The Function of Thought

[rousseau]

(Hence religion.) You are of course right about the basics. I'd take it even further and suggest that our very sense of self is based on our ability to identify with and replicate those we see around us at an early age. Even as an adult I see a tendency within myself to take on the characteristics of other people. Whether they are acquaintances or just characters in a movie. But I still think that the basic mechanism requires an ability to create models. A child sees its parents and tries to make sense of their actions. And it eventually begins to recognize similarities in its own actions and desires and begins to build a model of the self. From then on the self becomes the reference point to which every other model becomes oriented, transforming simple awareness into conscious awareness.

It'd be interesting to define what we're meaning by 'model' here. I'm taking that to mean a definition of larger patterns and insights that help dictate behaviour, or just integrated solutions that make behaviour more efficient.

I'm of the opinion, personally, that the vast majority of people are followers of their culture, whose behaviour is dictated by what allows them to maintain the support of their social circle. Very few, if any, concepts dictate their everyday lives, beyond those that are already present in their preexisting culture. Many of us may build a model of the self to the extent that we understand a few key characteristics (what we're good at, what we're not good at), but beyond that I'm doubtful that actual, day-to-day cognition is really doing much beyond making sure we're fed and warm.

As intellectual ability expands what we're seeing is heightened pattern recognition, which increases the extent that new solutions (concepts) are integrated into the psyche. In a certain sense, people who are more intelligent are fundamentally more creative, and so more free to carry out a wider range of behaviour. These people learn to look beyond their own culture and form a more unique identity.

 

[Treedbear]

...
I'm not sure if you fully understood. Human needs like reproduction, hunger, social stimulation, thirst, exercise are ever-present and constantly need to be satisfied, from birth until death. I don't think intelligence is literally a slave to these features (that was just a conceptual metaphor), what I meant is that these human needs dictate what our cognition is doing, most of the time. IOW, cognition doesn't exist in a vacuum, it isn't free from trying to fulfill biological needs.

So not only is it usually (maybe always) oriented to some type of human need, but the models it creates are also going to be fundamentally linked to those needs.

In contrast to AI which I'm very uninformed about but doesn't seem to have any type of intrinsic constraint. Which sounds like it would be a good thing, but maybe if you were creating an intelligent device such a scope and sensory system would need to be present to limit and direct it's behaviour. What needs is it trying to satisfy with it's intelligence?

OK, I think I get your point. You're looking for some reason, some driver for thoughts or brain processes in general. That's my concern anyway, so you might be just pressing me to clarify my position. I'll go back to what I was trying to describe before. There is a dynamic interplay between neuronal activity and the supporting cells (glia, etc.) such that energy expenditure is minimized.

Glial cells have far more cellular diversity and functions than neurons, and glial cells can respond to and manipulate neurotransmission in many ways. Additionally, they can affect both the preservation and consolidation of memories.

The goal is to minimize wasted energy; but also, as brain size, density, and complexity increase, to avoid excessive heat buildup which is detrimental to cell survival. Greater complexity is a net advantage to the organism and so is a self-reinforcing system in evolutionary terms. What that necessarily entails is the minimization of conflict between the various interacting processes. Not just basic processes like fight-or-flight or genetically programmed drives for food and procreation, but conflicts with random interactions with the environment. That includes the need to resolve contradictions that arise in and between established models of those objects (bring in OOP). How directly those models are linked with biological needs varies from essentially to negligibly. What I am describing now is an abstraction. But in my mind it resolves many contradictory concepts. Most importantly this model of why the brain does what it does (including thoughts) conforms with basic evolutionary principles. To your point, while thought processes are an outcome of the need to satisfy some basic human needs linked with survival, that connection can be extremely complicated and indirect. Actually it might not exist at all for the individual but only be expressed in the abstract case of the species.

If I was designing an AGI machine it would need to incorporate some generalized system for moderating conflict. Probably based on some way to monitor energy usage. It would also need to utilize randomness to some extent. I think random trial and error is the basis of all creativity. Mechanisms for pattern recognition of course. And the ability to create models and apply them universally in an abstract form. That last one is the hard question. The other stuff can be accomplished to some extent in today's electronic computers. But whatever kind of intelligence it has to offer it will be fundamentally different from human intelligence. While electronic processors are much faster than biological ones they are essentially serial devices. While the latter have a massively parallel architecture with the ability to reconfigure themselves in three dimensions.

