How does thought work?

[steve_bank]

Evolution does not put anything together proactively and has no purpose. 'it' does not solve problems. Evolution is mutation and natural selection. If a mutation enhances survival those with the mutation will procreate and pass on the mutation.

It is a blind biochemical process.

 

[rousseau]

Then it needs to be a reactive multithreaded algorithm.

+1 for this.

More simply, I wonder if the phenomenon of actual, experienced thought can be described. Could a person focus on the feedback mechanism of conscious thought as it comes and goes, in concert with the senses? If we take the body as a set of components maybe it doesn't need to be as complicated as it seems, except to describe how it's accomplished biochemically.

 

[rousseau]

You're still using the wrong metaphor.

Evolution doesn't design algorithms to solve problem.

Yes, that's clear. The analogy was brought up to describe the function of the body after the fact of it's evolution.

Any self-replicating organism needs to function in a way to survive/reproduce across space, over time, which implies input/output and processes. I'm not assuming the organism was designed as an algorithm, but we can assume that the elements evolved within the totality of the body work in concert to produce an outcome based on conditions and inputs, hence the analogy. It's not perfect, but it's a starting point.

I don't care how the body came to be, I care about how it's acting now.

Those two are tightly related. Also, I believe my post deserves a better reply

Well, I didn't fully understand your programming example. Think I got the gist of the entire post, but I replied as I did because the answer didn't seem to answer the question I had in mind.

 

[fromderinside]

More simply, I wonder if the phenomenon of actual, experienced thought can be described. Could a person focus on the feedback mechanism of conscious thought as it comes and goes, in concert with the senses? If we take the body as a set of components maybe it doesn't need to be as complicated as it seems, except to describe how it's accomplished biochemically.

Early on in this thread I referred to notion that nervous tissue has properties that, if analyzed can be exhaustively analysed and described in full potential. I also mentioned many behavioral mechanisms closely approach ideals. Taking both of those together we might get a design. it wouldn't be appropriate or immortal. But it would reflect the best nervous tissue could achieve with physical world. We already know this limit has been reached to the extent that ES mechanisms enter in to behavioral solutions.

I'm also pretty sure the current organization of brain structure and function is far from ideal and it will always, until extinction, be so.

 

[Jokodo]

Those two are tightly related. Also, I believe my post deserves a better reply

Well, I didn't fully understand your programming example.

`sed` replaces all non-digit sequences with newlines, so it's output is

1
3
12

It feeds this to `sleep` line by line, which will pause the program for n seconds (and raise an error when fed an empty line, which we aren't interested in so we write it to `/dev/null`). `time` just tells us how long all of that takes - since all the program does is waiting, the output will be something like 0m16.015s (with a few miliseconds overhead).

It's inefficient and abusing tools that were never meant to do arithmetics, but it works (for results below 60 at least).

And no, we cannot assume "that the elements evolved within the totality of the body work in concert to produce an outcome based on conditions and inputs". Not if by "work in concert" you mean necessarily coordinated fashion. The elements within the body perform one or often several unrelated function by doing what they do, and other elements might grab their output and do whatever it is they do with it, after tweaking and twisting it a bit since it isn't actually in a format they can work with, and no one's reading their issue report. Like using a tool for throttling, and one for benchmarking to produce a painfully slow calculator that only accepts positive input numbers.

Think I got the gist of the entire post, but I replied as I did because the answer didn't seem to answer the question I had in mind.

That may be a problem of the question.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The question is not about how thoughts are produced biochemically.

The question starts from the assumption that thought is a chemical, automatic process, then asks how thought, both sub-conscious and conscious, achieves the goal of homeostasis and reproduction.

You would need to distinguish between thought and the unconscious processes of the brain. Thought is only one process among many. Homeostasis and reproduction are never achieved through thought alone.

