Re: Pinker: How the MInd Works
>I'm still not sure that the Neither! list is the right place for us to >discuss this. We can go private if you want -- if anyone on the list wishes to be kept involved then they can yell out now. The main purpose of my posts have been to inform you, Kerry, and anyone else interested, that perhaps Pinker has something new and interesting to say -- the idea of an evolutionary psychology especially as he applies it to his 'Family Values' chapter, which cites lots of interesting studies. I think your quote from Dawkins supports the view that "being determines consciousness" is too simple. Nor is it in contradiction to Pinkers view that science and morality ought to be clearly separated. -- Bill This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Re: Pinker: How the MInd Works
A child doesn't need to be born "a blank slate" in order for environment/"experience/society/culture to be of pivotal importance in his/her development. You have failed to grasp the dynamic *relation" between genome and its environment (which ofcourse starts in utero). Skinner saw environmental forces shaping an esentially passive organism - he was wrong. Extreme cognitivists (Chomsky, Fodor et at) see the organism as unfolding from inside with the external world providing little more than support for this process...they are also wrong. Dennett madxe the comment about our genes keeping us on what is effectively (but not literally) an infinite leash at his public lecture in Melbourne last year. I don't think this amounts to having his cake and eating itthis is understandable once you grasp the incredible complexity and dynamism of the relation between humans and the world. A quote from Dawkins along similar lines : "We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators" (p331 in The Selfish Gene") A little more from Dawkins now that I have got going: "I *think" that Rose and his colleagues (Kamin, Lewontin and other "high priests of the left") are accusing us of eating our cake and having it. either we must be "genetic determinists" or we believe in "free will;" we cannot have it both ways..what they don't undertsnad is that it is perfectly possible for genes to exert a statistical influence on human behaviour while at the same time believing that this influence can be modified, overidden or reversed by other influences" (p331 "The Selfish Gene") I'm still not sure that the Neither! list is the right place for us to discuss this. Kerry Bill Kerr wrote: > > [Kerry Langer] > My first impression from reading the rest of your note however is that > you are now slipping in the direction of being *too* impressed by the > role of biology in human society/culture. I liked Dennett's remark that > although our genes keep us on a leash, the leash is, for all intents and > purposes, infinitely long. I'll try to respond in more depth over the > next few days. > > [Bill Kerr] > Yes, I think Pinker is challenging the notion that "being determines > consciousness" and is trying to establish the notion that "genes determine > consciousness" (not his words). > > I wouldn't discount the former but Pinker does marshall some most impressive > evidence for the latter, which has compelled me to rethink. > > Pinkers notion of evolutionary psychology is new to me, its the linchpin of > a lot of the things he says, but he argues it really well IMO. The > traditional Marxist / feminist / humanist view is that we start with a blank > slate and then "being determines consciousness" or "gender is constructed" > or "give me a child and I will turn him into whatever I want" etc. etc. > > Pinker refutes this IMO. I don't know the context of the Dennett quote but > he seems to be wanting to have his cake and eat it (genes determine what we > are but it doesn't really matter anyway). The whole point of Lewontin et al > writing 'Not in Our Genes' is that it does matter, surely. > > -- Bill Kerr This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Re: Pinker: How the MInd Works
[Kerry Langer] My first impression from reading the rest of your note however is that you are now slipping in the direction of being *too* impressed by the role of biology in human society/culture. I liked Dennett's remark that although our genes keep us on a leash, the leash is, for all intents and purposes, infinitely long. I'll try to respond in more depth over the next few days. [Bill Kerr] Yes, I think Pinker is challenging the notion that "being determines consciousness" and is trying to establish the notion that "genes determine consciousness" (not his words). I wouldn't discount the former but Pinker does marshall some most impressive evidence for the latter, which has compelled me to rethink. Pinkers notion of evolutionary psychology is new to me, its the linchpin of a lot of the things he says, but he argues it really well IMO. The traditional Marxist / feminist / humanist view is that we start with a blank slate and then "being determines consciousness" or "gender is constructed" or "give me a child and I will turn him into whatever I want" etc. etc. Pinker refutes this IMO. I don't know the context of the Dennett quote but he seems to be wanting to have his cake and eat it (genes determine what we are but it doesn't really matter anyway). The whole point of Lewontin et al writing 'Not in Our Genes' is that it does matter, surely. -- Bill Kerr This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Re: Pinker: How the MInd Works
