Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind
Tim Tyler
by twin studies:
''Another expansion of our vista comes from the startling
similarities between identical twins, who share the genetic
recipes that build the mind. Their minds are astonishingly
alike, and not just in gross measures like IQ and personality
traits like neuroticism and introversion. They are alike in
talents such as spelling and mathematics, in opinions on
questions such as apartheid, the death penalty, and working
mothers, and in their career choices, hobbies, vices,
religious commitments, and tastes in dating. Identical twins
are far more alike than fraternal twins, who share only half
their genetic recipes, and most strikingly, they are almost
as alike when they are reared apart as when they are reared
together. Identical twins separated at birth share traits
like entering the water backwards and only up to their knees,
sitting out elections because they feel insufficiently
informed, obsessively counting everything in sight, becoming
captain of the volunteer fire department, and leaving little
love notes around the house for their wives.
People find these discoveries arresting, even incredible. The
discoveries cast doubt on the autonomous "I" that we all feel
hovering above our bodies, making choices as we proceed
through life and affected only by our past and present
environments. Surely the mind does not come equipped with so
many small parts that it could predestine us to flush the
toilet before and after using it or to sneeze playfully in
crowded elevators, to take two other traits shared by
identical twins reared apart. But apparently it does. The
far-reaching effects of the genes have been documented in
scores of studies and show up no matter how one tests for
them: by comparing twins reared apart and reared together, by
comparing identical and fraternal twins, or by comparing
adopted and biological children. And despite what critics
sometimes claim, the effects are not products of coincidence,
fraud, or subtle similarities in the family environments
(such as adoption agencies striving to place identical twins
in homes that both encourage walking into the ocean
backwards).
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/howthemindworks.htm
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
casey
> S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind, as revealed
> by twin studies:
> ...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/howth...
--
And what does this say with respect to AI?
I have made reference to such studies in exchanges with Curt.
When we look at the evidence without imposing some ideological
distortion to that evidence we find genetic factors determine
a significant part of our personalities, temperament, and
social attitudes. The dogma of the blank slate has done a lot
of harm in society by its believers.
JC
N
rudiments to my fav blonde Euro vet and gone home with a bottle and
been on strike since then, lol..hates racism
Don Stockbauer
So, like, nurture (training) accounts for nothing. Yah. Give me a
break.
casey
> On Aug 8, 7:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind,
>> as revealed by twin studies:
>>
>
>
> So, like, nurture (training) accounts for nothing.
> Yah. Give me a break.
No one has said nurture accounts for nothing.
Have you bothered to research the *scientific* evidence
on the role of nature (genes) vs. nurture with regards
to the behavioral traits of individuals?
JC
Don Stockbauer
Yes. Nurture counts for a quite a bit. Ever read about the few
children who were raised without language? They came out little
better than animals. Of course the answer is that both count.
Your move.
Wood to chop, water to carry.
casey
The children raised without language may have come out little
better than animals but I suspect if their twin were to have
language they would be very much alike in terms of their
personalities, temperament, and social attitudes.
There are some innate abilities such as the ability to learn
a language *given the right environment* but that is common to
all normal human beings just as being able to see in stereo
vision is common to all normal human beings *given the right
environment*. In both cases the input has to be present during
a critical development period otherwise it will not happen.
Learned behaviors are not independent of the genes and innate
behaviors are not independent of the environment.
JC
Wolf K
And it's done a lot of harm to the thinking of people who believe that
behaviourism assumes a blank slate. In particular, it's caused the
false nature/nurture (environment/genes) dichotomy. Pinker hasn't quite
freed himself from that, as I read him.
BTW, there is a behaviorist slant on Pinker's point: conditioning
entails genes being switched on and off (directly or indirectly) by
external stimuli, hence having different genes implies that different
discriminants will operate on different people, and the same
discriminant will operate differently on different people. Since clones
(identical twins) share most of their genes, they should respond
similarly to discriminants, so they should turn out to display all kinds
of similarities or identities of behaviour.
OTOH, the fact that twins (reared apart or not) do show different
behaviours is also important. IMO, the same/different behaviours offer a
method of filtering levels of behaviour, or dependence on environmental
input, so to speak. For example, I would not expect ID twins to learn
math without being taught, but I would expect them to display similar
variations of mathematical behaviour (eg, both being whizzes at algebra
and dummies at geometry.)
