Scientific Brain Model Chapter VII

 CHAPTER VII - The word running the mind, and how we began losing it.

 * There is a reason why the brain evolved a reasoning and planning mechanism: The ability to express with words a causality link between an initial state and a desirable goal constitutes a formidable evolutionary advantage.

Fact of the matter is such a sequence of actions connecting an initial state to a desired goal represent nothing less than a causality link between these two points, regardless of how far apart from each other they may be. We then definitely start getting some really strong insight of how powerful it is our ability to express with words a path from Point A to Point B. 

For instance, I certainly wish I had been able to spell out what were the actual reasons, why Alia had broken up with me in South Africa.. Everybody kept telling me that I should accept, that Alia had simply stopped loving me. However, if, during the previous months, Alia had provided clear signs that she cared for me, I knew that it did not make any sense, that in a matter of just a few weeks, she had simply, magically stopped loving me. I knew there was a reason; but, much to my frustration and regret, for the life of me I was just not able to spell it out. 

Agonizingly enough, it was really not that difficult to figure out; Alia had made it transparent the very moment she informed me of her decision. She explained in no uncertain terms, that "she was leaving me because she was sick of dragging me around the supermarkets". In case that had left any doubts, during the following months she would further spit out, that I was rather useless, had never really loved her, but had only used her as my servant and chauffeur. THe explanation that Alia had stopped loving me, because she had reached the conclusion that I was useless, for some reason, just was not convincing, though. What kind of love is it, if it dies off the moment the "loved" person becomes useless? Love does not work like that. Clearly, if one stops loving another person just because he proves to be hopeless, that is not love in the first place. Now, anybody who knew Alia during the years of our marriage would be able to tell you, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Alia truly loved me. If you are still not quite sure about it, you can just read Alia's letters and I promise you all your doubts will be dissipated. That definitely could not be said about Alia; if she loved me it had not been because she had made some cold calculation of how useful I may be for her, and, consequently, it could not be reasoned out that she had stopped loving me, the moment she reached the conclusion that I was useless. Alia's explanation could have only been an excuse, some sort of cover-up for the real reason. 

As a matter of fact, it was as self-evident as transparent that she had fallen in love with Gary (our Land Rover mechanic in Cape Town). Then, it was straightforward to argue that, if she had fallen in love with another man, it was precisely because previously she had fallen out of love with me. 

* However, if our conceptual framework of how things work happens to be misguided, our reasonings will grow exponentially non-sensical.

  

Yet, I knew for a fact that the account according to which she had fallen in love with another man, precisely because previously she had fallen out of love with me, was itself not without its own flaws. To begin with, anybody who met us in Cape Town would have sworn that we truly loved each other. Gary himself would eventually point out to me how "solid" we were. In fact, given that he never had any real interest in Alia, if he set out to conquer her, it was not because she was an easy prey. Rather, the fact that she loved me made the challenge all so much more engrossing. Moreover, Alia did not break down when Gary finally dropped the axe and dismissed her advances; but all the evidence points to the fact, that she collapsed when she arrived at the conclusion that she had killed her marriage. Indeed, Alia did not attempt to take her life after finding out that Gary did not really care for her; but after running away from our conversation on the beach two days later. Alia had come to the beach that afternoon, hoping that I would tell her that it had not all been her fault, but I had also made mistakes. Yet, considering her betrayal and her humiliating words on my disability, it did not feel to me that was the time for self-criticism; so I responded reminding her about all the times, that she had been mean to me. I did not know then, but Alia had come heartbroken to the beach, hoping to hear that I still loved her. It is true, it was actually not my love what she really cared about; but her marriage. Nevertheless, from my resentful response she concluded that, evidently, I would never be able to love her again as much as she needed and her marriage was dead. She ran away before I could finish talking, and left me stranded that night on the beach. When I was finally able to find my way back the next day, her cassanova playboy told me, that Alia had tried to commit suicide that previous night. Alia would later go as far as blaming me for her attempt of suicide, by saying that, on that day on the beach, I had taken her to a place lower than she had ever experienced. While I find her words extremely unjust (I never even went any farther than very calmly expressing my grievances), it leads me to argue, if she did not care for me, why did she cared so much about anything I had to say? Furthermore, if she did not care for me anymore, why did she always tried to conceal the fact that she had fallen in love with another man, and instead gave me the meanest of all explanations, the one that would defined her in the worst possible way: namely, she was leaving me because she was sick of the burden my disability represented for her? Last but not least, why from then on would she always need me so badly to take some responsibility for our marriage's failure? Long story short, it is not just that it was not without flaws the theory, according to which Alia had all of a sudden, magically stopped loving me. Rather, the theory simply did not make any sense, as it was flawed in every way possible.   