 

[Treedbear]

(Hence religion.) You are of course right about the basics. I'd take it even further and suggest that our very sense of self is based on our ability to identify with and replicate those we see around us at an early age. Even as an adult I see a tendency within myself to take on the characteristics of other people. Whether they are acquaintances or just characters in a movie. But I still think that the basic mechanism requires an ability to create models. A child sees its parents and tries to make sense of their actions. And it eventually begins to recognize similarities in its own actions and desires and begins to build a model of the self. From then on the self becomes the reference point to which every other model becomes oriented, transforming simple awareness into conscious awareness.

It'd be interesting to define what we're meaning by 'model' here. I'm taking that to mean a definition of larger patterns and insights that help dictate behaviour, or just integrated solutions that make behaviour more efficient.

I'm of the opinion, personally, that the vast majority of people are followers of their culture, whose behaviour is dictated by what allows them to maintain the support of their social circle. Very few, if any, concepts dictate their everyday lives, beyond those that are already present in their preexisting culture. Many of us may build a model of the self to the extent that we understand a few key characteristics (what we're good at, what we're not good at), but beyond that I'm doubtful that actual, day-to-day cognition is really doing much beyond making sure we're fed and warm.

As intellectual ability expands what we're seeing is heightened pattern recognition, which increases the extent that new solutions (concepts) are integrated into the psyche. In a certain sense, people who are more intelligent are fundamentally more creative, and so more free to carry out a wider range of behaviour. These people learn to look beyond their own culture and form a more unique identity.

I'll just add that people who have the freedom to be more creative are the ones who have an increased ability to think intelligently. Creativity provides more options, possibilities, and opportunities. I think people are always in the process of modelling their culture. Either because it is changing, or because they are, and therefore so is their relationship to it. Models include patterns, or better yet paradigms. But the main component is the relationships that the various objects have with one another. Every object or model is pretty much defined by the how it is related to other things. So that's how I'd define a model. I realize it's completely abstract. There is no "thingness" to it. That is unless we consider that this is all that any "thing" is. Which is of course true.

 

[untermensche]

Human intelligence is totally dependent on the exposure of the intelligence of other humans.

Humans are not rational at birth.

Some achieve a bit of rationality but only through effort and because of exposure to rationality.

No exposure to rational thinking and most will not have the ability to think rationally.

It is not an inherent human trait.

It is a cultural artifact some acquire.

 

[rousseau]

I think people are always in the process of modelling their culture. Either because it is changing, or because they are, and therefore so is their relationship to it.

A little bit on this. I'm of the belief that one of the major paradigms of human evolution is the ability (or propensity) to adapt and conform to the culture one is born in. The interesting part of it, I think, is that once intelligence stretches too far one becomes more able to reach beyond conformance to culture, and just do whatever they want. IOW, there is a sweet spot where a person is intelligent enough to survive / fit in, but not so much that they don't throw it all away and don't have children.

I've harped on this point, because I don't think it's just modelling culture per se, but that most of us have a cognitive structure that is literally built to want to do what culture tells us. Kind of like a hive-mind. Those who conform to culture reproduce the most, therefore they make up the brunt of our world. And high intelligence really has nothing to do with it.

An interesting case study in this regard is the rapid cultural changes that happened in Africa over the 20th century. In about 100 years the entire continent went from a largely ethnic, to colonial, to nationalist paradigm and this really didn't cause any problems in the collective psyche at all. People born into new systems largely just found it normalized, and rapidly lost touch with their former identity.

 

[untermensche]

The ability to conform is exploited by child abusers who brainwash children.

Tell them about gods and demons and racism and hatreds.

 

[Treedbear]

...
I've harped on this point, because I don't think it's just modelling culture per se, but that most of us have a cognitive structure that is literally built to want to do what culture tells us. Kind of like a hive-mind. Those who conform to culture reproduce the most, therefore they make up the brunt of our world. And high intelligence really has nothing to do with it.

