If You Think You Know, Understand, or "Get It", You Probably Don't

If you think you have a solution to the problem of consciousness, you haven't understood the problem. _Susan Blackmore, Consciousness (An Introduction)

The human mind hates to be wrong. But it hates uncertainty even more. The end result of any particular struggle between the "fear of being wrong" and the "fear of not knowing" cannot be predicted -- but in the long run people tend to "take sides" in the face of uncertainty.

Inside the brain of every human, sits a little person who is watching the ongoing theatre of his life. Well, that's one way of looking at it anyway. It makes sense in a simple-minded way, as long as you understand the theatre analogy. Otherwise you might find a similarly simple-minded analogy to help you "understand."

One problem with "being on the inside looking out", is that you will certainly see yourself out there -- even though you may not realise that is what you are seeing. When faced with gaps or ambiguities, the mind has a way of painting them over or filling them in. The world makes sense to us because we prefer it that way -- not because we actually understand what is happening.

When one says "a picture paints a thousand words," he is not strictly accurate. Pictures express thoughts which words cannot possibly express. Music, movement, and touch can also easily outrun the capacity of verbal language.

But reality is incomprehensible in any form of expression or human comprehension. We really do not understand the present and cannot predict the future in any meaningful way -- and that bugs the crap out of us. So we make things up. We pretend we understand what is happening, and that we know what will happen in the future. It makes us feel better to do that.

We have found ways to deal with uncertainty in certain parts of our lives. We may have faith that a power greater than ourselves is watching out for us, is balancing the bad with the good, making everything turn out right in the end. Or we may think that everything is going to hell, and that nothing and no one can help. Either way, we are compensating for our lack of knowledge and understanding -- attempting to replace uncertainty with certainty.

A Panglossian utopian is utilising the same compensatory mechanisms as a catastrophist doomer, when imagining the future. Whether a religionist or an atheist, the same mental processes are constantly at work conjuring up an acceptable future -- even if it is a future of doom.

Part of the reason that people who believe themselves terminally ill sometimes commit suicide, is to remove the uncertainty of when they are going to die. Similarly, doomers and apocalyptics of the dieoff.orgy persuasion often pursue policies which will bring about the very doom they claim to be warning against.

Peak oil doomers, for example, often lobby against the mining of coal, oil & gas drilling, nuclear energy, oil sands, and other alternative fuels and energies -- seemingly unaware that their political activism is making their peak oil predictions into self-fulfilling prophecies. In such a case, they are taking a strong predictive stand, then taking subsequent actions to help assure the accuracy of their prediction. Sadly, everyone will suffer if they are right, but it is very important to them, so they persist.

Humans are irrational, and they will have their religion -- regardless of their denials of faith.

As for you, dear reader, look to the essential core. Emphasise competence for yourself and those around you. Expect things to go wrong from time to time and be prepared. Expect the unexpected. Embrace uncertainty, and turn it to serendipity. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

And although it is almost certainly futile in the long run, never stop trying to understand. ;-)

What the Hell Is Going On With the Sun?

WattsUpWithThat?!?
About 2 years ago in comments at WUWT, Al Fin remarked to solar scientist Leif Svalgaard that it appeared that solar scientists did not know what the hell was going on with the sun. Leif took exception to the remark at the time. But subsequent events suggest that solar scientists do not indeed know what the hell the sun is up to. The GIF animation below from WUWT illustrates the changes in predictions over the last 3 years.

This will be at the level of the Maunder Minimum of 1675 -1715.
Previous NASA predictions below:
2010 October: Predicted peak 60-70
2009 May 29: predicted peak: 80-90 range
2009 Jan 5: predicted peak: 100-110 range
2008 Mar 28: predicted peak: 130-140 range

From the NASA page:

Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 59 in June/July of 2013. We are currently two years into Cycle 24 and the predicted size continues to fall. _WUWT

Want to see something really scary? Check out Solar Cycle 24 PDF download from David Archibald

More 21Jan11: Here is information on a related topic -- the influence of cosmic rays on climate. Apparently cosmic rays may play a much larger role in climate swings than the IPCC is willing to admit. Which means that the sun would play a much larger role as well.

On Not Knowing What the Frack You are Talking About

Those of us who wish to break through to the next level of human existence, are going to have to learn to love uncertainty (via Bishop Hill). The science correspondent of The Guardian looks at some answers to the latest Edge question:

Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of Aix-Marseille, emphasised the uselessness of certainty. He said that the idea of something being "scientifically proven" was practically an oxymoron and that the very foundation of science is to keep the door open to doubt.

