Thermo-psychonomics - brain, mind, & emotion

[JAK]

...
Anyway, you're expanding the argument when I'm trying to reduce it.
...

I agree that we need to reduce the argument in order to manage it effectively.

...
Simply put, emotion is a computational paradigm outside of logic. But emotion has its own logic, which comes from evolution, instinct, learned hormonal response, whatever. It's separate from logical thought.

To mimic a human in terms of logical thought and emotion, you need to set the two subsystems up separately, and have them cross-coupled.
...

It may be two symbiotic systems, and the logical system may be an outgrowth (or enhancement) of the emotional one! Both support the biological need to distribute resources effectively to maintain internal homeostasis despite interference from the external environment. This requirement predates neurons, and thus logic, in evolutionary advancement.

...
I can't make myself feel sad, but I can feel sad when I think of something that I know will make me feel sad.

Subtle difference, but key.
...

I agree. Let's keep this as a "litmus paper" for testing ideas as we progress.

Since the participants seem to want to move faster, let me provide some additional foundational ideas:

1. “Energy” is the common denominator of the universe.
2. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodymanics are reliable truths within our solar system, and likely within our universe.
3. Systems have components which are part of their “internal” structure. All else is “external” and not part of the system.
4. For a system to survive, it must maintain its internal structure despite influences from the external world. The longer it maintains the internal structure, the longer it exists.
5. Two general approaches to external influences appear viable: an extremely durable internal structure (like a rock or an atomic nucleus) or a sensitive, mobile structure (such living organisms which react to stimuli from the environment).
6. Schrödinger’s maxim (corroborated by Kauffman) that living organisms must climb toward negative entropy is a reliable truth within our solar system, and likely within our universe. It forms the “backbone” of evolution as well as the reasoning behind our need to replenish resources (eating food, drinking water, breathing air, etc.) as well as our need to eliminate bodily waste.
7. To maintain a sensitive, flexible internal structure, tolerance ranges must exist for a living organism. For example, though we can die by literally burning up or freezing, lesser changes of temperature are not fatal. We can tolerate internal temperature changes of a few degrees up or down from normal. Such temperatures are within the “flexible” temperature range of survival.
8. Further, the ability to repair internal structures should enhance survivability.
9. Due to #6, #7, and #8 above, the living organism would benefit from a system to “sense” the status of the internal state of the organism.
10. Due to external hazards of the environment as well as the need to navigate the outside world to replenish resources (#6 above), and additional system to “perceive” the external world and adapt to it would also seem important.
11. In mammals, the system of #9 appears to be the parasympathetic nervous system or internal control system (ICS). The system of #10 appears to be the sympathetic nervous system or external control system (XCS).
12. For coordinated operation of the ICS and XCS, a central point of integration and control would be needed. This appears to be, at least, the hypothalamus.
13. The primary purpose of the ICS and XCS is to distribute resources throughout the internal structure of the organism in an effort to effect optimum (non-hazardous) external interaction and optimum (non-destructive) internal operation. This maintains homeostasis.
14. Given the reality of evolution, the brain, logic, and emotions must be evolutionary enhancements to facilitate and improve an organism’s ability to distribute internal bodily resources, to effect homeostasis, and to “climb toward negative entropy.”

The above ideas are mostly built upon each other in ordered sequence.

 

[Keneke]

Just a few points and questions:

1. “Energy” is the common denominator of the universe.

The word energy used in any form other than literally is fraught with New Age relevancy. Is it possible to simply use the word without quotes, or perhaps use a different word, such as value? Or even make up a word...

2. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodymanics are reliable truths within our solar system, and likely within our universe.

Please clarify: are you saying that life can be described by scientific terminology? For a second there, it looked like you were just keeping it to the confines of thermo, psych, and economics. I am quite sure other scientific models beyond those three are needed.

5. Two general approaches to external influences appear viable: an extremely durable internal structure (like a rock or an atomic nucleus) or a sensitive, mobile structure (such living organisms which react to stimuli from the environment).

I would change "extremely durable internal structure" to "durability", because adaptable structures do not discount durability altogether, nor vice versa. The most delicate cheetah in the world still has bones. But yes, I would agree to say that all structures employ a combination of these two approaches.

12. For coordinated operation of the ICS and XCS, a central point of integration and control would be needed. This appears to be, at least, the hypothalamus.

Only in some of the situations. Sometimes, an interweaving of these two control systems makes for more optimal conditions. For example, the internet's full potential is distributed throughout its nodes. (Of course, if you wish to group the communications of a distributed network together as a non-spatial "central" point for grouping purposes, well, that is fine.)

Also, if you wish to say that a central point is optimal, well, I agree with that.

 

[JAK]

...
The word energy used in any form other than literally is fraught with New Age relevancy. Is it possible to simply use the word without quotes, or perhaps use a different word, such as value? Or even make up a word...
...

