Pinker

CSGnet Archive CSG1997
1

[From Bruce Gregory (971031.1245 EST)]

Mary Powers (971031)

This is on p. 11 of Steven Pinker's new book, How The Mind Works. Basically
he gives up right here and the rest of the 550 pages are about what the mind
does, not how it does it. So much for cognitive, computational theories of
the purposive mind. They exist, but they aren't getting anywhere.

You are much too generous. I would not extend the honorific
"theory" to such expressions any more that I would call creation
science a science. Both rely heavily on divine intervention :wink:

Bruce

2

[from Mary Powers (971031)]

Rick (undated - 10/29/97)

I don't think you quite hit it in your post to Tim. Cognitive scientists DO
think that organisms (well, people anyway) are purposive.

However, they believe that purpose is carried out by computation that
produces behavior. That is their model, and it leads to a statement like this:

···

========================================================================

Controlling an arm presents a new challenge. Grab the shade of an
architect's lamp and move it along a straight diagonal path from near you,
low on the left, to far from you, high and on the right. Look at the rods
and hinges as the lamp moves. Though the shade proceeds along a straight
line, each rod swings through a complicated arc, swooping rapidly at times,
remaining almost stationary at other times, sometimes reversing from a
bendng to a straightening motion. Now imagine having to do it in reverse:
without looking at the shade, you must choreograph the sequence of twists
around each joint that would send the shade along a straight path [I was
reading this to Bill, and about here he cried "Oh stop, I can't stand it!].
The trigonometry is frightfully complicated. But your arm is an architect's
lamp, and your brain effortlessly solves the equations every time you point.
And if you have ever held an architect's lamp by its clamp, you will
appreciate that the problem is even harder than what I have described. The
lamp flails under its weight as if it had a mind of its own; so would your
arm if your brain did not compensate for its weight, solving a
near-intractible physics problem.

==========================================================================

This is on p. 11 of Steven Pinker's new book, How The Mind Works. Basically
he gives up right here and the rest of the 550 pages are about what the mind
does, not how it does it. So much for cognitive, computational theories of
the purposive mind. They exist, but they aren't getting anywhere.

Mary P.

3

[Tim Carey (970111.0615)]

Hi Mary,

I don't think you quite hit it in your post to Tim. Cognitive scientists

DO

think that organisms (well, people anyway) are purposive.

Yes, this is what I had in mind when I sent the post.

However, they believe that purpose is carried out by computation that
produces behavior.

Again, it sounds like they see actions as the end not the means to an end.

Thanks for your reply,

Regards,

Tim

4

[Tim Carey (970111.06.20)]

Hi Bruce,

You are much too generous. I would not extend the honorific
"theory" to such expressions any more that I would call creation
science a science. Both rely heavily on divine intervention :wink:

A great point. The difference in use of the term "theory" seems to be an
important issue that leads to people essentially talking about different
phenomena. I have often thought that if other theorist only began their
explanations of how behaviour works with "Once upon a time ...." then
everyone would be much clearer on the whole issue :wink:

Regards,

Tim

5

[Martin Taylor 971031 17:00

Mary Powers (971031)

A quote nicely appropriate for Halloween omitted...

This is on p. 11 of Steven Pinker's new book, How The Mind Works. Basically
he gives up right here and the rest of the 550 pages are about what the mind
does, not how it does it. So much for cognitive, computational theories of
the purposive mind. They exist, but they aren't getting anywhere.

Pinker is a pop-star, and supposedly a linguist or psycholinguist (don't
know which). But to my mind he relates to language science as most
pop-stars do to music. He even sent a letter to Science recently, criticizing
a paper on the grounds that we have a _fixed_ vocabulary of words, as
opposed to a generatable set of possible sentences. How anybody claiming
some competence in language studies can go about claiming that we have
a fixed vocabulary is beyond me:-( He just doesn't listen, I guess.
And I suppose he would have a terrible time explaining the existance of
words like "car", "electron," "computer," "expressway"..., not even to
mention slang.

How many words do you invent per week? If you think it is zero, either
you speak terrrrrribly academically, or you aren't listening to yourself
talk.

