chaotic excitation provides for exploration of phase space and sensitivity to internal and external fluctuations. "
Chaotic excitation provide the means to explore phase space. Phase space comprised by the vast range of existent states in the surrounding environment and chaotic excitation enabled early life forms to sense their surroundings, learn and adapt.
Chaotic processes created attractors, what materialised as stable physical structures. The features of life forms as they have developed by constant evolutionary transformations. Evolution processes materialised as permanent structures, the attractors, as the code written in genetic blueprints was instantiated?
Phase space comprised by the vast range of existing states, both in life forms and in the environment. Surrounding environment that a life form senses by electrochemical excitation. It is mentioned in the Electrochemistry Encyclopedia, that
"The conduction of electrochemical excitation must be regarded as one of the most universal properties of living organisms. It arose in connection with the need for the transmission of a signal about an external influence from one part of a biological system to another."
External influences as they are exerted by processes, constantly at play and simultaneously define the states that make up the chaotically explored phase space.
The surrounding environment, the atmospheric electrohemistry mentioned as:
"The existence of ions in the atmosphere is the fundamental reason for atmospheric electricity. The voltage between the earth's surface and the ionosphere is approximately 40 kV, which induces an electrical current of approximately 2000 A with a current density around 5 pA/m2 (1 picoampere = 10-12 ampere, one trillionth of an ampere per square metre)."
graphically describing
"The Earth is an "electrode" immersed in a weak gaseous "electrolyte," the naturally ionized atmosphere."
provide the context of the processes as well as the message carrier, electrical currents, which are detected, as
"The high sensitivity of the protoplasm and all cell organelles to any natural and chemical effect is the basis for excitability."
The high sensitivity, reminiscent of chaotic sensitivity as it responds to minimal changes with tantamount effects, triggers cell membranes, the boundaries of all life forms in all their evolutionary transformations, as a
"... change in trans membrane potential create a wave of depolarization, or action potential, that affects the adjoining, resting membrane."
Excitable membranes are ubiquitous in all evolved life forms, as it is further mentioned
"Nerve cells in animals and phloem cells in plants share one fundamental property: they possess excitable membranes through which electrical excitations, in the form of action potentials, can propagate. These propagating excitations are modelled theoretically as travelling wave solutions of certain parameter dependant nonlinear reaction-diffusion equations coupled with some nonlinear ordinary differential equations. These travelling wave solutions can be classified as single loop pulse, multiple loop pulses, fronts and backs, or periodic waves of different wave speed."
Chaotic dynamics created, brought life into existence and continue to guide life forms in their evolutionary journey.
"excitability: the disposition of a tissue or living cell to respond to a stimulus or change in the environment.
excitation: the act of producing or increasing stimulation; the immediate response of a cell or a tissue to a stimulus or change in the environment."
" subthreshold: (usually a stimulus that is) not strong enough to be perceived or to produce a response."
"At the cellular level, electrical potentials exist across membranes, and thus between cellular and specific compartments. Electrolytic species such as potassium, calcium, hydrogen, and chloride ions are actively involved in the establishment and modulation of electrical potentials."
Monday, 23 February 2009
Friday, 30 January 2009
The physical basis of meaning and paradigm shifts.
Mathematical neuron?
Or, a function, or even a group of functions in a neuron, or neurons, that perform mathematical processing?
The thought just came to me, as I was grappling with a task, a mathematical task, and found myself unable to comprehend the meaning contained within.
I further connected my inability, with a lack in my mind, of the necessary mental structures to employ and derive appropriate responses to this kind of stimuli. I did not have the appropriate mental tools in order to elucidate and achieve meaning pointed by the particular stimulus. Therefore these stimuli, despite being present were either totally ignored or not being given appropriate attention, or even being given an incorrect treatment, resulting in incorrect responses.
Stimuli, that represent every minute detail in our environment, are taken in and processed accordingly, only if there are appropriate mental structures built, in our minds. Mental structures amassed by learning. The enormous amount of information around us precipitates the necessity for continuous lifelong learning.
For each minute detail, the individual should have its very own way of approaching it, of dealing with it. It even points towards the notion of the human individual being a blank slate, a tabula rasa, since its birth and constantly inscribing, all through its lifetime records of its life events and ways to deal with them.
Which in the neuron level of our brains is translated into having the necessary synapses between the relevant neurons. Neural pathways created by synapses, and by being activated via synapses hence synaptic pathways.
These thoughts give 'meaning', as it is sought by individuals, a physical basis, which might be the only basis there is, none other. Based on brain states achieved as synaptic pathways are continuously created, a thought pointing towards constant learning, as the human individual never ceases to learn. A deeply felt process that leads to a state of fulfillment that invigorates the individual.
A human attribute epitomized in the phrase
'Γηράσκω αεί Διδασκόμενος'
attributed to the Athenian statesman and lawmaker, Solon (ancient Greek: Σόλων, c. 638 BC–558 BC), often credited with having laid the foundations for Athenian democracy, which literally means 'I constantly learn as I grow old', nullifying any notions of an individual going through its life time without searching the reasons for just 'being'.
Certainly that what is supposed to be regardless whether individuals adhere to it or not, for whatever reason this might be.
