Did our brains evolve to understand quantum mechanics?

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby's strawman is different than yours. He seems to think I'm saying that "we formulated classical physics without reasoning". Or that "every outcome of classical physics is accurately predicted by human intuition".

Everything you've said indicates you think it was much easier than I know it actually was, and that QM was much harder than it actually was.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

To try to summarive my current views on the subject:
1) The human brain has evolved mechanisms for spatial reasoning and pattern recognition, but is not born with the physical intuitions dicussed in the "Physics for Infants" article posted by Pythagorean (#40).
2) The physical intuitions come about by the interaction of the spatial reasoning and pattern recognition mechanisms with a world that obeys the laws of classical mechanics (i.e. via learning). This seems to be supported by some of the evidence posted by atyy suggesting that these intuitions develop over time (#69).

One reason I favor this model is by analogy to the way our visual processing circuitry develops. While it might make sense for the way our eyes are wired to the brain to be pre-determined by genetics, the wiring actually occurs in response to simulation of the eyes by the environment (as shown by the classic monocular deprivation experiments done by Hubel and Wiesel). Of course, certain genetic factors influence the process (for example, certain neurotrophic factors define a specific critical period during which the wiring can occur), but this is a nice example that clearly demonstrates how neural circuitry develops in response an individual's experiences.

Of course, this model essentially specifies the inevitable development of physical intuition because no infant will experience a world not governed by classical mechanics. So, in this sense, you can say physical intuitions are pre-determined. Of course, it would be interesting (but highly unethical) to test whether raising an infant in some virtual reality that presents different physical laws could alter the learned physical intuitions of the child or whether the infant still develops innate physical intuitions consistent with the real world. Perhaps such experiments might be possible using virutal reality systems for studying mice (for example http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7266/full/nature08499.html).

 

[atyy]

To try to summarive my current views on the subject:
1) The human brain has evolved mechanisms for spatial reasoning and pattern recognition, but is not born with the physical intuitions dicussed in the "Physics for Infants" article posted by Pythagorean (#40).
2) The physical intuitions come about by the interaction of the spatial reasoning and pattern recognition mechanisms with a world that obeys the laws of classical mechanics (i.e. via learning). This seems to be supported by some of the evidence posted by atyy suggesting that these intuitions develop over time (#69).

One reason I favor this model is by analogy to the way our visual processing circuitry develops. While it might make sense for the way our eyes are wired to the brain to be pre-determined by genetics, the wiring actually occurs in response to simulation of the eyes by the environment (as shown by the classic monocular deprivation experiments done by Hubel and Wiesel). Of course, certain genetic factors influence the process (for example, certain neurotrophic factors define a specific critical period during which the wiring can occur), but this is a nice example that clearly demonstrates how neural circuitry develops in response an individual's experiences.

Of course, this model essentially specifies the inevitable development of physical intuition because no infant will experience a world not governed by classical mechanics. So, in this sense, you can say physical intuitions are pre-determined. Of course, it would be interesting (but highly unethical) to test whether raising an infant in some virtual reality that presents different physical laws could alter the learned physical intuitions of the child or whether the infant still develops innate physical intuitions consistent with the real world. Perhaps such experiments might be possible using virutal reality systems for studying mice (for example http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7266/full/nature08499.html).

I'm not sure the experiment in humans would be unethical. In the Copenhagen* interpretation, the world is always divided into classical and quantum, so classical reality is needed for quantum mechanics. Since only a part of the world needs to be quantum, I think one need not remove all classical reality to see if one can raise an infant to find quantum-like phenomena intuitive by 2.5 months of age. Perhaps one could raise some infants in the presence of quantum billiards http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/ph115/TompkinsQuantumBilliards.pdf

*By Copenhagen, I just mean some workaday interpretation like that in Landau and Lifshitz's quantum mechanics textbook. Also, I personally don't think quantum mechanics is unintuitive - unless we adopt many-worlds)

Incidentally, Wang and Baillargeon seem to have some arguments against the suggestion I made in #69, which Ygggdrasil quotes above, that the data suggest that infants' intuitions change over time. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3351384/

 

[zoobyshoe]

I agree that the opposite - the ability to learn unintuitive things has been selected for - has not been demonstrated either. But it remains a possibility, and seems to me would undermine Krauss's point.

What would be the possible alternatives to it's having been selected for?


I'm also thinking now I disagree that we evolved to escape predators. Of all the wildlife on the Savannah, I think Lucy would have been the easiest target. As a lion, I'd pick a hominid over a gazelle any day.

 

[Simon Bridge]

There is a grey area in what gets "selected" ... a trait may be a side-effect of something else being directly selected. The side effect turns out to be easy to pass on so comes to dominate a population. Was that selected for? Perhaps we could say that it is indirectly selected for?

Certainly part of our evolution would have involved predator escape and avoidance.
That is pretty much the case for everything alive.

You have to be careful about your metric. Individual humans are pretty vulnerable in the wild - but we evolved as social animals and a bunch of humans can be quite formidable. If chasing a herd of gazelles quickly reveals a weaker one while chasing humans gets rocks thrown at you, which do you pick?

However, there are quite a lot of things affecting evolution.
If we accept that big brains got emphasized as a secondary sexual characteristic - as in peacocks tails - then you need to be able to show them off ... just having a bighead is no guarantee of lots of brains.
So you get jokes, puns, art, ... inventiveness (display inventions)... inquisitiveness (find stuff out)... and the ability to grok stuff others don't. That would include the ability to learn un- and counter-intuitive things.

Perhaps the ability to learn something counter-intuitive is a form of display behavior.
Teaching - sharing information - could also be a form of preening.