IOW, it's a good deal more complex than has been believed. And it's a
good deal more complex than it appears to be.
cheers,
wolf k.
Tim Tyler
> On Aug 8, 5:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind, as revealed
>> by twin studies:
>> ...
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/howth...
> --
> And what does this say with respect to AI?
Not as much as it could do - it's a bit of an anecdote.
What would be needed to make a better case are a long list of
such correlations, *and* evidence that they are not correlated
with each other. If they don't represent independent factors,
they don't really count as genetic complexity.
Anyway, the passage indicates one way to approach to this issue.
casey
>
> And it's done a lot of harm to the thinking of people
> who believe that behaviourism assumes a blank slate.
I was not making reference to the behaviourist blank
slate but rather the belief in the blank slate by others
such as those who blame the environment, such as parents
for the outcome in a child's behaviour such as autism,
or the belief by the feminists that the environment
causes differences in the behaviour of males and females.
Not understanding innate human nature results in silly
ideologies such as communism or socialism and the
inappropriate expensive way terrorism is dealt with.
I once overheard a conversation where one woman related
to the other women how so and so's child was a bad child
and no wonder with a mother like that. I asked if the
women had any other children and if so what were
they like. Oh yes the gossips responded little Jim is
very well behaved compared with little Jack.
I used to debate the nurture nature thing with a feminist
friend as a teenager. Since then we have grown up and had
our own children. She now agrees with me that nature is
the main difference between males and females having seen
her own children and her feminist friends children's sex
determined behaviour first hand despite any effort to
condition it out of them.
Unfortunately being chauvinist pigs in innate in some of us.
JC
Wolf K
In both sexes.... ;-)
wolf k.
Sly
> On Aug 8, 7:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind, as revealed
>> by twin studies:
>
> So, like, nurture (training) accounts for nothing. Yah. Give me a
> break.
Sometimes I really wonder if two (or more) people are posting under your
name :)
Like the times you answer to yourself :)
Don Stockbauer
Could be. There are levels in cyberspace above me out of my control.
"That's right, Don."
Wolf K
casey
Learned behaviors are not independent of the genes and innate
Don Stockbauer
I assume this book relates the truth - that nature and nurture form a
synergism, just as the parts of the global brain do.
Wolf K
>> http://www.amazon.ca/Nature-Via-Nurture-Genes-Experience/dp/0060006781
>
> I assume this book relates the truth - that nature and nurture form a
> synergism, just as the parts of the global brain do.
Yes, and at the time it was published, the newest research cited was
less than 6 months old. A excellent read, both a good overview of the
synergy, and lots and lots of corroborative detail. Matt Ridley's thesis
is "Nature-nurture is a false dichotomy." Highly recommended. My aunt in
Oxford UK gave me 100 GBP back in 2006, and sent me off to Blackwell's
to spend it. This was one of the books I bought. She's always been an
excellent aunt, getting frail now.
wolf k.
Don Stockbauer
Haven't read a book in years. The Web has spoiled me. I said that to
a librarian once and she almost cried. Most so-called dichotomies are
false. Shades of gray, the excluded middle, all that. I find the
intense competiveness of debate here to be more invigorating than
reading a book, although it can drain on one, as the debate in CAP has
done the past few days. And yes, I should JOOTS.
valerie scanlon
> S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind, as revealed
> by twin studies:
This involves a misuse of language. "Genetic complexity" is a
scientific concept. "Mind" is a religious concept referring to the
soul (mind). The use of "mind" in artificial intelligence is an evil
bequeathed by the Dartmouth Summer Conference, McCarthy, Minsky, and
Newell. For half a century, the practitioners of AI have floundered in
the religious swamp of soul (mind). They might just as well count the
number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
Ray
Tim Tyler
> This involves a misuse of language. "Genetic complexity" is a
> scientific concept. "Mind" is a religious concept referring to the
> soul (mind). The use of "mind" in artificial intelligence is an evil
> bequeathed by the Dartmouth Summer Conference, McCarthy, Minsky, and
> Newell. For half a century, the practitioners of AI have floundered in
> the religious swamp of soul (mind). They might just as well count the
> number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
>
> A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
> nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
> of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
Er, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
valerie scanlon
> valerie scanlon wrote:
> > A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
> > nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
> > of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
>
> Er, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
I looked at the entry. Interesting, but elementary.