Which by itself, it might give rise to a deeper understanding of what a paradigm shift represents, in the context of the human mind, and by that analogy in all cases that paradigm shifts apply. As the old thought patterns instantiated as habits and guide the behaviour of a human individual, are abandoned. The processes employed to deal with stuff encountered in life, drastically change.
In the same way, (chaos self-similarity principle(?)) while an individual learns new knowledge, it means that the brain creates new synapses, new synaptic pathways. the old synaptic pathways which were used to deal with a particular situation are destroyed. As such it cuts off the synaptic pathway, there is no synaptic pathway to instantiate the particular train of thoughts any longer and all the previous modes of thinking cease to exist, which amounts to, completely forgotten.
around in itself points towards the necessity for each individual to amass an enormous amount of information to deal with each and every step of the mental processes it employs to deal with stuff in life.
Or, a function, or even a group of functions in a neuron, or neurons, that perform mathematical processing?
The thought just came to me, as I was grappling with a task, a mathematical task, and found myself unable to comprehend the meaning contained within.
I further connected my inability, with a lack in my mind, of the necessary mental structures to employ and derive appropriate responses to this kind of stimuli. I did not have the appropriate mental tools in order to elucidate and achieve meaning pointed by the particular stimulus. Therefore these stimuli, despite being present were either totally ignored or not being given appropriate attention, or even being given an incorrect treatment, resulting in incorrect responses.
Stimuli, that represent every minute detail in our environment, are taken in and processed accordingly, only if there are appropriate mental structures built, in our minds. Mental structures amassed by learning. The enormous amount of information around us precipitates the necessity for continuous lifelong learning.
For each minute detail, the individual should have its very own way of approaching it, of dealing with it. It even points towards the notion of the human individual being a blank slate, a tabula rasa, since its birth and constantly inscribing, all through its lifetime records of its life events and ways to deal with them.
Which in the neuron level of our brains is translated into having the necessary synapses between the relevant neurons. Neural pathways created by synapses, and by being activated via synapses hence synaptic pathways.
These thoughts give 'meaning', as it is sought by individuals, a physical basis, which might be the only basis there is, none other. Based on brain states achieved as synaptic pathways are continuously created, a thought pointing towards constant learning, as the human individual never ceases to learn. A deeply felt process that leads to a state of fulfillment that invigorates the individual.
A human attribute epitomized in the phrase
'Γηράσκω αεί Διδασκόμενος'
attributed to the Athenian statesman and lawmaker, Solon (ancient Greek: Σόλων, c. 638 BC–558 BC), often credited with having laid the foundations for Athenian democracy, which literally means 'I constantly learn as I grow old', nullifying any notions of an individual going through its life time without searching the reasons for just 'being'.
Certainly that what is supposed to be regardless whether individuals adhere to it or not, for whatever reason this might be.
Which by itself, it might give rise to a deeper understanding of what a paradigm shift represents, in the context of the human mind, and by that analogy in all cases that paradigm shifts apply. As the old thought patterns instantiated as habits and guide the behaviour of a human individual, are abandoned. The processes employed to deal with stuff encountered in life, drastically change.
In the same way, (chaos self-similarity principle(?)) while an individual learns new knowledge, it means that the brain creates new synapses, new synaptic pathways. the old synaptic pathways which were used to deal with a particular situation are destroyed. As such it cuts off the synaptic pathway, there is no synaptic pathway to instantiate the particular train of thoughts any longer and all the previous modes of thinking cease to exist, which amounts to, completely forgotten.
around in itself points towards the necessity for each individual to amass an enormous amount of information to deal with each and every step of the mental processes it employs to deal with stuff in life.
Friday, 23 January 2009
Consciousness reassures us that the world is, as is.
It has been said over and over again(?), that the role consciousness can play, is in sorting out states the individual finds itself amidst. States being either world, or inner self, or states out of the interaction with other individuals. All that we have amassed as we delve deep, with our minds chaotic processes, into them states.
Checking out the things around us, reminding us what each thing is. That a tree is a tree, or a cat is cat. A reassurance of the content of concepts, the stuff they are made up of. Along with, that we put keys in such and such place and that when we need them, we will find them in such and such place. To preserve the continuity in our daily lives. Contiguity? Congruency?
Consciousness reassures us that the world is, as is. Checking up on the contents of the concepts we have learned at some point in time, along with all the properties and attributes each concept is associated with.
Checking out the things around us, reminding us what each thing is. That a tree is a tree, or a cat is cat. A reassurance of the content of concepts, the stuff they are made up of. Along with, that we put keys in such and such place and that when we need them, we will find them in such and such place. To preserve the continuity in our daily lives. Contiguity? Congruency?
Consciousness reassures us that the world is, as is. Checking up on the contents of the concepts we have learned at some point in time, along with all the properties and attributes each concept is associated with.
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Thinking of idealised units of link-node-link chains organised by context?
Relevant threads
- By virtue of reflexive and reflective reasoning then reflexive and reflective thinking?
- FROM SIMPLE ASSOCIATIONS TO SYSTEMATIC REASONING: A Connectionist representation of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony
- The paradigm shifts in our minds
- Handles-tags drag along thoughts from our minds
- "Use-it-or-lose-it" pruning of brain cells. An on-the-fly brain mechanism for dynamic minds?
