[I’ve spent a year staying up until about 5am trying to figure out “What is everybody not seeing?” I’ve been keeping my focus to Wikipedia and diving into scientific journals. The community nature of conflicting biases coming to an acceptable consensus through the power of peers in both cases but different ways is, theoretically, making this method a little more well-rounded – for in the end, no matter how many numbers, ‘facts’ are opinions waiting to be disproven – any scientist knows that – a staple of the scientific method]
In our brains, there is a rejection of incoming stimuli – shows as a slight downward spike in brain scans, – just before acceptance. In a sense, there is always a “no” just before a “yes”.
The “No” is biologically different in each individual. And by acceptance, I don’t mean that it’s necessarily “answering Yes”. It’s akin to a snail recoiling and going “eww, no you’re touching me” before it goes, “Ok, I’ll process this new stimuli.”
Every piece of new stimuli is rejected before acceptance. And, depending on the way the brain of the individual works, there is different levels of recoil.
In this moment of recoil a comparison is begun. My theory is that it is the technically the same as NAND or NOR gates in computers but what it is NOR ing (I prefer NOR because it is functionally simpler) is the anticipatory or expectation or prejudice or prediction (the “No!”) is the moment of reception where outside stimuli – which could come internally as well through feedback loops – finishing its initial journey to the inside of the brain for the first time.
it is analogous to jumping on a trampoline and the trampoline stretching before catapulting upwards the received stimululs through the brain and doing a massive set of simultaneous NOR comparisons.
What is interesting about NOR that it (along with NAND) can be used to build any binary logic question.
And in a basic NOR, the only answer that leads to TRUE is when all things being compared are 0. Clear. No conflict.
In psychology this would be similar to cognitive dissonance. What one experiences in the world does not match up with their expectations.
If this was the visual system, the reason some people can see a stain on a shirt, or hear a note that is slightly out of tune, or however their brains are most interested in comparing, is because there is an expectation in the brain of what is ABOUT to happen which is compared to what DOES happen. And this process happens continuously. Not just in human brains but in all nervous systems, at least down to the Sponge, which apparently has none – but I believe also is a fundamental aspect of reception-expectation-comparison-rejection-acceptance-inbetween throughout all physical things – even to quantum zoom level of ‘particle’ charges. -o+ plus minus and the inbetween part.
But that’s zooming too deeply at the moment.
How is this relatable? We are constantly trying to predict.
We have a built-in-predudice or expectation or anticipation of future outcome..
This anticipation is compared with what we see. If what we see is what we expect to see, then things are smooth and we often don’t even notice it.. such as our visual system notices a scene but does not have any particular focal point so long as everything is exactly where we EXPECT them to be.
This bias is perfectly natural and comfortable. It colors our perspective of the world.
In my mind, science and religion are variations of the same thing.
This could get me burned at the stake from both camps.
They are each mystery religions. At the center of each is a Great ?
From all angles this great Question Mark is studied and many declare “I have the answer!” and people follow. Or they declare “The answer is unknowable”. Or they declare “It will take generations of revisions of past answers to come up with more accurate answers and stand on the shoulders of giants until Everything can be explained by Numbers. (science/mathematics as a combination of Aristotlian Logic/Pythagoras).
What I enjoy about the reality of quantum things is it messes up the Aristotle logic embedded in Scienctific assumptions about Reality and messes up our dependance upon the idea that two things can be alike to even compare with each other.
The “atom” (Greek sense of individual unit) keeps shrinking the more we look.
But in the end, these are all humans telling stories.
Stories are designed to convince OTHER HUMANS that certain things are TRUE or FALSE.
Stories utilize cultural assumptions (science is a culture, religion is a culture, which is typically expressed in a shared langauge with shared meaning) to assist other humans into Agreement.
Resolve all conflict in the listeners brain until their mind mirrors your own. Not perfectly of course, but at least enough so that each feels “We are of one mind on this issue”.
I’m doing it now.
I’m weaving a tale involving digital circuity as being analogous to brain spikes as being analogous to cognative dissonence as being analogous to human groups gathering around a great question mark trying to each come to agreement. I am invoking authority (I have spent the past year), speaking outside the boundaries of the coversation (which makes me appear smarter or kookier, depending on your take – but something that is often interpreted as “wow this guy must know, he certainly is smart about this other thing” or “He is so crazy he might just be right” prejudice.
And for what?
In the expectation that, after ALL OF THIS, you will say in one way shape or form, “What you say is true.”
If accepted, in whatever parts are accepted, it leads to “confirmation bias” which bolsters my prejudice that ‘Yes, I am right”, leading to further confidences that “feel” like truth.
And the feeling of “I am right” – is the feeling that comes from the (inner NOR outer) = 0.
Or when there is agreement and no conflict.
And, as a human being, with my system of predudices/assumptions/expectations/predictions of “what I think will happen”, it is a nice feeling, increasing a wash of happy chemicals in the brain.
Unless it was disagreement I was seeking and upon receiving that, I get the same effect of expectations and reality matching up.