The how: The model of decision trees

by madmin | Jun 26, 2021 | Neurology, Philosophy, Psychology, Science

Overall introduction

From the moment of conception, our body is build to respond to impulses. Though we could look at the neural responses and the way it influences our psychology from this point, I rather go a bit deeper.

The human neurology is based on millions of years of evolution. Starting (like the conception of our current organism/life) at it’s conception. As humans we are often very easy to add emotions and thoughts to organisms that are not aware like us, don’t have the same intrinsic responses as we have. However, like everything that evolves, our responses are all based on those of who came before us.

To explain what is meant by the inherited responses, I like to take the examples from research, where mice bred from mice that have walked a maze repeatedly. The next generation would be able to solve the maze more easily. Their neural pathways had adapted to possible stimuli. If they merely had the same pathways and had to learn, they would roughly need the same amount of time. This is what we already learned from research on the short term, but we haven’t just come to this point of learning, adapting, living. These adaptions are caused by the way we have evolved. At each point they are the optimum mode of operandi for a species. Until the habitat changes to fast and the adaption within the culture is not possible within enough generations. When a species is the optimum of operandi, a stasis in development can be observed. It means that the neural pathways are optimally used for responding to the environment the organism is living in. We have already found the track back to the initial primates. But the actual decisions are based on much older neural choices/responses to stimuli.

Life is about consumption It is about continuing motion. In organical sense, our bodies have started somewhere as as simple an motion as the tides of the oceans.

The Layers

The human mind is currently the top level of several layers of processes that are going on within us as an organism. Though many other animals show signs of behavior that we describe to ‘intelligence’. Intelligence isn’t necessarily the same as mind/self awareness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence Reference to human and animal intelligence.

In all, we can say that because humans aren’t the only ones with a minimum level of intelligence, it is NOT the mind (the cognitive decision taking) that holds ‘intelligence’.

So, there is a layer before the layer of ‘mind’ that can hold ‘intelligence’.

——— insert from my other blog to be edited in —–
1. Animals don’t have such valuation system (regarding good and bad/right and wrong). They learn what is healthy and what is not, but they are not making a conscious choice to implicate a future situation to mean this cause of effect to be positive or negative on their health. Water is to drink. Positive. No matter if it is poisoned. Some animals have a nose that will tell them that water is undrinkable, yet most don’t have that luxury, because their ancestors lived in environments that had an abundance of clean flowing water, or very little water, so the ‘society’ of the species stayed so small, they would not evolve the reaction to a deadly situation, so that the species would act on instinct (this is a neural pathway created by genetic material).

2. This is also something that animals don’t reasonably have. They can be fierce, deceiving, agressive, but that is from instinct and not by choice (we have choice, because of the abundance of neural options). So, how can we figure out what is objectively good or bad/right or wrong? Any action we do ourselves is with ‘intent’ and as such is already given value by acting. From the point of an animal, we will have to assume, the animal is not too much domesticated, that it will adher to human behavior and be deceitful by choice. Also, we now know that for instance dolphins have the option to choose to be nice to other animals (likely there are more). Now, what would be a thing to see without emotional value?a rock. But we know a rock will just lie and do nothing. Until we pick it up and act with it. It will not influence us, except when we interact WITH it. Automatically putting the value of action on our own part.
—————- end ————

Body work: Instinct, Intuition, Memory and Legacy

by madmin | Jun 26, 2021 | Neurology, Philosophy, Psychology, Science

Please note, that this article is not finished, yet the context is complete.

How does one ‘remember’ things, that could not be from one’s own memory?

What is instinct, but an ‘imprinted memory’, passed on by DNA?

So how can a species with ‘cognitive abilities’ imprint memory into its offspring?

Evolution of Learning

First off, one must understand that the human being is evolved from animal state. This means we are no different in base. We just have…added features.

This means our most basic organism’s instruments and methods are derived from the same ancestral functioning as other animals (though with deviation). The biggest difference between humans and animals is, that animals are fully functioning on emotion, while humans have the ability to choose to do so.

The learning method is still the same, by emotional charge. Cognitive learning is in the brain, but doesn’t get passed to next generation. It is in a too complex state of neuron connections to be placed in any gene/DNA sequence. This is why many things we have to learn again each generation. But how can sometimes, people have past knowledge from previous generations? Does it require extreme emotions, like pain or fear to have it placed into DNA by the species defense mechanism? I think there is something different in place.

Creating a response

I think there is a system creatable that can cause a human brain to work like a catalyst. Meaning as long as it is brought up in the same environment as its ancestors and the environment hasn’t change contextual nor semantically, the signals received by the brain after several generations can cause the brain to run identical pathways after learning exactly the same semantics. 

