Because of the overlap and interdigitation of the readers and the material in "The Symbolic Species", the Discussion of "HOW THE MIND WORKS" will perforce be delayed till 1 Jan '99 in order to give everyone a chance to be "READY"

Best

LJ

LJ: Ready I am not yet. I have the book, but haven't started it. How many pages/chapters do you recommend as our first "assignment"?

Well, Ros is in charge of this one. I just finished it yesterday

My marginal notes through about the first hundred pages suggest that much of the material early in the book is reminiscent of Hofstaedder's "Goedel Escher Bach" and overlaps many of the latter parts of "Symbolic Species" (But this one is much easier to read)

Best

LJ

LJ, Jackie, Nellie, and any other brave souls who ever show up here - we get to page 565 and we still don't know how Pinker thinks the mind works, but it's an entertaining ride. I found I had two choices: read slowly and make marginal notes - about 15 pages an hour; or read fast with only an occasional circled word, and finish the doggone thing. After about page 121 I chose the second method.

I think the contrast with Deacon's style and presentation works against Pinker's book. He "writes cute"; he's unquestionably a polymath, a Renaissance Man, a scientific Robin Williams, but I might have preferred a few bold-face headings and subheadings instead of so many clever punch-lines. Guess that speaks to my years of teaching and of writing training materials for teachers and parents - lots of short paragraphs, boldface, text organizers, pre-questions, etc.

Anyway, I think he makes good use of computer examples and parallels.

Is a chapter a week too much? Jackie, I think it might be a strain for you if you haven't read any of it yet. LJ, you seem to have the whole thing under control. Would you like to formulate a few questions? (All I can think of at the moment is, "What is meant by combinatorial?" "What are the weaknesses of the connectivist theory?) And I know exactly where it is on the shelf, but no, please don't ask me to go back to Godel/Escher/Bach. Maybe we can just go along and go along... and see where we get. I'd favor speeding up at the end, certainly, where he seems to be offering a lot of musings and opinions.

Ros

Ros, You are so diplomatic!!!

Indeed, this will not be an exercise testing the limits of out reading comprehension. I'd suggest we just run along at two chapters a week and finish up in a month.

As for questions, I'd like to hear a few comments on what we as a group, would define as "MENTALESE"

Best

LJ

Ros, LJ: @ chapters a week it is. I have 60 mins wait each day for my car pool. Everyone else has gone, so it is quiet, and I can race along.

The Science Friday book list is out. I'll post a clickable to it. Lots of neat stuff.

Hi: I started to read this book,but quickly lost interest.I found it to be much too obtuse.I recall what an old college professor told me once,that if you pick up a book & you have trouble understanding it,the fault may be with the author & not with your comprehension of it.What is the point of this book?Has the author made his intentions clear?Do I really care how the mind works? I don't have to know how an automobile works in order to drive it.My own bias is that the mind works according to the laws of physics & molecular biology & brain chemistry. In fact, I believe that all animate beings are what they are due to chemical imperatives ( I'll leave Theology out for the moment) >Consider for a moment,when science perfects the way to do a full brain transplant (as i have every confidence it will happen)How will that transplanted brain function..purely by the chemical pathways of physiology (whose memory will that brain have?..So ,we have religious & moral & medical issues here..perhaps even a Frankenstein scenario) >The mind works because it does,because it has to.

Ed, I think you are precisely right. If it doesn't interest you, you shouldn't read it. If you have no interest in learning how something works. Flush it. That's a prerogative of age. Fortunately its not a prerogative of youth.

Best

LJ

Ed, I agree with LJ and you that any well-educated senior can lead a happy, productive, and fulfilling life without reading this book, and I doubt if ploughing through it would really add to your, or anyone else's, joie de vivre. You might find by skimming, however, that Pinker shares some of your views on the electro-chemical nature of life and consciousness. He has some interesting speculations about what his exact status would be if scientists discovered how to extract the contents of his mind/brain/consciousness and place them in another body. Would he be dead? napping? or what?

But you're right, the whole thing could have been boiled down to a series of short articles in Scientific American.

Good luck.

