Our Amazin’ Bayesian Brains [B]

This Post is the second in a series that began with Crazy Eyes / Beautiful Minds. You don’t have to read that one first, but it’s recommended…

We are constantly being exposed to outside ‘noise’, inputs to our various senses. Stop what you are doing and without moving your head, notice what else you can see in your field of vision. Next, close your eyes and listen to all the ambient noise around you. Now get in touch with your body, anything that might be touching you, any tastes in your mouth, any itches, smells.

…and that’s just the external noise. Now forget all the external stimuli. Close your eyes and focus on the internal ‘noise’, all the thoughts that are ricocheting around inside your head. It can be quite a lot, especially at times when you’re experiencing ‘monkey brain‘…

Ignoring is Bliss

…and yet, our wonderful brains filter most of those distractions, enabling us to concentrate on reading this sentence and comprehending it. At this point in our lives, if our brains were trying to process every single stimuli we were exposed to throughout the day, we’d be overwhelmed. We’d have to rely on sensory-deprivation tanks to try to maintain our sanity.

When we are new to the world and the world is new to us. While we experience sight, sound, and touch (maybe the most important one) inside the womb, it’s a whole new world when emerge on our initial birthday. And we don’t have any internal noise to distract us from the wonders of the world. Even if our minds were developed enough to ‘think’, our brains are too busy tuning in to everything around us and processing it all. As we learn to use our vision, we begin to relate what we see to what we perceive through our other senses.

As we grow, repeated experiences begin to grow familiar. We start to recognize patterns. This is when we first begin to ‘chunk‘, something we will do for the rest of our lives. Our minds learn to ‘ignore’ things that they’re used to and search for what is different. Our senses slowly become passive. At a young age we reach a stage where we have to consciously choose to taste and touch.

“Caveman Days”

Most of our natural instincts can be traced to evolution/natural selection over the 6 million years humans were on earth prior to last 5,000 years of human civilization. Which is why we often instinctively react as our pre-historic ancestors would have.

We are constantly using our eyes and feeling with our touch, even if it is just the air around us. Our other three senses are relatively passive. But they have evolved to activate automatically and demand the brain’s attention when they detect something out of the ordinary, whether it’s an odd smell, a new sound, or something crossing our field of vision. Our mind quickly processes the new information, decides if it requires further investigation or can be ‘set aside’.

For instance, my neighbor just started mowing her lawn a few minutes ago. At the time I was ‘alerted’ by my brain, processed the sound, and dismissed the alert, all within a fraction of a second, allowing to return to my ‘inner world’ where I’m typing these words, hearing but not listening.

Certain stimuli bypass the whole processing process. If I had heard my neighbor screaming in certain tones, the sound would have gone directly to my amygdala, the fear processing center, and I would have reacted immediately. Researchers believe this is why screaming is usually a ‘reflex action’ something we do instinctively in certain situations. almost a way for our brain to directly communicate with another brain.

The Brain-Body Handshake

[Note: This section summarizes part of Scott Alexander’s Post: It’s Bayes All the Way.] How does our brain decide what to investigate and what to ignore? This is where Bayes comes in. As noted in my post on vision, Bayes Theorem is a mathematical framework for integrating new evidence with prior beliefs. 

If I heard a lion’s roar coming from my neighbor’s yard, I would realize the chances of it being a real lion are exceedingly small. I’d guess it was some other noise that sounded like a lion or someone with a toy that makes lion roaring noises. I might decide to check it out of curiosity, but only at my leisure.

On the other hand, if I heard my neighbor scream after the lion’s roar, or if I were writing this outside at a desk in the middle of the Serengeti, my calculations would be entirely different.

When we encounter something new, our senses gather information on it and send it to the brain. This is Bottom-up processing (which is all we do as newborns). The mind takes this information and tries to fit it into our existing paradigms of the world. This is Top-down processing. Then, according to Corlett, Frith, and Fletcher, a ‘handshake’ takes place between the models existing in our brain and the sensory perceptions our body delivers.

Top-down processing is the Bayesian aspect, fitting what we perceive into the most-likely possibilities based on our knowledge of how the world works. This Bayesian process is closely related to Ockham’s razor, the principle that ‘if several explanations can explain a set of facts, the simplest one is most likely the right one’.

DISCONNECTS

Strange things happen when the handshake does not take place smoothly. This is the basis for most optical illusions.

If you look at either of the two pictures on the left is new to you, you may only see one thing when there are two. The first picture can be either a rabbit or a duck. The second can be either a young lady or an elderly woman. Sometimes if you have made up your mind that the picture is one of the two options it can be hard to see the other one. Once you’ve recognized both options, your brain can jump back and forth quickly.

The third picture may just look like modern art instead of an animal. But once you recognize it, it’s hard not to see it.

