Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME FORUMS BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:39 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 
Reductionism and Blank Slates 
Author Message


Post Reductionism and Blank Slates
In Ch. 2, Pinker gives an overview of the begginings of the doctines he plans on attacking and briefly describes the impact they have been making on modern intellectual life. What this all seems to amount to is the common belief that our cultural environment is what makes people who they are. Culture, in turn, floats freely in the universal "blank slate" that we all share. Culture is independant of any particular minds, and needs only be understood in terms of culture, not us little biological creatures that happent to be imersed in it.

The above claims are simply the idea that culture is not reducable and/or that behavior is reducable to experience. So what is reductionism? I notice this question was addressed in a thread from Unweaving the Rainbow, but I dont think a good enough answer was reached. Here is the best, precise definition of reduction that I know of:

Given two sets of facts, Set A and Set B, Set B can be reduced to Set A if the facts of Set B cannot be altered independantly of the facts of Set A. For example, A table can be reduced to its atomic structure. The reason is that any facts we can about the table (its collor, its size, its shape) inevitably requires changes to to the molecules (atoms) that make up the table. I cannot break the table in half, for instance, without also changing the relationships among the (now disconnected) molecules. What it means to be nonreducable is best illustrated by a current argument in phiolosophy about qualia (the "what it's like" of experience). It seems, claim some people, that we could keep all facts about the brain the exact same, and still invert colors (red to grenn, ect). If true, the set of facts about qualia can be altered independant of brain facts, which makes qualia nonreducable to brain states.

So is culture nonreducable in the way the Standard Social Science Model seems to indicate? Can the facts of behavior be changed independantly of our nature? Pinker seems to be laying the foundations to argue that facts we change about culture require changes in our nature (genes, evolutionary history,ect.) and that behavior cannot be simply reduced to experience (as we are not simplt blank slates). Before pouring over the evidence Pinker presents, would you agree that, a priori, there is nothing absurd about the idea that we can change facts about culture independantly of the facts about genes and (to some extent) evolutionary history? How about individual human behavior? Can I change the facts about behavior independantly of the facts about genetics?

I doubt anyone would say that culture and behavior are reducable to human nature alone. The real question, I suppose, is how much of human life is reducable to our nature? With a solid definition of reductionism in mind, I predict that I will be in almost total agreement with Pinker that human culture requires a great deal of innate capacities and that we cannot alter the facts of behavior without changing our genetic makeup. The idea that "culture is responsible" is taken as a default position far too often. Nonetheless, is this really a very radical position? It seems tame, but it is looked at so harshly. Odd...

Thoughts?


----
It is our job here to bring our intellectual background into the foreground, to show that what have been taken as self-evident truths are really questionable opinions. -Lakoff

Edited by: SciFell at: 7/9/03 5:15 pm



Wed Jul 09, 2003 3:10 pm
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Gaining experience


Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 76
Location: Bellingham, WA
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Reductionism and Blank Slates
I see genes as the constructor of the computer, and culture the software loaded in. There is only so much the hardware can do, but it is far more than the limited number of programs (culture) that have been in use to this date.

The key is to load the best, most productive, fastest programs, and to be free of glitches or hangups.

But how do the programs rewrite themselves if they are not allowed to shut down and restart?

I do see memes (units of culture or programs) eventually rewiring the computer (genes.)

Meme Wars




Thu Jul 17, 2003 9:24 pm
Profile


Post Re: Reductionism and Blank Slates
Without having even opened the book, I would like to make some potentially unfounded comments on how I view the cultural/biological duality. For me, both terms are equivocal modes by means of which we talk about the same thing. This may seem like a simplistic view that doesn't lend understanding to the discussion, but I think the distinction perpetuated between the role of culture and the role of the individual is premised upon a fundamental ambiguity of the self. Strictly speaking, what evidence is there that the self, as a metaphysical object, exists? All knowledge of the self is limited to the the manifold of qualia, of constructed experience, but the experience of individuality, of self, does not imply actual individuality--that is the experience of the self as an object does not unshackle those experiences from the manifold of subjectivity. Dawkins' understanding of Darwinism suggests that organisms are not fundamental, that they are environments of genes interacting, not just with respect to themselves, but within a larger context of other genes. If we understand this to be true, it is therefore as equally misleading to say that an organism determines its own behavior as it is to say that the culture in which an organism exists writes with indelible letters upon the blank slate of the mind. The problem as I see it is the inability to ever distinguish with certainly the distinction between internal and external--which constitutes the the essense of knowledge--for reality exists only in that union.




Sun Jul 20, 2003 6:36 pm
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 199
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom (uk)

Post Re: Reductionism and Blank Slates
In one of Pinkers earlier books he talks about the brain as being a computer, and the mind as being "what the brain does". This is the "computational theory of mind".

