From Wikiversity

Reasearch/experimental/Original reasearch. Uploaded by --Deweirdifier 14:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Multimedia from here http://www.torrentz.com/96f62b834cac1bbc3abb5eb8555dcc49b7346e23

index The Deweirdifier

Contents 1 Neural networks 1.1 Neurons 1.2 Methodology-global 1.3 Network 1.3.1 hash table 1.3.2 simple model 1.3.3 cram skool 1.4 Data classification 1.5 No free lunch 1.6 Neural anti-aliasing 1.6.1 outsourcing 1.6.2 overfiltering 1.6.3 overtrained 1.6.4 3.6.4 prefilter 1.6.5 skool 1.6.6 recruitment 1.7 Superman 1.8 Divide and konquer 1.8.1 example circuits 1.8.2 all together 1.9 The smallest positive integer not definable in under eleven words 1.10 Programing 1.11 C+++ 1.11.1 main() 1.11.2 in general() 1.11.3 physical() 1.11.4 development() 1.11.5 3.11.5 acounting() 1.11.6 trainings() 1.11.7 your opinions are boring() 1.11.8 groups() 1.11.9 supervizor vs supervisor() 1.11.10 power(inclusive definition) 1.11.11 jedy mind trics() 1.11.12 some personalities() 1.12 Futurology 1.13 Infinite regression loops 1.13.1 logic 1.13.2 why are you a skeptic? 2 Supplement

[edit] Neural networks

[edit] Neurons

A neuron has litle root-like projections (increase cell surface), and a long axon, it's membrane, has litle ion pumps(proteins), that work all the time, and polarizes the membrane as much as they can go. There are 3 types of pores(proteins) , those that interact with certain chemicals from the out side(from typicaly 10000 synapses), they change conformation, and open, permiting the depolarization of the membrane localy, if the membrane is depolarized beyond a certain threshold, a field sensible type of pore change conformation and open up temporarily, at this point the membrane depolarizes further, the depolarization spreads to nearby region, prompting the opening of the there field sensible pores, at the original spot the field sensible pores has started to close(and get blocked for some time), and polarization resumes, by the pumps. The new region of depolarized membrane, prompts the field sensible pores in a new region around it to open, while in the initial region, the original situation is regenerated, this continious as a chain reaction and travels trough the axon, forking typicaly in 1000 synapses. The signal reaches the end of the axon, there, they are packed vesicles with certain molecules, the signal prompts the liberation outside of the molecules, they cross a small distance, and interact with the chemical sensible pores of the target neuron. If the synapses, that are targeting a particular spot on the target neuron, manage to depolarize it enough, the process restarts all over again.

Lastly they are also inhibitory pores, when active, they open and let in selectively a charged particle(favorable electrochemical potential), that increase the polarization of the membrane, hence activation gets harder. Alcohol among other things, activate certain of these inhibitors and deactivate the exitatory 1s, in efect the intoxicated person, has a temporary chemical lobotomy in certain brain parts.

[edit] Methodology-global

When you want to study a simple system, studying it every part in detail is feasible. Real life problems however, have typicaly a number of variables well above what our calculation capabilities can handle. The typical precise investigation, would require more time, then the age of the universe, the memory would be greater then the number of particles in the universe, and the minimum theoretical energy required(E(flip 1bit)=K*T*ln(2)), would be greater then the energy contained in the universe.

Caenorhabditis elegans (nematode worm) has exactly 302 neurons, it's feasible to study every 1 of them in extream detail. But a typical human brain has around 100 bilion neurons, with an average of 10000 synapses, that's 1 quadrilion synapses, the number of possible recombinations is greater then the number of atoms contained ..... in the known universe. AIs main reason that they are stupid, is becauze there hardaware is no good, with the study of the human brain the problem is orders of magnitude worse. Clearly studying the human brain the brute force way, neuron per neuron, is not going to work, even if we could, it would be a huge meaningless opaque list of numbers.

But we can extract useful conclusions by studying the bulk properties of great numbers of neurons, in an abstract way, this is kind of an average. The same thing is done, in physics, when you have a system with 10¨23 particles, properties like temperature, pressure, volume, are important, here we have 10¨15; synapses, so if you don't believe in this methodology you should stop believing in the validity of temperature, volumes, pressure and many, many others.

Actualy this is the only way to have a grasp of our brain, our brain can understand only less complicated objects then him self, so it can only understand a simplified model of it self.

[edit] Network

Colectively, neurons perform, automated, machine learning. Basicaly, learning is achieved by repetition, when 2 neurons are exited simultaneously, a metabolic change reinforce(more vesicles,more synapses....) there mutual synapses to each other. This way, when only 1 of them is active, its firings will have greater probability to activate the other 1. After some time of unuse, the synapse degrades and detaches, neurons are actively searching with there axons, like litle tentacles, for oportunities to make new synapses with felow neurons.

Lets take a flat grid of neurons, all neurons are interconnected with all other neurons at random. We activate some neurons, in the shape of a patern, say "A" repeatedly. All neurons that are active, will have there mutual synapses reinforced, in a "A" shape area of the network. The out puts of the neurons are, automaticaly inputs for a new round of integration, if the synapses are strong enough, the network stabilizes dynamicaly, in the shape of the patern.

Now, we cleanse the netwok and we present a new patern, a corupted "A", pixels are missing, and grain of dust are all over the place. In the pixels, that are now black, but in the learning patern where white, the neurons, aren't very connected with others, so there firings will not contribute much to the activation of other neurons. In the pixels that are now black, and in the learning patern where also black, the neurons are strongly interconnected with each other, and most importantly, with those that where black during learning but now white, all of them in the shape of the learning patern. The firings of the now black/then black activated neurons is enough to activate the neurons that are now white/then black. The process ignores the corruption, and reconstructs the correct patern "A", from less then perfect data, as long that the data resembles to the already learned patern.(Hebb 1949)

A network can pack inside, more then 1 patern, neurons on black pixels that overlap on multiple paterns, try to excite all there budies from all paterns, but the not yet excited budies need to receive above a certain threshold of impulses, in order to activate, so normaly the most numerous budies of 1 learned patern that get directly activated, will manage to excite the remaining patern budies. Normaly a single neuron can't activate on its own, an other neuron.

Temporal integration is also possible, if the signals between neurons aren't instantaneous as previously. At learning we present a first patern, the firsts neurons are activated and fire, there conections to various neurons are of varying length but the signal go at the same speed, thus each of there output synapses will fire with varying lags in time. While the signals are still traveling, we present a second patern, the synapses that fire at this time from the first patern on the neurons activated by the second patern will be reinforced. Now the remaining signals from the first patern plus the new signal of the second patern will reinforce the apropriate synapses when a third patern get presented, and so on. At use, we present a couple of paterns that resemble the learning paterns, in more or less the corect timing and order, the network will figure out the next paterns to activate, like a litle video.

[edit] hash table

A hash table, uses an inteligently crafted mathematical function, that treats any input as a number, and spits out the physical position(a number) in a storage device, where the desired information for the input was stored, plus error avoidance trics because of colisions. Web sites use this baroc system a lot, because they have very fast query times thru big amounts of information. Other then geometricaly, neural networks can be seen as a particular case of a "hash table", with the diference that the specialy crafted function directly gives the required information, while colisions hapen for inputs that are deemed similar.

[edit] simple model

http://www.riec.tohoku.ac.jp/lab/nakajima/index-e.html neural microchip

Simplified network model, that still works. For real life problems, some very convolueted optimizations can be used.

   Outs                Ins

    y1:= a(1)x1 +a(2)x2+ ...a(n)xn
    y2:= b(1)x1 +b(2)x2+ ...b(n)xn
             .............
    yn:= z(1)x1 +z(2)x2+ ...z(n)xn

(x1, x2, x3, .... xn) : "n" inputs, either 1 or 0, from neurons n° 1,2,3, ... n.
 := defined here as, if whats on the right, its above a certain threshold, on the left we get 1, if its below, then its 0.
(y1, y2, y3, .... yn) : "n" outputs, 1 or 0,of neurons n° 1,2,3, ... n, after integration.
ai, bi, .... zi n² synaptic weights, setuped during learning.

each line represents one neuron, it takes information about the exitement of all other neurons(including him) and makes a weighted adition. If the result is above the threshold, then it out puts 1, if its below, it outputs 0.

Simplified learning: At the begining, the weights have an initial none 0 value. We present an input, if neuron n° m has input of '1', then all its synaptic weights with neurons that also have an input of '1' will be incremented up, the rest will be incremented down. If neuron n° m has input of '0', then all weights are incremented down. The weights can't get negative.

And say hi to Rose.

[edit] cram skool

The complexity of the synaptic weights is very high, (n² decimal numbers) alowing the storage of a big number of paterns (1 patern, is n "0 or 1" numbers). But still this isn't very clear of how multiple paterns can get cramed inside. Lets take 1 neuron during learning, i don't want to treat the general case, it would be too complicated, but the idea is transferable in the general case. Instead of doing the incrementations on all the weights we explode them in as many series of weights as there are learning paterns(Neuronal spectrum is a nice name). The increments and deincrements for a paterns will be aplied on only 1 of the series of weights, always the same, in other words a serie belongs to a particular patern. Negatives alowed, as long as the sumation isn't.

        1 neuron                        the "spectrum" of 1 neuron
                                |a(1,1)x1 +a(2,1)x2 ....a(n,1)xn + //(weights of patern n° 1)
                                |a(1,2)x1 +a(2,2)x2 ....a(n,2)xn + //(weights of patern n° 2)
                                |.... +
y1:= a(1)x1 +a(2)x2+ ... a(n)xn={.... +
                                |.... +
                                |a(1,N)x1 +a(2,N)x2 ....a(n,N)xn   //(weights of patern n° N)

N: total n° of paterns
and
a(1)= a(1,1)+ a(1,2)+ ... a(1,N)
......
a(n)= a(n,1)+ a(n,2)+ ... a(n,N)

Because of this, in that particular serie(line), the weights that corespond to an active input (1) will all have the maximum posible weight. While the weight coresponding to an inactive input (0) will all have the minimum posible weight(deincrementation). When in use in the new representation, we aply the input (x1, x2, ...xn), to all series. If a patern is presented that was used during learning, inside its serie of weights, it will kill of all the minimum weights(0*"weight"=0), while at the active inputs it will get the maximum posible valiu (1*"weight"). Outside its serie, at the inputs that are inactive the weights will be ignored, when active, the inputs will give a random number of maximum and minimum valius. On average, it will be half maximum and half minimum, when somed, they will tend to "kill" each other, thus giving on average something small. When we add the maximum values of the patern's own serie, BAM, we get the threshold, further more the big value tends to crush statistical deviations in the somation given by the other series, making sure the threshold is atained. If the patern wasn't use in learning, all the values will average something low, so the threshold will not be atained. In other words, irelevant inputs are averaged away with each other. All this IS true, because, we consider that learning and network design was done properly, it doesn't work automaticaly on its own. To fall back to the clasical neural network, we just need to add up the weights that corespond to the same input.

Of course, this is a simplified model for a simplified educational explanation. In a general case, we have a complicated corelation, between, number of neurons, number of paterns, increment size, deincrement size, threshold value, real statistical distribution of paterns, etc... The basic idea remains valid and adapts to the whatever specificities of the other networks.

[edit] Data classification

The simple example can only store data, we are interested here in animal learning, so the network, should be able, to connect, a specific, input with a specific clasifying out put. We compartmentalize the network in to input and output neurons(they don't overlap). At learning, the raw paterns will be presented to the input neurons and a second clasifying patern on the output neurons. At use, we only present the raw paterns, if they are recognized sucesfuly, there coresponding clasifying patern will light up.

Example, we have raw paterns of numbers, we use 10(0-9) ouput neurons, at learning we present 0s to the inpout neurons and activate the first neuron in the output neurons, when we present 1s, we activate the second output neuron, and so forth. When we present an 0 alone, the first neuron, will light up, when we present a 1 alone, the second will light up, and so forth.

