“The Mind in the Wheel” lays out a new foundation for the science of mind

125 点作者 CharlesW9 天前

24 条评论

The cybernetic psychology idea of comparing sensed vs. desired states maps cleanly onto a PID controller: P reacts to the present error, I accumulates past errors, and D anticipates future ones.It's not just a comparator, it’s how long I’ve been off (I), how fast I’m drifting (D), and how far I am right now (P).In this framework, emotional regulation looks like control theory. Anxiety isn't just a feeling—it's high D-gain ie: a system overreacting to projected errors.Depression? Low P (blunted response), high I (burden of unresolved past errors), and broken D (no expected future improvement).Mania? Cranked P and D, and I disabled.In addition to personality being setpoints, our perceptions of the past, present, and future might just be PID parameters. What we call "disorders" are oscillations, deadzones, or gain mismatch. But like the article pointed out, it's not really a scientific theory unless it's falsifiable.

评论 #44003597 未加载

评论 #44009966 未加载

评论 #44002929 未加载

vanderZwan8 天前

In short, the brain is a complex dynamic feedback system and cybernetics is a really good way to break down complex dynamic feedback systems? Seems like an obviously sensible take.One thing I'm missing here is the idea of context.To give a very concrete example from personal experience: I'm colorblind (protanomaly, meaning one of my color cones is miscalibrated, which can actually be partially "corrected" for by manipulating the input spectrum a.k.a. wearing specifically shaded glasses). As a result I've learned a lot about color theory over the years.One fun thing is that if you look at the history of color perception theories, once we realized what the eye is made of we started with coming up with ever more sophisticated models for each of our cones for a while, which was a great improvement... and then someone realized "hey, the way I perceive this shade of red also depends on which color it is surrounded by", and if you want to model that accurately then things get really complicated (it's also usually not needed for accurately storing and then later reproducing colors). But it explains things like a question of "what color is the dress?" taking the internet by storm.So if we look at the "control systems" of the brain, I bet those "target values" will be a combination of static baseline plus contextual correction from other control systems. And teasing that apart will be quite a task.

Animats9 天前

That's a book review. Read the actual book.[1]Notes:- Prologue:(Behaviorism) ended up being a terrible way to do psychology, but it was admirable for being an attempt at describing the whole business in terms of a few simple entities and rules. It was precise enough to be wrong, rather than vague to the point of being unassailable, which has been the rule in most of psychology.- Thermostat:An intro to control theory, but one which ignores stability. Maxwell's original paper, "On Governors", (1868) is still worth reading. He didn't just discover electromagnetics, he founded control theory. Has the usual problems with applying this to emotions, and the author realizes this.OK, so living things have a lot of feedback control systems. This is not a new observation. The biological term is "homeostasis", a concept apparently first described in 1849 and named in 1926. (There are claims that this concept dates from Aristotle, who wrote about "habit", but Aristotle didn't really get feedback control. Too early.)- Motivation:Pick goals with highest need level, but have some hysteresis to avoid toggling between behaviors too fast.- Conflict and oscillation:Author discovers oscillation and stability in feedback systems.- What is going on?Author tries to derive control theory.- InterludeNorbert Wiener and cybernetics, which was peak fascination with feedback in the 1950s.- Artificial intelligence"But humans and all other biological intelligences are cybernetic minimizers, not reward maximizers. We track multiple error signals and try to reduce them to zero. If all our errors are at zero — if you’re on the beach in Tahiti, a drink in your hand, air and water both the perfect temperature — we are mostly comfortable to lounge around on our chaise. As a result, it’s not actually clear if it’s possible to build a maximizing intelligence. The only intelligences that exist are minimizing. There has never been a truly intelligent reward maximizer (if there had, we would likely all be dead), so there is no proof of concept. The main reason to suspect AI is possible is that natural intelligence already exists — us."Hm. That's worth some thought. An argument against it is that there are clearly people driven by the desire for "more", with no visible upper bound.- Animal welfareFinally, "consciousness". It speaks well of the author that it took this long to bring that up. It's brought up in the context of whether animals are conscious, and, if so, which animals.- Dynamic methodsFailure modes of multiple feedback systems, plus some pop psychology.- Other methodsMuch like the previous chapter- Help wanted"If the proposal is more or less right, then this is the start of a scientific revolution."Not seeing the revolution here. Most of the ideas here have been seen before. Did I miss something?Feedback is important, but the author doesn't seem to have done enough of it to have a good understanding.If you want an intuitive grasp of feedback, play with some op amps set up as an analog computer and watch the output on a scope. Or find a simulator. If The Analog Thing came with a scope (which, at its price point, it should) that would be ideal. Watch control loops with feedback and delay stabilize, oscillate, or limit. There are browser-based tools which do this, but they assume basic electrical engineering knowledge.[1] <a href="https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2025/02/06/the-mind-in-the-wheel-prologue-everybody-wants-a-rock/" rel="nofollow">https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2025/02/06/the-mind-in-the-whe...</a>