This idea is opposed by many of the devotees of the Standard Social Science Model, and some of them use the word reductionism as a term of disparagement. Many of Pinker's (and Dawkin's) opponents think that human beings can only be understood in terms of higher level systems. One example of their argument is that you cannot study the waves in the sea by looking at the individual molecules, you can only understand it by looking at interactions taking place in the larger system. They think that deconstructing the system in the way that they allege Pinker, Dawkins and others are doing is of little help in understanding what it is to be a human being.

Reductionism is a term you won't find Pinker or Dawkins using.

The issue of culture is slightly different, The SSSM suggests that people are the product (almost entirely) of the environmental and formative influences they experience, especially in their early life: the blank slate view.

Pinker argues that we have a set of innate bahavioural influences hard-wired into our brain, and that, therefore, culture and other formative influences have much less of a role to play than the SSSM suggests.

No one thinks that we are genetically pre-programmed to act in any particular way (defined as genetic determinism) so that we do not have free will.

This is my interpretation anyway - any comments?

Edited by: PeterDF at: 7/21/03 3:34 am



Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:17 am
Profile


Post Re: Reductionism and Blank Slates
Quote:
Pinker argues that we have a set of innate bahavioural influences hard-wired into our brain, and that, therefore, culture and other formative influences have much less of a role to play than the SSSM suggests.


I have to agree.

Yes, environment plays a part but, as in the software example used previously, it can only function within the hardware parameters that are present.

And I have to say that I'm more inclined toward pre-determinism than I feel comfortable with. We are composed of chemicals. Chemicals react predictably. Is that not predetermined?

Doesn't mean I like the thought, but I also feel it's an area that should be explored.


Lynne





Fri Aug 01, 2003 11:24 pm
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 199
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom (uk)

Post Re: Reductionism and Blank Slates
Lynne

I very much agree with you that it is a very unedifying concept. It is not at all nice to think that we came into being as a result of cold mechanistic battles between competing selfish genes. Unfortunately it seems undeniable.

This is exactly why I proposed the Humanity Horizon in my book as a way of coming to terms with this problem.

There may not be purpose in the cold mechanistic world below the Humanity Horizon but in the world above the horizon there is purpose: kindness, consideration, goodness and happiness are all things we can aspire to and which make the world a better place. We know this to be true because we know that feeling are real, and ultimately it is our feelings that are important.

I don't know if this helps - it's just how I see it.




Sun Aug 03, 2003 4:18 am
Profile


Post Re: Reductionism and Blank Slates
Quote:

And I have to say that I'm more inclined toward pre-determinism than I feel comfortable with. We are composed of chemicals. Chemicals react predictably. Is that not predetermined?

(sorry about the plain-text quote, but I seem to be having a problem with the Java this morning)

Although I myself have been quite comfortable with the fact that my life has no meaning for quite some time now, I can definitely understand that others might feel differently...I suggest you read Dennett's Freedom Evolves, since he defends the position that meaning and free will can arise in a deterministic universe. I don't find his arguments convincing, but you might.

Louis




Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:13 am
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Intelligent

Bronze Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 554
Location: Saint Louis
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Reductionism and Blank Slates
arcAngle
Quote:
And I have to say that I'm more inclined toward pre-determinism than I feel comfortable with. We are composed of chemicals. Chemicals react predictably. Is that not predetermined?
No.

The thing is, determinism should not be confused with predictability. Humes' Fork: Either everything is determined, in which case we are not responsible for our actions, or everything is random, in which case we are not responsible for our actions. The fallacy of "nature/nurture" is this: Environment affects genes, sometimes in predictable and sometimes in unpredictable ways; genes affect environment, likewise. The system is both open (in that the external environment is an input) and circular, in that each element affect the elements that affect it.

We feel like we have free will. The underlying system is deterministic but chaotic, and not predictable. The result is that experience confirms our feeling that there is a "me" deciding. Is it illusion? In some sense, it seems it has to be; but yet, it is just as real as love, hate, and every emotion that we feel, all likely evolved because they enhance survival. So I say, when you feel like you're in love, accept it as real; when you feel like you are free to decide, accept it as real. It is how our genes want us to live and it works both subjectively and objectively.

* In the interest of avoiding plagiarism: Most of these ideas are borrowed from Matt Ridley


Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples, a culture of illuminations hit upon by a fortunate turn of history that yielded the most effective way of learning about the real world ever conceived. E.O.Wilson




Sun Aug 03, 2003 12:30 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:


BookTalk.org Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Featured Book Suggestions
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
    

Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.