As a social species we have empathy. The ability to see our self in others and others in ourselves. Plus an array of physical attributes that foster communication between individuals. And we're essentially helpless for the first few years of life, unlike almost every other species. But there is such a wide variation between cultures over time and around the world that every mind has a unique set of circumstances to which it needs to adapt and conform. That requires some amount of intelligence from the get-go. And the culture largely determines how far intelligence develops.

An interesting case study in this regard is the rapid cultural changes that happened in Africa over the 20th century. In about 100 years the entire continent went from a largely ethnic, to colonial, to nationalist paradigm and this really didn't cause any problems in the collective psyche at all. People born into new systems largely just found it normalized, and rapidly lost touch with their former identity.

I'm pretty ignorant of African history but I know that over the the past few hundred years the people of many of the nations have been through hell due to colonialism and militant nationalism. I'm not seeing how this illustrates how intelligence isn't required in order to adapt to one's cultural norms.

 

[rousseau]

...
I've harped on this point, because I don't think it's just modelling culture per se, but that most of us have a cognitive structure that is literally built to want to do what culture tells us. Kind of like a hive-mind. Those who conform to culture reproduce the most, therefore they make up the brunt of our world. And high intelligence really has nothing to do with it.

As a social species we have empathy. The ability to see our self in others and others in ourselves. Plus an array of physical attributes that foster communication between individuals. And we're essentially helpless for the first few years of life, unlike almost every other species. But there is such a wide variation between cultures over time and around the world that every mind has a unique set of circumstances to which it needs to adapt and conform. That requires some amount of intelligence from the get-go. And the culture largely determines how far intelligence develops.

An interesting case study in this regard is the rapid cultural changes that happened in Africa over the 20th century. In about 100 years the entire continent went from a largely ethnic, to colonial, to nationalist paradigm and this really didn't cause any problems in the collective psyche at all. People born into new systems largely just found it normalized, and rapidly lost touch with their former identity.

I'm pretty ignorant of African history but I know that over the the past few hundred years the people of many of the nations have been through hell due to colonialism and militant nationalism. I'm not seeing how this illustrates how intelligence isn't required in order to adapt to one's cultural norms.

I didn't say intelligence isn't required to conform to culture. What I'm explaining is that intelligence isn't the defining aspect of our cognitive ability. Instead those who adhere to culture with zeal are the most successful in terms of reproduction. This takes some level of intelligence but also the lack of it in some respects. After a while pattern recognition provides negative selective pressure.

The African example illustrates that African cultural identity changed extremely rapidly in a short period of time. Nothing to do with what was happening on the ground. Suddenly a nation appears out of nowhere and everybody is a nationalist without much fuss.

 

[Treedbear]

...
I didn't say intelligence isn't required to conform to culture. What I'm explaining is that intelligence isn't the defining aspect of our cognitive ability. Instead those who adhere to culture with zeal are the most successful in terms of reproduction. This takes some level of intelligence but also the lack of it in some respects. After a while pattern recognition provides negative selective pressure.

You might be using a different definition of cognitive ability than I do. Pattern recognition is a more basic component of intelligence that comes under the category of narrow intelligence.

Cognitive ability, sometimes referred to as general intelligence, is essential for human adaptation and survival. It includes the capacity to “reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”. Beyond memorization or imitation, intelligence supports the ability to comprehend situations, figure out what is needed, and plan a course of action. Cognitive ability is closely associated with educational attainment, occupation, and health outcomes.

...
The African example illustrates that African cultural identity changed extremely rapidly in a short period of time. Nothing to do with what was happening on the ground. Suddenly a nation appears out of nowhere and everybody is a nationalist without much fuss.

Somehow you lose me when you say their culture was changed "without much fuss". Define "fuss".

 

[rousseau]

You might be using a different definition of cognitive ability than I do. Pattern recognition is a more basic component of intelligence that comes under the category of narrow intelligence.

...
The African example illustrates that African cultural identity changed extremely rapidly in a short period of time. Nothing to do with what was happening on the ground. Suddenly a nation appears out of nowhere and everybody is a nationalist without much fuss.

Somehow you lose me when you say their culture was changed "without much fuss". Define "fuss".

I said their cultural identity, not culture. Two completely different things.

 

[rousseau]

You might be using a different definition of cognitive ability than I do. Pattern recognition is a more basic component of intelligence that comes under the category of narrow intelligence.