[edit] No free lunch

It's not straight forward, to set up a useful network, specificities in there learning complicate there use. Lets set up a graf, on the y axis, it's the error, of the network, the diference between the desired output and the actual out put, we linearize it in some way, for the purpose of the graf, on x axis, it's simply the learning cycles. We present to the network a body of paterns in each learning cycle, at the same time, we graf it's performance. At the begining, no learning has ocured, so it will simply give some random result, error very high, as learning progresses, error goes down, until it flats out at some minimum, depending on the complexity of the paterns and the number of neurons. This is intuitively, already known by people, the more you repeat something, the beater you get at it. We start again, but this time we also check it against a body of paterns that resemble to the learning data, but are not taken in to consideration while training. At the begining it will give something random, not a suprize, as learning progresses, the error on the extra paterns will also go down, but remain higher when compared with the learning data. Again not a suprize, people know that already, you are eficient if tested with exactly what you learned. At some point, the error in the extra data, starts to rise, despite the fact that in the learning data it still gets beater(don't believe me? Check this out your self, [DATA/no free lunch/javanns 19/09/2009 files] or up to date files). The network has overlearned.

An actual reproduction of the second curve, could be in an experiment like this: You take a big number of random groups of, say 100 people. Each group learn some class of task, exactly the same. At various points in there learning progression, we present them once with a group of similar tasks, but not the same. There rezults are averaged, averaging away individual variability and the group is discarded. This way we can buy pass the imposibility not too take in too acount the unknown paterns while learning.

Its a prime example of more is less. Neural networks are supozed to generalize, from imperfect data, on other imperfect data. The catch, is that at some point, the network start integrating as being part of the meaningful information, the imperfections in the learning data, and when in use, it will also try to take in to acount the imperfections in the presented paterns, this will give exelent recognition for the learning paterns them selves, but will do very poorly on paterns it has never encounter. IN A PERFECT WORLD, this would NOT be an issue, the crux of the problem, is that raw data are never perfect. This problem is quite serious, as the rezults can get completely nonsensical at the extremes of the spectrum. The quality of the error is also diferent, depending where you are on the curve. Before the minimum, for activation, the network wants inputs, that are rather intense(lots of neurons), but precision doesn't mater much. After the minimum the network tends to output too much its learning paterns(when not realy suposed too), it overrecongnises or overextrapolates.

[edit] Neural anti-aliasing

The real world, is very complicated, infinitely complicated, theres no way you will fit all its complexity in a network. Because of this, theres no other way but to sample the real world, however this sampling, when done incorectly creates artifacts.

This problem in image procesing is aliasing, image artifacts apear because of incorect sampling of the real world. Anti-aliasing, are sofisticated technics that blur the image of its meaningless details. Similarly but in a more abstract level, the solution for a network is to "blur" the meaningless information. This is why i didn't bother with thumbnails where proper antialiasing is aplied, browzers just rescale quickly and dirtily, if you recheck the images you'll notice that all of them have artifacts.

The solutions, can be described, globaly as filtering the data, in order to retain what is meaningful on a case by case basis. A universal neural net, is simply imposible networks are specialized in filtering and reinforcing certain aspects of the learning data. Exact solutions(overlearning eliminated) are theoreticaly posible, but this is self defeating, since the whole point of having neural networks, is to use them on paterns that can not be solved exactly(the universe again), only very simple networks can be solved, very unsuficient for real life problems. Only practical way to setup a real life network, is stochasticaly(trial and error). The way this filtering is balanced is decided by the engineer of the network, before hand, in our case, natural selection. Here, eugenicists are doomed to epic failure, at best eugenicists will simply find them selves redoing the job of natural selection, at worse there would be a natural selection of eugenicists.

The filtering in the networks, can be done in various ways, tweaking at the pores, pumps, axonal resistivity, network interconectivity, hardwired circuits etc, some random examples:

• The simplest trick is to simply stop the learning at the minimum, in efect filtering out small details, that are primeraly noise. However, a real learning graf, is not smooth, it's full with local minimas, you can never be sure if you are in the global minimum, or not, so you have to do some exploration, something not feasible for the brain of an animal. So the brain is hard wired by natural selection to make you stop learning, at some arbitrary time, that on average helps reducing overlearning acording to natural selection, we experience this as boredum.
• Varying learning speed with age. Children esentialy start with a blank slate, so they hyperlearn, to shovel quickly information and go as fast as posible to a none 0 level. Learning speed gradualy diminishes as the networks get filled up(not causal), old people's brains have a life time of learning, so there learning levels are very low, any more important learning probably rezults in over learning. Maybe, this is why we have childhood amnesia, as some kind of side efect of the mechanism that diminishes learning speed. In short, buckets at first, tea spoons at the end. This is why old people and new technology makes 2, the asumption of natural selection was that by the time you are old, you will encounter nothing new. Maybe, diseases like Parkinson and Alzheimer, are simply part of the natural continuing degradation of learning mechanisms with age, and simply its new for natural selection that so many people go beyond 80. This is rather depressing, it would mean that we have a hardwired expiration date.
• An other way is to play with the base rate of synaptic decay and reinforcement. We experience decay as forgeting things, the hope here is, that noize is usualy eratic, so they will be usualy decayed away, while meaningful data usually repeats it self. If to much decay, learning get inhibited. Reinforcement rate, if too slow, it's just a waste of time at best, combination with inapropriately high decay rate, its just damaging.
• Vary the learning data, in practice, this mean a lower reinforcement rate(and lower decay rate for compensation), in order to spread learning in time. So that hopefuly, meaningful data is repeated.
• Shovel quickly(overlearn), the learning data, in to a first network(hippocampus) and use it's out put, for properly train the actual network, this is why we dream. It could be, that overlearners and overfilterers, perform there final training much faster, so they sleep less. Related, children(learn a lot) sleep a lot more then old fosils(learn litle).

[edit] outsourcing

• A strategy, to increase eficiency, is to have more then 1 network, for a class of tasks, each filtering more or less hard the data, and use, the 1s that seem more apropriate depending the situation. In our case, this coresponds to our 2 hemispheres, 1 is more "overlearning", and the other is more "filtering", we switch from 1 to the other depending the problem encountered. The dominant hand corespond to the hemisphere that is the most overlearning in a given brain.
• A related strategy, its to have variance in the population, so that they specialize in diferent aspects of data processing, at the expence of others, and task are distributed acording to competence. This variance is wider then strictly necesary, to hedge against environment changes(remember evolution of sex), random variance to adapt to change. 2 major groups of specialization, corespond to women and men. Men being rather filtering, beater hunters, in an imperfect world, while women are rather overlearners, mothering is rather predictable and repetitive. In general, theres a spectrum of filtering, respectively: standard idiots, dyslexic, neurotypical, gifted, paranoid, psychotics. Idiots filter too much, low eficiency everywhere. Dyslexic, filtering cranked up, focusing on big picture of things, low eficiency with details(bqpd), over represented in CEOs of performing companies, leader... Neurotypical, thats the majority of litle girls and boys, polyvalent but excel nowhere. Gifted, focusing on details, big picture sufers. Paranoids, start to seriously overextrapolate, certain of, abortion is killing, copying is stealing, religious fundamentalists, anti pornography, eurosceptics, AIDS denialists, global worming denialists, stem cell research is killing.... In psychotics, there overfiting is way too high(overrecongnization), completely detached from reality, not of this universe any more, "generalization" from prior learning takes overwhelming precedent over raw input(Don Quixote). The turning blades of a stupid wind mill, of course not, its a giant. The spectrum is just an example, to give a rufle idea, its not meant to be taken too seriously. In general overlearners are, girls, athletes, mathematicians, lawyers, economists; overfilterers are males, artists, hunters, leaders. The mechanisms that control learning intensity are so sensible that can acount for a major part in individual diferences(plus others!!!), for a microscopic genetic diference. Our brains are way too complicated, having overly detailed in circuitry changes would require a colosal amount of information.

[edit] overfiltering

Lets assume that you traveled to an alien civilization where leters were writen as:

0001110101011010001

or beater, a realy vicious variant
_____     ___    ___  ___      _____   ___

In such a alien civilization, you would be considered dyslexic. They would look at you with disbelief. Why do you keep confusing "____   ____  ___ ___    _____ " and "____     ___   ___ ___   ______"? It's so simple. For this task you are overfiltering.

[edit] overtrained

• Performance in 1 task, corespond with under performance in some other task, universal network is imposible. A litle uncontroversial example. When you see leters, you always try to reed them, you do this your entire life. The circuits have overlearned, that stuf resembling text must be read, how many 1000s and 1000s of words have you read? Probably for the first time in your life, from the folowing table, say aloud the colors of the leters as fast as you can, don't read the words. For this task you are overlearned, but for reading you are excelent.

| BLUE | PURPLE |- | BLACK | GREEN | ORANGE |- | YELLOW | RED | GREEN

A less uncontroversial example, go and do a test seriously.

• Acents of foreign languages, are the manifestation of overlearning in our native language. Engrish, is the sometimes weird english of the japanese, they have trouble distinguishing 'r' and 'l'. In general overtraining for circuits can be seen intuitively like an "acent" for that circuit.
• If the creative gramar gives you important trouble reading, its because you are overtrained. You are suboptimal in reading my crap.
• Corporal punishment, is realy not good for learning, on top of other complications, it interferes with the learning rate painstakingly balanced by natural selection. Children realy need to learn things at a certain rate, with repetitions, for optimum performance. Proponents of corporal punishment aren't aware of the "overlearning" limitation of neural networks.

[edit] 3.6.4 prefilter

• Prefiltering the data, and then present them to the network, it might sound very artificial, but we actualy do that regularly, it's education. Our scientific models, are prefiltered data, ready for use, painstakingly filtered through multiples generations.
• Paradoxicaly and counter intuitively, for importantly, overlearning type of people, increase in knowledge doesn't necesarily corespond to beater understanding. Scientific development, is a rather recuring source of this anomaly, a particularly ungrateful 1. At the begining, because of the primitive state of science, data where naturaly prefiltered, there overlearning capacity was masked, so they weren't doubters. Today, because of massive and painstaking increase of scientific knowledge, more details where added. There natural prefiltering droped, they atempt to grasp the extra details with there overfited every day experience, and there doubts for the theories apeared or increased. Aplies for certain: creationists, HIV-cauze-aids doubters, global warming doubters, moon landing doubters, overpopulation problem doubters, eurosceptics.....
• Iliterate people, because of there iliteracy, are cut off from important sources of information, in efect there iliteracy acts as a prefilter, and indeed they become less inteligent then what they could have. On top of it they tend to overlearn the litle data they can get.
• children(normal at birth) of retarded(realy, not an insult), become them selves retarded. There parents being retarded aren't capable of presenting to them a normal flow of information, so in efect parental retardation acts as a heavy prefilter on there child. And probably overlearn the litle they get.

[edit] skool

• Rote learning, severe case of overlearning. Damages the ability to learn more, with rote learning all lesons are arbitrary information, you can't generalize from prior experience. Each leson tend to be on a new curve, not a composite life long curve. It gives the ilusion of good performance at the begining, but when learning set becomes too big, performance colapses. This form of child abuse is given only by lazy/incompetent teachers.
• And of course education at skool is just a travesty, same thing for adult training. Too low grades are as bad, as too high grades, on top of the fact that "skool learning" often coresponds to just rote learning. Universities are just orders of magnitude worse. No skool that i know of ever took overlearning in to acount(apart the dead rock obvious), only the gradeless skools are aproching this. Skool learning is child abuse, its just for the test learning, they are diploma factories. Original goal of skools, was obedient and eficient workers, not education. Skool is the place where coolnes go to die. Skool is a punishment. For those claiming that educational standards have fallen, actualy old standards where to high to begin with(overlearned), they think that only real learning is rote learning. At least our brains do there best they can to cope with the situation, by forgeting 90+% of our lessons(in the first year). In some places the situation is realy bad, with nothing but rote learning, if you are in such a place, you are in an underdeveloped country. I just recomend homeskooling.

