by gris » Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:34 am
42 SOCIOBOTS: RELATIVE BAYES IN THE BRAIN
A philosophical common sense approach to the foundations of physics.
Physicists take in to account all instruments except the one between their ears. That predictably poses a problem. Basic psychology teaches us that when we have a paradigm we also have a confirmation bias. History shows us that it, i.e. the march of folly, always repeats itself and so repeatedly confirms set bias. But physicists as scientists think themselves due to their specific scientific method exempt from this bias. Alas it confirms it. The method is wrong because unnecessarily complex and thus incomplete and I’ll prove it.
It’s a back to basics affair: what is science? A good definition is a systematic (i.e. logical) endeavor in search for the truth in a most economical way. Ultimately it boils down to (later on more on this): if the method can’t be made to fit the Bayes formula it is unscientific. And, if it doesn’t fit the Lex Parsimony (LP: as complicated as needed as simple as possible) it is also unscientific. I.e. the minimum requirement on any analysis to be scientific implies to determine the prior situation (= prior odds) take into account all further evidence (= LR’s) establish the appropriate norm based on the logically required norm following the stated risk and get to a proof, thus holding the hypothesis to be true.
All logic and mathematics can be stated in Bayes theorem. Gödel is thus wrong. He didn’t see and thus take into account that the Bayes formula also works on deterministic problems in a non-probabilistic way: absolute chance pro true vs the situation con is absolutely untrue. The Bayes trick: no need to divide by zero. That is also why it is even more fundamental than that: we very probably all have the Bayes algorithm in our brains. As current neurological research points more and more in that direction. So why then not always use Bayes? It is the LP that prohibits this even though subconsciously you always do even when you think you are reasoning purely deterministically. Without you noticing this your brain has probably autonomously already said to itself this probably can be dealt with deterministically. When correct you will never know. When incorrect you think: “what was I thinking”.
Bayes lets the brain guess extremely quickly and we humans are great guessers. Nice for survival that is. Yet there is more to it: humans live in social groups and depend on the group for survival in the stone age as now. Hence different brains in the groups: first of all of course a few very slow, a lot of medium fast brains and a few fast brains. I.e. something of a normal distribution is the least worse guess if you don’t have the time to take in all the information that is available. This again touches one of the fundamental problems in our current society: Nobody physically can take in all the information anymore, and few dare to take up any integral position for fear of losing face. Yet we depend for survival / reaching our desired goals on taking on average correct decisions on integral issues. Do that wrong and we will predictably go into a downward spiral towards it becoming more and more unpredictable. Which is what we observe more and more in our western societies. It all becomes unstable. Mind you this indirectly also touches fundamental research into physics. Because less funding. But it goes even deeper than that and there is more to it:
Namely different personality traits as depicted in The Big Five: Extrovert ; Alert ; Friendliness; Conscientiousness & Openness. Wildly observed through cultures that every human scores high or low on all traits yet there is always one that is dominant.
This IMO is coupled to another fundamental trait concerning fear: A fright (alert); In an unsafe B environment: B1 fight (also withdraw non panic); B2 freeze (panic); B2a flight (panic) B2b fight (panic); B3 fawn (relation / withdraw non panic). Followed by a safe environment Mars vs Venus.
When you spot a danger (get in an unsafe environment) we (maybe 1% exception, fearless no feeling) all get fright and become hyper alert (some more than others: the alert trait); When the danger, say a bear comes closer 10% will take a fight (80% male) response: no panic staying open-minded action like choosing to withdraw (=/= flight); 80% will remain in closed mind freeze panic until an authority ( = also training) tells what to do, yet switching last ditch, then to (soon or to) late to flight (=panic) or ineffective fight (panic) and 10% will fawn (= relationship non panic 80% female).
In a safe environment this becomes a 50% from Mars (80% male 20% female) “fight” to get to stated goal: i.e. Bayesian logic on that goal and 50% from Venus (80% female 20% male) “fawn” to get to the goal of keeping a good relationship via using the Bayesian logic on that goal. This is the maximum possible given a safe environment i.e. ONLY when the authority (even non verbally) agrees. The authority can be different for different people: your Bible, schooling, peer group, judge, friend parent. Or boss, or Mullah or whatever. The fear of the goal orientated fighters is on not reaching the goal. It is a controlled fear thus non panic.
Whether or not this is nature or nurture is immaterial because nurture based psychology sais in effect the same. And can’t dispute that human social behavior is probably much more DNA and different mixed DNA environment than is politically correct to state. For it means that in effect 80% of all humans are authority driven. Even physicists and scientists thus. Speed of brain doesn’t make you independent minded. You are independent of other idea’s conflict your paradigm to which you then have a confirmation bias.
In other words via book wisdom the box can become larger, yet only if he boss allows it can at best only 50% fairly well think out of the box. 10% always can might choose to withdraw if the risk is deemed to great.
For what is thinking other than having the brain generate idea’s and thoughts relative to the perceived problem, question the brain is asked to perform. In an unsafe environment 90% of all brains will not come up with any idea that is out of the box even if an out of the box solution is clearly in order. It simply doesn’t pop into mind, because the brain deems it dangerous. Doesn’t feel right. The same goes for any out of the box ideas put forward by others. The brain goes into a Bayesian inversion: the extremely improbable is held to be true.
The same goes for physicists peering through the QM microscope and the GR telescope: they observe what their authority = paradigm tells them to observe. And the same goes on the procedures. No matter how hilariously probably incorrect they are.
Hilarious? What has that got to do with it? Well, under pressure i.e. in an unsafe environment only 10% can still think in relative terms in pro and con probability. They still have humour. So a physicist who has no creative humour can’t understand relativity even though knowing all the formulas by heart. Never able to formulate appropriate thought experiments other than extrapolating mathematics out of their respective regime. Yet being perceived by a vast majority as the great authority on the subject. Only able to mirror everyone to the own norm taking only oneself and the sick society as a norm. Hence science, and society as a whole get more and more stuck.
Only short and medium term solutions can be envisaged.
Only if we reorganize this do we get the true 42 supercomputer anthill crowd sourced correctly: of the fastest brains the 10% most open-minded should take the lead in advising what strategic fundamental scientific funding is in order. And advice on the reachable goals that should be met within timeframes. Only by subsequently organizing a safe environment will 50% be effectively be more creative in solutions on the reachable goals. You can subsequently also dispense with publish or perish production and sales techniques. In the west we are structurally both in politics and in science as in law, selling perfection which is more than can be delivered by production. And our production is too much of too little quality on what is actually needed. In short the DNA of production (authority goal driven) and the DNA of sales (relation goal driven) have taken over the DNA of R&D (stated goal driven). The March of Folly repeats itself. (Be it nature or nurture for of course 80% would like it to be.)