In this installment I would like to extend the concepts of belief systems into other areas that we are all familiar with but haven’t necessarily explored.
The data organization capability of the brain which defines the worldview or belief system of the individual isn’t just haphazardly developed, but is guided by the teaching and beliefs of parents and society. It is no coincidence that beliefs formed in childhood are ultimately the hardest to modify.
Belief systems are so important that I suspect there’s more force in the Santa Claus and Easter Bunny stories than many people give credit for. These stories (or others) are used by the child’s belief system and begin to acquaint it with this fundamental organizing principle. In particular what makes these stories so significant is that they are the first introduction to formulating ideas without any evidence whatsoever. To the cynic this might seem like it is simply promoting gullibility, but I suspect it is more fundamental. One of the key items in any belief system is ultimately the integration of cultural values, which similarly aren’t necessarily provided with evidence. Such values represent a set of intangible perspectives that are used to formulate the worldview of its members. In this context, it isn’t too difficult to see that parents may well begin with relatively simple stories and eventually progress to items of value in forming the belief systems of their offspring.
Many stories are intended to convey cultural values which are presented in a simple fashion. This is an important vehicle for conveying such information because a child’s mind tends to be more binary in viewing societal values. Stealing is bad. When one gets older, there tends to be a more nuanced view of such things, such as stealing is bad unless one is stealing food to feed your family. We may still think it is wrong, but it is understandable.
Therefore it is my contention that these stories and the teaching of values actually helps develop and strengthen the basic “framework” or data organization of the brain. In the same way that children are more receptive to learning languages, so are they receptive to having their belief systems shaped. It is on this basis that propagandists of every stripe have always asserted that if they can shape the child, they will own the adult.
As we get older, our belief systems can also be manipulated into being more receptive to change by creating circumstances that are intended to cast doubt and introduce new information for assessment. An example of this occurs with something like spending the night in the proverbial haunted house. At first our belief system is challenged by the idea of the haunted house, so we are psychologically conditioned to our personal version of such a thing. We may be skeptical or receptive, but our brains our now set to evaluate data from such an environment. To the receptive individual, every noise and cold spot will reinforce an existing belief, while to the skeptic this will tend to elicit an investigative response. This isn’t to say that both might not experience fear, but the overwhelming role of the belief system is the interpretation of whatever phenomenon is experienced and how it fits into the existing framework. Fear is a powerful motivating force in enabling the possibility of change in the individual belief system. However, the most critical element of this is having been conditioned initially by being told the house was haunted.
In some cases, it may be possible to change someone’s beliefs by presenting a sufficient amount of inexplicable data which causes a reevaluation and potential integration of the new information. This is the phenomenon usually observed with magicians even though they specifically inform you that their act is not magical. We are entertained by these people because it is a form of “belief illusion” similar to what is experience by our eyes in “optical illusions”. Basically we experience something that we know isn’t true, but challenges us to believe.
It is also the role of fear that introduces some of the stranger aspects of a belief system into our behavior. The lucky rabbit’s foot, a necklace or amulet, a particular ritual, etc are all intended to help us overcome uncertainty and fear by psychologically conditioning us to whatever event we are dealing with. While it doesn’t necessarily mean that an individual rationally believes that the rabbit’s foot is lucky, there is certainly an element of not wanting to risk the outcomes with analysis. It is this process of not wanting to “jinx” events that gives rise to many unusual or outlandish beliefs.
Without stretching the point too much, I think we can argue that the human desire for “perfection” (like organization, straight lines, tended gardens, etc.) are all external reflections of this organizing principle in our brains.
The Nature of Belief Systems
Belief Systems - Part 3
Comments
Without proof, I actually suspect that this occurs like language acquisition. It is generally agreed that children learn in a vastly different manner than adults, and I suspect it has to do with the fact that the brain is more "flexible" and doesn't have a firm data organization (framework) yet.
