The Clumping Effect

by Rich Feldenberg

Cognitive biases permeate our thinking process, leading us to false conclusion and beliefs. Aristotle called humans, “The Rational Animal”, but it has been pointed out before that we are much more rationalizing than rational. We have a strong tendency to hold onto our notions, defending them with faulty logic and weak arguments, because we wish them to be true. Motivational reasoning and emotional argument is common to see in even very intelligent and educated individuals. Daniel Kahneman helped to define the idea of cognitive bias, and popularized it in his book, “Thinking Fast and Slow”. Over the decades the ways in which evolution has mesigned the human mind to fail the litmus test of reality testing has been more fully explored, and the list of cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and faulty brain circuits continues to grow ever longer.
I would like to introduce what I believe is a new, and as yet, unidentified type of cognitive bias the I’m labeling as “The Clumping Effect”. I have noticed this effect in myself over the last few years, and although I have not done a statistical analysis of the effect, feel it can be nothing more than a cognitive bias. The effect occurs when I am on the trail, either on my bike or running. The nature of the effect is this: If there is a stretch of trail with few runners, walkers, and cyclists, I notice that if there are two other people on the trail that are separated from each other at time 1 (when I notice them), then the three of us all converge at the same spot (time 2). In other words, if I’m on my bike I don’t just pass the first person and then later the second person, we all happen to be along the same point of the path together at time 2.
This effect can occur if all three subjects are moving in the same direction, or if two or moving in the same direction and one in the opposite direction, but all subjects must be moving at different velocities. In this definition I’m using the term velocity in its true physical sense (speed and direction), because you could for instance, have two bikes moving at the same speed, but opposite direction. Place a runner in-between the bikes and the Clumping Effect demands that the three will pass each other at the same point.
I notice this because it is somewhat annoying to be a cyclist, moving at a good clip on an empty trail, then have to be cautious about avoiding a collision when the lone spot of the trail is suddenly at full capacity. And, that I believe is the underlying reason for the Clumping Effect. It is those instances that stand out in my mind, whereas the many times that I pass one athlete then the other doesn’t really register as an event at all. We remember the hits and forget the misses, as any good skeptic knows.
I would be interested to know if anyone else has ever experienced a similar effect. I may also decide to do an experiment to measure the incidence of “hits” in comparison to “misses” on my typical trail. I’m curious to know do ‘hits to misses’ happen at a rate of 1:100 for example. How often does it have to happen that it stands out in my mind as something that “always happens”. Also, what proportion of users of the trail also notice the effect? I could send out a survey to local running and cycling groups?

References and other sources of good info:
1. Cognitive Biases Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
2. Daniel Kahneman Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
3. “Thinking Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman. I really recommend this book.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/thinking-fast-and-slow/id443149884?mt=11
4. “The Skeptics Guide to the Universe (SGU)” podcast. Great free source of information on how to think logically.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org
5. “Neurological” Blog by Dr. Steven Novella. Also filled with great information on skeptical and logical thinking.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/
6. “The Rationally Speaking Podcast”, host Julia Galef.
http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org
7. SGUs guide to argument and logical fallacies: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

What Would A Higher Level of Consciousness Look Like?

by Rich Feldenberg

As research in the neuroscience continues to advance, we are gaining more and more knowledge in regard to the sophisticated aspects of higher brain function.  Human neuroanatomy is well described, and the molecular biology leading to patterns of activity of individual brain cells up to complex neural circuits, containing astronomical numbers of brain cells, is also becoming better understood.  In addition, there is a great deal of information on patterns of human behavior, the ways people think, and the flaws and biases associated with normal human thinking based on research from the field of cognitive psychology.  One thing researcher still don’t agree about is, what is what do we mean by consciousness.  There is no single concise definition for consciousness, and there are some experts that think that this is not a well formulated or coherent question, and as such, we can never come up with a satisfactory answer or explanation for what it is or how it arises. Consciousness may not be any one particular thing, but may emerge by association of multiple brain systems.  

This reminds me a bit of the book, “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” by Douglas Adams, where a hyper-intelligent pan dimensional species built the supercomputer “Deep Thought”,  to find out once and for all, the answer to life, the universe, and everything, only to find after running the program for millions of years the answer was 42.  This didn’t seem like the kind of answer they were expecting.  When they asked Deep Thought what this meant the computer told them that they really didn’t ask the right question.  Our asking what consciousness is could be a little like this.  If we don’t know how to ask the question, the answer may not make a lot of sense.

