Choices

[Kharakov]

Sorry, but I don't see how the coin flip analogy applies to neural connectivity. Maybe a more detailed description will help.

Really? In the beginning there was Sherrington, then Eccles, Hodgkin, and Huxley, then Katz, von Euler, and Axlerod, then Carlsson, Greengard, and Kandel. I think you'll find most of the connectivity issues answered by the work of these luminaries. It comes down switches, gaps, ions, and neurochemicals accepting and communicating with other cells. The congruence of neural outputs and action are related as fair comparisons with ideal observers in a decision theory paradigm.

nuff?

Nope. Certain neurochemicals transmit and receive information over various distances. Dopamine being one that can transmit and receive over larger distances due to its specific electromagnetic resonance. It's not all switches: some of it is transmission, which is not limited to in-brain information transmission.

 

[DBT]

Needs more. Synapses open or closed....sort of like a coin flip, but not arbitrary in terms of application.

Every flip of the coin has a 50/50 chance of being heads. It doesn't matter if the coin starts out heads up or tails up. If our decisions were made by synapses which switch states for a poorly measured length of time and then come to rest, the coin toss might be a better analogy.

I have always been amused by the paradox of knowledge. Information makes the process of making a decision easier, but it makes to process of making a guess more difficult.

If a person is presented with a problem, and they know three possible solutions to the problem, if one of their potential solutions is the real answer, they have a one in three chance of being correct.

A more knowledgeable person may know twenty seven possible solutions. If this person must make a guess, the odds are not very good.

Sure, but this doesn't account for the nuts and bolts of the decision making process at synaptic/neuronal scales. A coin flip implies a probabilistic result, but information processing is a specific activity, relating to information received and memory function, and not merely probabilistic.

If you are told, for example, your choice is to deliberately place your hand onto a red hot stove top, knowing that you will be injured, or to withhold.

Not wanting to be injured, is the probability 50/50, is your decision in doubt? I'd say not.

 

[Bronzeage]

Every flip of the coin has a 50/50 chance of being heads. It doesn't matter if the coin starts out heads up or tails up. If our decisions were made by synapses which switch states for a poorly measured length of time and then come to rest, the coin toss might be a better analogy.

I have always been amused by the paradox of knowledge. Information makes the process of making a decision easier, but it makes to process of making a guess more difficult.

If a person is presented with a problem, and they know three possible solutions to the problem, if one of their potential solutions is the real answer, they have a one in three chance of being correct.

A more knowledgeable person may know twenty seven possible solutions. If this person must make a guess, the odds are not very good.

Sure, but this doesn't account for the nuts and bolts of the decision making process at synaptic/neuronal scales. A coin flip implies a probabilistic result, but information processing is a specific activity, relating to information received and memory function, and not merely probabilistic.

If you are told, for example, your choice is to deliberately place your hand onto a red hot stove top, knowing that you will be injured, or to withhold.

Not wanting to be injured, is the probability 50/50, is your decision in doubt? I'd say not.

The binary state of touching the stove/not touching the stove is not the same thing as an statistical observation which approaches 50/50 when the sample collection exceeds a certain number.

 

[DBT]

Sure, but this doesn't account for the nuts and bolts of the decision making process at synaptic/neuronal scales. A coin flip implies a probabilistic result, but information processing is a specific activity, relating to information received and memory function, and not merely probabilistic.

If you are told, for example, your choice is to deliberately place your hand onto a red hot stove top, knowing that you will be injured, or to withhold.

Not wanting to be injured, is the probability 50/50, is your decision in doubt? I'd say not.

The binary state of touching the stove/not touching the stove is not the same thing as an statistical observation which approaches 50/50 when the sample collection exceeds a certain number.

I meant statistical observation as an inherit part of my example: if decision making is merely 'binary flip coin probability' - given an adequate sample size, you'd have statistical distribution in relation to people placing their hand onto the stove top compared to those that draw away, or those who 'choose' (flip coin neural decision making ) stepping in front of speeding cars to those who take the stepping back option, and so on wherever their are two possible options. The neuronal switch flipping either way like the flip of a coin....heads or tails, tails it is.

 

[fromderinside]

Really? In the beginning there was Sherrington, then Eccles, Hodgkin, and Huxley, then Katz, von Euler, and Axlerod, then Carlsson, Greengard, and Kandel. I think you'll find most of the connectivity issues answered by the work of these luminaries. It comes down switches, gaps, ions, and neurochemicals accepting and communicating with other cells. The congruence of neural outputs and action are related as fair comparisons with ideal observers in a decision theory paradigm.

nuff?

Nope. Certain neurochemicals transmit and receive information over various distances. Dopamine being one that can transmit and receive over larger distances due to its specific electromagnetic resonance. It's not all switches: some of it is transmission, which is not limited to in-brain information transmission.

A switch is anything that changes when triggered by something. Molecule A condition results in molecule B change of condition. Example of a molecular switch. When one looks at systems activity one looks at input, process, and outputs. We're don't care about the process here just the effect of the process from input A on output B. Look at the forest. Transducers are switches for instance.

 

[fromderinside]

The binary state of touching the stove/not touching the stove is not the same thing as an statistical observation which approaches 50/50 when the sample collection exceeds a certain number.

I meant statistical observation as an inherit part of my example: if decision making is merely 'binary flip coin probability' - given an adequate sample size, you'd have statistical distribution in relation to people placing their hand onto the stove top compared to those that draw away, or those who 'choose' (flip coin neural decision making ) stepping in front of speeding cars to those who take the stepping back option, and so on wherever their are two possible options. The neuronal switch flipping either way like the flip of a coin....heads or tails, tails it is.

