A Fundamental Theory to Model the Mind (2014)(quantamagazine.org)
quantamagazine.org
A Fundamental Theory to Model the Mind (2014)
https://www.quantamagazine.org/toward-a-theory-of-self-organized-criticality-in-the-brain-20140403/
5 comments
Super interesting take. There is a similar discussion about Self-Imposed Criticality in dynamic systems such as personal networks, that I've found to be very revealing about the nature of disintegrating relational connections. Really enjoyed this read! Thanks for posting.
Sounds fascinating, do you have some links for me?
Looking for some links now! Came across this concept about 18 months ago in a textbook called Social Network Analysis for Startups.
From my notes:
On Conflict Propagation:
* Conflict between B and C forces A to take sides.
* If A sides with B, then conflict between A and C forces D to take sides.
* If D sides with A instead of C, it keep conflict from arising in the rest of the network, but if D sides with A it will force E to take sides and so on.
* Having more ties increases an agent’s probability of forming even more ties, but it also increases the probability that a conflict between two agents will spread throughout the network, as their decision to side on any side of the conflict can spiral downward.
* So just as there is a critical mass that causes tie density to grow exponentially, there is also a critical mass value on the upper end of density (self-organized criticality) that prevents it from growing further because the increased density leads to greater conflicts that bring the density back down.
* Similarly, the more dense a forest is, the greater the catastrophe. This is why permitting smaller fires down-regulates the density of the forest to insure that most fires are well contained.
From my notes:
On Conflict Propagation:
* Conflict between B and C forces A to take sides.
* If A sides with B, then conflict between A and C forces D to take sides.
* If D sides with A instead of C, it keep conflict from arising in the rest of the network, but if D sides with A it will force E to take sides and so on.
* Having more ties increases an agent’s probability of forming even more ties, but it also increases the probability that a conflict between two agents will spread throughout the network, as their decision to side on any side of the conflict can spiral downward.
* So just as there is a critical mass that causes tie density to grow exponentially, there is also a critical mass value on the upper end of density (self-organized criticality) that prevents it from growing further because the increased density leads to greater conflicts that bring the density back down.
* Similarly, the more dense a forest is, the greater the catastrophe. This is why permitting smaller fires down-regulates the density of the forest to insure that most fires are well contained.
This is serious stuff, thanks for sharing.
I've thought about this in my own life just seeing the the pressures on people who work to maintain connections across fractured social groups, who work to cultivate community. It can be very hard on people.
Also reminds me of this quote by Andrey Krutskikh, a Kremlin cybersecurity expert:
> You think we are living in 2016. No, we are living in 1948. And do you know why? Because in 1949, the Soviet Union had its first atomic bomb test. And if until that moment, the Soviet Union was trying to reach agreement with [President Harry] Truman to ban nuclear weapons, and the Americans were not taking us seriously, in 1949 everything changed and they started talking to us on an equal footing. I’m warning you: We are at the verge of having “something” in the information arena, which will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals.
(https://themoscowproject.org/collusion-chapter/chapter-2/ind...)
I can only assume that he's talking about some methodology related to this "conflict propagation" and that Russia isn't the only state actor pursuing these things.
To think that critical dynamical modes in social networks are seen as opportunities to be exploited... it's wild but I guess not surprising.
I've thought about this in my own life just seeing the the pressures on people who work to maintain connections across fractured social groups, who work to cultivate community. It can be very hard on people.
Also reminds me of this quote by Andrey Krutskikh, a Kremlin cybersecurity expert:
> You think we are living in 2016. No, we are living in 1948. And do you know why? Because in 1949, the Soviet Union had its first atomic bomb test. And if until that moment, the Soviet Union was trying to reach agreement with [President Harry] Truman to ban nuclear weapons, and the Americans were not taking us seriously, in 1949 everything changed and they started talking to us on an equal footing. I’m warning you: We are at the verge of having “something” in the information arena, which will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals.
(https://themoscowproject.org/collusion-chapter/chapter-2/ind...)
I can only assume that he's talking about some methodology related to this "conflict propagation" and that Russia isn't the only state actor pursuing these things.
To think that critical dynamical modes in social networks are seen as opportunities to be exploited... it's wild but I guess not surprising.