Other illusions are more mentally confusing. Many of M. C. Escher’s pictures appear to fly in the face of logic, such as these two showing gravity defying worlds…

or this spinning mask that appears to change direction and appear to ‘pop-out’ at the same time (unless you are a Schizophrenic, drunk, or high)

…our Top-Down processing is so strong that for most of us the brain can’t process the concept of a nose that ‘sticks-in’ instead of ‘sticking-out’, so it just sees what it wants to, reversing the direction of the rotation at a certain point. [If you enjoy this kind of thing, you might want to check out the ‘Paper Dragon Illusion‘]

Why does this matter?

All this matters because it is important to make sure that ‘our handshake’ is working properly to function at our best. Maintaining a proper balance is crucial to our well-being and our long-term mental health.

Balance: Yin and Yang

Besides Schizophrenia, other major issues are associated with the ‘bottom-up’ side being too strong from a general difficulty coping with every day issues to Asperger’s and Autism (though there is a different optical illusion test for that).

The predominant danger for most of us is the ‘top-down’ side dominating. When this happens, we will be more susceptible to ‘confirmation bias‘. We will try too hard to fit incoming data into our existing view of the world instead of giving the new information the fuller evaluation it may deserve.

Challenging our own confirmation bias is an area where we need to be vigilant, but there are more serious issues when our Bayesian process gets out of balance. We are more likely to become victims of Black Swan events with potential serious consequences (9/11) and more likely to engage in destructive group-think.

But the most common problem with becoming too top-down is that we begin to shut ourselves off from the world. When every potentially new thing we are exposed to in our daily lives is categorized and fit into a staid and rigid world view, we’ve become the opposite of the vibrant beings that came into this world, and that’s a sad thing.

“The brain is like a muscle. When it is in use, we feel very good. Understanding is joyous.” Carl Sagan

Our Amazing Bayesian Brains are a treasure to be cherished and nurtured. When neglected, they begin to atrophy just like a muscle in the body, increasing the likelihood of lapsing into Alzheimer’s. But when we feed them and use them, we create new neural pathways that help us stay vibrant and truly alive.

Crazy Eyes / Beautiful Minds [A]

September 4th, 2020

Imagine that you’ve been completely blind (not to be confused with ‘legally blind‘) for as long as you’ve existed. One day you receive the world’s first eye transplant and you are assured it was completely successful. The doctors don’t want to overwhelm you, so they place a simple still image in front of you and then remove the bandages. This is what you might expect to see: 1

Unlike in the movies, you won’t see the world perfectly (and as you do there’s a good chance you won’t recognize what you’re seeing).

Like a camera, the lens of the eye refracts to the retina, turning everything upside down. Within the first week or two of our lives, or in this case seeing for the fist time, our brains figure things out and turn things right-side up.

This process can be reversed. Experiments have been done with special goggles that turn everything ‘upside down’. Within 10 days the brain compensates and makes everything look ‘normal’ (presumably it takes another 10 days to rewire the brain once the goggles are removed). In the meantime, you might miss noticing a famous person

Hocus Focus

Also during this time we learn to focus our eyes, but that takes a little longer, around eight weeks. After a month the same picture might appear something like this:

Blindspotting

By now you’ll have noticed the two black circles on the first two pictures.

Images coming into your eyes are refracted onto the retina. The retina has to communicate to the brain. This is done through the optic nerve. Unfortunately, the part of the retina where the optic nerve is ‘plugged in’ is useless for ‘seeing’ resulting in blind spots in both eyes about 15 degrees away from the center.

The blind spots take up a significant portion of the field of vision (you can test your blind spot here). Fortunately most of us have a second eye to cover for the blind spot in the first eye (and back-up cameras when we can’t use the other eye).

The Third Dimension

Gratuitous Boomer 60’s reference in lieu of 3-D picture

Finally, for the first few months everything will appear two-dimensional to us, becuase our individual eyes only see in two dimensions. Fortunately, we have the second eye to help us out there as well. The brain uses a few different methods to help us gauge distance and put things in perspective.

More on how our brains see in 3-D from this website where this picture comes from

Being blind in one eye makes life difficult, especially for athletes (and Cyclopes). I know of only one pro athlete who overcame this hurdle.

Scanners (don’t) Live in Vain

Our area of focus at any particular microsecond is very small relative to our field of view, like looking through a cardboard tube. When we are actively using our eyes, usually when looking at something unfamiliar, we scan all these areas rapidly and stitch them together into a complete picture in our mind2. Humans can process 10-12 images per second.

Look at this picture for a few moments:

Notice your eyes moving about the picture trying to take in all the action. You can’t take in the whole picture without moving your eyes…and this is a very small portion of your field of vision.

Now, without moving your head, notice what else is around you, below, above, and to either side of the computer screen. While you were studying the picture you were most likely ‘blind’ to those areas…you weren’t scanning them.

