The scientific method, intelligent behavior and how the brain investigates how the world works (Part 3): Abstract concepts form as our brain tries to understand why the stuff we observe comes about

 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.

2. Physical things and abstract concepts

2.1 The brain's genius strategy to investigate how the world works, consists in building a model for each of the countless functionally distinct things in this world. Each of these individual models represent each of the concepts we form in our minds of said functionally distinct things.

2.2. A good definition of a physical thing will be made up of a detailed description, by which to recognize the thing, as well as a clear explanation of how it works. In contrast, when it comes to abstract concepts, since the point is not to recognize them, what the definition actually needs to explain is how the thing comes about. For instance, more than what is intelligence, we want to know how intelligent behavior comes about.

2.3. The brain learns models of the things in this world, because - once it knows how things work and what leads to stuff - all there is to intelligent behavior is to choose the plan of action predicted to yield the sought-after stuff.

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.

See Part 2.

2. Physical things and abstract concepts

2.1 The brain's genius strategy to investigate how the world works, consists in building a model for each of the countless functionally distinct things in this world. Each of these individual models represent each of the concepts we form in our minds of said functionally distinct things.

Scholars in the humanities rack their brains over what could be the definition which most accurately describes the data; but, as discussed earlier, all what there is behind such effort is an attempt to identify common patterns of behavior. When it comes to physical things, we group together under a certain name those stimuli, which exhibit the same behaviors (that is, seem to function alike), even though they may appear differently; whereas we distinguish with different names those stimuli, which exhibit distinct behaviors, even though they may appear alike. In other words, regardless of their sensorial appearance, if two things function identically, we will understand they are actually the same thing and represent the same concept; whereas, if they function differently, regardless of how similar they may be, we will conclude they are distinct things and represent distinct concepts. The crucial point is that the brain's genius strategy to investigate how the world works, consists in building a model for each of the countless functionally distinct things in this world, which it is able to distinguish, identify and demarcate. It then goes without saying that each of these individual models represent each of the concepts we form in our minds of the individual functionally distinct things in this world.  

   

On the other hand, when it comes to non-physical things, the definition simply aims to describe the observed phenomenon. The hope here is that eventually we will manage to identify certain patterns of behavior, which we may then be able to trace back to its source. For instance: why does it rain?, why does the wind blow?, why do humans fall in love?, why do humans die?, why do wars break out?, why do humans come up with ideas?, why do we feel inside our mind some voice constantly chewing over stuff?, etc.. 

2.2. A good definition of a physical thing will be made up of a detailed description, by which to recognize the thing, as well as a clear explanation of how it works. In contrast, when it comes to abstract concepts, since the point is not to recognize them, what the definition actually needs to explain is how the thing comes about. For instance, more than what is intelligence, we want to know how intelligent behavior comes about.

 

In any case, whether it is brought about by a physical thing or not, we want to learn how stuff comes about. Thus, after all, it does not really seem things are exactly the objects of our brain's interest, but patterns of behavior - or events in general - appear to be of greater relevance. Clearly, what our brain really cares about is predicting what kind of stuff will take place. Once more, we want to know how stuff comes about, so that we can steer to our benefit how stuff is going to unfold or, at least, anticipate and prepare for what is going to happen. As it turns out, it is then of lesser relevance whether such stuff is brought about by a physical thing or by something else. Obviously, if it is caused by a physical thing, our investigation is greatly simplified, since there is no wondering how to go about it: we just have to figure out how the thing works, so that whenever we recognize it, we will know how to use it to our benefit or, at least, anticipate what is about to happen. Hence, as a matter of fact, a detailed description is here very useful, in order to accurately recognize the thing; while a good definition will complement the detailed description with a clear explanation of how the thing works. In other words, a good definition of a physical thing will be made up of a detailed description, by which to recognize the thing, as well as a clear explanation of how it works.

2.3. The brain learns models of the things in this world, because - once it knows how things work and what leads to stuff - all there is to intelligent behavior is to choose the plan of action predicted to yield the sought-after stuff.

Now, if our five senses are not able to identify any physical origin for such stuff, it is only natural to start imagining there must be something out there responsible for bringing it about. It is so easier to see why human beings started coming up with myths to explain to themselves how stuff comes about: if it rains or the wind blows, it is because some deity is showing off its superhuman power; if humans fall in love, it is clearly because Cupid is playing tricks on our hearts; if humans die, it is obviously because the gods decided it is time to recall us; if wars break up, it is because a mischievous god is stirring discord; if humans come up with ideas, it is obviously because our brain's light bulb goes off; if we feel some voice inside our mind, what else could it be, but our spirit speaking to itself? Yes, we think ancient humans were so ridiculously dumb, but then we worship and hold dear the most fundamental of their myths; it is just that we call them abstract concepts like, for instance, weather, love, death, war, intelligence, consciousness, justice or democracy. Indeed, as it turns out, narratives, symbolic figures and gods proved to be useful artifacts to embody and explain complex, invisible ideas.   

 

Now, as much as we may want to think that abstract concepts such as the weather, love, death, war, intelligence, consciousness, justice or democracy are brought about by a myth, a detailed description of such complex, invisible ideas is not going to be of much use. As mentioned before, when it came to a physical thing, a detailed description of the thing allows us to recognize it when we find it "out there", so that we know how to use it to our benefit or, at least, anticipate what is about to happen. However, when it comes to an abstract concept, since we cannot perceive it with our five senses, the question obviously is not how is that we can recognize it, but how it behaves or, at least, how is it meant to work.

 

Having said that, as discussed earlier, a detailed description may help to demarcate the phenomenon we seek to understand or define. In the imaginary example above, where the phenomenon is brought about by supernatural forces, it would be helpful to identify which exact myths are responsible for what we observe; so that we can better focus our efforts on the investigation of the underpinnings of those precise myths (that is, build a model of each of those mythical things or sources). More realistically, if we want to find out how battles work (i.e. how to win battles), it will be useful to realize there are distinguishable types of battles (namely, sea battles, open field battles, urban battles, etc.) and - to the extent that each of them work completely differently - we need to investigate them separately (that is, build a separate model for each of those distinct things). On the other hand, if - for example - we want to understand how intelligent behavior comes about, it is no good to start distinguishing among spatial intelligence, logical and mathematical intelligence, musical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, emotional intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence..., unless there are good reasons to think, that all those types of intelligence are brought about by distinct sources or myths.