-Original Message- From: Kerry Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: omega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Saturday, 2 January 1999 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Pinker: How the MInd Works I haven't read "The Idea of Consciousness" ...is that by Jonathon Bennett...or is it a different Bennett? Max R. Bennett. harwood academic publishers. ISBN 90-5702-203-6 In what sense can't you "shake off" Democritus? I'm not sure how you are relating this to the ideas in "Consciouness Explained" (CE). If you found CE worth reading, then you will find "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" a good read. I certainly will read it, as you have whetted the appetite. What I alluded to I guess was what you have now said directly below, and to paraphrase it a bit: You will never build a bridge by theorising and philosophising about it; just build the fucking thing and, if it falls down, then build another fucker a bit stronger next time. This might interest you though: http://www.digibio.com/cgi-bin/node.pl?nd=n1 I really like talking about this stuff...however I'm not quite sure why we are doing it on the Neither list! What do others think? I'd be interested to know if there are any people lurking who share an interest in philosphy of mind/consciousness/AI/cognitive science/evolution/genetics etc etc etc. Kerry omega wrote: > > Must have a read. Dennetts book : "Consciousness Explained", I found a bit > more believable than Bennetts: "The Idea of Consciousness" but, I can not > shake off Democritus saying that: "Nothing exists except atoms and space, > every thing else is opinion", and: "Everything existing in the universe is > the fruit of chance and necessity". > > -Original Message- > From: Bill Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; David McMullen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Kerry Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Friday, 1 January 1999 11:58 AM > Subject: Pinker: How the MInd Works > snip > > > >This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general > discussion. > > > >To unsubscribe click here > Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe > >To subscribe click here > Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe > > > >For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm > >For archives > >http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Re: Pinker: How the MInd Works
Jzzzsss, no wonder the pinkos never get anything useful done; they
seem to spend all their time philosophising about how many angels can dance
on the point of a pin! It must all scare the pants off the elective
dictatorship; as for me i think a re-read of "Animal Farm" by Orwell (the
schnozzle) is appropriate at this juncture in history.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, 2 January 1999 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Pinker: How the MInd Works
>[KL]
>What's wrong with Dennett's writing (style). I really like it!
>
>
>[BK]
>More seriously I ought to thank you for arguing that Dennett and Dawkins
>were onto something important. In particular I was influenced by Gould's
>criticisms of Dawkins and hadn't bothered to read him. 'Darwins Dangerous
>Idea' is good because the polemic is upfront but sometimes Dennett gets so
>involved in the details that I get bored with it. With Pinker its much more
>like a good novel that I just can't put down.
>
>
>[KL]
>Can you tell me (us) a bit more about him taking on "feminists" and
>"post-modernists"?
>
>[BK]
>btw the page references were just pages to start reading those sections
>One issue would be gender construction. Pinker argues that to a significant
>extent what some (feminists) argue as gender construction is not social
>construction at all but it is genetic. eg. he argues it adaptive for men to
>have insatiable sexual desire for mutliple partners but that its also
>adaptive for women to be much more selective. I just love the "men are
>slime" study he cites on pp. 467-9.
>
>His critique of post modernism is that gender, for instance, is
>deconstructed so that gender stereotyping is deflated. But in the process
>scientific reality is denied (57).
>eg. beauty is adaptive for women (483-87) not just a conspiracy against
>women.
>
>He critiques the "blank slate" idea that the division between biology and
>culture is fundamental and takes on some of the wishful thinking of the
left
>that has been dressed up as scientific ('Not in Our Genes' by Lewontin et
>al, Margaret Mead etc.) (45). Takes some swipes at Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao
>in the process (47). Still thinking about some of this.
>
>The way in which he tries to distinguish himself from the right wing is by
>arguing for a clear separation between science and ethics, eg. see page 55.
>
>[KL]
>I started reading "the Language Instinct" last year
>but didn't get finished. I am still inclined to take issue with the
>notion of language as an :"instinct" or an "organ" (Chomsky's word). I
>think that while we have an innate ability to learn language, we still
>do LEARN it.
