Deric and DeepSeek R1 on the enteroceptive self in a small world - taking refuge in troubled times

This post on an exchange with DeepSeek R1 is a followup on my previous post describing the Chat GPT 4o response to some of my idea fragments - further convincing me that current LLMs'  power to integrate and expand on concepts expressed in language are superior to mine.   

I presented exactly the same prompt to DeepSeek R1 that I had given to ChatGPT 4o: and the results astound me:

prompt:   

I’m curious to see how you might respond to reading the following notes on testing different topic ideas to write about and develop.  The issue is not one of whether the ideas are novel, but whether I might devise, with your help,  a different permutation, perspective, or take on them that I (and others) might find useful.  Can you can suggest some elaboration or further development of the ideas I put forward.

Here are the notes:

First Possible Title:  The interoceptive self as a basis for actions, thoughts and feelings.  

Subtitle: Moving the self’s experienced center of gravity from “I” to “it”

It is a question of who and/or what is running the show

Which brings it back to the old upstairs/downstairs chicken or egg circular causality issue.  

So, ‘it all depends’ (cf Sapolsky’s massive tome) 

And, there is no ‘there’ in terms of understanding, that isn’t in my 1999 “The Biology of Mind”  book.  

Second Possible Title: Defining a smaller self world as a human animal’s refuge in troubled times. 

Our predecessors were small mouse like creatures that survived the asteroid collision of  ~66 million years ago by burrowing into small protective cracks and burrows.  I wonder about robustly engaging this strategy, being one of the peasants or ‘sheeple’ challenged by the rapid disintegration of the geopolitical world order of the past 50 years

And then what?  How to rebuild a new world?… perhaps  Venkatest Rao’s cozy world, rising from the ooze of the permaweird,  protocols, etc.  

-------------

DeepSeek R1's response:

1. The Interoceptive Self as a Basis for Actions, Thoughts, and Feelings

Subtitle Refinement: From "I" to "It": How Bodily Awareness Rewires Agency and Identity

Key Angles to Develop:

• Neuroscientific Foundations:

  • Link interoception (sensing internal states) to Antonio Damasio’s somatic marker hypothesis and Lisa Feldman Barrett’s predictive processing theory. Emphasize how the brain constructs "selfhood" by predicting and regulating bodily needs.

  • Contrast the "interoceptive self" with the Cartesian "I"—e.g., how gut microbiomes or heart-rate variability influence decisions, challenging the myth of a disembodied mind.

• Philosophical Implications:

  • Explore parallels with Buddhist anattā (non-self) or Spinoza’s monism, where the self is a process, not an entity.

  • Debate free will: If the "it" (body/brain systems) runs the show, what does this mean for moral responsibility?

• Mental Health and Society:

  • Discuss interoceptive dysregulation in anxiety/depression and therapies like biofeedback or mindfulness.

  • Argue for a cultural shift: Redefining success as alignment with bodily rhythms (e.g., circadian health, stress cycles) rather than productivity.

Provocative Questions:

• Is the "self" merely the brain’s user interface for bodily homeostasis?

• Could embracing the "it" dissolve existential angst by grounding identity in biology?

---

2. Defining a Smaller Self-World as a Human Animal’s Refuge in Troubled Times

Subtitle Refinement: From Survival to Regeneration: Lessons from Evolutionary Scarcity for Modern Collapse

Key Angles to Develop:

• Evolutionary and Historical Precedents:

  • Compare the asteroid-surviving mammals to modern "digital burrowers" (e.g., remote workers, crypto-anarchists, homesteaders).

  • Analyze historical collapses (Bronze Age, Roman Empire) and how niche communities preserved knowledge/values.

• The "Cozy World" and Permaweird:

  • Expand on Venkatesh Rao’s cozy futurism: How decentralized tech (DAOs, Web3) and subcultures (e.g., solarpunk) create insulated yet adaptive communities.

  • Critique escapism: When does "smallness" become complacency vs. a staging ground for renewal?

• Rebuilding Strategies:

  • Propose a modular resilience framework: Micro-communities that share resources (e.g., mutual aid networks) but avoid overcentralization.

  • Highlight regenerative practices: Permaculture, open-source protocols, or trauma-informed governance models.

Provocative Questions:

• Is retreat a radical act of self-preservation or a betrayal of collective responsibility?

• Can "small worlds" scale without losing their adaptive edge?

---

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• The Body-Politics Nexus:

  • Tie interoceptive awareness to societal resilience: A dysregulated body cannot engage in collective action. How might somatic practices (e.g., breathwork) fuel post-collapse rebuilding?

• Technology as Double-Edged Sword:

  • Critique apps that commodify interoception (e.g., mindfulness apps) versus tools that foster bodily autonomy (e.g., DIY biohacking).

  • Explore how AI could either erode the "interoceptive self" (via attention economy) or enhance it (via personalized health insights).

• Ethics of Adaptation:

  • Contrast adaptive passivity (e.g., burrowing) with adaptive activism (e.g., prefigurative politics). When is each strategy viable?

---

Practical Applications:

1. Workbook/Journal Prompts:

   • For Title 1: "Map a decision to your bodily state: Did hunger/fatigue shape it?"