Rather, thought is a sort of subroutine that allow the brain to represent the world using a more abstract model. This in turn is what allows conceptual communication and more coordination between different people so that an individual's brain can contribute to the survival of the species by producing new ideas. Thought is what explains humans are a more integrated species than any other. We can actually mourn some idiot we never even met in the flesh. We can read the thought of some dude who actually died 2,500 years ago and finish the job. We can worry about the future of mankind one century down the line. We can now pretty much communicate with almost every idiot on the planet, well, like me, provided he had access to Internet. So, no, it's not just homeostasis and reproduction. Our brain is an organ of the entire species, somewhat like each one of our cells is an organ of our body. Each one not really necessary but each one contributing nonetheless.

I guess one aspect of the success of the model is the redundancy between individuals. However, there's probably a weakness here, too. We are 7 billions humans alive today and we struggle to work in cooperation. Our body has 37.2 trillion cells... I'm not sure humans could achieve the level of integration of the human body, assuming the planet was big enough to accommodate 37 trillion people.

But, we moved successfully from chimp-like tribe size to something which is very nearly one humanity of 7 billion. So, maybe we'll grow some more. Theoretically, we could squeeze more people per square metre and optimise food and energy production and consumption. The sky is the limit, sort of. Some cities, like Hong-Kong and indeed Paris, already experience the high levels of crowdiness that would be necessary. Seems like we survive.
EB

 

[DBT]

Every system has its limits. We can survive, if surviving means living in ever crowded conditions, up to the point where demand for essentials exceeds supply. At which point we have a major crisis on our hands.

 

[Jokodo]

Every system has its limits. We can survive, if surviving means living in ever crowded conditions, up to the point where demand for essentials exceeds supply. At which point we have a major crisis on our hands.

This used to be a thread about cognitive processes, how about you stay on topic?

Also, you're wrong. You should have said "up to the point where demand for essentials exceeds supply, the sun goes red giant, a killer asteroid strikes or a pandemic (with a reservoir in another species) develops which we can't deal with, whichever comes first". My money's on one of the latter two.

 

[DBT]

Every system has its limits. We can survive, if surviving means living in ever crowded conditions, up to the point where demand for essentials exceeds supply. At which point we have a major crisis on our hands.

This used to be a thread about cognitive processes, how about you stay on topic?

No. I'll make comments as I see fit.

I was responding to comments EB made in the post above mine.

Not that it is your concern. If you feel strongly about it, report it to the management.

Also, you're wrong. You should have said "up to the point where demand for essentials exceeds supply, the sun goes red giant, a killer asteroid strikes or a pandemic (with a reservoir in another species) develops which we can't deal with, whichever comes first". My money's on one of the latter two.

Fanciful Copernican codswallop.

According to some studies, we are already placing a heavy burden on our ecosystems. Never mind what happens with increasing demand as developing nations raise the living standards of their citizens.

 

[Jokodo]

No. I'll make comments as I see fit.

I was responding to comments EB made in the post above mine.

Not that it is your concern. If you feel strongly about it, report it to the management.

Also, you're wrong. You should have said "up to the point where demand for essentials exceeds supply, the sun goes red giant, a killer asteroid strikes or a pandemic (with a reservoir in another species) develops which we can't deal with, whichever comes first". My money's on one of the latter two.

Fanciful Copernican codswallop.

According to some studies, we are already placing a heavy burden on our ecosystems. Never mind what happens as increasing demand as developing nations raise the living standards of their citizens.

Sure, when the last rhinos go extinct, and if people are still demanding rhino horn powder, its demand will exceed its supply. That's bad and we should do something about it, no doubt.

I wouldn't however call rhino horn powder an essential, and you're doing efforts to protect the environment a severe disfavour by framing it as Us, humans, vs Them.

As long as non-people don't get to vote, that is. With the exception of racists, misanthropes, and racist misanthropes, people will choose people if that's the choice you give them, and rightly so.

 

[DBT]

No. I'll make comments as I see fit.

I was responding to comments EB made in the post above mine.

Not that it is your concern. If you feel strongly about it, report it to the management.

Also, you're wrong. You should have said "up to the point where demand for essentials exceeds supply, the sun goes red giant, a killer asteroid strikes or a pandemic (with a reservoir in another species) develops which we can't deal with, whichever comes first". My money's on one of the latter two.

