71–80 of 81 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t get it :(
I think it means - just as closing your eyes doesn't mean the room becomes empty, wiring the learning network randomly doesn't mean you'll end up with no pre-conceptions (e.g. the rule system at least will need to be programmed in).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not a pure blank slate.
We're not even a dirty blank slate. There are a zillion skills, aptitudes, and personality traits more or less hardcoded in a newborn. Which is why there is such a thing as "human nature" that is meaningful to talk about.
That kind of "human nature" that comes as a conclusion from the fact of what's hardcoded in a newborn baby is only a trivial kind, and not generally what people mean when they talk about "human nature" any more than the fact that babies are born with different eye colours tells us about human nature. Human nature, by definition, is found common to all humans, so a difference in "skills and aptitudes" does not say anything with regards to human nature (or the essence or appearance of it) other than "humans have skills, aptitudes and personality traits hardcoded" (which seems like a very strong claim to me anyway), but that itself would only be a trivial statement. It wouldn't tell us whether it's human nature (in the transhistorical, transsocietal sense) to be cooperative or greedy, violent or peaceful, etc.
Even so, understanding the fact that there is a human nature does not bring us much closer to what that human nature entails. Anthropologists, historians, economists, philosophers, and (some) evolutionary psychologists have a lot to say on the topic. To say that something is "just human nature" requires more evidence than "human nature is unchanging, applicable to all, and transhistorical".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_action_pattern More generally, reptiles are born with nearly all the behaviors they'll need throughout life. Why wouldn't humans be born with some?
>action patterns are said to be produced by the innate releasing mechanism, a "hard-wired" neural network, in response to a sign stimulus or releaser This is exactly what I'm talking about. Just like a baby deer "instinctively" can walk, but wobbles around for the first few hours, what you're seeing is something very similar to a purpose evolved neural network structure who's weights are being set through the princip…
Brain scans of not-yet-born babies shows specific kind of brain waves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A baby is not born with the knowledge of body movement Anyone who's witnessed a birth can tell you this is wrong.
They're capable of movement, I wouldn't say they have knowledge of it though. It can take them a while to even figure out suckling, and deliberate directed movements can take a month or two. Until then they're pretty much flailing randomly and gathering training data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not even a dirty blank slate. There are a zillion skills, aptitudes, and personality traits more or less hardcoded in a newborn. Which is why there is such a thing as "human nature" that is meaningful to talk about.
>Which is why there is such a thing as "human nature" that is meaningful to talk about. That kind of "human nature" that comes as a conclusion from the fact of what's hardcoded in a newborn baby is only a trivial kind, and not generally what people mean when they talk about "human nature" any more than the fact that babies are born with different eye colours tells us about human nature. Human nature, by definition, i…
Many modern people assume human behavior is an effect of upbringing and social cues. A mental model where it is a mix of upbringing and people's inherent human nature can be shocking to many.
Turkheimer's Three Laws of Behavior Genetics is a good world shaking introduction to this world:
https://teammccallum.wordpress.com/3-laws-of-behaviour-genet...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Which is why there is such a thing as "human nature" that is meaningful to talk about. That kind of "human nature" that comes as a conclusion from the fact of what's hardcoded in a newborn baby is only a trivial kind, and not generally what people mean when they talk about "human nature" any more than the fact that babies are born with different eye colours tells us about human nature. Human nature, by definition, i…
Accepting that there is such a thing as "human nature" is a big thing, and at odds with much current thinking. Many modern people assume human behavior is an effect of upbringing and social cues. A mental model where it is a mix of upbringing and people's inherent human nature can be shocking to many. Turkheimer's Three Laws of Behavior Genetics is a good world shaking introduction to this world: https://teammccallum…
Many modern people don't mean everyone. The actual scientific literature on the nature vs nurture debate shows a surprisingly balanced picture which leaves some room for the hope of change. Still, defining human nature, and using it in a way which is non-trivial, requires a lot of work, especially the more abstract you go. Something along the lines of the quote, "To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough."
Maybe we should be receptive to the arguments about human nature rather than (1) assuming it means what we think it does (2) assuming everyone who uses the term shares that meaning (3) assuming we know its essence and appearance right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it means - just as closing your eyes doesn't mean the room becomes empty, wiring the learning network randomly doesn't mean you'll end up with no pre-conceptions (e.g. the rule system at least will need to be programmed in).
It also doesn't avoid preconceptions directly. It just initializes random ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accepting that there is such a thing as "human nature" is a big thing, and at odds with much current thinking. Many modern people assume human behavior is an effect of upbringing and social cues. A mental model where it is a mix of upbringing and people's inherent human nature can be shocking to many. Turkheimer's Three Laws of Behavior Genetics is a good world shaking introduction to this world: https://teammccallum…
>Many modern people assume human behavior is an effect of upbringing and social cues. A mental model where it is a mix of upbringing and people's inherent human nature can be shocking to many. Many modern people don't mean everyone. The actual scientific literature on the nature vs nurture debate shows a surprisingly balanced picture which leaves some room for the hope of change. Still, defining human nature, and usi…
For context, this thread started with someone saying I believe that humans are essentially born as blank neural networks, so that's what I'm arguing against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also doesn't avoid preconceptions directly. It just initializes random ones.
Aren’t preconceptions not random by definition?