EpistemicEngineers

EpistemicEngineers - 11/15/11 Evolu*on primer Cogni*ve...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 11/15/11 Evolu*on primer Cogni*ve Niche Construc*on •  selec*on on gene*c variability •  differen*al fitness •  changing propor*ons of gene*c pa?erns through *me •  group selec*on –  proper*es and prac*ces of groups can bestow fitness on the en*re group –  This view is controversial in evolu*onary biology Cumula*ve down ­stream epistemic engineering Cogni*ve Niche Construc*on •  Humans construct (and inherit) their own cogni*ve niches •  These set the selec*ve pressures on evolu*on of the brain •  Brain and culture co ­evolve through Mutual Reciprocal Causa*on Engineering the informa*on environment Cultural (non ­gene*c) Inheritance •  Human groups engineer their own habitats •  This includes epistemic (cogni*ve) aspects of the environment •  Unlike genes, engineered habitats are inherited by and engineered by subsequent genera*ons 1 11/15/11 Only humans exhibit… Epistemic engineering is auto ­cataly*c •  •  •  •  cumula*ve run away self ­fueling epistemic engineering •  “Cumula&ve downstream epistemic engineering” Rapidly changing cultural environments select for phenotypic plas*city Developmental Plas*city is key The pace of cultural change •  Rampant niche construc*on •  yields a rapid succession of selec*ve epistemic environments. •  It thus favors… •  the biological evolu*on of phenotypic plas*city. Brain evolved to fit the environment? Sure, but which aspect of the environment? •  Evolu*onary psychology expects the brain to be adapted to a “sta*s*cal composite” of Pleistocene environments. •  Sterelny say no. •  We have adapted to variability and the spread of varia*on itself by becoming more plas*c, more malleable, more adaptable. 2 11/15/11 Changing cultural environments transformed hominid brains Stone ­age Minds in a Space ­age World? •  The same ini*al set of developmental resources •  can differen*ate into quite different final cogni*ve products. •  Changing hominid developmental environments transformed hominid brains themselves. •  As hominids remade their own worlds, they indirectly remade themselves. •  What we are cogni*vely depends both on the evolu*on of the human brain AND on a history of cultural prac*ces. Origins of Theory of Mind Where does our ability to imagine the mental states of others come from? Widen the view of developmental selec*on beyond the child •  Evolved as an innate “folk psychology” module in the brain? •  OR •  An outcome of cogni*ve niche construc*on? 3 11/15/11 If selec*on favors interpre*ve skills •  Selec*on on parents for ac*ons (cultural prac*ces) that scaffold the development of interpre*ve capaci*es •  The offspring of parents who are inclined to engage in these ac*ons are more likely to survive Cultural prac*ces that induce thinking in terms of inten*ons and other mental states Prac*ces recruit individual abili*es A developmental scenario •  Through “intense social scaffolding” •  Basic perceptual abili*es (gaze monitoring, for example) are recruited by the prac*ces of “folk psychology” into ecological assemblies that produce representa*ons of the mental states of others. •  The child is surrounded by exemplars of “mind reading” in ac*on, she is nudged by cultural prac*ces such as the use of simplified narra*ves, prompted by parental rehearsal of her own inten*ons, and provided with a rich palate of linguis*c tools such as words for mental states. Poverty or wealth of s*mulus? •  Incremental environmental engineering provides a “wealth of the s*mulus”. •  There is no need for a specialized “mind reading” or “folk psychology” module. 4 11/15/11 Flexible brains immersed in culturally constructed cogni*ve niches Theory of Mind •  Not wired in a birth •  Acquired through immersion in a rich highly ­ structured, engineered habitat for thought and ac*on. •  This acquisi*on may (almost certainly does) change the organiza*on of the brain. But that is a consequence, not a cause of theory of mind behavior. How humans got to be human •  Much of what is most dis*nc*ve about human cogni*on is rooted in the reliable effects, in developmentally plas*c brains, of immersion in a well ­engineered, cumula*vely constructed, cogni*ve niche. Motor emula*on •  Closed loop control –  *ming not possible for fast fluid ac*on •  Pseudo closed loop control –  have an emula*on of the control loop that produces expected propriocep*ve feedback Motor Emulator Circuits Primal mental representa*ons Motor emula*on running off ­line = mental imagery •  Inhibit motor outputs •  Run the emula*on •  You get an internal version of the en*re loop of ac*on and percep*on •  The imagery could include “mock visual inputs” or, in fact, correlated elements of experience from any sensory or motor mode 5 11/15/11 Outcomes •  The cognizer can imagine absent situa*ons •  Freed from coupling to a dynamic world •  This is an an*dote to the no*on that “the world is its own best model” Remember our empirical ques*ons •  Under what condi*ons will the skills that were learned to subserve the dis*nc*ons required by the language (Slobin, thinking for speaking; Kirby, the underlying “metric”) affect other cogni*ve performances? •  Under what condi*ons will the cultural prac*ces of seeing the world in par*cular ways, whether subserving language or not, be recruited as media*ng resources in a task performance? A research program? •  What processes control the recruitment of resources (assembly process) into cogni*ve func*onal systems? –  The Vygotskian approach implies this ques*on –  Andy Clark makes this ques*on a central theme in his recent book Supersizing the Mind 6 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/11/2011 for the course COGS 102a taught by Professor Staff during the Fall '08 term at UCSD.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online