As this framework is established, the ability to learn new skills like languages becomes correspondingly harder because we've already integrated much of these elements together. Consider that the hardest part of learning a language is learning how to "think in that language".
Gerhard Adam | 03/10/09 | 12:50 PM
In a sense, it really defines the boundary conditions with which we interpret the world around us.
Without having any great insight, I do wonder if psychological disorders (i.e. schizophrenia, etc.) may well be a result of a breakdown in this data organization framework. In other words, virtually everything becomes acceptable and the brain is no longer able to distinguish between those things that are real (and belong) versus those that don't. Sort of like being unable to differentiate the reality between dreaming and waking.
Gerhard Adam | 03/10/09 | 12:47 PM
By extension I think you could say that those stories which weren't able to tap into a child's simplified conceptual framework simply died off. This line of thought seems parallel to Dawkins' memes.
I guess the neurological explanation for adults being less flexible has to do w/ neural-prunning.
An interesting point regarding schizophrenia, or any other neurological disorder, is that the "higher" parts of the brain are hard at work inhibiting impulses. At first this is a rather backwards way of thinking about the world, b/c you would think that the more advanced parts of the brain would *produce* something. But evidence may point to the contrary, that they're striving to block & filter impulses; that's why when you're drunk you lack inhibition. Russel Barkley went down this road in theorizing about ADHD; some of his work is really fascinating, it's not just about ADHD, his 2 large influences are Fuster (who studied the relationship btwn brain damage & executive-like functions) & Bronowski (a philosopher linguist).
As for belief systems in general, perhaps the implication is that the mind is hard at work breaking things down (ie, analysis), discriminating, classifying; as contrasted to synthesizing, which might be more of a part of the child's (would you say, less pruned) brain.
kerrjac (not verified) | 03/10/09 | 13:29 PM
Actually I'll go a step farther and say that a "flawed" worldview could've potentially impacted your ability to survive, since a failure to come up with a working sense of how things behaved could have easily affected your ability to acquire food and/or mates.
One thing I also find useful is trying to assess whether any particular belief has consequences or not. If it doesn't, it is easy to see how it can persist in the environment since it ultimately does no harm (note that it doesn't need to directly provide benefit).
Gerhard Adam | 03/10/09 | 14:18 PM
Becky Jungbauer | 03/10/09 | 15:06 PM
Scientists have a belief system just as religious people do. The difference is that the scientific belief system is that the world is a logical place which can be understood by observation and experiment. In other words, it is an understandable place. A religious person will take that same data and interpret it to mean that the world originated with an outside agency to whom we are all accountable. Same data, different interpretation .... largely based on the framework used to organize the data when we were children.
I would agree that the brain's primary function must be inhibitory because the sheer volume of data to which we are exposed would render us helpless if it had to be consciously processed. That's another aspect of the "framework" I was alluding to since data we are used to (which exists comfortably within our framework) can be accepted without question, while data which falls outside of it draws our attention.
Going back to my example about ghosts (and children). If every slightly unusual event in our lives required a complete re-examination of all our experiential data, we would be unable to operate in the world. Therefore we have automatically developed guiding principles which allow us to categorize that data to allow us to process it accordingly. This is another reason why a child is much more receptive to being afraid of ghosts and monsters. Since they are still developing their data organization framework they haven't developed a view yet that precludes the existence of these entities (at least not a strong one).
As a thought experiment, take something which you find impossible to believe in, and instead of critiquing it, ask yourself what it would take to get you to believe, and then ... what would it do to your worldview to accept it? It's quite interesting when you begin to explore just how stubborn our own brains can be.
Gerhard Adam | 03/10/09 | 13:48 PM
I follow you well here except for the last sentence. I think that what you discover from doing this is much deeper than that people or their belief systems are stubborn. It's that people are operating along their own systems, which appear just as inherently "logical" to them as yours does to you, even if they're not able to express themselves as such. In all honesty, it's this line of inquiry that has made me qutie skeptical about (scientific) statements denying the autism-vaccine link (combined with the lack of a positive & specific explanation for what's going on). These mothers aren't scientists, but they're not insane either, they're real people.