I read in the paper by Lokendra Shastri and Venkat Ajjanagadde 'From simple associations to systematic reasoning', under the title 'Computational constraints', section 1.2
"Connectionist models (Feldman & Ballard 1982; Rumelhart & McClelland 1986) are intended to emulate the information processing characteristics of the brain — albeit at an abstract computational level — and reflect its strengths and weaknesses. Typically, a node in a connectionist network corresponds to an idealized neuron, and a link corresponds to an idealized synaptic connection.
Let us enumerate some core computational features of connectionist models: i) Nodes compute very simple functions of their inputs, ii) They can only hold limited state information — while a node may maintain a scalar ‘potential’, it cannot store and selectively manipulate bit strings. iii) Node outputs do not have sufficient resolution to encode symbolic names or pointers. iv) There is no central controller that instructs individual nodes to perform specific operations at each step of processing."
A node, in a connectionist or any other kind of network for that matter, corresponds to an idealised neuron, and a link to an idealised synaptic connection? Taking it further, a node corresponds to neural pathways connecting links, pathways which can include one idealised neuron or several idealised neurons? The main point being the passage of the signal from link-to-link? And not just any link, but a certain kind of link? A link, a synaptic connection, that lies within the context, the link-node-link path is attached to? A neurological basis of context? That links are attached by nodes, in link-node-link neural chains abiding to rules (... of context?)
Link-node-link creation, independent of length, namely the number of neurons involved. Independent also of the distance between individual links, or their place in the brain? What only matters is their placement within the contextual link-node-link chains? And one other thought that connects our brain organisation, with chaotic and fractal aspects. It is the potential inherent in such mode of brain organisation that even a remote, unused link, deeply buried, in all sense implied, can instantiate itself, unearth the attributes is attached with, and confer in the meaning of the currently active link-node-link unit.
Take the matter of idealised units, beyond a computational level, and instead talk about idealised units on the basis of context? Providing a simple mechanism for instantiating a thought, a unit of emergent thought, and multiple copies out of the same blueprint interacting, leading to complexity and the emergence of the mind?
The little red riding hood example and the steps in the inferential processing,
"The wolf will approach LRRH (to eat something you have to be near it); LRRH will scream (because a child is scared by an approaching wild animal); upon hearing the scream the wood-cutters will know that a child is in danger (because a child’s screaming suggests that it is in danger); the wood-cutters will go to the child (people want to protect children in danger and in part, this involves determining the source of the danger); the wood-cutters will try to prevent the wolf from attacking LRRH (people want to protect children); in doing so the wood-cutters may hurt the wolf (preventing an animal from attacking may involve physical force ...); so the wolf decides to wait (because an animal does not want to get hurt)."
a link-node-link path, and each link jump adds attributes that amass in the meaning conferred by the link-node-link chain, in a manner that comes out, from what the authors refer to as the “unary or even propositional fixation” problem
"This turns out to be a difficult problem for neurally motivated models. As McCarthy (1988) observed most connectionist systems suffer from the “unary or even propositional fixation” with their representational power restricted to unary predicates applied to a fixed object. Fodor and Pylyshyn (1988) have even questioned the ability of connectionist networks to embody systematicity and compositionality."
as 'unary predicates applied to a fixed object'?
Links thought off as handles or tags that involve their own specific load of attributes and properties, and drag along what is relevant to the context of the active node-link-node chain?
Though their potential surpasses their mere role in providing inferences for instantiating reasoning. By virtue of their associations with other conceived thoughts, that might even belong in other contextual units, can form context to context bridges, can drag along attributes that belong in other contexts, borrowing from context to context, passing from context to context and use that in innovating manners, the hallmark of creativity.
- By virtue of reflexive and reflective reasoning then reflexive and reflective thinking?
- FROM SIMPLE ASSOCIATIONS TO SYSTEMATIC REASONING: A Connectionist representation of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony
- The paradigm shifts in our minds
- Handles-tags drag along thoughts from our minds
- "Use-it-or-lose-it" pruning of brain cells. An on-the-fly brain mechanism for dynamic minds?
I read in the paper by Lokendra Shastri and Venkat Ajjanagadde 'From simple associations to systematic reasoning', under the title 'Computational constraints', section 1.2
"Connectionist models (Feldman & Ballard 1982; Rumelhart & McClelland 1986) are intended to emulate the information processing characteristics of the brain — albeit at an abstract computational level — and reflect its strengths and weaknesses. Typically, a node in a connectionist network corresponds to an idealized neuron, and a link corresponds to an idealized synaptic connection.
Let us enumerate some core computational features of connectionist models: i) Nodes compute very simple functions of their inputs, ii) They can only hold limited state information — while a node may maintain a scalar ‘potential’, it cannot store and selectively manipulate bit strings. iii) Node outputs do not have sufficient resolution to encode symbolic names or pointers. iv) There is no central controller that instructs individual nodes to perform specific operations at each step of processing."
A node, in a connectionist or any other kind of network for that matter, corresponds to an idealised neuron, and a link to an idealised synaptic connection? Taking it further, a node corresponds to neural pathways connecting links, pathways which can include one idealised neuron or several idealised neurons? The main point being the passage of the signal from link-to-link? And not just any link, but a certain kind of link? A link, a synaptic connection, that lies within the context, the link-node-link path is attached to? A neurological basis of context? That links are attached by nodes, in link-node-link neural chains abiding to rules (... of context?)