Note: in animals with sexual-selected characteristics, the male tends to have the display form and the female the discrimination form or the trait. Peacocks have the big tails and the ability to stand them up while females have the ability to assess who has the best tail. For big brains as the trait - this means that female humans need to be intelligent too - to judge who has the best brain and who's just a nut - but their intelligence needs to be of a different kind: more critical.

But that's if we accept the premise - and would be an alternative to direct selection.
It would be tricky to demonstrate.

Everything is indirectly selected for - but then the term stops meaning anything.

 

[atyy]

What would be the possible alternatives to it's having been selected for?I'm also thinking now I disagree that we evolved to escape predators. Of all the wildlife on the Savannah, I think Lucy would have been the easiest target. As a lion, I'd pick a hominid over a gazelle any day.

By "selected for" I and most people usually mean "natural selection". So maybe the ability to learn unintuitive things came from random drift or sexual selection.

Also, along the lines of Simon Bridge's post above this one, it could be a spandrel. Actually, that seems to be Coyne's reading of Pinker's proposal. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/did-humans-evolve-to-fill-a-cognitive-niche/ On a quick reading of http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/04/0914630107.full.pdf+html , I'm not sure Coyne is right on that point. Pinker writes "In this conception, the brain’s ability to carry out metaphorical abstraction did not evolve to coin metaphors in language, but to multiply the opportunities for cognitive inference in domains other than those for which a cognitive model was originally adapted." which seems pretty close to what you and Ygggdrasil have been suggesting.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It seems that, whichever mechanism accounts for the origin of a new trait, it being advantageous to reproduction would assure it getting passed on and reinforced and successive generations would exhibit the new trait more and more.

"Puzzle-solving," which is certainly a manifestation of intelligence (a word some might find less vague, more acceptable to discuss as a heritable thing), is such that we have literally taken over the planet and are now, without question, the most successful life form. I can't see anyone mounting a credible argument for puzzle-solving not being advantageous.

On the point of us not being hardwired for anything in particular at birth, merely possessed of a massive amount of plastic neurons that could be taught a huge variety of things, I would suspect that the important selection was for those flexible neurons. That would have been made in relatively primitive creatures that are long gone, but which had the advantage over whatever came before them of being able to learn to change according to the demands of their environment. A creature born completely hardwired, if such ever existed, would inevitably be foiled by slight changes and could only exist in a really stable environment.

So, the greater the ability to learn, the greater the options for everything necessary: escape, finding food, finding a mate, etc. The advantage humans have wouldn't be puzzle-solving per se, but the comparatively much more massive capacity for it. All kinds of animals are obviously puzzle solving. Our difference is we do it much better.

What do you think?

 

[zoobyshoe]

You have to be careful about your metric. Individual humans are pretty vulnerable in the wild - but we evolved as social animals and a bunch of humans can be quite formidable. If chasing a herd of gazelles quickly reveals a weaker one while chasing humans gets rocks thrown at you, which do you pick?

This is a good point. However, lions and cheetahs usually hunt in pairs or groups of three (if we can believe Cat Diary on Animal Planet). Lucy's people were pretty small compared to modern Africans, and Lucy's predators were a lot larger than modern lions, wolves, etc.

Now, pygmies kill elephants by being clever. They are forest dwellers and the elephants generally stick to well worn elephant trails. The pygmies pull entire logs up into the trees, and drop them on the elephants as they pass beneath. In this way, they avoid putting themselves in too much danger.

So, maybe it's conceivable hominids were clever enough to engineer ways to lure and kill the local population of predators, creating a tentative safe zone around their camps. In any event, I just don't see them thriving if every food foraging expedition meant a life or death encounter with predators. As far as I know, apes never live anywhere where they aren't the biggest thing around. The fact hominids could walk upright and run never struck me as all they'd need to leave the forest and live out in the open.

 

[Enigman]

It seems that, whichever mechanism accounts for the origin of a new trait, it being advantageous to reproduction would assure it getting passed on and reinforced and successive generations would exhibit the new trait more and more.

No not necessarily...genetic drift can get rid of some traits just due to chance alone.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No not necessarily...genetic drift can get rid of some traits just due to chance alone.

So, you're suggesting something like this might happen:

A new and advantageous trait appears in a population. But, before those with the trait can fully supplant those without, some freak accident kills off all those with the trait. (?)

 

[Enigman]

So, you're suggesting something like this might happen:

A new and advantageous trait appears in a population. But, before those with the trait can fully supplant those without, some freak accident kills off all those with the trait. (?)

Yes, anything random that would stop the traits from being passed on. From freak accidents to bad luck in finding a mate to linkage with an allele which is disadvantageous.
(I grow wings and get smashed with an airplane or go celibate or appearance of wings comes with disappearance of my brains...no kids, no winged humans.)
EDIT: I think linkage with other alleles is genetic draft rather than drift.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, anything random that would stop the traits from being passed on. From freak accidents to bad luck in finding a mate to linkage with an allele which is disadvantageous.
(I grow wings and get smashed with an airplane or go celibate or appearance of wings comes with disappearance of my brains...no kids, no winged humans.)
EDIT: I think linkage with other alleles is genetic draft rather than drift.

OK, that could happen. Barring that, are there other important obstacles to a really advantageous trait becoming more and more prevalent in succeeding generations?

 

[zoobyshoe]

By "selected for" I and most people usually mean "natural selection". So maybe the ability to learn unintuitive things came from random drift or sexual selection.

The wiki describes sexual selection as a "mode" of natural selection. For whatever that's worth.

Also, along the lines of Simon Bridge's post above this one, it could be a spandrel.