Here are a few notes on the subject:
If we are to discuss intelligence, we must first make our peace with
the relationship between body and soul. Some, of course, are not aware
that there is a problem. Let them be happy in their ignorance. Do not
disturb.
Others are aware of a pseudo-problem that they lay to a poor choice of
words, a misuse of language. They tend to be very, very clever. They
turn on a spigot, and a rush of words befogs the question.
Soul (spirit, essence, psyche, mind, consciousness, awareness,
intelligence, intellect, mentality, self, individuality, persona,
personality, conscious mental field, self awareness, sentience,
executive function).
All these words imply an uneasiness with soul. All these words imply
an object, or something approaching an object. Something we might
carry about in a watch pocket and take out for display at an
appropriate time.
---- ---
Definition of soul:
1. (philosophical) the immaterial essence, animating principle, or
actuating cause of an individual life.
2. (theological) the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all
rational and spiritual beings, or the universe.
--- ---
In more recent metaphysics less has been heard of the soul and more of
the mind; the old problem of the relationship of soul and body is now
that of the relationship of mind and body.
Soul: in religion and philosophy, the immaterial aspect or essence of
a human being, that which confers individuality and humanity, often
considered to be synonymous with the mind or the self. In theology,
the soul is further defined as that part of the individual which
partakes of divinity and often is considered to survive the death of
the body.
--- ---
Such a diarrhea of the mouth. There is no talking to them. They have
surrounded themselves with such a fortress of words that they cannot
hear.
A few have carefully parsed the question: Chalmers, an optimist, says
we need a new physics. McGinn, a pessimist, replies, “Save your
breath”.
The practical issue, in questions of intelligence, arises when we ask,
“Does the soul (mind) have causal powers?” The scientist demands,
“No!” The religionist asserts, “Yes!” There it rests.
The late Sir Francis Crick looked for the neural correlate of
consciousness (NCC). He failed, but not for lack of trying.
If we should isolate a neuron, such that every time it burst you
should experience a patch of blue, a quale, and if we should go
further, and connect a button to the neuron so that every time you
pushed the button, you should be aware of a patch of blue, would you
feel in touch with your soul? Most would say, “No!”
Would you even feel that you understood why you experienced the blue?
Again, Chalmers says, “We need a new physics to understand the
experiencing”. Again, McGinn replies, “Save your breath”.
You, a soul, experience a world. You know not why. Save your breath!
Ray
Don Stockbauer
The soul is the body in operation.
Tim Tyler
> On Aug 19, 4:20 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> valerie scanlon wrote:
>>> A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
>>> nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
>>> of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
>> Er, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
>
> I looked at the entry. Interesting, but elementary.
Right - but that seems to be what's needed - if you are hung up
on ancient religious conceptions of the mind.
"Soul" and "mind" are not synonyms these days:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
Don Stockbauer
> valerie scanlon wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 4:20 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> valerie scanlon wrote:
> >>> A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
> >>> nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
> >>> of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
> >> Er, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
>
> > I looked at the entry. Interesting, but elementary.
>
> Right - but that seems to be what's needed - if you are hung up
> on ancient religious conceptions of the mind.
>
> "Soul" and "mind" are not synonyms these days:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
The mind is the brain's emergence.
Curt Welch
> valerie scanlon wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 4:20 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> valerie scanlon wrote:
>
> >>> A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
> >>> nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
> >>> of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
> >> Er, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
> >
> > I looked at the entry. Interesting, but elementary.
>
> Right - but that seems to be what's needed - if you are hung up
> on ancient religious conceptions of the mind.
>
> "Soul" and "mind" are not synonyms these days:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
From your link:
"... and can be synonymous with the spirit, mind or self"
I don't think that link supports your position.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
cu...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/
Tim Tyler
Contrast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
The "soul" link is way more laden with mystical nonsense.
Maybe *some* people consider those terms synonyms. Probably
most of those that do have a mystical conception of the mind.
Phil Roberts, Jr.
I believe you are the victim of a flawed syllogism:
Premise:
Physical science has proceeded at the speed of light
while psychology has remained a basket case.
Conclusion:
Therefore mechanistic materialism is "true".
As I see it, the syllogism should read:
Premise:
Physical science has proceeded at the speed of light
while psychology has remained a basket case.
Conclusion:
Science of the mind is harder to do, initially at
least (e.g., the individualization problem).
