The scientific method, intelligent behavior and how the brain investigates how the world works (Part 5): Reasoning can be replicated by - as the scientific method prescribes - methodically putting to a test all sort of hypothesized reasons.
Reasoning - identifying the reasons for the stuff we observe - can be replicated by methodically putting to a test all sort of hypothesized reasons. Not unlike in the scientific method, if the currently hypothesized reasons do not replicate the stuff we observe, we simply try another set of hypothesis, until a satisfactory match is achieved.
The following is part of Chapter IV-2 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.
2.1 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.
3. The animal brain is living proof that scientific models are the most powerful tools to finding out why impossibly complex stuff comes about.
3.1. Especially when it comes to impossibly complex, inscrutable problems, rather than asking how the thing works, we will achieve better results if we investigate, what leads to the stuff we sense. If we find out what leads to certain stuff, we will basically know everything there is to it: namely, we will be able to predict when it is going to come about or we will know how to bring it about ourselves.
3.2. the scientific method is nothing but a formidably versatile and powerful investigation scheme, a set of steps and rules, that we can follow to find out what ingredients, factors and rules lead to certain stuff. It can be applied not only to research how things work or certain stuff comes about, but - fascinatingly enough - also to investigate how to attain some desirable stuff. Indeed, 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, stuff comes about or, plain simply, how to attain some desired stuff.
3.3. if the model replicates the investigated phenomenon's output, then - for all intends and purposes - the causes, reasons and intervening factors for the investigated phenomenon's output should be the same as the sources employed by the model to produce such same output. Indeed, it really does not matter if the model's underpinnings are actually not exactly the same as the investigated phenomenon's; so long the model replicates the phenomenon's output, we will only need to run the model, in order to anticipate which plan of action will yield the best outcome.
3.4. When it comes to physical things, since there is something material, that we can observe through the senses, it is possible to play and experiment with the thing. Thus, - as compared to abstract concepts - the scientific investigation is far more straightforward, since we can investigate how the thing behaves in different scenarios.
3.5. A scientific model is particularly helpful to investigate abstract concepts, since it enables us to test, whether or not the hypothesized reasons reproduce the observed data.
4. How the brain learns how things work and stuff comes about.
4.1. Reasoning - identifying the reasons for the stuff we observe - can be replicated by methodically putting to a test all sort of hypothesized reasons. Not unlike in the scientific method, if the currently hypothesized reasons do not replicate the stuff we observe, we simply try another set of hypothesis, until a satisfactory match is achieved.
Thus, assuming we have some way to test our hypotheses, we are at last ready to start exploring what causes, reasons and intervening factors lead to the stuff we want to understand. For this sake, it should be useful to consider Graeber and Wengrow's example of - as they phrase it - the invention of bread. In their much acclaimed book "The Dawn Of Everything", these eminent scholars suggest such a momentous discovery should have required a truly gifted intellect, and - since nowadays it looks really good on any public figure to exhibit strong adherence to the feminist ideology - they even take the license to speculate that, in all likelihood, it was a woman, some prehistoric Marge Simpson, who achieved such a fantastic breakthrough. Who knows, considering how smart she is said to be, perhaps it was Lisa Simpson herself! Clearly, the fox is always looking for something beautiful to say to the crow.
It is certainly hard to believe that our nice, lofty bread came fully formed; but some brain power must have been involved before humans started using yeast to make bread. However, it really seems way too far-fetched to think that, as smart as prehistoric Lisa Simpson may have been, some genius could have ever devise that, by adding yeast to the flour-and-water mixture, some air bubbles would form, thus causing the dough to rise. Rather, it certainly seems more realistic a scenario, where one day the bread somehow came out nice and lofty. The key question then became what caused, what was the reason why this time the end result was so fabulous: was it because there was more flour or more water in the mixture? perhaps, this time the oven temperature was higher or lower? Could it have been that the dough was left for a longer or shorter time in the oven?... Given that our nice and lofty bread had been so wonderful, it was only reasonable that all efforts were made to replicate the fantastic outcome, trying out, one by one, all sort of hypotheses, until it was finally discovered that, as it turned out, stupid Homer Simpson had left the wet flour to mold in the sun! Eureka!! Who could have guessed it? We did not need any intelligent-agent light bulb to go off after all. We had all been so excited when Graeber and Wengrow broke to the world the thrilling news that, in all likelihood, it had been a woman who invented bread; but, as it turns out, brainless Homer Simpson could have accomplish the exact same feat, by simply methodically putting, one by one, all sort of hypotheses to the test. Admittedly, fake-feminists could here still reasonably point out that Homer Simpson may have forgotten the wet flour molding in the sun; but it was obviously Marge's feat to reason out such had been the reason, why the bread had come out so fantastic. Yet, it remains that reasoning - the most exalted of human intellectual abilities - does not require any magic, but can be produced by simply applying a scheme along the lines of the scientific method.
