| |
 |
|
| Computers Forum Index » Computer Artificial Intelligence - Philosophy » Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| casey... |
 Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 8, 5:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
And what does this say with respect to AI?
I have made reference to such studies in exchanges with Curt.
When we look at the evidence without imposing some ideological
distortion to that evidence we find genetic factors determine
a significant part of our personalities, temperament, and
social attitudes. The dogma of the blank slate has done a lot
of harm in society by its believers.
JC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| N... |
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 1:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 8 Aug, 22:35, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Quote: On Aug 8, 5:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind, as revealed
by twin studies:
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/howth...
--
And what does this say with respect to AI?
I have made reference to such studies in exchanges with Curt.
When we look at the evidence without imposing some ideological
distortion to that evidence we find genetic factors determine
a significant part of our personalities, temperament, and
social attitudes. The dogma of the blank slate has done a lot
of harm in society by its believers.
don't be asking me (if you'd ever been thinking eh?) I gave all my
rudiments to my fav blonde Euro vet and gone home with a bottle and
been on strike since then, lol..hates racism |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| casey... |
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 1:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 9, 3:13 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Aug 9, 2:36 am, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:03 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 7:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind,
as revealed by twin studies:
-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/howth...
So, like, nurture (training) accounts for nothing.
Yah. Give me a break.
No one has said nurture accounts for nothing.
Have you bothered to research the *scientific* evidence
on the role of nature (genes) vs. nurture with regards
to the behavioral traits of individuals?
JC
Yes. Nurture counts for a quite a bit. Ever read about the few
children who were raised without language? They came out little
better than animals. Of course the answer is that both count.
Your move.
The children raised without language may have come out little
better than animals but I suspect if their twin were to have
language they would be very much alike in terms of their
personalities, temperament, and social attitudes.
There are some innate abilities such as the ability to learn
a language *given the right environment* but that is common to
all normal human beings just as being able to see in stereo
vision is common to all normal human beings *given the right
environment*. In both cases the input has to be present during
a critical development period otherwise it will not happen.
Learned behaviors are not independent of the genes and innate
behaviors are not independent of the environment.
JC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Wolf K... |
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
casey wrote:
Quote: On Aug 8, 5:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind, as revealed
by twin studies:
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/howth...
--
And what does this say with respect to AI?
I have made reference to such studies in exchanges with Curt.
When we look at the evidence without imposing some ideological
distortion to that evidence we find genetic factors determine
a significant part of our personalities, temperament, and
social attitudes. The dogma of the blank slate has done a lot
of harm in society by its believers.
JC
And it's done a lot of harm to the thinking of people who believe that
behaviourism assumes a blank slate. In particular, it's caused the
false nature/nurture (environment/genes) dichotomy. Pinker hasn't quite
freed himself from that, as I read him.
BTW, there is a behaviorist slant on Pinker's point: conditioning
entails genes being switched on and off (directly or indirectly) by
external stimuli, hence having different genes implies that different
discriminants will operate on different people, and the same
discriminant will operate differently on different people. Since clones
(identical twins) share most of their genes, they should respond
similarly to discriminants, so they should turn out to display all kinds
of similarities or identities of behaviour.
OTOH, the fact that twins (reared apart or not) do show different
behaviours is also important. IMO, the same/different behaviours offer a
method of filtering levels of behaviour, or dependence on environmental
input, so to speak. For example, I would not expect ID twins to learn
math without being taught, but I would expect them to display similar
variations of mathematical behaviour (eg, both being whizzes at algebra
and dummies at geometry.)
IOW, it's a good deal more complex than has been believed. And it's a
good deal more complex than it appears to be.
cheers,
wolf k. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim Tyler... |
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
casey wrote:
Not as much as it could do - it's a bit of an anecdote.
What would be needed to make a better case are a long list of
such correlations, *and* evidence that they are not correlated
with each other. If they don't represent independent factors,
they don't really count as genetic complexity.
Anyway, the passage indicates one way to approach to this issue.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim at (no spam) tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 9, 9:08 pm, Sly <S... at (no spam) nowhere.com> wrote:
Quote: Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Aug 8, 7:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind, as revealed
by twin studies:
[...]
So, like, nurture (training) accounts for nothing. Yah. Give me a
break.
Sometimes I really wonder if two (or more) people are posting under your
name 
Like the times you answer to yourself
Could be. There are levels in cyberspace above me out of my control.
"That's right, Don." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sly... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Don Stockbauer wrote:
Quote: On Aug 8, 7:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind, as revealed
by twin studies:
[...]
So, like, nurture (training) accounts for nothing. Yah. Give me a
break.
Sometimes I really wonder if two (or more) people are posting under your
name
Like the times you answer to yourself |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| casey... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 10, 9:21 am, Wolf K <weki... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
Quote: Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Aug 9, 2:36 am, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:03 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 7:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind,
as revealed by twin studies:
-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/howth...
So, like, nurture (training) accounts for nothing.
Yah. Give me a break.
No one has said nurture accounts for nothing.
Have you bothered to research the *scientific* evidence
on the role of nature (genes) vs. nurture with regards
to the behavioral traits of individuals?
