Welcome BrainToBeing

Wow, that's cool! Specifically: "preconception, mental picture or scheme into which experience is fitted". That's a major construct/perspective with heavy neurobiological implications. While it can mean "yeah, that seems right", it quickly devolves into the whole realm of perspectives such as "conditioning", "bias", "prejudice", "addiction to ideas", "can't teach old dogs new tricks", Pavlovian dogs, and a variety of other issues based on "fitting" information to prior beliefs, values, expectations, attitudes, goals, habits, or preferences.

Unquestionably, as an evolved species, we are born with "bootstrap" behavioral programs, then use the juvenile stage of life to build our life-centric behavioral programs, then largely just use the previously-developed behavioral programs during the adult life phase. We learn new information as adults, but we have a strong tendency to maintain our "ways of being" as they have developed during the juvenile period. (This is not absolute, but a strong tendency). This is basically what all animals do.

The brightest folks keep behavioral programs "open" to modification or replacement for longer periods than the less bright folks. (One neurobiological perspective of intelligence.)

Anyway, this opens yet another door to more paths of discussion of the prolepsis topic. If we all land on one or another point of common interest then I can throw more neurobiological perspectives into the ring.

Cheers!

Quote from BrainToBeing

Unquestionably, as an evolved species, we are born with "bootstrap" behavioral programs

This is one of the key areas to pursue, in my opinion. What are examples of "bootstrap" behavioral programs?

In previous threads we've discussed instinct in animals and how that could perhaps provide some clarity. Maybe that's a useful place to begin?

There are piles of bootstrap programs in us. There are various reflex behaviors that reveal early integrations of circuits in babies, such as here:

There are many normal behaviors we take for granted: swallowing, eating itself, sneezing, sleeping, etc, etc.

There are later normal behaviors such as covering ears with loud sounds, balancing behaviors, handedness, pain behaviors.

There are learning behaviors such as many elements of remembering behaviors, "modeling" (copying a trusted source), data integration behaviors, formations of beliefs, values, expectations.

There are way more "bootstrap" behaviors than most people realize - because we take them for granted. But, all of them require that the nervous system knows how to integrate data, and which forms of integration to initiate at which time.

Most of what we learn "how" to do are refinements of processes we are already equipped to do. No one teaches us which muscle to use, in what order, or how long to activate each and every muscle when we learn to walk or run. Rather, the core foundations for the behaviors are already there and what we do is learn to apply those foundations to actual life experience.

Is that enough?

Quote from BrainToBeing

There are learning behaviors such as many elements of remembering behaviors, "modeling" (copying a trusted source), data integration behaviors, formations of beliefs, values, expectations

BrainToBeing do you have any similar sources regarding learning behaviors? Specifically data integration, forming beliefs, values, expectations... the sorts of things involved in concept formation.

In Diogenes Laertius and in Cicero (I don't have the specific cites at hand), two examples are given to illustrate prolépseis, and there is some scholarly disagreement as to their correctness. The interview with Dr. Glidden, previously posted in this thread, is a good discussion of that as I recall. One of the examples is that we learn to recognize a cow, or a horse, through repeated exposure to cows or horses. The other example, which is really just a mention, is that justice is a prolépseis. In your experience, is there a common thread between these examples? If not, how might the differences be described neurologically?

Thank you. Great questions Godfrey. I haven't gotten through the interview with Dr. Glidden yet, too busy with other things. Hopefully tomorrow. But, what I've heard so far I've liked.

As for the learning behaviors, I'll come to that in a minute.

In my view we should not be surprised that we don't specifically recognize a cow or horse at birth. I think we need to remember that the goal of "bootstrap programs" is not to give all the details of operational experience. Rather, it is to equip the system with programs that allow development of operational functional capacities. And, if we came preprogrammed with recognition of all the things we will meet in life two problems would arise: 1) we would require much greater genetic transmission which means more vulnerability to coding problems, 2) we would be biased at birth to expect certain characteristics of things when those may not be either relevant or accurate.

We need to remember that one of the characteristics that sets us apart is our adaptability. And, this depends on relevant learning, not pre-programmed biases. We don't even come programmed to differentiate "self" versus "other", but that is useful. It means we will learn our particular characteristics of "self" and also the characteristics of "other". This means we learn what is relevant to our particular journey.

Evolution has taught us (among many other things) to look at other species in order to find out relevant information about ourselves. So, here's an interesting piece: do you know that in the long migration of the monarch butterfly it takes 3-4 generations to make one circuit. What that means is that the information on the behaviors necessary to complete the circuit must be embedded in the monarch genes. It cannot be learned by experience or from parents.