On the other hand, it is an undisputable fact that a fundamental component of Gary's conquest strategy had been to hammer into Alia's mind the notion, that she deserved so much more than a "fucking blind guy". Indeed, all indications point to the conclusion, that Alia's decision to break up with me was, as she would repeatedly explain, motivated to a significant degree, by the limitations my disability imposed upon me. I know, I know, it is certainly against everything we have always been told about love to even entertain the idea, that someone's love may be influenced by how much he or she may get out of the relationship. That is definitely not what we call love. Yet, whether or not it is in compliance with our global concept of how the world works, it is likewise true, that, as any man knows well, unless a woman is herself homeless, the probability that she may fall in love with a homeless man, in a scale from 10 to 0, can be estimated at about -7.

* As Humanity's knowledge has grown more and more and the resulting neverending exarcerbation of social hierarchical orders has led to an educated elite to little by little tighten up its grip on the most advanced and powerful knowledge, our global concept of how things work has become more and more biased, corrupt and dangerously toxic.  

Yes, our conceptual framework may not always be necessarily correct. This is the critical weakness of our reasoning mechanism. Given that our logical inferences are based on our concepts of how things work, if such knowledge happens to be flawed, our reasonings will get exponentially nonsensical. As a matter of fact, as Civilization has slowly gained a tighter grip on our minds, we find that, more and more, not everything is quite as it has been taught to us. Probably the most pernicious and pervasive of our myths is the seemingly innocuous, baseless assumption of the existence of a decision-making agent. Certainly, is there anybody out there, who does not wholeheartedly embrace the notion, that deep inside our brain there is some sort of magical agent, responsible for all our reasonings and subsequent choices? Now, if that is the case, it is only natural to reason, that some people are born gifted with a extraordinarily intelligent brain, whereas most other folks only got a water-down version of the thing, some people is really talented, whereas other folks are kind of dull, some people's decision-making agent is truly virtuous, whereas some other folks' decision-making agent's moral standards are a bit looser. Furthermore, it is likewise only natural to reason, that those gifted with an intelligent, talented and virtuous decision-making agent (you see, for these chosen ones, all the stars coincidentally always come into PERFECT alignment) will throughout their lives come to amass a buttload of money; which inn turn means that those who do not have a penny only owe their poor state of affairs to the fact, that their decision-making agent is not just rather dumb, but indolent and morally lacking as well (you see, as it turns out, for these destitute folks, all the stars also fall into alignment, albeit obviously in a far more dramatic fashion). Now, given all the previous, it is only natural to embrace our fake-democratic oligarchic ideology, according to which, for instance, our health care services should be meant for those talented, conscientious, beautiful people, who own the buttload of money needed to pay for them; whereas we should let die those rather slow and inept, slothful, morally lax folks, who never did anything to earn enough money to be able to take responsibility for their health care needs. I know, we live in a truly horrifying world, indeed. If it were not bad enough, that our cosmology and collective conceptual framework has slowly led us to all thing the same, it is an even worse concern that we have come to worship the most idiotic, if not outright monstrous ideas: Our concept of justice is defined by the right to legal representation, whereby those chosen ones owning the buttload of money required to hire an attorney will systematically be right; whereas those who cannot afford it will systematically be wrong. It is what the chosen ones have taught us to call Democracy: so long we celebrate general elections, where everybody can participate, it does not matter that the upper class will always monopolize all the society's resources, privileges and opportunities. Indeed, what matters is the System's name, not how it works; What matters is not what laws are enacted or what rules do apply; but how the lawmakers are chosen. We are all most absolutely convinced that the president is the most powerful person in the nation; but, fact of the matter is, regardless of who he is, whether he comes from the left or from the right, whether he comes from the bottom or from the top, it will always be, that those born to wealthy families will forever get the best health care, the best education, the best positions, etc.. It is too difficult to go against the grain. You just cannot swim upstream. The System is too strong. One man cannot go against a thousand families, even if he is just trying to protect the other millions of people in the nation. As a matter of fact, if that is the case, it is only smart to join the spoliation... In short, what matters is not how the System works, but what name do they give to it; yet, if our system is said to be democratic, we can only wonder, who on Earth may like a monster of this sort.

