Darwinian Lesson?

[From Rick Marken (971104.1230)]

In his review of Pinker's book at:

http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/facstaff/g-cziko/twd/pinker.html

Gary Cziko says the following:

It is clear from _How the Mind Works_ that Pinker has learned
very well the Basic Darwinian Lesson that our fundamental goals,
preferences, and mental abilities have been shaped by natural
selection.

How could this be a lesson worth learning? We don't know that
evolution occurred by natural selection (the punctuated nature
of the fossil record suggests that a purposeful selection model,
a la PCT, is far more likely to be able to account for the speciation
data than a Darwininan natural selection model) and we don't know
what our fundamental goals, preferences and mental abilities
are (or, for that matter, whether fundamental goals, preferences
and mental abilities even exist). We don't know much, but we know
(courtesy of Darwin) that evolution happened and (courtesy of
Powers) that people have purposes. That may be all we need to
know (courtesy of Ronstadt and Neville):wink:

That a recent book about the mind by a leading cognitive
scientist should devote so many of its pages to evolution and
its role in human cognition and behavior is a hopeful sign that
the Basic Darwinian Lesson will finally be heard by many
mainstream behavioral and cognitive scientists.

What _is_ the role of evolution in human cognition and behavior?
How do you know?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[from Gary Cziko 971105.0258 GMT]

Rick Marken (971104.1230) said:

Gary Cziko says the following:

It is clear from _How the Mind Works_ that Pinker has learned
very well the Basic Darwinian Lesson that our fundamental goals,
preferences, and mental abilities have been shaped by natural
selection.

How could this be a lesson worth learning? We don't know that
evolution occurred by natural selection (the punctuated nature
of the fossil record suggests that a purposeful selection model,
a la PCT, is far more likely to be able to account for the speciation
data than a Darwininan natural selection model)

The punctuated nature of the fossil record is not incompatible with
Darwinian natural selection. These "punctuations" are usually many
thousands of years long, plenty of time for good ol' fashioned Darwinian
selection to take place.

I am open to the possibility of a PCT account of evolution, but I don't see
how that wouldn't change the necessity that structures and behaviors be
adapted to the environment in order for individuals and species to survive.
Would a PCT account of evolution suggest that our bodies, mental abilities,
and preferences are not adapted to survival and reproduction? If that were
the case, I wouldn't think very much of it.

and we don't know
what our fundamental goals, preferences and mental abilities
are (or, for that matter, whether fundamental goals, preferences
and mental abilities even exist).

I would agree that these are harder to determine for humans than for other
species, but they exist nonetheless. I bet that if you are human that you
eat every day (and prefer bread to grass), avoid temperature extremes,
engage in sexual behavior and make sacrifices for you children that you
wouldn't make for other unrelated individuals. There is a growing body of
research in evolutionary psychology that is beginning to do for humans what
behavioral ethology has done for other animals. These researchers may not
know what a controlled variable is, but the better research provides good
clues as to what these are.

We don't know much, but we know
(courtesy of Darwin) that evolution happened and (courtesy of
Powers) that people have purposes. That may be all we need to
know (courtesy of Ronstadt and Neville):wink:

But wasn't it you who, at the CSG meeting in Flagstaff in 1996, said we
ought to begin doing research to find out what perceptual variables humans
control? You seemed interested then, why not now? I contend that
knowledge of evolution can provide many candidates for these controlled
variables and make sense out of the ones we find.

I want to find out not only what variables humans control but
why--including both proximate (higher-level control) and ultimate
(evolutionary) answers to why.

--Gary

[From Bill Powers (971105.0100 MST)]

Gary Cziko 971105.0258 GMT --

I am open to the possibility of a PCT account of evolution, but I don't see
how that wouldn't change the necessity that structures and behaviors be
adapted to the environment in order for individuals and species to survive.

To say "in order to survive" makes survival into a reference signal. I
doubt that it is. The result of controlling for certain variables like
procreation, keeping warm, keeping fed, feeding and protecting the young
and each other, and so on is that the organism and its species survive. If
any of these variables fails to remain under control, the species succumbs.
Survival is a result of good control, not the cause of good control.
Nothing that organisms do or evolve to do can be explained by saying that
the result is better fitness. To say that is to omit asking the real
question, which is how organisms can so consistently change so as to
improve their control specifically so they can _resist_ "selection pressures."

I think that natural selection is used as an explanation in the same way
that reinforcement is used. If you ask a Skinnerian to explain the way
Einstein arrived at E = MC^2, the only answer he can give is that Einstein
must have been reinforced for producing the behaviors that led him to write
that expression. This tells us, of course, exactly nothing about how to get
from
F = MA to E = MC^2.

For reinforcement, substitute natural selection and you have no more
convincing an explanation. Did Einstein simply emit one equation after
another at random until one of them proved viable? Will 50 million monkeys
ever type War And Peace? Does the Pope say Mass in red suspenders?

