Are People Computers?, or, Do People All Think the Same Way?

Last week I wrote about the difference between arithmetic and geometric progressions, and the problem that some people have understanding how quickly things get out of control when they are expanding geometrically. Consider that article as an introduction which will get the average reader to the point where I can start discussing the point of this one.

&&&&

Dr. Epstein, from his website

I recently read an article by Robert Epstein titled The Empty Brain that pretty much changed how I think about other people. I'm going a bit out on a limb here, because I'm not an expert on this subject. But I think it's so important that I want to get people thinking along these lines. So consider the following as "speculation aimed at spurring people to look more deeply into the subject". 

Epstein starts off his short essay by suggesting that people have become far too reliant on describing the human brain as being analogous to a computer. To illustrate the difference, he says that computers come with a fully-formed operating system that tells the machine how it is supposed to interact with users. In contrast, young children have a very small number of built-in behaviours and they use those to interact with and develop the way they think based on their interactions with the environment. That's how children are able to learn different languages and customs depending on what part of the world they find themselves born into. In contrast, computers loaded with Windows or Linux all start off speaking the same language and following the same rules from the first time they get fired up.

In other words, when you buy a computer, you have to learn how to conform to the way it works. But when a baby gets born, it has to learn how to conform to the physical and social environment it finds itself in. The difference is enormous.

&&&&

He also talks about an experiment that he often performs with undergraduates. It involves asking a student to draw a picture of a dollar bill without being able to look at it. The result is generally a very basic, schematic drawing. Then he gives them a dollar and asks them to draw it again using it as a model. Here are the examples from his article:

From memory

From an example

The thing to understand about the above is that the reproduction is created in a totally different way from how a computer saves and reproduces something. Look at these two pairs of images. The one drawn from memory was recreated by using a symbolic "recipe". The student remembered the following:

1. there is a picture of George Washington in the middle
2. the phrase "One Dollar" is displayed
3. the number "1" is in each corner
4. the phrase "In God we trust" is also shown

The second example is "copied" from an example. But please notice that even this one isn't a photo-copy or a an exact rendering. Instead, it's still created by using a list of symbolic issues---but the difference is that the list of ideas is more accurate because the student isn't relying on her memory.

1. George Washington is now facing the right way
2. "One Dollar" is now under the picture instead of split by it
3. the "1's" in the corners are now surrounded by borders
   
4. "In God We Trust" is now removed, as that occurs on the back
   

 Now lets discuss how computers "remember" something.

Here's how a computer remembers a dollar bill.

 

Here's how a degraded computer memory remembers a dollar bill. (I used a "photo-copy" filter on GIMP to modify the image.)

Computers don't record visual info by creating a list of important concepts, instead they record a bunch of Cartesian co-ordinates on a grid and position pixels based on that grid reference. When memory degrades in a computer it can do it several different ways, but one of the ways can be by having "noise" destroy information uniformly across the entire image. In the case I've supplied above, the GIMP filter has changed the composition of pixels per square unit of area to mimic the degradation that occurs when you photocopy a copy of a copy. The result is a degraded image due a problem with the commands that the computer uses to render every part of the image.

As you can see, the memory of a human being is really, really, really different from a computer. This is hardly surprising, as the animal brain is made of organic tissue and it was created using natural selection. In contrast, computers are assembled out of electronics and are the result of conscious planning.

&&&&

If you enjoy reading these articles, and you can afford it, why not subscribe? You get to choose how much you pay, and Pay Pal and Patreon make it easy to do.

&&&&

From an evolutionary point of view, it's important to understand that human brains actually eat up an awful lot of our daily caloric intake. Believe it or not, the human brain burns about 20% of the food we eat. What that means is there is going to be constant evolutionary pressure on human beings to use their brains in the most economical way possible. And that means human beings will develop "work-arounds" that will help them make decisions with the least mental effort possible. 

Moreover, one of the advantages that humanity has in the evolutionary arms race is the ability to use that expensive-to-fuel brain. Our ancestors used it to manipulate information in ways that allowed them to recognize potential threats and opportunities faster than others. And one of the ways to speed up the process was to pare down the information that was analyzed. 

I suspect that these two factors are why we "remember" a dollar bill differently from a computer. The computer uses the energy to created a piece-by-piece rendering of the dollar bill. The human brain, on the other hand, just creates a list of the "bare bones" of what makes up a dollar bill---and nothing else. This saves the energy and time it uses whenever it needs to differentiate between a one and a fifty. That's why a bank teller can count money so fast without having to stop for a snack when counting out cash for you. If she had to analyze each individual dot and ridge on each individual banknote it would take a very, very long time for that teller to cash your cheque and she'd probably have to eat like a professional athlete!   

