Personality Software

[pioneer]

The question I would like to propose is does the brain contain personality software that runs behind the scenes to shape behavior propensity? The analogy would be a robot that contains programs that run different routines. In the case of the brain, these would be analogous to living software and therefore don't have to start out with a lot of content, just structure. Their innate capacity would be to gather data and evolve themselves.

 

The reason I ask this is connected to the observation of the kitten. One can take a kitten from its mother and its siblings, when it is too young to have gotten any training in terms of learning to be cat. We can even place the kitten in an environment with children and dogs, so the teachers are wrong and it still comes out a cat. In other words, regardless of no cat school, and even in spite of dogs setting the educational agenda, it becomes a cat. In fact, anyone who has had kittens will notice them pretending to be chasing things. It is almost like they project their imagination into the environment to create their own learning games which allow them to develop the skills needed to be a cat. The mature cat, without formal training, then goes outside is able to catch birds. One way to explain this is gets personality software, at birth, which is actively inducing experience through curiosity and imaginary games, collecting data, and evolving. The cat software will evolve based on programming for a cat. This allows it to filter the dog data and selectively self educate, when no formal training is available, so it always becomes a cat.

 

The psychologist Carl Jung came up with the theory of archetypes. In modern computer lingo these would be analogous to personality software within humans. They are suppose to be empty at birth being shell software with form but not much content. But as we grow they also collect data and evolve. The result is humans always come out as humans since archetypes are designed to achieve that affect. We can formally train them so they show a cultural bias, but any culture still results in humans.

[Glider]

The question I would like to propose is does the brain contain personality software that runs behind the scenes to shape behavior propensity?

Not really.

 

The behaviours you present are instinctual. The propensity for kittens to chase fast moving things (regardless of what they are; bits of string, balls of fluff, laser dots) is not a learned behaviour.

 

As you state, even of you remove the kitten from its mother and siblings, it will still engage in these embryonic hunting behaviours.

 

These behaviours universal to the species. All kittens show these behaviours. They are also innate, which means they exist independent of any learning. The kittens are born with them.

 

So, in terms of your analogy, these behaviours are 'hard-wired'. They are a function of the architecture of the motherboard rather than of any subsequent software (which would relate more to later, learned responses and behaviours).

 

My cats hang around the kitchen at 5:30-6pm every day. This is a learned behaviour; a function of 'programminng'. They have come to know that that's when I will feed them.

 

However, their propensity for catching mice (which they still do, even though it's unnecessary), is a function of the way the 'feline motherboard' is hard-wired to respond to the environment.

 

That being said, personality is a different thing again. That is something 'laid over' the basic template (as it were) and defines individual differences (e.g. the differences between two cats). Personality describes a combination of relatively stable, long-term traits (characteristics) that differentiates one individual from another in terms of psychology.

 

So, you can have two cats, both will be cats and both will respond basically according to their feline 'hard'wiring', but one will like to sit on your lap and get lots of attention, the other might be a bit more 'stand off-ish'. One might enjoy having its belly rubbed, the other might draw blood if you try it. One might be very vocal and excited at dinnertime, the other may remain quiet (although just as hungry). Nevertheless, both are cats and both behave basically according to their hard-wired 'catness'.

[pioneer]

There are several layers of affects at the same time. One is the innate instinctive firmware. This may translate into living software allowing individual experience to adapt to whatever environment it is placed in. The cat still chases the mouse, but may make use of the fence in the yard for cover instead of the hay pile. The distinct personality difference between two different cat personalities, may be do to other firmware that is working in conjunction. In breeding, one can get the litters to have more and more of a secondary personality quality, such that even this secondary firmware begins to be part of common genetics.

 

Humans should have the same thing. The base layer could be the archetypes so we always come out human. Being firmware making living software it will develop within the environment. There are also secondary firmware, that defines some of the unique differences between different humans. The ego or center of consciousness may have it own firmware connection. This appears to be connected to the base level since it is a predictable as instinct in terms of human commonality.

 

Here is the scenario using an analogy. Picture if we had a robotic suit. The suit has its own programming with us having some measure of control. But the suit has its own practical limitation, in terms of the types of motions. As we are able to get use to these limitations we start to use the suit as though it is second nature. At that point, one forgets about the robotic programming, going on behind the scenes, as we start to believe we are fully in control, learning to work primarily within the existing parameters of the suit. If the suit can't jump rope, one will avoid that and therefore not have to confront that fact the suit is making everything else possible. Once we leave the firmware parameters, the ego is not as willful. If the firmware wasn't there to support learning, the ego couldn't take full credit.