I agree that energy has been tainted by New Age usage, but my version of energy is the classic one from Einstein’s E=mc². I am reluctant to use another term for fear of introducing confusion.

...
Please clarify: are you saying that life can be described by scientific terminology? For a second there, it looked like you were just keeping it to the confines of thermo, psych, and economics. I am quite sure other scientific models beyond those three are needed.
...

With our eventual direction toward robotics, it is important to describe life with scientific terminology. That will allow us to (hopefully) translate our ideas into some attainable robotic technology. Thermo, psych, and economics are the mainstays of terms most familiar to all. However, you are correct that other scientific models will likely be needed. As you recognize their applicability, please note them in this thread.

...
I would change "extremely durable internal structure" to "durability", because adaptable structures do not discount durability altogether, nor vice versa. The most delicate cheetah in the world still has bones.
...

Yes, “durability” is cleaner. Frequently, I am “wordy.” Thank you for any streamlining of ideas and terms.

...
Also, if you wish to say that a central point is optimal, well, I agree with that.
...

Central control by the hypothalamus/diencephalon is critical. Damage to this area of the brain appears to always be fatal (assuming no technological interjections such as “life support”).

Even so, some distributed control exists throughout the spinal column. Thus, providing some supervisory capability at lower levels of organization has been naturally selected. This is akin to the software loaded on the Mars Rovers (Spirit & Opportunity). Though they have minimal “intelligence,” they do have enough to recognize hazards and to halt until receiving further instructions from a more intelligent source, one which is hampered by a long/slow communications link – just like our “hand to brain” communications link.

As we progress, we may use the simplicity of the "hand/spine" communication to gain insight into the much more complex cerebral communication.

 

[JAK]

Wow, it looks like this thread and all of the other Critical Thinking threads have been quiet this past week. However, the other forums appear to have been active. Has there been a problem posting to this thread recently? (I just got back from a week of scuba diving off Cozumel, so I’m reorienting.)

Looks like my 11/30/04 post was the last one. ... Let’s crank it up again.

...
Fit of your model to a "model of real emotional behavior in human beings".
...

SUMMARY: Life is an energy system. To survive, it must maintain its internal structure. This is Walter Cannon’s homeostasis. It must also respond to external influences which disrupt or disturb internal homeostasis. To “maintain” and “respond” the organism needs to sense the internal status (the degree of homeostasis), sense the external environment (the classic 5 senses), and then respond by redistributing energy resources within the body. Thus, the management of energy distribution is key to survival. In humans, this appears to be the primary function of the brain – to distribute and direct energy resources to maintain homeostasis while responding to the external environment.

Two major subdivisions appear to coordinate distribution of resources – the Internal Control System (parasympathetic nervous system) and the eXternal Control System (sympathetic nervous system). These two appear to be coordinated within the diencephalon with central control held by the hypothalamus (see http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/H/Hypothalamus.html).

WHERE NEXT? Erwin Schrödinger pointed the way with his contention that living organisms must climb toward negative entropy. This is a climb toward order and away form chaos. This is also a climb toward complexity, as Stuart Kauffman revealed, and is corroborated by evolution’s march from single celled organisms to the complexity of humans and cetaceans today.

But if we read between the lines, one other key factor can be recognized. If entropy constantly steals resources from us, one way to prolong our survival is to maximize the usage of what we have. Efficiency is a key to survival. Feeding resources only into successful systems and behaviors prolongs survival. Feed what works, and starve what doesn’t work. Feed success, and starve failure.

Efficiency can be seen in the sleekness of animals, fish, and birds. And if sleekness is not seen, other efficiencies are – such as extended sleeping (hibernation) or “one stop shopping” for food and drink (koalas).

Given the need for efficiency, a design for the brain and emotions can be guided by this need. There is already support for ideas being competed within the diencephalon with the most powerful ones dominating behavior. I suggest a specialized version of Hebert Spencer’s term, “survival of the fittest.” Only ideas/behaviors which “fit” the environment can be competed. Of those that fit, the most powerful one will dominate the immediate behavior. If it succeeds, it will be incrementally fed. If it fails it will be incrementally starved. This is efficiency at its coarsest.

Let's see if we can fit this into a "model of real emotional behavior in human beings". Who has an example or situation to apply a "survival of the fittest" efficiency model?

 

[JAK]

...
Let's see if we can fit this into a "model of real emotional behavior in human beings". Who has an example or situation to apply a "survival of the fittest" efficiency model?
...

Mighty quiet around here ...

Perhaps if my question's a bit more provocative, I might get a little more activity.

Let's try this. One of the extrapolations of the theoretical approach provided is this:

"Given the circumstances, we always do what we want to do most."