&&&&

Epstein goes on in his essay to suggest that if it is the case that the human brain isn't a digital processor, the way it does work is by changing itself based upon the positive and negative feedback it's received during a person's life. That means if someone has been rewarded in life for following the math instead of their "gut instinct", they will tend to be able to understand the difference between arithmetic progressions and geometric ones. Similarly, if the opposite has been true, a person will simply ignore the nonsense that the "pointy-head types" spew and go with what his instincts say has to be true.

Much the same thing can be said about people who make the major decisions in their lives based on their emotions. If they get positive reinforcement for being hyper-emotional, they get more and more prone to excessive displays. If, on the other hand, they get rewarded for being stoic and showing a "stiff upper lip" people will become more and more calm under pressure.

On reflection, the above might seem to be a trivial insight. But Dr. Epstein believes that it leads to serious consequences. If people aren't computers that operate according to a standardized operating code, and instead are adapted to the specific conditions of their lives, then every person's brain will operate differently. That implication may well be that no matter how much his scientific advisors try to explain the nature of the pandemic to our Premier, he simply cannot understand what they are talking about. That could well explain why he is having such a tremendously hard time coming up with a coherent plan for the province.    

&&&&

My significant other recently turned me onto a YouTube creator by the name of Johnny Harris who does medium-length, very high quality videos explaining a variety of topics. I recently saw one that dealt with people who believe that the earth is flat. I was surprised by the issues he pointed out---mainly that it is a relatively recent phenomenon that has only existed for about 100 years, and, that it appears to exist primarily as an emotional rejection of what I would call "big science".  For those of you who have the time, here's the entire video.

If for one reason or another you don't want to go through the entire episode, here's the "key take-away".

 

And, if you just won't watch YouTube, here's the issue in a "nutshell". There are people in the population who find it extremely difficult to accept the consensus of the scientific community based on trust. Unless they can be shown simple, tangible, and, easily-understood evidence for a particular assertion, they tend to dismiss what they are told as being a conspiracy by a scary "cabal" of strangers.

As Harris points out, people who feel this way are in a decided minority. Moreover, they will probably have zero impact on science as a cultural and economic phenomenon. But unfortunately, they are visible and there are times---like during a pandemic---when the actions of the few can have an over-sized influence on the many. If enough of them reject vaccination and public health orders, they can create a lot of damage for everyone else. 

&&&&

My key takeaway is to remember that people are different from one another. Not just in terms of their background, class, religion, etc; but in a deeply profound way that colours the way they react to the world around them. In my own case I've learned that I have a really, really hard time acting instinctively. I "over-think" just about everything I do, which---among other things---made me a terribly driver. I could never forget that when I was behind the wheel of a car that I was just a brief second's distraction away from killing or maiming either myself or someone else. 

I've had to learn from other people that this is a very, very strange point of view. For most folks, driving is done pretty much unconsciously and without any appreciation of how inherently dangerous an activity it really is. (It's probably the most dangerous thing that most Canadians do.) In contrast, getting vaccinated by the Oxford-AstraZenaca Covid-19 is remarkably safe (if it wasn't, we'd have seen lots of problems in Britain already). And yet, hordes of people who are afraid of the shot think nothing of hopping into their car to get some aspirin at the pharmacy.

I suspect part of the reason why I don't have a problem trusting the scientific establishment is because I spent so much time at University both as a student and an employee, and know a lot of scientists, researchers, and, professors. They aren't mysterious to me. I know that they are bye-and-large extremely idealistic people who didn't get into their positions because they wanted money or power. Instead, the vast majority are motivated by genuine curiosity. Incidentally, the ones I got to know well were generally very decent people who wanted the best for everyone else in society. Knowing that, it seems absolutely absurd to think of them as being people who would support any type of conspiracy. But after researching this article, I now suspect that given a different life-history I might have become a "happy-motoring" person afraid of "big science" too. When I remember this, it helps me be a little more tolerant of the people in my circle who have gone at least some distance down Alice's rabbit hole. 

&&&&

Having said the above, society still has a right to defend itself. And there are "loons" out there who are fully capable of spreading disease left, right, and, centre in furtherance of their screw-ball beliefs. I don't hate lions or bears---but I sure as heck don't want to get mauled by one. It might be that there are people you simply cannot reason with and in those cases all you can do is fine them into compliance or if that doesn't work either, lock them up in jail. Over the long haul, this probably won't be necessary. We just need to create and follow rules that say you cannot work at a variety of jobs, go to school, or, travel out of country without proof of vaccination. This is nothing new, as regulations like this for other diseases have existed as long as I've been alive. There may be some squawking, but I suspect that the overwhelming majority of Canadians will gladly comply with this sort of regime.

&&&&

Moreover I say unto you, the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!