Some would say that consciousness seems to be the property of being self aware of one’s own existence, to be aware of having certain ideas and thoughts, to be aware of information being received externally from one’s body through the senses, as well as, being aware of sensory information being received from within one’s own body.  

While intelligence and consciousness seem to be correlated to a large extent, these also appear to be two separate characteristics.  Intelligence is also a nebulous sort of concept, and is probably composite of many different factors.  It might be easier, in fact, to contemplate a higher level of intelligence than a higher level of consciousness.  We can all sort of imagine what it might be like to be smarter, but it seems less clear what it would mean to be more self aware.

Intelligence may be a property associated with problem solving, memory storage, memory access, and predicting future events.  It seems reasonable to conclude that if you have consciousness then there must be some level of intelligence associated with that.  If any creature or object is self aware, then there must be some degree of intelligence that goes with it, even if both the level of consciousness and intelligence are low.  It also seems reasonable to conclude that creatures with greater levels of consciousness may generally have a higher level of intelligence.  It may not follow that consciousness always has to exist with intelligence, however.  For example, it has been proposed that philosophical zombies could theoretically exist.  In other words, some entity that can think exactly like an intelligent human, respond perfectly to complex questions, solve problems, show appropriate emotions, and so on, but internally is not self aware any more than your pocket calculator when it calculates that 2+2=4.  This might apply to intelligent machines, where their very nature makes it difficult to determine if they have self awareness or not – Turing test be damned!  It could also apply to other species, both terrestrial or extraterrestrial where brain structure and nervous system are so different from us that determining the presence of consciousness could be very problematic.   

Down here on good old earth, it is easy to see that animals like chimps, dolphins, and our beloved family dog have intelligence.  Dogs for example recognize us, form social bonds with us, display emotion, recognize patterns of behavior and can anticipate future events based on past experience.  This is intelligence.  Many of us would conclude that dogs have some degree of consciousness, but of course, we can never really peer into the mind of our pet to know for sure that they are self aware.  I personally feel that philosophical zombies can’t really exist.  If something can mimic a self aware entity so perfectly, it must actually be a self aware entity.  It is just as clear that you can never prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that anyone else really has a mind other than yourself.  Solipsism, as such, while possibly unfalsifiable, is never the most parsimonious explanation for the world around us.  It basically places us at the center of the universe, and so is by far the least likely explanation for the universe around us.   

Our brains have evolved to accept a theory of mind that allows us to view other people, besides just ourselves, as having thoughts, concerns, intentions and emotions.  This might seem a necessary requirement for a social animal, lest we forget the social insects like bees and ants.  It is certainly less clear that an ant recognizes its fellow workers as being capable of feeling pain or hunger, like it itself has evolved to perceive, but perhaps it does.  For an animal with a more complex nervous system, like a human, having a built in theory of mind is probably vital to working together towards common objectives and organizing patterns of society.  Our ancestors with this trait of understanding the mind of others, were more likely to survive due to the reproductive advantage of mutual cooperation and understanding in the group they were a part of. We must be careful, however, since these same biological circuits that evolved to give us a theory of mind often fire even when they are stimulated by patterns that have nothing to do with human behavior.  An example would be, when we as kids often feel that our toys have feelings, and could be sad if mistreated or neglected.  As adults, we often have the sense that there is unseen agency in the world.  Many primitive cultures believed there were spirits in the water, trees, sky and so on. There was a sense that other things must naturally have a mind like ourselves.  These kinds of superstitions live on today in many forms.   

So what might a higher level of consciousness look like?  It seems unlikely that consciousness is an all or none phenomenon, that it is either on or off.  We know that there are altered levels of consciousness that we are all well familiar with.  Sleep is a prime example.  During non-dream sleep we may not be aware of very much or anything at all.  People awakened from non-dream sleep often have no memory of anything or may recall only a few scattered thoughts or feelings.  During REM or dream sleep, we all know that we have a rich experience, but are usually unaware that we are dreaming, or that the events during the dream seem unusual.  Only after waking do we recognize that the dream scenario defied common sense, logic, and often the laws of physics.  The memory of the dream will usually quickly fade, unless reinforced by an active attempt to remember it.  The sleeping state, therefore, represent an altered level of consciousness.  During the dream state perceptions are altered, processing abilities are impaired, and our capacity for critical thinking is practically absent.  Lower level consciousness may be similar to having our mental processing systems and critical thinking skills shut off.  

