Tractable and intractable computations human individuals are faced with.

In an uncanny manifestation, as I would call it for the lack of a better word available in my mind right now, sources unravelled before me, without a consciously prepared plan, only to lead me, almost effortlessly, to a sought after solution of a nagging problem. One seemingly intractable problem, in personal terms, on the grounds of the unyielding amount of operations in the process of arriving to a satisfactory solution.

Similar with what I mentioned in that post, the anticipation built-in in the firing sequences of neuron groups, with the additional element of intractable problems. Does that go beyond a simple immediate future anticipation? To processes connected to situations where ever ready, constantly on standby, lingering bifurcations sweep away the thoughts toward new, concluding attractors or falling under the influence of powerful trajectories of all-surpassing, universal attractors? As for example the attractor-notion of knowledge already there, awaiting your mind's arrival? Severely cutting down the number, by-passing unyielding operations? Arriving to a solution sooner?

Computational problems can be "efficiently solvable" or "tractable" or "intractable" as they would require a huge amount of operations, at least n^1000000 (n to the power of 1 million), as it is mentioned here,

"P is often taken to be the class of computational problems which are "efficiently solvable" or "tractable", although there are potentially larger classes that are also considered tractable such as RP and BPP. Also, there exist problems in P which are intractable in practical terms; for example, some require at least n^1000000 (n to the power of 1 million) operations."

These are the kind of problems human individuals face in life situations as it is mentioned in "Fractal Neurodynamics and Quantum Chaos: Resolving the Mind-Brain Paradox Through Novel Biophysics", in Chapter 6.1, The Computational Intractability of Survival in the Open Environment.,

"The principal task of the brain is to compute the survival strategy most likely to enable the organism to evade death and produce viable offspring. A computational problem is intractable if the number of computational steps required grows super-exponentially with the complexity of the problem. The travelling salesman problem (Bern & Graham 1989), finding the shortest route round n cities illustrates this, growing with (n-1)! A problem may also be formally undecidable in the sense of Gödel. Many adaptation-survival problems in the open environment share the characteristics of intractable problems, because each strategy tends to be matched by a competing strategy in another organism and the number of options rapidly exponentiates. An active organism must also complete a processing task within 0.1-1 second if it is going to have survival utility, regardless of its complexity. Such arguments make it clear why parallel processing is an integral feature of vertebrate nervous systems."

In each step in our modern lives, though no different in real terms with the lives of human individuals in any era in human history for that matter, we are required to make decisions about effectively intractable problems. The human individual has largely managed to tackle successfully the computational problems associated with survival, and it did so by utilising our brain's chaotic potential. Thanks to our innate ability to engage and utilise chaotic processes led to the establishment of numerous attractors, providing solutions for many problems. Attractors manifesting in numerous forms and shapes, tangible and intangible, matter-transforming or social and mental constructions, tools in the constant grappling with nature, while at the same time continuously transforming into new shapes and forms.

Issues raised in dealing with complexities

Human individuals, despite their achievements collectively, as single entities have a limited capacity to discern the complexities that phenomena impose upon them. This limits their ability to fully comprehend the flow of events that take place around them and affect their ability to select the rules that explain the phenomena. However, this can be twisted around and used to give credence to the necessity and tendency of humans to act collectively, as this is the way that they can achieve more. Their full potential is realised only when they act together, complement each other and reach heights of achievement otherwise impossible. By working together it made and continues to make possible in breaking down many of the complexities encountered, as the current body of knowledge accumulated bear witness.

Nevertheless the fact remains and the limitations of the human individual's limited processing capacity must be addressed. The whole point is raised because of the enormous amount of information that has to be dealt with in discerning complexities. Here, it is tempting to draw upon the knowledge on the computing time, ideal supercomputers require to process particular problems, and liken humanity to a supercomputer engaged in deciphering the whole range of processes that underpin reality. Referring to a single individual dealing with the complexities in his immediate environment, it would consume an inordinate amount of time, and time is, very much indeed, in short supply, due to the constraints imposed by our life spans, and exacerbated by the amount of time and resources consumed to deal with concerns of survival, as they appear in various manifestations and identify themselves as pressing, therefore primary, needs.

Despite our limitations we are required to select, which we do that every time and have being doing constantly in the past. As a result of the options selected ourselves, our communities, societies and civilizations are in their present state of development. The selection process used, reflects our limited processing capacity. Since we can not deal with the amount of information that complexities present, as the full extent of possibilities eludes us, we adopt leads and information that fit a model of emergence that past experience incited upon us and abandon the possibilities and attached information, that do not fit the adopted model. This only gives a partial view of reality which we constantly strive to extend.