Re: Clarification about mirror neurons

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Deutsch <david.deutsch-LR/[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9 Jan 2013, at 22:55, a b [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > - Does accepting specialized regions for language imply accepting
> > condition s related to language impairment (like dyslexia) are
> > possibly legitimate?

[hi DD, Rami - thanks for your replies]
>
> If there are specialised regions for a computational function in the
> brain, the unspecialised regions are still universal and can learn to
> perform the function.

Accepting the universality constraint....I think it is reasonable to
drill into this a bit to see if it's consistent on its own terms.

Let's say a specialized function emerged to support language, by
applying some algorithm to audio-sensory input, so as to distinguish
between certain sounds to a very subtle degree.

Now, universality tells us that this procedure could be learned by
another region, so theoretically a breakdown of the specialized region
could be compensated for.

But let's say some mutation affected the specialized region such that
it wasn't performing its job properly. How would the 'client'
process...the process that references the specialized
process.....'know' that the information it was getting back was
subpar?

More generally, how would the general region 'know' what the
specialized region was doing? Surely it's a black box situation. I
mean if the generalized region 'knows' what the specialized region is
doing AND monitors 'quality' of the output of that region, surely it's
already doing whatever the specialized region is doing, hence why have
it?

It seems to raise problems...that to me....make specialized regions
difficult to reconcile with universality as you state it.

On the other hand, why do you state universality as having to include
specialized regions? What about the hippocampus...is that part of
universality? If not..then why is it ok to leave that out, but not ok
to leave out an area for language?

>
> But the very term "specialized" can be misleading here because it can mean
> many different things. Because of universality, it is impossible for neurons
> to be 'specialised' in any computational sense. So a *computationally*
> "specialised region of the brain" can only be one in which the connections
> between neurons are genetically preprogrammed to enact a particular
> algorithm. But understanding human language, and using it, are both creative
> functions that are not inborn (we are not born able to read, speak etc). And
> therefore those functions cannot be pre-programmed. So they have to be
> learned creatively.

Language isn't inborn, but there are specialized regions for langauge
that are. So that implies our brains are evolved to support our
learning and using of language?

>
> A region could be specialised in another sense, e.g. it could have
> exclusive access to signals coming from the optic nerves. If so, then if
> that region was damaged, the person might be blind or have difficulty
> seeing. But that does not prevent the person from performing the
> *computational* task associated with reading. For instance, they can learn
> to read Braille, using a different part of the brain.

Yes but this is expected because the optic centre isn't exclusively
for language. There's no reason to expect that knocking it out would
knock out all the other specialized (or learned) components of
language
>
> It is logically possible for *any* genetic attribute, whether it codes for
> a defect in a brain region for or a skin colour or whatever, to 'cause' the
> behaviour that has been called 'dyslexia', via interactions with the
> environment such as affecting the behaviour of other people, or the person's
> own ideas via cultural interpretation. What it cannot possibly do is code
> for the behaviour itself, or make it immutable, because humans choose their
> behaviour, and their creative ability is universal and can be turned to any
> task that can be performed at all, including reading.

Sure, but....do you then say that people that lose their hippocampus
are able to rewire for memory?

Also...let's say that a function becomes specialized because there are
occasions when it needs to be accessed in parallel by multiple
processes..some conscious, some less conscious. That would be a good
reason for some computation to become specialized.

One example would be a computation providing 'mirror neuron'
functionality. There could be some situations involving a threat when
the brain accesses such a computation on many levels, assessing what
the person means, what the person intends, whether the person is about
to leap for you, and so on.

Would that sort of requirement be a good reason for mirror neuron type
functionality to remain specialized in humans?

More generally, do you think that a 'mirror neuron' functionality
could sometimes be accessed by language-related processes? If so, then
in that context, wouldn't a mirror neuron functionality BE a
specialized region for language?