Featured Books

Books by New Authors



Booktalk.org on Facebook 



BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSBOOKSTRANSCRIPTSOLD FORUMSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY

BOOK FORUMS FOR ALL BOOKS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
Oliver Twist - by Charles DickensSense and Goodness Without God - by Richard CarrierFrankenstein - by Mary ShelleyThe Big Questions - by Simon BlackburnScience Was Born of Christianity - by Stacy TrasancosThe Happiness Hypothesis - by Jonathan HaidtA Game of Thrones - by George R. R. MartinTempesta's Dream - by Vincent LoCocoWhy Nations Fail - by Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonThe Drowning Girl - Caitlin R. KiernanThe Consolations of the Forest - by Sylvain TessonThe Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion: The Mormons - by David FitzgeraldA Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - by James JoyceThe Divine Comedy - by Dante AlighieriThe Magic of Reality - by Richard DawkinsDubliners - by James JoyceMy Name Is Red - by Orhan PamukThe World Until Yesterday - by Jared DiamondThe Man Who Was Thursday - by by G. K. ChestertonThe Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven PinkerLord Jim by Joseph ConradThe Hobbit by J. R. R. TolkienThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas AdamsAtlas Shrugged by Ayn RandThinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel KahnemanThe Righteous Mind - by Jonathan HaidtWorld War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max BrooksMoby Dick: or, the Whale by Herman MelvilleA Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer EganLost Memory of Skin: A Novel by Russell BanksThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. KuhnHobbes: Leviathan by Thomas HobbesThe House of the Spirits - by Isabel AllendeArguably: Essays by Christopher HitchensThe Falls: A Novel (P.S.) by Joyce Carol OatesChrist in Egypt by D.M. MurdockThe Glass Bead Game: A Novel by Hermann HesseA Devil's Chaplain by Richard DawkinsThe Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph CampbellThe Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor DostoyevskyThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark TwainThe Moral Landscape by Sam HarrisThe Decameron by Giovanni BoccaccioThe Road by Cormac McCarthyThe Grand Design by Stephen HawkingThe Evolution of God by Robert WrightThe Tin Drum by Gunter GrassGood Omens by Neil GaimanPredictably Irrational by Dan ArielyThe Wind-Up Bird Chronicle: A Novel by Haruki MurakamiALONE: Orphaned on the Ocean by Richard Logan & Tere Duperrault FassbenderDon Quixote by Miguel De CervantesMusicophilia by Oliver SacksDiary of a Madman and Other Stories by Nikolai GogolThe Passion of the Western Mind by Richard TarnasThe Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le GuinThe Genius of the Beast by Howard BloomAlice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Empire of Illusion by Chris HedgesThe Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner The Extended Phenotype by Richard DawkinsSmoke and Mirrors by Neil GaimanThe Selfish Gene by Richard DawkinsWhen Good Thinking Goes Bad by Todd C. RinioloHouse of Leaves by Mark Z. DanielewskiAmerican Gods: A Novel by Neil GaimanPrimates and Philosophers by Frans de WaalThe Enormous Room by E.E. CummingsThe Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar WildeGod Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher HitchensThe Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama Paradise Lost by John Milton Bad Money by Kevin PhillipsThe Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson BurnettGodless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan BarkerThe Things They Carried by Tim O'BrienThe Limits of Power by Andrew BacevichLolita by Vladimir NabokovOrlando by Virginia Woolf On Being Certain by Robert A. Burton50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. HarrisonWalden: Or, Life in the Woods by Henry David ThoreauExile and the Kingdom by Albert CamusOur Inner Ape by Frans de WaalYour Inner Fish by Neil ShubinNo Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthyThe Age of American Unreason by Susan JacobyTen Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson & David HabermanHeart of Darkness by Joseph ConradThe Stuff of Thought by Stephen PinkerA Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled HosseiniThe Lucifer Effect by Philip ZimbardoResponsibility and Judgment by Hannah ArendtInterventions by Noam ChomskyGodless in America by George A. RickerReligious Expression and the American Constitution by Franklyn S. HaimanDeep Economy by Phil McKibbenThe God Delusion by Richard DawkinsThe Third Chimpanzee by Jared DiamondThe Woman in the Dunes by Abe KoboEvolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie C. ScottThe Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael PollanI, Claudius by Robert GravesBreaking The Spell by Daniel C. DennettA Peace to End All Peace by David FromkinThe Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey NiffeneggerThe End of Faith by Sam HarrisEnder's Game by Orson Scott CardThe Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark HaddonValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergThe March by E. L DoctorowThe Ethical Brain by Michael GazzanigaFreethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan JacobyCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared DiamondThe Battle for God by Karen ArmstrongThe Future of Life by Edward O. WilsonWhat is Good? by A. C. GraylingCivilization and Its Enemies by Lee HarrisPale Blue Dot by Carl SaganHow We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael ShermerLooking for Spinoza by Antonio DamasioLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al FrankenThe Red Queen by Matt RidleyThe Blank Slate by Stephen PinkerUnweaving the Rainbow by Richard DawkinsAtheism: A Reader edited by S.T. JoshiGlobal Brain by Howard BloomThe Lucifer Principle by Howard BloomGuns, Germs and Steel by Jared DiamondThe Demon-Haunted World by Carl SaganBury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee BrownFuture Shock by Alvin Toffler

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOur Amazon.com SalesMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism BooksFACTS Book Selections

cron
Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2014. All rights reserved.
Website developed by MidnightCoder.ca
Display Pagerank