Last, return to the question about the details of encoding learning behaviors and complex abstractions such as beliefs, values and expectations. We have about 86 billion brain neurons (roughly ten times the world's population of humans). And, each neuron may connect up to about 1000 other neurons. Even in this era we have no way of determining the state, activations, or "learning changes" that occur with each of those neurons. (There also may be 10 times that number of cells, currently labeled as supporting cells, which factually may play more active roles, particularly in learned integrations.) So, while we know "quite a bit" about brain function, we do not know nearly what we need to know about the specific processes of behavioral cellular integrations (into reaction patterns and thinking patterns). There is active research but if knew the details of the problems of such research you would appreciate that it is very, very difficult to do meaningfully.

So, these are a few thoughts. I will look to see if I can find recent research on precisely how complex abstractions are actually formed at the cellular level; however, I suspect the findings will be pretty limited.

Interesting stuff. Again, good questions. Sorry I don't have all the answers.

Great stuff, BrainToBeing !! Glad to have you aboard our little boat here.

I really like your "bootstrap" contribution to the discussion. From my perspective, that dovetails in many ways with what we've (I've) been trying to articulate here on the forum for awhile. If I understand where you're coming from...

To go with a computer metaphor: We have innate, inborn "operating systems" and some basic software that can be applied to make sense of novel situations in our experience? We use those basics as the foundation for more complex behaviors and beliefs as we grow? We get thrown into a world, bombarded by sensory input, and our operating system and basic "programs" begin to sift, sort, organize, and construct our understanding of reality.

This reminds me of the work of Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett (and others...I'm just more familiar with her name) who talks about our brains being "prediction engines." According to her work, our brains are constantly using past experience to predict what the flood of sensory data coming in "means," and therefore how to react to it. If we, in fact, DID only react to incoming stimuli after it came in...we'd end up dead. We can't "react" fast enough in real time. Our brains are constantly predicting what actions should follow and act on that. Which, as I understand, is why we jump away from a "snake" on the trail only to "see" later that it was actually just a stick. Our brains do a prediction THEN an observation like: "We're in the woods. What things do we expect to see in the woods? We need to be aware of dangers in the woods. We've seen long slender things before that are snakes. Snakes are dangers. Long slender thing on trail.. SNAKE! JUMP! Take a second observation.... Oh! Just a stick."***

For my part, I see those predictions as prolepseis against which incoming sense data is compared. BUT I can also see some of the bootstrapping to be connected as well.

I should also state explicitly that, as obvious as it is, Epicurus did NOT have access to the latest research in psychology, neuroscience, physiology, etc. He was working on observation and intuition and trying to make sense of his world with the tools he had. However, he came up with (or, at least, refined) the idea of atoms - tiny particles that make up the universe - LONG before we had observational evidence... So, I think he was doing pretty well with those tools that he had.

***PS: Note - My example is an over-simplification of the process. For more detail, see the following:

The brain is a prediction machine: It knows how well we are doing something before we even try — Department of Experimental Psychology

Interoceptive predictions in the brain

Intuition suggests that perception follows sensation and therefore bodily feelings originate in the body. However, recent evidence goes against this logic:…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Quote

the brain forms neural representations that are constructed from previous experience. These function as a generative model of how stimuli in the environment cause sensations. Rather than neurons simply lying dormant until information arrives via the external sensors of the body (that is, the eyes, ears and taste receptors, among others), the brain anticipates incoming sensory inputs, which it implements as predictions that cascade throughout the cortex.

See also

How your brain creates reality, explained by a neuroscientist

Your 'social reality' isn’t an absolute reality. A leading neuroscientist explains why.

bigthink.com

All totally excellent, Don! Yes! Right on!

I'm very much enjoying being here: smart people, fun things to think about, interesting conjectures/discussion/debate. Much fun!

Your use of the computer metaphor is right. And, Dr. Barrett is right also. Another person who has opined on this is the psychologist, Nobel Laureate in Economics, Daniel Kahneman. His book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is an exploration of our two basic systems (broad generalization) for processing incoming data. The version which is evolutionarily older, expedient, and intent on "fast" is our system of reactions. The version which is evolutionarily newer, inventive, and "slow" by obligation is our analytical system. A core element of what makes us, us, is the interplay of these two systems. You have alluded to this.

Also helpful is your comment: "For my part, I see those predictions as prolepseis against which incoming sense data is compared." This is helpful because it offers a "working definition" of prolepseis. And, that is partly how I started my engagement with all of you: by seeking to understand how you all use that word. So, I need to ask, for all of you is "prolepesis" the same as "prolepsis"? These might have varied definitions.

Again, much fun. Thank you for letting me participate with you in this interesting adventure.

Quote from BrainToBeing

is "prolepesis" the same as "prolepsis"?

Prolepsis is the singular. Prolepseis is just the plural.

Thank you!