Showing posts with label collective intelligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label collective intelligence. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 3, 2019

Mind Control



It should come as no surprise that we look to others to help us make decisions, whether they're life-changing or everyday decisions. In a new study, we see that when mice choose what to eat, they utilize "taster mice" in their group that are the first to eat from a new food source.

I'm not sure what makes one a taster-mouse in the first place, but they do exist. In order for mice to decide at the colony level whether they should be eating from a certain food source, they don't ask their friends, and they don't check their newsfeed. Instead they use the smell of taster-mice whiskers.

In reality, mice don't do anything. Their brains are programmed by the smell of the taster-mice to steer them towards some food sources and away from others. Their repeated olfactory interactions with the taster mice and the social network they subsequently inform will rewire the neural network in their prefrontal cortex – the place where decisions are made. This alteration links the olfactory cue from the taster-mice to the reward center in the brain, which then motivates the mice to find that smell again.

We can think of all preference as following a similar pattern of social interaction and propagation. Taster-mice function as hubs of their social network. The difference is that humans are a bit more sophisticated. Instead of just transmitting the smell of safe, available food, the hubs of human networks spread styles, preferences, ideas, and information in general.

The interesting corollary is that in mice, the olfactory cues are literally re-wiring the pleasure-seeking centers of their brains, whereas in humans, all kinds of cues can redirect our behaviors. Olfaction is already known to be so tightly integrated with our decision-making and reward centers, but when the actual process by which this takes place is extrapolated to other senses, it suggests that we are way less in control of our own thoughts, desires and behaviors than we may think.


Notes
June 2019, phys.org

Post Script
By the way, casually mentioned in the article that presented this study, was the practice of "erasing memories" in the mice in the study. It's a technique used in optogenetics where a single neuron is zapped. I'm pretty sure it was only a few years ago that we first heard of this technique, and now it's just thrown in there like de rigueur. Eternal Sunshine here we come!

Post Post Script
On Mimetic Desire:
"All desire is a desire to be [someone else]"
-Rene Girard, Quand ces choses commenceront ... Entretiens avec Michel Treguer. Paris: arléa. ISBN 2-86959-300-7. p28. 1994.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Brainless Intelligence


Many-headed slime mold aka Physarum polycephalum, image via the French National Centre for Scientific Research, 2016 

Some folks made slime think. The lowly slime mold, a single-celled protist, shows evidence of learning. It remembers the particular route that avoids irritants placed in its path by tinkering scientists. Yup. Funny thing is, the organism investigated is commonly called the “many-headed slime.” This turns out to be an ironic name, for this organism, without a central nervous system, acts like it does in fact have a head, or a brain, and maybe more than that – many heads, and many brains.

This isn’t the first time slime mold has done amazing feats. It’s used to recreate roadmaps from ancient cultures, or Tokyo’s rail system, just based on topographical information. Who do these single-celled organisms think they are, acting like they have brains? This raises the following question: Where does intelligence come from? Does it need a brain?

In Hidden Scents, while talking about the evolution of the smelling organism, I suggest that the mind is first, and then comes the body. There is something thinking in the most primitive of organisms, deciding which molecules in its surrounding sea of life, and proto-life, should be taken into it, to become part of it, and which molecules should stay outside. To be alive, one of the most basic requirements is to have a boundary between the living thing and the outside. This defines the body. But how does this body, living in a sea of potential bodyparts, determine which parts to keep, and which ones to leave behind. The body comes from somewhere, doesn’t it? And isn’t a body - a living body - more than just a bunch of molecules? If so, what’s organizing those molecules? Who is running the show?

Chemosensation is the basis of this interface, and is the process by which human olfaction works. The initial decision-making algorithms to run with this chemosensation are also the base-algorithms of human thought. Rational thought is a much more complex affair, but at the base is the limbic system, and in smelling we have a model for the kind of thinking performed by a simple, multicellular organism. Or even a collection of single celled organisms, perhaps?

Our current mode for thinking about intelligence is undergoing a major reboot. In light of developments in artificial intelligence, the boundaries of human intelligence are already blurred – many of the things once considered human, rational thought are now programmed into an "artificial life form," i.e., a computer program.

But that’s ok, because current models of the brain follow the schematics of a computer in the same way the nervous system was initially thought of as a closed network of fluids and the brain a pressure-modulator. This was in the age of hydraulics, before we knew what electricity was. Now we know what a computer is, and so the brain is like a computer. Tomorrow, we may know what life is; will we then compare the brain to it?

Our ideas on thinking and intelligence necessitate a brain (whether it’s a computer or a water pump or a lifeform). It's very counter intuitive to hear that things without brains can think. Who knows, next it will be like “Things without bodies can think.” Does the temperature in a room think? Does it have a memory?

Notes:
May 2016, phys.org

Laura Sanders, Wired, via Science, 2010

Mar 2015, phys.org