My name is Daniel Thorne.
This is a course in what I am broadly referring
to as “Neuroeconomics”, which is a blanket
term for the means by which I intend to describe
the essential nature and mechanics of the human brain,
and upon so doing to shed
some light on what might be taking place within
the human mind.
This will be an attempt over a series of lectures
in which I will present some thinking on these
matters and try to account for them in a way
that I find, if not totally satisfying, then
at least particularly interesting and in some
cases scientifically promising.
I’m going to try to be both as general and
as specific as I need to be in order to be
clear and to the point, and I’m going to
start with some core precepts of a new theory
and spend another several videos exploring
some of its applications.
The subtitle of this course is “An Applied
Information Theory”, which I hope doesn’t
sound too daunting to anyone unfamiliar with
computation or formal logic, and it will be
heavily rooted in biology, which, again, I
hope doesn’t put people off who don’t
have that specific background.
I think in general a bachelor’s level scientific
literacy and a little basic philosophical
training are helpful to anyone who wants to
follow along, but I’ve tried to design this
series in a way that makes it accessible without
anything specifically like a prerequisite.
I think most people will be able to see what
I’m getting at as I go along, and as I get
to things that may be a little beyond the
level of common knowledge I’ll try to speak
in a way that makes what I’m talking about
easy to look up and research if it’s something
I don’t directly explain.
Additionally I will try to be as outward and
as transparent in my thinking as possible,
I will try to “show my work” as much as
I can as I go, and I will be open to clarifying
if there’s anything I’ve left uncertain.
And overall I will seek to establish the propositions
and arguments I put forward using what, overall,
I submit, is entirely philosophically, intellectually,
and scientifically uncontroversial.
I will make every effort to connect the things
I say to tangible, intelligible examples to
which many people should be able to relate,
and whether ultimately I am right or wrong
about what I have to say, I will try to make
what I have to say easy to understand and
show the ways I might be wrong in a helpful
and enlightening way.
I should say at the outset that what probably
won’t be very helpful to you as this course
progresses, at least not necessarily, is too
prominent a background in psychology, at least
if you really put a lot of stock those approaches
or take their precepts too seriously and think
they more or less have it all figured out.
I think the other approaches to psychology
that are available to us at the time of this
recording are inadequate at best, and I have
a lot to say on the matter, but for the sake
of clarity I will begin from something of
an intellectual blank slate as I attempt to
establish something new.
So to put it another way this courses intends
to start “from scratch” to the extent
that science allows and build something that
can be worthwhile in replacing a lot of what
is, put simply, a feeble waste of time.
I do intend to revisit some of the more popular
and widely held psychological notions and
ideas within this series, the sort of “garden
variety” psychological ideas and things
that many people think or are used to being
told about how the brain and mind work, but
for now I’ll focus elsewhere.
And I think the first thing that must be done
in this introduction is to dispel the notion,
the very popular and misguided notion, that
psychology as a whole, as a body of study
or as a way of understanding the human beings
and how they work, does have “it all”
(or really anything) figured out.
I think the way most people are used to thinking
of psychology is with an implicit deference
to its precepts and conclusions as discoveries
and conclusions of science, with the same
weight of knowledge and history of study as
something like biology or chemistry or physics,
and not only is that patently incorrect it
is also dangerously complacent, and it fundamentally
misunderstands two facts about psychology:
1.
that psychology belongs to the “soft sciences”,
meaning both that it establishes what it establishes
on somewhat tenuous ground relative to the
way other sciences do it and that what it
has managed to establish requires a great
deal of outside explanation or pondering,
meaning that it can’t be effectively computed
or modeled in a way that doesn’t require
these caveats and explanations, and also meaning
that nothing is as clearly established through
peer review as the other sciences, and
2.
that the psychology you get when you talk
to one psychologist and the psychology you
get when you talk to another, the fundamental
tenets and precepts to which they subscribe,
the means by which they analyze and interpret,
the things they’re willing to embrace or
discount, and so on, vary wildly.
And the simple fact is that, at the moment,
there is no broad scientific consensus that
establishes a coherent and unified approach
to understanding the human being and its essential
functions.
And even when you get to the people within
psychology who believe there is something
to the idea that the mind and its functions
arise from the workings of our brains, how
that takes place and what governs that process
(along with the vast majority of both finer
details and broader strokes of theory) is
widely admitted to be something of a mystery.