If this were the case then we'd have a situation where a spandrel seems to have taken off on its own right and eclipsed the thing it was originally a mere byproduct of. The original thing could remain as important as it originally was, but the spandrel would outclass it. Sort of thing.

 

[atyy]

The wiki describes sexual selection as a "mode" of natural selection. For whatever that's worth.

Yes, I realize some say that, eg. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE3Sexualselection.shtml[/URL] . A different point of view is presented in [url]http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/sexual-selection-13255240[/url] .

[quote="zoobyshoe, post: 4611334"]If this were the case then we'd have a situation where a spandrel seems to have taken off on its own right and eclipsed the thing it was originally a mere byproduct of. The original thing could remain as important as it originally was, but the spandrel would outclass it. Sort of thing.[/QUOTE]

The basic idea you have seems reasonable to me, of course - I was brainwashed by my parents to believe that plasticity can do anything:p And yes, it does seem an "advantageous" trait that could be "selected for". In [url]http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/a-defense-of-evolutionary-psychology-mostly-by-steve-pinker/[/url] Coyne makes, I think, a point very similar to yours ""developmental plasticity" does not stand as a dichotomous alternative to "evolved features." Our developmental plasticity is to a large extent the product of evolution: our ability to learn language, our tendency to defer to authorities when we’re children, our learned socialization—those are all features almost certainly instilled into our brains by natural selection as a way to promote behavioral flexibility in that most flexible of mammals. " But to make it scientific, I would usually ask for a mathematical framework and definition of the terms (that may be a bit much), and predictions which could test and potentially falsify the theory.

Incidentally, it's not obvious to me human beings are the most successful species. How about cockroaches?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, I realize some say that, eg. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE3Sexualselection.shtml[/URL] . A different point of view is presented in [url]http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/sexual-selection-13255240[/url] .[/QUOTE]
I'd have to agree with the former. I don't see an important difference between a percentage of the population with certain traits dying out because they can't hack the physical environment or dying out because other members of their own sex prevent their access to the opposite, or because the opposite sex won't have them. All these things are equally "natural," I'd say. Not that it isn't important to observe the differences between one mechanism and the other. In the same way, drift and spandrels strike me as "natural." If I were writing up the terminology, I'd say there were 4 distinct modes of Natural Selection.
[QUOTE]But to make it scientific, I would usually ask for a mathematical framework and definition of the terms (that may be a bit much), and predictions which could test and potentially falsify the theory.[/QUOTE]
Dude, I'm like, doing "Intuitive Biology" here. What's not scientific?
[QUOTE]Incidentally, it's not obvious to me human beings are the most successful species. How about cockroaches?[/QUOTE]
Cockroaches didn't land on the moon. More than any other species we have the ability to shape our environment to make up for the fact we're not suited to it, and even sustain it in miniature in remote outposts: space, antarctica, the middle of the ocean. If the cockroach environment shifts outside the cockroach parameters, they're toast. As Ygggdrasil pointed out, human babies are quite delicate for years. In the last 4.0 X 10[SUP]4[/SUP] years we've pretty much reshaped the world to make it comfortable for human babies. And, among other things, we've killed a lot of cockroaches to do that.

You could argue that's only a short term glitch in the millions of years of cockroach history and you might be right. They could be the tortoise and we the hare in that regard. What I see as our real evolutionary lottery win is the comparatively massive magnitude of our consciousness. A thing which makes the statement, "We didn't evolve to understand QM," fundamentally wrong.

 

[Simon Bridge]

It seems that, whichever mechanism accounts for the origin of a new trait, it being advantageous to reproduction would assure it getting passed on and reinforced and successive generations would exhibit the new trait more and more.

Nothing is assured. The only way a trait is assured of surviving is if it certain of being passed on - such "traits" need not even be expressed for this to happen.

"Puzzle-solving," which is certainly a manifestation of intelligence (a word some might find less vague, more acceptable to discuss as a heritable thing), is such that we have literally taken over the planet and are now, without question, the most successful life form. I can't see anyone mounting a credible argument for puzzle-solving not being advantageous.

It's the amount of puzzle-solving ability in humans that causes comment - even other species notice that humans can be good to have around (or bad - depends). If this level of puzzle solving were so advantageous, then everyone would have it - cats, dogs, birds ... so why not if there is no intrinsic disadvantage to be balanced?

On the point of us not being hardwired for anything in particular at birth, merely possessed of a massive amount of plastic neurons that could be taught a huge variety of things, I would suspect that the important selection was for those flexible neurons. That would have been made in relatively primitive creatures that are long gone, but which had the advantage over whatever came before them of being able to learn to change according to the demands of their environment. A creature born completely hardwired, if such ever existed, would inevitably be foiled by slight changes and could only exist in a really stable environment.

Plankton seem to survive pretty well. When you are done feeling good about being smart - compare biomass for different species and see who is the most successful at long term survival. Insects (some) seem to have done much better so far without the big brains.

So, the greater the ability to learn, the greater the options for everything necessary: escape, finding food, finding a mate, etc. The advantage humans have wouldn't be puzzle-solving per se, but the comparatively much more massive capacity for it. All kinds of animals are obviously puzzle solving. Our difference is we do it much better.

One big thing in the puzzle-solving ability's favor is the ability to recognize other good puzzle-solvers.
This is why the sexual selection idea is so popular.

Peacock's tails hinder it's ability to escape predators and efficiently utilize food - but peacocks have them anyway. Oversize brains may not be that useless but the big-brain animals have been pretty unusual one so far.

We have not been around any where near long enough to know if these great lumps of grey meat we carry about are anything like the sort of advantage we like to think they are. They may kill us off yet.