In a sense, I think this has been done around the world, more or less conscious of the cause, result and effect on the subjects. This is also the reason many don’t have the ‘neuron flexibility’ after learning a specific amount of structures.

The how, why and what?

So, what warrants this view? I hear you say.

Well, the learning by emotion is sure. The more pain an organism experiences in a situation, will cause it to adapt to the situation, either by physical adjustment, or neurological imprinting a response to a pattern. If the organism survives after the extreme situation, the response will be imprinted in DNA.

So, how do children remember something about past ancestors, while not having been part of that society? Well, the central point here is ‘society’. See, culture and society make all signals (music, language, behavior) coherent to each individual within it. So, if a society doesn’t change much, the signals stay the same, the results by the individual brain stays the same. As an analogy, you could think of any animal or plant that responds to the same events in its environment (society/culture) the same way, each generation, because the signals (sun, food, danger, procreation) are the same. A flower will always turn towards the sun. The mouse will always hide away when a shadow falls upon it. All part of survival and its instincts. But imagine the more intrinsic patterns of monkeys and other social species. They respond to emotions, but there are recognizable responses that even humans have to specific events (darkness, predators, animals with known dangerous venoms). 

Now, how do you get from this, to a child remembering cognitive things from before its own past?

Actually, by the same means, but the signals it will receive are first build to be addressed on a cognitive level by the previous generation. Learning how to interpret signals with ‘foreknowledge’ of what they will mean. Learning this well enough, will cause the mind/brain to respond by filling in the gaps, when certain information is provided. We see this in deja vu, but also in children that seem to remember ancestors they can’t have known. How? Because of the intuitive nature of how we expect things to equal how we ourselves respond to things. If signals from society have confirmation biased imprinted responses of society itself, the chances that this results in insights of a new generation that someone WOULD have responded the way they would (cloning imprint response), is very high.

Where do we see this kind of behavior? Actually everywhere, but in many cases we aren’t conscious about it, because it is our own brain that has to register that a brain that behaves like ours, is not acting as we (our brain) thinks it does (confirmation bias breaking), but more likely to more general (none confirming) methods.

Basically, what I say is: 

Psychology is divided in psycho-analysis, behaviorism, bio-psychology, neuro-psychology and many more fields, yet many of them have observable value. Yet many feel that their way of viewing answers all questions, which we know it doesn’t. Each field leaves out items that the other field includes, simply because they are viewing the whole field in exclusion. In all, I feel we should combine the fields and take the observed causalities to answer the questions, taking the base on ‘how’ rather than ‘why’. How does something get caused by society or the context of it, and then Why does it happen this way (which in a sense is an extended ‘how’).

The fields of psychology still miss parts, because many of the ‘experts’ working in it, are limited in their fields. Actually as result of what I explained to some limited way above.

Research required:

Experiments of non-invasive nature can be conducted with both specimen and cultural related or non-cultural related groups, of different species, which aim at a relation of instinctive, and emotional responses to different patterns.

Predictions:

 Different species who are connected in a common ancestor, will have instinctive behavior that resembles the same responses in both offspring branches. Also, behavior that differs, while the base instinct is consistent, will show abnormal behavior patterns that cause conflicts in inherited patterns. ie. an Instinctive overruled behavior will have abnormal emotional and cognitive rationalization behavior as a result.

Results: Angermanagement

by madmin | Jun 26, 2021 | Neurology, Philosophy, Psychology, Science

When do you lose temper? Did it start recently? Also: What is your age, if you are between 13 and 20, it is likely a hormonal thing and you should try to learn to count.

Losing temper can come from hormonal inbalance, stress, justified irritation (though irritation itself can have many different causes), too little sleep, but also neurological/cognitive dissonance caused by many different factors (from light/sound sources, to actual conflicting information).

In case you are under a large amount of work stress, of course this can cause ‘a short fuse’. Your mind can not cope with the given signals and you respond with the irritation about other stressfactors, that is not connected with the situation at hand. Because it is an emotional reflex, it is difficult to do something about it at the moment. I suggest that after having had a stressful time/moment/period, you take a moment away from everyone and everything and blow off steam. This can be by ‘silence’, ‘meditation’, a punchbag, running or listening to music (preferably classical or ambient).

In other cases, I would suggest you consult a professional.

With hormonal imbalances, it might be due to gland over/under production of enzymes and hormones, but it can just as well be a insuline/glucose issue (meaning early diabetes).

Sometimes you really just are in ‘the wrong crowd’, people around you behave against your most basic values: Being on time/late, using foul language or not, respecting others or not, etc. This can cause a continuous build up of internal strife, which will (if continuously) result in fast bursts of reactions from you. This is basically a form of neural/cognitive dissonance.

