Loop or Leap

Javier Bolaños* 

Summary 
The mental refers to itself and this action is not the result of somebody’s decision, by the contrary, is performed by the mental only. 

Moreover, the mental operates like a self-applying of signifiers, which retroactively refers to self-constructed realities: hence, the value of these signifiers is in their performative aspect. 

In addition to these kinds of loops that work like a video camera feedback loop, or like a simple organic structure a strange element comes into play to introduce a paradox: The human. 

In psychoanalysis, we verify, over and over, that there are loops that can solve situations and/or allow certain reinforcements. Although there is no possible solution if the expectation is for these loops to dissolute certain problems.  

Key words
The mental – Self-reference- Loop – Inability – Leap. 

Acceptance date
November, 2016. 

The mental is self-referential. To be more precise: the mental is referring back to itself. Therefore, this action is not the result of somebody’s decision. This action is done by the mental only.  Due to the mind’s scientific programming we understand that where we think, we are not. However, in lieu of Jacques Lacan’s analytic operation (inspired by the Freudian: wo is war, sol lich warden) we observe that we should re-signify (give a new meaning) the Cartesian’s Cogito Ergo sum in order to explain a major (non-scientific) human default which is: It is not the man who thinks. This is most apparent when someone is suffering. Once we pinpoint this, there is no way back. 

The mental, not the mind, always presents itself like a particular interpretation. It is the performance (effect) of certain pre-existing conditions such as marks/scars or cypher that on time will subdue and become an inseparable part of us. The effort in decoding, only possible because of the existence of language, (without it, the existence of these sediments would be none) leads us to an initial appreciation (a primitive way of amending) of what contingently happens to us. The main problem occurs when the mental process relies more on past occurrences than on the current events on which it is supposed to pay attention. This structure that supports itself in the signifier’s materiality (related to another signifier identical to itself) is, always, activated as a result of a contingent emergency that has no connection to it. Although, it is not referring to that event, it is not happening without it. Nevertheless, it is still a paradox that in order to talk about that other which occurs, it only refers to itself. 

Therefore, the signifier operates by referring to itself (the repetition in only one trait where the repeater and the repeated seem to be identical). Retroactively the signifiers refer to the realities they have built for themselves (Lombardi, 2008, 25). In this way, the only value is in the performance, like John Austin said when he referred to some cases where the emission of the expression is the performance of an action (19993, 140). This act, as Lacan said, belongs to the realm of the real (to what we can consider that indeed exists): The act is the only place where the signifier has the appearance or even more, serves the purpose of signifying itself” (Lacan, 128). Language’s capacity of self-reference is what interests us the most in psychoanalysis.

Which seems to be surprising is what an American scientist Douglas R. Hofstadter (Director of the Center of Research and Concepts and Cognition) said in I am a strange loop, that the human mind has nothing to do with the organic functionality since the brain is a substrate of self-reference. Consequently, he asserts in the book’s title that a fragment of material is capable of thinking itself. Side note: these ideas wouldn’t be possible without Kurt Gödel’s previous work on the recursive axiomatic system. 

We have already pointed out (Bolaños, 2014, 38) the inconveniences of mistaking the mind and the mental. Hence, we shall go ahead without further deliberation on this topic worked by the mentioned authors.

Marvin Minsky (considered by many to be a pioneer and one the founding father of Artificial Intelligence), is in agreement with Hofstadter regarding the statement which says that the human mind escapes from the traps that the contradictory activation of resources, by the emergence of some stimulus, it generates, using resources of a "higher" cognitive level (Minsky, 2010, 40). That means, there are changes in levels and the following level solves what the previous one cannot. This function of the mind’s self-reference functionality, Hofstadter calls it “abstract loop”: “[…] an abstract loop in which, in the series of stages that constitute the cycling-around, there is a shift from one level of abstraction (or structure) to another, which is like an upwards movement in a hierarchy, and yet somehow the successive “upward” shifts gives as a result a closed cycle” (Hofstadter, 2014, 135). To these kinds of mind´s loops, working exactly like a video camera feedback loop, or like a simple organic structure, Hofstadter calls them “strange”. “In short, a strange loop is a paradoxical feedback loop where level leaps exist” (Hofstadter, 2014, 136). The paradoxical thing generated in the habitual feedback seems to provide the key. We will work on those “leaps” later.