* Since humans will only listen and follow the guidance of those stronger, more knowledgeable or simply more powerful people, who we believe care for us, as soon as a group of families rise above all others in the society, we are naturally inclined to fall under the spell of such an elite and follow its very particular and biased account of how things work: namely, the upper class belongs at the top of the society because they obviously are the most intelligent and finest people, and, therefore, the rest better worships them and does as they say.

Regrettably, however, there is little else we can do. When it comes to complex subjects, beyond the average person's common experience, it is only smart to listen to those more knowledgeable people, who care for us. But, given that nowadays the information we receive from the upper-class controlled system is incredibly corrupt, when it comes to more ordinary stuff, that anyone is familiar with, it is always a good idea to trust one's own instinct. For example, if each of us were a historian, we would know very well, that throughout History, societies will thrive whenever there was a strong central authority keeping the big families of the land in line. Human nature is such that whenever the oligarchs were free of any restrain, they would run amok and abuse and exploit anyone within their reach. Unfortunately, we lack historians' profound knowledge and - with no more information than the severely processed lectures we recieve in school - we are easy preys for the upper-class controlled mass-Media's mantras. We have therefore become totally convinced, to a degree that it would be heretic to express any doubt, that when the landed, slave-owning Colonial magnates and the wealthy French bourgeoisie revolted against, respectively, George III and Louise XVIII, it was for the sake of everybody's freedom (as if it were at all possible a society, where we are all free to do as we please). If that had been the case, it is only reasonable to agree with our fake-democratic system's fundamental principle, according to which the Press and mass-Media alike should play a paramount role in keeping the government under control, or "we" may lose "our" freedoms.           

* If it were not bad enough that we have no better choice than to follow the educated elite's teachings on the most complex subjects; little by little we are likewise absorbing more and more the upper class' toxic doctrine on even the most conventional stuff; troublingly enough, our conscious (so-called rational) thinking is slowly taking over our unconscious (irrational) wisdom.  

 

 

A different story is if we talk about familiar stuff, with which we have plenty of experience. We certainly enjoy watching the Simpsons and find it really funny going through the stereotypical personalities of the average family. Homer is indeed kind of the "average Joe". He is characterized by frequent immaturity, frequent stupidity, selfishness, laziness, envy and explosive anger. He is a pure moron and suffers from a short attention span, which complements his intense but short-lived passion for hobbies, enterprises, and various causes. Marge, on the other hand, is a introvertive, SENSITIVE, affectionate, Warm-hearted, loyal, responsible, sensible, humble and dedicated human being:Her family and friends are the key focus of her life. She is nurturing and selfless, always considering other people’s needs and willing to help others. She is kind, generous and forgiving, sincere and empathetic, always looking for the good in others and able to see the best in people. 

Remarkably, in the past we did not think in this way about women and men. While our views about the average man has not change that much, the idea people had in patriarchal societies about how women are was radically different. As much as they were loved, adored and even worshipped, women were also considered irrational creatures, prone to inexplicable bouts of anger. For some reason, the upper class nowadays wants instead to have us think of women as little, judicious angels that come from Heaven. After all, given that women make for 50% of the population, it is only natural, that a system that fakes to be democratic would evolve to cater for, and court the favor of, such a lovely and adorable portion of the society. In fact, we could only wonder, why on Earth the scriptwriters have not yet come up with the idea of describing a plague in Springfield of abuse of women by their male partners. Oddily enough, as much as we all constantly interact with other women and men, we still absorb this form of subliminal indoctrination. After all, we may know, more or less, the personalities of our family, friends and acquaintances; but each person is unique, and it is therefore natural to accept the insight of those most knowledgeable among us on how men and women work in general. Be it as it may, I think we could all agree, that it is just inconceivable, that (assuming that he actually thinks) Homer would ever even entertain the thought of breaking up with Marge, unless he had previously found some other woman foolish enough to take him in. Conversely, should the day come, where Marge finally decides to dump Homer, the question would be more like, how on Earth did she keep such a grotesque loser for so long. Indeed, the reasons that led Marge to fall in love with Homer are certainly inscrutable enough to be worth an X-file. Now, it is also reasonable to think that Homer himself would not share this view. Undoubtedly, as much as men adore women, when it comes to one's own wife, no one needs any expert to tell you how she 'works' and therefore the idyllic image of the little angel that comes from Heaven is pretty certain to dissipate rather quickly. After all, regardless of what the chosen ones may want us to think, we all know that women are every bit as self-minded as men. In fact, while a man will generally be happy with any good-looking woman, who believes in him, women will normally need something more substantial, before they accept the guy.

