Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - News
Binghamton University Newsroom
Binghamton University Newsroom

INSIDE BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY

How do change and constancy coexist?

By : Susan E. Barker


Binghamton University Professor Eric Dietrich is among the philosophers and hosts of cognitive scientists who continue to attempt to answer one of the world’s greatest paradoxes — how do change and constancy coexist in the world and the human mind?
The meaning and nature of change has fascinated great minds since recorded time.

Today, legions of philosophers and hosts of cognitive scientists continue the effort to resolve what may be one of the world’s greatest paradoxes: How do change and constancy coexist in the world and the human mind?

Binghamton University Professor Eric Dietrich is sure of at least one thing. Our creativity, and likely our very survival, depends on the fact that they somehow do. Imagine having no memory in a world rife with change. Everything and everyone is brand-new to you at every moment. You don’t recognize family members. You don’t recognize your surroundings. You don’t recognize that you are the same person you were as a child — or even last week. You don’t know whether things are safe to eat or drink, or what the darkening sky and blustering winds might foreshadow.

No past. No future. Just a totally confounding present in which the word “change” has lost all relevance and meaning, because that’s all there is.

If the scenario is unnerving, that’s likely because it would probably mean the end of life as we know it. “Without some thread of constancy,” agreed Dietrich, a cognitive scientist and philosopher of the mind, “we’d be toast.”

According to Dietrich, what actually happens for most of us is that change and constancy engage in a mysterious and symbiotic dance — a reel in which the two alternate the lead, working separately and in collaboration to inform our perceptions and interpretations of the world. Fortuitously, this results in a sum significantly greater than the parts. It also points to the kind of properties that continue to fuel cognitive studies and perplex cognitive scientists, Dietrich said. “You’ve got a whole bunch of neurons doing their thing in the brain,” he said. “What individual neurons do is very sophisticated. But it’s nothing compared to what a whole human can do.

“Somehow, you end up with a language-speaking human engaged in trying to establish world peace. That’s a little hard to predict from neuronal activity in the brain. We couldn’t even predict consciousness from the neuronal activity in the brain.”

Still it is minds, after all, that keep an ever-changing world from utter chaos, most philosophers now agree. “The world is constantly changing, but humans stamp constancy on it with their minds,” Dietrich said. “Minds make an ever-changing world somewhat constant. But no one is really sure how we manage to pull it off.”

How is it that we develop and sustain the kind of constancy that is critical to learning, relationships and, very possibly, our basic sanity and survival in an ever-changing world? Dietrich thinks the answer might be found in analogy and abstraction, both of which are at the heart of his current research interests.

Analogy depends on and is characterized by an ability to draw similarities between things that are dissimilar. Abstraction, Dietrich said, is the act of developing a general sense, or “gist notion,” from many specific pieces of information. He is working in both areas through the development of algorithms to inform the development of artificial intelligence and his studies of cognition and the human mind.

In 1909, when it suddenly occurred to Ernest Rutherford that electrons must hold the negative charge of atoms and that they must also orbit the nucleus “like planets around the sun,” Rutherford was abstracting from bits of data before him — drawing an analogy between a familiar, or “constant,” idea and an observed phenomenon or perception to arrive at a brand-new concept, Dietrich said. Though analogy research is a great success story in cognitive science, Dietrich said researchers are still a long way from building a machine that can spontaneously do what Rutherford did.

“We have artificial neural networks that do a good job of perceptual abstraction,” he said. “They can look at your face and my face and, despite the obvious differences, they can abstract the notion of ‘face.’ “We even have machines — Deep Blue — that can sometimes beat world chess champions,” he added. “But at the end of the game, [Garry] Kasparov can stand up and go home. He can tie his shoes. He can make pasta. He can have a conversation” — all things Deep Blue, obviously, cannot do.

Dietrich thinks his work helps to demonstrate that abstraction and analogy are key to the problem of constancy with change. He also hopes to learn more about how both relate to the kind of human creativity and artificial intelligence that will fuel the most promising nanoscale changes of the future.

“It’s one thing to know the actual string of bases in the human genome,” Dietrich said. “It’s another thing to know what to do with that information.”
Connect with Binghamton:
Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Instagram

Last Updated: 10/14/08