So sorry, my love but this is not exactly what you requested.
I've thought a lot about this and I'm in trouble, so let's explain what is the trouble Im facing.
I've seen this pattern, the pattern that some complex systems seem to follow... You see, complex systems are systems composed by many many many similar agents that interact between each other.
Right?
Imagine, each agent as a state machine... ok, sorry, I know you don't know what a state machine is, so let's try to explain what it is... we use them A LOT!
A state machine is a THING, and that thing has a state. State can be anything, like 1 or 0, the most common for computers which use a lot of them. But it can be "happy" (like a person) or "excited" (like a neuron).
The state of the machines change, that's obvious. But how does it change? That's what makes every state machine different. A state machine (like a transistor, a human or a neuron) changes its own state depending on TWO things:
1. The current state
2. External input
So if I'm mildly sad and something good happens to me, I'll be happy. But if I'm feeling a lot of apathy, the same good thing can happen to me and I won't be happy... Do you get it?
In this case my mood is my state, and the external input is the good thing that happened to me, and then, my state changes (or it stays the same)
In complex systems what happens is that the agents create structures among them that makes their own state stay unchanged (or changed very little), it's like the universe doesn't really like changing, but there are many things that change because of this or that, so every piece of the universe is in constant negotiation: "Hey, do this so that I don't have to move" and then the other pieces goes "but first you do this"... And they keep doing that until none of the pieces has to change.
That trend in the universe is fucking magical, I love it. I think that the brain takes advantage of it and does this:
"If things try to become stable always, let's create a correlation between stability and performance"
So that's a very rough and aggressive simplification of the brain, but it's actually very accurate. The performance of our body is related to the stability of our brain. If we perform ok, our brain is stable, if we perform like shit, our brain is not stable. What does it mean stability? that the state of the THING (in this case the brain) doesn't change, or changes a little bit.
But that's the question? how does a system creates a correlation between performance in OTHER system, with stability in itself?
That's the problem I'm facing right now and I have tons of shapeless ideas in my mind about it. I need to come up with an answer.
But now let's thing about our brain. We can perform bad in something, let's say mathematics. And so our brain becomes unstable because that means learning, and we become good at maths, but the whole fucking brain changed so... we became bad with language. That doesn't actually happen. It's like we have mini intelligent agents inside our brain, and when we perform bad, the brain "knows" which part is performing bad, and creates instability only in that part, so that we keep being good with language.
That's the new question. How does a brain knows which part is performing bad, and which part is NOT performing bad? Let's say we have an answer to that. How do we implement that without a centralized process, but rather a uncentralized behaviour. What I mean is... How does a motor neuron knows it's behaving bad, if they ones that feel pain are the sensor neurons?
Another way to ask that is... between all the neurons that exist between the sensor and the motor, which one is doing wrong?
I've thought a lot about this and I'm in trouble, so let's explain what is the trouble Im facing.
I've seen this pattern, the pattern that some complex systems seem to follow... You see, complex systems are systems composed by many many many similar agents that interact between each other.
Right?
Imagine, each agent as a state machine... ok, sorry, I know you don't know what a state machine is, so let's try to explain what it is... we use them A LOT!
A state machine is a THING, and that thing has a state. State can be anything, like 1 or 0, the most common for computers which use a lot of them. But it can be "happy" (like a person) or "excited" (like a neuron).
The state of the machines change, that's obvious. But how does it change? That's what makes every state machine different. A state machine (like a transistor, a human or a neuron) changes its own state depending on TWO things:
1. The current state
2. External input
So if I'm mildly sad and something good happens to me, I'll be happy. But if I'm feeling a lot of apathy, the same good thing can happen to me and I won't be happy... Do you get it?
In this case my mood is my state, and the external input is the good thing that happened to me, and then, my state changes (or it stays the same)
In complex systems what happens is that the agents create structures among them that makes their own state stay unchanged (or changed very little), it's like the universe doesn't really like changing, but there are many things that change because of this or that, so every piece of the universe is in constant negotiation: "Hey, do this so that I don't have to move" and then the other pieces goes "but first you do this"... And they keep doing that until none of the pieces has to change.
That trend in the universe is fucking magical, I love it. I think that the brain takes advantage of it and does this:
"If things try to become stable always, let's create a correlation between stability and performance"
So that's a very rough and aggressive simplification of the brain, but it's actually very accurate. The performance of our body is related to the stability of our brain. If we perform ok, our brain is stable, if we perform like shit, our brain is not stable. What does it mean stability? that the state of the THING (in this case the brain) doesn't change, or changes a little bit.
But that's the question? how does a system creates a correlation between performance in OTHER system, with stability in itself?
That's the problem I'm facing right now and I have tons of shapeless ideas in my mind about it. I need to come up with an answer.
But now let's thing about our brain. We can perform bad in something, let's say mathematics. And so our brain becomes unstable because that means learning, and we become good at maths, but the whole fucking brain changed so... we became bad with language. That doesn't actually happen. It's like we have mini intelligent agents inside our brain, and when we perform bad, the brain "knows" which part is performing bad, and creates instability only in that part, so that we keep being good with language.
That's the new question. How does a brain knows which part is performing bad, and which part is NOT performing bad? Let's say we have an answer to that. How do we implement that without a centralized process, but rather a uncentralized behaviour. What I mean is... How does a motor neuron knows it's behaving bad, if they ones that feel pain are the sensor neurons?
Another way to ask that is... between all the neurons that exist between the sensor and the motor, which one is doing wrong?
Comments
Post a Comment