What is the obstacle in the human being then? Minsky answers: “If your higher cognitive levels had better access to your lower ones, then you might be able to replace statements like ‘I am experiencing the sensation of seeing something red’ by more detailed descriptions of the processing that sensation involve”, then “the subjective experience would evanesce [….] it seems to me, the apparent “directness of experience” is an illusion that comes because our higher mental levels have such limited access.” (Minsky, 2007, 328-329). It is impossible for us, due to a structure reason, to believe that we can descend from one level to another in order to get to our brain’s neurons. As if we would be able to think through the inability of looking under the symbols: “We human beings are macroscopic structures in a universe whose laws reside at a microscopic” (Hofstadter, 2014, 430). This is the reason why we mistakenly attribute a causal power to the facts.

We are universally coded machines. Or at least that is what is believed of humans in this bio-techno-scientific time. However, this is not the end of it: there is also the existence of symbols that need to be activated, otherwise humans lose their perception abilities, which seems to be the main difference between the man and the video camera. This is possible (the perception) only if the appropriate cypher is created beforehand.

Hofstadter gives us the following example to explain this better: the steady loop or spiral (working like a Gestalt) easily appears to us on a screen like having an existence.  However, that image needs real patterns and codes in order to be attached to a certain reference that would avoid an endless effect of the loop. This means that in a video system there is no perception but rather just the feedback that passes or decodes information. The perception of data will only be possible through active processes (acts of perception, abstraction, categorization and repetition). This will involve leaps from the rising level of raw stimuli to symbols that impregnate the loop of strangeness (Hofstadter, 2014, 234) it is as if the above happens due to the addition and multiplication of numbers to the level of the neuronal hardware: “In the end, we self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages are little miracles of self-reference.” (Hofstadter, 2014, 431). 

We previously noted that the access to inferior data is limited once - and this seems to be crucial- it has reached a superior cognitive level. It is odd that this limitation, instead of blocking us when looking for explanations, is activating our performance. As a result, we have an apparent track loss. It is as if we end up catering for the language (whether human or robotic). In psychoanalysis we realize that men complain about this all the time. We wonder: is there a solution for this? In science, there is no clear reason why men, despite everything, prefer to stay there. Over and over again we verify the endless persistence of men to stay in that mental storm. The self-referred functionality, handy to solve certain situations, cannot handle this, and furthermore, disappears in those circumstances. 

To summarize, these reassuring loops will not solve problems in the sense of erasing the previous state. The mental solves certain issues under certain circumstances but with no reassurance of termination.  That is why it is odd to think of the word “leap” in reference to the level that is ahead of us. Perhaps, this word refers to the upper level while assuming that it is better just because it does not exist. We prefer to call this process “reaching a superior or higher level”, because it seems to locate itself further because it is the place we get to when achieving what has been sought for so long. 

We prefer to call leap to the act of swinging from vine to vine while knowingly taking the chance of falling. Leaping will always represent a decision. This decision implies that the previous state will not matter anymore even when not knowing whether or not we will reach the next vine, and there is always a chance to fall. 

It is important to remark that none of the processes get a better status over the other. We are differentiating what self-reference and leaping imply. Therefore, the price to pay in this decision (operation) will depend on each man. It is important to conclude with the following: even knowing that there is no general solution for every situation, perhaps we have no choice but understanding that if there is something that self-refers, there is someone that makes the leap.

* Javier Bolaños: Founder and president of Fundación Salto. Editor in chief of the academic Journal Saltos. Co-founder of Leap (Lacanian Encounter Association of Psychoanalysis) in the US. Research coordinator in Psychoanalysis and Artificial Intelligence at Fundación Salto.

Translated from the Spanish by: Florencia Bernthal Raz. 

Bibliography
Austin, J.L. (1993). “Las expresiones performativas” in Infortunios del acto analítico. Buenos Aires: Atuel. 

Bolaños, J. (2014). “La mente y lo mental” in Revista Saltos, 1. Córdoba: Fundación Salto. “The mind and the mental”.

Hofstadter, D.R. (2007). I am a strange loop. New York: Basic Books.

Lacan, J. El Acto psicoanalítico. Versión Íntegra. Buenos Aires: Escuela Freudiana de Buenos Aires. 

Lombardi, G. (2008). Clínica y lógica de la autorreferencia. Buenos Aires: Letra Viva. 

Minsky, M. (2006). “The emotion machine”. New York: Simon & Schuster.