You always do what you want to do. Sound reasonable?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by JAK

You always do what you want to do. Sound reasonable?

I think it's a bit like saying: "America always elects the person it wants most for president."

 

[JAK]

I think it's a bit like saying: "America always elects the person it wants most for president."

Sad, but true ...

Also, I'm glad you're sticking around.

 

[JAK]

I think it's a bit like saying: "America always elects the person it wants most for president."

Given Dymanic's quote as suggesting the "horns of a dilemma," it's a good lead into a first strategy for designing AI/robotics. Even in a dilemma, we choose "the lesser of two evils." In a hierarchy of "wants" (as Maslow suggested), some things are wanted more or less than other things. This nicely creates a scale (see Victor Johnston, Hedonic Tone Theory) which can be used for competitive decision making.

Looking at the scale, it suggests that we have "likes" and "dislikes." Programatically, that suggests a myriad of modules for both. Yet, we may be able to reduce the length of the scale AND the programming.

Using Dymanic's example, one candidate may offer an improved economy at the expense of the environment. The other candidate may offer a healthier environment but with a loss of jobs. Which is 'wanted" or "unwanted" more? If the negative elements are seen as a "negative sign" applied to a "want" or "value," then we have cut the scale in half. We now would only need to register positive values and then program for "nurturing" influences and "opposing" influences upon the "value" whatever it may be.

To further illustrate, do you "want" friendship or do you NOT want loneliness? Can't loneliness be termed "friendship" with a negative sign in front of it - the lack of friendship? Similarly, can't poverty be "wealth" with a negative sign - the opposite of wealth? Even gradations would work. With no desire to be wealthy but wanting "enough to get by," a preceding negative sign becomes "not enough to get by."

IF all aversive ideas can be deemed a value (something wanted) with a negative in front of it, then the storage of values (or representation of them) has just been cut in half. The programming to handle it could be fairly simple Boolean logic.

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by JAK

Looking at the scale, it suggests that we have "likes" and "dislikes." Programatically, that suggests a myriad of modules for both.

Yes, that's what I was getting at. A myriad of modules, which may respond to various types of stimuli by increasing or decreasing the signal strength of their outputs, their outputs also being given varying amounts of weight at the level of higher-order modules. But the same outputs might be treated completely differently at different times, depending on the current high-level state of the system -- which itself could only be defined in terms of the collective outputs of myriad modules. The whole thing seems so fiendishly convoluted that it's hard to find a starting point.

Conveniently crisp terms such as 'likes' and 'dislikes' become awkwardly fuzzy at this point, and not necessarily even particularly meaningful within the context of 'needs' (this is certainly the case with humans anyway, who often seem most to desire that which they least need).

This observation appears consistent with your 'additional foundational ideas' above, with an additional twist: that maintaining internal structure (I'm thinking of internal mental structure here) may involve factors not easily described in terms of efficient distribution of energy, except perhaps as something like overhead incurred by the system itself in maintaining its organizational structure. Many may simply be consequences of some features of that structure which produce certain results as unavoidable side-effects.

 

[JAK]

Yes, that's what I was getting at. A myriad of modules, which may respond to various types of stimuli
...
The whole thing seems so fiendishly convoluted that it's hard to find a starting point.

One place to start may be the theoretical stance that all living organisms feed (expend resources upon) successful behaviors and starve unsuccessful behaviors. Those organisms which fail to choose correctly are culled by natural selection. (Success and failure are also scalar.)

In psychology, a standard and accepted belief is that there are only two basic categories of behavior: approach and avoidance. Both are successful, and we feed resources into both. Robert Plutchik has worked out a system of categorizing all emotions and fitting them into these two fundamental categories.

Biologically, mammals react to stimuli by feeding resources either into the internal control system (ICS) or the external control system (XCS). (A varying mixture of both is the norm, but extremes do occur.) This is managed at the hypothalmus by maintaining a "set point" or "reference signal" (see Walter Cannon and William T. Powers).

This could be a starting point - a point to sort all other behaviors into a decision tree. The first decision is whether or not to activate the ICS or the XCS. If the XCS is activated, then should "approach" or "avoidance" be activated? If either or both systems are activated (i.e., attack an ungulate for food but avoid its horns), then the XCS planning system must activate. In the latter situation, the high order approach plan may be "chase." The high order avoidance plan may be "watch and avoid horn tips." Of course, each of these would be built from subroutine components - each proven reliable in the past. This decision tree planning would be simple (not deep) for lower animals but rich and complex for humans. (I believe modeling this with lower animals would be another criteria for "a starting point.")

What may be key here is that the gross categorical decisions may be easily stored along with any memory. This would be Damasio's somatic marker or Johnston's hedonic tone. Moreover, if the response is a "canned" routine (a "tried and true" habit), no conscious assembly would be required. The reaction would be "instinctive."