My personal conclusion (or perhaps it's an assumption) is that it's integral to withold judging others (a Christian kernal of thought). Of course you *can* judge people, but it's not going to get you anywhere, b/c you're not considering the world from their view. There are social reasons for this, which is why it's historically been tied up in religion, but it extends much further into science, government, & policy. It's why I think freedom works, consumers tend to act rationally, & the majority of people are essentially good if not insightful & intelligent.
Imagine on the contrary what would happen if everyone not *only* had the view that "I'm right & others are wrong" & but also acted upon that to the best of their abilities. The Autism-vaccine is just one example of where science has gone out of it's way to proclaim that it's right & others are wrong; the contention just muddles the issue. It's when you can see the perspective from someone else's shoes that you truely make progress. As a social & scientific assumption, I try to presume that everyone is right in their own sense, it's just the sense that differs. I think that assumption has helped my clarity of thought in approaching the world, but I'm probably biased.
kerrjac (not verified) | 03/10/09 | 15:05 PM
Regarding the autism-vaccine relationship (or lack thereof). I understand what you're saying and it goes right to the point about how one cannot simply modify a belief system based on data alone. There must be something within that framework that allows for the possibility of the data being accepted. This is why simply stating that people need to accept facts will get you nowhere.
We see, time and again that data can be widely interpreted depending on one's perspective, so pinning down what actually constitutes a "fact" can often be elusive. Similarly I can understand that from the scientific perspective there is no evidence suggesting a link between autism and vaccines, so to perpetuate this idea actually reinforces a questionable belief system.
However, another element to our belief systems, is based on where we draw our skeptical lines. Who do we trust and what is the basis of it, can also determine whether new data is acceptable, especially if we aren't confident in the credibility of the source. This is where government and corporations have done a substantial bit of harm to its citizens by their past behaviors.
Part of the problem in the debate of autism/vaccines is that the problem is being posed too specifically (i.e. mercury, etc.). This gives scientists a specific question to answer, so when there is no linkage then the problem is solved. However, I suspect that the parents also have quite non-specific concerns which haven't really been articulated, so in their view, the problem is still unsolved.
I'm also not quite prepared to judge people "crackpots" that claim to have found non-standard solutions to problems. This isn't to say that they are correct, but one does have to always account for the placebo effect. Say what you will, but if a placebo works, then it is a cure (at least in a sense) and this definitely has ramifiations in terms of the worldview in which you engage the issue.
Gerhard Adam | 03/10/09 | 15:20 PM
There's a real truth to the notion that the customer is always right. I remember thinking that during summers waiting tables as an undergrad. Anyone who's worked in retail or a service industry will tell you they've seen lots of crazy customers, but most would at least agree that for all practical purposes that if you want to make any money, then that's a necessary assumption to make on the job. When you look back on it, people just get caught in the moment - you realize this as a waiter, b/c you're dealing w/hungry people. They're not crazy, they're just hungry. I think there's a bit of scientific truth in this as well.
kerrjac (not verified) | 03/10/09 | 15:32 PM
When you add the manipulation of attorneys and moneyed interests, the water gets even muddier. In addition, it's unfortunate, but the media has a vested interest in controversy, so the one entity that should be the most responsible in disseminating information, routinely fails to.
We also have to consider that based on my premise of a belief system, there will be some people that will never be convinced, so the point always needs to be to make information available, but recognizing that not everyone will be satisfied.
Gerhard Adam | 03/10/09 | 15:44 PM
From Archimedes' "Eureka!" to Homer's "do'h!"