Leke Kharakov you're getting down into the minutia to justify an irrational position. Input is data output is action. Some rule for processing data produces action. I call that a switch as should you.

 

[Kharakov]

Nope. Certain neurochemicals transmit and receive information over various distances. Dopamine being one that can transmit and receive over larger distances due to its specific electromagnetic resonance. It's not all switches: some of it is transmission, which is not limited to in-brain information transmission.

A switch is anything that changes when triggered by something. Molecule A condition results in molecule B change of condition. Example of a molecular switch. When one looks at systems activity one looks at input, process, and outputs. We're don't care about the process here just the effect of the process from input A on output B. Look at the forest. Transducers are switches for instance.

There are quantized, smooth, and mixed interactions in reality. Maybe controlled by switches, maybe controlling switches..... but the change in position of one molecule does not a totally different thought make.

 

[Speakpigeon]

"If Barry Schwartz is right to say that choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied, is there a case today for taking some of it away from us?"

So I think this is all about objective choices, i.e. the availability or not of a wide range of different products all having something essential in common, like being a shampoo, and secondary characteristics different from all the others, like flagrance, price, or formula. So it's not at all about the brain/mind process of taking the decision to buy one rather than any other (like some philosophically minded dudes keep discussing here!). Of course, objective choice may make the decision-taking process more painful, exhausting or make us unhappy. However, there are so many other psychological faculties involved. For example, more objective choice may give you the impression that 99% of life is passing you by because you're not going to sample more than 1% for example and this irrespective of your decision to buy this or that product. There can also be the perception that this is all a waste of time, resources, etc. compared to a rationalised economy. Or that the shop near you doesn't have the whole range of choice. Maybe you think no shop in the country you live in has the really good stuff. Or you are getting suspicious that higher price really always means better quality.

Still, I don't see how this could provide a rationale for cutting on objective choice. To the extent that the market does respond to consumer needs, albeit with calculated slowness, the cutback is all done and well done. People still do the buying. Products disappear, are replace by others. If some consumers get the blues as a result of compulsive buying, or feel increasingly frustrated over the long run, they can still cut back on the stuff. You don't even need to hide in a convent or a cave. I live smack in the middle of Paris and very little moves me to buy. The windows are nice, though, and I like watching people go nuts over a pair of trousers/pants or a pair of shoes. It took me no more than 1min to buy my last pair of trainers. Ok, I don't like the colour but I know that with the familiarity this won't last.

Choice is not the problem here. It's just a symptom. What may be the problem is our psychological and social complexities that makes surplus choice economically viable. Yet there are mental attitudes (not really what we want to call "decisions") that come upstream of the consumer choices that you have to make. Life can be made very simple given the right attitude. Do I want to dress in expensive clothes? Do I care what kind of car my male neighbour drives? Do I have to review my choice of coffee brand every time I buy coffee?

Get a life.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

A switch is anything that changes when triggered by something. Molecule A condition results in molecule B change of condition. Example of a molecular switch. When one looks at systems activity one looks at input, process, and outputs. We're don't care about the process here just the effect of the process from input A on output B. Look at the forest. Transducers are switches for instance.

There are quantized, smooth, and mixed interactions in reality. Maybe controlled by switches, maybe controlling switches..... but the change in position of one molecule does not a totally different thought make.

You dwaddle in the micro and you insist on a macro event. See your problem? We're talking about choice not the process whereby choice comes about. That's why I only consider input and output and leave the process alone.

 

[Kharakov]

There are quantized, smooth, and mixed interactions in reality. Maybe controlled by switches, maybe controlling switches..... but the change in position of one molecule does not a totally different thought make.

You dwaddle in the micro and you insist on a macro event. See your problem?

I like problems. I just don't see one yet.

We're talking about choice not the process whereby choice comes about. That's why I only consider input and output and leave the process alone.

Ahh... reread OP. I was far off topic.

 

[TV and credit cards]

"If Barry Schwartz is right to say that choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied, is there a case today for taking some of it away from us?"

What may be the problem is our psychological and social complexities that makes surplus choice economically viable.

Yes, too many choices leads to dissatisfaction which brings us back to the store to buy it get it right this time. And over, and over, and over.
We don't have to push manufacturers, government, or our schools to take any action. We simply have to choose not to choose. Shampoo? Salad dressing? If these items are causing such consternation in your life, please, take a step back. Try Yoga, meditation, marijuana.
I never even bothered choosing a healthcare plan through my employer because I don't what to have to read all that shit and decide "which one is right for me". Fuck it. I'm happier with the VA's Kinda Healthcare Plan. This is why I largely don't bother with consumer electronics also. I'd like to buy something nice to listen to music but just the thought of the process brings on a heavy sigh. So I just listen to the radio on a bookshelf stereo. Which in itself has too many options and keeps scrolling stuff on the display while it's off. I never figured out which combinations of buttons to push to stop it from doing that so I chose to get used to it.

I think many of us crave simplicity. I know I do. Simplicity is relaxing. Even vacations are complicated and stressful. So much effort into having a good time that you need time to unwind after vacation. That's what the vacation was for! Yosemite was a good example of that. I never seen so many stressed out, pissed off people all driving like they're trying to get home from work. You want to enjoy Yosemite? Go in late April/early May.
I remember the one time I went to Sea World in San Diego with my wife and young daughter. By the end of the day we're all tired and pissed off. Well, that was fun. And I spent a ton of money. I compare this to the time we bought a new refrigerator and my daughter played in the box. Days and days of creativity and imagination with a box and it was all free.

Nobody has to take choice away from you. Simply choose not to and choice will go away. Some of the most content people I've ever met lived in the jungle. They simply lived.