 

[atyy]

I'd have to agree with the former. I don't see an important difference between a percentage of the population with certain traits dying out because they can't hack the physical environment or dying out because other members of their own sex prevent their access to the opposite, or because the opposite sex won't have them. All these things are equally "natural," I'd say. Not that it isn't important to observe the differences between one mechanism and the other. In the same way, drift and spandrels strike me as "natural." If I were writing up the terminology, I'd say there were 4 distinct modes of Natural Selection.

OK, I'm not sure this is completely correct, but let me try to explain the other viewpoint. If one says a peacock's tail is naturally selected for, then it is advantageous only in the sense of conferring reproductive fitness. However, there we have implicitly defined "advantageous" as "that which confers reproductive fitness", so the theory predicts nothing since we have just said that that which confers reproductive fitness confers reproductive fitness. So in general, "advantageous" in the theory of natural selection must be defined in some other way, for example, "advantageous" may be defined as that which confers long life. If we define "advantageous" in this way, since the peacock's tail makes the peacock's life shorter by attracting predators (I made that up, but let's focus on the concept here), then the peacock's tail is a disadvantage. Natural selection explains advantageous, not disadvantageous features, and hence does not explain the peacock's tail.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Nothing is assured. The only way a trait is assured of surviving is if it certain of being passed on - such "traits" need not even be expressed for this to happen.

What I understand people to be saying is that, barring genetic drift, traits will get passed on.

It's the amount of puzzle-solving ability in humans that causes comment - even other species notice that humans can be good to have around (or bad - depends). If this level of puzzle solving were so advantageous, then everyone would have it - cats, dogs, birds ... so why not if there is no intrinsic disadvantage to be balanced?

I'm assuming we won the lottery: one of the 4 change mechanisms boosted our capacity and it got passed on. The same just didn't happen to happen in cats, dogs, birds, at least never to the degree it did in humans.

Plankton seem to survive pretty well. When you are done feeling good about being smart - compare biomass for different species and see who is the most successful at long term survival. Insects (some) seem to have done much better so far without the big brains.

And atty mentioned cockroaches. In these two cases "success" would be a measure of their longevity as species, as you said. I am thinking of humans as the most successful in that we have the greatest ability to mitigate our own suffering. Most of our puzzle solving is to that end, and is made possible by the fact we're the most conscious. By which I mean, we have the best view of all scales, from macro to micro, and from past to present. And, so, we're the most able to ponder future consequences. Regardless, plankton and cockroaches might actually be happier.

One big thing in the puzzle-solving ability's favor is the ability to recognize other good puzzle-solvers.
This is why the sexual selection idea is so popular.

That makes sense. It also makes sense that it was selected as a response to a shift in environment. It's the ultimate quick change, all-environment solution. If you're not fit for the winter cold, kill a bear and wear it's coat. If you can't find a cave for your band, make an artificial one from whatever's around, even snow! If your band gets pushed to the equator, take off the bear skin and go naked. Anyway, it's conceivable to me it was selected by both mechanisms, one reinforcing the other.

We have not been around any where near long enough to know if these great lumps of grey meat we carry about are anything like the sort of advantage we like to think they are. They may kill us off yet.

I was wondering when someone would bring that up.

I think it's some sort of recognized cycle where predators become so successful they exhaust their prey supply, precipitating their own doom. The predator population dwindles almost to extinction, then the prey species recovers, and so do the predators. I'm sure you've heard of that.

That's different than us poisoning ourselves with radiation or chemicals, but if we don't kill everyone, there's a good chance will recover for another trip round the circuit. (The thing I'm currently most worried about is the super-germs we're creating by misuse of antibiotics.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

OK, I'm not sure this is completely correct, but let me try to explain the other viewpoint. If one says a peacock's tail is naturally selected for, then it is advantageous only in the sense of conferring reproductive fitness. However, there we have implicitly defined "advantageous" as "that which confers reproductive fitness", so the theory predicts nothing since we have just said that that which confers reproductive fitness confers reproductive fitness. So in general, "advantageous" in the theory of natural selection must be defined in some other way, for example, "advantageous" may be defined as that which confers long life. If we define "advantageous" in this way, since the peacock's tail makes the peacock's life shorter by attracting predators (I made that up, but let's focus on the concept here), then the peacock's tail is a disadvantage. Natural selection explains advantageous, not disadvantageous features, and hence does not explain the peacock's tail.

That's awfully byzantine. I wonder if the whole thing couldn't be simplified somehow.

 

[Simon Bridge]

OK, I'm not sure this is completely correct, but let me try to explain the other viewpoint. If one says a peacock's tail is naturally selected for, then it is advantageous only in the sense of conferring reproductive fitness. However, there we have implicitly defined "advantageous" as "that which confers reproductive fitness", so the theory predicts nothing since we have just said that that which confers reproductive fitness confers reproductive fitness. So in general, "advantageous" in the theory of natural selection must be defined in some other way, for example, "advantageous" may be defined as that which confers long life. If we define "advantageous" in this way, since the peacock's tail makes the peacock's life shorter by attracting predators (I made that up, but let's focus on the concept here), then the peacock's tail is a disadvantage. Natural selection explains advantageous, not disadvantageous features, and hence does not explain the peacock's tail.

Done well right up to the last sentence.
Natural selection best explains disadvantageous traits ... either that or a capricious and randomly cruel Designer.

It is us who defined "advantageous" - Nature does not care if an individual or a species lives or dies.

We don't need to define "advantageous" in relation to Natural selection.
You have to reference underlying mechanisms if you want things to stop sounding circular.
There are many ways a trait we would think of as disadvantageous to the organism to get favorably passed on. But when you look at it from the top down, it is hard to see the rules.
It's like cellular automata.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I did a bit of googling. Found this Q&A with a neuroscientist:

So what do you think the purpose of consciousness is?