[edit] recruitment

• A single circuit that can do everything, is imposible, a person that is eficient in everything is also imposible. This means that any recruiting evaluation, should be as close as posible, to the real task, use of proxies is perilous. Needlesly hard recruiting evaluations, simply measure the candidates capacity to pass the evaluations them selves, not what they are suposed to evaluate. For beater results, preselective tests of NORMAL dificulty and close to everyday conditions, then a TRULLY RANDOMIZED selection of needed personel among the remaining candidates. What amounts to a literary exam for hiring truck drivers, simply because they are too many, is NOT a good idea. The worse of the worse is recruitment by the state, because of coruption wories, recruitment is done only with elitistic exams.
• During training, usurping the training method it self, to achieve some kind of arbitrary quota doesn't fly either. It damages real training it self and imposes a selection of personal talents irelevant to the tasks requested. Training should be done under normal conditions, if theres a divergence between available posts and issued certificates, thats the recruiters and recruits problem. Before complaining, keep in mind that, after removing unnecesary dificultiers, training costs become substantialy lower, so this is by no means cruel. This would increase real competition.
• Even if we ignore overlearning, an other issue, is the overspecialization that is generated. For the same reazons that sex exists, any organization should avoid overselecting. This will, indeed give eficiencies lower then the theoretical maximum, but will be beater equiped to survive in the long run.

[edit] Superman

Networks on there own, can only associate, an arbitrary input, with an arbitrary output, with generalization alone, we don't go very far, a way is needed, to decide, what to present to the networks, other wise it's incomplete. In our litle experiment, we essentialy supervise the network, and decide, whats meaningful, whats an error. Our brain too, has a supervizor, this of course is an other neural network, you already know it actualy, you just gave it an other name, you usually refer to it as your pleasure/pain center, this is where your emotions come from. Note, that emotions are a natural requirement for any practical functioning of a neural network, so, extra-terrestrials and efficient AIs should have them too. The actual design in our brains works a litle diferently then with our simplified experiment. In our brain the raw paterns are presented to the networks, they get associated with some out put(completely random at first, but later it generalizes from prior learning). Then, in the real world something hapens, that something is presented to the supervizor, if the supervizor decides, that what hapend was good, it will reinforce the synapses responsible of what just hapend(easy, they are the only 1s active), next time, similar input will give similar output with greater probability. If it decides that what hapend was bad, it will deinforce the curently active synapses, so that next time this responce gets less probable with similar input. Its the supervizor, that is very responsible, in inducing corect learning, by implementing the various trics in order to stay close to the learning minimum. In relation to the data clasification model, this would corespond, in asociating inputs with great number of random outputs, deemed helpful.

A litle example, a baby, in it's bed, it's sensory system gets in information, it decodes, and present it to the network, at this time, it's rather empty, so it will give a random response, the random response, will move at random, the hands of the baby, now lets assume that something soft is hanging, and that the baby touches the soft thingy. "soft thing touched" signal will be sended to the supervizor, it will decide that it's OK, and reinforce the active synapses in the network, next time, when a similar sensory input(flufy looking thing hanging), is presented to the network, the same neuronal patern will reactivate(doing a generalization), and the baby, will move it's arm to touch it. Similarly, if the baby was confronted with a cactus, the supervizor will decide that what hapend was bad, and degrade the synapses, so that next time a cactus like thing will not be touched. Here, its about absence of synapses, that give the signal "touch", not the presence of "i should not touch".

As we get older, learning acumulates in this maner, until we get very eficient, the networks in adults generalize, in new situations, from the years of acumulated learning, the purpose of our childhood is to do this acumulation. All brain decision making folows this basic algorithm. In particular, the networks don't try to replicate a "pleazurable" behavior, the "replicate behaviors that are pleuzurable" is it self a reinforced behavior. Explicit memory and explicit signaling from the supervizor are part of the inputs, and lead to the serial procesing of information as we experience it directly.

The main decision loop: sensory input plus memory plus curent supervizor state, are presented to the network, from past learning it generalizes in the new experience(if it can't it simply gives something random), sends output to muscle/memory/supervizor/others, the supervizor, gets the response from the environment, and decides to reinforce or deinforce the synapses that are curently active, and the cycle repeats. Plus all this, a control system insures that the brain works with a cloak rate in the order of 10Hz.

If too many neurons are simultaneously activated, the networks consider that many paterns are present simultaneously. In humans that's experienced as an epileptic seizure, resulting from a failure to maintain the clock rate. In the reverse, if too litle neurons are active we enter a coma.

[edit] Divide and konquer

Simple animals do use the very simple, single networked brain, like for example Caenorhabditis elegans (the nematode worm), but we can do a litle bit beater. The brute method, of just throwing a shovel of neurons gives very average rezults. Assembling a great number of networks that are individualy optimized in certain aspects of inputs is more eficient. Starting with a "shovel of neurons" brain, evolution, can proceed in gradualy carving up chunks with particular properties, with particular conections with other chunks, with various degrees of hard-wirenes. The hard wired stuf are there for the issues that come about often, the supervizor doesn't lose in importance, it is there to handle the unforeseen situations.

[edit] example circuits

For example the edge detection aparatus in the visual field, consists of a disk, conected to a single out put, its center is exitatory, while the perifery is inhibitory, when the entire disk is iluminated, the impulses cancel each other out, when the center is ilumunated and the perifery not iluminated, a signal gets thru. With intermediate iluminations, intermediate signals get thru, disks are overlaping so that the outputed image is smooth. A more complicated example is predicting the future, involving: making a prediction(generalizing), keeping copies, then comparing them with what realy hapend, and then adjusting the synaptic weights of the predicting network to what realy hapend. Multiplication, is done just with explicit memory, aditions however, have a special circuit that does that.

Among other diferences between, women and men. Brains of women are more interconected, optimized for multitasking. Brains of men have more important processing centers, optimized for serial tasks.

particularly interesting, the memory system:

An interesting example of circuit specialization is the memory system, overwhelmingly it expects that meaningful information is in images and events. A nice tric for memorizing is to always translate information in to a story, with images and events(mnemonics). And remember, for these trics the internet is your friend. For example, try remembering, the following random number, just by reading it (standard base 64, case sensitive).

“

J+RECnXTjW9hBVsVjVojA

”

You where lousy, Now read some times, and imagine as vividly you can, the events of the following story as they where realy hapening in front of you, try to add as much litle details of your own(sun, raining, clothes, smells, etc...), imagine it hapening at your own back yard or in your room.

“

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

”

You can recall the whole thing now? Congratulation, you just memorized a 128bit number, don't tell MPAA, or they'll have you lobotomized.

in general

All these component networks, are more eficient, but still do smart mistakes, in the visual field , these corespond to optical ilusions, but the equivalent of optical ilusions exist in all networks, no exceptions, including the thought processing networks.

[edit] all together

A very simple carving, is a sensory layer conected unidirectionaly to a behavioral layer. The sensory layer takes in raw information, and outputs information of higher order about the data, but as such it doesn't take political decisions. Example, raw data gets in meaning nothing and a patern meaning "this is a straight line" goes out. The behavioral chunk, takes in the already sort out raw data and generalizes what the animal should do, it does all the cool stuf. Example, sensory layer says "food-like thing at 70°", behavioral layer gives order to muscles, "take a bite at 70°". Here the supervizor need to output only to the behavioral layer, while the sensory layer is very hardwired.

The sensory layer in the model, coresponds, with, the back side of our brain, the behavioral layer corespond's RUFLY to the frontal lobe, this part, got favored, during the brain size increase of our recent evolution. The model is realy simple, it's just a toy, the real visual part alone has at least 10 layers, this is in order to demonstrate the principles behind our brain, 100 bilion neurons need some simplifications, in order to see whats going on. The layers in our simple model, are decomposed in a great number of specialized individual networks.

In the sensory part the outputs are pluged in the inputs of the next networks , and gradualy decoded as they advance. For example in the visual part, various layers detect movement, tilted lines, edges, plus others. A note about the hearing aparatus, apart volume detection the ear decomposes the sound in its component frequencies(the snail-looking thing does that), the hearing center, takes in the specter of the noizes and generalizes from that in to paterns. As the impulses moves further to the front in the sensory layers(vision, hearing,smell, touch, other), the raw signals gets decoded, in to, that percents of higher order concepts (movements, tilted lines....) at these specific points in the sensory field.

All this, plus explicit memory plus current supervizor state, gets presented, as a "single" patern, to the frontal lobe, that too has multiple networks that are specialized, in certain aspects, of decision making, hemispatial neglect, gives a good idea of these. This disorder is cauzed, by a specific lesion in the brain, just behind the frontal lobe, example of patient, he still gets sensory input from all his sensory field and has normal inteligence, he will eat, only the food on 1 side of his plate, even thogh he complains that he is hungry(<rudely>and the hospital is cheap, and the nurses don't do there job....</rudely>), if you turn the plate around, he will eat the other half; he will shave only 1 half of his face; and no, you can't cheat with mirors, somehow he can't think about the other side. An other litle example is thinking about the future, its located just above your eye browses. But the first layer concerned here, is probably about atention(whats broken in hemispacial neglect), special stuf like, bright lights, faces, movements, suden noizes, etc get singled out for further processing.

Probably, rufly the desision part of the brain is decomposed in a first "whats important" layer. Desision making properly speaking could be organized in a similar way as the decompozition of sound in the inner ear. Very high level of abstract desision making layers(example, predicting the future) at 1 end, passing gradually thru a great number of lowering abstration layers, to a lowest abstraction of desision making at the other end. Damage here, can leave you in a vegetative state. In humans probably layers are very interconected, while in animals less so. The whole thing would be set up like a decomposed spectrum. The highest abstraction layers would corespond to "big wave lenghts" and the lowest abstraction layers would corespond to "small wave legths". The synaptic properties of each layer are wheighted acordingly. The paterns that are exchanged, are probably randomly selected stuf, due to the way the networks learn, but they have a specific meaning. Presumably, if an adult layer was transplanted sucesfuly to an other brain, it would not work, like conecting a small endian electronic component in to a big endian machine. For example: input gets in, "alarm clock rings", the highest abstraction layers generalize, "lets get out of bed". This is pluged to lower abstraction layers generalizing, "lets move legs/hands this way". In turn this is pluged to a lower still abstraction layer, the motor center, that in tern, give orders of the style "muscle fiber n° 4564864 contraction 15,78%, muscle fiber n° 65488731 contraction 20,51%.....".

When the frontal lobe, acording with previous learning, will generalize a response, it will get pluged in backwards, in output networks(memory, motor center, supervizor, others).

The supervizor, is RUFLY the limbic system. When it wants to reinforce the synapses it will signal to the neurons to increase the easiness, that inputs go thru them(it amplify's the inputs). The neurons learn only by simple repetition, but now the more intense inputs will have the indirect efect of reinforcing the synapses. If it wants to degrade them, it signals a decrease in the easiness that the inputs go thru, and indirectly the synapses degrade. All synapses automaticaly degrade over time on there own, by having there activation throtled the concerned synapses are let to degrade. The supervizor, gets inputs from the the senses and from the frontal lobe, but these last 1s aren't orders. They are used in the same way as the sensory inputs are used(thought crimes).

Each neural circuit, doesn't have any understanding of what the paterns are about of course, they are machines, all they know, is that when patern n°1873496 is presented, they must give back the asociate patern n°9348734, that is stored in it's synapses. For them, some seemingly random looking patern gets in, and they must respond with some other random looking patern, simply because there supervizor order them too, this stays true for the networks in the frontal lobe too.

[edit] The smallest positive integer not definable in under eleven words

What makes the senses "feel" the way they do?

First we'll make a tiny observation, if we ask a human, what color are aples, he will respond red and green, if we ask whats the diference, he will not be able to respond, he will just say that they are diferent. From that we can conclude, that humans, can't decomposed, a color, further, because, the wiring, doesn't allow it, colors are coded as special neuronal paterns, in a similar way as in computer color codes, the colors corespond to certain string of bits.

.....plus 16.777.210 other colors
(because we can distinguish around 10M colors, and 1bit less would leave us with 8M)

BLACK		000000000000000000000000
WHITE		111111111111111111111111
RED		111111110000000000000000
GREEN		000000001111111100000000
BLUE		000000000000000011111111
YELLOW		111111111111111100000000

The networks of the brain are alowed to manipulate them, but doesn't has direct aces, to the underlying encoding, in a similar way, that an image editor, permits you to manipulate colors, but not, the underlying coding. If you don't need to mess with the bits, in your image, why an animal would need to mess with the neuronal encodings in his brain? This is a very reasonable theory, that seems to pop up almost on her own.