评论 #44008060 未加载

评论 #44003278 未加载

评论 #44002906 未加载

dogleash9 天前

The control loop metaphor was an interesting idea until I started worrying halfway through that it would would be operating on something with all the same categorical problems as the impressionistic style derided the start.The sensations we tie to urination or breathing have quick cycle times making it easy to test the causal loop. Thus confounding factors such as a UTI causing a bladder full sensation, or nitrogen asphyxiation without feeling suffocation are things we understand well.The "Make Sure You Spend Time with Other People System" is a good example for a blog post but it’s already a fair bit looser. But when you consider they want to investigate things without preexisting understanding as well as we understand loneliness it smells like sneaking back towards tautologically defined systems like "zest for life."

ebolyen9 天前

If anyone is interested in a more formal descriptions of these control-loops, with more testable mechanisms, check out the concept of reward-taxis. Here are two neat papers that I think are more closely related than might initially appear:"Is Human Behavior Just Running and Tumbling?": <a href="https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/wzvn9_v1" rel="nofollow">https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/wzvn9_v1</a> (This used to be a blog post, but its down, so here's a essentially identical preprint.) A scale-invariant control-loop such as chemotaxis may still be the root algorithm we use, just adjusted for a dopamine gradient mediated by the prefrontal cortex."Give-up-itis: Neuropathology of extremis": <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987718306145" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03069...</a> What happens when that dopamine gradient shuts down?

AndrewKemendo8 天前

I’m very excited to see that cybernetic thinking is finding its way into a more mainstream audience as people are understanding the generality of computing systems in the longest term I have not read the book in question yet so I will reserve judgment however based on this post it would seem that the majority of its claims have already been captured in much more specific detail in the 2018 Sutton and Barto reinforcement learning textbook (1).Specifically, if you look through section 3 chapters 14 and 15, they specifically address the psychology and neuroscience congruence with the TD(L) algorithms and Bellman reward updating to solve the HMM and markov decision process generally.The newest TD Lambda paper from this year goes even further link: <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14606" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14606</a>Exciting times ahead1 -<a href="https://archive.org/details/rlbook2018" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/details/rlbook2018</a>

agos9 天前

> Imagine how hopeless we would be if we approached medicine this way, lumping together both Black Lung and the common cold as “coughing diseases”, even though the treatment for one of them is “bed rest and fluids” and the treatment for the other one is “get a different job”.Well, this is definitely happening for some parts of medicine, like IBS or many forms of chronic pain.> If you feel like you’re drowning, your Oxygen Governor is like “I GIVE THIS A -1000!”. When you can breathe again, though, maybe you only get the -1000 to go away, and you don’t get any happiness on top of that. You feel much better than you did before, but you don’t feel good.Anecdote but: you absolutely feel good. At least, I did.

评论 #44003343 未加载

kogir9 天前

<pre><code> Another example for all you computer folks out there: ultimately, all software engineering is just moving electrons around. But imagine how hard your job would be if you could only talk about electrons moving around. No arrays, stacks, nodes, graphs, algorithms—just those lil negatively charged bois and their comings and goings. </code></pre> I think this too easily skips over the fact that the abstractions are based on a knowledge of how things actually work - known with certainty. Nobody in CS is approaching the computer as an entirely black box and making up how they think or hope it works. When people don't know how the computer actually works, their code is wrong - they get bugs and vulnerabilities they don't understand and can't explain.

评论 #43999364 未加载

评论 #43998610 未加载

评论 #43998813 未加载

评论 #43998665 未加载

评论 #43998689 未加载

评论 #43999298 未加载

评论 #43998966 未加载

评论 #43998939 未加载

评论 #43999268 未加载

perching_aix9 天前

For those looking to skip the yap, an overview of the titular "new paradigm" starts a third of the way in, at the section "A GOOD WAY NOT TO DIE".

评论 #43999175 未加载

评论 #43999283 未加载

ravenstine9 天前

Maybe I'm missing the point of the article, but the application of cybernetics to psychology was already proposed (albeit not by a psychologist) at least as far back as 1960 in the book Psycho-cybernetics. This "new paradigm" doesn't sound particularly new.This sentence also puzzled me:> Lots of people agree that psychology is stuck because it doesn’t have a paradigmPsychology might not have a grand unifying paradigm, but it's been highly paradigm-driven since its inception.