4.2. We can never be certain whether a theory will always be correct; but we can tell if the currently hypothesized reasons fail to reproduce the data we observe (i.e. if the theory's predictions fail). Thus, as we go on eliminating incorrect theories, the search space of possible reasons for the data gets ever smaller, until a satisfactory match will eventually be achieved.
Yes, there is no need of any genius to identify what are the causes, reasons and intervening factors for certain stuff. We just have to start with a set of hypotheses - as rudimentary, unpromising and unconvincing these may be - and take it from there. That is exactly why the scientific method is especially well suited for impossibly complex, inscrutable questions. There is no need to stress out ourselves, nobody should feel daunted by the overbearing complexity of the problem. After all, it is not realistic to think, that whichever model one proposes will be the definite answer to the conundrum. Indeed, since it is impossible to prove a scientific theory absolutely correct and, furthermore, in all likelihood, sooner or later any theory will ultimately be proven wrong anyway; nobody can expect you to get your model free from any flaw. Even if we do not have the slightest clue of what may be the underpinnings of the investigated phenomenon, we should not allow anyone nor anything to stop us from raising hypotheses on which are the causes, reasons and intervening factors for the stuff we seek to understand. Everybody should feel encouraged to propose something. You just try to explain as much as you can, as best as you think of. If you cannot get it perfect, do not worry; we will take it from there and extend it further. Every attempt is a step forward. We will eventually get to the end of it.
Yes, interestingly enough, not only is the scientific method a formidably effective and powerful tool to investigate problems of extreme complexity, but it is particularly well suited to be applied in parallel by a massively parallel-and-distributed architecture of billions of competing and cooperating processing units such as humankind or the brain. Indeed, each unit will raise a number of hypotheses and follow the corresponding strategy. For only the competition between units, - not unlike in a war - the strategy pursued by each competing neuron will become exposed to everyone else in the theatre of war. Furthermore, the competition itself will serve as the ultimate objective test of the fitness of all the contenders' strategies. Obviously, whichever strategy comes out on top from today's battle will be, at least until the next encounter, the model for the rest to follow.
Yes, what is crucial is that we test our hypotheses. As stated before, we have to hypothesize a data-generating model: namely, what are the causes, reasons and intervening factors for the data we observe? If our data-generating model fails to accurately produce the sought-after stuff, we will need to accept there is something wrong about it and, at the very least, we need to adjust it. Definitely, it is impossible to prove that a proposition will always be correct or that something does not exist; but it is possible to prove that something does not work as a theory had predicted. In this way, the scientific method empower us to little by little improve our knowledge of the world around us. However, perhaps it may be more accurate to say that the scientific method actually is about reducing our uncertainty about the world; since, one step at a time, discards possible explanations for the data we observe. Yes, the whole point of a scientific theory is to hypothesize a number of causes or reasons (data-generating model) for the observed data. Thus, to the extent that the scientific method constitutes an objective method to conclusively refute a scientific theory, as we - one after another - eliminate theories (and so the corresponding hypothesized reasons), the search space of possible reasons for the data gets more and more constrained. If we may never be 100% certain of what caused a given phenomenon, at least - thanks to the scientific method - we can be certain of what did not cause it. Thus, our understanding of said phenomenon is progressively improved as the space of possible reasons gets ever smaller and we can so focus on those explanations which are more promising (i.e. those whose predictions have so far been confirmed).
4.3. If our model of the brain accurately replicates the behavior of the actual brain, we can only conclude that - for all intends and purposes - the underpinnings hypothesized in our model are the same as the underpinnings of the actual brain. Evidently, it would be too much of a coincidence that model and actual brain behave identically, if their underpinnings were not the same as well.