A partial outline of this encoding: Green is somehow uncoded as green, red is somehow uncoded as red, but yellow is the encodings of red and green, theres no way you can guess that just by looking at yellow. A daltonian, would never know he is daltonian, just by naively looking at things. Similarly, cold is somehow coded as cold, hot is somehow coded as hot, but burning is the encodings of hot and cold, theres no way you can guess this just by burning your self.

A litle fictional experiment. We build a robot, with the above specifications(not unreasonable design) in it's sensory system and it's capable enough to hold a simple conversation. Actualy i think that any design will have the kind of the above limitations. With the aples, it will say, "green" and "red", same as the humans(figures). We ask whats the diference? because of the way we built it, it will say "can't answer"(comand not found), in it's way, same as humans again. If we ask about red and green, it will say, "theres something special" in it's way, same as humans. This looks like a very boring experiment, we built the robot in a way that can only answer in these ways to the experimenter requests. But, on more careful inspection, the robot behaves, qualitatively like a human. They both, are speechless when asked to compare greennes and rednes.

Hmm, could it be that, what's hapen in the robot that we build, is whats going on in humans about our experience of colors? From, the outside, the behaviors are qualitatively identical, and basicaly the question seems to be answered. From a practical point of view, if between two things, we can not find a diference, odds are good, that these 2 things are identical, in other words, humans and the robot realy share the same basic design.

But this doesn't look good enough, this explanation seems, to be in the right direction, but it has something laking. Simply refering to the sensory model and brushing away our conscious experience as a "bug" of our sensory system, seems like a dishonest tric. It's like the theory, of the invisible pink unicorn that created the universe 73seconds ago, as is, like if it was 15bilions years old, including your entires life memories. This inconsistency is normal, since we got outside the constraints of the experiment, we invaded the experiment by presenting the results to us, and complaining. Up to the point that we didn't do that everything were identical with the robot. We explain to that stupid robot, why it can't answer the stupid question, we explain the limitation in it's sensory system. If we think carefuly, it's most probable answer(if it generilises as us) would be ... the same reaction as us, since it can't verify directly what we tell it and has no reazon to take for granted what we tell it. Now, again the experiment is complete, if we want to include our latest reaction, we have to make an other completer iteration. Its the begining of a recursive infinite loop. The robot, taking part in an infinite series of experiments, taking the place of the human in every new iteration, while it's place is taken by a new naive robot, and the human takes a step back observing the new, more complete experiment. In every iteration, the first robot repeats the behavior, of the human, while the human finds the new rezults incomplete. The infinite series of experiment, is a complete explanation to whats going on. In other words this is a self referential paradox, it's just obfuscated.

All observations are explained and seem trivialy replicable, theres nothing else to ponder on, and thats it. If you are not convinced. How are we going to prove to the robot, it's internal workings? When you answer, aply your solution on your self :p. Alternatively, you can consider, that if we try to understand our brain, we can only do this while we are using it. Some form of self referential paradox will manifest at some point, and should be taken in to acount. It's like if we try to smell our nozes, hear our ears, taste our tongues and see our eyes. If we try to understand our selfs, and our theory doesn't contain any self referential paradoxes, our theory must be wrong. This is not, some cheap tric, self referential paradoxes, are a natural consequence of a theory that tries to understand our selves.

The exact same thing hapens with all senses and emotions. With consciousness, the networks, that do the thinking are litle black boxes, of which the internals are not acesible from the perspective of humans, and again the same behavior insures. It's the same thing every single time, once you understood 1, the others are boring.

And yep, thats right, this is what is implied here, we are literaly, machines, this is no figure of speech, or a metafor or an aproximation or what ever as usual, "we are machines" in the whole sense of the words. Ohh yea, we are "machines" we knew that, no no, we ARE machines. In a fostering experiment of chimps, in which they are razed as human children and learn sign language; a chimp got a nervous break down when he learned he wasn't human. Refering to this incident here, should leave no doubt in your liltle mind about what i'm saying here, consciously or not. Frankly guys, WHAT!! did you expect? you just believed in Santa Claus. Your litle life has always been, nothing more then a nihilistic punch line(Natalie Six), just get over it.

(Did you counted how many words, they are in the title?)

[edit] Programing

A classic computer program is compozed of a sequence of instructions, that the CPU is wired to understand: aditions, multiplications, moving information in memory etc. To keep to the computer analogy, the hardwireness of the uper brain(contrast, tilted lines, sumation...) would corespond to the instruction set of the CPU, while the program properly speaking would be the synaptic weights reinforced by the supervizor. The supervizor is indirectly the holder of our program, we are nothing more then robots, a robot with out a program would have a pointles existence, it will not know what to do. Theres a considerable decrease in complexity, between the top of our brain, and what the supervizor is doing, the supervizor is very hardwired, by natural selection, the programer properly speaking. A miriad of rules, of what behavior have to be reinforced or not, under what circumstances, at what rates, and how they interact, all carefuly and meticulously adjusted. This way of programing contrast sharply with classical programing, it is very fault tolerant, progressive and lends it self very well to the brute force aproche of natural selection.

The supervizor is not completely hardwired though, it too, is capable of some learning, phobias and coresponding pleasurable associations, it learns if something should be feared or craved for. This can only be done, if it has it's own simpler litle supervizor(with coresponding reduction in complexity), lets call it the hypervizor. Can not say how many layers of supervizors are packed up, but they are at least 2, rufly, the supervizor decides stuf like, bunies are hot, cockroaches are not; the hypervizor, stuf like, pain is not good, food is good. And of course they run in to the same problems of overtraining, overfiltering and striking the right balance in there learning strategy. This setup of the supervizor, hints about the evolution of the brain, the hypervizor, is the brain, of our "worm" ancestor, our supervizor is the brain of our "dinosaur" ancestor, it also hints how embriologicaly the brain gets bootstraped, from a mass of neurons, the wiring of the "simple" hypervizor get set up, that in turn sets up the wiring of the supervizor, that in turn sets up the top brain, with each level, complexity increases, considerably. Similarly our brains are the supervizors for our computers, it seems that we shouldn't fear that our robo-overlords will get rid of us any time soon. Probably, the very first "brain/supervizor" evolved as a simple pacemaker(on the lips of the chimney), for sinchronizing contractions in our sponge/sea-squirt ansestor. In other words its most direct corespondence to humans should be the breathing reflex. This "brain" would become gradualy more sofisticated, so that at first it simply modulates its frequency acording to events from its environment, and then the fist top layer will be added, it self becoming the first supervizor properly speaking. If we compared the brain with a country, the posterior part would be the civil service, the frontal lobe, would be the government, the supervizor would be the parliament and the hypervizor would be the voters(sory if you find it ofensive).

Of course there's no reazon that this evolution couldn't be replicated with artificial neuronal networks, people working on AI, should get inspired by this multilayered desing and strategy of natural selection. The problem can be decompozed in to small tractable problems, starting from the inteligence of less then a worm and incrementaly working there way up, like Russian dolls. The brute method of solving the thing in 1 step, just doesn't work.

[edit] C+++

Initialy the supervizor uses some geneticaly hardwired crude rule of thumb, and refines as he interacts with the environment:

The redrawal reflex located in your spine, is an example of simple hardwired algorithm. When your finger gets hurt, a signal is send to the spine, the spine sends 3 signals, 1 to your brain for higher order processing, 1 deactivating signal to your muscles that just moved previously and an activating signal to the muscles that where inactive just before. Similarly, the spine work's a lot to keep our balance, the patellar reflex is part of the system. But reacting to sudden acelaration, instead of pain. The rational is, that any forced movement above a certain acelaration at the lower limbs, can not be taken care of by the brain fast enough, this means we probably going to fall, thus simply counteracting the acelaration should do most of the time.

Mouses have a built in fear of cat smell, mouse brain fills in the blanks thru experience(vicious, blood thirsty, ugly four legged flufy bastard). Excrements, various toxic chemicals, usually have a "bad" smell/taste because they are not good for you, in a similar fashion as with the mouses, our brain fills in the blanks with experience, so that visualy are also "bad". People are afraid of snakes, initialy the supervizor, doesn't say "snake=bad". Most probably the supervizor says, "elongated and thin stuf in the visual field are bad". With learning this gets adjusted, in to "branches are ok", "pipes are ok".... and "snake looking stuf aren't ok". The initial wiring, must be something, simple, that can jump, from a gene to a brain structure with habitual cell organization, some geometry, certain sensors, smells, tastes .... no need to be a brain surgeon for this stage. The algorithms aren't absolutely corect, only on average, there are important limitations, and quite often, it make mistakes, not necessarily very smart 1s. The supervizor can't be as inteligent as the whole brain, this is the whole point, that the uper brain gets smarter then his supervizor.

This simplicity can be ilustrated with simple animals, models of our layered supervizor. Frogs are very stupid animals, more then you ever realized. It eats any thing that goes at a certain speed and of a certain size near him, it will starve to death if it's only surounded by imobile food. Escaping predators, boils down to just jumping at wherever its darker(for his credit, he is a good jumper). Insects will continue doing there toilete at missing limbs. And a litle example of a stupid wasp, beater explained by somebody else(its a classic).

“

When the time comes for egg laying, the wasp Sphex builds a burrow for the purpose and seeks out a cricket which she stings in such a way as to paralyze but not kill it. She drags the cricket into the burrow, lays her eggs alongside, closes the burrow, then flies away, never to return. In due course, the eggs hatch and the wasp grubs feed off the paralyzed cricket, which has not decayed, having been kept in the wasp equivalent of deep freeze. To the human mind, such an elaborately organized and seemingly purposeful routine conveys a convincing flavor of logic and thoughtfulness--until more details are examined. For example, the Wasp's routine is to bring the paralyzed cricket to the burrow, leave it on the threshold, go inside to see that all is well, emerge, and then drag the cricket in. If the cricket is moved a few inches away while the wasp is inside making her preliminary inspection, the wasp, on emerging from the burrow, will bring the cricket back to the threshold, but not inside, and will then repeat the preparatory procedure of entering the burrow to see that everything is all right. If again the cricket is removed a few inches while the wasp is inside, once again she will move the cricket up to the threshold and re-enter the burrow for a final check. The wasp never thinks of pulling the cricket straight in. On 1 ocasion this procedure was repeated 40 times, always with the same result. (Woodridge, 1963, p. 82)

”

And of course we all saw a stupid fly trying repeatedly to go thru a window. At our level, these behaviors are lafable, but we sufer from the exact same anomalies at a higher level. In the same way that these poor insects aren't smart enough to detect the anomalous behavior of there puny brains, we are not able to detect our anomalies, because this would require more capable brains. When we do aquire more capable brains, we will be able to laf at our old selves, but again be incapable to investigate the anomalies of our new brains, since the threshold for your brain is always above the capabilities of your curent brain.

As, the holder of our programing, a lot of behaviors can be traced at its functioning, the rest comes from other design caracteristics of the brain. Our behavior is in last analisis, very controled by the supervizor, every time you feel, that "this was good" or "this wasn't good" it's him. When you say that you are making a choice, you simply do a generalization from past learning. The rationalization, that you are making rational decisions based on cold logic is an ilusion, the logical-generalization synaptic weights in the frontal lobe, them selves are apointed by the supervizor on the ground that they seem good for you, not on logic. The rationalization, that you repeat behavior simply when the supervizor activates, is it self reinforced. The supervizor inputs to the frontal lobe its state(along the other inputs), when he inputs that he is content, if at that time, the frontal lobe contains "repeat behavior", the repeated (good)behavior in the next cycle will reactivate the supervizor that will reinforce "supervizor content-repeat behavior". A very important byproduct of the supervizor's important position, you don't ask people what they would do in a situation, you put them in that situation, because the supervizor isn't consulted, in a simple verbal question, but activates when he detects a given situation, the discrepancy between what people, say, and what they would realy do, can be quite huge, because of this reason.

