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

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:44 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

Just to add two further implications to this

- IQ differences are either real, or if they aren't this is because of
shortcomings in the process, not shortcomings in the proposition.

- Secondly....that even if DD is correct (and he seems to be) in the
distinctions he made that set his earlier comments about "solidity"
within the fold of good-philosophy as currently agreed, and so the
criticisms/suggestions put forward by myself and others including
Elliot are wrong on this specific matter. Even if that is the case, it
still seems to be so, that DD is departing from the philosophy at some
as yet not fully identified juncture that is 'local' to, or associated
with, this area in general.

Thus it could be that even if he's not yet nailed it in what he's
saying in the specifics...and so possibly wrong in how he is
characterizing the specifics of his 'change of mind' regarding DD,
Elliot could be right at the more intuitive level, that something
"isn't right" with some directions DD is going down. By "not right" I
don't mean wrong in the objective/real sense, but in the sense of the
philosophy that was previously seen as being fallibly settled,
actually being at odds with avenues DD has since gone down.

The reason I see this as an important possibility that should be
explored is simply that, if they had a good friendship, or good
intellectual relationship, for a considerable period of time. And if
that relationship has become stressed or is at or near breaking point.
And if the key most central reason from Elliot's side of things, is
what he says at the start of his announcement, namely that if people
change their minds about important things, they owe it to.....if not
others then to be in-keeping with the philosophy shared with those
others....to announce it and make clear.

Indeed, to be fair, that conviction pretty much has to be at the
centre of things or if not then very high on the list, since Elliot
himself takes the momentus decision to make this announcement
presumably out of precisely that conviction. Which has to be noted
since almost certainly there is a very significant risk to him of loss
of personal status for having done so. Watever you think of him and
his announcement, and whether or not you think he's right about
Deutsch, whether or not you think he would have been better off
changing his mind about himself than Deutsch, these factors I'm
pointing out still have to be noteworthy. Doing something at risk of
personal sacrifice sits above or outside all these other factors,
allowing them to be abstracted away, at least to the extent of that.

So, where am I going? Well...if this issue of not announcing shifts is
at the core of things, then the significance to this that sits behind
the reasoning and route I have offered that I say have the effect of
throwing some major philosophical principles into question, is not
only that on some level Elliot may not have quite got to yet in the
rational, being able to explain sense, intuitively he may nevertheless
be onto something.

Not only that, but also by the same coin, Deutsch might not have quite
yet worked things through rationally so as to be able to see that
inconsistency with the philosophy. And if that's true, then Elliot can
be reassured of his most central fear/criticism...that Deutsch is
falling short of his obligation to announce major changes of mind,
because Deutsch doesn't yet understand this is the case, and Elliot
needn't see this as a shortcoming since he himself hasn't yet
clarified his intuition on the matter either.

So...this matters if their relationship to eachother matters, because
it is a possibility of some crossed-lines between them, of sufficient
significance that this situation can to a great extent be reversed,
healed, halted, whatever.

So....on the strength of that, do have a go at my reasoning in my
first post, and please do remember to take some time and effort to set
my reasoning into its strongest form. I don't write particularly
clearly or well, and for all you know there's a reasonable explanation
for that involving life-history that does not rule out internally
nevertheless having an insight worth sparing time to improving the
communication of.

Cheers.