"the media has a vested interest in controversy"
CBS Evening News has this weekly Friday segment called "Assignment America" where they pick out a feel-good story for the week, like good Samaritans or a zoo animal who saved a baby's life or stuff like that (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/assignment_america/main500617.shtml). Sometimes it really makes me feel good, but more often I find it pretty pathetic.
I've often suspected that the media - similar to other services - is more of a reflection of consumer demand than of *their* bias. That is, you could blame the media, but I think it reflects what humans look for in the news. There's a good reason for why negative news will always be more important than positive news, & for why many viewers don't mind settling for sound-bite based news instead of in-depth news, as we simply don't have the time, & even if you did, you wouldn't have the time to pursue every story to the fullest. No doubt the system is far from perfect, but I've always felt that criticisms about news being superficial, bias, or overly negative are overly harsh. One of the best aspects of today's news is that if a story (or news area) catches your attention, you can pursue it further, be it online or specialized news channels/magazines. In this sense, media is actually pretty efficient.
Relating this back to belief systems, I think it reflects the fact that some bits of info are wholly more important than others. Negative news is not simply the "opposite" of positive news in any meaningful sense, it's wholly different. Taking this one step further, an area that makes this fallacy is positive psychology, which assumes that the positive spectrum of human experience is the opposite of the negative spectrum, & that it can nudge people towards the positive end thru prescriptive science. I wrote a bit of a rant about this a while back (http://cntrly.blogspot.com/2008/11/good-bad-and-positive.html) elaborating on just how wrong that assumption is.
kerrjac (not verified) | 03/11/09 | 08:10 AM
My concern, especially with beief systems, is that such snippets of information tend to allow viewers to reinforce their belief systems by always being able to tune in on those reports that support their existing views. I'm not talking about situations that may legitimately have multiple opinions, but where an air of credibility is provided to viewpoints that shouldn't have them. Some bits of news can be independently verified for factual content and shouldn't simply be aired because it stirs up controversy by presenting information that isn't true.
Gerhard Adam | 03/11/09 | 08:25 AM
You've got me thinking more about the discrepancy between analysis & synthsis when it comes to belief systems, & I think it speaks to the media issue. Science is excellent at proceeding thru analysis, that's what it does best, b/c it limits external variables. You already know what you have to deal w/, & you're just breaking them down thru study. Along these lines, for instance, science can help give us a picture of the credibility of different news sources. But using science to tell us what we "should" watch is a whole different ballgame, which fails for the same reasons as when the gov't oversteps its bounds & errs on telling us what we should do. Just from a scientific perpsecitve, the problem w/the latter is that it's too open-ended. People have things to do; they might be going to work, cooking dinner, changing diapers, who knows. Should news programs spend more money for more accurate news, & have more commercials? Should they cater more towards accuracy at the expense of being potentially more boring & losing viewers? Should people be nudged to watch more accurate news shows w/lower ratings? This might improve knowledge of current events, but at what expense? Being late for work? Luckily many of these questions don't have to be explicitly answered, but I think it attests to the differences btwn analysis & synthsis, & the strength of science's belief system when it come s to the analysis, & its inherent weakness when it comes to synthesis.
kerrjac (not verified) | 03/11/09 | 11:14 AM
Gerhard Adam | 03/11/09 | 11:21 AM
The data organization capability of the brain which defines the worldview or belief system of the individual isn’t just haphazardly developed, but is guided by the teaching and beliefs of parents and society. It is no coincidence that beliefs formed in childhood are ultimately the hardest to modify.
The cognitive science term for this is 'neuroplasticity'. The mechanism, as you refer elsewhere is the growth of neurons and interconnections. I think - i.e. from memory, not looking up the citations - that a majority of cognitive scientists would agree that the growth process is inhibited in adulthood to a high, but non-total degree. Throughout childhood some of the the neural formations due to plasticity become substantialy 'fixed' - plasticity gives way to rigidity.
it is my contention that these stories and the teaching of values actually helps develop and strengthen the basic “framework” or data organization of the brain. In the same way that children are more receptive to learning languages, so are they receptive to having their belief systems shaped.
