Posts by BrainToBeing

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.

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?

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!

Oh, this is fun!

Don: I appreciate hearing what users here think, in general, as a practical definition of prolepsis. Of course, the "working definition" you provide is significantly different from the published versions by Webster's, Oxford, or even per generative AI. So, this group must have a shared insight leading to the important differences in perspective. If anyone can offer those, particularly with reference to quotes by Epicurus, I'd be interested to hear.

The relevance of this to me, and any contribution to the discussion I might be able to make, is that from my background and perspective that all behavior has biological substrates. We understand quite a bit about those, but we don't understand important pieces. So, discussions of biological substrates of behavior are necessarily based on limited biological information.

If we are going to discuss concept structures (such as prolepsis) then we need to understand at least how we circumscribe the concept (aka "define it"). So, without some consensus on such things the discussion becomes somewhat a Tower of Babel (or "tower of babble" if we are being amusing).

Anyway, I can jump in on discussing neurobiology of prolepsis if we can agree, more or less, on its definition (or a definition we would use for such discussion).

This is much fun!

While I can read and understand current concepts of prolepsis, I do not have any deep insight into how Epicurus conceptualized it. Can you all help me to understand his framework for the concept. When I have a deeper understanding of how you all are considering the word/concept then maybe I can provide a little neurological reflection.

Thanks all. There is a lot we could all talk about from many, many perspectives - depending upon where the interests are.

Here is one reference that has interesting implications, and might be a topic of discussion - if you have not already discussed it to your sufficiency: "all good and all evil come to us through sensation". While there is a lot of wisdom in this statement, it needs consideration in this era - or at least definition. If "sensation" is a proxy for "thinking" then perhaps the statement still holds (though the bounty of nature would still stand as challenge vis a vis "good" coming from the planet). Alternatively, if "sensation" is held to be derivatives of sensing then we have problems.

For example, we now know about genetics. And, the old theory of "tabula rasa" is clearly wrong, as we may evidently appreciate in behavioral genetics. Thus, some good and some evil come to us through genetics and our behaviors derived thereof. This is particularly relevant in this era because it is our behaviors derived from dispositions as an apex predator that now perplex our future. Only if "sensation" is taken to include evolutionary concepts does the Epicurean perspective hold in light of today's knowledge. Going a step further, both good and evil come from thinking beyond sensation (what Daniel Kahneman would call "type 2 thinking").

So, while the quotation of Epicurus reveals important insight, new information requires amplification of the discussion. Or, so it seems to me.

I don't know if any of this is of interest to any of you. It is to me because I'm very interested in the course of the planet under our tutelage, and it is our behaviors which will determine that.

Best to you all.

Thank you! As a neurologist I've spent my career looking at behavior from an "organic" (biological) perspective. I can actually have a lot to say on the subject, if we (collectively) are interested.

A problem in healthcare has been the tendency to react to symptoms without adequate effort to discover the root causes of symptoms. This tendency derives from the fact that it is far simpler to react to symptoms than to understand how we get them. Yet, a purely symptom-oriented approach only works if the basic illness will take care of itself - recovering or healing on its own. In simple illnesses (e.g. a bump or bruise) this may work. In complex illness it doesn't. This bears on why we need to dig below the surface - thus advocating a "materialist" perspective.

However, when looking "at the structure of things" I do not seek to remove the romance from life, nor deny our individual experiences of it. So, in medicine I have been very aware of biological substrates for behavior and experience while simultaneously holding "space" for psychological and social elements of our life experiences. This invites, in our current context here, a consideration of sensation, and its implications.

Regards.

Hi, I'm responding to the above "Welcome" and request for a post. So, let me start this way:

Decades ago I came across the following quote from Lucretius:
"But when the mind is excited by some more vehement apprehension, we see the whole soul feel in unison through all the limbs, sweats and paleness spreadover the whole body, the tongue falter, the voice die away, a mist cover the eyes, the ears ring, the limbs sink under one; in short we often see men drop down from terror of mind; so that anybody may easily perceive from this that the soul is closely united with the mind, and, when it has been smitten by the influence of the mind, forthwith pushes and strikes the body." As a neurologist, I thought: "That is the most insightful description of stress biology I've ever seen, and it was penned 2000 years ago!" I referenced the quote a number of times. (It did not reference the complex relationship between stress and pain; but, pain was not a popular discussion then as it is now.) Then I lost it. Only a short time ago I found it again - regaining a lost friend. And, recently I found your website with it.

While our technology has evolved dramatically, our philosophy has not kept pace. And, it amazing (to me at least) how insightful the early philosophers were. Certainly, we can see that with the dramatic expansion of our knowledge some of the perspectives of these brilliant, "elder statesmen" minds have not stood up to new wisdoms. Yet, that does not detract from their insights. Rather, in my opinion, it gives us insight into what may be concluded based on the information they had, versus what can be concluded based on the information we have. And, it puts into focus the importance of education which is focused on perspectives rather than just small facts.

Anyway, thanks for the invitation to say something. I'll be interested to see what the rest of you say!

Regards,

John