[edit] main()

You can actualy reinterpret in an unified way the entire science of psychology with my above proposals, curently there's a huge number of competing and contradictory thought schools.

All the above are not just nice theories, there are potential consequences in the way psychoanalysis is done. Its not possible to give bulk solutions(placebo efect very strong here), but in general any therapy should involve in actively retraining the patient in some way. Anything from just like a dog to just giving advises for self training. Just talking about the problem its not much. What cauzed the problem isn't very important for therapy, as long the outside cauze actually stopped. For example, rape victims got "trained" in a wrong way, cauzing the distress, so therapy would consists to retrain the patient to normal, the rape it self isn't important; rape victim complains of having trouble to sleep or sex problems, therapy should consist of retraining in normal sleep and sex. If the new aproach on average makes a difference or not, is going to be the proof(or not) of the theory.

I doubt that simply stating the conclusions of how it works is enough to get the idea across, you simply have too many wrong preconceived ideas. I encourage you to do some outside reading on psychology. What follows, are some examples in rufle categorization, so that you realy get the point of what i mean:

REMINDERS/NOTES[The supervizor can only reinforce, or deinforce what's already in the frontal lobe, it can't put things there directly. The frontal lobe generalizes with more probability the stuf that was reinforced, not because its looking to replicate the behavior that produced a high, the "replicate behaviors that produced a high" is it self a reinforced behavior(the state of the supervizor is part of the inputs). I'm not going to repeat this everywhere, it would be too repetitive and heavy. I'll just remind it here and there, and usually present the explanations under the oficial theory.

The supervizor is just a machine, for him to event n°654867 must respond with response n°768998, when i personify with "he interprets", "he thinks", "gets fooled", i realy mean that he generalizes as good as it can to activate 1 of his many rules, it has no understanding of the rationals, it isn't "conscious", its just a rather dum neuronal computer.]

[edit] in general()

• In the same way we are diferent from the out side, we are diferent in the inside, Heart, liver kidneys, biochemistry etc, in exactly the same way, our brains are also diferent. At the level of the supervizor, this means that there is variation in the built in rules at birth, and later diferences of real life experiences add further variation.
• The supervizor activates, only if it detects that a given situation is ocuring. In other words, part of the decision making circuitry, is inactive when the event is not realy ocuring. This gives rize to significant discrepancies, between theoretical projections(generalization) of a person, in a hypothetical situation, compared with what he realy is going to do. Worse, not only there is no warning what so ever of the problem, but we generalize anyway. However all we realy do, is to literaly respond to the question "what i would do, right here and now". Because of this people, often fail miserably, in predicting there own actions and anticipating there needs. With understanding others rationals of there actions and predicting others actions, is even worse. Plenty of examples thru out the sections below.
• If you are extremely, depressed, its probable, that you are a burden to your family in some way, or that your genes are stupid, and not worth competing with the rest of your family. So it could be a good idea, that you kill your self, so that you preserve the resources for the rest of your family(doesn't this sounds just terible or what?). Its self preservation of the group, not the individual. This should be understood as a purposeful programed behavior, similarly with the cells that comit suicide, in order to sculpt the fingers in our hands, its a feature, not a bug.
• Girls, when they pleaze others, the supervizor reinforces this. This is to take care of babies, not for making your lunch and bringing your sleepers.
• boredom, the supervizor has decided, that is time to stop your current activity and do something else, its to avoid overlearning. In similar ways the supervizor is heavily implicated in weighting the learning of the frontal lobe. This on top of frontal lobe circuits specificities.
• Risk taking is by it self reinforcing. The real world is certainly not a very safe place, but taking risks can pay off. If theres the perspective of a reward, especialy a big 1, the supervizor can pic it up and reinforce the apropriate behavior. This is why gambling and crazy mount everest alpinists exist. It can even go out of control as an adiction, it realy is an adiction, with the same mecanisms as with substance abuse. Leading to bankrupt gamblers and skeletons of alpinist all over everest.
• Religions contains some kind of future rewards (eternal life, 40 virgins, loving paternal figure, etc) and punishments. The supervizor believes that these are rewards or punishments that are realy in front of him, not metaphysicaly or something, these things are literaly in front of him. The metaphysical parts, are beyond his understanding. These mecanisms contribute in the overall reinforcement of the religion. For believers, heaven is a real place that you realy do go, hell is a real place that you realy can go. There are real emotions about this, something not understood by people for whom religion isn't important(most Europeans/Japanese/Koreans). Fear in hell is facilitated by the fact, that the supervizor is very paranoid about security. You die only once, so you beater don't try stuf that might kill you, that hell is a place after you die, is too complicated for your supervizor. For him, hell is a perspective in the material world. As a litle simulation of what it feels like to believe in hell, listen to [DATA/in general()/I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream.ogg I have no mouth and i must scream] (40min) or [DATA/in general()/I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream/I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.html read it]([DATA/in general()/Harlan Ellison - Intro.ogg Harlan Ellison] and [DATA/in general()/Grail.ogg his wish] 1h)

[edit] physical()

• Simple stuf like: pain, pleasure, smells, tastes etc, are more or less directly "good" or "bad" acordingly.
• In general a hierarchy needs seem to be followed by humans. This is most probably wired in the supervizor.
• In an experiment, a rat's brain gets wired, with an electrode at his pleasure center. The rat was alowed to activate the buton that activates the electrode, the rat kept pushing franticly the buton, up to 2000 times per hour. A food leaver was just next to it, contrary to an urban legend it didn't died from hanger next to the food leaver, but it did starve it self, it ocasionaly stoped for food.
• Sex, targets proxies of fertility and good genes. Good looks are not just superficialities, they realy make a diference. Example: Men are atracted by beautiful women, however in blonds color asymetries are less aparent then in brunets. Men are aproaching the brunet population with a greater selective bias over blonds. When comparing between the populations, men conclude that the blond they encounter are less inteligent then the brunets, because there realy is a statistical corelation between color asymetries and the state of the brain. Hence the myth that blonds are dum.
• When women, have a baby, they get depressed(synapses degrade), this is directly hardwired, is not secondary. The logic is, that if the mother is realy ok, she will be able to compensate, if she can't, probably she hasn't the resources for a baby, depression increases the chances, that she will get rid of the baby, so that she protects her life, now at the hard times, so that she'll be able to do babies, at good times. So yes, we have infanticide in the blood.
• In girls, when there talking center, is active, the supervizor senses that, and reinforces the behavior. Techicaly, this is why girls talk too much.
• In Old couples, The husband brain can detect, if she is fertile in her pheromones, when the wife reaches menopause, her husband gets depressed(synapses degrade), so that theres a greater, probability, that he dumps the old goat and go spread his genes elsewhere. A way to tric this, is to sleep in sheets where a young girl slept, so that the husbands brain detects the pheromones.
• Womens breasts, are sensible, this is not for sex, when the baby sucks milk, it stimulates the nerves, and the supervizor, reinforces it. This is in order to reinforce, breastfeeding, her baby.
• Why people enjoy oral sex? They don't have an orgasm in the mouth. The genital produce pheromones, and during oral sex, the brain gets a good dose of them(pubic hair act as a dispersor).
• 30% of the human population can't enjoy the awful biterness of phenylthiocarbamide, and they have a higher probability to be heavy smokers.
• Under intense pain, a drug like substance is released that gives a high, equivalent of taking drugs. The rational is, that under normal pain, run away and heal your wounds. Over the scale pain however probably got aquired by an act of sacrificing the body in order to survive, it must be about survival otherwize why did you authorized the pain level go so high? So whatever you are doing under intense pain, it should be reinforced because presumably your life depends on it. Wolfs will chow off there foot if traped, in order to escape. They generalize that they have to do it, they start and they feel the pain, without the mecanism, the relevant synapses would soon be degraded and the behavior would stop, then the wolf will just have to wait until he dies. With the mecanism however, the synapses "chow off foot" are reinforced, and the deed can be completed. Everybody is capable of this, it just that if you are lucky you'll never have to scientificaly test this. The rubs: Athletes as they train feel intense pain and get a high, and go beyond the limits of there body at a destructive level. People that can't feel pain, are tipped off, by this mecanism that something is wrong, when they become euforic(synapses reinforce too much), they rush to there doctors O_O. Self mutilation has its routs in this, depressed people, get a high by inflicting intense pain on them selves. And of course the classic, masochists of all sort get a high like this. Torture plays on this mecanism, for maximum psychological damage. Corporal punishment on children(more sensible to pain/hiting force systematicaly underestimate), doesn't has, only the neat explanation that you naively think. Under this mecanism ,they are punished initialy for some reazon, they get a high, the synaptic weights of "lets act naughty" are ... reinforced, they generalize and act naughty more often and stop because they got there quota. The issue has more complications from other mecanisms.

[edit] development()

“

These first years have, among other things, the advantage that 1 can use force and compulsion. With age children forget everything they encountered in their early childhood. Thus if 1 can take away children's will, they will not remember afterward that they had had a will." (J. Sulzer: "Versuch von der Erziehung und Unterweisung der Kinder", 1748)

”

(notes: children have lower threshold of pain then adults and people systematicaly underestimate there real hiting force)

• Believe it or not, when the buttocks are receiving a strong enough stroke, this gives a sexual stimulation, its not clear why, nerve conections are quite complicated on this issue. Now the interesting part, is that kids are very often punished in this way, but this is not about parent unknowingly sexualy asaulting incestuously there pumpkins. The intense pain is reinforcing for the synapses(remember the wolf) and adds up with the unexpected sexual arousal. We are quite sure of this, because it is reported that litle boys can develop erections after being punished, however since at that age they can only get dry orgasms and for litle girls more invasive investigation is needed we can't say more. The supervizor is constantly trying to add in his library of "its good/bad for you" from whatever is systematicaly present when he activates, the above activation is no exeption to the rule. BDSM is a direct and uncomplicated adult fetish that can spur from childhood punishments. Latex is used to protect the matrices from children when they whet there beds, if they are often punished in the presence of latex(smell, skin contact), the supervizor will end up asociating "latex is good", hence as adults they become latex fetishists, i'm sure your parents would be proud. In the same vein, children are punished if they urinate or defecate where they weren't supozed too, by the same mecanism, at adulthood they can become urophiliac and scatophiliac fetishists.
• In a comparable way, zoophilia can get induced. Say a dog, as most dogs, are very inquizitous with there noze, and to be friendly they start licking you any where. If the dog stimulates by accident a small child, the childs brain could make an unfortunate link. This is by no means the only way, sexual orientation has a complex way of seting it self up, but by similar principles a lot of paraphilias get induced, by events of the sort during childhood. Heterosexuality and homosexuality get induced with more indirect ways by the supervizor, with certain hardwired assumptions about which kind of creature should be considered as sexual mates. For example, in ducks, when an egg grows up in the nest of an other species, the adult duck, will consider as sexual mates the species of his foster mother. The mecanism is simple, what ever the duckling sees when it hatches, creatures that rezemble it, will be considered potential sexual mates at adulthood. We have a calibration because it would be to complicated to hardwire it directly, that is geneticaly activated, based on an assumption (whats the first thing i'll ever see when i hatch), but the calibration can be done only once because its based on a 1 time event(hatching). In a similar way, various mecanisms(and there mishmash) of the sort act in humans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G45s4GJslGI (You can find other examples with: baloons, birds, litle people, mustard, peaches, peanut buter, pikles ...)