Phil
valerie scanlon
> Curt Welch wrote:
> > Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> valerie scanlon wrote:
> >>> On Aug 19, 4:20 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>> valerie scanlon wrote:
> >>>>> A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
> >>>>> nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
> >>>>> of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
> >>>> Er, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
> >>> I looked at the entry. Interesting, but elementary.
> >> Right - but that seems to be what's needed - if you are hung up
> >> on ancient religious conceptions of the mind.
>
> >> "Soul" and "mind" are not synonyms these days:
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
>
> > From your link:
>
> > "... and can be synonymous with the spirit, mind or self"
>
> > I don't think that link supports your position.
>
> Contrast:
>
>
> The "soul" link is way more laden with mystical nonsense.
>
> Maybe *some* people consider those terms synonyms. Probably
> most of those that do have a mystical conception of the mind.
There is that which sees, and that which is seen. This is not
mystical, this is everyday common observance. I use the word "soul
(mind)" for that which sees. Do you have a better?
Ray
Don Stockbauer
The soul is the body in operation.
valerie scanlon
> The soul is the body in operation.
The soul is the kidneys as they secrete urine.
Ray
valerie scanlon
> > nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
> > of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
>
> Er, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
The essential brain consists of a set of motor program generators. The
circuitry of which is constructed by the RNA as it reads off the
instructions in the genome. This circuitry produces all the motor acts
of the organism. There is no other.
The neocortex functions as a passive filter for sensory input on its
way to trigger motor program generators.
Of particular interest is the circuitry in the hindbrain that produces
the phonemes, and the plasticity of the neocortex that results in the
acquisition of a language.
We also look at the thalamic reticular nucleus with its peculiar
ability to halt motor programs as they pass through the thalamus on
the way to the motor cortex. It can also halt sensory input freeing
the neocortex to associate. This leads to reverie and thinking.
Ray
Don Stockbauer
An interesting cybernetic subsystem of the soul. Thank you so much
for your thoughtful input.
Curt Welch
> On Aug 20, 8:22=A0pm, valerie scanlon <rs...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > There is that which sees, and that which is seen. This is not
> > mystical, this is everyday common observance. I use the word "soul
> > (mind)" for that which sees. Do you have a better?
Sure I do.
> The soul is the body in operation.
Well, both of those really miss the true mark here.
The reason we have all this talk about mind and soul in our culture and the
reason there is so much confusion over the mind body split has nothing to
do with "the body operating". When I wave my hand (or take a piss) that's
the body operating, but yet no one thinks these things are really mystical
in any sense. If that's all we had, the whole mind/body/consciousness/soul
debate never would have started.
We have all the confusion, because our brain is able to sense two unique
sensory domains. The external domain (of our hand waving and urine flowing
out) and the _internal_ world of the "mind". The internal world is unique
(and defined by) the part of the universe we can each sense, but which the
people standing next to us can't sense.
Only the internal stuff we sense is the mind. Yes, it very much is just
body in operation, but it's a very special and limited part of our body
that we can sense in that way. It's our ability to sense our own brain
activity, but not all brain activity we are aware of is what we call
"internal brain activity".
When I see my hand wave, it's causing internal brain activity. So not only
is the hand "out there" waving, but there's also brain activity "in here"
which is my internal representation of what is happening out there. But
yet, when I have _that_ type of internal activity, we don't call it "mind".
We call it "hand waving". So Ray, when you said, "mind is the thing that
does the seeing", that's just not consistent with how people use the word
mind. Because when I see my hand wave (or your hand wave) we don't
generally about that as _my_ mind at work. My mind is at work when "I"
"decide" to "think about" how I saw your hand wave a moment ago. I'm using
lots of scare quotes there because when we talk like there, it is really
very scary - that is, odd and strange in terms of what is really happening
in the brain - but yet totally normal based on cultural norms.
So one type of "seeing" (aka brain activity, aka body operation) which
results when I see you wave your hand, we never informally talk about as "a
mind at work". It's not my mind doing something, it's your hand which is
waving (as we talk about in day to day life).
So only a very limited and specific type of brain function gets labeled as
"mind" and "soul". Not the entire "seer" which the word for us "human"
(not mind), and not _all_ body function, because most body function
(including a lot of the brain function) is just called body function, and
not "mind function".
Only when the brain is sensing physical behaviors in the universe which
other humans around us can't sense at the time, do we call it "mind" and
"soul". It's very limited and specific, and it's not the entire sensing
system, and it's not just any body operation.
casey
>
> ...
