Complex Numbers

Predictive Anarchy

I don't have much to say today. Yesterday was the first time in months that the thermostat hit 70F and I was just so happy to feel it (anything below 70F is "cold" and anything below 55F is "freezing") that I exhausted myself playing video games outside.

The next few days should hit 70+ too, but then it's back to freezing for a while. Oh well. Such is March in Virginia. At least there hasn't been gale-force winds as per usual. Yet.

Speaking of predictions...

To Make Sense of the Present, Brains May Predict the Future  
A controversial theory suggests that perception, motor control, memory and other brain functions all depend on comparisons between ongoing actual experiences and the brain’s modeled expectations.

Gosh, it's almost like "living in the present" is impossible, isn't it?

Okay, fine, it's not settled science, but it's a remarkable approach to an old problem -- and might even give us some insight into consciousness. And it might even explain compelling writing, as you'll see below.

I'm not going to quote a lot of it because, like I said, exhausted. But this bit is the idea in brief:

According to this “predictive coding” theory, at each level of a cognitive process, the brain generates models, or beliefs, about what information it should be receiving from the level below it. These beliefs get translated into predictions about what should be experienced in a given situation, providing the best explanation of what’s out there so that the experience will make sense. The predictions then get sent down as feedback to lower-level sensory regions of the brain. The brain compares its predictions with the actual sensory input it receives, “explaining away” whatever differences, or prediction errors, it can by using its internal models to determine likely causes for the discrepancies. (For instance, we might have an internal model of a table as a flat surface supported by four legs, but we can still identify an object as a table even if something else blocks half of it from view.)

This may sound all esoteric and shit, but I felt like some of this is relevant to me as a writer. See, I've long suspected that the key to interesting writing is to be unpredictable, to use words that don't quite dishrag. This is most obvious with comedy, but giving people unexpected combinations of words makes them stop and think.

The researchers observed a greater brain response when the study’s subjects came across the unexpected word “dog,” characterized by a specific pattern of electrical activity, known as the “N400 effect,” that peaked approximately 400 milliseconds after the word was revealed. But how to interpret it remained unclear. Was the brain reacting because the word’s meaning was nonsensical in the context of the sentence? Or might it have been reacting because the word was simply unanticipated, violating whatever predictions the brain had made about what to expect?

This may, in fact, explain the otherwise inexplicable attraction people have to James Joyce. Or even jazz, which delights in playing the exact wrong note next.

The rest of the article is long and somewhat technical, but between the connection to writing and the theory's apparent refutation of my hated "living in the present" philosophy, I found at least part of it relevant.

Perhaps I'll have more to say tomorrow, or perhaps cat.