• On the opozite phobias can get induced in a similar way. An experimenter, presented a white buny to a baby monkey. Each time he would present the white buny, he would make a scary noize behind the monkeys head. After a while, the monkey would be terified when confronted with a white buny. If you think about it, it makes sense, if something bad realy hapens when a white buny is present, if you avoid white bunies, maybe you'll also avoid the realy bad thing too. Something similar hapens with all phobias.But its not all doom and gloom, the supervizor can be retrained, up to a point, some things are get cemented for good(like the litle duck). The supervizor is smart, if he gets repeatedly a signal, that he previously classified as life threatening. And repeatedly nothing hapens, he will gradualy redious his responce(systematic desensitization). This remains true for a lot of psychological problems(victims of rape, victims of agression, anorexia), some kind of stress initiated the disease, by having the supervizor developing a phobia, all it needs is to retrain it to declassify the association. Sounds strange, but the "symptoms", are realy all there is to these diseases.The coton ball woman, apart being a dumb ass for going to such a crapy show with such an asshole of a presenter, she's also doing it wrong, she should confront her fear very gradualy, not in 1 go.
• Parents hit there children, because they get rewarded. The child is naughty, the parents brain generalizes "i'll beat it, and it will stop". The child is beaten and stops, the supervizor detects that the annoyance went away and reinforces the "beat/stop".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrBrk9DXVk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDPPnbv8uT0

• Higher rates of physical violence(most often corporal punishment) or lower physical afection on babies/children/adolescents produce societies with higher rates of adult violence(Somato-sensory afectional deprivation theory "S-SAD"). Physical violences and afections in general, but they are mainly, corporal punishment and sexual repression. The explanation would be, that under important levels of violence during development, the supervizor calibrates it self to expect a violent response from the environment for a given situation. In other words, they are afraid more easily and react violently. In reverse, with high levels of afection, the supervizor calibrates to expect afection for a given situation. Not only you can't spoil a baby, but actualy the best way to raise them is with extended breastfeeding(self weaning) and to continuously carry them, with a on-the-body baby carier.The tranzition of European societies after WWII, flows from this mecanism. Somewhat similarly, northern countries, have low levels of violence, because when outside its -40°C , you beater be friends with the neighbors.Inversely, living conditions in the Victorian era where absolutely apaling. Probably, here(diferent environment) tricking your neighbor was a gamble that could pay off. Because of the exorbitant afluence of there empire status "we have the money, the power and my boot in your face", Great Britain experienced less efective competition, acumulating bad cultural mutations and stalling its evolution, while the others where more "we suck, we must reform". So, contemporary British have decades to catch up, in relation to continental Europeans. The same is hapening as we speak to the sily litle americans. Its like the feeding of wild animals, eventually not good for them, the efective reduction of competition because of inequality(interpersonal, interstate etc) is interesting but out of topic.Proselytic religions potencialy exploit the social efect of violence, more agresive folowers will spread the faith harder. Artificialy increased agression is for conquerors, this is a cultural evolution, they where no conspiracy or social engineering. In general, how agressive people are is a complex nonlinear corelation between a great number of factors(migration, natural resources, history, education....).
• Corporal punishment is a bad idea, because on top of overlearning(in frontal lobe), the supervizor calibrates to higher violence levels(S-SAD theory, above). In real life this means that as adults, they would get angry more easily then they would other wise, for a given situation, the efect is ireversible. The ireversible induced changes in the limbic system, actualy qualifies as brain damage. The trap, is that people never think of making a link of there anger levels with there "education".Its uglier then you think. Proponents of corporal punishment actualy do indeed manifest higher level of violence. They manifest higher levels of intolerance(part of the continuum of violence) against children, a product of there own upbringing. They want children to be like zombies, this is what they realy mean by "todays kids don't have respect". To grasp well, what is realy meant here, in the same way severe cases find it normal to beat there wives to a pulp, in exactly the same way, YOU find that its normal to "discipline" your kids, only the quantity changes. Remember, the supervizor is your program, HE decides whats normal. Its just unfortunate, that the meme manages to get inherited. Old people often complain about todays youth, because they are intolerant, because of there "education".

  Corporate Punishment is a good thing in moderation. There is no respect these days, kids don't give a damn about authority, and the parents are too soft after their stint in the 60s "loveboat".(anonymous internaute)

  More specificaly: Under pain, a circuit in the supervizor goes in panic mode, and he tries to determine a regularity that suposedly cauzed the distress, so that he classifies it as a phobia. He takes in to acount every thing, smells, touch, people present, visual cues,coton balls.... He seems to prefers to put the blame on intense outside signals. For example, you drink tequila with lemon juce, you get sick, the supervizor goes "AAAhhh!!!!, we almost died, what was it? Aha, we will never drink lemon juce again". In other situations, you risk geting exactly what you asked, for example, pupies that are overly punished for pooping in house, when they will be forced to poop in house(got locked inside), they will be so stressed about it, that they will generalize in eating there own poop in order to clean up. Corporal punishment works a lot at the level, of the supervizor it self, and crazy associations can ocure(coton balls), on the other hand, positive reinforcements or simple talk, rather work at the level of the frontal lobe, capable of much smarter associations. Pain, signals that the body is under atack, with potentialy lethal out come, because of this associations with pain are always siding with caution(paranoid). Worse, if the supervizor considers that you almost died in the painful experience, then he can retain indefinite learning after a single case, guarantied overlearning in the supervizor. Pain is for dealing with life and death situations(agressively paranoid), it wasn't meant to be used as an everyday teaching implement. In contrast, normal learning, can be spread over many "lessons", so that the bogus associations get averaged out, yes, this means children will be less well behaved, but beater behaved as adults. In a few words, corporal punishment is fast and slopy, while the alternatives are slow and meticulous. You don't compromize with quality.

“

Spare the rod and spoil the child

”

[edit] 3.11.5 acounting()

• Aparently the supervizor has sort of counters, events are quantified acording to some algorithm(pozitive and negative) and thrown in the counter, its content gets continuously degraded with time, while the supervizor reinforces the synaptic weights so that the counter stays around some quota. The frontal lobe is reinforced to react in a certain way, under certain conditions, for a certain timing, he isn't directly concerned by the filliness of the counter, he integrates the fact that the counter leaks. Under this mecanism, for as long that the counter stays around the quota, the supervizor stays mute, above it he degrades "good" behavior(other wise you'll masturbate to death), when it falls below it, it reinforces "good" behavior, bad behavior is always degraded . Antidepressant drugs have a latency time before they take efect, my explanation would be that time is needed for the weights to adjust and expres modified behavior from the pathological levels.
• An automated calibration system is built in, to regulate the sensibility of countless neural nets. It assumes that the recorded information from the out side should be inside certain limits, it will change the sensibility to maintain the networks inside the limits. This works well to adapt to growth of children, aging, various damages. Example: Beneath our finger nails, its not special root tissue, its simple skin, the same skin you have all over the surface of your body. That skin experiences the world thru the fingernail, hence he takes in reduced amounts of external information, the calibration system cranks it up to the quota, when you lose a finger nail it feels unpleasant and assume it isn't realy skin, becauze of its oversensitivity. Drugs have the efect of increasing considerably the activation of the pleasure center, the system kicks in and reduces the sensibility until the quota is reached, from know on, the intoxicated person will be forced to take the drug simply to have a normal level of synapse building(being normal), if he wants a high he must increase the dose further, and of course the system will reduce the sensibility further, forcing to take even more drugs just to feel normal, you simply can not cheat on pleazure. Yes, this means, that you don't smoke to feel good, you smoke in order to feel normal, as you would if you have never started smoking, and spend money for the privilege.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fish9.jpg

Its all about striking the right balances between the various rules. This way you can have extremes like, mother teresa and albert fish, with essentialy identical brains. Albert fish: father of 6, house painter, sadomazochist, urophile, coprophile, child torturer, child molester, serial killer and canibal. part of a leter to the mother of 1 of his victims.

“

On Sunday June the 3, 1928 I called on you at 406 W 15 St. Brought you pot cheeseߞstrawberries. We had lunch. Grace sat in my lap and kissed me. I made up my mind to eat her. On the pretense of taking her to a party. You said yes she could go. I took her to an empty house in Westchester I had already picked out. When we got there, I told her to remain outside. She picked wildflowers. I went upstairs and striped all my clothes off. I knew if I did not I would get her blood on them. When all was ready I went to the window and called her. Then I hid in a closet until she was in the room. When she saw me all naked she began to cry and tried to run down the stairs. I grabbed her and she said she would tell her mama. First I striped her naked. How she did kick ߞ bite and scratch. I choked her to death, then cut her in small pieces so I could take my meat to my rooms. Cook and eat it. How sweet and tender her litle ass was roasted in the oven. It took me 9 days to eat her entire body. I did not fuck her tho I could of had I wished. She died a virgin.

”

1 of his litle pleazures was to insert in his pelvis needles, and let them there.

• Drugs and antidepressants, interfere with the supervizor at various level, with global rezult, that they indiscriminately increase the easiness of synapse building. A drug reinforces the behavior of its own reuptake, this is why drug adicts keep retaking the drug no mater what. A depression, can be described, as a pathologicaly low level of synapse building(exessive degradation, overfiltering), to a point that very litle behavior gets reinforced, this is why very depressed people can stay in bed for a month. Antidepressants basicaly act as a drug, so the imbalance is fixed. Taking too much drugs increase overextrapolation of the uper brain. At first it leads to paranoia, at the highest stage psychosis develop. A worker took drugs(amphetamines), so that he can work harder, unfortunately he fucked up the dosage, and tooked too much. His hand started talking to him and he found it was a good idea to cut it off(psychosis). Anti-psychotic medication do the reverse of drugs, they readius the overlearning of the brain, so that it overextrapolate less.

[edit] trainings()

• The best, way to train an animal is to give it a treat. The required action, is done, food is given, the supervizor just reinforces whats active at the moment as usual. This is not "i did this, i got food, so i'll do it again", THIS IS the explanation of the " bla bla", not the other way around, the "bla bla" is it self reinforced by the supervizor. Its simply asociations thru synaptic reinforcement.
• You can train your teacher. What teachers like? They like to see there pupils, interested, asking questions, taking notes, stuf of the sort. Chose a behavior that he/she is doing from time too time, scratching his noze, taking of his glasses, blinking, puting his hands in his pockets, anything. Everything he does that, look interested, ask question and so on, after a while, when you ask questions, look interested and so forth, he will unconsciously, do what ever you decided he should repeat. Please share your videos on the internet :D. Unfortunately,this doesn't work on teacher that don't realy care for there class.
• You can train your boyfriend too. What your boyfriend likes?.... Lets asume it's a blow job, make him do a chore, that he doesn't like very much, while he is doing it, you go down at him, you tell him some thing like "it turns me on to see you .... wash the dishes". His supervizor, in his litle sparrow brain, will reinforce dish washing. He, knowing what you realy are doing doesn't mater, it still works.
• You can train your friends. What you friends like? .....Candies is a good guess. When they do some thing you like, quick, grab him/her and shove some candies down his/her throat.
• The classics, men give flowers to women, grannies give candies to there grand kids. So that the supervizor expands the association "flowers/candy good" to "giver good".