I agree. I tend to think of this in terms of the plasticity of mental models.
a form of “belief illusion” similar to what is experience by our eyes in “optical illusions”. Basically we experience something that we know isn’t true, but challenges us to believe.
My thoughts on this: I am told the house is haunted. Haunted houses send a shiver up the spine. My spine is tingling, it follows that the house is haunted. Think of Escher's famous monks on the stairs illusion and argumentum ad circularum, also applicable here.
Without stretching the point too much, I think we can argue that the human desire for “perfection” (like organization, straight lines, tended gardens, etc.) are all external reflections of this organizing principle in our brains.
I would say you are not stretching the point at all. Forms, worldviews or mental models - all have a common element in my opinion: abstraction to the 'ideal', in its old sense of ideational, i.e. abstracted by the operations of the mind. Having abstracted the elements of, say, geometry from the environment we then have a worldview aka mental model of a perfection which we try to project out again into the environment, and so are primed to detect in the environment.
By nature, I would say, we try not to conform to nature, but rather to make nature conform to our beliefs.
Patrick Lockerby | 05/28/09 | 21:23 PM
"... I am told the house is haunted. Haunted houses send a shiver up the spine. My spine is tingling, it follows that the house is haunted."
I agree. In fact, this is precisely what the whole point of "suggestion" is about. In particular, the example of the haunted house is something we already experience when we are in a "non-haunted" situation (i.e. home alone or in a building alone). I personally believe that, in isolation, our senses are more finely attuned, since we are more stressed (like herd animals that find themselves alone). With our senses on alert, we are more prone to hear all manner of noises that tend to confirm our original fears. When this is coupled with the suggestion that the building is actually "haunted", then regardless of our actual belief in such phenomenon, we will tend to react as if it were true.
"By nature, I would say, we try not to conform to nature, but rather to make nature conform to our beliefs."
Agreed. In this there is another principle at work which exemplifies "design" (much like the argument advanced by creationists). Anything which is "designed" requires more energy to maintain than it can ever return. Therefore, the hallmark of anything designed by an intelligent being (alien or otherwise) would be this need for energy input to maintain it. Nature requires no such intervention since it operates based on an energy equilibrium between all of its components (including its source).
Gerhard Adam | 05/31/09 | 03:06 AM
Anything which is "designed" requires more energy to maintain than it can ever return.
That'll be because 'design' implies 'intelligence' aka military-style 'intelligence' aka information. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies: information must be stored as energy states in a structure, and structures require maintenance. Agreed?
Patrick Lockerby | 05/28/09 | 21:50 PM
Gerhard Adam | 05/29/09 | 00:07 AM
Nature tends to let environments reach their own stable energy state, whereas human environments require additional energy to maintain the "idealized" state.
I meant for the principle to apply universally. If anything at all can be said to be 'organised' or 'designed', at least from the atomic level upwards, then it requires a constant energy input to remain unchanged as to exactness of components, structure and location. Think of the energy it would take to hold a planet in a fixed location relative to its sun. Apply that thought to a cell, a crystal or the Millenium tent.
The 2nd law is a law of universal application. It applies to anything that might be viewed as structured, i.e. as containing information.
Patrick Lockerby | 05/29/09 | 01:20 AM
If anything at all can be said to be 'organised' or 'designed', at
least from the atomic level upwards, then it requires a constant energy
input to remain unchanged as to exactness of components, structure and location.
Does this mean that to change our organized mental framework, we need only to momentarily decrease the energy supply holding it in place?
Austin Wyss | 05/31/09 | 01:01 AM
Does this mean that to change our organized mental framework, we need
only to momentarily decrease the energy supply holding it in place?
Austin: I've held off answering your question until I finished writing a related article.
My answer is that all change requires the use of energy. A stick may stand upright until a puff of wind sends it falling. A rock face may stand for millions of years until, undercut by waves, it topples into the sea.