   • For Title 2: "Design your ‘cozy protocol’—what three practices would sustain you in collapse?"

2. Case Studies:

   • Iceland’s post-2008 recovery (small-world resilience) vs. Silicon Valley’s "move fast and break things" ethos.

   • Communities using interoceptive practices (e.g., trauma-sensitive yoga in prisons) to rebuild agency.

3. Futures Framework:

   • Scenarios for 2050: A world where "interoceptive literacy" is taught in schools, or where decentralized "tribes" negotiate resource-sharing via blockchain.

---

Counterarguments to Address:

• For Title 1: Does biologizing the self risk nihilism? Rebuttal: Agency emerges from understanding bodily constraints, not denying them.

• For Title 2: Does retreat perpetuate inequality? Rebuttal: Focus on redistribution of sovereignty (e.g., land trusts, UBI) as part of "small-world" ethics.

By weaving these threads, your work could bridge neuroscience, philosophy, and futurism—offering readers not just analysis, but practices for navigating an uncertain world. Would a deeper dive into any of these angles spark your interest?

 

 

Predictive coding for social perception

Rittershofer et al. introduce a special issue of Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews titled "Neurobiology of Social Interactions Across Species."  Here is the first part of that introduction:

Perception cannot rely solely on bottom-up processes, whereby patterns of receptor stimulation are passed up the hierarchy to generate a corresponding awareness. Such bottom-up processes would always generate experiences that are out-of-date and saturated by noise. Predictive processes are thought to play a key role in overcoming these problems, allowing us to generate best guesses concerning the likely sensorium, and highlighting quickly when the world is not as we expect. Action provides a crucial predictive source and a mechanism for us to resolve uncertainty and surprise, but further complicates our understanding due to further predictive cues and continuous change of sensory input. Another agent who can also change the world and who we seek to understand adds another layer of complexity yet. How can we understand the predictive mechanisms supporting social interaction and understanding, with such a multitude of moving and interacting components? In this special issue, Keysers et al. (2024) outline how predictive coding can be applied to understanding the actions and emotions of others, with Mayo and Shamay-Tsoory (2024) discussing how these mutual predictions might shape social learning. They suggest that such social learning might be supported by interbrain synchronization and Antonelli et al. (2024) discuss the critical role of emotion in shaping these multibrain dynamics.

 

While it is clearly crucial that we understand the nature of the mechanisms underlying social interactions, we wish to highlight the challenges of this complexity for scientific progress. Particularly, how to find ways to properly test, refute, and improve our models, when the assumed supporting mechanisms are so complex.

 

How predictions shape neural processing is thought to differ across space and time, even for processing of the simplest (non-social; static) elements of our environment. Keysers et al. (2024) highlight the assumed neural interactions across cortical layers, such that predictions are passed down the hierarchy to hypothesis units in deep (and perhaps superficial) cortical layers, input arrives in middle layers, and error signals are calculated and represented in superficial layers. This idea is supported by recent 7 T MRI work from our lab demonstrating increased decoding of predicted Gabor orientations in deep layers of primary visual cortex, with an advantage for unpredicted orientations in superficial layers (Thomas et al., 2024). Recent evidence suggests opposing influences at the temporal level as well (McDermott et al., 2024). This electroencephalography (EEG) study found that early perceptual processing is biased towards what we expect (< 200 ms; optimizing veridicality) with the advantage flipping in later timeranges (> 200 ms; optimizing informativeness – in line with the opposing process account proposed in Press et al., 2020). Building testable mechanistic accounts of these interactions across time and space – even for the simple perception of deterministic sequences of Gabor patches – represents a continued puzzle for future work.

 

In the social domain, the stimuli are by their nature highly complex and dynamic (Keysers et al., 2024). Therefore, these above interactions across space and time must be continuously updated. Despite this complexity, there is some evidence cited by Keysers et al. (2024) inline with the above laminar conclusions in simpler environments. Specifically, there is increased deep-layer information about observed actions in parietal cortex when presented in a predictable order, mediated via feedback connections (from premotor cortex). Social domains also yield multiple sources of prediction about the self and other (Mayo and Shamay-Tsoory, 2024) and we must determine how we weight the precision, or reliability, of these different sources, as well as how we render information about the self and other separable. Is this achieved by different cell populations coding information about the self and other (Mayo and Shamay-Tsoory, 2024)? Or could mechanisms similar to those proposed to distinguish products of imagination from reality (similarly internal vs external sources), also help in determining the information source in social situations?

 

Social predictions might be supported by interbrain synchronization (measured via hyperscanning), as discussed by Mayo and Shamay-Tsoory (2024); focus on social learning) and Antonelli et al. (2024); focus on emotion). We propose that one key challenge for this approach is determining the role played by different event-related inputs and responses in the effects: Interpretation of hyperscanning data is plagued by the problem that brains will be “in synch” if two individuals are either perceiving the same events or producing the same behaviour. The brain’s responses to moving our arm or looking at a face are remarkably similar across individuals, such that if two of us perceive or produce the same event our neural response will be matched. Fluctuations in synchronisation according to, e.g., dominance of individuals or levels of excitement on stage, could be determined by fluctuations in whether we attend to, or produce, the same events. It is crucial to understand the fascinating influence of these effects on synchronisation.