So not only is psychology a “fuzzy” science,
which is at times astonishingly vague and
voodoo-ish, as well as astonishingly beholden
to biases and culturally informed pre-interpretation,
there isn’t even enough comprehensive and
definitive science to get psychologists to
agree on what it is they are led by evidence
and argument to believe as psychologists.
And the purpose of this course is to confront
both of those problems.
I think there is a broad consensus among scientists
of the brain and of human biology, along with
the branch of psychologists who think seriously
about these things, that the answers we are
looking to find about who we are, what we’re
made of, and how we work are going to come
from studying the brain, and this is something
with which I agree.
And I think most people at the cutting edge
of the field would say that our ability over
the last 40-odd years, the growth in our ability,
to research, image, and gather data and observations
bout the brain in amazingly fine detail, has
provided an extraordinary amount to work with
that we have yet to fully make sense of.
I think it would be fair to say that our research
and what we have in terms of real science
to work with have outrun our attempts at joining
that research together in theory.
And I think, too, we have a sense that all
this research and all the products of these
technologies are putting us tantalizingly
close to something resembling an answer to
these challenges and questions.
And the goal of this series is to help construct
a bridge between those two worlds; the world
of massive amounts of fascinating research
that is concrete and comprehensible but unable
to be understood effectively, and the world
of accessible, easy to understand perspectives
that frame the questions of our lives and
our selves in ways that make sense to us personally
and subjectively.
And what we’re setting out to describe is,
in a nutshell, a sophisticated analytical
view of the processing of human nervous systems.
We are setting ourselves the task of determining
a logical, rational, objective, and unified
understanding of their means of operation,
and of defining the rules and laws by which
they operate both specifically and in general.
It is also our goal to relate these things
to tangible, subjective experience, and to
describe the means by which one is translated
visibly into the other.
And, our project is an ambitious one:
As we will see in a future video when we start
accounting for what we know about the human
brain and about human biological function,
the brain itself is an extraordinarily complex
organ, and in fact it’s one that I will
attempt to show is even more complex than
we currently appreciate.
But even without diving down the rabbit hole
of neurons and of brain function we can tell
qualitatively and upon very limited observation
that we live lives of extraordinary complexity
which take place in extraordinarily complex
worlds.
And what we’re trying to do here is make
sense of things on both sides of that distinction;
what is to be made of how the brain works,
in specific connection to how it feels and
seems to someone who exists as a property
of that brain’s activities.
So in short, we’re trying to use what knowledge
we have about what the brain is and how it
works to establish a broad based, wide reaching,
comprehensive methodology for understanding
(and for investigating) what the human being
is and how it works, which is grounded in
the following axiom:
“The mind is what the brain does.”
So as we move forward we are exploring the
question of what we can interpret about what
it is to be human and to live as a human being
by utilizing what we know to be true about
the physiological components of the system
that supports that existence and experience.
And in the course of this endeavor we are
asking:
• “What observations do we have about
the brain and its functions?
• What information do we have about the
state of being and experience that those functions
facilitate?
• From these, what can we infer about the
nature and purpose of those functions?
• How can we prove those inferences?”
• “Can these be brought together to establish
a comprehensive approach?
• If so, what are the substantive and material
components of that approach?
• Can these components determine the fundamental
principles of the system?
• If so, how can these be applied?”
and we can say that the entirety of what we
will submit going forward relies on the following
assumptions:
1.
That all aspects of the thing we are seeking
to evaluate are “subject to observation,
experiment, and investigation”, meaning
that we take as read the proposition that
(epistemologically speaking) these things
are observable and can be borne out by experimentation
and investigation.
This is just a nod to a tacit acceptance of
the validity of the scientific approach.
2.
That those same attributes are “grounded
in material reality”, meaning that what
there is to be investigated is present for
us to observe within the right experimental
parameters and that they are there to be seen
when looked for.
And this is more generally to say that this
construction does not invoke anything immaterial
or anything essentially unobservable in order
to explain itself.
3.
That these things, in total, are inherently
natural processes, and that they are “subject
to all scientific understanding and scrutiny”,
meaning that the conclusions we draw going
forward must be borne out not only by their
own evidence but by their concurrence with
and justification from other branches of scientific
knowledge.
4.