I think the purpose of it is to draw all the relevant information together in a larger space. It’s almost as if we can’t spot it because we are doing it all the time. Why do we love crossword puzzles and why are people addicted to sudoku? That’s what a huge bit of the cortex is primed to do — to spot [patterns] — and once we spot them we can assimilate them into our pyramid of knowledge and build more layers of strategy, and knowing how to do that makes us incredibly successful at controlling the world.

And that’s why solving puzzles or finding a useful bit of information feels so good?

We get streams of pleasure when we find something that can really help us understand some deep pattern. Sudoku isn’t the most [fun activity], but it sure feels good when you put in that last number. It’s why scientists love doing research. The way I approach my job, it’s like trying to solve a really big fuzzy crossword puzzle and when you do put in that new clue and see the deeper pattern, that’s incredibly pleasurable.

If our brains are hungry for information, then why do we tend to see learning as a chore and fail to recognize it as a huge source of pleasure?

I don’t know. Obviously, more intelligent people get more pleasure from spotting these patterns, but I think almost every normal person does this. I think it’s a pretty pervasive thing but it’s almost as if we can’t notice it because it’s so pervasive.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/...-qa-with-consciousness-researcher-daniel-bor/
This breaks "puzzle-solving" down into two intertwined components: pattern-seeking, and pleasure seeking. That seems a very good start in limiting the scope of the term.

 

[atyy]

http://xkcd.com/356/

 

[Simon Bridge]

So what do you think the purpose of consciousness is?

Why does it have to have a purpose?
The terms of the question are too vague: "purpose" is something humans assign to things - so, it can be anything you want.

Aside: @atyy: $$\left( \frac{4}{\pi}-\frac{1}{2} \right) \Omega$$ ... though the method of solution is more interesting than th --- whoo - that was a close one!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Why does it have to have a purpose?
The terms of the question are too vague: "purpose" is something humans assign to things - so, it can be anything you want.

I notice that a lot of people around here, PF, have a hard time fathoming everyday informal speech. The general insistence on rigorous terminology causes the anterior informal gyrus (Brodmann area 43 1/2, subsections j.&k.) of the left hemisphere's speech centers to go unused resulting in eventual atrophy.

That said, allow me to attempt a translation of the informally stated question given the context.

"So what do you think the purpose of consciousness is?"

Rearranging a bit:

'What is the purpose of..." = "What's it good for?"

"What's it good for?" = "What are the advantages of having..."

→ "How is consciousness advantageous to humans?"

I can't completely vouch for that translation, since it's the first time I've tackled this particular informal interviewer, but I'm 96.83% confident that, at least, is how the subject of the interview received the question, given his answer.

 

[atyy]

Aside: @atyy: $$\left( \frac{4}{\pi}-\frac{1}{2} \right) \Omega$$ ... though the method of solution is more interesting than th --- whoo - that was a close one!

 

[atyy]

I notice that a lot of people around here, PF, have a hard time fathoming everyday informal speech. The general insistence on rigorous terminology causes the anterior informal gyrus (Brodmann area 43 1/2, subsections j.&k.) of the left hemisphere's speech centers to go unused resulting in eventual atrophy.

That said, allow me to attempt a translation of the informally stated question given the context.

"So what do you think the purpose of consciousness is?"

Rearranging a bit:

'What is the purpose of..." = "What's it good for?"

"What's it good for?" = "What are the advantages of having..."

→ "How is consciousness advantageous to humans?"

I can't completely vouch for that translation, since it's the first time I've tackled this particular informal interviewer, but I'm 96.83% confident that, at least, is how the subject of the interview received the question, given his answer.

No, the problem is that your idea, is basically fine, especially as a rebuttal to taking Krauss too seriously. But to go beyond that one needs to be more precise and make testable predictions from a mathematically consistent theory, otherwise one could go round in circles. As Simon Bridge says, one problem is that ideas like "natural selection" are not fundamental, and have regimes of validity. The more fundamental level is the level of genes and biochemistry. However, it is interesting and useful to talk about emergent concepts like natural selection or furniture.

Even among professionals, there are different ideas as to how best to define the species concept. Two different views are presented in
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9533126
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9223259

Another debate has been about the usefulness of "inclusive fitness" which is almost a "textbook" concept but has been criticized recently
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20740005
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24277847
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21430721
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21920980

Yet another example of a controversy as to what "high level" concept is best for explaining some observation about evolution
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19474791
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20164866

So I think one must go beyond the intuitive level, to avoid going round in circles.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, the problem is that your idea, is basically fine, especially as a rebuttal to taking Krauss too seriously. But to go beyond that one needs to be more precise and make testable predictions from a mathematically consistent theory, otherwise one could go round in circles...

I know. My last post to Simon had nothing to do with my idea. There really is a gratuitous knee-jerk reaction around here sometimes when lay people ask perfectly good questions without knowing how to phrase them rigorously, despite the fact it's often easy to figure out what they mean. That knee-jerk harshness is completely unnecessary, and I think it's a bad face to be wearing when strangers come knocking at the online home of science out of curiosity.

I found that whole weird virus, "science doesn't do 'why' questions" that was going around here to be passing strange. Any noob who posted a thread with "why" in the title got blasted with, "Science doesn't do 'why' questions!" That was the single reason I came into this thread. I was afraid, "Man didn't evolve to understand Quantum Mechanics," was going to get amplified right here, and be global in two weeks. It's a very catchy sentence. And I think Krauss constructed it to be catchy. He's got an obvious agenda. He's proselytizing.

...So I think one must go beyond the intuitive level, to avoid going round in circles.