Ros

I tried reading the first 2 chapters, and then I read the last chapter. I wanted to have some idea of what his purpose was. I felt he was trying to say that we have a mind which with its present equipment can not put together or solve all problems. I felt he was saying something a little like what I read last summer in Reclaiming the Canon that Socrates was saying about the so-called failure of philosophy. I guess I'm finding excuses for the short circuits in my wiring upstairs. I want to try to read this book, though all the way.

Well, Admittedly this book seems a bit "Simple" after the recent "Tour de Force" with Deacon, but I think Pinker gives a decent discussion of the "Computational theory of mind" while emphasizing that it is NOT the "Computer metaphore", and as the book progresses we see that although his concept of "Reverse Engineering" the mind would perhaps better be called, "Reverse Engineering" various facets of the mind. It does "Hang together" rather well overall.

The section on "Psychological Correctness" contains much "Meat" for discussion and debate, but osmosis and sunspots have conspired with the season of short ugly days to make the "Tenor of the times" ill disposed to too much speculation. After all, we'd have to discuss that "Evil Being" , the "Standard Social Sciences Model"

In a lighter vein Ros, In seriously considering your idea of a series of articles in "Scientific American", not only were some of his ideas and much early research in various areas reported there and in similar journals, but other important and even more compelling concepts were first made available to the general public there.

Do you recall the early reports on "Continental Drift"? Well before it was accepted scientific fact (in the early 60's) It was clearly and convincingly reported in S.A.

Best

LJ

LJ, to digress briefly, if you're still reading S.A., have you noticed that it's been "dumbed down" a bit? We've loyally maintained a subscription for over 40 years, keeping it long after we gave up National Geographic, but there were some years when I felt it was running a close second to the journal Science in its esoteric prose, and there seemed to be numerous articles with enticing titles in which I could understand little more than an occasional "and," "but," "however," and "nevertheless."

Lately it seems to be streamlined, livelier, and easier for me to approach, though I've never been equal to the Mathematical Recreations or the stuff about astrophysics, and -- given that my grasp of electricity is shaky at best -- new discoveries in that area are still mysterious to me.

I'm enjoying your challenge to define "mentalese" and reviewing the many ways in which ideas and concepts flash through my shriveling brain. There seems to be a jumble of actual printed words (a malady that I fear may be unique to me as nobody else ever admits it), pictures, kinetic imagery, and some spongy kind of interval which seems to contain condensed information. All in color. Now I mention all this because I think Pinker suggests that we can't know the interior decor of anyone's head except our own. Mine appears to be furnished, like my house, with a huge mess of stuff, and as with my house, I shudder to think about deciding which portion of the stuff is disposable. However, experience teaches me that the decision will not be mine alone.

Ros

I remember when S.A. first started puting in those mathematical games, and with that came the begining of the end for me inasmuch as I am a mathematical imbecile.

It's too depressing to respond to your post as it brings to mind all of the fine journals to which I once faithfully subscribed, especially the magnificent British journals, e.g. "History Today", "The Illustrated London News" et.al. Of course even "Archaeology" to which I'd subscribed for nearly 50 years, and like you, "National Geographic", have bitten the economic dust. The only one I still get is the "Biblical Archaeology Review"

Oh well, "Everything Changes Always"

Best

LJ

Just stopping by to say I'll be in lurking mode for a while until the book appears in the library. For some odd reason whatever book we are going to be discussing is always checked out of the library by someone else. You don't think there is another Seniornetter right in my own backyard?

Nellie

Dodie, do please stay with us even if you don't keep level with the chapters. We prop each other up; and LJ, who has a genius for cutting to the chase, comes up with wonderful summaries that tell us everything we should have gleaned from the text, so we can then glance back and say, "Hmm. Of course!"

Nellie, there was one copy of the book in our whole two-county inter-library system - fortunately close enough to home so I could go and get it; but then I decided to buy it. And shortly after I paid for the hardcover, it came out in paperback. I think it's pretty hefty even as a paperback (only someone as strong as Jesse Ventura could read it in bed). But lurk away, as long as you don't desert us. Your questions and interpolations are valuable with or without the book.