In case you are not in any of the above, there can still be many different causes. One of the most ‘devious’ ones, is cognitive dissonance. Why? Because mostly people don’t recognize it. Heck, even professionals often miss signals. What does it mean? Your brain is basically a network of neural paths, which allows electrical currents of different strengths to influence parts of the brain depending on combinations and strength. We are born with a blueprint given by our parents, but are building our own actual network from the moment the brain is started up in the womb. What this means is the neural network will be ‘etched’ according to the decision tree you build from everything you learn. If something fits the patterns you create nicely, it causes a ‘ressonance’, like when listening to sad music, you feel sad, and doing something where someone reacts happy can cause your nervous system to cause ‘happy hormones’ to be emitted into your bloodstream. Dissonance is the oposite and causes your brain and nervous system irritation. Sounds, ideas, feelings, sights can all cause ressonance or dissonance. 

In any of the the above cases, I suggest you do one thing first (you already started with this question): Write it down. 

I use the method I created, called: ‘Affairs of the state’. This means you write down the subject you are unaware of why you act in such way and then start to go by 5 basic sections that go for everything. The first is: What happens right before you get angry. Then you see what other elements you can find in your life that are connected to the same feelings. Historically.

Evolution of the brain: short thought 4

by madmin | Jun 26, 2021 | Neurology, Philosophy, Psychology, Science

Irrational animal

All humans by definition are irrational. This is the emotional state we are in. We have out grown the animalistic rationale behaving solely on survival, yet animals when not in their everyday behavior of such survival show emotions and irrationale. 

Are theists more irrational than non-theists?

The point is here that rational or irrational isn’t a general state of mind. You can be fully rational about one thing and totally irrational about the other. For the deduction whether one person is more irrational than another, we need to look what it would be that we call irrational. Irrational behavior or thinking means it is inconsistent with logic (hence irrational could be equalled to illogical). 

So, irrational would be illogical response to specific stimuli, information or knowledge.

For instance, if we know snow is cold, illogical would be to say it is hot. If we know snow melts from heat, it would be silly to say you can’t melt it with a fire. That would be irrational. 

Humanity started of as an animal with a totally changing habitat, which gave its nervous system many new possibilities. It didn’t need as much responses (all based on fear meant for survival) to survive anymore, it could predict, plan and imagine. Eventually the huge brain mass was used to make causal connections which weren’t needed for survival of the individual, but for the generation, and next and next. Communication became more complex and caused holding knowledge from one generation to another other than the fear etched instincts that are inherited genetically. Cognitive knowledge was growing. But this cognitive knowledge was build on emotional knowledge (patternicity), for survival. As with all species, the choice for survival supersedes that of the cognitive mind. Thus fear is still causing people to choose rather on fear than cognitive insights. This is what we can define as irrational (as long as the choice is not warranted by actual stimuli). Patternicity eventually caused agenticity and this is where belief started. As with every theory, one first has to believe something occurs for a specific reason. At first, like children, humanity saw patterns that seemed connected to arbitrary events. Mostly connected to their own actions. Opening your eyes in the morning would bring the sun back. That kind of magical thinking. But like children, humanity learned how to distinguish more and more. 

The human origin in mind

When more and more humans populated the earth due to the improving temperatures and more secure locations, more and more ‘technological’ advancement came about. BUT, emotions came first, societies grew on the same fears and emotions as the first humans. They still needed soothing for these fears, to not go crazy. Religion was the structure that, based on answers given by ancestors, to these fear questions, controlled the societies (like witch doctors and medicine men and others ), even when people were using less emotional driven choices to decide who should lead (often out of greed, or alpha male protection). Eventually humanity started to become fragmentised. As everyone (literally) had their own belief, they would teach their children a little bit different. Eventually folklore and superstition were slowly discredited by logical thinking. We now could philosophize what was a rational thought and irrational thought. Something that was (by test and deduction) an illogical choice or reaction to the pletoria of impulses, was seen as irrational. As such, holding to any superstitious idea from before, was seen as irrational, because these ideas were rebuked by science and advancement in human intellect. Answering that ancestors were both rational and irrational, is correct. We all still are. Humanity doesn’t know everything yet, but we do know where certain ideas came from. We even know that in some way, believing (irrational sometimes) isn’t mutual exclusive or is even required to get to the next step of finding out.

Irrational in a way is subjective to the observer, like quantum physics. Don’t tell Highs by the way. 

So, yes, when a person is religious AND chooses to deny humanity’s collected facts, he/she is irrational. If one keeps to religion for the comfort of it, but still tries to find new knowledge to equate away the leftover beliefs, he/she isn’t automatically irrational.