>
> Only when the brain is sensing physical behaviors in
> the universe which other humans around us can't sense
> at the time, do we call it "mind" and "soul". It's
> very limited and specific, and it's not the entire
> sensing system, and it's not just any body operation.
All seeing is in the brain including seeing hand waving.
JC
Don Stockbauer
I see a lot of hand waving going on here.
John Hasenkam
It is innate within a given environment. I wonder what happens when raised
in very different cultural environments.
John
"casey" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:f89a01e8-fd3b-4107...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Wolf K
> Unfortunately being chauvinist pigs in innate in some of us.
>
> It is innate within a given environment. I wonder what happens when raised
> in very different cultural environments.
>
> John
> "casey" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:f89a01e8-fd3b-4107...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 9, 9:10 am, Wolf K <weki...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> And it's done a lot of harm to the thinking of people
>> who believe that behaviourism assumes a blank slate.
>
>
> I was not making reference to the behaviourist blank
> slate but rather the belief in the blank slate by others
> such as those who blame the environment, such as parents
> for the outcome in a child's behaviour such as autism,
> or the belief by the feminists that the environment
> causes differences in the behaviour of males and females.
Agreed, but a surprising number of people who should know better hold
the same misconception of "blank slate." Some of them inhabit this NG,
even. ;-)
What no longer amazes me, having accepted that we humans are nothing if
not inconsistent, is the attitude that a teacher's use of wrong methods
is to blame for student failure, but that the student's hard work and
talent explain success.
[snip anecdotes, which I could echo from my own experience]
cheers,
wolf k.
casey
>
> What no longer amazes me, having accepted that we humans are
> nothing if not inconsistent, is the attitude that a teacher's
> use of wrong methods is to blame for student failure, but
> that the student's hard work and talent explain success.
If one teacher's students are consistently more successful
than another teacher's students over many years in the same
subject area I think that flags a problem.
JC
Wolf K
True, but that's not the way people argue about it.
BTW, I've also noticed that the same teacher will be often be praised as
the best ever and the worst ever. Seems to have something to do with how
teachers teach and how students learn. ;-) Gotta mesh for it to work well.
BTW, did you know that Luther said everyone should be a teacher? For
four years, then quit.
I've modified Shaw's famous dictum to:
"Those can teach, teach. Those can't teach, do."
First realised that Shaw got it wrong when I watched fellow teachers
coach athletes who outperformed them.
In a way, our desire for AI is a desire for machines that will
outperform us. Strange ambition for a life form.
Cheers,
Wolf K.
casey
>
> I've modified Shaw's famous dictum to:
>
>
> "Those can teach, teach. Those can't teach, do."
>
>
> First realised that Shaw got it wrong when I watched
> fellow teachers coach athletes who outperformed them.
The ability to be an effective teacher is a skill in
itself and is separate from the skill being taught.
> In a way, our desire for AI is a desire for machines
> that will outperform us. Strange ambition for a life
> form.
It is not so much a hope that AI will outperform us for
its own sake it is a hope of using a machine to solve
problems we can't solve ourselves due to a limitation
in our capacities. That is why we use computers to do
things we can't do as fast even if at this stage we
tell them how to do it. Just as we made use of horses
to supplement our strength, and now we use engines,
we also use machines to supplement our ability to
process information.
My real interest is actually in what trying to get a
machine to think tells us about ourselves. We are a
thinking process despite what a certain other person
thinks due to his poor powers of abstraction. The
physical matter we are composed of at any point in time
keeps changing, all that continues is a process.
JC
Curt Welch
Or a success! :)
John Hasenkam
news:4aa65f95$0$5915$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> casey wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 6:11 am, Wolf K <weki...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> outperform us. Strange ambition for a life form.
Not for a lazy life form.
> Cheers,
> Wolf K.
Wolf K
That theme/motif been dealt with in SF, as far back as the 1950s IIRC.
One nice little ironic story from ca 1960 had robots do/make everything.
The hero discovers that he likes making things - starts with model ships
and trains, moves on to furniture and TV sets, etc. The robots make and
deliver kits for him to build, which slowly get more and more complex,
finally requiring a garage full of hand and machine tools. the last kit
delivered is for - a robot.
The central planning computer's mandate was to make life better for
humans....
Hehe
wolf k.