Pinker vs. Skoyles and Sagan

[Selma Singer]

According to Skoyles and Sagan, Pinker refuses to acknowledge the proven fact that the human brain develops new neural connections that actually cause it to function differently. Pinker insists on calling these developments simply 'new learning'. Two examples of the evidence Skoyles and Sagan provide are as follows:   The visual cortex can be developed to read Braille.   Parts of the brain that seem to function primarily for the purposes of touch and sound can be trained to see.   The point Skoyles and Sagan make is that the human brain has developed in such a way that it has separated itself from its genetic heritage to a large extent and is more influenced by culture than by genes; there is no reason to believe it will not continue to do that in the future.   Their book is about the evolution of the human brain and the major changes in the brain that have occurred along the way that illustrate those changes in functioning.   It is only now with the latest developments in neuroscience that we can begin to understand the degree to which the brain actually changes the way it functions in response to cultural influences.   The human ability to use symbols, is, of course one of the major developments; as far as I know there is not a gene for that.   I would be interested to know whether some of you would be willing to say that having the visual cortex change enough to be able to read braille is simply 'new learning' and does not involve a major change in brain functioning.   Selma