Link-node-link creation, independent of length, namely the number of neurons involved. Independent also of the distance between individual links, or their place in the brain? What only matters is their placement within the contextual link-node-link chains? And one other thought that connects our brain organisation, with chaotic and fractal aspects. It is the potential inherent in such mode of brain organisation that even a remote, unused link, deeply buried, in all sense implied, can instantiate itself, unearth the attributes is attached with, and confer in the meaning of the currently active link-node-link unit.
Take the matter of idealised units, beyond a computational level, and instead talk about idealised units on the basis of context? Providing a simple mechanism for instantiating a thought, a unit of emergent thought, and multiple copies out of the same blueprint interacting, leading to complexity and the emergence of the mind?
The little red riding hood example and the steps in the inferential processing,
"The wolf will approach LRRH (to eat something you have to be near it); LRRH will scream (because a child is scared by an approaching wild animal); upon hearing the scream the wood-cutters will know that a child is in danger (because a child’s screaming suggests that it is in danger); the wood-cutters will go to the child (people want to protect children in danger and in part, this involves determining the source of the danger); the wood-cutters will try to prevent the wolf from attacking LRRH (people want to protect children); in doing so the wood-cutters may hurt the wolf (preventing an animal from attacking may involve physical force ...); so the wolf decides to wait (because an animal does not want to get hurt)."
a link-node-link path, and each link jump adds attributes that amass in the meaning conferred by the link-node-link chain, in a manner that comes out, from what the authors refer to as the “unary or even propositional fixation” problem
"This turns out to be a difficult problem for neurally motivated models. As McCarthy (1988) observed most connectionist systems suffer from the “unary or even propositional fixation” with their representational power restricted to unary predicates applied to a fixed object. Fodor and Pylyshyn (1988) have even questioned the ability of connectionist networks to embody systematicity and compositionality."
as 'unary predicates applied to a fixed object'?
Links thought off as handles or tags that involve their own specific load of attributes and properties, and drag along what is relevant to the context of the active node-link-node chain?
Though their potential surpasses their mere role in providing inferences for instantiating reasoning. By virtue of their associations with other conceived thoughts, that might even belong in other contextual units, can form context to context bridges, can drag along attributes that belong in other contexts, borrowing from context to context, passing from context to context and use that in innovating manners, the hallmark of creativity.
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
By virtue of reflexive and reflective reasoning then reflexive and reflective thinking?
Following up the threads
- Thinking (with)in and (with)out the brain.
- FROM SIMPLE ASSOCIATIONS TO SYSTEMATIC REASONING: A Connectionist representation of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony
- The minds we make overall stupid despite being generated by an underlying remarkable ability to draw inferences?
- Intuitions. Should we be afraid or trust our intuitions? Building up a case for trust.
- Neural processes beat rational thinking.
- Not recommended: frantically seeking escape from a chaotic situation, we find ourselves in.
- Is thinking an automatic process?
- Unconscious knows better ... Indulge yourself.
- Our neurons chart the space we unfold our actions in
- Mind sets and their overriding influence
This paper by Lokendra Shastri and Venkat Ajjanagadde 'From simple associations to systematic reasoning' got me going. I felt that their conclusion, arrived from a somewhat different path, matches what I have arrived using different leads. Or might be simply that I have not wholesomely (systematically) engaged in their views, despite being aired since 1992.
I felt, I have to go through, trod again the path that led me to the views, currently prevalent in my mind, but I am hesitating as I can not decide how to do that. While I am in that process, I recognise the source of my dilemma, given by the authors account of reasoning, as they differentiate it, in reflexive and reflective reasoning.
As the authors stated
"As the above examples suggest, we can draw a variety of inferences rapidly, spontaneously and without conscious effort — as though they were a reflex response of our cognitive apparatus. In view of this let us describe such reasoning as reflexive (Shastri 1990).2 Reflexive reasoning may be contrasted with reflective reasoning which requires reflection, conscious deliberation, and often an overt consideration of alternatives and weighing of possibilities. Reflective reasoning takes takes longer and often requires the use of external props such as a paper and pencil. Some examples of such reasoning are solving logic puzzles, doing cryptarithmetic, or planning a vacation."
Is the clash within me, in choosing the mode of reasoning, I want to use to deal with the notions put forward. Reflexive reasoning or reflective reasoning. Though, to my mind is quite evident that my preferred way is in favour of the reflexive reasoning than reflective reasoning, as I found it to be more productive. Thus stated, I should point out that I do not ignore the significance of reflective reasoning, though I find reflexive reasoning a more suitable way to deal with problems.
By pondering on these thoughts I realize that the case on reasoning, the authors mention, do not include what I have contemplated on the matter. The matter being, that reasoning is only a small part of the brain processes that go under the much wider umbrella concept of thinking. Surpassing the limits and extending the scope by attaching the attributes associated with reasoning, as they are revealed by their findings, to be included in the attribute repertoire of the much wider concept of thinking.