[edit] your opinions are boring()

• Why do you cry, are afraid, disgusted etc, at movies? Simple, because the supervizor thinks that it's realy infront of it, it is not interested with your stupid explanations about videos and frames per second.
• If an animal runs in to animals that have sex, it would be a good idea, to get excited and do the necessary to take part and displace the competition. Porn is exiting because the supervizor thinks, it's realy in front of it. Similarly, the animals that get suprized, should get exited further, so that they try to displace the new comer. In the same vein, porn stars get exited during there performance, and its nice to invite friends at your home ;). Actualy, for humans, as a social animal, there are extra social reazons.
• You think you are a logical person, taking only rational decisions? Wheeeel, no. Your supervizor, has decided whats bad for you, and thats it. No possibility for apealing his judgments.
• Blood is first filtered from its big particles, then all "good" molecules are reabsorbed, whats left is urine. Urine, just after urination, is sterile, sure its stuf your body tries to get rid off, but its less toxic then a soda. The realy interesting part, its that odor and taste depend on what you eat or bread. Isn't fun to drink your urine, or that of your friends? Imagine all the exiting taste discoveries you will make, and its cheaper then a soda. I assure you, that if the person was healthy, no drugs, etc, from a medical point of view its OK. Its like drinking a soda :). Why you still say no? o_O It makes perfect sense, right? o_o
• "tell me you love me"

[edit] groups()

• People, usualy underestimate nonverbal comunication very much. Until they get on the Internet, that is, there, they discover that nonverbal cues aren't just part of the background. This is why stuf like :), :(, :C, :D, XD, etc where created. When interacting with people, the supervizor is used to read emotions and act acordingly, with a text message however, everybody becomes severely autistic. A litle advise, always use emoticons when texting.
• Fundamental atribution error: In the world they are good people and bad people(like Albert fish). Good people are ok, but bad people can potentialy kill you(and eat you). If you incorectly identify a bad people as good, you are in trouble, you can die, so its smarter to be paranoid and too bad for the good people identified as bad. We aren't wired to minimize error in our assessment of others, we are wired to be paranoid for security reazons. This is a compromize, between enhanced security and the needless conflicts that it generates. Men are more prone to risk taking, so this problem is reduced for them. On the other hand becauze women pay a higher price during reproduction, the problem is more acute for them(feminists).
• When 1 of your felow creatures, is afraid or joyful, the odds are good that this concerns you too. What ever is scary, probably wants to eat you too, and what ever is joyful, you probably want a piece too. The supervizor simply detects these emotions and reacts the same way. This is why comic shows, have lafter in the background.
• Lafter, is an instinct, to tell other human supervizors, that the unexpected event that just hapened wasn't dangerous, so stress levels should get lowered and no need to get worked up.
• A litle experiment, a bunch of people are distributed in to 2 groups randomly. Then they perform an activity, in which they can give money to people of the experiment, despite the fact that the groups are completely random, people will discriminate against the other group, the stupid supervizor got tricked. "Good" behavior to outside of the group gets degraded, and "bad" gets reinforced. Ooooh those dirty bastards from group A, i'll show them. Of course this is more intense on real groups, like nations, race, gender, casts,.....
• "social echange theory": Example, if someone gives you something, you must reciprocate. This is actualy how p2p can work, it's easy to cheat by not seeding, but not many people are doing it.
• Conformity, is also an important part of group function. Usualy conformity has derogatory conotations, but without it, a group would have a harder time reaching colective decisions. The conformity experiment shows how powerful conformity can be. An alternative explanation would be, that the group is considered an authority, or a entity with power, it would mean, that conformity is a simply special case of obedience and treated by the same circuits.
• Leadership: Under autocratic regimes, people are very productive and disciplined, but only when the authority is there, when its not they pull knives at each other to compensate there lack of power. In more democratic regimes, people take part in the decision making proces, so they get there power quota.
• It seems we are wired to folow some entity of authority, most probably the supervizor simply reinforces obeying to entities with power(boss, parents, experts....), this has nothing to do with coercion, its directly hard wired. Most probably, at pre-group period, the rational was, if you obey the 1s with power you avoid geting hurt. In a group the rational changed, obedience is an important part of working along, without it groups would disintegrate in anarchy, the members of the group would not be able to overcome there rivalry. The obedience experiment ilustrates how powerful obedience is, for a cardboard-authority 2/3 of people went all the way to the end. In an other variant of the experiment, 90% of people went all the way to the end. The Nazis weren't just a bunch of psychos, something more subtle was going on, in there trials, the "I was just folowing orders" was frequent.
• A realy unethical variant of the obedience experiment. Professors at a university used a cute litle pupy, the pupy was REALY being electrocuted in FRONT of the "teachers", the "teachers" where ACTUAL students of theres, the performance in teaching the pupy would result in REAL grades for the students. The experiment was presented as "critical fusion frequency in pupies". 50% of men go all the way to the end, in women 100%(yep, all of them) went all the way to the end. I remind you that they where NORMAL students.
• The Standford prison experiment, a bunch of students should pretend realisticaly, that they where in a prizon, some where prizoners, some the guards, every 1 could leave any time. The situation got out of hand, they somehow forgot they weren't in a real prizon, the supervizor was convinced that it was dead real. The explanation, is that the supervizor reinforces "being in power", and the "isn't torture wrong?" got lost in translations. Its important to understand this works on 90% of people(unless, you know about this), the above students were NORMAL, the remaining 10% are just the hipies. How sadistic would you be in your own prizon?

[edit] supervizor vs supervisor()

• Being emotional can mold the judgment. The uper brain ponders on something, the supervizor detects something pozitive or negative in the pondering, and acordingly it reinforces or deinforces the synapses, so that the pondering becomes positive. The reinforced behavior is irrational, this anomaly apears with negative situations, that can not be changed, like death or intense emotional abuse. Made up example: Hmmm, i'm 65, with a history of heart atack, my torso hurts, maybe i'm having a heart atack and i'll die alone and in great pain (supervizor, what we will die? not-content), Hmm, maybe it's just a cramp(supervizor, ouf i was scared for a minute, content) ... yes thats right it's just a cramp, nothing serious, i can continue doing what i'm doing..... Other examples would be certain creationists, eurosceptics, anti-quota fishermen, AIDS denialists.....
• Homophobes, are realy homosexuals/bisexuals, but at the same time by education, the supervizor consider being homosexual as bad. Neither are overidable, the supervizor says simultaneously, "you are looking for same sex mate" and "being gay is bad", the uper brain has to randomly find some conformation that will acomodate both orders, at the same time. If the uper brain says that homosexuals are bad, the "you are looking for same sex mate" get fooled in to not activating, since "bad people are not good sex mates" and on the other hand "being gay is bad" activates hapily. There are other examples, of the sort, such as, a certain fraction of women-loathing-religious-fundamentalists, anti-pedophilia-activists, anti-pornography-activists, etc. The nature of the mecanism is such, that examples can only be extremely controversial. A slight variation, is the BDSM, rape and prostitute sexual fantazy present in a lot of women, contrary to comon sense, it's the most liberated women that have these fantasies(i'm stressing on FANTASIES). Society is sexualy opresive on women, with these fantasies the "promiscuity is bad for you" get fouled in to not activating, since she is "coerced", the "sex is good" activates hapily, while the "am i coerced?" is smart enough in to not activating. In a similar way certain necrophilias and zoophilias can develop, from very repressive sex education, the supervizor will declare "sex is bad". But if frontal lobe sugest "sex with corpse/animal", supervizor is hapy since, from education, necrophilia and zoophilia was far less reprehended and theres no other way it can achieve his sex quota.
• This is an example where no 1 will recognize him self in: In the 19 century, before the germ theory, diseases "spread due to bad air", so it was useles for surgeons to wash there hands, if they looked clean. Ignaz Semmelweis showed(interesting read), that if surgeons washed there hands with chlorine, maternity death rates drop 10-fold. His findings where atacked and his proposal for washing hands with chlorine ignored. The explanation would be that acknowledging that this was true, it would mean that they should admit that they where the primary cauze for the death of a great deal of there patients over the years they practiced medicine. An unbearable burden, the "don't hurt felow creature" get activated, but if Semmelweis was a crank, the burden goes away, the "don't hurt felow creatures" is fouled in to silence. Explanation sugested by: Gustav Adolf Michaelis and Semmelweis ends. Michaelis folowed the advice on chlorine, and mortality droped drasticaly in his clinic, blaming him self for all the women that had died under his care(including his niece), became very depressed and comited suicide(if he comited suicide the others must have felt something unpleasant). Semmelweis was shuned by almost every 1. He sufered from a nervous break down, severe depression, publicly insulting his coleagues, behaving inapropriately with his family(all this could have been an unrelated neurologucal desease though). He was forcibly interned in a insane asilum and severely beaten in the proses(yeap, straitjacket and everything), he died 2 weeks later from an infected wound(like the maternity deaths). At his funeral very few people came, no family, no coleagues. No comemorative post mortum adress was given at the Hungarian Association of Physicians and Natural Scientists as it was custom. And of course death rates at his clinic reverted back to normal. If he was just a crazy crank, why go to these lenths.
• Freud ideas on sexual repression(oedipus complex...), could be reinterpreted under this theory. Various aspects of his theories are recyclable, but because he was slow in updating his theories since the time he died, there are a lot of points that are dead wrong.
• An impressive case, 18%(2007) of south african population has AIDS, a devastation to the country. President Thabo Mbeki argued, that HIV doesn't cauze AIDS, so the government of south africa did absolutely nothing for a number of years.

[edit] power(inclusive definition)

• people like to play video games, in general, is about power, the supervizor interprets that its a real meaningful activity and you are in control. This should be understood as the 2 robots from a science fiction story, they where separated from there master, and they kept making breakfast every day, while they knew that they will later throw it away. In both cases, they just folow there programing, they are not going to stop simply becauze its a meaningless activity.
• Why certain electronic equipment is full with litle butons, that no 1 ever uses? Because this way we feel we have total control over it, that we have power over it.
• Colectors(specialy men), get reinforced becauze its interpreted as conquering something, as aquiring power.
• Whats up with men and football? Well actualy the corelation between the 2 is not cauzal, the true corelation, is between men and the live event on the TV. Becauze its live, the supervizor thinks that he can influence it some how. The supervizor's rules know nothing about the wired transmission of images, so he thinks, its literaly live, in front of it. The rational of the shooting and swearing, its because the supervizor expects that it will somehow influence the outcome. Don't believe it? How many times people watch a game as a rerun?
• A usual refrain in men and the motivation in there job they are doing, is that they want to "build something". This is an interpretation of dominating nature, having power over nature, natural selection didn't foreseen that we would be building 100m wind turbines. The supervizors rule here got completely denaturated and turned on its head, whats suposed to be a destructive and violent instinct got recruited for the exact opozite.
• Adventurers and explorers, like crazy mount everest alpinists, see there fits as "conkering", the mountain, sea, desert or whatever. Eventual escalating adiction(automated calibration system) pushes them in ever greater folies, to death.
• Of course there is also the dark side of power. Serial killers, bullies, vandals.... there behaviors are interpreted as having power. Serial killers should be seen as power-over-people adicts, that went after ever greater power doses. In the same way that the power/risk adiction in dead crazy everest alpinists went too far. All adicts start small and then things get out of control.
• Litle children build towers, they colapse them, and have a lot of fun. There supervizor interprets it as having power over his toys, everything is knew and fresh to the todler, so this seemingly boring activity is very exiting to him.
• Giving a name on something is reinforced. Oficialy, it gives a sense of power, but it could be simply an instinct of language aquisition recruited in stressful situations. Examples: Hostages ask the name of the kidnaper, and sick people feel beater just by knowing the name of there disease.
• The dictators originaly, start modestly, by demanding obedience from the people and gets a high. The rub is that athe self calibrating mecanism in the supervizor kicks in, since he gets far more then the quota the assumption is that something is broken, so it reduces its sensitivity, until "normal" quantities are measured. The dictator demands even more absolute devotion from the people, and calibration mecanism kicks in again. If gone unchecked, we end up with a personality cult. A case that got ridiculously far is Turkmenistan. There, the ex president for life wrote a book, the "Ruhnama", it contains autobiographical information, revizionist history, poems and stories; all being about the spiritual and moral guidance of the people. The Ruhnama constitutes the base of skool education(including math), tests on it are necessary at university and for obtaining a driving license. Not disrespect, but failing to show enough devotion to it, is enough to land you in jail. If a foreign company wishes to gain contracts in the country, they just need to translate the book. He renamed, the months and days of the week, guess whats the new name for september. Doctors give oath to the prezident, not the Hippocratic oath. With out counting all the cheesy golden statues all over the contry and the 100 milion mosque in the midle of the desert.

  Whenever you take Ruhnama in your hand, remember you are turning it into a drop pouring into the Ocean of the Turkmen Soul! Then, the comfort, pleasure and bliss of a drop reaching the Ocean shall fill your heart.
  
  Do not read Ruhnama hastily; let every bit of thought penetrate your heart!
  
  Read Ruhnama on a table or on something like a prayer rug!
  
  Read Ruhnama as if you are saying your prayers; saying prayers means speaking of God and listening to His creatures rather than speaking of His creatures.
  
  Read Ruhnama all your life! Read it again and again in childhood, adolescence, boyhood, youth, adulthood and old age since Ruhnama's pearls of meaning spill out new aspects of every phase of life.
  
  (Ruhnama II: 30, 32)

  Historic examples of unbridled megalomania: month of july after roman emperor Julius Caesar that was born that month, month of august after roman emperor Augustus, china after its first emperor Qin Shi Huang (秦始皇), saudi arabia after Saud royal family, and the worse of all linux after emperor Linus Torvalds with an ego the size of a small planet.
• Computers are apealing to programers(mostly men), becauze they folow orders blindly, they get a high like litle dictators.

