How Freud Gave Us Backpropagation and Links to Jung

Long ago, IEEE gave me its Neural Network Pioneer award for the original discovery of backpropagation -- the main foundation of the deep learning sweeping the world today, which was transferred and disseminated only because of very great efforts over many years. However, only recently have psychiatrists and psychologists started to learn the true story -- how I derived backpropagation BY translating certain ideas from Freud into mathematics. Here is part of that story. I wrote it down when asked for a discussion of it... ===================================================== Direct human contact, even by Zoom, allows a depth and richness I value a LOT. However, when I worked at NSF (1988-2015), I also learned how some conversations can go off course, and generate misunderstandings and false memories. IN THIS CASE, I feel it calls for me to put certain facts on "paper" now, as a kind of foundation, reality testing, whatever. Also, to be honest, I strongly believe I reach higher levels of awareness in the early morning, on most days, before I get distracted by many other things. Over time, I have gotten VERY deep into many approaches to psychoanalysis and psychiatry. The first big step for me was when I was 7 or 8 years old,when my sent me to a summer camp, Long Acres, where I met George Davis Gammon ("Davis"), whose father was chairman of neurology (they said) at the University of Pennsylvania. When I turned 9 (1956), I entered Chestnut Hill Academy, located in northwest Philadelphia, where Davis was in my class, living near the school. In the many, many conversations we had, he passed on what his father and other family members had taught him about psychology and psychiatry, mainly from a Freudian point of view. He showed me Gray's anatomy and the book by Sherrington on the brain. I pored over Sherrington, but for anatomy and physiology I mainly studied a text my mother had used when she took nursing many years before that. In those days, everyone I knew was aware of Freud, but feelings were very polarized. (As they are today about many topics!) I had an image of young girls who would violently tease boys about how confused and distorted their thinking was. (I did not even think at the time that there might be a friendly aspect of such teasing. But I was never teased that way, so I did not think of that aspect.) IN FACT -- at age 8 I was injected with testosterone by a Dr. Bone (just a precaution, he said), and that, combined with normal stuff, put me on the extreme side of yang. Like many other yang boys, I was disgusted and repelled by a lot of what people said about Freud, and I was aiming for a logical mathematical understanding of brains, mind and universe, which tends to make people too disgusted by what was said about Freud to pay much attention. However -- thanks in part to what I learned from Davis, and from conversations with people like my sister's classmates... I decided to take a third path. I UNDERSTOOD the first basic concepts of Freud's theory of pyschodynamics, based on his studies of neurons in medical school. I understood the idea "if there is a forwards association from A to B, based on causal learning, there will be a corresponding flow BACKWARDS from the B neuron to the A neuron, for chemicals representing 'cathexis' or 'psychic energy.'" Instead of rejecting Freud as nonscientific, I decided to translate his idea from a bgroping effort to develop a mathematical theory by Freud, into real mathematics. That was just the START of a rather complex journey -- as the brain and mind are also complicated. In the early 1960s, I took advanced computer summer course for high school students at the Moore school of University of Pennsylvania, which led to a summer job in 1964 at a research project under Dr./Prof. Karreman, a cardiologist. He had me study Hebb's classic book, still important, The Organization of Behavior. As I pondered Hebb's ideas for a universal learning rule, I realized quickly it could not even do as well as simple linear regression in learning how the world works; for a mathematically viable design, I needed derivatives, and by then I simply knew the relation between Freud and how to calculate derivatives, a kind of childhood memory by then. FINALLY -- a decent documentary record of sorts: https://vixra.org/abs/1902.0046 from 1972. SO much happened related to this story between 1964 and 1972! In early 1967, I believed fiercely that this view of the brain -- grounded in Freud whose works I studied much further in visits to the Harvard Adams House library -- totally explained human intelligence. But (werbos.com/religions.htm) from spring 1967 until winter 1972 I had many startling personal experiences which totally changed my views, step by step. NOW -- when people ask me "what are your holy books?", I say that Von Neumann and MOrgenstern is my Old Testament (the foundation of my neural network models of the brain as supported by data analysis in Werbos and Davis in Frontiers in Neuroscience), but now Cawhich just came outrl Jung's Red Book is my New Testament. The same mathematical models built up from Freud and Einstein can be extended to understand and justify concepts of collective mind which Jung worked so hard to probe. And yes, that kind of extension does require seeing how Freud's concepts of chemical or electrical "cathexis" signals must have PARALLEL , mathematically similar flows to implement backpropagation BETWEEN PEOPLE. In 1967-72, that seemed crazy to me at first.. but I took courses from Julian Schwinger, who shared the Nobel Prize for inventing "the second quantization," who led me on a path showing a very solid path to the physics which allows that. That path is outlined in the attached book chapter, from 2024 https://www.amazon.in/Exploring-Consciousness-Non-Locality-Come-Carpentier/dp/9391759947 .