The scientific method, intelligent behavior and how the brain investigates how the world works (Part 2): The brain's genius strategy to intelligent behavior is best described by the scientific method; i.e. learn a model which replicates how stuff comes about, and then take whichever action is predicted to yield the sought-after stuff.

 The following is part of Chapter IV of "A Scientific Model Of The Brain: From Instinct to Reason, How Does The Mind Work". 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. The scientific method and how intelligent behavior is brought about in the brain.

1.1. The scientific method is - as a matter of fact - a very basic, all-purpose investigation method and, as such - contrary to general belief - not only is its application domain not limited to the natural sciences, but it is actually especially well-suited for impossibly complex, inscrutable questions such as the origin of Civilization, the State, power, love, intelligence, consciousness or human nature.

1.2. Predictions are the key to intelligent behavior: If we can predict what is going to happen, all there is to intelligent choices and behaviors is to choose the plan of action, predicted to yield the sought-after stuff.

1.3. The scientific method best describes how intelligent behavior is brought about in the brain: The strategy is to learn a model which replicates the investigated thing's behavior. Thus, as we try to replicate how things work, or simply experiment how to bring certain stuff about, we, little by little, discover what are the causes, reasons and intervening factors leading to stuff, and, as we little by little, find out why stuff comes about, we come to learn how things work and stuff comes about.

1.4. If our model replicates the investigated thing's behavior, we only need to run it from any given situation, in order to anticipate how the actual investigated thing will behave.

FULL TEXT

1.1. The scientific method is - as a matter of fact - a very basic, all-purpose investigation method and, as such - contrary to general belief - not only is its application domain not limited to the natural sciences, but it is actually especially well-suited for impossibly complex, inscrutable questions such as the origin of Civilization, the State, power, love, intelligence, consciousness or human nature.

 See Part 1.

1.2. Predictions are the key to intelligent behavior: If we can predict what is going to happen, all there is to intelligent behavior is to choose the plan of action, predicted to yield the sought-after stuff.

Most descriptions of the scientific method stress the importance of a careful observation of the data: namely, as the story goes, if we observe carefully, an intelligent individual should be able to fathom out the reasons for what he or she perceives. There is such blind faith in the existence of an intelligent agent inside our minds, that it all boils down to whether the light bulb is going to go off or not. Yet, the key to a successful scientific investigation does not reside on the genius to come up with the most insightful set of hypotheses, but in the thorough exploration of all sort of possible reasons, until a satisfactory answer is found. Back to our initial discussion on description-centered- vs. action-oriented-perception models, what matters is not whether we build the richest and most insightful description possible of what we observe, but whether we take the action which attains our goals. Absolutely, what good is your intelligence for, if you cannot even accomplish your objectives?

Nowadays historians adamantly reject the notion of inevitability. The underlying rationale is that there is always the possibility, as tiny and insignificant as this may be, that something may happen and change the most probable course of events. For instance, in "The Dawn Of Everything", Graeber and Wengrow argue it is hopeless to predict History, and make the case of Alexander the Great's conquest of the Persian Empire: there were so many things that could have happened - Alexander himself, for example, was in several occasions very close to dying -, that nobody could have predicted with absolute certainty, that the Macedonians were going to take over the Persian Empire. This argument takes us back to our previous discussion on the brain's non-logical, probabilistic modeling of the world: just because there may be some exceptions to a rule, it would not be very smart to discard the rule altogether. Indeed, for instance, for a child it will always be a good idea to listen to its parents' advice, even though there is always the possibility that the parents may actually be incorrect. Fact of the matter is there are usually consequences for things. Thus, it is only intelligent to investigate what are the causes, reasons and intervening factors for stuff, and understand that once certain conditions have been sufficiently met, such consequences are rather inevitable.

In fact, It only makes sense to think that one of the reasons why humans started to analyze their history was to figure out how things work (i.e. what were the causes, reasons and intervening factors for what happened). For instance,for a warrior it is only smart to analyze how his previous battles have gone; particularly if the battle was lost. Only a fool would not want to find out why the outcome was not as desired, and instead would go on repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Indeed, it is best to make some guesses of what were the most likely causes for the failure and what is that we can do next time to increase the probability of success. Basically, based on our knowledge of how the thing works, we elaborate a plan, whereby we predict to get better results next time. Hopefully, we will learn something from our failures and improve our knowledge of what does not work and what is likely to work better. We should not forget that the whole point of intelligence (whatever that means) is to be able to come up with the sort of intelligent behaviors that will achieve our goals. Yet, if we are totally incapable of predicting what is going to happen, we will not be able to choose our actions intelligently. In other words, there is no intelligent behavior if we cannot make predictions, or what good is your intelligence for, if you have no clue of what is going to work and what is not going to work?

1.3. The scientific method best describes how intelligent behavior is brought about in the brain: The strategy is to learn a model which replicates the investigated thing's behavior. Thus, as we try to replicate how things work, or simply experiment how to bring certain stuff about, we, little by little, discover what are the causes, reasons and intervening factors leading to stuff, and, as we little by little, find out why stuff comes about, we come to learn how things work and stuff comes about.

     The reason why so much emphasis is made on the scientific method, is because it represents the very essence of learning and intelligent behavior; in that we learn how things work as we investigate why stuff happened. Yes, if that is exactly how learning comes about and intelligent behavior is generated in the brain, it should not come to anybody's surprise that the scientific method follows the exact same scheme. Indeed, both, brain and scientific method, seek to build a model, which replicates the investigated thing's behavior: As we try to replicate how things work, we, little by little, find out why stuff comes about, and, as we little by little, discover what are the causes, reasons and all sort of factors leading to stuff, we come to learn how things work and stuff comes about. 

1.4. If our model replicates the investigated thing's behavior, we only need to run it from any given situation, in order to anticipate how the actual investigated thing will behave.

Now, crucially, if our model is able to replicate the investigated thing's behavior, then we can easily draw predictions on what sort of stuff the thing will produce in any given situation, and therefore we will be able to use the thing to our benefit or, at least, prepare for what is going to happen. In other words, the most "intelligent" person - or, at least, the biggest expert - on a given thing is whoever has formed himself or herself the most accurate model of such thing.