Posted: Aug 23, 2010 3:51 pm
natselrox wrote:I can't seem to get this thread off my head. I thought of doing some research before I posted a reply but it is getting annoying so I'll have another dig.
It's currently quite late and I haven't slept for a couple of days as I've been struggling with sound issues on Windows 7, so if my reply makes no sense, then most likely it's because you're a dirty, dirty naturist. It's all your fault, and not mine!natselrox wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:Because higher cognitive functions are the result of recursive simpler processes!
And you claim that the simpler behaviours are compiled together in exactly the same manner to give rise to complex behaviours of insects and higher cognitive functions in other 'higher' organisms? Sounds totally counter-intuitive to me.
What's the alternative, a sky hook?
natselrox wrote:Well, I don't know the exact definitions of the terms as used by pros in the field. What I find odd is that you mentioned 'reflexes' as being physiological in nature? What's the difference between the physiological and the psychological? Fixed neuronal circuits (immune to external modification) exist all over the body leading to what we call instincts/reflexes/FAPs.
I wasn't being rigorous in my use of the term "physiological" there, as obviously all psychological responses are physiological in nature too. I was simply trying to contrast the basic difference between the two; that is, a reflex is just a cause-effect "behavior", so if you bang the tendon in your knee, your leg jerks etc. whereas a FAP is a more complex set of behaviors that is elicited by a stimulus. Arguably, a FAP is just a complex set of reflexes that doesn't require any physical contact to be initiated.
natselrox wrote:Isn't it a good example of phylogenetic memory? It might be susceptible to future modification in the lifetime of the bird but it is surely inherited in its original unedited form across generations. Unless you propose some epigenetic mechanisms, conditioning has no effect in the way the circuit is transmitted through the genes.
Yeah definitely it is, I wasn't arguing against that. We don't even need to look at extreme examples such as that to make that point though, you could equally point to the fact that mammals respond to sugar whereas other animals respond to tree bark. We have different "starting points" that determines the path that future learning takes. The condor shadow is simply a preset aversion stimulus, in the same way cockroaches find light aversive and we find pain aversive. We don't need to learn those things, and they are universal across all members of the species. Clearly they are innate evolutionary traits.
However, they can be altered, to some degree at least. You can train a hatchling to love the shadow of a condor and you can train a child to enjoy the taste of tree bark. Some things are more difficult to change, and there are still basic biological needs that have to be met, but even with things like pain (which is generally considered to be an aversive stimulus), we could train people or animals to enjoy it - e.g. BDSM.
natselrox wrote:I might have picked the wrong example. Maybe we could take the pupilary reflex which can be interpreted as 'fear of excess light'. But that's beside the point.
Fear of excess light?..
natselrox wrote:All I wanted to say was that majority of the neuronal wirings are not plastic enough so that we can modify them through external influence. This seems fairly obvious to me.
Seems counter-intuitive to me
natselrox wrote:Without any experience with flying basketballs or catching? The ball would hit me in the face.
Really? I doubt that. In a species that has evolved from a jungle-life, catching a flying object without prior exposure to anything like it should come natural.
What do you mean by "natural"? Innately? Do you remember the first time you tried to catch a ball? I bet you failed horribly and that would have been with years of pretraining beforehand.
natselrox wrote:The only exception is if I had experience with flying things in general, and at best I might be able to flap the ball away.
No way. How many catches do you think a child misses when he/she first goes out to play?
Quite a few, enough to make me question the universality of the 'catching' response. But you've been very sneaky in how you've phrased this: "How many catches do you think a child misses when he/she first goes out to play?" - even if we were to accept that every single child in the entire world made only perfect catches the very first time they go out to play catch, this would not prove your point. Can you see why?
Since you mentioned age 5 below, I assume that this "first time" takes place around then. Now, are you suggesting that up until that age the child has completely ignored all other objects in the world and has never had any experience with anything moving toward him? Of course this is impossible. From the time we're born we have things thrust at us - breasts, pacifiers, food, kisses, etc. All the time we are learning to judge velocities, movements, starting points, and so on.
Seriously, try throwing something to a baby. It just hits them in the nose. Admittedly, this is a difficult topic to study as the impaired motor functions of babies would make catching impossible as it is, so we're stuck again sitting on the nature-nurture fence where it's impossible to accurately tease them apart.
natselrox wrote:Judging the trajectory, assuming the final position, gauging the dimensions of the ball and moving your hands to catch them are all a result of learning how to catch a ball an inherited characteristic .
FIFY.
You used the wrong acronym there, I think you meant "FUBAR"
natselrox wrote:This isn't to say that we don't need the biological systems underpinning it all to make it possible - if we don't have eyes then we wouldn't be able to see it, without a decent memory no learning could take place, etc etc.
Are you serious? Catching a ball requires much more than a pair of eyes. Initial co-ordinates, estimated velocity, acceleration due to gravity, final position, percentage of fibers to contract in the respective muscles... You seriously believe that we learn each of these via a reinforcement mechanism by the age of 5?
Just above I have answered your question: yes, definitely. The physical capabilities to be able to make calculations in the first place obviously has a large genetic component, but the initial co-ordinates, estimated velocity, acceleration and final position judgements are all largely learnt. Stick a kid in a room with weird gravity, or some other quirks of physics, which makes flying balls behave in completely fucked up ways, and they will learn to play catch at the same rate a kid in a normal environment will.
If your claim is that we have a genetic predisposition toward being able to learn how to do all those calculations, then obviously I agree, but I think that's the point I was trying to make? If you're suggesting that we calculate all those things using innate rules then I can't see how you could possibly think that was true..
natselrox wrote:Self-control? I doubt the term is even applicable to 99% of the species on the planet! To those whom it is applicable, it serves an evolutionary purpose and hence can be hijacked (although I am much skeptical about that) by behaviourists to do their research.
How so? All animals can show self control when placed in a situation where it is possible. I'm not aware of any studies that show a significant difference between humans and animals when all variables are controlled for.
natselrox wrote:Lorenz you mean? Yeah, but I'm not only referring to behaviors that only serve a purpose for infants. FAPs continue on into adulthood for a large number of species, and these are just as plastic as other behaviors. It's like we're given a basic template for how to behave in a standard environment, however, if the environment we find ourselves in is radically different in any way, we ditch the base plans and learn new things.
The whole of the human body is a plan FFS! How do you ditch that? Modifiable actions are so negligible that we might we might even consider them insignificant while looking at the broader picture from a Dobzhanskian perspective.
I can't see how you can think modifiable actions are negligible. The only sensible position in science is that behaviors are a complex mix of genetic and learned factors. To swing heavily one way or the other is just wrong and such a position cannot accuse mine of being crazy, or mad.. Madness, you say?
natselrox wrote:Incidentally, humans don't have any "instincts" or FAPs past the age of about 6 months. The only instinctual behaviors we have are a few reflexes and, arguably, yawning.
Name any behaviour and I'm sure I can show it to be more instinctual and less learned.
Pick any you like. This isn't my opinion, it's an accepted fact in science. So unless you're using a completely different definition of "instinctual", or can why the scientists studying this are wrong, then you might want to reconsider your position
Obviously, this isn't to say that you can't prove them wrong, and it's entirely possible that they are, but generally if something I think goes against what a whole lot of smart people think, I tend to double and triple check all my assumptions.