I'm referring to the sum total of our brain's architecture and how it's adapted to human life over time. The traditional notion is that humans are defined by their intelligence, where I'm arguing that the central paradigm affecting our cognition and behavior is our propensity to survive, thrive, and reproduce within the context of human culture. This would create a neural architecture where intelligence isn't central but rather just one attribute in a spectrum of attributes that in total is particularly good at producing children.

What I'm aiming at here (to take us back to the original point) is that people aren't just born and begin modelling their culture using intelligence. Modelling culture is a part of it, but I'd argue that a larger component of it is mimicry and conformance. Our entire neural architecture is oriented in such a way to ensure that we fit in with our social group, and want to partner/reproduce. So I think there is a risk in over-stating the degree that critical analysis of the environment actually plays in our understanding of the world, and understating the degree that our neural architecture just allows us to move fluidly among social groups throughout our lives.

 

[Treedbear]

...
What I'm aiming at here (to take us back to the original point) is that people aren't just born and begin modelling their culture using intelligence. Modelling culture is a part of it, but I'd argue that a larger component of it is mimicry and conformance. Our entire neural architecture is oriented in such a way to ensure that we fit in with our social group, and want to partner/reproduce. So I think there is a risk in over-stating the degree that critical analysis of the environment actually plays in our understanding of the world, and understating the degree that our neural architecture just allows us to move fluidly among social groups throughout our lives.

Seems like a terrible waste of complexity when the brain requires so much energy to operate. Consider how few neurons are required by the honey bee or migrating birds in order to accomplish complicated tasks. Not much. So why so much overkill?

 

[fromderinside]

Seems like a terrible waste of complexity when the brain requires so much energy to operate. Consider how few neurons are required by the honey bee or migrating birds in order to accomplish complicated tasks. Not much. So why so much overkill?

Evolution isn't directly about conservation of energy. It's about reproducing in a particular suite of conditions. Conditions change requirements for reproducing. Competition changes and requirements change again. That's why you think we are in overkill.

That which comes after sits upon and depends on what is presently there. Then we throw in chance just to spice up things a bit. If you don't think the above is so, explain the diversity of life over the band of evolution.

As for thought it has many functions ranging from transferring information, to communication, deciding, behaving, ad infinitum. You're a human think about it.

 

[DBT]

...
What I'm aiming at here (to take us back to the original point) is that people aren't just born and begin modelling their culture using intelligence. Modelling culture is a part of it, but I'd argue that a larger component of it is mimicry and conformance. Our entire neural architecture is oriented in such a way to ensure that we fit in with our social group, and want to partner/reproduce. So I think there is a risk in over-stating the degree that critical analysis of the environment actually plays in our understanding of the world, and understating the degree that our neural architecture just allows us to move fluidly among social groups throughout our lives.

Seems like a terrible waste of complexity when the brain requires so much energy to operate. Consider how few neurons are required by the honey bee or migrating birds in order to accomplish complicated tasks. Not much. So why so much overkill?

Why anything? Why did the dinosaurs grow so large, why did animals take to the sky, etc.....some form of environmental pressure most likely. Human level of intelligence seems to only have emerged once in the history of life on earth.

 

[Treedbear]

Seems like a terrible waste of complexity when the brain requires so much energy to operate. Consider how few neurons are required by the honey bee or migrating birds in order to accomplish complicated tasks. Not much. So why so much overkill?

Evolution isn't directly about conservation of energy.

If you tuned in at the beginning of the thread you read my theory of why it is that brains develop at all, and in particular why energy efficiency plays an increasingly important role as brain size and density increases. Think along the lines of today's microprocessors. Their speed and complexity is limited by the ability to dissipate heat. And they are basically only 2-dimensional structures. Sure, nature can be wasteful, but only when being so is a useful strategy for survival. Remember that evolution is a creative process and often times leads to a dead end. Adaptation doesn't just happen out of thin air. It's what's left over after everything else fails.

It's about reproducing in a particular suite of conditions. Conditions change requirements for reproducing. Competition changes and requirements change again. That's why you think we are in overkill.

I don't think the human brain is overkill. I'm saying it's doing much more than rousseau is giving it credit for.