But you had a ‘back-up image’ stored in your mind so that if someone had come up behind you and put their hands over your eyes, you could have described pretty well the area around your screen looked like.

…and you weren’t completely blind. Some part of your vision was keeping tabs on those areas so that if any unexpected movement had occurred within your field of vision you’d be alerted immediately and focused on that.

I am a (movie) Camera…

Movies create the illusion of movement by showing us 24 still pictures (Frames) every second. As stated above, Humans can only process around 12 images a second. When we are presented with a greater number, the brain interprets it as movement. This is true of live action, cartoons, claymation, or any other type of film. You can create your own ‘Flipbook movie’ with a small pad of paper and a little patience.

This limit on frame rate, both on film and in real life, is the cause of the ‘Wagon-wheel effect’. A more complete discussion of frame rates is available here.

https://gfycat.com/tangibleindeliblecanine
Demonstration of the ‘Wheel Wagon’ effect (it just looks like a car commercial)

The Eyes Don’t Have It?

There are most likely other examples of ‘defects’ in our vision. But hopefully I’ve presented enough here to convince you that “Seeing is not believing” if you didn’t feel that way already.

It’s just been in the last decade that we’ve begun to realize that in most cases Humans are terrible eyewitnesses (which has had some terrible consequences for some innocent people over the years – but that’s a topic for a different type of blog).

If you’d like more evidence, there are hundreds of other optical illusions out there, like the Wagon-wheel effect, that take advantage of the disconnect between what your eyes actually see and how your mind thinks it sees that may help convince you.

“These are not the black dots you are looking for” (because they aren’t actually there)

Our Lyin’ Eyes / Our Amazin’ Bayesian Brain

Hopefully I’ve disillusioned you from the natural inclination to feel like our eyes are these flawless windows providing perfect input to our brains on everything within our field of vision instantly.

But why do we feel this way? Because of our remarkable minds.

Bayes Theorem

[This brief explanation is cribbed from my second favorite blog, SlateStarCodex – much more on Bayes in another post]

“Bayes Theorem is a mathematical framework for integrating new evidence with prior beliefs”. In other words, you have many preconceived notions of what you expect to see when your ‘field of vision’ suddenly changes (such as going through a door to a new room) or waking up and opening your eyes.

Here’s a quick example…

TAE CHT

…even though the middle letters of both words are exactly the same, you not only read this as “THE CAT” but most likely you didn’t even give much thought to the middle letters until it was pointed out to you. That’s because reading the middle ‘letters’ exactly how they are printed results in nonsense, so your mind seamlessly ‘corrects’ the gibberish letters, first into an H and then an A.

While newborns don’t really have any of these preconceptions because everything is new to them, that’s not the case for the person who started this whole post out.

If you’ve just gained use of your eyes after being totally blind your whole life, your frame of reference will be based on all your experiences up to then. Your mind will start working immediately to reconcile what you’re ‘seeing’ with what it expects. The images will be flipped ‘right-side-up’, the blurriness will go away, the blind spots will be filled in, things will clear up and your mind will paint an apparently perfect beautiful picture…

…and just like the rest of us, you will believe you have ‘perfect vision’.

Thanks for reading! I plan to update this post every so often. Constructive comments are most welcome, especially pointing out spelling/grammatical errors, readability issues, broken/missing links, etc.

The Trolley Folly (or My Problem with “The Trolley Problem”)

August 19, 2020

Angel’s Flight Trolley (recently featured in the reboot of ‘Perry Mason‘)

or “Why There Ain’t No Such Thing as Utilitarianism”

The “Trolley Problem” is a basic thought experiment in Ethics/Philosophy. There are different variations. This is one version:

“You’re riding in a self-driving trolley. You look up to see that you are barreling toward five people on the tracks. You try the emergency brakes but the don’t work. You notice a remote-activated switch that will divert the trolley to another track where one person will be killed instantly, but save the other five.

Doing nothing will result in five deaths, activating the switch will result in one. What do you do?”

GESTAPO AT THE DOOR

Another classic thought experiment goes like this:

“You’ve lived your life believing that lying is a sin that should be avoided at all costs. You are aware of a couple in your neighborhood who are in danger from the current government. You are sympathetic to their beliefs and mistrustful of those in power.

One day the couple knocks frantically on your door. They tell you they are being pursued by the authorities, who want to torture and maybe kill them. You agree to hide them.

“Soon the State Police knock on the door. They show you a picture of the couple and ask if you know where they are. Realizing the consequences, you go against your nature and lie. The authorities believe you, thank you and leave.

Lots of Gestapo!

“You were right to lie in this case, of course…

or so you think.

“A few days later you read in the paper that a terrorist group has unleashed a biological weapon that has killed many thousands of innocent people. The picture of the ringleaders of the group who manufactured and detonated the weapons are of the couple you sheltered.”