[Glider]

Ahh, I see. You already had your Jungian answer prepared. I wish I'd known. I could have stopped at 'not really' and saved some time.

[pioneer]

Jung was the star pupil of Freud. They had a parting of the ways when Jung tried to create a psychological connection to the mythology past that most of humanity had shared, i.e., archetypes. Freud was trying to be more "modern" and sever that connection, placing the ego on the top, disconnected from any notion of deeper brain structures more complicated than ID and superego. That was old school thinking with Jung trying to go the next step. But because Jung gave some indirect credit to religion, via symbolism, this was sort of considered regressive with respect to old school ego-centric rationalism.

 

If we look at history, one can see the Freudian bias set the stage to prove Jung was correct. With that reality detachment in place, Hitler an Austrian, recycled mythology. He saw himself like a human-god or Caesar. There was even a recycle of the Roman swastika and goose step. Freud made possible a state of denial until the myth spread throughout an entire country. The 1000 year reich was a recycle of the bible prophesies. With the connection to even religion myth severed, the affect was able to occur more spontaneously. It was a dangerous experiment, but even after that proof, there is a state of denial.

 

Hitler would not have been able to generate the same level of world changing charisma, along the lines of mythology, if he didn't have the correct software active. It is possible, Freudian irrationality helped create the brain potential needed to active the correct software. The software became active to help fill in the void.

[Realitycheck]

Last year, one or two people in this forum led me to believe that, within our DNA, there are instructions which lead us to act the same way as our parents in given situations, without it being learned behavior.

[Glider]

Jung was the star pupil of Freud... // ...Freud made possible a state of denial until the myth spread throughout an entire country. The 1000 year reich was a recycle of the bible prophesies. With the connection to even religion myth severed, the affect was able to occur more spontaneously. It was a dangerous experiment, but even after that proof, there is a state of denial.

 

Hitler would not have been able to generate the same level of world changing charisma, along the lines of mythology, if he didn't have the correct software active. It is possible, Freudian irrationality helped create the brain potential needed to active the correct software. The software became active to help fill in the void.

I see. Less a 'question' (or a debate or a discussion), and more a 'lecture' then.

 

Tell me why this belongs in Psychiatry and Psychology. Convince me.

[pioneer]

The existence of archetypes, or root personality software, beneath the superego and ID, implies a connection to historical human nature. Just as the instincts carry a connection to our pre-human past, the archetypes also contain some firmware parameters that reflect the progression of humans. For example, if one has even been infatuated by a pretty lady, once the hormones kick in, the imagination becomes active. If one looks closely there are several layers at the same time. Part of it is personal, part of it is raw instinct, and some of it is collective both temporal and archetypical fantasy. This is a good way to collective first data, instead of third person data. With the right training one should be able to see the four distinct layers.

 

If you compare Freud and Jung, Freud has ego, superego and ID. Jung fans this out even further with persona, ego, superego, ID=shadow, archetypes and inner self. If we stop at the shadow=ID, the unconscious sort of look like trash so humans stay on the surface. With this training one works in the context of the infatuation without being able to see all the layers of the data creating a data hole in their perception. What fill that in that hole is ID=shadow, instead of the archetypes. The result is sort of a self for-filling expectation.

 

The deepest layers don't go away, but are affected with this type of programming since they are living software gathering data. It sort of creates it own Freudian reality or any of the other orientations that unknowingly makes holes in reality so they can fill in the hole with themselves. If you get past the ID=shadow, it offers the possibility of seeing the base software that is behind the scenes.

 

If one filters out this software even further it becomes more collective. Theoretically, it goes back to original natural human nature. It offers the possibility of defining what that is. The idea of relative instinct is one of the best holes yet since that allows group rate for an escalation of hole fillers. I would think psychology would be trying to remove the holes instead of just trying to fill them in. The hole is in knowledge of deeper affects, with the ID connection allowing even the formation of renegade software affects that have little to do with natural instinct needing to be plugged with one of the hole fillers.

 

Let me given an example of a hole filler creating a hole for the filler. Say we use the philosophy of satisfying one's desires to orientate life, this is based on only one midlevel archetype. It is not the only one, but say we cherry pick it. Ideally, the philosophy would be based on natural desire so at least that one software is being evolved toward optimization. But what is natural, based on other hole makers? So we add a more ID or shadow to that archetype with the result the software is moving in an odd way based on human will power. The hole is deeper requiring maybe another round of hole fillers.

[Glider]

You didn't convince me. You can continue your speculative monologue here.