During deep sedation or general anesthesia, our level of consciousness is artificially impaired.  Of course, this is what we want when undergoing a potentially painful or unpleasant procedure or surgery.  Most people have no awareness or concept of the passage of time when they are out during surgery.  The time under general anesthesia is essentially lost to them.  There was still brain function occurring during anesthesia, but not much higher brain function.  Even much of the crucial basal brain function is significantly impaired during general anesthesia, such as respiratory drive, making it critical that your anesthesiologist is also managing your airway and “breathing for you” by placing you on a ventilator while you are unconscious.  In many cases, the mechanism by which anesthetics alter consciousness is not well understood.

Drugs, such as anesthetics or recreational drugs that alter level of consciousness seem to be affecting certain brain areas that are necessary for maintaining consciousness.   This is also apparent with loss of consciousness that occurs with head trauma, where brain function has been disturbed in some way.  Axons stretched or sheared, neurons swollen, neurotransmitter levels in the synapses altered.   These kind of details, and many other observations of brain damaged patients, makes it clear that consciousness is a function of the brain.  There is no real evidence for a mind-body dualism that many people feel must be so.  

I tend to think of consciousness like a flashlight that is illuminating a basement filled with files and papers.  What items happen to be illuminated by the flashlight are what we are conscious of at that moment in time.  Everything else in the basement resides in our subconscious.   We may have some thought under the light in one moment, but soon the light has moved over to another item, and no longer illuminated, we lose the first thought from our conscious mind.  Some items in the basement hide in corners where we haven’t shined the light for a very long time, and possibly will never shine the light in those spots ever again.  

Perhaps a higher level of consciousness would give us the ability to hold our view over a much larger portion of our thoughts and memories at any one time, turning the flashlight into a spotlight.  Take this to the obvious extreme and we could light up the entire garage and all our previously subconscious thoughts and memories would now be in full focus at the same time.  There would be no difficulty finding any information that you possessed in your head, and you could think on multiple levels at one time.  Our internal awareness would be complete.

If being self aware is part of the conscious experience, then what would it feel like to be “more” self aware?  The Crisp and Turner, 2010 definition of self awareness is, “ a psychological state in which people are aware of their traits, feelings and behavior. Alternately, it can be defined as the realization of oneself as an individual entity.”  With this in mind a higher level of consciousness may mean that we are aware of our feelings and other traits much more often than we are now.  When we are focused on other activities, we aren’t necessarily thinking about how we are feeling, our internal states, or even that we exist at that moment.  A being with a higher level of consciousness might be much more in-tuned with those traits.  That is often the cited purpose of engaging in mindfulness exercises or meditation, so as to be more aware of your thoughts.  It doesn’t come very naturally for us most of the time.  Many times it is difficult to even describe what you’re feeling even when you do try to focus on it.  Again, take this to the absurd extreme and a being with a vastly higher level of consciousness than ourselves would never forget that they exist, what they are feeling, or any of their internal thought processes.  It would almost seem that if Artificial Intelligence (AI) is ever achieved that this kind of high level consciousness would be relatively easy to envision.  If a machine can be self aware at all, then what barrier would there be to it being more aware of all of it’s inner thoughts, identity, feelings, and memory than the average or even above average human.  Combine this with a superior intelligence, and wow, this may be the next giant leap in evolution.  

With human level consciousness, there are so many subconscious process going on behind the scenes, such as the basic instincts to survive and reproduce, that influence our day to day lives in just about every way.  Much of human behavior can be explained by these influences, even though we don’t often see this in ourselves very easily.  Perhaps having a greater awareness of all these subconsciously motivating forces could help us to be a more rational species.  Perhaps we will one day evolve from Homo sapiens to Homo rationalis (the rational ape).

The Dialogs: Is there a limit to Science?

by Rich Feldenberg

In the Dialogs the Robot from Lost in Space and Speed Racer find themselves suddenly transported to a distant location to discuss a topic of philosophy of science. This has happened on many occasions. They don’t know how they come to this place or if some intelligent being is behind it. When they return to their own worlds no one else is aware that they have even been gone.
This time Speed and the Robot suddenly appear on a beach at sunset. They are on ancient earth, in the greek islands.  The sky is ablaze with deep reds and purples as the sun is sinking beneath the sea. Waves are crashing loudly on the rocky shore and a gentle breeze is blowing. There is no one else on the island, but just 30 miles south, and out of view of our heroes, a fleet of Athenians is making a crossing as they prepare for battle.

