Entropic brain hypothesis

[Belaya Noch]

The entropic brain hypothesis is an idea developed by Dr. Robin Carhat-Harris and his research team at Imperial College in London. It claims that one can order various states of mind according to so-called mental entropy, meaning the amount of spontaneous processes in brain not restricted by patterns of neurons' organization (specifically, a synonym of thinking patterns).

For example, an infant has a bigger mental entropy than a child (no social patterns of thinking, just inborn ones); a child has a bigger mental entropy than an adult (relatively rare occurence of patterns, flexible mind). This approach can put mental disorders in a new light. For example, psychosis would be a state of excessive entropy. Depression or addiction is the other pole - low entropy, meaning extremely rigid patterns of thinking and very modest emotional repertoire.

This is my interpretation:
As we grow up, we lose our entropy - our thinking becomes rigid, we lose our flexibility and become schematic boring adults with schematic ambitions. The patterns of thinking are so deeply rooted in our minds, that we even don't realize them. For example, when you react with anger to getting fired from the job, this is not you getting angry, but this is just a pattern of thinking (pattern of neural organization) expressing itself. When you see some attractive individual of opposite sex and react with arousal, this is just a pattern of reaction, which is partly inborn genetically, partly aquired (or at least strenghtened) socially. (Because I don't think that 2 y.o. child could ever happen to perceive the other human as a sexual object). There are many other examples, like schematic perception of our role in society or the canons of beauty. The beauty of childhood is there that children don't think using these quite awful patterns of thinking, as we do as adults.

There are even deeper patterns, like the sense of being a human or our perception of time, but I'm not going to deal with it now. Here is the paper that I'm refering to: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00020/full

 

[LostSoul1609]

The entropic brain hypothesis is an idea developed by Dr. Robin Carhat-Harris and his research team at Imperial College in London. It claims that one can order various states of mind according to so-called mental entropy, meaning the amount of spontaneous processes in brain not restricted by patterns of neurons' organization (specifically, a synonym of thinking patterns).

For example, an infant has a bigger mental entropy than a child (no social patterns of thinking, just inborn ones); a child has a bigger mental entropy than an adult (relatively rare occurence of patterns, flexible mind). This approach can put mental disorders in a new light. For example, psychosis would be a state of excessive entropy. Depression or addiction is the other pole - low entropy, meaning extremely rigid patterns of thinking and very modest emotional repertoire.

This is my interpretation:
As we grow up, we lose our entropy - our thinking becomes rigid, we lose our flexibility and become schematic boring adults with schematic ambitions. The patterns of thinking are so deeply rooted in our minds, that we even don't realize them. For example, when you react with anger to getting fired from the job, this is not you getting angry, but this is just a pattern of thinking (pattern of neural organization) expressing itself. When you see some attractive individual of opposite sex and react with arousal, this is just a pattern of reaction, which is partly inborn genetically, partly aquired (or at least strenghtened) socially. (Because I don't think that 2 y.o. child could ever happen to perceive the other human as a sexual object). There are many other examples, like schematic perception of our role in society or the canons of beauty. The beauty of childhood is there that children don't think using these quite awful patterns of thinking, as we do as adults.

There are even deeper patterns, like the sense of being a human or our perception of time, but I'm not going to deal with it now. Here is the paper that I'm refering to: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00020/full
View attachment 72868

I feel like this kind of theories is a bit based upon fried air. Not only it is kinda weak to try and explain the mind with phisycal language (the mind has differe t laws than the tangible so it needs it's own language and symbols, as demonstrated by C. G. Jung, not only we need those symbols to explain but it is the mind itself that speaks to us in such a fashion), but enthropy is hardly useful in describing tangible phenomenae and in this case it only serves the purpose of putting a big vague umbrella on very specific complexes. No depression is like another and no schizphrenia or psychosis is like another so it makes little sense to look for a comprehensive explanation to diagnoses that are by origin just big pots in which to throw various symptoms.
Also there is no way to measure enthropy of the mind, even the explanation given on the paper is extremely vague and generalised.
Not to mention that half of the conditions in the rigid state (depression, seizure, addiction) are at the same time appliable to the flexible state because, again, this is an incredibly generalized way of creating a scheme of something we yet don't understand, and trying to do so with improper means.