"A good scientist is never 'certain'. Lack of certainty is precisely what makes conclusions more reliable than the conclusions of those who are certain: because the good scientist will be ready to shift to a different point of view if better elements of evidence, or novel arguments emerge. Therefore certainty is not only something of no use, but is in fact damaging, if we value reliability."

...Neil Gershenfeld, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Centre for Bits and Atoms wants everyone to know that "truth" is just a model. "The most common misunderstanding about science is that scientists seek and find truth. They don't – they make and test models," he said.

"Building models is very different from proclaiming truths. It's a never-ending process of discovery and refinement, not a war to win or destination to reach. Uncertainty is intrinsic to the process of finding out what you don't know, not a weakness to avoid. Bugs are features – violations of expectations are opportunities to refine them. And decisions are made by evaluating what works better, not by invoking received wisdom." _Guardian_via_BishopHill

The mind naturally hates uncertainty. If we do not know what is to happen, we cannot plan for it, and are at the mercy of "the fates."

The basic idea is simple. It is that to perceive the world is to successfully predict our own sensory states. The brain uses stored knowledge about the structure of the world and the probabilities of one state or event following another to generate a prediction of what the current state is likely to be, given the previous one and this body of knowledge. Mismatches between the prediction and the received signal generate error signals that nuance the prediction or (in more extreme cases) drive learning and plasticity. _AndyClark

Of course it is one thing to embrace uncertainty and accept humility. It is quite another to pretend to embrace uncertainty, then to tell everyone to shut the fuck up because you understand what is going on better than anyone else does. That is what several of the commenters at the Edge site appeared to be doing.
True science does not attempt to limit what models can be tested by which experiment. True science does not limit the nature of models which can be entertained and played with. True science does not play down the massive uncertainty within its boundaries so as to influence public policy on a massive scale -- for its own financial benefit and increase in prestige.

This is what we are dealing with in modern climate science -- and in a wide range of other sciences which have attracted the attention of politically ambitious scientists, politicians, and bureaucratic administrators. The quest to build better models -- falsifiable models which can be ruthlessly tested by experiment -- is being hampered and biased by political and ideological concerns. Even at more "enlightened" websites such as Edge.org you can see the underlying corrupting influence of politics.

That is why science is escaping the bounds that "scientists", science bureaucrats, science journalists, science publishers, politicians, political lobbyists on scientific issues, and other supposed gatekeepers of science are trying to maintain. The tools of experimentation are escaping into the public domain, with all the attendant risks and opportunities which that entails.

Scientists are also politicians, at least within their own little realm. Some of them actually sell themselves to "the dark side" and attempt to practise politics on a grander scale. If a scientist lacks humility in his public pronouncements and policy recommendations, he is not practising true science, but is practising politics.

Until we can quantify the uncertainty in our statements and our predictions, we have little idea of their power or significance. So too in the public sphere. Public policy performed in the absence of understanding quantitative uncertainties, or even understanding the difficulty of obtaining reliable estimates of uncertainties usually means bad public policy. _LawrenceKrauss

All models are metaphors and all metaphors are man-made. The greatest danger in financial modeling and the modeling of all human activities is therefore the age-old sin of idolatry. Financial markets are alive but a metaphor is a limited human work of art, entrancing perhaps, but inanimate. To confuse the model with the world is to embrace a potential future disaster. All metaphors have their limits. _EmanuelDerman PDF

Emanuel Derman Map of Emotions PDF
Humans are not programmed for rationality, except insofar as finding the next meal, or a relatively warm, dry, and safe place to sleep are measures of rationality. The lofty world of grand scientific ideals and integrities is more of a convenient fiction to justify academic and research budgets. The reality is more one of roiling emotions and jostling egos of unbridled ambition and jealousy.

Politicians of all stripes want to project an image of invincibility and absolute certainty. Journalists, speechwriters, and public relations hacks assist them toward that end. Scientists -- by keeping their mouths shut about how little they themselves know -- also assist the politicians (at all levels) toward their petty, venal ends.

One of the happy exceptions among scientists is Freeman Dyson.

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models. _Dyson

But if your paycheck depends upon wrangling a grant from a government that is down to writing IOUs, you want to project a degree of certainty and a crucial pivotal nature within your research, which you cannot actually know or prove. You probably don't even believe it yourself, deep down, but bills must be paid, kids must be raised, appearances must be kept up....

The enormous academic, political, and journalistic house of cards which exists to bamboozle the public into believing that the ruling and credentialed class knows what it is doing, cannot last forever. It is already crumbling about the edges and showing deepening cracks in its infrastructure.