That which comes after sits upon and depends on what is presently there. Then we throw in chance just to spice up things a bit. If you don't think the above is so, explain the diversity of life over the band of evolution.

I've been saying all along that random chance plays an important role. I believe it's the key to creativity.

As for thought it has many functions ranging from transferring information, to communication, deciding, behaving, ad infinitum. You're a human think about it.

I thought I was supposed to conform.

 

[Treedbear]

...
What I'm aiming at here (to take us back to the original point) is that people aren't just born and begin modelling their culture using intelligence. Modelling culture is a part of it, but I'd argue that a larger component of it is mimicry and conformance. Our entire neural architecture is oriented in such a way to ensure that we fit in with our social group, and want to partner/reproduce. So I think there is a risk in over-stating the degree that critical analysis of the environment actually plays in our understanding of the world, and understating the degree that our neural architecture just allows us to move fluidly among social groups throughout our lives.

Seems like a terrible waste of complexity when the brain requires so much energy to operate. Consider how few neurons are required by the honey bee or migrating birds in order to accomplish complicated tasks. Not much. So why so much overkill?

Why anything? Why did the dinosaurs grow so large, why did animals take to the sky, etc.....some form of environmental pressure most likely. Human level of intelligence seems to only have emerged once in the history of life on earth.

Again, in case you haven't been following from the beginning, I'm not arguing that the human brain is overkill for what it does. I'm saying there's a very good reason for it's size and complexity. Some dinosaurs and other creatures could grow very large because of the very high atmospheric oxygen content at the time. It's an interesting question as to why humans brains are exceptionally advanced. Perhaps, like the dinosaurs, there was always some potential advantage for being large (I can think of a few), but that there's some other mitigating factor at play that limits that potential. As noted, the brain is expensive to maintain. But it was probably a happy combination of factors that led to its development. And looking at it from a completely objective point of view intellectual capability is just one survival strategy. As homo sapiens we tend to think we're something special. In the long run it might prove to be our demise.

 

[rousseau]

...
What I'm aiming at here (to take us back to the original point) is that people aren't just born and begin modelling their culture using intelligence. Modelling culture is a part of it, but I'd argue that a larger component of it is mimicry and conformance. Our entire neural architecture is oriented in such a way to ensure that we fit in with our social group, and want to partner/reproduce. So I think there is a risk in over-stating the degree that critical analysis of the environment actually plays in our understanding of the world, and understating the degree that our neural architecture just allows us to move fluidly among social groups throughout our lives.

Seems like a terrible waste of complexity when the brain requires so much energy to operate. Consider how few neurons are required by the honey bee or migrating birds in order to accomplish complicated tasks. Not much. So why so much overkill?

When you think of an individual body like a battle-ground for propagating genes it makes more sense. Reproducing organisms are in inherent competition with each other, which leads to the persistence of new, advantageous traits, which causes complexity within a given survival niche (in our case tool-making, and social organization). But as soon as more complexity is no longer advantageous within the context of human culture, we reach a stable medium.

This is why humans don't just develop extreme intelligence, because that's not what our survival is about. As our culture remains constant, our brain function stays pretty much constant too.

 

[rousseau]

I don't think the human brain is overkill. I'm saying it's doing much more than rousseau is giving it credit for.

I'm definitely not trying to claim that the brain isn't doing much, I'm just trying to define what it's actually doing. The human brain is extremely complex, and responsible for intricate behaviour. But the corollary of my above description is that it's mostly oriented to move the body across space/time with the least amount of friction, while conserving energy. This mostly involves adapting to and behaving within one's culture in a way that achieves social harmony, and partnering/reproduction.

With reference to my original post on the function of thought, I believe this highlights the importance of memory and imagination. Memory to recall requisite behaviours that work most of the time, and imagination to address immediate problems. These two features get us most of the way there in terms of moving across space/time without friction. People who observe, remember, and do what others are doing can usually get themselves from beginning to end without much issue.

Metabolically speaking, just integrating observed, effective behaviours has more payback than concerted analysis.

 

[untermensche]

...I'm saying there's a very good reason for it's size and complexity...

It's size and complexity are random contingencies. They happened by chance. Nothing was driving the brain to get bigger and more complex.

 

[DBT]

Of course there is: environmental pressure. The environment is the driver of adaption and change...or extinction.