From: sasha@ra.cs.umb.edu (Alexander Chislenko)
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
Subject: Brain evolution?
Summary: There is no reason to believe in rapid brain evolution.
Date: 16 Aug 92 06:41:45 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston, Dept of Math and CS


   I can't figure out the author of the following citation, so lets think
I am arguing with a meme; I take the liberty of splitting it in two parts.
Anyway, I'm just using it for a general attack against the 'brain evolution'
argument which I [regretfully] perceive as pure wishful thinking.


----------------
>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.   
------------------

   OK, lets carry the same argument further and see what it turns into.

"All of the above is generated (so to speak) by atoms. Hence, it is
difficult to conceive the possibility of a rapidly evolving  
culture/mind/brain without correspondingly rapidly evolving atomic
structures."
  Also, one can suggest evolving laws of physics, structure of space/time,
etc.

  Now, seriously speaking:

  There are several layers of design in, and under, a culture, and in
order to prove that any of them evolves together with it, one should SHOW
how the cultural changes/requirements are translated into the changes
on each level.

  With minds, it's easy. We learn. DURING our lifetime, from scratch,
but from improved sources.

  Brains and other biological structures:
    Partly, they are shaped during our lives using improved methods,
and for any given age > 0 should (and might) [statistically] improve.
As I understand, this is not what is meant by "evolution". No matter
how fit and smart you are, it won't affect the genes you will pass to
your children.
   Genes: THERE IS NO MECHANISM THAT PASSES ACQUIRED CHANGES TO GENES.
At least it is not known so far, and if anybody has any reasonable
evidence for it, s/he should immediately apply for the Nobel Prize.

Let's see what can be responsible for the evolution of the human brain:

Natural selection?

  There's no evidence that smart or culturally successful people have
more children than others; I'd even say that they have fewer children
and do it later in life. [their heritage is passed in non-genetic way]

  Besides, evolutionary changes require millenia to spread in the
population, and during this time social skills necessary for success
or survival change so fast that they send mixed, confusing and even
conflicting signals to the genetic pool structures.

  Also, genes naturally deteriorate, due to random mutations, which
are usually unfavorable. The task of natural selection is to get rid
of genetically defective organisms, so that to provide the rest with
more living space and resources. Modern societies do their best to
take resources from healthy people and give them to those with genetic
defects, so that they can survive and have normal life (including
having children).  This policy is diretly opposite to the effects of
natural selection and, given enough time, would kill the species
(it won't have enough time, though, and I'd support it any way;
so don't flame me on this, please).

  In any case, whatever the direction of the evolutionary change is at
this time (I believe it's negative), this change is orders of magnitude
slower than the social processes, and by no means 'rapid'.
Since the society will drastically change long before current evolutionary
trends can bring any noticeable effects (society will require different
skills, learn to change body/brains/genes, etc.), there is no reason to
waste time discussing these evolutionary trends at all.
It's like figuring out how long it will take your window-panes to evaporate.


  Genetic engineering?

  It, and other human-enhancement technologies, would be useful, and will
start being implemented as soon as they are available, with a lot of social
struggle.
  Since we already may have a pretty good understanding of what is desirable
and what is possible, we can as well start discussing it now (anybody 
interested in designing the Human-Enhancement Plan?).
  But so far all changes have been after-birth or exosomatic.

  Creator's influence?

   The long list of huge stupid flaws in biological design on all levels,
from proteins to organisms to ecosystems doesn't give me much reason to
believe it was created by anybody intelligent.  I could easily put forward
an initial design that would evolve into a much more efficient environment
- and thousands times as fast! - as the processes we witness now.
Maybe, the Creator is using His perfect powers to conceal them by
designing stupid things. Maybe.  At least, *I* have no first-hand info on
His ideas, and would gladly see any EVIDENCE of them if anybody shows it
to me.

  Any other mechanism for brain evolution?

Please tell me if I missed something.



------------------
>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.
--------------

   Our mental constructs may be convinient, and successful, only because
they allow us to view the world under the proper angles. Which means they
reflect it's structure.
   Of course, we can come up with lots of 'inconvinient' theories that
don't allow us to understand or change the world, are internally
inconsistent, etc.  I would just call them 'bad', or 'wrong' theories.
We may discuss whether different concept structures  or kinds of
intelligence may have different classification of levels of experience
or other ideas of the functional structure of the world (these two don't
have much in common!).  It is a promising subject, and I would gladly
discuss it if anybody is interested.

   However, no matter how conditional and relative our concept map of the
world is, we can use it to make verifiable and even objectively valid
statements, like:

"dollar bills are not [directly] nutritional for humans",
"thinking does not change one's genes",
 etc.

  We can also notice that it is the *objective structure* of the world that
makes different human theories convinient/useful to a different degree.
  So if the ideas that minds are different from genes, or economic processes
are different from biological evolution, seem convinient, it means that
they reflect the logic of the world we live in, and we better follow this
logic - and these ideas.

[ I would say that there are much more convinient stratifications of
  the world than its 'common-sense' divisions into economic, biological,
  etc. processes, but they in no way refute the above argument, and
  definitely require a good understanding of conventional concept maps,
  as well as the ideas of their applicability ]


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A disclaimer: the ideas expressed above do not represent the opinion of UMB
/to which I am not related/, or even my own.    They are just some ethereal
entities that use my [poor] typing skills to express themselves to the world.
Your criticism may help me contain them.  Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------