Likewise, changing our minds may require very little, or very much effort.
Patrick Lockerby | 06/01/09 | 08:06 AM
Life is a far-from-equilibrium-dissipative0-structure, and can be quantified as such:
http://www.eoht.info/page/Dissipative+structure
Patrick is exactly on target, and there is much empirical evidence supporting the idea that our intelligence actually enables us to more efficiently serve the second law of thermodynamics by enabling us to "crack tough energy gradients" FOR Nature:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
There is more to this than the just second law though, because the entropic tendency is regulated by the near-static state of a nearly-closed, yet expanding universe. This instills ***efficiency*** into the equation, as we attempt to maximize work, in order to "get the most bang for our buck".
This a universal energy conservation law, as expressed by all life, (and other similarly organized structure), and idealized by intelligent life.
Richard Ryals | 05/31/09 | 04:34 AM
"...there is much empirical evidence supporting the idea that our intelligence actually enables us to more efficiently serve the second law of thermodynamics by enabling us to "crack tough energy gradients" FOR Nature"
I'm not entirely convinced of that statement, when we consider replacing rainforest with farmland, or ecosystems with streets/buildings. I noticed in one of the articles they mentioned that "human high-tech societies" are the most effective of all. I would really like to know how such a statement has been validated since comparisons to what was there before aren't likely to occur.
However, the primary point was that humans tend to build systems that require more energy, in the sense of roads, houses, mowing lawns, etc. Invariably all of these involve a large amount of energy input to maintain them in the forms we've constructed as opposed to the forms "nature" uses to fill the various niches available. In my view, much of human development is in the elimination, not increase in the number of niches occupied in any environment.
It would seem that this reduces the energy dissipation over what it was originally. Similarly when we lose diversity, it would also be moving in the direction of disspative loss rather than gain.
I'd also be interested in considering what the role of humans dumping more energy into the system than would occur simply from the sun and what impact that might have on dissipation? After all, it seems that this would be working towards cross-purposes if the evolution of life is moving towards complexity because of the energy gradient, then aren't we modifying it?
Gerhard Adam | 05/31/09 | 14:54 PM
Dorion Sagan and Eric Schneider also wrote a book called, "Into The Cool":
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&bookk...
But it is important to remember that Sagan isn't a scientist, and the environmental biologist who originated this, James Kay, died unexpectedly leaving Schneider to fend for himself.
Anyway, you might find something useful in these papers:
Schneider,
Eric D. and James J. Kay, 1994. "Life as a manifestation of the second
law of thermodynamics." Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19(6-8):
25-48. http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/lifeas.pdf
Schneider, E.D, Kay, J.J., 1994 "Complexity and Thermodynamics: Towards
a New Ecology", Futures 24 (6) pp.626-647, August 1994
Schneider, E.D, Kay, J.J., 1995, "Order from Disorder: The
Thermodynamics of Complexity in Biology", in Michael P. Murphy, Luke
A.J. O'Neill (ed), "What is Life: The Next Fifty Years. Reflections on
the Future of Biology", Cambridge University Press, pp. 161-172
Kay. J. 2000. "Ecosystems as Self-organizing Holarchic Open Systems :
Narratives and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" in Sven Erik
Jorgensen, Felix Muller (eds), Handbook of Ecosystems Theories and
Management, CRC Press - Lewis Publishers. pp 135-160
Fraser, R., Kay, J.J., 2002. "Exergy Analysis of Eco-Systems:
Establishing a Role for the Thermal Remote Sensing" in D. Quattrochi
and J. Luvall (eds) Thermal Remote sensing in Land Surface Processes,
Taylor&Francis Publishers (UPDATED 1 August 2001)
Kay, J.J., 1991. "A Non-equilibrium Thermodynamic Framework for
Discussing Ecosystem Integrity", Environmental Management, Vol 15,
No.4, pp.483-495
Kay, J.J., Schneider, E.D., 1992. "Thermodynamics and Measures of
Ecosystem Integrity" in Ecological Indicators, Volume 1, D.H. McKenzie,
D.E. Hyatt, V.J. Mc Donald (eds.), Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Ecological Indicators, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Elsevier,
pp.159-182.