And that, in spite of its mysterious and confounding
appearance and regardless of the information
we may or may not lack on the subject, the
subject itself is “essentially non-mysterious”,
meaning that solutions to the problems we
pose do objectively exist.
The philosopher Daniel Dennett has popularized
a distinction between “puzzles and mysteries”,
and we will be addressing the human condition
as a “puzzle”.
Therefore we will begin by addressing the
human being and its functions, entirely and
completely, front to back and back again,
as a natural phenomenon.
So to describe our approach we’ll restate
this in the form of the following:
1.
“Human beings are physical entities,”
meaning that we are bodies as opposed to merely
having bodies, and that we exist within bodies
through which everything we experience, feel,
do, and so on is processed, “and every component
of ‘the human experience’ is grounded
in a physical reality, meaning that it has
some physical representation, and that if
we’re looking to investigate that experience
then that physical representation is where
we should look.
2.
To this we add that “that physical reality
promotes objective conditions which have an
identifiable effect on the activity within
the system,” meaning that we can reasonably
and reliably say that components of the system
and variations within the system function
objectively and according to rules and natural
laws.
3.
And that “those effects promote feedback
in that system which is governed and defined
by its own relationship to the same system
of natural law”, which is simply to say
that not only is this system constructed of
natural components and influenced by nature,
but its function and behavior is likewise
essentially natural.
4.
And we submit that “these conditions and
responses are essentially symbiotic and must
be understood in confluence,” meaning that
the human being and its processing are inseparable
from the means by which this processing is
accomplished, and in a broader sense, inseparable
from a context that provides both information
to process and that stimulates and coordinates
that processing.
So as we move forward from this position and
conduct our exploration according to these
principles, we’re going to try to do this
as a matter of pure theory.
There are a number of reasons (practical reasons,
ethical reasons, financial reasons…) why
I personally am not in a position at this
time to be conducting scientific experimentation
into the things I will put forward in this
course, but I will try to establish them to
the extent that I am able through thought
experiments and analyses, along with basic
logic and reasoning, to establish them philosophically
and intellectually.
In other words I am trying to providing proofs
rather than evidence of these things because
that is what I can do at the moment with the
tools that I have.
And those tools also include the scientific
and scientifically established work of others,
which again I will draw from things that are
well established or at least are not largely
or particularly in dispute.
So I am not interested in submitting a great
deal of new facts or knowledge, and I merely
trying to take that which is established as
fact and knowledge and provide a new means
for analyzing and interpreting it, and in
some cases I may provide hunches and some
new constructions that I believe should be
borne out by testing and experimentation.
So the objective here is “to craft a theory
of axiomatic precepts and conclusions (with
in-built hypotheses), that raises worthwhile
questions (including those regarding its own
validity), the answers to which will provide
the means to achieve a thorough and robust
understanding of the human being and its functions.”
And if I can be successful in doing this it
will pursue the following goals:
1.
“To advance progress in the understanding
of and response to human conditions”
2.
“To enhance the relationship between psychology
and human biology”
3.
“To provide foundational precepts that can
inform the course of scientific inquiry”
4.
And “to elucidate new avenues of inquiry
that at present are difficult to discern.”
So ultimately what this course is about is
using the tools available to someone who is
not an academic or scientific insider to build
a new set of tools for academics and scientists
to use that will enable the unification of
philosophy of mind and the science of the
brain, and that (combined with a new method
for bringing the information from those and
other fields together) will promote a massive,
wholesale shift in paradigm that moves us
forward on the path to answering human questions
about human lives and circumstances.
What I hope is that, if I am found to be correct
in what I will put forward, the work begun
by these videos will fundamentally change
the way we look at everything from the tiniest,
most imperceptible facets of neurological
activity to the broadest strokes of what takes
place inside a person’s mind to the effect
that that has on the person’s participation
in the world outside their bodies, and the
way the entire system feeds back on itself.
With this in mind, the applications of a theory
such as I describe are nothing short of universal,
to all human beings and their ability to understand
and make sense of themselves and the way they
operate.
I hope these precepts will inform the growth
of academic and research investigations into
these matters, and that over time it will
be integrated with other branches of knowledge
and understanding to assist in enabling an
even more thorough comprehension of natural
reality.