 

[Belaya Noch]

I feel like this kind of theories is a bit based upon fried air. Not only it is kinda weak to try and explain the mind with phisycal language (the mind has differe t laws than the tangible so it needs it's own language and symbols, as demonstrated by C. G. Jung, not only we need those symbols to explain but it is the mind itself that speaks to us in such a fashion), but enthropy is hardly useful in describing tangible phenomenae and in this case it only serves the purpose of putting a big vague umbrella on very specific complexes. No depression is like another and no schizphrenia or psychosis is like another so it makes little sense to look for a comprehensive explanation to diagnoses that are by origin just big pots in which to throw various symptoms.
Also there is no way to measure enthropy of the mind, even the explanation given on the paper is extremely vague and generalised.
Not to mention that half of the conditions in the rigid state (depression, seizure, addiction) are at the same time appliable to the flexible state because, again, this is an incredibly generalized way of creating a scheme of something we yet don't understand, and trying to do so with improper means.

Thank you for this comprehensive answer. Indeed, the use of the word "enthropy" seems to be controversial and some terms are vague. Perhaps this why it's called a hypothesis. However, they're scientists from Imperial, so personally I tend to trust this research.

 

[LostSoul1609]

Thank you for this comprehensive answer. Indeed, the use of the word "enthropy" seems to be controversial and some terms are vague. Perhaps this why it's called a hypothesis. However, they're scientists from Imperial, so personally I tend to trust this research.

If you want to know more about the connection between conscious and unconscious mind and the arise of complexes and mental illnesses I advice you to start with Jung, it kinda gives you the basis on which to form your opinion of other papers.

 

[Celerity]

This is an interesting paper. Thanks for sharing.

The idea, if I understand it correctly, reminds me of some ideas in Zen Buddhism such as "beginner's mind", and I would not be surprised if this author was inspired by it even though it looks like they don't refer to it (from a brief skim).

Much of "mindfulness" therapy is inspired by Buddhism. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) also draws from it, IIRC.

 

[motel rooms]

If you want to know more about the connection between conscious and unconscious mind and the arise of complexes and mental illnesses I advice you to start with Jung, it kinda gives you the basis on which to form your opinion of other papers.

Jung hahah
Talk about "aria fritta", amico mio

 

[LittleJem]

Robert C-H is a psychedelic researcher. The theory is that psychedelics reset the 'default mode network'.

I find it odd that I had relief from depression in workshops that used trance (they were a bit culty). I cried every day but in those workshops I felt better.

I have recently read a theory that depression is a trance state.

Saying that, it's probably hippie mum o-jumbo and the most hopeful research I just saw is about gene therapy for depression..,
What I meant is I think this theory comes from drug use!!! I'm dubious.

 

[Flippy]

Jung hahah
Talk about "aria fritta", amico mio

Had to look that up "aria fritta" -- means basically "hot air" right? I kinda had a feeling that's what it meant before I checked. I've been hearing a lot about Jung recently. As far as I can see, a lot of theories in the literal sense.

I have a problem with this sort of stuff, kinda has the hallmarks of religion. A body of unfalsifiable concepts. They may be interesting but I prefer to stick to things that can be proven, or are at least falsifiable.

A lot of nice ideas that seem to be based on mythology that are accepted as axioms.

"Animus Possession" etc, I guess there may be such a thing, and it may be a fuzzy interpretation of a genuine process in the brain but as far as I know it's not been shown to be.

Until such a point, I will keep that idea pigeon holed along with the flying spaghetti monster.