Specialized regions for language (Was: Re: Clarification about mirror neurons)

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Alan Forrester
<alanmichaelforrester-gM/[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> In BoI, David explicitly says that mirror neurons don't explain human
> imitation. However, there is another problem with the mirror neuron idea.
>
> Neurons, or some set of neurons, can act as a set of universal classical
> gates. So mirror neurons (or some subset thereof) play a role in imitation
> by virtue of instantiating some algorithm. The explanation of how the
> imitation is done is in terms of that algorithm rather than in terms of the
> neurons per se. So then calling them mirror neurons is a bit like saying
> that a universal computer that happens to be set up to implement a chess
> playing algorithm is a chess playing chip when that chip could just as
> easily be programmed to do any other classical computation.
>
> This could lead to mistakes. It could be the case that some of the mirror
> neurons could be cut out or destroyed without destroying the mirror
> functionality. They happen to go off because they're wired up to other
> neurons that do the mirror neuron algorithm. Worse, it could be the case
> that there are two sets of neurons A and B and you could destroy either one
> of them without destroying the mirror functionality but if we destroy both
> sets then we destroy the mirror functionality. In the absence of a specific
> explanation it's important to think of the mirror functionality as being
> software so we don't miss stuff.
>
> Alan
>

With everyone's consent what I'd like to do is change the subject
(hence subject line change) onto turf that DD in BoI gets behind more
explicitly, which happens to be in line with what the majority of
scientists in the field also think: that there is or may be a set of
heavily specialized brain regions which solve some other set of
(perhaps as yet not understood) challenges associated with language.
Specialised brain regions for language.

The reason it might be fruitful to switch to this matter, is because
it may be that certain issues that arise directly - perhaps as
corollaries - out of acceptance of such brain regions, that contain
some subset of implications for the subject in hand, that may turn out
to be inescapable. Or that would be the strongest possible
outcome....but anything interesting would possibly be useful to the
current discussion. So in other words, let's explore the "indirect"
route for the starting-out reason Deutsch is explicit in support of
this idea, and so far as I know no one has criticized that support.

OK....so I'll kick off with what a sequence of consequences from that
that are as inescapable as I can think of.

- The original 'challenge' must have been very hard to accomplish in
general brain areas for the selective force to be there sufficiently
to result in a whole set of specialized regions.
- So 'knocking-out' one of these regions would plausibly cause a
deficit that the rest of the brain would not be capable of
compensating for, or would compensate quite badly for (indeed I think
this is consistent with the vast majority of the scientific evidence)
- Which means that small gene mutations affecting regions like this
might also result in large effects that the brain would have trouble
compensating for (there might also be a connection here with Deutsch's
"hard to vary" idea in that more specialized regions are harder to
vary at the genetic level, while delivering the same value in terms of
whatever they do).
- Yet small mutations will occur in specialized regions as often as
anywhere else. Being harder to vary doesn't effect the occurrence of
such events, but only the prospect such events will deliver as good a
'service'. In terms of evolutionary theory, all else being equal
natural selection would certainly kick in against such mutations with
proportionality to the size of the deleterious effect.
- However, natural selection is only relevant if the deleterious
effect reduces probability of surviving long enough to reproduce.
- It is reasonable to assume generally that human society has steadily
allowed the population to acquire mutations with larger and larger
effects that at some benchmark point in pre-history w, ould have been
selected against. In other words, less and less powerful negative
selection as human civilization has advanced.
- At some point therefore, even mutations in these specialized areas
for language, even if they have large effects which disadvantage the
individual considerably, are nevertheless becoming more frequent in
the population.
- So harder-to-very brain regions are acquiring mutations at some
level at or below the fairly well established and constant mutational
rate at the molecular level. With larger and larger effects, so harder
and harder for natural selection to keep up. Also, increasingly no
selective force of positive selection in order to 'correct' such
errors (for the same reason as increasingly no selective force to
breed out such effects).

OK so that's roughly the line of reasoning bringing us to the
following situation.

- Language ability...at the innate level...must vary considerably in
the population.
- Language ability is a major factor in assessing IQ
- Language ability is a major factor in success in society
- Language is a major factor in absorbing existing knowledge (i.e.
from books, talks, etc).
- Absorbing existing knowledge is a major influence on what new
knowledge you are going to create next.

So.....even if we once were universal knowledge creators, we can't
still be. Not in terms of equal ability given the same set of ideas.
We can't be. Not unless you can break down this reasoning.

P.s. please try to avoid 'breaking down' the reasoning by refuting
weak spots caused by shortcomings in how I have used language. In
other words, in the spirit of truth seeking and having a good
discussion, do the following. Read my reasoning, improve it, identify
the key logic that has to be in place for the outcome I am pointing
to. Then criticize THAT.

p.p.s Doing this would be in line with what Popper said to do. He
said, when someone puts forward a conjecture. First improve it. Then
improve it again. Then criticize that. In other words set it into the
strongest form that you can.