Kay. J., Regier, H., 1999. "An Ecosystem Approach to Erie's Ecology" in
M. Munawar, T.Edsall, I.F. Munawar, (eds), International Symposium. The
State of Lake Erie (SOLE) - Past, Present and Future. A tribute to Drs.
Joe Leach&Henry Regier, Backhuys Academic Publishers,
Netherlands, pp.511-533
Kay, J, Allen, T., Fraser, R., Luvall, J., Ulanowicz, R., 2001. "Can we
use energy based indicators to characterize and measure the status of
ecosystems, human, disturbed and natural?" in in Ulgiati, S., Brown,
M.T., Giampietro, M., Herendeen, R., Mayumi, K., (eds) Proceedings of
the international workshop: Advances in Energy Studies: exploring
supplies, constraints and strategies, Porto Venere, Italy, 23-27 May,
2000 pp 121-133.
Kay, J., 2002, "On Complexity Theory, Exergy and Industrial Ecology:
Some Implications for Construction Ecology" in Kibert, C., Sendzimir,
J. (eds), Guy, B., Construction Ecology: Nature as a Basis for Green
Buildings, Spon Press, pp.72-107.
Kay,
J.J., 1984 Self-Organization in Living systems, Ph.D. Thesis, Systems
Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,
458p.
Richard Ryals | 06/02/09 | 10:24 AM
Gerhard Adam | 06/02/09 | 10:41 AM
It would seem that this reduces the energy dissipation over what it was
originally. Similarly when we lose diversity, it would also be moving
in the direction of disspative loss rather than gain.
I'd also be interested in considering what the role of humans dumping
more energy into the system than would occur simply from the sun and
what impact that might have on dissipation? After all, it seems that
this would be working towards cross-purposes if the evolution of life
is moving towards complexity because of the energy gradient, then
aren't we modifying it?
Just an observation, but complexity depends on maintaining a certain range of flow of energy through the system, so you have to enhance that process to increase complexity in isolated regions of the system. Eric Schneider told me that this occurs by increasing the frequency and the intensity of the natural cycles that define the range of flow. This makes sense in context with the universal requirement that the entropy always increases, and something has to be sacrificed to pay the piper, so other niches are going to have to go.
Richard Ryals | 06/02/09 | 11:46 AM
"This makes sense in context with the universal requirement that the entropy always increases, and something has to be sacrificed to pay the piper, so other niches are going to have to go."
Isn't this simply restating what environmentalists have been saying all along .... human encroachment is destroying biodiversity? While entropy will always increase, it isn't necessarily true that humans are maintaining their end of the dissipative side of this equation. Therefore a loss of complexity (or biodiversity) would still result in entropy increases.
Gerhard Adam | 06/02/09 | 12:17 PM
societies are necessarily more complex than the environments they
replaced.
Maybe it isn't. Maybe it is simply that they increase entropy more efficiently than previous environments did?
Isn't this simply restating what environmentalists have been saying all
along .... human encroachment is destroying biodiversity? While
entropy will always increase, it isn't necessarily true that humans are
maintaining their end of the dissipative side of this equation.
Therefore a loss of complexity (or biodiversity) would still result in
entropy increases.
That's true, and I don't know that biodiversity is what's being called for. Heck, my own understanding is that this process ultimately enables intelligent life to directly affect the symmetry of the universe in a manner that will eventually lead to another big bang, thereby preserving causality, the arrow of time, and the second law of thermodynamic... indefinitely. Which is a whole nother level of subservience to the second law that enables the universe itself to "evlolve" to a higher ordering of the same basic configuration in order to achieve this:
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073320.html
Richard Ryals | 06/02/09 | 14:29 PM
Maybe it is simply that they increase entropy more efficiently than previous environments did?