[edit] jedy mind trics()

• ads:
  The supervizor is a stupid neuronal computer, advertisers didn't fail to notice that. A computer virus, is a specialy crafted program, that by taking advantage of weaknesses of the OS, it can execute arbitrary comands. An ad(and propaganda), is a specialy crafted message, that takes advantage of the weaknesses of our supervizor to make us buy stuf. The comparison with a virus, isn't a figure of speech, its a very acurate description of whats going on. An ad, doesn't try to convince us in to buying, it tries to induce a corelation "product-good" in the supervizor. A typical mistake, in people is that they say "I'm not influenced, i buy only when i want", but precisely, the ad doesn't control you like a zombie, she influences what you want. You are realy naive, to think that billions are spend, on something that doesn't work.You can not out smart this, no more then a computer can out smart a virus, the only bulet proof way, is to not see them. Advertizers are looking for new trics all day long, have decades of experience and a lot of money at there disposal, you simply don't stand a chance. In general i recomend, to buy/subscribe your entertainment with out ads. For the Internet i recomend Ad block plus, while for the TV, DVR and comercial skiping aplications. Any advertizing avoiding/blocking system, even costly worth the investment.

• Extra on ads: If you notice, all ads for watches are set at 10:10, the rational is that the needles look like a smile, so that you get some good feelings from just that. In the same vein, clowns(target children) and nice girls(target dudes) are recruited to sell stuf.
• Fear: Everything that is potentialy dangerous is treated with a lot of paranoia, obviously because you can't explore the issue more truthfuly when you are dead. That we cut think corners when assessing danger, hasn't gone unnoticed by politicians or advertizers. Ironicaly, this tric works on politicians them selves, when they should know beater, lobyist simply argue that theres a threat of job destruction. The most classic example is, "for the children". Globaly its far easier to sell fear then hope.
• Slander: In the same vein, slander is treated with a lot of paranoia, the rational is to avoid bad people(like Albert Fish). If you notice Israeli foreign ministers, don't talk normaly, they will typicaly say something like this "Palestinians are terorizingly terorizing terorists impozing the rule of teror". Eurosceptics, will say things like "EU rules say that bananas should be straight". The important element to understand of this tric, is that even if a 100% lie is sucesfuly refuted, or if people know very well that its lies, they will get negatively predisposed anyway. Don't trust people that slander other people, its below the waist blows. Politicians just, use, abuse and reuse this.
• False memories: Don't cheat, read aloud the first list of words.
  
  List 1: sheets, pilow, matress, blanket, comfortable, room, dream, lay, chair, rest, tired, night, dark, time.
  
  wait 5min, without cheating, read list 2 and try to spot which words where in list 1.
  
  List 2: door, tree, eye, song, pilow, juice, orange, radio, rain, car, sleep, cat, dream, eat
  
  You probably said that sleep was in list 1, it wasn't. And yea i just copy pasted the lists.
  
  This is a 5min demonstration, but by a similar mechanism serious life memories can be completely fabricated.
• Weaknesses: These systems were suposed to work, with naked people, in groups that everybody knows everybody, not in multimilion cities, with a TV in every house, and messages that are done by people that do that all there lives.

[edit] some personalities()

• The supervizor it self can learn, and for it too theres overfiltering and overfiting issues. The most wide spread cause of genetic variation in the population, at the level of the supervizor, again, is the learning spectrum. circuit level variation is too complicated. Reminder the frontal lobe spectrum: standard idiot, dyslexic, neurotypical, gifted, paranoid, psychotic. A rufle corespondence would be: depressive, hyperactive, neurotypical, emotional, bipolar. The spectrum is just an example, to give a rufle idea, its not meant to be taken too seriously.

Depressive: If the supervizor is too filtering, it means that it will tend to ignore what ever he gets, so he will just let the synapses to degrade too much.

Hyperactive: If the supervizor's threshold of activation is high (overfiltering). When the frontal lobe gives orders that give results of "typical" intercity, the supervizor's activation level is weak, thus "typical" synaptic weights aren't reinforced. When the frontal lobe gives orders that give results of "high" intercity, the supervizor's activation level is typical, thus reinforcing the synaptic weights.

Neurotypical: Pathologicaly average Joe. Supervizor unexcitingly typical, responsible for training an anoyingly uninteresting frontal lobe. Responsible for painfuly boring human beings. A whooping 50% is below average, wide spread degenerating disorder, over 90%, prognosis not good, only available humane treatment is euthanasia. Examples of neurotypical savants: britney spears, Goerge bush.
Mirored in 2009 further reading links:[DATA/some personalities()/websites/Neurotypical_syndrome.html scientificaly vulgarized unciclopedia article]/[DATA/some personalities()/websites/Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical.html Institute for the Study of the Neurologicaly Typical]/[DATA/some personalities()/websites/ntscreening.html screening test]

Emotional: If the supervizor is overfiting, he will have a tendency to see what it learned in the raw data. Hence overeating( hmm, women?).

Bipolar: If the supervizor is too overfiting, like a psychotic person. It's responses don't have much logic, what it detects is overwhelmed by passed learning. A person like that would be pathologicaly defective.

• In the narcissistic personality, the quota for good esteem/status is very high. In a normal person, the synapses are morfed until the supervizor decides that the quota (from evolution) is satisfactorily reached. In a narcissistic person however, the quota is so high that this is not possible. But, esteem/status is relative, if the frontal lobe reports that "others are inferior", the supervizor is fouled, considering that the quota is now achieved, the supervizor fires only then. In a normal individual, the "others are inferior" reinforcement, is overwhelmed by other activations of the supervizor. This tric is the only way to avoid being permanently depressed for a narcissistic. The end rezult isn't nice to live with, they are self agrandizing as much as they can and put you down as much as they can. An obvious example, Czech Republic's president, Václav Klaus.

“

Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws The only shadow that the Desert knows: "I am great OZYMANDIAS," saith the stone, "The King of Kings; this mighty City shows "The wonders of my hand." The City's gone, Nought but the Leg remaining to disclose The site of this forgoten Babylon.

”

• In psychopaths, no remorse, no empathy, no guilt, don't care whats going to hapen to others(supervizor rather heavily filtering social aspects?). Actualy on them selves, this traits aren't a problem, but in there pursue of pleasure, they can become problems for there suroundings. Contrary to popular belief, most of them are actualy well integrated and out of jail, they calculated that prizons aren't nice places, the police and tough laws work on them, while in the general population its rather guilt and remorse. There is a evolutionary advantage to be a psychopath, because they simply cheat the system. The combination of lack of morality and pursue of pleasure can spill over in narcissism and sadism. Narcissistic, because when puting down people, the "its not good to put down people" is absent, while the "i'm beater then them" fires. Sadistic, because when hurting people, the "hurting people is not good" is absent, while the "i'm in power" fires. The end rezult isn't very nice to live with either, they are extremely manipulative and charming, because they will tell you anything you want to hear, but at the same time they couldn't care less about you. A lot of examples are among politicians, especialy the charming 1s.

[edit] Futurology

For say, the next 100K-300K years. Assuming information society goes on. Some extreme version of the internet, with 99,99% penetration, being around for 100s of 1000s of years. In prehistoric times, people where butt naked iliterate and very few information around, in contrast today you are awash with information.

Supervizor should get less intrusive, natural selection optimized with some relatively invasive programing, that works on average, in order to compensate for the shortage of available information. Today using the information available is more interesting then having some, program in your supervizor that works on average. Selective pressure for the supervizor it self to be more filtering and less verbose.

Frontal lobe filtering should go up, back then, important to hold on the litle info you could find. Today finding information is not the problem, finding meaningful information is the problem. Selective pressure for the frontal lobe to be more filtering.

[edit] Infinite regression loops

[edit] logic

It's natural selection that decides, thru this tweaking of the brain(filtering, supervizor), whats logical, and what isn't. Our wisdom is nothing more than distiled natural selection juice.

A litle example in order to understand well what i actualy say. Atheism, pozits that there are no gods, only natural laws, gods are just irational superstitions. From the naturalistic explanations of science about the world, the supervizor interprets that we have power. This is why atheism gets reinforced in there brain, not "logic". Wheeel yea, what did you expect, your atheism must have some rational scientific explanation don't you think? (And yes, i'm an atheist my self)

Every single time you claim some "logical", "rational" or "scientific" decision, you simply generalize what ever your supervizor reinforced, no diferent then deciding to take out the trash becauze they smell. Yes, this remains true for science too(just ignore the circularity). What actualy important, is not the truthfuly true truth, but that, "that logic", help you survive and reproduce. "Logic" realy stands for what kind of neural generalization helped your ansestors survive and reproduce until now, and you extrapolate to the future with that. Input gets in, out put gets out, something hapens, and then the supervizor plays with the synapses, there are no exceptions to the main decision loop.

In final analysis, the only inteligence that ever existed is the heuristics of natural selection

[edit] why are you a skeptic?

In general, under this theory, you are skeptical because of neuronal-aliasing in your brain(overlearned). In the same way your brain wanted to read the words and not say the colors of the leters. Your brain for a myriad of possible confiding reazon, is generalizing that i'm a krakpot and i only have anecdotal evidence. A rufle test, is if you had more or less hard to read the inovative gramar, i lost you before hand anyway.

If you think, that you don't belong in the general explanation, assuming you understood most of the above, you should be able to cook up the explanation. Even if not convinced you can still aply the principles of a theory. So the theory remains 100% consistent, there you have it, the reazon that you are not convinced by the theory. So if the theory is realy corect, you can't be convinced, because of the explanation.

Are you satisfied with this last 1? No? Reaply the theory on your self about why you find this last explanation wrong. And there you have it again, you have the full explanation, about why you aren't convinced, so again the theory in consistent. You can continue playing at this any number of iterations you want.

I want to point out, that this kind of explanation, is normal, for any theory that atempts to model our brain, its not cheap rhetorics. Its a sign that the theory is realy consistent. Any theory atempting to model our brain, claiming to be complete and consistent, should produce a naturaly flowing explanation for the lack of faith in certain brains in her self. Why should she be concerned that she is investigating her aceptance? Self reference is an unavoidable(and entertaining) fluke, when we try to investigate our selves.

[edit] Supplement

• Neural plasticity of sensory/motor system

The neurones keep taking input from the out side and follow orders from there supervisor. as usual the synapses simply morph to keep the supervisor happy. If you get a lesion in the motor cortex, as is, the impulses will not produce the desired movement. The local supervizing circuit will keep intervening until expected and actual movement are the same, or until higher order orders from the frontal lobe become reasonable. If the motor supervisor is knocked out, you get parkinson's. Ruber hand ilusion works this way. If you hit/strike something/some1, the system is smart enough to take in too acount that you are exerting these forces, so it rediouses there aparent feeling. This is why you can't tikle your self, it's smart enough to redious the aparent feeling, this way you can consentrate on potentially more urgent things that really come from the out side world. More anoyingly, when you hit your kids, the same mecanism is at work, so you feel less force on the striking hand, hence systematicaly you underestimate how painfull it realy is.

I was interest in decision making, not how sensory processing works. Sure it's not trivial, but theres nothing specially magical in sensory processing once you have something like generalizing capacity of neural nets. So it's seams, that i accidentally overstated the hardwireiness level of the sensory system. But still doesn't change the fact that i'm not interested at it, at all.

• mirror neurones

probably a mixt bag:

if gazel is afraid of a predator and run, an other gazel that saw the first gazel, should get scared too and run. Part of supervision system

the brain simply generalizes. Motor brain chunks take wide input from the out side. If the outside looks enough like what you get every day by normal body use, the brain chunk will mistakenly activate as is your body part doing a movement. The brain normaly generalizes for normal use, visual cues.

• unconcious(freud) Generalization capacity of the networks, with no coresponding explicit memory.

• experimental: The overtraining curve can be shown directly by an experiment alredy explained in the overtraining section, so this should be setleable. Ask a single quantifiable task to undividuals, the reference test would simply be to do the inverse, and we quantify the differences on a graph. Just put that on the internet. The general theory has very simple postulates, that flow as natural consequences, no out of the blue ad hock constructs.