评论 #44003210 未加载

marviel9 天前

There are two good books that explore this concept from different angles:"The Emotion Machine", by Marvin Minksy (the AI view)&"The Art of Empathy", by Karla McLaren (the Internal / Emotional View)

winddude9 天前

I'm being pydantic, "So unlike the thermostat in your house, which doesn’t have to contend with any other control systems, all of the governors of the mind have to fight with each other constantly.", but what about automated blinds, self tinting windows, automatic skylights, humidistats, and humans open and closing windows.It's also important to note that other control systems in the body that affect control systems in the mind, eg. endocrine.

floxy9 天前

I always thought someone should make a second Matrix movie.

评论 #43998588 未加载

hybrid_study9 天前

From a layman's perspective I've yet to find a better understanding of psychology than what Steven Pinker posits in hist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Mind_Works" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Mind_Works</a> (1997), and even today it doesn't seem like the basic paradigm (the evolutionary constraints) has changed much.

jondlm9 天前

The topic of this article felt familiar to me. It's similar to ideas in IFS: internal family systems. IFS also uses control systems to describe our internal landscape.If the concept of multiplicity (we humans being a system of smaller systems) resonates with you, consider reading No Bad Parts by Richard C. Schwartz. I've personally found it immensely helpful.

评论 #44000039 未加载

RetroTechie9 天前

Interesting concepts there, as applied to psychology. And kudos for making it available freely. Definitely worth a read imho!Skimming through its chapter on AI, made me think of Dave from EEVblog fame. In some of his videos he wears a T-shirt saying "always give negative feedback!". Which is correct - for those who understand electronics (specifically: opamps).In short: design circuit such that when output is above target, circuit works to lower it (voltage, in this context). When below, circuit works to raise it. Output stability requires a feedback loop constructed to that effect.There's analogies in many fields of technology (logistics, data buffering, manufacturing, etc etc, and yes, thermostats).I'll leave it there, other sites like Wikipedia (or EEVblog!) better explain opamp-related design principles.From what I've read, current AI systems appear like opamp circuitry with no (or poor) feedback loop: a minor swing in input causes output to go crazy. Or even positive feedback: same thing, but self-reinforcing. Guardrails are not the fix: they just clip the output to ehm.. 'politically correct' or whatever. Proper fix = better designed feedback loops. So yes, authors of this book may definitely be onto something.

评论 #43999223 未加载

评论 #44001227 未加载

standardUser9 天前

The monopoly analogy is brilliant and I appreciate the author's focus on the important of language and terms. Plus, the gentle but brutal takedown of academic orthodoxy, such as...> Those divisions are given by the dean, not by nature.

ikesau9 天前

what's unclear to me is how you identify the Real Units.needing-to-breathe-ness is (probably) a gimme, but what are the units that will explain which route i take on my walk today? and how do you avoid defining units that aren't impressionistic once you need to rely on language and testimony to understand your research subject's mental state?my understanding of psychological constructs is that they're earnest attempts to try and resolve this problem, even if they've led us to the tautological confusion we're in now.

huijzer9 天前

I have done a MSc in CS and PhD in psych dept. Sometimes I had the feeling that the system didn’t want me to get anything done.

评论 #43998425 未加载

YeGoblynQueenne8 天前

>> Here’s the meat of The Mind in the Wheel: the mind is made out of units called control systems.I see someone re-invented Rodney Brooks' Subsumption Architecture [1].It's a good idea but it doesn't work. Enfin, it works, but up to a certain point, which is how well robotics work today. Yes roombas and industrial robots. No robot maids/butlers and no level-5 self-driving cars. Sure doesn't work as a model of a human mind. I don't think Brooks even had the temerity to suggest it should tbh.More importantly this just goes to show what happens when psychologists and AI scientists stop talking to each other, the former because they're lost up their own bums [2] and the latter because they've switched focus to creating the next automated shaker of the magick money tree.What happens is that the ... well, wheel, keeps getting reinvented, over and over again, and nobody is really trying to make, you know, a vehicle. With wheels. That do something else than just sit there being wheel-y._________________[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsumption_architecture" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsumption_architecture</a>[2] I just mean the reproducibility crisis.

p_v_doom8 天前

Don't think this is a new paradigm. More of a revival of an old one - that of cybernetics. It was incredibly successful at the time, to the point where so many of its findings today are integral to our world, and we kind of forget where they come from and the original principles behind them. I am happy to see this revival though, I think it heralds good stuff...

kgwxd9 天前

Flagged? The article appears to have triggered some very interesting discussions here. Exactly the stated purpose. Should we all go back to talking about how the government and billionaires are ruining the world instead?

评论 #44002447 未加载

floxy9 天前

Someone need to get the author a copy of GEB.

almosthere9 天前

Just do stuff. To fix the mind, you have to keep busy. Don't focus on yourself, focus on projects. The long history of humanity, the last thing people did until recently was think about themselves. Stop. Do things.. basically touch grass.

评论 #43998818 未加载

评论 #43998411 未加载

评论 #43999030 未加载

评论 #43998718 未加载

评论 #43998525 未加载