What should you do about it? Learn to embrace skepticism toward the proclamations of would-be authority, and adopt a robust system of planning in your personal life. Things do not typically turn out the way we expect. Learn to deal with a healthy measure of uncertainty and unpredictability.

And keep your powder dry, you just may need to use it.

Climate Models Flying Blind, Deaf, Dumb

Wired
Top leaders of the US and the EU are prepared to send their respective economies into a fatal tailspin on the basis of climate pseudo-science. Obama and his fellow cargo-cultists across the pond are willing to destroy the futures of their nations on the claims and declarations of climate modelers whose models omit the most salient movers of climate.

Clouds and water vapour, for example, may be the most crucial determinants of how the climate adapts to genuine climate forcings -- yet climate modelers haven't a clue how to deal with these crucial factors.

Another important factor -- black carbon soot -- is likely the primary determinant of melting of the Arctic ice and high latitude northern glaciers besides winds and currents, yet climate models have not been savvy about modeling this crucial driver of melting.

Just as crucial in the overall scheme of climate is the changing sun, and how the oceans react to changing solar activity. Models haven't a clue what to do with it.

Certainly recent winters are much colder with more snowfall than modelers have been predicting. And what's more, a recent paper claims that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature changes.

Finally, there is dust. Climate models seem to miss larger dust particles called "silts" altogether. How can they expect to get anything right when they keep missing the most important drivers of climate, and emphasise things like CO2 which may actually be confounders, or "pseudo-drivers?"

Kok’s theory suggests that dust storms produce two to eight times more silt-sized particles than climatologists previously thought. Neglecting the boost in particles suggests that climate models, and even short-term weather models for dusty regions, are somewhat off. Until climate scientists better understand how dust changes over time, however, Kok said it’s tough to gauge the effects. _Wired

Dust, soot, clouds, ocean cycles, cyclic solar activity, water vapour, and more. Climate models even do a poor job with aerosols, as recent analyses are discovering. If climate models over-emphasise CO2 and under-emphasise the real drivers of climate, what are they good for -- other than providing a basis for huge bureaucracies, carbon taxes, cap and trade, and the strangulation of energy supplies and industry for the US and the EU?

Remember, if energy supplies are choked off, the underlying economy gets strangled. Startups and new technologies go elsewhere. Job prospects shrivel and die. Ever more people are unable to make mortgage payments or get away from dependency on government.

That seems to be what Obama and leaders of the EU want for their constituencies. But what do the people want? More debilitating cargo-cult pseudoscience from their witch-doctors in chief, or a fair chance to succeed in the world?

Babies Born Ready for Introspection and Daydreaming?

Resting state networks are connected systems of neurons in the brain that are constantly active, even when a person is not focusing on a particular task, or during sleep. The researchers found that these networks were at an adult-equivalent level by the time the babies reached the normal time of birth.

One particular resting state network identified in the babies, called the default mode network, has been thought to be involved in introspection and daydreaming. MRI scans have shown that the default mode network is highly active if a person is not carrying out a defined task, but is much less active while consciously performing tasks. _SD

The resting state default mode network (DMN) appears as a particular mode of brain activity in the resting brain, primarily made in the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) and the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), but also in the ventral anterior cingulate cortex (vACC), and lateral parietal cortex. The characteristic synchronised activity between these regions in the awake resting state, in light sleep, and even during anesthesia in monkeys. This network is supposed to represent mental activity in casual monitoring of the self and the environment and in daydreaming.

The discovery that such a network appears to be functional by the 40th week of gestation in newborns -- but not much before the 40th week -- suggests that the DMN may be important in the learning deluge which is triggered by the fact of the child's birth. Its development and activation appears to be timed to coincide with the normal time of delivery.

In other brain news:

EEG sleep spindles in stage II sleep may represent the transfer of memories from sub-cortical centers such as the hippocampus to cortical centers.

Transfer of motor skills to the frontal cortex from the basal ganglia appears to be crucial for these skills to become automatic

University of Utah researchers have made some important discoveries about how brain attentional networks are mapped in the intraparietal sulcus according to the specific type of stimulus being attended to.

University of the Netherlands researchers have discovered that besides being a great motivator, experiencing anger can bring pleasure.

Two studies looking at the brain's mitochondrial energy supply suggest that it is possible to determine a brain's metabolic age independent of chronological age, and to identify potential energy crises which may lead to Parkinson's Disease -- long before actual disease occurs, by understanding the brains energy and metabolic networks.

A thorough understanding of the brain requires intense study on many different levels, and via several different disciplines. Few individual researchers are capable of achieving such study at any significant depth or breadth. Fortunately we have computers to help us correlate findings across the wide array of the cognitive sciences, including neuroscience.