“Hello again, Speed Racer.  In principle there are no limits to science.” Says the Robot, It’s bubble encased brain blinking red and yellow lights. “It’s methodology makes it the best tool to apply in an attempt to answer any question.”

“Good to see you again Robot.  Of course there are limits to science.” Says Speed, as he removes his white helmut and takes a step closer to the robot’s hulking metal body. “There are plenty of question it can not answer. In fact, it can’t answer the most important questions, like what is the meaning of life? What is the most ethical thing to do in a particular situation? What is love, how can you prove that you’re in love or that someone loves you? Science may be a useful tool to answer certain questions, but it completely fails in the most important areas.”

The robots accordion style arms raise into the air, claws open as its blinking red speech unit broadcasts its deep mechanical voice. “I think that if you examine both the true definition of science, as well as, the questions that you believe science can not enlighten us on you’ll find that science does, in fact, have a great deal to say and offer to us. I would also propose that if there are certain questions that science can not answer, then there is also no reason to believe that any other method of knowledge acquisition has any hope of being any more successful.”

“You’re saying that intuition, spirituality, religion, mediation, and so on, have no value? That’s ridiculous”, said Speed. Even you can’t analyze all the available data necessary for every decision you make or every insight you have. If you tried to do that you’d never even make it out the space hatch every morning. You’d be paralyzed with indecision as you scan through all the available literature, contemplate moves and counter moves, and continually update your Basyean analysis algorithm, for even the simplest choice you had to make. I dare to say that even with the processing speed of your computer brain it would take you hours to decide if you should first conduct a soil analysis, inspect the Jupiter II perimeter for danger, or see if Dr. Smith is up to no good, when you activate your circuits each morning.”

The robot rotated its torso slightly “Negative, as usual Speed Racer, you’ve made many false assumptions, which lead you to your illogical conclusions. First, science is simply the most reliable method that you humans, or machines like myself, have to answers questions. Science is not a perfect system, but has a number of qualities that make it extremely useful and unique. It is a self correcting system so that any conclusions from a particular experiment may be updated by new data from additional experiments. It uses statistical methodology to come to conclusions that may be very different than “common sense” intuitions would predict. It’s experiments or observations can be designed to minimize the potential bias that are inherent in both the human and the machine mind.”

“But that still doesn’t mean it can answer any question.” Speed looked out onto the darkening horizon. The stars were beginning to appear in the sky and it was getting a little cooler now. “It has important limits. I might not expect a machine to understand that, but most humans realize that there are other ways of knowing. Science is limited to naturalistic investigations and explanations. If there are phenomenon outside of nature then science will always be blind to it.”

“While human intuition and meditation and prayer may result in some eventual decision making process, there is no reason to believe that any special knowledge is delivered via these methods. Take intuition as an example”, said the robot as it’s high frequency sensors were rotating near the head. It’s blinking lights now seemed quite bright as the fading sun became lost below the ancient greek sea . “It’s clear that humans have intuition about certain things. It’s likely that over the course of evolution Homo sapiens has evolved the ability to have insight into certain common situations. Intuition might give a human the feeling that there is some danger in this place, and that it would be best to leave. This could easily be an evolved trait to promote survival, and those humans that didn’t feel a sense of dread or doom in a particular situation may have been less likely to pass on their genes to subsequent generations if they were eaten by saber tooth tigers or killed by neighboring tribes because they didn’t pick up on subtle unconscious clues that their immediate environment was unsafe. Those systems built into your neural networks are nothing more than survival circuits and were never evolved to produce accurate information about the world. They only have to be correct often enough to enhance survival, but in no way need to be highly accurate, and can be prone to a high false positive rate. Even the software engineers that designed my computer brain, and other AI even more sophisticated than myself recognized the importance of building in a set of heuristics to prevent a robot from harm and damage without involvement of higher brain circuits. “

Speed took a few steps toward the water. “Look Robot, I appreciate that science has taught us about black holes in the center of galaxies, and quarks in protons and neutrons, and gives us the knowledge to build interstellar ships like the Jupiter II to travel to the stars, or to design the Mach 5 to win races, but it can’t tell us about meaning or purpose or the right way to live your life. You have to find the answer to those questions through other means.”