IF global warming is occurring, this would suggest the reverse since more energy is being retained and consequently if the "far from equilibrium" state holds for biology, then it would suggest that the stage is set for more complexity to evolve (and not necessarily in humans).
My whole point of biodiversity, is that the filling up of various niches corresponds to the idea that as energy is available, the biology "evolves" a level of complexity that can take advantage of that available energy and thereby improve the dissipative system towards increased entropy.
There are many systems that display high levels of energy that have failed to produce life, so the "far from equilibrium" state is no guarantee that in the absence of many other criteria, the conditions for life would occur. In other words, the natural state of the thermodynamic system is to simply let things be and entropy will still increase. The anamoly only exists when there is an opportunity for complex chemicals to develop and thereby decrease entropy that a gradient exists and the need to dissipate the entropy occurs.
In the end, the loss of biodiversity also reduces the energy gradient, so the loss of life wouldn't affect thermodynamics in the least. If entropy decreases because of human activities, more energy would be poured into the system than could be utilized which would tend to create the conditions wherein "complexity" could increase, potentially to the point of chaos.
My whole point is that I'm simply not convinced that we know enough about the total thermodynamics of our system to project that we are "more efficient".
Gerhard Adam | 06/02/09 | 16:24 PM
Maybe I shouldn't have used your words:
Maybe it is simply that they increase entropy more efficiently... than some other less-specialized mechanism, because that's what we are, and it doesn't change your point since it doesn't matter to the second law if the energy is retained within the environment as long as energy has been released to *anywhere* by our actions.
As an example, we break rocks just like the wind, the waves and the rain does, but we use jackhammers to do it because we are hardwired to use our intelligence to find more efficient ways to mix layers, which also serves to satisfy the second law of thermodynamics.
My whole point is that I'm simply not convinced that we know enough about the total thermodynamics of our system to project that we are "more efficient".
I think that we are confusing gradients within gradients, but there is little doubt that our leap from apes to harness fire... and beyond, most definitely made us more efficient at satisfying the second law of thermodynamics than we were prior to that, so the evidence indicates that this is why we are here.
What might change your point is the Milankovitch cycles - as there may be good reason why we need to rapidly warm the climate that has everything to do with our immediate survival of the very long-term period of planetary glaciation that is predicted by these cycles if we don't offset this runaway effect with an equally drastic effect.
Either way, theories like ours are dead on arrival in the fanatical world of *political* science where the consensus wears a badge of ideological righteousness, but hey... they wouldn't build windmills if we weren't supposed to bat at them, right?... ;)
Richard Ryals | 06/05/09 | 04:46 AM
Efficiency is a slippery word, because, as you pointed out, the second law of thermodynamics is satisifed in any of these cases, but to suggest that humans have produced a "better" way is putting too much stock in numbers we don't have a good handle on.
If you really think about it, there would be a tremendous efficiency in the energy gradient if every human being on the planet died, simply because it would boost the biomass of micro-organisms and scaveners to unprecedented levels and definitely dissipate some entropy. However, I don't think that such a scenario helps visualize the role any of this plays and consequently I'm not as enthralled with too much focus on the thermodynamics (over the long term).
Gerhard Adam | 06/05/09 | 12:44 PM
Do you think type-A and type-B personalities would then have different organizing principles?
I never understood why Canon Law established seven as the age of reason. Heck, 21-year-olds have a hard enough time being reasonable sometimes.
There are a number of experiments that could be derived from this idea of setting the framework up in childhood - what about kids who were told that Santa Claus was just a lovely myth and not something to believe in? How does the physiology of the brain change, if at all, as nuances start to be incorporated into the frameworks? What about people with psychosocial disabilities - how does the brain compare to a "normal" person?