Ros

Ah! It is so nice to read all these edifying comments and I feel a bit bashful to add my comments not being that well-educated, but I always try to "stretch" my mind with stuff that is not always comprehendable to me!!!! I have juxapositioned two books for myself at this particular time and planet (will we be reading in valhalla?) and it is How the Mind Works and as a companion for my thoughts Networks in the Global Village by Barry Wellman. The two books suit well my musings upon this new informational and communicative age...Networks is by sociological writers who tell of how people surround themselves with people and the Mind Works books tries to explain how these people think! For instance, I found the discussion on sentience interesting.. Personaly I have had my car fenderbent and sat just looking at the damage without any emotion and I have watched my dear friend insist upon helping me empty the grocery cart only to fall flat on the floor and I (!) being disturbed by this insistence only looked upon her on the floor with no emotion until she had to say to me, "Well! Arent you going to help me up?" How about the human minds feelings??? Can there be transference to another soul? Love? Hate? Just how do we come by these feelings...and does it matter if there are none? Or are they healthy feelings? How about those criminals or child abusers who are devoid of any feeling whatsoever for their victims? Can society work upon this problem? I guess I will just have to continue reading on into the Mind Works book...It is very pleasurable being with you all! Ann

Ann, somewhere in the Pinker volume you'll probably find his speculations on everything you mention except possibly your question about the soul. He does make some passing references to "souls" but only, I believe, as a term people use to describe something they can't exactly describe.

Do you find it a bit scary when people like Pinker seem to be on the way toward suggesting that electro-chemical activity is all that's responsible for those countless marvelous things that go on inside our heads? But I think he stops short of the extreme position. Anyway, just because "love" or "pleasure" is caused by some little chemicals that make connections blink on and off inside our skulls, that doesn't mean that "love" and "pleasure" don't exist. The tricky part is understanding our uniqueness and at the same time understanding how we can relate through these emotions to other unique individuals. Ah, sweet mystery of life, as the old song said.

Ros

Roslyn: From a biological standpoint electro-chemical is ALL THERE IS,however our environment may have something to do with our perceptions.This is the old chicken or egg dilemma.Is our reality based on our perception.Does reality exist without perception?Whose perception or reality do we accept or reject. Yes,life is a mystery,but from a biological viewpoint,there is only one meaning of life,and that is the perpetuation of the species. A question..Are we just the sum of our parts or are we MORE THAN the sum of our parts?

Ed, your comments are wise and acceptable but I'd like to change one word - the perpetuation of the species is, I believe, the purpose of life, or even the goal of life, but not, I think, the meaning of life. And, yes, I believe the whole in our case is greater than the sum of its parts ... and perhaps it's the inscrutable, intangible, indescribable "mentalese" that constitutes the difference?

Ros

ED, You've covered in your thinking and reasoning much of the ground under discussion by Pinker. You will find his composition to your likeing.

I must dawdle in my postings for a few days while I recover (hopefully) from a bit of a "Set-to" with my biological furnace.

Best

LJ

LJ: I don't like the look of that post. I hope you are all right, you take care of yourself, now, am worried about you,

Love,

Ginny

I saw a copy of the book in the bookstore and bought it. So far I've read chapter one. Pinker sure does touch on a lot of different things in only one chapter. I of course liked the making of the robot to illustrate how complicated humans are.

I have also been thinking about "mentalese" that rich language that exists in each of our minds. I know what of Pinker speaks; I always seem to have so much more going on in my mind than what I may be saying. And often become frustrated because I cannot convey to someone else exactly what is on my mind. I have pictures of things in my mind, sounds, a running commentary on everything around me, a calculator, and a judge. But oddly enough the "pictures" are not that as such, there is nothing there. Well it is there but not there. I don't see things in front of me like some people seem to do.

Will comment more as I read on...Nellie

Dear LJ: Hope your furnace is doing well. I've missed our email chats. How are you doing with OED? Not as meaty as Symbolic Species. I'll be emailing a list of the Science Friday books to the old gang. Maybe you can find something neat for us. Take care, my dear friend. Love, Jackie

LJ, Glad to see your post even though the message sounds like you are having further health problems. Hope you are getting a lot of rest and not overstressing yourself.

Larry

I've come in to say that our LJ has had a heart attack, and has come home from the Emergency Room to recuperate at home. He also plans to resume driving Monday, in true LJ fashion. This is a good time to send a card.