Without the influence of ego or personal attachment
I feel confident in describing the shift I
am describing, concurrent with the establishment
of such a theory, as equivalent to the discovery
of germ theory and predict that its influence
on medical, therapeutic, and psychiatric approaches
to mental health as well as mental illnesses
and difficulties of all kinds will be profound,
although at this time it is premature to forecast
them.
And the knock-on effect that this would have
on all manner of human endeavors, could also
be immense.
I don’t want to overstate this here, but
I also don’t want to understate it; what
I am setting out to achieve here, and what
time will tell as to whether or not I got
it or anything about it right, is the means
to fundamentally change what the world can
think and does think about these matters,
and to provide it with the opportunity to
take that somewhere completely and entirely
new.
And the simple fact is that regardless of
whether it’s my theory or somebody else’s,
whether I’m right or wrong or have missed
the mark entirely, that change’s day is
due.
We are in an unprecedented time of difficulty
and strife and complications from living as
we do in the modern world today, millions
and millions suffer and often suffer to death
under the weight of our collective inability
to address the problems we are faced with
effectively, and we are beyond the point where
we can stand, morally or ethically, to be
ignorant any longer.
There is a big grain of salt with which most
of what I will say here has to be taken, which
is that, as I have admitted, the ideas that
I will put forward are untested, unchallenged,
and unverified, but in whatever course they
find as their validity is confirmed or demolished,
what must change is the extent to which we
are stupefied and confounded by the problems
we face.
I think, even if we want to, no matter how
desperately, we are hobbled and made ineffectual
by our want for knowledge and understanding
of the truth, and if all I can do is demonstrate
what can and must be known in order to achieve
progress then that will be something.
As I said there are no specific prerequisites
to this course and I will try to credit, reference,
and explain as I go, but if you’d like to
take it upon yourself there are a number of
books I would suggest to inform your frame
of reference; it will be very important that
you understand human evolution, so you’ll
need Origin of Species, obviously, and I would
also highly suggest that you read The Selfish
Gene for a number of reasons.
Greatest Show on Earth is good for an approach
to evolution through comparative biology and
if you want to go further in that direction
you can also read Thomas Henry Huxley’s
Evidence As to Man’s Place in Nature.
For some basics in information theory and
physical systems you’ll want to read two
books by James Gleick, The Information and
Chaos, both of which are very highly recommended.
Both of these books fundamentally shaped my
thinking.
For books on the brain I would recommend these,
they are each important in their own way,
and if you continue on with books from Sapolsky,
Ramachandran, Pinker, or Sacks there will
be a lot that’s worthwhile.
Sapolsky also has a very, very good human
biology course available through Stanford
University’s YouTube channel, and if you
have 25 or 30 hours you want to spend watching
lectures your time there would be well spent.
And there is a very interesting book that
I would add to this list which on the surface
may seem like the least applicable or intuitive,
but it’s actually The Chemical History of
a Candle, which is a transcript of six lectures
in a series given by Michael Faraday about
the composition and combustion of a candle.
Six lectures.
And in the course of it one of the things
he says is that there isn’t a single physical
or chemical process known to the science of
his time that is not at play during the course
of that combustion, and in exquisite and painstaking
detail he spends six lectures going through
all of them.
And this is on the list mainly because that
is the extent of perspective and ability to
shift focus that’s going to be required
in order to appreciate everything we will
examine here going forward.
I think if you can read that book and feel
that you can understand it and can be fascinated
by it for six whole lectures about something
it would take you about two seconds to look
at, that’s the kind of marathon attention
span and ability to sit with subtlety, complexity,
and nuance within the incredibly mundane that
will serve you well over the next many videos.
Unfortunately, there is not a textbook specifically
for this course yet, so it helps if you are
the sort of person who learns well through
lectures.
The first book containing my thesis is and
will remain out of print, and its replacement
is some distance from being finished let alone
published, so its release date is a perpetual
TBD at the moment.
In lieu of that however, I will try to make
these videos comprehensive enough to stand
on their own, and I will make some notes and
outlines available, providing details on where
to find some of the information I will reference.
And if there’s anything that’s confusing
or that I leave unsaid or if there’s something
you’d like to raise for me to address I
will try to respond to comments and questions.
It may be, too, that I end up revisiting some
material in future videos, or doing videos
that look at the same material from in different
ways and from different perspectives.
So thank you for your interest and your time,
and I hope you’ll continue on to the next
video.