Regarding reasoning the authors mention
" reasoning underlies even the most commonplace intelligent behavior."
which they see as
"One could argue that some of the steps in the above reasoning process are pre-compiled or ‘chunked’, but it would be unreasonable to claim that this entire chain of reasoning can be construed as direct retrieval or even a single step inference!"
not just a matter of retrieving information already stored, but as
"Hence, in addition to accessing lexical items, parsing, and resolving anaphoric reference, some computation similar to the above chain of reasoning must occur when the sentence in question is processed."
computations which make it possible, as in the case of language understanding to
"... language understanding, a task that we usually perform rapidly and effortlessly, depends upon our ability to make predictions, generate explanations, and recognize speaker’s plans."
predict, explain, recognize plans in other individuals minds. And all these are done rapidly and effortlessly.
It is not just reasoning that humans can perform effortlessly, as the authors point out, but even wider aspects of thinking. Adopting the authors terminology for reasoning to this wider view of mental activity, should consider referring to thinking along the same terms as reflexive and reflective thinking.
One ill that plagued me is the use of the words-symbols for attributes and properties amassed as they develop in my mind. The notion of orphan attributes and properties springs forth. Or better, as all these attributes are amassing, mainly by virtue of their associations, converge into something, which to my mind represents the concept. The matter conceived by the amassed orphan attributes.
This thought emanating, by the authors elaboration on the individual's, designated as agent, long-term knowledge base
"... it must include, besides other things, our knowledge of naive physics and naive psychology; facts about ourselves, our family and friends; facts about history and geography; our knowledge of artifacts; sports, art, and music trivia; and our models of social and civic interactions."
naively originated thoughts and in the process, being fleshed up, demand to be acknowledged and respected. Out of the chaos in my mind converging into stable attractors, forming visible structures, entities that need to be dressed up with words to symbolize their existence, and as such to become part either as attributes or any other form along the lines mentioned by the authors
"... hierarchy that represents entities, types (categories), and the super/sub-concept relations between them ..."
entities, types, categories, super/sub-concept hierarchies. To overcome their naive origins to more informed states, towards overarching and lucid meaning. From naive roots seeking out the word, the symbol to denote the converged distinct entity.
Thinking instantiates, using up the brain reflex mechanisms, named as reflex responses of human agents cognitive apparatus, taking advantage their effortless, spontaneous remarkably efficient character, to use the speed of their processing, to arrive to new knowledge quicker. Since reflexively processing the thoughts can produce many more associations than if it was processing the thoughts reflectively.
Advancing from naive, ill-, mis-, under- informed knowledge to more inclusive empowering knowledge, broadening and deepening the long-term knowledge base, towards the empowered state of an individual.
.... not just to reason but to think too.
- Thinking (with)in and (with)out the brain.
- FROM SIMPLE ASSOCIATIONS TO SYSTEMATIC REASONING: A Connectionist representation of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony
- The minds we make overall stupid despite being generated by an underlying remarkable ability to draw inferences?
- Intuitions. Should we be afraid or trust our intuitions? Building up a case for trust.
- Neural processes beat rational thinking.
- Not recommended: frantically seeking escape from a chaotic situation, we find ourselves in.
- Is thinking an automatic process?
- Unconscious knows better ... Indulge yourself.
- Our neurons chart the space we unfold our actions in
- Mind sets and their overriding influence
This paper by Lokendra Shastri and Venkat Ajjanagadde 'From simple associations to systematic reasoning' got me going. I felt that their conclusion, arrived from a somewhat different path, matches what I have arrived using different leads. Or might be simply that I have not wholesomely (systematically) engaged in their views, despite being aired since 1992.
I felt, I have to go through, trod again the path that led me to the views, currently prevalent in my mind, but I am hesitating as I can not decide how to do that. While I am in that process, I recognise the source of my dilemma, given by the authors account of reasoning, as they differentiate it, in reflexive and reflective reasoning.
As the authors stated
"As the above examples suggest, we can draw a variety of inferences rapidly, spontaneously and without conscious effort — as though they were a reflex response of our cognitive apparatus. In view of this let us describe such reasoning as reflexive (Shastri 1990).2 Reflexive reasoning may be contrasted with reflective reasoning which requires reflection, conscious deliberation, and often an overt consideration of alternatives and weighing of possibilities. Reflective reasoning takes takes longer and often requires the use of external props such as a paper and pencil. Some examples of such reasoning are solving logic puzzles, doing cryptarithmetic, or planning a vacation."
Is the clash within me, in choosing the mode of reasoning, I want to use to deal with the notions put forward. Reflexive reasoning or reflective reasoning. Though, to my mind is quite evident that my preferred way is in favour of the reflexive reasoning than reflective reasoning, as I found it to be more productive. Thus stated, I should point out that I do not ignore the significance of reflective reasoning, though I find reflexive reasoning a more suitable way to deal with problems.
By pondering on these thoughts I realize that the case on reasoning, the authors mention, do not include what I have contemplated on the matter. The matter being, that reasoning is only a small part of the brain processes that go under the much wider umbrella concept of thinking. Surpassing the limits and extending the scope by attaching the attributes associated with reasoning, as they are revealed by their findings, to be included in the attribute repertoire of the much wider concept of thinking.