>
>[BK]
>p. 18 The Language Instinct
>"Language ... develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort
>or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying
logic
>... is distinct from more general abilities to process information or
behave
>intelligently. For these reasons some cognitive scientists have described
>language as ... a mental organ ... But I prefer "instinct". It conveys the
>idea that people know how to talk in more or less the sense that spiders
>know how to spin webs."
>
>
>Whilst acknowledging Chomsky's pivotal role in our modern view of language,
>Pinker takes pot shots at Chomsky in "Language Instinct" :
>333,355,357,359: Chomsky skeptical that natural selection can explain human
>language (linked to Gould & Lewontins influence)
>52: Chomsky is a paper and pencil theoretician who wouldn't know Jabba the
>Hutt from the Cookie Monster.
>
>
>We don't learn to speak in the same sense that we learn to write. Minsky
>argues that learn is too vague a word for scientific use (from memory) and
>suggests a whole string of new words to describe different ways of
learning.
>
>-- Bill
>
>
>This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general
discussion.
>
>To unsubscribe click here
Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
>To subscribe click here
Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
>
>For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
>For archives
>http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Re: Pinker: How the MInd Works
Just a really quick comment on *one* of your points (I haven't time to discuss the rest right nowsorry) > We don't learn to speak in the same sense that we learn to write. Minsky > argues that learn is too vague a word for scientific use (from memory) and > suggests a whole string of new words to describe different ways of learning. yes, the notion of "learning" does need to be clarified. Of course learning isn't synonymous with things that we are taught (eg writing) or even things that we are aware of "picking-up" without formal tuition of any sort. *Most* learning is the result of an unconscious bottom-up process which pattern recognition is probably the pivotal process. The learning that we are aware of is probably an entirely different phenomenon (and peculiar to humans). I'm not denying its importance, however it *is* only the tip of the iceberg. Oh, by the way, thanks for thanking me for pushing Dennett at you! My first impression from reading the rest of your note however is that you are now slipping in the direction of being *too* impressed by the role of biology in human society/culture. I liked Dennett's remark that although our genes keep us on a leash, the leash is, for all intents and purposes, infinitely long. I'll try to respond in more depth over the next few days. Kerry This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Re: Pinker: How the MInd Works
I haven't read "The Idea of Consciousness" ...is that by Jonathon Bennett...or is it a different Bennett? In what sense can't you "shake off" Democritus? I'm not sure how you are relating this to the ideas in "Consciouness Explained" (CE). If you found CE worth reading, then you will find "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" a good read. I really like talking about this stuff...however I'm not quite sure why we are doing it on the Neither list! What do others think? I'd be interested to know if there are any people lurking who share an interest in philosphy of mind/consciousness/AI/cognitive science/evolution/genetics etc etc etc. Kerry omega wrote: > > Must have a read. Dennetts book : "Consciousness Explained", I found a bit > more believable than Bennetts: "The Idea of Consciousness" but, I can not > shake off Democritus saying that: "Nothing exists except atoms and space, > every thing else is opinion", and: "Everything existing in the universe is > the fruit of chance and necessity". > > -Original Message- > From: Bill Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; David McMullen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Kerry Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Friday, 1 January 1999 11:58 AM > Subject: Pinker: How the MInd Works > > >'How the Mind Works' by Steven Pinker > > > >Very interesting ideas arise from applying evolutionary theory to > psychology > >(p. 44) and family values (p.425). I also thought his earlier book, The > >Language Instinct, was excellent -- explains Chomsky better than Chomsky > >can. > > > >He's not afraid to take on feminists, post modernists etc. Also he can > >write, which I feel is Dan Dennett's weakness. > > > >-- Bill Kerr > > > > > >This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general > discussion. > > > >To unsubscribe click here > Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe > >To subscribe click here > Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe > > > >For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm > >For archives > >http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Re: Pinker: How the MInd Works
[KL]
What's wrong with Dennett's writing (style). I really like it!
[BK]
More seriously I ought to thank you for arguing that Dennett and Dawkins
were onto something important. In particular I was influenced by Gould's
criticisms of Dawkins and hadn't bothered to read him. 'Darwins Dangerous
Idea' is good because the polemic is upfront but sometimes Dennett gets so
involved in the details that I get bored with it. With Pinker its much more
like a good novel that I just can't put down.