Fact of the matter is the reasons why Alia left me were certainly not that difficult to decipher. When we first met, Alia helplessly fell in love with me, because, oddily enough, she came to the belief that I was something like Superman. Now, since I am obviously no Superman, it was only a matter of time, before she would wake up from such foolish illusion. Fortunately, as much as women generally require something a bit more substantial, it usually does not take a superman. After all, if Marge had been able to maintain some appreciation for Homer for so many years, there was no good reason, why Alia could not do the same with me. In fact, Homer did never take Marge traveling across 65 countries. However, it was precisely when we were traveling that the limitations my disability imposed upon me became more evident. Indeed, during our journey across Africa there were a couple of times, where we had to stop, because I was experiencing some problems with my eyes, and Alia got markedly frustrated about it. Add then asshole cassanova Gary Rhenda to the mixture, and you get the recipe for the perfect storm. Fact of the matter is that, if Alia told me she was going to leave me, because she was sick of dragging me around the supermarkets, there is no reason to go crazy looking for the fifth leg of the cat. Rather, it is as self-evident as transparent that she meant that the burden my disability represented had indeed become sickening to her. That is, whether fake-Democracy's fake-feminist ideology likes it or not, if Alia broke up with me is because she came to be convinced that I was useless. Now, it may have been foolish to believe that I was Superman; but the idea that I was totally useless was likewise a bit off the mark. In fact, as soon as Gary burst the bubble and the knight in shining armor disappeared, Alia realize her mistake and felt like dying. After listening to what I had to say about her on the beach, it became clear to her that I would never love her again as much as she needed. The thought of having deadly wounded her marriage was then naturally so hurtful, that she could not take responsibility for it. Instead, it was more accommodating to believe that she had fallen out of love and her marriage was not worth it anyway.

* The biggest threat in today's dangerously toxically unbalanced societies is that our greatest virtue - namely, our ability to learn how the world works and transmit the knowledge to the other members of the community - turns out to be the ultimate cause of even further inequality.

 I have always thought that, if Alia broke up with me, it was to a significant degree, because she had come to conclude that I was useless. However, the obvious fact that she had fallen in love with Gary, made it totally credible, that she had simply stopped loving me. What I failed to understand is that, if Alia fell in love with Gary, it was because, deep inside her, some feeling grew that such a charming man would be better able to provide for her needs. In other words, the key which trigger the whole chain of events, had been Alia's hot-headed determination that I was useless. It is really agonizing to think, that I could have saved our marriage, if I had realized such fact. As much as I was (unconsciously) convinced about it, - since I was actually not (consciously) aware of it - I was just not able to spell it out. Obviously, I do not mean to say that I believe, I would have been able to sell to anybody any theory, suggesting that a woman in general will love the man, who she thinks is crazy for her and will be able to provide for all her needs (undoubtedly, the probability that any Homer Simpson could ever convince anybody of anything, in a scale from 10 to 0, could again be estimated at about -7). But, if I had (consciously) known how 'the thing' works and had been able to identify the actual reasons for Alia's decision to break up with me, I would have been able to devise a plan to save our marriage. Indeed, I doubt Alia had needed me to elaborate much on, why I am not useless; but it was crucial that I would have told her that I understood what had happened, and I still loved her. Since I did not have a precise (conscious) concept of how women's love works, however, our marriage fell apart, and I went during the followin years through a nightmare, which might very well have taken my life. Admittedly, one might very well argu that, if Alia's love only went as far as how useful I was to her, I am better off forgetting about her, and looking instead for some woman who truly loves me for who I am. However, perhaps, thinking realistically, I may never be able to find such an ideal Marge Simpson.   