Received wisdom says that the fossil record and contemporary observations
prove that natural selection is enough to create the apparently systematic
variations in forms that we observe or infer. But that is merely using the
conclusion as a proof of the premise (the same, naturally, goes for the
explanations of creation science). The changes we observe could be coming
about in some entirely different way. If you propose that squirrels on a
treadmill are what make cars move, you can't prove that hypothesis by
pointing to the fact that cars move. To prove the hypothesis you have to
lift the hood, or bonnet, and demonstrate that the squirrels and the
treadmill are there, and that the treadmill is geared to the wheels, and
that there is no other engine.

This hasn't been done for the theories of reinforcement or natural
selection. I doubt that it can be done. These are intellectually plausible
theories, but they could be dead wrong. You can't even start looking for
alternative explanations until you understand that the existing theories
could actually be incorrect.

I think that fitness, defined as reproductive success, is a red herring.
There is certainly a lower limit of fitness below which a species can't
survive, or compete effectively, but there is also an upper limit. Even
without competition, no species can live in its own waste products or
reproduce faster than resources can be renewed or discovered.
Over-reproduction is just as deleterious to control as under-reproduction.
The organisms that have the greatest control over the environment's effects
on them are not the most numerous, not by factors of thousands.
Reproductive success is just another variable among many that must be
controlled to keep living systems free from control by their environments.
The basic goal is not survival, but control.

You can think of living systems as if they were a single organism that we
call Life. This organism can change anything that results in more
independence from environmental influences, changing not only the external
environment but its own form. The multitudinous forms we see simply
represent the uncountable solutions to maintaining control in almost any
imaginable enironment. We're seeing the same basic organism under different
conditions, controlling what happens to it by whatever means works.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (971105.0730)]

Gary Cziko (971105.0258 GMT)--

The punctuated nature of the fossil record is not incompatible
with Darwinian natural selection.

Perhaps. My point was that natural selection is just one
_model_ of speciation, one that (to my knowledge) has never
been tested (the behavior of a working version of the model
has not been compared to data or compared to other models).

I am open to the possibility of a PCT account of evolution, but
I don't see how that wouldn't change the necessity that
structures and behaviors be adapted to the environment in
order for individuals and species to survive.

You had said:

Pinker has learned very well the Basic Darwinian Lesson that
our fundamental goals, preferences, and mental abilities have
been shaped by _natural selection_ (emphasis mine: RM).

This sounds like there is some lesson about behavior to be
learned from the _natural selection_ model of evolution. I
don't see how one can learn a lesson from a model that has
never been tested and may very well be wrong.

Would a PCT account of evolution suggest that our bodies,
mental abilities, and preferences are not adapted to survival
and reproduction? If that were the case, I wouldn't think very
much of it.

The PCT account of evolution suggests that our bodies, mental
abilities and preferences are adapted to be able to _control_
perceeptual variables. A side effect of this controlling is
survival and reproduction. So the PCT account of evolution
does _not_ suggest that our bodies, mental abilities, and
preferences are adapted to survival and reproduction. They
are adapted to control. Does this mean that you won't be bringing
your guitar to the next meeting;-)

I bet that if you are human that you eat every day (and
prefer bread to grass), avoid temperature extremes, engage
in sexual behavior and make sacrifices for you children that
you wouldn't make for other unrelated individuals.

You win the bet. But I bet that a confirmed creationist would
have done just as well. Maybe better, since he'd guess (correctly)
that I'd make sacrifices for my children even of they were
adopted; -)

wasn't it you who, at the CSG meeting in Flagstaff in 1996,
said we ought to begin doing research to find out what
perceptual variables humans control?

I say that everywhere;-)

You seemed interested then, why not now?

I'm still interested. Big time.

I contend that knowledge of evolution can provide many
candidates for these controlled variables and make sense
out of the ones we find.

I contend that just looking around can provide far more
candidates for controlled variables than knowledge of
evolution. But who cares? If hypotheses about controlled
variables come from evolution that's fine. The far more
important thing to do is _Test_ to see whether those
variables are actually controlled. Some people may be
controlling for variables (like the survival of their
biological offspring); but some people may work as hard
for the survival of their adopted kids (with genes from
who knows where) as hard as they work for the survival of
their biological kids. I've seen this happen in families
where there were both.

I want to find out not only what variables humans control but
why--including both proximate (higher-level control) and ultimate
(evolutionary) answers to why.

What you call "ultimate" answers are what I call "just so" stories.
What, for example, is the ultimate (evolutionary) reason why most
people seem willing to go out of their way to try to ensure the
survival of (and allow reproduction by) the mentally handicapped --
people who could not live without the help of others? I am sure
that an evolutionist can explain why people have this goal even
though having this goal ensures survival and reproduction by
people who should be "selected" out of the gene pool by natural
selection. The fact that an evolutionist can explain this suggests
to me that the "ultimate" answers provided by evolutionary theory
cannot be rejected. This, to me, places the evolutionary approach
to understanding behavior (evolutionary psychology) outside
the realm of science.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken