From: pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington)
Subject: Re: evolution of brain/mind Was Re: Call for Articles -- ASCENT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:27:10 GMT

>> >> We've been able to "rapidly create such a complex world" without rapid  
>biolo-
>> >> gical evolution because of our capacity for culture.  Culture is able to
>> >> evolve much more rapidly than genetics because its spread is not limited  
>to
>> >> biological descendents, nor is its rate of spread limited by the length of  
>a
>> >> generation.  This capacity for culture, though, is genetically determined,
>> >> and seems to be species-specific.  For myself, I don't see how you could 
>> >> _choose_ to spead up the genetic evolution of this aspect.
>> >> 
>> >> Pat Crowe, SUNY at Buffalo
>> >
>> >Pat,
>> >
>> >Where does our "capacity for culture" come from, if not our mind(s).  And  
>where  
>> >does our mind come from, if it's not generated (so to speak) by our brains.
>> >
>> >It is difficult for me to conceive of the possibility of a rapidly evolving  
>> >culture without a correpsondingly rapidly evolving mind, and, therefore,  
>brain.   
>> >Our tendency to separate the levels of experience is something we impose on  
>the  
>> >world, it seems to me, rather than a property of "the world."  In other  
>words,  
>> >there isn't a "cultural" world and a "biological" world and an "economic"  
>> >world, but just "a world" --that we choose to look at from different angles  
>for  
>> >our own convenience only.
 
	I fail to see the problem with "a rapidly evolving culture without
a correspondingly rapidly evolving ... brain".  In the strugle for survival
organisms use any and all means at their disposal in order to propagate
themselves.  Genes coding for any trait that helps make more copies of
said gene will flourish.  As the environment changes around these bags of
genes, old systems fail and new ones must be developed.  Organisms use
several methods to gain this information.  simple things with short gener
ation times produce many diverse offspring, some will survive and thus
the genes coding for the production of diverese offspring aare replicated
These offspring have learned something about the environment andhave
had this information hard-wired into their genome.  it will stay
there as long as it is useful.  When no longer needed it will
eventually be taken over by new bits of code, perhaps subtle variation
on things past.  Organisms thus learn about theoir environment over a 
time scale of generations, through the success and failure of differing
offspring.
	The more familiar method of learning is by direct observation of
relevant phenomena.  This type of information can help organisms survive on 
a different time scale.  The other interewsting thing about this type
of information ius that it can be passed by word of mouth (or tentacle)
The use of these two types of information depends upon the time scale 
of change that is tracked.  In the time it took me to read this 
article and type my response the bacteria in my gut have gone through 
a generation of so (about a half an hour).  As a Homo sapiens sapiens
I have a sustantially longer generation time and if I relied upon my genes
alone to help my children through the 21st century, I think I would end up
with a very low fitness.
	However, my children can learn.  In fact we are so good at 
learnoing that "regular" natural selection seems to be having less of an
effect on us these days.  So what.  Natural selection and evolutionary
biology are about survival.  The means to the end are really not important
it is the end result that matters.  Due to the long generation time of 
such large animals as mammals, we tend to rely greatly on individual
and social learning (what you might call culture) to ensure our
survival.  Thus selection pressure on our genes is never really so strong
  If I dump a bunch of bacteria in a solution of a different temperature
there will be strong selection pressure to develop mechanisms that
allow efficient propagation in the new media.  I myself travel north, 
I merely ask people how to knit myself a new sweater, and perhaps
long-johns.  My children will be taught the skills necessary to allow
survival in whatever habitat they live in, either by myself or any of
the multitude of friendly humans around me.  They need not grow
shaggy coats, or increase their body fat stores (although this may
happen eventually).  
	Culture is an evolutionary specialization, just like any
other.  Although unique, like any other.

 
 
>On the other hand, what if the oft-cited software/hardware 
>analogy is inappropriate to this exploration of mind/body 
>development?  In spite of the popularity of this metaphor, 
>it's not clear to me that the hardware/software analogy 
>can be properly applied at all to the study of body and mind.  

>In light of the inter-convertiblity of matter and energy, 
>perhaps we ought not be deceived by our senses into making 
>such a strict separation between body and mind, as is 
>implied by the software/hardware analogy.  In truth, we seem 
>to not yet know where body ends and mind begins.  All we 
>really know (maybe) is that both body and mind are generated 
>by a common energy.  Yet, we've hardly begun to discover 
>and explore this energy.  Certainly the cognitive scientists' 
>study of artificial intelligence (on the status-quo's 
>electro-mechanical computing platforms) is very interesting, 
>but this study may be of little relevance to the study of 
>human intelligence until we begin studying bio-energetic 
>intelligence systems more like our own.

>> loads the new routine onto the hardware, a new *physical* arrangement of
>> the old hardware is realized (at least in terms of patterns imposed on
>> memory).  I don't think this is what is meant by "rapidly evolving
>> barins" though.  That is, an old brain that holds a new thought is still
>> an old brain.   It will "process" the new thought just like it processed
>> the thoughts that came before.)

>I am mostly interested in "insight" or the generation of 
>new knowledge.  This does not seem to come from re-processing 
>and re-combining old information in new ways, but gaining a 
>new perception --*seeing*-- in a way that is qualitatively 
>different from before.  I'm talking about the difference 
>between shuffling the same deck of cards versus the attainment 
>of a new deck of cards.  I continue to believe, until someone 
>can suggest otherwise, that a paradigmatic change in thought 
>cannot occur without a parallel evolutionary biological change.  
>Please note that I am not implying a cause and effect relationship 
>here.

>Again, given the inter-convertibility of matter and energy, 
>I am only suggesting that there is *one* evolutionary process 
>that can be investigated on two different but co-existing levels 
>--the body and the mind.  One level does not exist or evolve 
>without the other.  The fact that this viewpoint is not now 
>a part of everyday text-book scientific knowledge does not 
>disprove or alter the possibility.  It's quite possible 
>(and likely in my view) that the reason we cannot yet measure 
>the parallel biological and psychical evolutionary processes 
>is that 1) we are not looking in the right places, and 2) we 
>don't yet have the necessary technological and perceptual 
>equipment.

hope this biological idea gives you a different perspective on what
evolotion is and how it pertains to humans.
just as we science-types need to read a bit of philosophy now and 
then, it sure helps when the philosophers read some science

Richard Pocklington     pockling@sfu.ca