The standard version of this thought experiment typically has the couple being Jewish in Hitler’s Germany and the authorities as Nazis. It is usually brought up as an example of when lying is morally correct and/or of the ends justifying the means.

You Kant Make This Stuff Up?

The problem is that this version assumes an omniscience that in my opinion invalidates the thought experiment.

Most people will argue that they’ll know when the bad guys are really bad guys. That’s what the person in both of the above example thought too. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume you do know that for sure. That still leaves open other possibilities…

…the couple, knowing your devotion to honesty, decide to run out the back door, expecting to escape while the Nazis were searching your house. Unfortunately because you didn’t delay them, the Nazis caught the Jews (and probably took you in as well)

…or this couple were really undercover Nazi spies trying to see who could be trusted in the neighborhood and who should be thrown into a concentration camp. You and your family are bundled away.

…or – I’m sure you can think up your own variant.

Emmanuel Kant

This concept for this thought experiment originated with the philosopher Emmanuel Kant. There is a more thorough and erudite discussion of the issues it raises here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2010.01507.x

“Hi Trolley, Neighborhood of ‘Make Believe’”

Mr. Rogers and Mr. Trolley

Returning to the Trolley Problem, the Utilitarian solution is to pull the lever and kill one person instead of five.

…unfortunately, it turns out that you’re going so fast that when the trolley hits the turn to divert it, it jumps the tracks and barrels into a crowded marketplace killing scores of people

…or that everything goes as planned but the 5 people you saved were all convicted pedophile serial-killers working on a chain gang, while the single person was a scientist who had just secretly perfected a vaccine for the latest viral outbreak and figured out a simple solution for Global Warming and was rushing to present his ideas to his colleagues

…or the five people were there intentionally as part of a cult that wanted to commit suicide to get to a better world (where they don’t have useless thought experiments).

I saw one argument that if no one in the group of 5 people was cognizant enough to realize they were about to be killed, then they deserved their fate over the innocent person on the side track who thought they were safe.

We’re not in Kansas anymore (we’re next door in Missouri)

CLANG! CLANG! CLANG!

The problem with these thought experiments is that they assume ‘perfect knowledge’. You may think the authorities are the equivalent of evil Nazis searching for innocent people to persecute, but you cannot ‘know’ that.

Does this mean I would tell the truth in real life in a similar situation? Probably not. But the situation would be much more complicated (how well do I really know these people, am I putting my family in mortal danger, etc.) and I wouldn’t have months or even hours to think about it. That’s not really the point.

All this brings me to Utilitarianism. There are many versions of Utilitarianism, but for purposes of argument I’m going with the one that says that “The greatest good for the greatest number should be the guiding concept”. The opposite is Deontology, which states that an action is right or wrong based on moral rules, regardless of the consequences.

Jeremy Bentham, ‘Founder’ of Utilitarianism

UTILI-TOTALITARIANISM

Utilitarianism has three major problems which invalidate it as a real philosophy, all related to our lack of perfect knowledge.

The first is that the goal is impossible to define. What is this ‘greatest good’? Most often it is assumed to be happiness. But everyone has different ideas of what happiness is, and most of us really don’t know what will make us happy (as is so well pointed out in the books Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert and The Happiness Hypothesis by Johnathan Haidt).  

The second major problem with Utilitarianism is not just that we don’t have perfect knowledge, we aren’t even close to having it and probably never will (Is God even sure that he or she is really the highest power?). Compounding that problem is that we think we are much better at predicting the future that we actually are. This year alone we have experienced the Covid-19 virus that unexpectedly dominated the news completely for several months. Then at the end of May, George Floyd was murdered triggering civil unrest and many other repercussions that are still being resolved. As I write this we still have over 4 months left in the year including a major election.

The final problem is defining ‘The Greatest Number’. Does every living person qualify? What about those in a vegetative state? What about those in hospice with terminal illness? What about animals? Most importantly, what about the future generations that haven’t been conceived yet?

Imagine a society where every single person has a happiness level of 70. One day the supreme being comes and tells the people that they can increase their happiness level to 72, but if they are willing to reduce their happiness level to 60, then all future generations will have a happiness level of at least 80.

I don’t believe there is a real definition for Utilitarianism. Therefore, in my opinion, it doesn’t exist.

But even if one accepts an amorphis amorphous ‘definition’, the basic philosophy rests on the idea that the means justify the ends, an ideology not just used to support and rationalize virtually every atrocity/genocide committed in human history, but one that often leads to tragic consequences in our every day lives.

On a pure level, I don’t believe the ends ever justify the means, but that’s a topic for a later post. In the meantime…
…Every day in every situation act as ethically as you are capable of and you’ll be a better and happier person.

Thanks for reading! I plan to update this post every so often. Constructive comments are most welcome, especially pointing out spelling/grammatical errors, readability issues, broken/missing links, etc.