[KL]
Can you tell me (us) a bit more about him taking on "feminists" and
"post-modernists"?
[BK]
btw the page references were just pages to start reading those sections
One issue would be gender construction. Pinker argues that to a significant
extent what some (feminists) argue as gender construction is not social
construction at all but it is genetic. eg. he argues it adaptive for men to
have insatiable sexual desire for mutliple partners but that its also
adaptive for women to be much more selective. I just love the "men are
slime" study he cites on pp. 467-9.
His critique of post modernism is that gender, for instance, is
deconstructed so that gender stereotyping is deflated. But in the process
scientific reality is denied (57).
eg. beauty is adaptive for women (483-87) not just a conspiracy against
women.
He critiques the "blank slate" idea that the division between biology and
culture is fundamental and takes on some of the wishful thinking of the left
that has been dressed up as scientific ('Not in Our Genes' by Lewontin et
al, Margaret Mead etc.) (45). Takes some swipes at Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao
in the process (47). Still thinking about some of this.
The way in which he tries to distinguish himself from the right wing is by
arguing for a clear separation between science and ethics, eg. see page 55.
[KL]
I started reading "the Language Instinct" last year
but didn't get finished. I am still inclined to take issue with the
notion of language as an :"instinct" or an "organ" (Chomsky's word). I
think that while we have an innate ability to learn language, we still
do LEARN it.
[BK]
p. 18 The Language Instinct
"Language ... develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort
or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic
... is distinct from more general abilities to process information or behave
intelligently. For these reasons some cognitive scientists have described
language as ... a mental organ ... But I prefer "instinct". It conveys the
idea that people know how to talk in more or less the sense that spiders
know how to spin webs."
Whilst acknowledging Chomsky's pivotal role in our modern view of language,
Pinker takes pot shots at Chomsky in "Language Instinct" :
333,355,357,359: Chomsky skeptical that natural selection can explain human
language (linked to Gould & Lewontins influence)
52: Chomsky is a paper and pencil theoretician who wouldn't know Jabba the
Hutt from the Cookie Monster.
We don't learn to speak in the same sense that we learn to write. Minsky
argues that learn is too vague a word for scientific use (from memory) and
suggests a whole string of new words to describe different ways of learning.
-- Bill
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Re: Pinker: How the MInd Works
Must have a read. Dennetts book : "Consciousness Explained", I found a bit more believable than Bennetts: "The Idea of Consciousness" but, I can not shake off Democritus saying that: "Nothing exists except atoms and space, every thing else is opinion", and: "Everything existing in the universe is the fruit of chance and necessity". -Original Message- From: Bill Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; David McMullen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Kerry Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, 1 January 1999 11:58 AM Subject: Pinker: How the MInd Works >'How the Mind Works' by Steven Pinker > >Very interesting ideas arise from applying evolutionary theory to psychology >(p. 44) and family values (p.425). I also thought his earlier book, The >Language Instinct, was excellent -- explains Chomsky better than Chomsky >can. > >He's not afraid to take on feminists, post modernists etc. Also he can >write, which I feel is Dan Dennett's weakness. > >-- Bill Kerr > > >This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. > >To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe >To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe > >For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm >For archives >http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Re: Pinker: How the MInd Works
Bill Kerr wrote: > > 'How the Mind Works' by Steven Pinker > > Very interesting ideas arise from applying evolutionary theory to psychology > (p. 44) and family values (p.425). I also thought his earlier book, The > Language Instinct, was excellent -- explains Chomsky better than Chomsky > can. > > He's not afraid to take on feminists, post modernists etc. Also he can > write, which I feel is Dan Dennett's weakness. > > -- Bill Kerr What's wrong with Dennett's writing (style). I really like it! I've got Pinker's book "How the Mind Works" but haven't read it (yet). (I'll check out the page references that you've given later today) Can you tell me (us) a bit more about him taking on "feminists" and "post-modernists"? I started reading "the Language Instinct" last year but didn't get finished. I am still inclined to take issue with the notion of language as an :"instinct" or an "organ" (Chomsky's word). I think that while we have an innate ability to learn language, we still do LEARN it. Kerry This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