Regarding reasoning the authors mention
" reasoning underlies even the most commonplace intelligent behavior."
which they see as
"One could argue that some of the steps in the above reasoning process are pre-compiled or ‘chunked’, but it would be unreasonable to claim that this entire chain of reasoning can be construed as direct retrieval or even a single step inference!"
not just a matter of retrieving information already stored, but as
"Hence, in addition to accessing lexical items, parsing, and resolving anaphoric reference, some computation similar to the above chain of reasoning must occur when the sentence in question is processed."
computations which make it possible, as in the case of language understanding to
"... language understanding, a task that we usually perform rapidly and effortlessly, depends upon our ability to make predictions, generate explanations, and recognize speaker’s plans."
predict, explain, recognize plans in other individuals minds. And all these are done rapidly and effortlessly.
It is not just reasoning that humans can perform effortlessly, as the authors point out, but even wider aspects of thinking. Adopting the authors terminology for reasoning to this wider view of mental activity, should consider referring to thinking along the same terms as reflexive and reflective thinking.
One ill that plagued me is the use of the words-symbols for attributes and properties amassed as they develop in my mind. The notion of orphan attributes and properties springs forth. Or better, as all these attributes are amassing, mainly by virtue of their associations, converge into something, which to my mind represents the concept. The matter conceived by the amassed orphan attributes.
This thought emanating, by the authors elaboration on the individual's, designated as agent, long-term knowledge base
"... it must include, besides other things, our knowledge of naive physics and naive psychology; facts about ourselves, our family and friends; facts about history and geography; our knowledge of artifacts; sports, art, and music trivia; and our models of social and civic interactions."
naively originated thoughts and in the process, being fleshed up, demand to be acknowledged and respected. Out of the chaos in my mind converging into stable attractors, forming visible structures, entities that need to be dressed up with words to symbolize their existence, and as such to become part either as attributes or any other form along the lines mentioned by the authors
"... hierarchy that represents entities, types (categories), and the super/sub-concept relations between them ..."
entities, types, categories, super/sub-concept hierarchies. To overcome their naive origins to more informed states, towards overarching and lucid meaning. From naive roots seeking out the word, the symbol to denote the converged distinct entity.
Thinking instantiates, using up the brain reflex mechanisms, named as reflex responses of human agents cognitive apparatus, taking advantage their effortless, spontaneous remarkably efficient character, to use the speed of their processing, to arrive to new knowledge quicker. Since reflexively processing the thoughts can produce many more associations than if it was processing the thoughts reflectively.
Advancing from naive, ill-, mis-, under- informed knowledge to more inclusive empowering knowledge, broadening and deepening the long-term knowledge base, towards the empowered state of an individual.
.... not just to reason but to think too.
Monday, 13 October 2008
Knowing the limits consciousness offers to self.
ChaosandOrder
CHAOS AND COSMOS
Knowing the limits consciousness offers to self or attempt to comprehend the range available for consciousness to operate, will give an insight about the significance of consciousness and the role it plays in the life of the organism. As the emergence of self as a survival prerequisite ....
(the emergence of self a survival prerequisite? The human individual identifies self as a separate entity, realises the dangers lurking in its environment, which will jeopardize its integrity, its existence. The rise of self, before or after or along with consciousness),
... a part of consciousness and at the same time the part to which consciousness is attributed to, and arises from, in a loop-like fashion, should be regarded as that ingredient of the machine, we call organism, which gives rise to consciousness.
If we regard the organism as a machine, which performs certain tasks as a single unit of the whole that is the world, the nature of the tasks would be such, that facilitates the assimilation of the unit into the whole. The whole as such undergoes in its own tasks, brought about by the computations dictated by the laws of nature, woven by repeated cycles of organisation and emergence, down from the quantum world up to the macroscopic world, which we, ourselves, experience.
We are part of the world and we are the product of a cycle of organisation and emergence, as all other parts of the world are. The cycle of organisation and emergence down from the quantum level, has given rise to self and consciousness. We attribute with consciousness, those other parts of the world which are similar to us, (namely other individuals?). But if our consciousness arises as a result of the computations undergoing, to sustain our cycle of organisation and emergence, why would it not arise in other parts of the world which by themselves undergo computations to sustain their own level of organisation and emergence. Why our computations give rise to consciousness and theirs don't? Does that line of reasoning help in order to define what consciousness is? Is consciousness a knowledge of self, its placement in the whole? Is consciousness necessary for the sustainability of our cycle of organisation and emergence? No, it is not. There are other mechanisms responsible for that. Our body can sustain itself without the contribution of consciousness. Most of the mechanisms responsible for the sustainability of our body are unconscious and consciousness's involvement is indirect.
Though consciousness is attributed with free will, for free will as such, sustainability is a redundant option. It is only an illusion that by the means of free will, we achieve sustainability. The options available to free will have already been worked out by unconscious processes and the apparent freedom of choice is a matter of whims. Consciousness role has an observer status. It is the recipient of knowledge, the agent of knowledge, the observer and the carrier of our feelings.
CHAOS AND COSMOS
Knowing the limits consciousness offers to self or attempt to comprehend the range available for consciousness to operate, will give an insight about the significance of consciousness and the role it plays in the life of the organism. As the emergence of self as a survival prerequisite ....
(the emergence of self a survival prerequisite? The human individual identifies self as a separate entity, realises the dangers lurking in its environment, which will jeopardize its integrity, its existence. The rise of self, before or after or along with consciousness),
... a part of consciousness and at the same time the part to which consciousness is attributed to, and arises from, in a loop-like fashion, should be regarded as that ingredient of the machine, we call organism, which gives rise to consciousness.