How Do Your Sparks Spray? How Do Your Dominos Fall?

PO

A human brain works very much like a chain of small explosions -- tiny sprays of spark strung together in chains of rising and falling energy potentials. Like falling dominos, the chain reactions trace tracks that were pre-determined years ago by unique combinations of novel experience working within a novel genetic substrate.

...the "synfire chain" model, in which neurons fire in a chain reaction -- each one triggering the next in the sequence, like a cascade of falling dominos.

In a new study, which appears in the October 24 online issue of Nature, Fee and colleagues have now tested this idea using intracellular recordings, an approach that can record tiny voltage fluctuations in individual HVC neurons. In a technical tour-de-force, they developed a method in which these recordings could be made while the bird was freely moving around his cage and engage in natural behaviors such as singing.

Their results support the chain of dominoes model. When individual HVC neurons fire, they do so suddenly, as if hit by the preceding domino. There was no prior build-up of activity; instead, each neuron remained silent until its turn came to fire, at which point it showed a sudden burst of activity, presumably caused by excitatory input from the previous neuron in the chain. In further experiments, the authors showed that this burst of activity is triggered suddenly by an all-or-none influx of calcium through specialized membrane channels that open in response to this excitatory input. _SD (MIT study)

But those chains of dominos had to be set up "just so." How were these patterns of chain-reaction set up to begin with?

When rats and human beings create a new memory, they are effectively forming a representation, or “mapping” that location or moment and encoding it in their brains. Using advanced monitoring technologies, Markus has been able to actually “hear” place cells in a rat’s mind firing as the animal creates a memory and encodes its route through a maze. The burst of place cell activity the rat experiences when it searches for a food source is conveyed as a staccato series of “pops,” like tiny firecrackers, when picked up by the high-tech monitors in the lab. _PO (U. of Connecticut)

The intermediate details of cascading memory formation depend upon the particular type of memory that is being laid down -- sensorial, spatial, experiential, conceptual etc. -- but the underlying neuronal process is the same, and intriguingly complex.

A human's brain becomes very much like a dynamic sculpture over time, revealing intricate sprays of light and dark, as circumstances inevitably vary in its environment. Circumstances change, but they often vary in cycles. As the cycles of circumstance repeat, so do the dynamic chain reactions of spraying sparks and falling dominos. For example: How do we know what someone close to us is going to say before they say it? How do we often anticipate the exact words an author will use to describe a character or a scene?

We are attracted to other brains both for their ability to surprise us, and for their ability to create a comforting stability around us. In that sense we are really not that different from children.

The differences in our genes place each of us in a different starting point on the path to a well-sculpted brain. Our brain dominos will fall differently -- and will form different chains of falling -- depending upon how our genes (and epigenetics) are laid out in the beginning. Take one simple example: sleep.

Simple gene variations determine how well a person can function on limited sleep. This difference in function can easily determine the fate of an individual in a highly competitive society.

...The people with the DQB1*0602 gene variant were sleepier and more fatigued while both fully rested and sleep deprived. Their sleep was more fragmented. For example, those with the gene variant woke up on average almost four times during the fifth night of sleep deprivation, compared to those without the gene variant, who woke up on average twice. Those with the gene variant also had a lower sleep drive, or desire to sleep, during the fully rested nights....“This gene may be a biomarker for predicting how people will respond to sleep deprivation, which has significant health consequences and affects millions of people around the world. It may be particularly important to those who work on the night shift, travel frequently across multiple time zones, or just lose sleep due to their multiple work and family obligations. However, more research and replication of our findings are needed,” said lead study author Namni Goel, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia. _AAN (U.Penn, NIH)

Sleep is a complex phenomenon which determines much of a person's trajectory through life. There are certain moments in time where an alert mind makes the difference between life and death, success and failure. One tick of the clock and that moment has passed. If sleep -- and the ability to function optimally on limited sleep -- is genetically determined, then how many other determinants of a person's quality and quantity of life are hidden in the molecules?
We are learning more about how the human brain is re-charged and re-built during sleep. A person's memories -- the "lay of the land" in a person's brain -- is re-built and re-furbished on a regular basis, with slight modifications over time. Sleep is a critical part of that ongoing program of maintenance.

And so we humans, we slightly advanced apes, blunder into the future riding a cresting trajectory of saccadic memories. It is a bit like riding a surfboard, except that we are the surf, the board, and the rider. The environment is the storm hundreds of miles offshore, and our genes are the shallowing seabottom and the reefs and kelp. Always a balancing act, never exactly the same wave twice. Learning to let go is the hardest part.