{"id":4300,"date":"2014-07-20T14:06:56","date_gmt":"2014-07-20T19:06:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=4300"},"modified":"2014-07-19T19:44:01","modified_gmt":"2014-07-20T00:44:01","slug":"chaos-theory-the-edge-of-genius-and-madness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=4300","title":{"rendered":"Chaos Theory, the Edge of Genius and Madness"},"content":{"rendered":"

There’s an interesting article on the Nautilus<\/a> web site (one of many) about how the inner electro-chemical dynamics of the brain are seen as operating on a thin boundary between stability and chaos. The science of chaotic system dynamics has identified various patterns called \u201cstrange attractors\u201d in which a system exhibits something of a repetitive, quasi-orderly pattern while at the same time varying randomly in timing and pathway from cycle to cycle. Such a system may sometimes flip to a different pattern with a different cycle direction and space, and then flip back again to the original; but in both patterns, there appears to be an approximate center or a \u201cstrange attractor\u201d around which the system characteristics revolve. So, you can have a one-attractor cycle, or a two-attractor cycle, or even more. And no particular cycle around an attractor is quite the same as the last one. The changes from cycle to cycle are unpredictable, but the cycle, or the meta-cycle involving multiple \u201cattractor cores\u201d, does have stability.<\/p>\n

Such systems are seen to be on the ledge between either setting back into a fully-ordered and predictable path round and round some attractor point, or pushing into full-blown chaos where the attractors however strange just fall away and the system’s motions just go wild. Researchers are finding that a healthy functioning brain lives on this knife-edge. Why did nature and evolution select such an arrangement? One clue can be found in the design of high-performance aircraft, especially modern fighter jets. Once upon a time, airplanes were designed for maximum stability against changing wind currents. Pilots manually controlled the aircraft flaps, which steer the plane and also allow the plane to respond to changing winds and turbulent air flows. Recall, however, that humans can only react to things so quickly (typical human reaction times between start of perception and recognition \/ mental reaction<\/a> are between 0.15 and 0.3 seconds; then add even more time to carry out the responsive muscle motions); our brains and bodies need processing time. So it takes a while for the hand controlling the airplane flaps to react to what the pilot sees and feels from buffeting air currents. This is not a long time; but when a jet is barreling along at 900 mph, even a few tenths of a second might be too late to put the plane back on an even keel. <\/p>\n

So, aircraft had to be designed to be as naturally stable as possible. However, such design also made them more like battleships in the ocean, in that they took a relatively long time to change course when needed (such as when an enemy plane or missile is suddenly spotted). Thus, in modern jet fighters, the airframes are designed to keep the plane on the \u201cedge of chaos\u201d (aka \u201cnegative stability<\/a>\u201d); using modern electronics to sense unwanted direction changes and make adjustments to the flaps, airplanes can shake around just a bit as they cruise along, but not go over the edge into losing control. When it comes time to making an intentional course change, this shaking makes the plane very agile, able to shift its course very quickly. <\/p>\n

I’m not a scientist, but it seems logical to me that evolution used the same trick to give human beings the ability to be fast on the uptick. A brain on the edge of chaos is also a brain that can make quick decisions and adapt to changing conditions. Which is not a bad thing when you live in a forest or savannah where a predatory animal might be lying in wait for you around the next corner. This characteristic still serves us well in modern society; take away the cheetahs, but you still are left with many unexpected threats here in “civilized” life. <\/p>\n

So I was a bit surprised NOT to see \u201cnegative brain stability\u201d discussed in a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly on \u201cSecrets of the Creative Brain<\/a>\u201d, by neuroscientist Dr. Nancy Andreasen. In this long article, Dr. Andreasen discussed her interest in literary and artistic geniuses, and mused on the fact that mental illness plagued a disproportionate number of them, along with their families. After pursuing a PhD in literature, she decided to go for an MD so as to become involved with neuroscientific research. She has been involved in various research over the years regarding the difference between IQ and creativity, between being gifted versus being a genius. It became clear to her that although IQ comes in handy, creativity is ultimately something different. Many creative people don’t have extraordinary IQ s. But they often do get depressed, commit suicide, get addicted to drugs, or otherwise go off the mental rails sometime in their lives. <\/p>\n