If we regard the organism as a machine, which performs certain tasks as a single unit of the whole that is the world, the nature of the tasks would be such, that facilitates the assimilation of the unit into the whole. The whole as such undergoes in its own tasks, brought about by the computations dictated by the laws of nature, woven by repeated cycles of organisation and emergence, down from the quantum world up to the macroscopic world, which we, ourselves, experience.
We are part of the world and we are the product of a cycle of organisation and emergence, as all other parts of the world are. The cycle of organisation and emergence down from the quantum level, has given rise to self and consciousness. We attribute with consciousness, those other parts of the world which are similar to us, (namely other individuals?). But if our consciousness arises as a result of the computations undergoing, to sustain our cycle of organisation and emergence, why would it not arise in other parts of the world which by themselves undergo computations to sustain their own level of organisation and emergence. Why our computations give rise to consciousness and theirs don't? Does that line of reasoning help in order to define what consciousness is? Is consciousness a knowledge of self, its placement in the whole? Is consciousness necessary for the sustainability of our cycle of organisation and emergence? No, it is not. There are other mechanisms responsible for that. Our body can sustain itself without the contribution of consciousness. Most of the mechanisms responsible for the sustainability of our body are unconscious and consciousness's involvement is indirect.
Though consciousness is attributed with free will, for free will as such, sustainability is a redundant option. It is only an illusion that by the means of free will, we achieve sustainability. The options available to free will have already been worked out by unconscious processes and the apparent freedom of choice is a matter of whims. Consciousness role has an observer status. It is the recipient of knowledge, the agent of knowledge, the observer and the carrier of our feelings.
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
The paradigm shifts in our minds
The line of thoughts that follow, were triggered by reading Brian Greene's book 'The elegant universe'. However, I did not grab the idea coming from the original spark, while it was developing, and I lost it. The inspiration dwindled and gone. But the hot ashes were still there, nurturing the flicker. A subject that while was constantly there, was persistently ignored, overlooked. I did not pay the appropriate attention but now I see it with a different eye, looked from a different perspective, within another context.
So, it was not long before my attention's antennae picked another example, and a much stronger one that depicts the underlying substrate of my developing thought. The haphazard wondering in the internet about Pandora's box, brought me in Luboš Motl blog, the reference frame, which its stated aim,
"The most important events in our and your superstringy Universe as seen from a conservative physicist's viewpoint"
intrigued me. It drew my attention.
My original quest for Pandora's box, a blog I write to, forgotten, took second place, and in a Markov inspired act, in a manner I described before I followed a title that looked promising. Namely, the blog entry titled 'Observables in quantum gravity'
The first paragraph looked promising.
"The goal of every quantum-mechanical theory is to predict the probabilities that particular physical quantities - "observables" - will take one value or another value after some evolution of the system, assuming certain initial conditions."
The last line, 'assuming certain initial conditions', the connotations, as were brought into my mind, with chaos initial conditions and its sensitive dependence, as chaos being there in such a fundamental level, gained my attention and my resolve to dig deeper into Luboš Motl exposition of 'observables'. The name of the original author, Moshe Rozali, propped up and the emanating post, titled likewise as 'Observables in quantum gravity', was right in front of me.
I read the first paragraph
"In quantum mechanics a state is described by a ray in a Hilbert space, and an observable by an Hermitian operator acting on that Hilbert space. After measurement, the state collapses to an eigenstate of the operator representing the measurements. The probability of any outcome is given by the Born rule."
Quantum mechanical states, implicated into my mind with states, trajectories developing in a chaotic fashion and the idea of attractors lurking beneath, and I might find a clue in what these quantum mechanical states are included in, the Hilbert space.
I felt I had to explore what is behind this mysterious Hilbert space, which, I came across, before. The first search result, at WolframMathworld did not offer much, riddled with notations and meaningless names, killing intuition relentlessly. The second in Wikipedia, though along the same lines, offered me a working ground, fodder for future thoughts.
What donned to me is, that I can not grasp the essence in Hilbert spaces, as I do not have the conceptual structures to deal with it. Something along Julian Jaynes structions, the sort of instructions given to my nervous system so that once the materials, the aforementioned descriptions, are given to work on, it will result in the answer automatically, without any conscious thinking or reasoning. And this phenomenon, as Julian Jaynes proclaims, applies to most of our activities, from such simplicities as judging weights to solving problems to scientific and philosophical activity. Consciousness studies a problem and prepares it as a struction, a process which may result in a sudden appearance of the solution as if out of nowhere. Without them I am not able to grasp the meaning Brian Greene, tries to convey or what Hilbert space is.
I have not created the reverberated cell assemblies to deal with that problem, the reverberated cell assemblies, representing the concepts with their constituent properties, to provide a lucid framework for meaning to come out. Reverberated cell assemblies ever ready, their indefinite nature proclaim, to make understanding possible and therefore I am unable to understand what is going on.
Further on in page 111 of Brian Greene's book, I read
"At this point your classical upbringing is balking."
it stops short and refuse to go on. We are what the concepts we carry within, allows us to be, our limits, self-imposed (in almost everything, as I could think about it now), are determined by their amount, their accuracy, whether adequate or inadequate, correct or incorrect. All that it matters to us, comes out of the concepts we have amassed and continue to (the smart thing to do), through our lives.