Fanciful Copernican codswallop.

According to some studies, we are already placing a heavy burden on our ecosystems. Never mind what happens with increasing demand as developing nations raise the living standards of their citizens.

Sure, when the last rhinos go extinct, and if people are still demanding rhino horn powder, its demand will exceed its supply. That's bad and we should do something about it, no doubt.

I wouldn't however call rhino horn powder an essential, and you're doing efforts to protect the environment a severe disfavour by framing it as Us, humans, vs Them.

As long as non-people don't get to vote, that is. With the exception of racists, misanthropes, and racist misanthropes, people will choose people if that's the choice you give them, and rightly so.

Well, that has nothing to do with the issue I was referring to.

 

[Jokodo]

Sure, when the last rhinos go extinct, and if people are still demanding rhino horn powder, its demand will exceed its supply. That's bad and we should do something about it, no doubt.

I wouldn't however call rhino horn powder an essential, and you're doing efforts to protect the environment a severe disfavour by framing it as Us, humans, vs Them.

As long as non-people don't get to vote, that is. With the exception of racists, misanthropes, and racist misanthropes, people will choose people if that's the choice you give them, and rightly so.

Well, that has nothing to do with the issue I was referring to.

Sure it does. Rhino horn powder is about the closest we get to an essential for which demand is likely to exceed supply in the near future.

 

[DBT]

Sure, when the last rhinos go extinct, and if people are still demanding rhino horn powder, its demand will exceed its supply. That's bad and we should do something about it, no doubt.

I wouldn't however call rhino horn powder an essential, and you're doing efforts to protect the environment a severe disfavour by framing it as Us, humans, vs Them.

As long as non-people don't get to vote, that is. With the exception of racists, misanthropes, and racist misanthropes, people will choose people if that's the choice you give them, and rightly so.

Well, that has nothing to do with the issue I was referring to.

Sure it does. Rhino horn powder is about the closest we get to an essential for which demand is likely to exceed supply in the near future.

That assessment being based on.....what exactly?

 

[Jokodo]

Sure it does. Rhino horn powder is about the closest we get to an essential for which demand is likely to exceed supply in the near future.

That assessment being based on.....what exactly?

Based on the fact that the the per capita supply of anything you might reasonably want to refer to as an essential is higher than ever in recorded history, and, with population leveling off already, there is no reason to expect this to change.

Sure, rhino horn is an extreme example. Some species of fish are becoming rare too. Seafood isn't exactly an essential either though.

 

[Jokodo]

See e. g. here: https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person

You will find that global per capita supply of both calories and protein is about 30% higher today than in 1961 when the population was a mere 3 billion.

 

[Jokodo]

Anyway, what's the deal about using "Copernican" as a derogatory term?

 

[DBT]

Anyway, what's the deal about using "Copernican" as a derogatory term?

The autocorrect spellchecker sometimes switches words, I wrote ""Cornucopian"" Codswallup, but didn't notice the alteration..

 

[DBT]

See e. g. here: https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person

You will find that global per capita supply of both calories and protein is about 30% higher today than in 1961 when the population was a mere 3 billion.

That's still not what I was referring to. Past conditions are not necessarily a good predictor of future conditions. Nor did I say that supply would run out.

 

[Jokodo]

See e. g. here: https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person

You will find that global per capita supply of both calories and protein is about 30% higher today than in 1961 when the population was a mere 3 billion.

That's still not what I was referring to. Past conditions are not necessarily a good predictor of future conditions. Nor did I say that supply would run out.

You said supply of essentials would drop below demand.

Essentials have a rather inflexible demand.

It's kind of how we define them.

 

[Jokodo]

Anyway, what's the deal about using "Copernican" as a derogatory term?

The autocorrect spellchecker sometimes switches words, I wrote ""Cornucopian"" Codswallup, but didn't notice the alteration..

Well, I'd rather be a fact-based Cornucopian than a Malthusian living in an alternate reality where we're about to run out of essentials.