My earlier crack about doing "Intuitive Biology" was a joke, aimed back at the concept of "Intuitive Physics." I don't know if you noticed when I said to Pythagorean:

"I think what you're failing to observe is that the ability to throw a spear accurately is a completely different kind of activity than intellectually sorting out and articulating the 3 Laws. Intuitively grasping that the harder you throw it, the further it will go into the mammoth, is a million miles away from being able to say F=ma. The latter requires sorting out the concept of force, the concept of mass, the concept of acceleration, and then that the magnitude of the force will be equal to the product of the mass and acceleration, and then finding suitable units for all. The former (spear throwing) isn't physics, the latter is. The former can be learned relatively quickly, the latter (specifically F=ma) took us 40,000 years to sort out, despite the fact we were living in the world of, on the scale of, spear throwing that whole time. Saying it is a completely different activity than doing it."

Or, you may have noticed it and mistaken it for merely another salvo against the idea Classical Physics is intuitive. I meant it also as a pro-rigor, anti "Intuitive Physics" argument. I really dislike that term, "Intuitive Physics," and I think it would be unfortunate if people got the idea that having the neurological where withall to navigate their environment equated to understanding physics. Likewise, I'm fully realize it's not Biology unless you're "...more precise and make testable predictions from a mathematically consistent theory..."
------------------------------------------------
I read all the abstracts. I found this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21430721

weirdly hilarious. Looks like about a hundred people forming a mob with torches and clubs to storm the castle of three really, really unpopular ones:

"Abstract
Arising from M. A. Nowak, C. E. Tarnita & E. O. Wilson 466, 1057-1062 (2010); Nowak et al. reply. Nowak et al. argue that inclusive fitness theory has been of little value in explaining the natural world, and that it has led to negligible progress in explaining the evolution of eusociality. However, we believe that their arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and a misrepresentation of the empirical literature. We will focus our comments on three general issues."

I have never seen so many authors of one paper ever. Those three seem to have ruffled some feathers.

You present all those abstracts as illustration of the ongoing debate about fundamentals, which presents me the opportunity to express why I don't even make a small effort to get an academic handle on certain things: they're a moving target. As I get older I find myself automatically limiting my learning to things I expect to stay still. When I get curious about a point in something like biology I try to extract the least possible amount of info that is sufficient to answer my question on the level at which I'm curious. The alternative is getting sucked into yet a new infinity I don't have time for. Last year I spent a whole week in a biology thread learning about gastropods from Darwin123. Now I know more about gastropods than is ever going to be of any use to me. The subject of gastropods, alone, I found out, is an infinity. So, I often try to keep certain subjects at arms length.

 

[Simon Bridge]

I notice that a lot of people around here, PF, have a hard time fathoming everyday informal speech. The general insistence on rigorous terminology causes the anterior informal gyrus (Brodmann area 43 1/2, subsections j.&k.) of the left hemisphere's speech centers to go unused resulting in eventual atrophy.

The responce is reasonable considering the rules for the forum and the statements of purpose you'll find in the faqs.

→ "How is consciousness advantageous to humans?"

I can't completely vouch for that translation, since it's the first time I've tackled this particular informal interviewer, but I'm 96.83% confident that, at least, is how the subject of the interview received the question, given his answer.

That is one possible interpretation - but you didn;t factor in the context - an important part of informal speech.
re: a discussion on evolution, then the question is asking what sort of evolutionary advantage conscieousness would have for humans ... to whit: why does it have to be an advantage?

 

[zoobyshoe]

The responce is reasonable considering the rules for the forum and the statements of purpose you'll find in the faqs.

There's a lot I could say about this, but it would take things authentically off topic. The bottom line in this case, though, is that it is useless to correct a person who isn't here about an un-rigorous utterance. All you can do is see whether it's possible to figure out what they mean. The neuroscientist being interviewed made that call, and it is his answer I found interesting.

That is one possible interpretation - but you didn;t factor in the context - an important part of informal speech. re: a discussion on evolution, then the question is asking what sort of evolutionary advantage conscieousness would have for humans ... to whit: why does it have to be an advantage?

If you're arguing that the interviewer shouldn't have assumed it was, I'll repeat: he's not here. Don't wear yourself out over it. What's to notice is that the neuroscientist made a case that it was an advantage.

Having said that I do want to say I think it was righteous of you to point out earlier that Krauss erred in implying things evolve for a purpose. Unlike the interviewer, Krauss is a scientist and, that being the case, there was some risk the OP would soak that up if not warned.

 

[Simon Bridge]

That's interesting - I think we may be talking at cross purposes.

I did not intend to suggest that Maia Szalavitz (the interviewer) should not have assumed that there was a purpose to evolution - her role is to stand for the regular audience after all and it is a common question. It still needs to be pointed out though: Maia may not be here but we are.

Daniel Bor's (the interviewee) response was apropos for the interview... he was promoting his book rather than expounding science. Those of us who face creationists regularly would prefer scientists, and science journalists, were more careful than that. He may well have made comment that evolution is purposeless, it need only have been quick, but it got cut by the editors.

The Lawrence Krauss video from post #12 is fairly typical pop science - i.e. it is more about entertainment than education. Still: Krauss could have been a bit more careful to spell out what we mean by "purpose" in adaptations. He's just being glib - cavemen did not have to solve Schrodinger's equation or do triple integration by parts. All he means is that we are using traits that came into existence under other influences to help us understand quantum mechanics. The process neatly explains why we can understand QM at all as well as why QM is counter-intuitive.

We don't actually know that arunshankar (OP) was referring to that video though. That worthy has yet to return to redirect the replies or otherwise comment.
(OP has a history of post-and-run threads - but has returned to PF since this thread was started.)

