Rename? Context, Modes and Processes, ...?
Maybe each mode should get its own page (maybe in a 'modes' or 'context' section); maybe a thinking-trap should be automatic-mode (?), instead of a separate trap for each mode. Maybe ancillary components (eg, memory, comparators/evaluators) should also get their own pages.
Definitions:
Human brains are capable of operating in multiple modes. Reasons why context is important:
Each mode can perform one or more processes, and some processes can be performed in more than one mode (albeit differently). Processes such as ‘priorities’ and ‘optimisation’ can be done to varying degrees in modes other than reasoning. Even the autonomic mode could be said to take simple priorities into account. For another example, intuition and reasoning can both do induction. In doing so, intuition can be quicker and possibly more creative, while reasoning can be more analytical and self-critical.
| Mode | Processes | Example | Conscious | Mutable1 | Overrideable2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autonomic | Body functions | Breathing | no | no | some |
| Instinct | Simple actions | Suckling | no | no | yes |
| Procedural [memory] | Sequence repetition | Driving | no | yes | yes |
| Intuition | Induction (generalisation, analogy, etc). | Sensing trustworthiness | no | yes | yes |
| Reasoning | Priorities, optimisation, systems thinking, etc. | Deduction | yes | yes | N/A |
1 can learn, possibly via memory.
2 can be set aside or replaced by conscious reasoning.
Subconscious control of simple body functions, such as heartbeat and breathing.
Not dependent on memory; essentially not capable of learning.
Simple subconscious reactions, such as suckling and avoiding danger.
Genetic, a consequence of evolution. Not dependent on memory; essentially incapable of learning.
An instinctive response is not a conscious decision (and may be just a reaction). Instinct may not be thinking, if thinking is conscious (reasoning), but instinct can effectively block thinking (reasoning) by claiming 'I've got this!'. Beware terminology. Same applies to all modes except reasoning (probably). Say this here or in site intro?
Subconscious sequence repetition, such as driving a car (after you're learnt!).
Properly, 'procedural memory'. It will be referred to as 'procedural' on this site to avoid confusion with other uses of memory, and because this mode can do more than simply recall facts (eg, it can decide when to change lanes while driving, and then tell muscles to make that happen).
Dependent on memory, so capable of learning.
Procedural is mostly for automating actions rather than thinking (problem solving) (except for simple problems such as how to steer left). It can't come up with anything new (except for steering left into a street we've never been on before).
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant."
Subconscious induction; eg, sensing trustworthiness:
Examples of types of induction:
Intuition can do more than induction; eg, filtering out unimportant info, creative insights (abduction).
Capable of learning (therefore dependent on memory).
It can subconsciously tell us that it has satisfactorily dealt with a problem, so we don't need to consider the problem using our reasoning. However, when intuition's optimistic assumptions are wrong, this is not correct.
Conscious thinking; eg, priorities, optimisation, systems thinking, etc.
"modes (context).odg"
This framework focuses on processes that can be done in the reasoning mode. Other modes may improve their abilities with those processes due to learning. Reasoning needs to be aware of influences (good and bad) from other modes.
The ability of reasoning (and probably all modes) to make decisions flirts with the question of whether we really have free will. There is a school of thought (Jebelli 174) that our decisions may be predetermined by our personal brain structure and chemistry. The alternative view is that our decisions can be influenced by knowledge and experience gained during our lives (including a strong social/societal influence: 'Cultural Evolution' Jebelli 26). The truth is probably somewhere in between those extremes. For this framework, we assume that we have at least some conscious influence on our decisions.
Reasoning is the only conscious mode. All of the others can be done subconsciously (automatically; without our awareness).
Simpler modes (autonomic, etc) are usually faster and require less energy than more sophisticated modes (eg, reasoning). However, they are limited in their abilities; best results are often obtained by more sophisticated modes.
Autonomic and instinct don't rely on memory, so are essentially immutable. Procedural, intuition and reasoning rely on memory, so are capable of learning during one's lifetime.
Except for some autonomic functions, the outputs from all modes can be detected consciously and can be overridden by reasoning.
Freud: emotions are subconscious; feelings are the conscious experience of emotions (Jebelli 37). Does this make any diff?
Clarify relationship between emotion and instinct qv and evolution(?).
Feeling hungry may not be not an emotion, yet the feeling indicates an unsatisfied priority. Hunger, pain, etc are sensations. Sensations come from physical senses and probably relate to basic (survival) priorities. Emotions are psychological and result from thinking processes(?), possibly including subconscious ones.
A way to scope the inclusion of emotions (etc) in a thinking framework would be to limit it to emotional phenomena that can make a practical difference to thinking. This would include emotions that can result in a thinking process to decide to change something, such as a bad feeling due to a shortfall against a value or goal. It would exclude emotions/sensations/feelings that don't result in thinking to decide anything (eg, mourning, pain from a stubbed toe).
Is emotion a thinking process (component) or just a context/input/assessor? It isn't done consciously in reasoning mode qv like most (all?) of the other process components.