If we do not continuously brush off the content of our concepts, in girth and in depth, then stalemate. All sorts of problems follow, which basically is translated in, that we get trapped, caged, the concepts we carry our very own prison guards, our jailers, self-imposed limits, bringing forth anxiety, helplessness, boredom. We are in desperate need of paradigm shifts, our very own personal paradigm shifts, remodeling our worldviews and our ways of living.
It is what is mentioned in this website
"The new paradigm would replace old assumptions, values, goals, beliefs, expectations, theories, and the like with its own."
or even more drastically, in an even more powerful way, as it is mentioned in the same website, attributed to Thomas Kuhn,
"a new theory or model is proposed which requires understanding traditional scientific concepts in new ways, and which rejects old assumptions and replaces them with new ones."
our goal is constantly to rejuvenate, in every way possible,
The paradigm shifts of our minds, our own individual paradigm shifts which as the concept defines, once achieved, we will never look back.
So, it was not long before my attention's antennae picked another example, and a much stronger one that depicts the underlying substrate of my developing thought. The haphazard wondering in the internet about Pandora's box, brought me in Luboš Motl blog, the reference frame, which its stated aim,
"The most important events in our and your superstringy Universe as seen from a conservative physicist's viewpoint"
intrigued me. It drew my attention.
My original quest for Pandora's box, a blog I write to, forgotten, took second place, and in a Markov inspired act, in a manner I described before I followed a title that looked promising. Namely, the blog entry titled 'Observables in quantum gravity'
The first paragraph looked promising.
"The goal of every quantum-mechanical theory is to predict the probabilities that particular physical quantities - "observables" - will take one value or another value after some evolution of the system, assuming certain initial conditions."
The last line, 'assuming certain initial conditions', the connotations, as were brought into my mind, with chaos initial conditions and its sensitive dependence, as chaos being there in such a fundamental level, gained my attention and my resolve to dig deeper into Luboš Motl exposition of 'observables'. The name of the original author, Moshe Rozali, propped up and the emanating post, titled likewise as 'Observables in quantum gravity', was right in front of me.
I read the first paragraph
"In quantum mechanics a state is described by a ray in a Hilbert space, and an observable by an Hermitian operator acting on that Hilbert space. After measurement, the state collapses to an eigenstate of the operator representing the measurements. The probability of any outcome is given by the Born rule."
Quantum mechanical states, implicated into my mind with states, trajectories developing in a chaotic fashion and the idea of attractors lurking beneath, and I might find a clue in what these quantum mechanical states are included in, the Hilbert space.
I felt I had to explore what is behind this mysterious Hilbert space, which, I came across, before. The first search result, at WolframMathworld did not offer much, riddled with notations and meaningless names, killing intuition relentlessly. The second in Wikipedia, though along the same lines, offered me a working ground, fodder for future thoughts.
What donned to me is, that I can not grasp the essence in Hilbert spaces, as I do not have the conceptual structures to deal with it. Something along Julian Jaynes structions, the sort of instructions given to my nervous system so that once the materials, the aforementioned descriptions, are given to work on, it will result in the answer automatically, without any conscious thinking or reasoning. And this phenomenon, as Julian Jaynes proclaims, applies to most of our activities, from such simplicities as judging weights to solving problems to scientific and philosophical activity. Consciousness studies a problem and prepares it as a struction, a process which may result in a sudden appearance of the solution as if out of nowhere. Without them I am not able to grasp the meaning Brian Greene, tries to convey or what Hilbert space is.
I have not created the reverberated cell assemblies to deal with that problem, the reverberated cell assemblies, representing the concepts with their constituent properties, to provide a lucid framework for meaning to come out. Reverberated cell assemblies ever ready, their indefinite nature proclaim, to make understanding possible and therefore I am unable to understand what is going on.
Further on in page 111 of Brian Greene's book, I read
"At this point your classical upbringing is balking."
it stops short and refuse to go on. We are what the concepts we carry within, allows us to be, our limits, self-imposed (in almost everything, as I could think about it now), are determined by their amount, their accuracy, whether adequate or inadequate, correct or incorrect. All that it matters to us, comes out of the concepts we have amassed and continue to (the smart thing to do), through our lives.
If we do not continuously brush off the content of our concepts, in girth and in depth, then stalemate. All sorts of problems follow, which basically is translated in, that we get trapped, caged, the concepts we carry our very own prison guards, our jailers, self-imposed limits, bringing forth anxiety, helplessness, boredom. We are in desperate need of paradigm shifts, our very own personal paradigm shifts, remodeling our worldviews and our ways of living.
It is what is mentioned in this website
"The new paradigm would replace old assumptions, values, goals, beliefs, expectations, theories, and the like with its own."
or even more drastically, in an even more powerful way, as it is mentioned in the same website, attributed to Thomas Kuhn,
"a new theory or model is proposed which requires understanding traditional scientific concepts in new ways, and which rejects old assumptions and replaces them with new ones."
our goal is constantly to rejuvenate, in every way possible,
The paradigm shifts of our minds, our own individual paradigm shifts which as the concept defines, once achieved, we will never look back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)