In my immediately preceding post I ventured to offer a probability based approach to choosing from a mound/basket of vegetables at the grocery store. That was a certified layman way of understanding sampling techniques. Once I have put my foot in the mouth, I cannot stop myself. I am shoving it down further.
Here, I offer uncertified proof for how our evolution equipped our mind to think probabilistically. The first scenario is this: You are standing at the curb in a relatively desolate stretch of the road and want to cross the road. At some distance, neither too far nor too near, you see a two-wheeler coming down the road at good speed. Yet, you cross the road ahead of the vehicle.
The second scenario matches the first one as closely as possible, but for one difference: The vehicle this time is a big truck. I speculate that you would think twice before stepping onto the pavement and that delay is likely to have stopped you from crossing the road in front of the vehicle. My conjecture is evolution has prepared you to evaluate the probability of being driven over and, more importantly asses the consequence of the chosen action. An encounter with the two-wheeler is likely to have been a far less dangerous affair.
I know, you say, ”I know nothing of probability.” Neither do I.
But, we are not alone. It was at a physics conference soon after WWII someone dared mentioning that bats navigate dark caves through echo-location. This is basically how radar works. You send out a signal, receive its echo bouncing off an object, estimate the distance and it is bombs-away after that. Quite complicated calculations it involves. So, the presenter was asked, “Buddy, does a bat have the brain power – its brain is so small, in case you did not know – to do the sophisticated math that one needs for echo-location? Ha …”
Bats need not do the kind of high math we have to do to get echo-location working for them. They must have developed (and it has been proven that they have) some other effective way of doing what we call echo-location to evade the predator or pounce on the prey. Otherwise the species could not have survived. I am sure bats do not identify or call what they do as echo-location. The secret is all in evolution.
Now, what is good for bats is definitely good for human beings. We do not do probability while crossing the road. But – and this is the point – what we have been imbued with by evolution over millions of years is explainable by math that we have evolved to develop, understand and apply to recognize our own actions. You, of course, recognize the circularity. In some sense, I believe this is the consequence of our ability to think about ourselves, being self-aware.
We ask ourselves, almost ceaselessly, “Why do we do this? How did I do that?” We may not end up with the correct answer, but for whatever reasons we know we can make a model of our behavior to some level of validity. This “some level” is what makes our thinking probabilistic. We are never sure. And, probability helps moderate that ignorance.
I did warn you in the title that I am going probabilistic. But, you think that I have gone ballistic, off to the outer orbits of sanity. You are probably right. But, as you can see, I am still surviving.
Raghuram Ekambaram
8 comments:
Can you positively state you are never sure?:
OK Amrit, probably I am positively never sure! :)
I hope this post would explain certain thiings about how to understand evolution.
RE
Brings back memories of Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Read it so long back
Hi Raghuram,
I agree with you that most risk-reward decisions are based on probabilistic reasoning. But I find it difficult to connect it with evolution.
Take your example about crossing the road. Most 'natural' Indians could cross roads anywhere in the country, even if he/she faces the danger of being squashed by a Harley Davidson or a 10-tonne truck. Such quick-footed Indians have been found to be easily corrupted by a short visit to countries with saner traffic, say, Singapore or Germany. They lose their 'natural' instincts.
Did their probability distribution (probably a product of a life-time's learning and evolution) change for good and if it can change so dramatically in such a short time, does it go against the theory of gradual changes via evolution?
:-))) As usual, I am not totally sure what I am trying to say...
But I will have to trust you to do the hard work...and let me know if I am lost on evolution.
Arjun,
I had deliberately conflated genetic and memetic evolution, the second one a much faster process of lot less fidelity. The Singapore stuff is of the memetic kind.
This post is a take on the flight or fight aspects of evolutionary behavior (evolutionary psychology).
Thanks for adding to the post, perceptively as usual and offering challenges, again as usual.
RE
Amrit, that was one book I had deliberately shied away from because I did not think my brain was evolved enough to understand that. You read and forgot and I never read. So, are we on the same boat? Probably yes and potentially no (because you can easily recall what you had read!).
RE
Probability or not, I'm not sure. As a two-wheeler rider on Delhi's roads what I've noticed is: Delhiites take everything as their right. It is their right to cross the road whenever they feel the urge to do so; it is the duty of the drivers to be careful. The same goes for drivers: it is their right to jump any signal; it is the duty of the pedestrians to be careful...
Matheikal, if convenience translates into "rights", safety is whose responsibility? In this dyad there is no room for probability; it is all certinty, the certainty of unsafety!
RE
Post a Comment