JC
Yes. Nurture counts for a quite a bit. Ever read about the few
children who were raised without language? They came out little
better than animals. Of course the answer is that both count.
Your move.
Wood to chop, water to carry.
http://www.amazon.ca/Nature-Via-Nurture-Genes-Experience/dp/0060006781
Learned behaviors are not independent of the genes and innate
behaviors are not independent of the environment.
JC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Wolf K... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Don Stockbauer wrote:
Quote: On Aug 9, 2:36 am, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:03 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 7:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind,
as revealed by twin studies:
-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/howth...
So, like, nurture (training) accounts for nothing.
Yah. Give me a break.
No one has said nurture accounts for nothing.
Have you bothered to research the *scientific* evidence
on the role of nature (genes) vs. nurture with regards
to the behavioral traits of individuals?
JC
Yes. Nurture counts for a quite a bit. Ever read about the few
children who were raised without language? They came out little
better than animals. Of course the answer is that both count.
Your move.
Wood to chop, water to carry.
http://www.amazon.ca/Nature-Via-Nurture-Genes-Experience/dp/0060006781
wolf k. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 10, 11:21 am, Wolf K <weki... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
Quote: Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Aug 9, 2:36 am, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:03 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 7:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind,
as revealed by twin studies:
-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/howth...
So, like, nurture (training) accounts for nothing.
Yah. Give me a break.
No one has said nurture accounts for nothing.
Have you bothered to research the *scientific* evidence
on the role of nature (genes) vs. nurture with regards
to the behavioral traits of individuals?
JC
Yes. Nurture counts for a quite a bit. Ever read about the few
children who were raised without language? They came out little
better than animals. Of course the answer is that both count.
Your move.
Wood to chop, water to carry.
http://www.amazon.ca/Nature-Via-Nurture-Genes-Experience/dp/0060006781
I assume this book relates the truth - that nature and nurture form a
synergism, just as the parts of the global brain do. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Wolf K... |
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Don Stockbauer wrote:
Yes, and at the time it was published, the newest research cited was
less than 6 months old. A excellent read, both a good overview of the
synergy, and lots and lots of corroborative detail. Matt Ridley's thesis
is "Nature-nurture is a false dichotomy." Highly recommended. My aunt in
Oxford UK gave me 100 GBP back in 2006, and sent me off to Blackwell's
to spend it. This was one of the books I bought. She's always been an
excellent aunt, getting frail now.
wolf k. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 10, 6:50 pm, Wolf K <weki... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
Quote: Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Aug 10, 11:21 am, Wolf K <weki... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
http://www.amazon.ca/Nature-Via-Nurture-Genes-Experience/dp/0060006781
I assume this book relates the truth - that nature and nurture form a
synergism, just as the parts of the global brain do.
Yes, and at the time it was published, the newest research cited was
less than 6 months old. A excellent read, both a good overview of the
synergy, and lots and lots of corroborative detail. Matt Ridley's thesis
is "Nature-nurture is a false dichotomy." Highly recommended. My aunt in
Oxford UK gave me 100 GBP back in 2006, and sent me off to Blackwell's
to spend it. This was one of the books I bought. She's always been an
excellent aunt, getting frail now.
wolf k.
Haven't read a book in years. The Web has spoiled me. I said that to
a librarian once and she almost cried. Most so-called dichotomies are
false. Shades of gray, the excluded middle, all that. I find the
intense competiveness of debate here to be more invigorating than
reading a book, although it can drain on one, as the debate in CAP has
done the past few days. And yes, I should JOOTS. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| valerie scanlon... |
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 8, 8:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
Quote: S. Pinker on the genetic complexity of the mind, as revealed
by twin studies:
This involves a misuse of language. "Genetic complexity" is a
scientific concept. "Mind" is a religious concept referring to the
soul (mind). The use of "mind" in artificial intelligence is an evil
bequeathed by the Dartmouth Summer Conference, McCarthy, Minsky, and
Newell. For half a century, the practitioners of AI have floundered in
the religious swamp of soul (mind). They might just as well count the
number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
Ray |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim Tyler... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
valerie scanlon wrote:
Quote: This involves a misuse of language. "Genetic complexity" is a
scientific concept. "Mind" is a religious concept referring to the
soul (mind). The use of "mind" in artificial intelligence is an evil
bequeathed by the Dartmouth Summer Conference, McCarthy, Minsky, and
Newell. For half a century, the practitioners of AI have floundered in
the religious swamp of soul (mind). They might just as well count the
number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
Er, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim at (no spam) tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim Tyler... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
valerie scanlon wrote:
Quote: On Aug 19, 4:20 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
valerie scanlon wrote:
A better scientific exercise would be to study and speculate on the
nervous system (brain). The brain functions without the intervention
of a soul (mind) with causal powers. Leave the "mind" to religion.
Er, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
I looked at the entry. Interesting, but elementary.
Right - but that seems to be what's needed - if you are hung up
on ancient religious conceptions of the mind.
"Soul" and "mind" are not synonyms these days:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim at (no spam) tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:14 am
|
|