In addition to comment on the article, assertions were made about appropriate responces in these forums.
If the question were posed in these forums - asking why the questioner thought that there has to be a purpose is important for figuring out how to best answer the question. The word "purpose" for a trait has a special meaning in biology - the person asking the question may not understand that. I prefer to check before delivering a lecture... others prefer to make their best guess and deliver a short reply to that guess.

It's probably worth while, at this stage, waiting a bit to see if OP is still interested. I think we've covered the available ground pretty thoroughly between us? The question in post #1 is answered right?

 

[Chronos]

All of evolution is survival driven. Traits that do not advance survival are doomed to extinction. The major advantage of human intelligence was the ability to economize efforts. Chasing a herd of bison off a cliff was far more efficient [not to mention safer] than singling out one to pelt with sticks and stones. Erecting a portable shelter was more expedient than competing for local cave space. This is the evolutionary advantage of intelligence - recognizing ways to increase the pay value of survival related tasks. It is an adaptable approach.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Traits that do not advance survival are doomed to extinction.

For a given value of "enhance survival" ... i.e. the peacocks tail probably hinders survival - but it could be viewed as a side-effect of a favorable trait ... say, the ability to discriminate healthy plumage?

Not all traits enhance survival for all time - so we would expect, in any age, to find disadvantageous traits which are yet to die out.

Haven't we been over this ground before?

 

[Pythagorean]

Well, with Christmas over and nothing to do...

To try to summarive my current views on the subject:
1) The human brain has evolved mechanisms for spatial reasoning and pattern recognition, but is not born with the physical intuitions dicussed in the "Physics for Infants" article posted by Pythagorean (#40).
2) The physical intuitions come about by the interaction of the spatial reasoning and pattern recognition mechanisms with a world that obeys the laws of classical mechanics (i.e. via learning). This seems to be supported by some of the evidence posted by atyy suggesting that these intuitions develop over time (#69).

One reason I favor this model is by analogy to the way our visual processing circuitry develops. While it might make sense for the way our eyes are wired to the brain to be pre-determined by genetics, the wiring actually occurs in response to simulation of the eyes by the environment (as shown by the classic monocular deprivation experiments done by Hubel and Wiesel). Of course, certain genetic factors influence the process (for example, certain neurotrophic factors define a specific critical period during which the wiring can occur), but this is a nice example that clearly demonstrates how neural circuitry develops in response an individual's experiences.

Of course, this model essentially specifies the inevitable development of physical intuition because no infant will experience a world not governed by classical mechanics. So, in this sense, you can say physical intuitions are pre-determined. Of course, it would be interesting (but highly unethical) to test whether raising an infant in some virtual reality that presents different physical laws could alter the learned physical intuitions of the child or whether the infant still develops innate physical intuitions consistent with the real world. Perhaps such experiments might be possible using virutal reality systems for studying mice (for example http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7266/full/nature08499.html).

I generally agree with you, but I still think the innate side is being (significantly) undersold. First of all, let me just say that I really appreciate your approach to discussion and I value your perspective; I know neuroscience is a huge diverse topic and different people know it at different scales and aspects (from molecular to cells to systems to behavior) and our introductory textbooks are always changing and always wrong somewhere.

I will start with monocular deprivation, since I find it relevant to the context. It helps demonstrate the false dichotomy of learned vs. innate. Then I will talk about the vestibular system and some of the innate wiring between visual and vestibular systems that lend to physical intuition.

Monocular Deprivation

While some of the wiring is a result of learning, that is really more at the level of engrams than over all wiring structure, and this is a functionally relevant distinction. In particular, it appears that invariant aspects of our environment (such as would be physics) are more innate, while variant aspects (shapes, colors, lighting) would be more learned. The literature:

“ The basic structure of cortical maps is therefore innate, but experience is essential for specific features of these maps, as well as for maintaining the responsiveness and selectivity of cortical neurons.”
The Role of Visual Experience in the Development of Columns in Cat Visual Cortex
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/279/5350/566.abstract?sid=45909110-de27-4bbf-bf1d-ce471a76064e

“We argue that these spontaneous patterns may be better understood as part of an “innate learning” strategy, which learns similarly on activity both before and during visual experience. With an abstraction of spontaneous activity models, we show how the visual system may be able to bootstrap an efficient code for its natural environment prior to external visual experience, and we continue the same refinement strategy upon natural experience.”

Innate Visual Learning through Spontaneous Activity Patterns
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000137

“A comparison of the layout of the two maps formed under these conditions showed them to be virtually identical. Considering that the two eyes never had common visual experience, this indicates that correlated visual input is not required for the alignment of orientation preference maps.”

Development of identical orientation maps for two eyes without common visual experience
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v379/n6562/abs/379251a0.html

“This suggests that the initial development and layout of orientation preference maps are determined by intrinsic processes that are independent of visual experience.”
Development of orientation preference maps in area 18 of kitten visual cortex.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9283830

“Previous experiments indicate that the shape of maps of preferred orientation in the primary visual cortex does not depend on visual experience. We propose a network model that demonstrates that the orientation and direction selectivity of individual units and the structure of the corresponding angle maps could emerge from local recurrent connections.”
Intracortical origin of visual maps
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v4/n4/full/nn0401_431.html

Further evidence shows rescue and prevention of monocular deprivation, implying that the negative effects of monocular deprivation are a result of expected inputs. The system is expecting inputs that have spatial structures consistent with our physical world and when you block light input, the system begins making correlations on intrinsic noise. The evidence of prevention and rescue:

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/9987024
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6553/abs/378189a0.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/22/8517.short

Additionally, horses can walk the same day they are born without running into walls, so while being born earlier in our developmental period has in increased effect on outcome from learning for us and cats, it shouldn’t diminish the innate hierarchy of the circuits and how they connect to sensory organs before learning takes place (or while learning takes place in the case of early birthers like humans).