Ginny

I had a hard time understanding the first two chapters and went to the third chapter where the discussion of different models of evolution was more interesting. I thought the idea that goal of evolution is to develop characteristics which would help that species to suvive was important. He says the development of the mind may or may not be the ultimate goal but the development of whatever characteristic is important for survival is the goal. That and the idea that if there is life in some other part of the universe, it may not develop toward mental activity as it has here so even if there is life out there it may not be intelligent life. One important thing I learned from the first few chapters is how the study of the mind used to be done by people like philosophers, psychologists, Freudian psychiatrists who mostly just thought about it without experimentation. Now sciences like biology, neuro science and computer science are making the important progress. I have a hard time understanding the book but want to read parts of it from time to time. Dale Knapschaefer, Manchester, NH

I apologise for the scarcity of my posts, but this is not realy a difficult book, and each of us will find areas of greater or lesser interest as we progress. Indeed, after "The Mind's Eye" it's all rather simple.

For those interested in the physiology of Vision. "The Mind's Eye" is an excellent summary. It represents a thorough distillate of the field as it stands today and will serve as a point of understanding for comprehension of ongoing research in this field for years to come.

One "Summary" comment on page 210 is worthy of emphasis. "...nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. ......nothing in culture makes sense except in the light of Psychology. Evolution created psychology and that is how it explains culture. THE MOST IMPORTANT RELIC OF EARLY HUMANS IS THE MODERN MIBD"

Best

LJ

I have just finished reading chp 3 The Mind's Eye which took me a while because I had to try everything out, specially the stereograms. I love those things and have three books full of them. Do any of you have this odd thing happening when you read, that the letters appear to float above the book? I have that all the time.

It is seeing with the mind's eye that most interests me. It seems that we see symbols of an object rather than the actual thing? But from test done it seemed when people pictured an object, they were actually seeing it. But if you tell me to picture just any generic "ball" for instance, then I don't "see" a ball; in fact that "ball" I see as many balls, it "morphs" into a series of many different types of balls.

Another interesting thought experiment to do is the one with the banana and lemon: it says to put a lemon next to a banana, but you can't put the lemon either to the right or the left of the banana. From what I could make out from the book this would seem to be impossible? But I don't find it impossible to put a lemon next to a banana without putting it on the left or right of the banana. Just put the lemon in front of or behind the banana, and it will still be "next" to the banana. Actually, come to think of it, it doesn't matter where you place the banana or the lemon since all you have to do to have the lemon not be left or right, is move your viewpoint.

Well enough of my silliness LOL...Nellie

I guess this is the week for "Good Ideas" and "Hotheads", and I noticed some overlaps with that other discussion in the "Club", i.e. "History of Western Philosophy"

On Pg 311 in the citation of George Lakoff's book "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things", is the quote: "....Pristine categories are fictions. They are artifacts of the BAD habit of seeking definitions, a habit that we inherited from Aristotle and now must shake off".

And at the begining of this section, quoteing Darwin on Plato, where Plato says "...our iomaginary ideas arise from the pre-existance of the soul, are not derivable from experience"---("Read Monkeys for preexistance")

There is also a concise summary of the Darwin-Wallace-Jay Gould commentary on the theory of Evolution to be found on pp300-301.

Best

LJ

January and February of 1998 the London Sunday Times ran a 6 week series called Brainpower that y'all may want to look in on.

Thanks Barbara!

There is a wealth of discussion of various factors in this week's reading, from observations on "Closed" and open societies and their relationships to science and mythology, to categories, categorization and intuitive thinking.

Best

LJ

The commentary on passions is nicely summarized by the statement to the effect that our "Human Passions" are all "Played on the same keybourd".

There is much to be learned about the problems of our modern society by the reading of Pinker's analyses.

Best

LJ

Some thoughts on "Good Ideas": the first on "experts". Experts are invaluable and given great esteem and wealth. But the experts are often, if not always, tempted to make their area of expertise seem to be more than it is. Have you ever noticed that experts have a special language all their own in their field of expertise?

"We make tools and as we evolved our tools made us." This one makes me wonder how this "new" tool the computer is changing us. And how this adjunct of the computer, the Internet, will change us and our world.

We explain the behaviour of others by their beliefs and desires. But how can we be sure we know what the other person's beliefs and desires are, if they have not expressed them?