Role might be equiv to that of instinct and other modes qv that influence priorities qv. If so, it may be sufficient for priorities to note its dependency on emotions etc and not include emotion (etc) as a distinct process. Sometimes an action can be motivated without obvious (or any?) emotion; eg, scratching when it itches; buying groceries (so emotion is NOT the only input to priorities).[BW]
Emotions can indicate a disparity between actual and preferred states (ie, unsatisfied priorities). Happiness (an emotion) arises from congruence with priorities qv (incl values?), instinct qv, etc, so can motivate us to scale Maslow's hierarchy.
Emotion may arise from the difference between a priority’s qv goal and achievement (or rate of change of that difference). This may only apply to instinctive priorities, but it may also apply to rationality (System 2).
Do emotions determine priorities, or do priorities determine emotions? Example of emotions determining priorities: we love person X so we choose good things for person X at the expense of other people. Example or priorities determining emotions: our priority is world peace but we can't achieve it, so we feel sad.
Feeling bad arises from unsatisfied priorities. Need to resolve apparent circular dependency between priorities and emotions. Perhaps emotions happens AFTER priorities or within problem-assessment qv (if so, change diagram). Maybe 'priorities' should be subdivided into 'needs and wants' (pre emotion) and 'priorities' (needs and wants influenced by emotion). Or maybe 'emotion' can be subdivided into a part that influences priorities and a part that is influenced by priorities.
Happiness (an emotion) is not explicitly a Maslow need; presumably happiness derives from satisfaction of needs.
How bad we should feel about non-achievement depends on which responsibility ring contains the under-performing elements (cf. insignificance qv).
Emotion may be a more powerful motivator than intellectual awareness. If so, we need to transition from an awareness of how to fix GW to a passion for doing so. Emotion influences priorities qv and (perhaps indirectly via priorities) influences evaluation qv.
Emotion may apply to different priorities qv: we can be happy about our personal circumstances (eg, new house) but sad about others' circumstances (homeless people).[BW]
Emotions are determined subconsciously but are experienced consciously. 'What we feel about what we think' and 'what we think about what we feel': loop? What is the exit condition? Compromise[BW]?
Emotions (and intuition qv) can be influenced by experience (memory), so can be 'educated' by conscious activity. Past emotions are themselves stored in memory, so can affect future thinking (conscious and subconscious).
A process is capable of processing inputs and producing outputs; think of a software analogy; eg, function/method/subroutine/transformation. Verb: something you do.
No one component is ideally suited all types of problems. Most problems are best dealt with using instinct, etc.
Some subconscious processes can be overridden by other processes (including conscious) to varying degrees.
Thinking is primarily done in the rational module, although intuition and emotion(?) can be trained to do so to some extent. Other processes can do decision-making; thinking is a subset of decision-making. Venn/Euler diagram?
Is memory just a form of communication? It communicates information across time, and communicates between some modes.
Passes info (outputs, inputs) between modes. Can make output from subconscious processes known to conscious awareness (reasoning). Emotion can make consciousness aware of dissatisfaction with the outputs of subconscious modes, allowing reasoning to reconsider. The outputs of those follow-on processes could, in turn, be evaluated by emotions.
Could indicate:
Examples:
a principle that influences one or more processes, but doesn't itself convert inputs to outputs. Noun: something you know.
Different thinking processes are best suited to different kinds of problems (ie, applicable goals).
Instinct is well suited to quick-and-easy survival decisions.
Rational analysis is most capable of considering the widest scopes (time and thing) and avoiding many thinking traps. But it is slow, manual, and requires effort.
Rationality needs to regulate instinct (and any others?) because the latter is too slow to learn and adapt.
Our brains operate in multiple modes simultaneously, like parallel-processing in a computer. If they didn't, our hearts would stop beating whenever we had to make a decision.
cf movie "Minority Report": the various thinking modes may provide conflicting advice, and may do so at different times.
Slower (more resource-intensive) modes (eg, conscious reasoning) aren't usually invoked. Neuroscience research suggests that we tend to make decisions before conscious deliberations (Spiegelhalter, 164). Maybe they are only invoked if a lower-level mode fails to process the problem or if emotion (or some other comparator/assessor) doesn't like the expected outcome (emotions are experienced consciously whereas most modes are not).
Chivers (p.234): if a subconscious mode gets something that it doesn't expect, it bubbles the surprise up to a higher level of consciousness for consideration. What is being suggested here is an broadening of that mechanism.
If multiple modes were to start at the same time, the fastest (relevant) mode would finish first, so our initial decision would be whatever that mode reckons. Successively slower modes will finish subsequently. When each one finishes, its conclusion should be compared with the prior conclusion. If there's a difference, a decision is required. Autonomic actions happen before emotion (and actually cause the emotion) (Jebelli 35). There is some evidence that even apparently conscious decisions are made before we become aware of them (Jebelli 175).
The final decision may be based on preferences from multiple modes; ie, it may require a compromise or balance. 'What we feel about what we think' and 'what we think about what we feel': loop? What is the exit condition? Compromise[BW]? optimisation qv? For the sorts of problems to which this framework applies, the final decision should be made by reasoning (ie, consciously).
Should emotions control (or regulate) rationality or vv? Emotions can motivate actions, but so can instinct, intuition, rationality, and maybe other thinking processes.
Rationalise with content in thinking traps (instinct qv, etc).