* There is a good case to be made, that the key to our success is language and the power it confers to spread out knowledge: we no longer need a rocket scientist each time we necessitate to re-invent the wheel.

Now, if our ability to generate a complex plan to attain an arbitrary, desired goal were not powerful enough, its immediate derivative whereby we can then spell out the sequences of actions required to achieve said goal is in itself of comparable significance. Indeed, if we are able to spell out our reasonings, we will be able to transmit our knowledge. As accessorial as it may appear at first glance, the relevance of this feature simply cannot be overstated. It is no longer necessary for each of us to reinvent the wheel. Rather, it suffices if one does the brainwork of figuring the thing out and then transmits the findings to everybody else. How come we have not yet figure out, that humanity is the most powerful computing system in the world? Yes, the scheme is really awesome, since from here on out we will no longer need to spend two hours thinking about the next chess movement. Rather, probably somebody has already figured out what is the best move in such game position, and all what we have to do is to look it up. Yet, I am sure you will still try to take credit for your brilliant choice and blow your own trumpet over how intelligent you are, will you not? 

* Inequality is turning the key to our success into the cause of our demise: since we are always so eager to blindly believe and helplessly fall for other people's insincere expressions of affection; the more inequality, the more dangerously vulnerable we become to our social better's toxic teaching and manipulation.

Now, we may want to be careful accepting someone else's lectures, since far more often than what we are aware of, the advice is not really meant in our best interest, but in the advisor's. For example, a financial expert may recommend to his vast following investing in a specific stock; but it only makes sense that he will only do so, after he, his closest associates and or very best clients have completed a beautiful purchase of said stock. Indeed, he will so be able to make a nice profit, once his lower-class acolytes follow suit and those shares increase their price as a result. This kind of scheme is obviously not a modern invention; but as old as knowledge teachings and advices. Would you not want to make a quick and easy profit, if you had anybody listening to you? There is nothing illegal about it! It is then straightforward to see, why our instinct is so naturally mistrustful of all those free advices everybody is always so eager to give. It turns out Evolution found a brilliant safeguard: we will only follow the guidance of those stronger, more knowledgeable or, all in all, more powerful individuals, who we feel care for us. In other words, we will only follow those wise advices truly meant in our best interest. Makes a lot of sense, does it not? There is a critical flaw in this natural safeguard, though: Whereas we will raise the bar to near unreasonable levels before we recognize another person as more knowledgeable, we are instead alarmingly naive to believe our advisor cares for us. Indeed, unless the other person is visibly more powerful (like, for example, if he exhibits a lot of money), there is no way we will ever genuinely believe he knows better than us. Of course, whether Homer Simpson talks about nuclear power plants or anything else, who is going to be foolish enough to buy anything a loser of that sort has to say? Yet, on the other hand, our advisor will typically only need to use some sweet words of praise and love, not to mention some food, for us to trust that he truly cares for us. Now, it would be mistaken to consider this as a flaw on Nature's part. Obviously, it is not Nature's problem if we fall for it. Indeed, those poor fools who follow the false son of the wrong god, will sooner or later simply dive off the cliff; whereas those who exhibit better judgement by following whoever most accurately explains how things work, are most likely to survive the competition and prevail. Clearly, the better one's understanding of how things work, the more one would be able to optimize one's interaction with the environment, and the more competitive one would be. In other words, every species is free to pursue its own survival strategy, and the role of Evolution is just to judge, whether it is good enough or not. If, after so many millenia, we, not only are still here, but have even become so successful and powerful, we can only conclude that, as of yesterday, the strategy could have hardly been better. Yet, the day that circumstances shift and the strategy stops working, we can be sure we will disappear. Consequently, - rather than stupidly hubrisly trying to best Evolution and to remake who we are, what we are or how we are - it is much smarter if we focus on ensuring, that the circumstances under which we have flourished so spectacularly, do not change to any significant degree.

* Humans have not become any more intelligent than in the past; but it is only that humankind's knowledge has grown to stupefying levels. While we know about far more things than our primitive ancestors, our understanding of the most fundamental stuff has degenerated perilously.    