...
Conveniently crisp terms such as 'likes' and 'dislikes' become awkwardly fuzzy at this point, and not necessarily even particularly meaningful within the context of 'needs' (this is certainly the case with humans anyway, who often seem most to desire that which they least need).

I believe just about anything can be significantly "unfuzzied." Please provide an example, and I'll give it a try. The first step is to reduce "needs" and "likes" into "approach" or "avoidance."

...
This observation appears consistent with your 'additional foundational ideas' above, with an additional twist: that maintaining internal structure (I'm thinking of internal mental structure here) may involve factors not easily described in terms of efficient distribution of energy, except perhaps as something like overhead incurred by the system itself in maintaining its organizational structure. Many may simply be consequences of some features of that structure which produce certain results as unavoidable side-effects. [/B]

There is always a risk vs benefit issue with all facets of life (with natural selection as the "judge and jury"). Please elaborate. I'm very interested in understanding your concept better.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by JAK

There is always a risk vs benefit issue with all facets of life (with natural selection as the "judge and jury"). Please elaborate.

How about mirth -- especially that of the uncontrollable variety? That might be hard to explain entirely in terms of risk/benefit, or efficient distribution of energy.

 

[JAK]

How about mirth -- especially that of the uncontrollable variety? That might be hard to explain entirely in terms of risk/benefit, or efficient distribution of energy.

Good point. Humor/laughter is one of the weaker areas of my approach. Presently, the thinking has three pieces of background information:

1.) Consciousness, as part of the eXternal Control System (XCS), restricts resources through the "reward system" (and the torso). Meanwhile, resources are diverted to the limbs and external musculature. Analytical thinking tends to increase the restrictive XCS activity and decreases the more balanced Internal Control System (ICS) activity. Creative thinking tends to have the opposite effect (as does rest, meditation, and sleep). The reason would appear that analytical thinking tends to be more detailed, structured, and specific while creative thinking tends to be more lenient and less structured.

2.) Analytical thinking appears to "have more presssure" behind it - almost like turning on a faucet more and more to quickly fill a bucket. This has some support from research by Lassen, Ingvar, and Skinhoj (see Sci. Amer. of Oct 1978). They showed that as the difficulty of problems increase, so does blood flow to the brain. This would support my approach of an incremental access of neural circuits in decision making. The behaviors (and neural circuits) which we rely upon most are the most efficient (Hebb's Law) and easiest to activate. If they fail to resolve a problem, more energy is required to activate other behaviors (and neural circuits) which are not as efficient. Further, additional energy may be needed to shutdown the original circuits of the behaviors which failed. This should be revealed as a blood flow increase to the brain.

3.) The last background piece needed is that all sensory input generates neural activity. Further, this increase in energy must be vented in some way. (Emotive Energy demands a physical response.) In other words, the energy increase must travel somewhere and be expended somewhere. Depending upon the memories fetched, energy may increase even more. (The sight of a charging elephant is more compelling than a charging ant.) Once energy is increased, the brain must vent it through either the XCS (stress) or the ICS (mirth). As a general rule, when in doubt, the brain diverts energy into the XCS (stress).

Okay - mirth, humor, laughter - occurs when the brain is at a higher stress level and suddenly recognizes that the XCS is not where the energy should be vented. In other words, the ICS is being needlessly sacrificed. At that moment, energy (which has been under pressure) is suddenly diverted into the ICS and drained from the XCS. The amount of energy determines the result. A small amount of energy creates a warmth or glow in the torso and a smile. More energy creates a chuckle or two. An even larger energy buildup will result in belly laughs. (Laughter allows energy to be vented quickly.)

This redirection also works with beauty and achievement. When a pleasant stimulus occurs (warm sunshine, music, or a gentle touch), again the brain must vent the energy increase. Being beneficial, it vents through the ICS and we have a warm inner glow and a smile.

Taking this to professional humor, many rely upon stories. Telling a story requires analytical thinking to keep track of the story details which increases XCS activity (tension). Tension can also be created with emotional situations within the story. With the "punchline," the mind recognizes that "input" and it's "structure" is complete. Upon evaluation, the result is determined a "non-threat" and "useless". With that, the energy holding together the story in a structure of neural circuits is diverted and vented through the ICS. And all circuits are released except normal chronological recording and upkeep.

Now, since laughter is related to the amount of energy being dumped through the ICS, the more you throw into it, the more likely you are to get a laugh. If there is some "latency" within the ICS after a joke, then one way to reach higher levels of laughter is to have multiple jokes come in quick succession. This would explain the typical "newcomer" who goes on stage first to "warm up the crowd" for the "headliner" coming up later.

Thus, this theoretical approach can explain the humorous effects of a convoluted story (build, then break tension) or a quick sequence of "one liners" (build up latency).