I like what Pinker says about geniuses, that they are not different from the rest of us. But I don't agree with him one hundred percent. There is one difference: a genius has a one track mind and will spend years or a lifetime concentrating on one single subject, problem, or artistic endeavour. While our brains/minds may work in the same way none of us give quite that single-minded devotion to a single subject.

Nellie

Nellie, You've raised a whole raft of questions for discussion.

The one about how computers have changed or will change us is especially interesting. Both of these books have alluded to the "Computational Theory Of Mind", Artificial Intelligence, and even whether a computer might someday be built which is "Self-Aware". Even a "Mystic" must stop and ask him/her-self whether his/her perceptions are out of the ordinary, or just the perambulations of a wandering co-processor in the brain which is busily calculating possibitities and probabilities untethered in the intellectual background.

One way (of many) for confirming another's beliefs and desires, of course, is by direct questioning or mere observation. I thought those portions of the book dealing with sentience and its related ideas was especially clear

As for geniuses, other than for "Idiot Savants", it seems to me that the whole gauntlet of monothematic minds to men and women with the broadest range of interests and expertise may well be included in the "Genius" definition

Have a nice day,

Best

LJ

I am playing "catch-up" again, but one thing I am stuck on is the mDNA business. If all of us alive now have mDNA from a single female ancestor, what a concept. Her mDNA came from her mother, and so on. Another thought: Does he mention computers and fuzzy logic? Haven't heard much about that lately. He is certainly easy to read. Wonder if he is the type of lecturer folks think of as entertaining?

Although "Reciprocal Altruism" is thoroughly covered in this volume, I thought it was perhaps better explained in the Deacon book.

I also thought the long paragraph summary in the middle of page 564 tied this one up rather nicely.

I ceretainly agree that Pinker would be an entertaining speaker, and his material would be much easier to outline. Thus, were we to take a university level final exam on Pinker's book, I'd be comfortable in reviewing my notes and think of the course as an easy "A". But, a final exam on Deacon's book would stress me no end, would require a re-read of the whole thing, and even then would leave me hopeing for a grade on "The curve"

I'd say that these two books have been the most instructive and formidable texts undertaken by the book club to date. It has been both a gratifying experience to read them and to have the company of such a loyal and erudite group with which to share. May I take this opportunity to thank all of you. I, for one, would never have tried reading these two books alone.

Best

LJ

Pinker does like to use the computer analogy quite a bit; he calls emotions "well-engineered software modules" which made me think that any AI program might need the same type of modules in order for a self aware computer program to exist. But would a self aware program have goals? "without goals the very concept of intelligence is meaningless" that's something to think about in relationship to a self aware computer program. For one thing its goals would not be the same as yours and it might be, most likely would be, impossible to work with.

Another part of the Hot Heads chapter I found interesting was the section on inate fears. Obviously those fears have or had a survival value, and I can easily see how fear of snakes and spiders could give such an advantage: many snakes and spiders are poisonous and can kill or seriously incapacitate. Fear of heights is also understandable because you can fall from a high place and be seriously hurt or killed; and large carnivores can eat you. Less obvious are the survival advantages of fear of storms - I guess you could get hit by lightning, or a tree could fall on you; strangers - they could kill or harm you; social scrutiny - if the group does not accept you, you are out on your own in a dangerous world.

"People love to look at animals, plants, especially flowers" I agree with that one and can't wait until I see my plants coming up and the primrose peeking out of the melting snow.

Nellie

This is an easy read, but I am not caught up in it as I was in the Deacon book. That was engrossing. The press seems to have updates almost monthly on the study of the brain, the mind, children's facility in learning language, etc. I hate to let this whole area of interest go away. Can we find another book, or idea, to read and discuss? Such a nice group you all are.

Is it over allready? I will miss discussing the mind and brain.

I'd love to do something on Artificial Intelligence. I did see lots of different books on the mind and brain while in the bookstore not long back.

Since this is going to be deleted let's discuss AI more in Science Fiction, it fits in there fine.

Nellie

I didn't know there was a science fiction folder. Where is that located?

Robby

Robert, Here is the URL for the Science Fiction Clearing House:

Science Fiction Discussion

There is also a Science Fiction Scavenger Hunt:

Contest

Larry