Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Brooks Goes Third Culture
Gradually Third Culture scientists are taking over the debate.
The work demonstrates that we are awash in social signals, and any social science that treats individuals as discrete decision-making creatures is nonsense. But it also suggests that even though most of our reactions are fast and automatic, we still have free will and control.
Unless the conservative movement can reconcile their increasingly WEC base with Science, I think they are doomed to the dustbin of history.
SBH (social brain hypothesis) FTW!!
// posted by Matoko Kusanagi @ 6:37 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
"even though most of our reactions are fast and automatic, we still have free will and control".
This comes close to being mystical BS.
What is "we"?
The brain computes everything.
The appropriate distinction is between conscious and unconscious processes.
Where "conscious" here means accessible to post-facto reflection - represented in the brain's self-model.
So I would write something like:
even though some of our reactions are fast and unconscious, others are abstracted and processed at the conscious self-representation level, creating the impression of free will and control
This comes close to being mystical BS.
What is "we"?
The brain computes everything.
The appropriate distinction is between conscious and unconscious processes.
Where "conscious" here means accessible to post-facto reflection - represented in the brain's self-model.
So I would write something like:
even though some of our reactions are fast and unconscious, others are abstracted and processed at the conscious self-representation level, creating the impression of free will and control
Shams,
"and any social science that treats individuals as discrete decision-making creatures is nonsense".
This is very close to a tautology.
Any social science consists by definition, in abstracting away the individual behaviours.
If you are trying to argue that individual behaviour does not exist; I'll try to remember that, when I get my own starship, leave the human race behind and head off into space forever on my own.
Just transhuman me, and the ship's computer, exploring the universe together for the rest of eternity.
Somehow I imagine that even if human society did not exist within my causal light-cone, "I" would still be there.
The difference might be that I am an introvert and you are not. I can imagine true, everlasting solitude. I know that my sense of self does not ultimately depend on others.
Truth is, to be me, I don't really need any of you.
"and any social science that treats individuals as discrete decision-making creatures is nonsense".
This is very close to a tautology.
Any social science consists by definition, in abstracting away the individual behaviours.
If you are trying to argue that individual behaviour does not exist; I'll try to remember that, when I get my own starship, leave the human race behind and head off into space forever on my own.
Just transhuman me, and the ship's computer, exploring the universe together for the rest of eternity.
Somehow I imagine that even if human society did not exist within my causal light-cone, "I" would still be there.
The difference might be that I am an introvert and you are not. I can imagine true, everlasting solitude. I know that my sense of self does not ultimately depend on others.
Truth is, to be me, I don't really need any of you.
And there's something else, Shams.
Human history is not completely explained by social forces.
I agree that a large part of it is. Economics particularly is a powerful, controlling influence, as are genes.
But there is something else.
Every now and again, rare individuals arise, who through the power of their extraordinary wills, change history. Hitler, Napoleon. Jesus. Muhammed. Buddha. LaoZhi.
The influence can be for the good or for the evil. But History is permanently changed by their lives.
Human history is not completely explained by social forces.
I agree that a large part of it is. Economics particularly is a powerful, controlling influence, as are genes.
But there is something else.
Every now and again, rare individuals arise, who through the power of their extraordinary wills, change history. Hitler, Napoleon. Jesus. Muhammed. Buddha. LaoZhi.
The influence can be for the good or for the evil. But History is permanently changed by their lives.
There is a maximum speed for computation. New theorem proved for quantum computing.
Since classical computers are also bound by quantum laws in practice, this applies to all computers.
Since classical computers are also bound by quantum laws in practice, this applies to all computers.
You know, just re-reading this thread, I makes me wonder about something.
I wonder if that is the evolutionary significance of introversion. Most individuals are highly social, and need constants contact with others.
Introverts do not. Even when they choose social contact, there is only one, or at most, a very few special people in their lives. They are obligate loners or near-loners.
That is why introverts are much less promiscous sexually, for instance. One close relationship can saturate all of an introvert's social needs. When you see couples whose entire lives revolve around each other, they are probably a pair of introverts.
Now imagine the significance of this in the EEA.
Imagine humans tribes in a world where human population density is only a thousandth of what it is today.
Societies would be like galaxies of people - surrounded by near-empty space. The extroverts are drawn to the center. They build the complex social structures.
The introverts are drawn to the periphery. They are the pioneers, the explorers. They are the ones who are most willing to strike out on their own to colonise new territory.
So my model would predict, that as new locations are colonised, it is the introverts who move in first. They are the ones who are most-willing to strike out on their own. To move away from the tribe.
Later, as the population density in the new colony starts to build-up, the extroverts start to move in and build more-complex societies. This drives the introverts to move further-out searching for less human contact.
Of course sex is always the exception. Even introverts need to breed. But as I said, one close relationship can saturate an introvert's entire social needs.
So in most cases, that one close relationship will end up being the sexual partnership.
I wonder if that is the evolutionary significance of introversion. Most individuals are highly social, and need constants contact with others.
Introverts do not. Even when they choose social contact, there is only one, or at most, a very few special people in their lives. They are obligate loners or near-loners.
That is why introverts are much less promiscous sexually, for instance. One close relationship can saturate all of an introvert's social needs. When you see couples whose entire lives revolve around each other, they are probably a pair of introverts.
Now imagine the significance of this in the EEA.
Imagine humans tribes in a world where human population density is only a thousandth of what it is today.
Societies would be like galaxies of people - surrounded by near-empty space. The extroverts are drawn to the center. They build the complex social structures.
The introverts are drawn to the periphery. They are the pioneers, the explorers. They are the ones who are most willing to strike out on their own to colonise new territory.
So my model would predict, that as new locations are colonised, it is the introverts who move in first. They are the ones who are most-willing to strike out on their own. To move away from the tribe.
Later, as the population density in the new colony starts to build-up, the extroverts start to move in and build more-complex societies. This drives the introverts to move further-out searching for less human contact.
Of course sex is always the exception. Even introverts need to breed. But as I said, one close relationship can saturate an introvert's entire social needs.
So in most cases, that one close relationship will end up being the sexual partnership.
Quantum superpositions that are robust against environmental influences using 6 quanta.
Also
Persistent superposition states in biomolecules.
The interesting implications of this, is in whether there is a relationship between consciousness and quantum mechanics. Particularly the common speculation that consciousness states are BE condensates.
The problem as always, is to explain how superposition states can persist at 310 kelvin - brain temperature.
I am far from convinced yet, that this is the correct approach to consciousness. Femtoseconds are still way too short. The temperature problem is really severe.
But I am not ready to rule it out either. Given the right molecular structure, and natural selection.
NB: This is not an endorsement of the wider Penrose theory. This is conventional QM.
Post a Comment
Also
Persistent superposition states in biomolecules.
The interesting implications of this, is in whether there is a relationship between consciousness and quantum mechanics. Particularly the common speculation that consciousness states are BE condensates.
The problem as always, is to explain how superposition states can persist at 310 kelvin - brain temperature.
I am far from convinced yet, that this is the correct approach to consciousness. Femtoseconds are still way too short. The temperature problem is really severe.
But I am not ready to rule it out either. Given the right molecular structure, and natural selection.
NB: This is not an endorsement of the wider Penrose theory. This is conventional QM.
<< Home