What’s neat about the visual system… is it has an intrinsic orientation for down, thought to be based on the vestibular system’s graviception.

“it has been suggested that the cortical vestibular network is involved in the perception of our spatial orientation relative to the gravitational vertical (17, 24, 25,27).”
Representation of Visual Gravitational Motion in the Human Vestibular Cortex
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5720/416.abstract?sid=a51c9b39-95e3-48d4-9765-adcb7f2622df.

Vestibular System

Consider how learned and innate are coupled through overall wiring architecture vs. local synaptic connections when considering how vestibular, visual, motor systems, and hippocampus all talk to each other to form fine connections in the first place.

The vestibular system and it’s wiring with respect to the visual system are a conserved trait (across many, if not most, vertebrates). The vestibular system is essentially an acceleration detector. It can detect:

1) Angular acceleration (through the semicircular canals)
2) Linear acceleration (through the utricle, for horizontal movement and the saccule for vertical movement)
3) Gravity (also otolithic organ)

So we’ve basically evolved a little Newtonian experimental lab inside of brains that can confer to us the laws of motion. Gravisensors have particularly interesting implications in our innate sense of gravity and is believed to be coupled to our visual system (as described above). Another well-known innate coupling between visual and vestibular systems is the vestibular-occular reflex which compensates head movements with eye movements.

Interestingly:

"According to Einstein's equivalence principle, linear accelerations experienced during translational motion are physically indistinguishable from changes in orientation relative to gravity experienced during tilting movements. Nevertheless, despite these ambiguous sensory cues provided by the primary otolith afferents, perceptual and motor responses discriminate between gravity and translational acceleration. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11710454
a note

Many of the fundamental assumptions of classical physics are "wrong" (or only true "in the limit" if you like). Not surprisingly, these limits are at the scales of our senses whereas the conflicting modern concepts are outside of them. Properties of the classical realm are much closer to our intuition than reality. These include continuity, locality, solidity, etc. Our intuition for the physical world underlies classical physics. We impose our perception and intuition for the world on the discipline of physics. And this is exactly the reason why classical physics is "wrong": because our sensory systems measure things on a limited scale of reality: the classical scale. And our brain has already been wired in an appropriate hierarchy to interpret those signals successfully by the time we start learning the finer details of our environment.

 

[Chronos]

For a given value of "enhance survival" ... i.e. the peacocks tail probably hinders survival - but it could be viewed as a side-effect of a favorable trait ... say, the ability to discriminate healthy plumage?

Not all traits enhance survival for all time - so we would expect, in any age, to find disadvantageous traits which are yet to die out.

Haven't we been over this ground before?

I agree, but, many traits have hidden survival value; like peacock plumage. That only suggests peacocks have found a special niche within their survival strategy. It also suggests they have discovered a way to preserve their genes. Every species adjusts to find a way to promote characteristics that are attractive to the opposite sex. Evolutionary history strongly suggests that is the case for every species. That is not necessarily important to the long term survival of the species, but, has short term advantages. Long term survival requires short term experimentation.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The Lawrence Krauss video from post #12 is fairly typical pop science - i.e. it is more about entertainment than education. Still: Krauss could have been a bit more careful to spell out what we mean by "purpose" in adaptations. He's just being glib - cavemen did not have to solve Schrodinger's equation or do triple integration by parts. All he means is that we are using traits that came into existence under other influences to help us understand quantum mechanics. The process neatly explains why we can understand QM at all as well as why QM is counter-intuitive.

Yes, it's a pop (informal: for the layman) video but it's not for entertainment purposes.

I've looked at other quotes from Krauss and the picture forms of a man working toward de-institutionalizing people who don't understand how anyone can survive outside the framework of religion. The video isn't about QM vs Classical, nor is it about evolution. All that preliminary stuff is just a jerry-built set up for "...Nature seems strange and at times almost unfathomable..." leading to, "If reality seems strange, that's OK!" He goes on to, "The searching is often more profound than the finding. It's the searching for answers through life, in some sense, that makes life worth living. If we had all the answers we could just sit back and stare at our navels."

Translation/paraphrase: 'It's perfectly possible to do well, and even thrive, outside the institution where all the rules are laid out and all the answers given (religion). In fact, that is what we do out here most of the time, search for the answers, and we have a great time doing it!'

Krauss is a pal of Dawkins and I suspect the inspiration for this sort of 'social work' arose from discussions with him. I've seen Dawkins team up with Derren Brown in the past to do similar work on religious people. They both target mystical thinking of any kind, independently and as a team. Krauss' tack is a lot more enlightened than just battering the religious with citations of the logical fallacies they're making, but I'm still skeptical of its long term efficacy. But my point is the video's actually not intended as entertainment. He's got an agenda. He's an unmarked religious deprogrammer.

So, you and atty are right to characterize it as something that shouldn't be taken seriously as a biology lesson. He has a different goal in mind and, that being the case, he got sloppy with the biology/evolution part. His actual goal, however, is more serious than entertainment.

On the question of whether or not this is the right video:

Lawrence Krauss says that
We evolved as human beings a few million years ago on the Savanna in Africa and we evolved to escape tigers, or lions, or predators. You know, how to throw a rock or a spear or how to find a cave and we didn't evolve to understand quantum mechanics.

Notice that arnshanker is quoting Krauss verbatim from the video I posted. I can't explain the absence of quotation marks or italics, but I'm completely satisfied he's referring to this video.