Absolutely, humankind is a prodigious success story. It is stupefying how, little by little, we have been extending our knowledge on how to achieve any imaginable objective. We, however, should never take this to mean that primitive humans had no clue of how things work or that our reasoning and planning mechanism has improved significantly, let alone that we are now more intelligent than in the distant or recent past. Undoubtedly, primitive humans had an impressive understanding of how the things in their world worked. It is only that back then there were not that many things as today. Obviously, there were no smartphones, cars, electricity, television, freezers, etc. On the other hand, we, as a whole, have a wider knowledge of the many more things in today's world. However, it is doubtful to what extent each of us, individually, may be more knowledgeable than our primitive ancestors. We may know how to operate smartphones, freezers and the like; but primitive humans were far more proficient navigating through the natural landscape, than most of us are nowadays. For obvious reasons, folks in the past had a more profound knowledge of trees, animals, crops, etc.. Furthermore, there is a very good case to be made that, as much as our scientific knowledge has spectacularly improve our understanding of basically everything, to the extent to which the System's ideology's sway on our minds has got so pervasive, it would be fair to say, that our understanding of some of the most fundamental things in this world has become scaringly grotesque. For instance, today our fake-democratic ideology compels us all to think that men and women are the same thing.

* The richer and more accurate one's conceptual framework in the problem at hand, as well as the more exhaustive the search conducted, the better the ideas one will come up with. Consequently, as a matter of fact, our primitive ancestors' intellectual abilities and efforts deserve all the credit for the formidable knowledge currently at our disposal.  

Be it as it may, while humanity's collective encyclopedia or conscious knowledge of the world has certainly increased, it seems far more open to question that each of our individual conscious knowledge has been improved. This is one of many other indications, that our planning and reasoning mechanism has not become more powerful either. If a mechanism of the sort of the tree-search algorithm described above is in fact behind our planning and reasoning abilities; it really does not seem likely, it would be possible to explain any intellectual and cognitive differences we might observe between ancient and modern people, as well as between contemporary individuals, in terms of variations in such planning and reasoning mechanism. Indeed, the evident advance in our conceptual framework, as well as the amount of effort put in the search of an optimal plan of action, provide promising and very credible explanations for the differences in cognitive abilities, that can be found between people in the distant and recent past, and modern humans, as well as between contemporary modern individuals. Without a doubt, the richer and more accurate one's conceptual framework in the problem at hand, as well as the more exhaustive the search conducted, the better the end result will be. The earlier chess example comes in again handy: we can think that hominids have been analyzing the problem for billions of years. Little by little, in fits and starts, they figured out the chessboard and its 64 squares, as well as the existence of the 6 different types of pieces, each with its own rules of behavior. Eventually, they even came up with basic strategies such as some promising openings or how to attain check-mate from certain game configurations. In fact, our ancestors' analysis has been so thorough, that, by the time we enter the scene, one would wonder if there is still anything left for us to figure out. 

* In fact, since our ancestors already pretty much figured out everything for us, barely ever do we today think by ourselves anymore.

Indeed, pretty much all of our conscious knowledge comes from what other people have taught us, or from reading someone else's work. Given that there is already a known solution for almost any problem imaginable, there is for us barely ever any need to reason anything out, other than to make sense of someone else's explanation or, perhaps, how to apply some rhetorical trick to win an argument. Fact of the matter is nowadays we barely ever explore new better ways to solve a problem or achieve a goal. 

In 1949, English mathematician Alan Turing proposed the Game Imitation Test to assess a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to that of humans. In the test, a human evaluator examines a conversation between the machine and a human being. The machine passes the test, if the examiner is not able to distinguish in the conversation, who is the human and who is the machine. While Artificial Intelligence systems have undeniably achieved a stunning advancement, the Turing test would today still be able to tell the difference between the speech produced by the human and the speech generated by the machine. Worringly enough, however, what is new now is that - to the extent that nowadays we barely ever do anything other than repeating some opinion leader's arguments - the responses provided by the machine will generally be more logical, sensible and informative than those of the human. It can then only feel almost as pathetic as ridiculous, that we are today so convinced to be much more intelligent than those poor ancient dummies.