“In many situations there may be insufficient data to draw firm conclusions”, said the robot, “and in all cases science is clear that it’s conclusions are non absolute but simply the closest approximation to truth that we can come to at the time. Asking, “what is the meaning of life”, may be an empty and futile question, since it is quite reasonable to conclude that there is no objective meaning – that the question itself is meaningless. And in this way one does reach the limit of science, in the sense that science can not answer a question that has no answer. Many philosophers would conclude that we have to create our own purpose for our life, and that this self-created purpose can be very fulfilling and give our temporary existence a great deal of meaning.”

“What about things that we know are real but can’t be studied in a lab like love?” Speed put his hand over his heart. “How can science prove that Trixie loves me? I don’t need to be put in an fMRI scanner to know. I know that she does but there is no test that can show something so important and invisible as love.”

“Love is a human emotion”, the robot said. “There is sufficient evidence to conclude that it is also present to some extent in other complex animals, especially higher mammals. While I don’t have that emotion built into my AI circuitry, there is clear scientific evidence that love does exist as a property of the central nervous system of certain animals, like humans. There is no evidence, however, that love exists outside of these systems. In other words, there is no proof that love is a force in space or would exist if there were no life or intelligent beings in the universe. Emotions, like love can be studied in the lab. Their effects on human behavior can be observed, measured, classified, and understood, in terms of underlying mechanisms. Based on that understanding, predictions can be made as to effects on future behavior or activities of those afflicted by such emotions. You can’t “know” that Trixie loves you, but you can have a high degree of confidence that she does based on experience and observation. An independent observer, such as myself, might come to a similar conclusion based on a careful inspection of facial expression, body language, speech patterns, and so on. The level of confidence might be improved further if I did indeed scan Trixie’s brain to examine blood flow patterns and oxygen consumption in specific parts of the brain while she was looking, thinking about, and interacting with you.”

Speed circled around the robot as the robot rotated its body without moving its legs. “Well, lets say that for the sake of argument “, continued Speed, “there are ghosts. You know, some kind of spirit with an intelligence of some kind that can haunt a house or drive an invisible ghost race car. Science could never find that because it is only designed to look for natural causes, and the scientists themselves would never believe in ghosts so wouldn’t design an experiment to test for it. You have to admit that is true.”

The robot answered. “Speed Racer, if there is another type of reality that exists, that has some form of interaction with the natural world then that is a scientific claim. Whether that claim involves ghosts, spirits, ESP, angels, miracles, or so on. If it affects this world it can be studied in some way by the scientific method. While extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, to quote Carl Sagan, scientists follow the data. If there was sufficient and reproducible effects that could best be explained by ghosts, then that hypothesis would have to be seriously considered. So far, that type of evidence has never been reliably demonstrated which leads scientists to conclude that any supernatural phenomenon seems highly unlikely. It can never be fully ruled out since additional evidence might surface at anytime and in science one is always open to new evidence.”

“So you are saying that science has no limits?” Speed said, squinting into the robots bubble head.

“Not necessarily”, replied the robot. “There may be physical limits that science will never be able to penetrate. If quantum uncertainty is built into the very fabric of space-time we will never have a full understanding of the quantum state of an object. In other words we can’t know both an electron’s position and momentum with full certainty. We may never be able to probe matter at the smallest Planck scales since that may take more energy than is available in the entire observable universe. It is also possible that our minds might have a certain limit in which we simply can not understand anymore beyond a particular point. Some of those limits could also be imposed by physical limits so that even the best designed computer brain might never be made intelligent enough to grasp the most fundamental truths of the universe. Your pet chimp Chim Chim can never be taught to understand calculus because it’s brain is just too simple, but there may be no plausible brain that could fully comprehend all aspects of nature.”

Speed looked down at his feet. “Even I had trouble with calculus. Trixie had to tutor me through it. I see what you’re saying Robot. I’ll consider your points. I feel like we’re being pulled back to our worlds again. I’m in the middle of a big race and the Car Acrobatic Team was trying to finish me off. I’m sure I’ll see you again.”

“Good luck in your race Speed Racer”, said the machine. “I was in the middle of searching for Penny Robinson who is lost on the planet we are stranded on. I must help find her. Until we meet next time, Speed Racer.”