But I guess if the quote about the architect's lamp is consistent with
the rest of the book, Pinker _doesn't_ listen to himself talk.

Martin

6

[From Rick Marken (971031.1450)]

Mary Powers (971031) to me --

I don't think you quite hit it in your post to Tim. Cognitive
scientists DO think that organisms (well, people anyway) are
purposive.

I had said --

S-R, cognitive and other theorists had no understanding of the
_nature of behavior_; they had no idea that behavior was purposeful
and they didn't understand the nature of purpose (control).

I should have been clearer and said that it was S-R theorists who
had no idea (or simply denied) that behavior was purposeful; the
cognitive theorists, starting at least with Tolman if not with
James, did, indeed, accept the idea that behavior is purposeful.
Tolman even did some great studies to demonstrate some of the
essential properties of purposeful behavior (such as the use of
variable means -- walking or swimming -- to produce consistent
ends -- getting to the goal box in a maze). So cognitive theorists
(current cognitive "scientists") do think that behavior is
purposeful. Their problem is that they don't understand the nature
of purpose (that it is control of perception) and, more important,
they don't understand how purpose works (because they don't
understand control theory).

This is on p. 11 of Steven Pinker's new book, How The Mind Works.

This is an amazing coincidence. I was going to post about Pinker
today myself because there is a rather long and enthusiastic review
of Pinker's book in the New Yorker (Nov 3 issue; great cover!).
The reviewer (Oliver Morton) says (among other things):

"[Pinker's book] is an authoritative synthesis of cognitive science,
which looks at the mind as a system for processing information, and
evolutionary psychology, which looks at the mind the way Darwin would.
As such the book marks out the territory on which the coming century's
debate about human nature will be held."

I think this reviewer may have it right; it looks like cogntive
science and evolutionary psychology are likely to "mark out the
territory on which the coming century's debate about human nature
will be held" -- unless we can do something about it, soon.

I think Pinker's book provides a great opportunity for PCT.
Obviously, PCT should mark out the territory on which the coming
century's debate about human nature is held. The way to get this
to happen, I think, is to start trying to publish reviews of (and
replies to reviews of) Pinker's book explaining, clearly and
concisely, exactly what is wrong with cognitive science and
evolutionary psychology.

Of course, these is a TON wrong with cognitive science and
evolutionary psychology. But explaining what is wrong will not
be easy, especially when you are trying to explain it to people
who are being intimidated by the "computerese" of cognitive science
and titillated by the sexy "just so" stories of evolutionary
psychology. But I think we have to figure out a way to do it; we
have to write the PCT reply to cognitive science and evolutionary
psychology; and we have to write it in a way that any lay person
could understand and find compelling. We have to stop writing
about PCT as the alternative to S-R psychology. People don't know
that cognitive science and evolutionary psychology are just S-R
psychology wrapped up in new words. We have to talk about PCT
as the alternative to cognitive science and evolutionary psychology.

I'll try to get a copy of Pinker's book this weekend and then try
to write up a reply to the New Yorker review. I think we should
also try to publish a longer reply to Pinker in other national
publications: The Atlantic, Scientific American, Discovery --
wherever Pinker's book has been reviewed or discussed. I'll also
try to write up a brief review of the book and send it to Amazon.
We should also try to publish something in American Psychologist.
All these articles would have one nice central focus -- Pinker's
book.

Pinker has provided us with a high fast ball right over the center
of the plate; if we take a real nice, smooth swing I think we can
hit that puppy right out of the park.

Best

Rick

···

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

7

[From Bruce Nevin (971101.1130)]

Mary Powers (971031) --
Rick Marken (971031.1450) --

With this sort of conception of how the mind works, and the enormous
computational complexity of moving your arm, imagine how complex these
folks think language is.

Pinker's earlier book _The Language Instinct_ takes the now familiar theme
that language must be innate because it is so horrendously complex we
couldn't possibly learn it otherwise, and goes on about how this "instinct"
might have evolved. Pace Bruner (_Child's Talk_) they say--Chomsky has
said--children are not taught language, they acquire it just by simple
exposure to it. In the infamous case of Genie, she was exposed to talk on
TV a lot, but that wasn't enough.

  Bruce Nevin