Thus, she is now in the middle of a study involving the dynamic neuroimaging (lengthy brain scans) of highly creative people. One of her selection criteria was \u201cbig C\u201d creativity, i.e. the candidate must have some public recognition of success, must be in the public eye. She will focus on how the \u201cassociation cortices\u201d within the brain become active while creative people either perform focused tasks or are allowed to let their minds wander. The latter activity is probably where most of the \u201ceureka\u201d \/ \u201cnow I see it\u201d thinking takes place. So she will ask her candidates to lie still on their backs while enclosed in an MRI machine, ignore all the high tech stuff around them, and just let their minds go where they will. <\/p>\n

At the same time, Dr. Andreasen will be tracking their own personal and family experiences with depression, bi-polarity, aggression, schizophrenia, addiction, etc. Perhaps she might identify some brain geometry or dynamics in her scans that correlates with the presence or absence of some of these conditions. This would obviously be of interest in analyzing how mental dysfunction relates to the structures and dynamics that promote the creativity process.<\/p>\n

Andreasen’s article doesn’t say much about how the brain works, or how a creative brain might work differently from a normal one. The article is long on interesting anecdotes and the story behind her work, but short on theory. She appears to assume that the average Atlantic reader would not be interested in what is known thus far regarding the brain processes and structures that propel creativity, or what her early data might be hinting at. Perhaps that was a good assumption, perhaps the magazine itself boxed her in. But it really would have been nice if she could have spent a few paragraphs on the issue of chaos and mental agility, given how relevant it is to the connection between genius and madness.<\/p>\n

Again, I’m not a scientist or in any way an expert on the brain, the mind, or on genius and creativity. Personally, I have my own \u201cAH HAH!!!\u201d moments, but overall my creativity level is pretty average. And on the other side of the coin, I have been mostly free up to now from suffering mental dysfunctions. I may not be a paradigm of health overall, but I have managed to keep the parade of daily life moving for most of my years (and I hope I can keep it moving for a few more years, until my number is up). <\/p>\n

Nonetheless, I can’t help but relate the genius \/ madness connection with the \u201cnegatively stable\u201d F-16 Falcon fighter jet. The Falcon mostly works just fine; but what if we could put some kind of super-powerful engine in it using a volatile new kind of fuel. The F-16 designers would not have envisioned this, i.e. engines that could push its speed, altitude and acceleration well beyond its normal capacities. What would happen if you just put the new engines in anyway and fueled it up with the new premium octane, without otherwise adapting the plane? Well, you’d get great performance. But arguably, you would also run a bigger risk of going over the edge and losing control to chaos, if and when encountering a sudden unexpected swirl of storm turbulence (one that the normal F-16 could usually get thru OK). You would expect more crash and burns with this version of the Falcon, unless you could beef up the stability devices. <\/p>\n

So, creative people with \u201cbig engines\u201d propelling their nimble, chaos-critical minds and association cortices, would accomplish a lot of things that normal humans couldn’t, despite having their own \u201cstrange attractor\u201d focused brains. But when the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune come along, ordinary people would have a better shot at riding out the storm, versus some genius out there speeding away beyond what the normal mind was designed for. There probably have just not been enough geniuses throughout human history (and what few there are often kill themselves early, and thus do not leave as much progeny as usual) for evolution to adapt to their needs. So, the fine line between brilliance and madness stays pretty much as it has always been.<\/p>\n

That’s my half-assed notion on what might be going on with geniuses. Maybe in a few years we will read Dr. A’s papers and reports on what she found in her big study. And we will see if my own ideas on the link with chaos and strange-attractor borderline states is closer to genius or madness. Or, just another nice idea that sounds good, but doesn’t hold up in the real world.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There’s an interesting article on the Nautilus web site (one of many) about how the inner electro-chemical dynamics of the brain are seen as operating on a thin boundary between stability and chaos. The science of chaotic system dynamics has identified various patterns called \u201cstrange attractors\u201d in which a system exhibits something of a repetitive, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4300"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4300"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4300\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4313,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4300\/revisions\/4313"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}