Given that all what brainless Homer Simpson needed to do to stumble upon bread was to methodically put all sort of hypotheses to the test, it seems safe to say, that if our model of the brain's main hypothesis is that our neurons follow the same kind of scheme to form itself a model of the world and find out the causes and reasons for all we experience; then we will come to see that our model of the brain replicates word by word the behavior exhibited by the actual brain. Clearly, as brainless Homer Simpson's stumbling upon bread shows, if the scientific method empowered humanity to find out how things work and stuff comes about, we have all reasons to expect that the neurons in our brain will only need to follow the same kind of scheme to accomplish this same feat.
To make a long story short, there is no need of any magical intelligent decision-making agent, but a investigation scheme along the lines of the scientific method is all what we need to explain our miraculous ability to find out the causes, reasons and intervening factors of the phenomena we observe: First hypothesize some causes and reasons for the data (i.e. hypothesize a data-generating model), then build a model implementing said hypotheses (i.e. implement a replica of the data-generating model) and put them to the test. If the predictions are not confirmed, correct the model by redefining the hypothesised underlying reasons and run the test once again until a satisfactory match is achieved.
4.3. If our model of the brain accurately replicates the behavior of the actual brain, we can only conclude that - for all intends and purposes - the underpinnings hypothesized in our model are the same as the underpinnings of the actual brain. Evidently, it would e too much of a coincidence that model and actual brain behaves identically, if their underpinnings were not the same as well.
At last, it is time to apply the scientific method's criterion to establish the credibility of a scientific theory: namely, as stated before, if our model of the brain behaves as the actual brain, then we can only conclude that, for all intends and purposes, the underpinnings hypothesized in our model are the same as the underpinnings of the actual brain. Indeed, since it is impossible to demonstrate that something will always be correct and therefore we will never be able to achieve absolute certainty on how exactly the brain works; so long our model of the brain accurately replicates the behavior of the actual brain, we can only conclude that - for all intends and purposes - our model's underpinnings should be the same as the actual brain's underpinnings. Evidently, it would otherwise be too much of a coincidence that our model works exactly as the actual brain.
Yes, you will be justified to think, that in the great majority of the cases the bell is not immediately followed by the delivery of food; but generally it is necessarry to go through an entire intricate process or sequence of actions. True, but that is why we evolved love and language, and, therefore, the need, desire and ability to share our findings with others. Indeed, language is the code with which we represent the sequence of events leading to a specific phenomenonn, as well as the channel whereby we share our findings with other individuals. Will the bread dough rise if the wet flour is first let to mold a little? Was that the reason why the bread came out so fantastic last time? Well, put the idea to the test and if the hypothesis is confirmed, share the recipe with your loved ones, so that the knowledge can spread like wildfire. Unless, of course, we want to make some business out of it, in which case we obviously will keep it for ourselves. Either way, with language the capability of the brain's model of the world is no longer limited to one-step associations, but it gets extended to replicate those phenomena which stretch along a whole sequence of events.
Still, you will be justified to think that this world is way too complex, just plain chaotic and the number of combinations of all possible reasons for the things in this world is basically infinite. Hence, it is not realistic to hope that we will ever be able to figure out everything, by merely eliminating explanations one by one. True, but consider that there are gazillions of neurons in the brain, each investigating the world on its own, and sharing its findings with all others. Furthermore, there are gazillions of humans in this planet, each investigating the world on his or her own, and sharing his or her findings with all others. Finally, we have all the time in this world; we have literally gazillions of years. Besides, nobody is saying that we will ever figure out everything; at least not me. All what I am saying is that there is a method, whereby we may be able to systematically find out stuff, without the need to resort on the assumption of the existence of a magical intelligent agent thing. That is the scientific method> you do not limit yourself to screaming out loud that something exist, but you explain how the thing works, so that the others can prove you wrong. So long they do not, you remain alive. Clearly, your theory is good enough so long it keeps you alive. Then, following Nature's survival-of-the-fittest, the fitter the idea, the more competitive and greater following. It is all an objective method through and through.
Read the full story: Chapter IV-2 of "A Scientific Model Of The Brain: From Instinct to Reason, How Does The Mind Work".
If it makes sense to you, please, share it with your network of friends; it will mean a lot.
Comments
Post a Comment