Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.atheism,alt.pagan,alt.consciousness,comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!prodigal.psych.rochester.edu!stevens
From: stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens)
Subject: Re: THE BRAIN AND THE BIRTHRIGHT OF A CHILD
Message-ID: <1994Dec25.223026.21759@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@galileo.cc.rochester.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
References: <3dkn00$ps7@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 94 22:30:26 GMT
Lines: 162

<3dkn00$ps7@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> roose@ix.netcom.com (Richard Roose) writes:

>THE BRAIN AND THE BIRTHRIGHT OF A CHILD

Where the F*** does the author get off making these unsubstantiated claims?

[stuff cut, leaving certain dubious quotes.  I felt any context omitted was
irrelevent, but refer to the original post if you think I was harsh in
judgement]

>It is now accepted that 
>the basis of the human mind is the neural network concept.  

Far from "accepted."

>  ....At birth, since the great mass of the 
>brain is still unconnected, the human infant has no awareness of self.  

Self-awareness of infants is still, as far as I know, highly debated in
clinical and developmental literature.

>  ...It is 
>called the limbic system and it is the part of the brain which generate 
>emotions.  

This is also debated among neurologists.  Although the limbic system has
a high density of opioid and cortisol-responsive receptors, GABA and
seritonin, as active in other areas, also seem to play a role.  Testosterone
functions in relation to arousal/anxiety and is correlated with certain
social-emotional states correlated with dominance activity (see Allan Mazur,
1985).  Further, lesions to the amygdala and other libmic structures don't
give consistent results in attentuating emotional reactions (see
Reite and Field, 1985).

>Emotions are an intricate part of intelligence and are the primary 
>motivation for all learning.  

While I happen to agree with this, it is hardly an accepted theory in
neuroscience, as far as I know.

> The child soon runs into the basic conflict of human 
>instinct... gratification or acceptance by society?  Emotionally, both 
>these instinct are equal, so the child must being to learn to make 
>"mental" value judgments.  

You talk in terms of physiology up until this point.  But how "acceptance
by society" becomes an atomic percept is beyond me.  Unless you are talking
about "acceptence by society" as an extrapolation of the features of
attachment mechanisms in the limbic system, as possibly indicated
by your previous reference to early infant trauma responses to non-
optimal caregiving.  However, it should be noted that "acceptence by
SOCIETY" is a cognitive construct to begin with, as opposed to your
comment about "mental" judgements following that.

>[people will object to the idea that]
>human society operates from a value system developed by a five year old 
>child.  But, the evidence is clear that this is true.  Ask any 
>practicing psychologist.  

How about you citing some?


>The human emotions, or hardwired instincts guide human toward five major 
>goals: survival, procreation, gratification, acceptance and success.  

This is absolutely ridiculous.  ANY citations for this as being an
empirically determined definitive list?

>Unless pathologically or mentally impaired, every human who has ever 
>lived on planet earth has been motivated and guided by these five 
>identical goals through out their lives.  Survival and procreation need 
>little explanation, they are self evident goals of every living 
>organism.  Gratification, acceptance and success are goals which are 
>indigenous only to mammals, and here they are stronger in higher order 
>mammals and of course strongest in the human.  The latter two of these 
>three emotions bear closer inspection.

Are you correlating "acceptance" with attachment, which is indicated in
the literature as correlated with limbic activities?  Do you have any
definition of "success?"  Are you talking abd status heirarchies,
which have been shown to be correlted with testosterone activity in
male and female primates as a result of dominance contests?

>First, here is the fundamental, biological, instinctual reason for 
>competition between humans.  There has always been competition between 
>humans because it is in human nature to compete.  There always will be 
>competition between humans because it is human nature to compete.  

>Second, here is the fundamental, biological, instinctual reason for 
>cooperation between humans.  There has always been cooperation between 
>humans because it is in human nature to cooperate.  There always will be 
>cooperation between humans because it is human nature to cooperate.  

These claims are both unsubstantiated. 

>In 
>rational societies, rational individuals "learn" to balance 
>"gratification" and "acceptance" by limiting their individual 
>gratification in exchange for acceptance by society.   

I assume the idea of cooperation in "ratioanl" societies is something
you're getting from literature related to Axelrod's finding that
tit-for-tat strategies are computationally discovered in evolving/
learning systems which are competing.  But first of all, that something
is rational doesn't mean people do it, and further, Tversky and Kahneman
have gone to great lengths that peopel AREN'T rational, and further, you
yourself claimed that were are at base emotional and don't operate in
Spock-like rationality, so why does rational society suddent
enter the picture?

>We can now, only because of the recent explosion in human knowledge 
>which allows us to understand both what intelligence is and how the 
>human brain functions to produce intelligence, finally define what 
>constitutes human success.  

There is neither scientific consensus about what intelligence is nor about
how the brain produces it.  Please refrain from such ridiculous claims.

>The fundamental, biological, instinctual 
>human success "goal" is:

>"The correct visualization of a future, followed by the construction and 
>execution of plans and options which result in a realization of the 
>visualized future."

Ah, as hinted at earlier, someone who is going the rational choice route.
Actually, it sounds vaguely like you have been influenced by philosopher/
mathematician Johann DeVree.  Have you read his stuff?  It is fascinating,
and would be amazing if ANYONE in psychology, politics or game-theory took
predicted utility seriously any more.

>It is obvious from this understanding of the human brain that the most 
>significant factor in the development of intelligence and freewill in 
>any human is the care and experiences that the individual human is 
>subjected to during their formative years.  I use the term "subjected" 
>purposely, because children have no choice in either their birth or the 
>care and experiences they receive during their formative years.  It is 
>every child's "absolute" birthright to be born and raised in a manner 
>which will allow them to reach their "full" potential as intelligent and 
>freewilled adults, eager, willing and able to be contributing members of 
>society.   The denial of that birthright to ANY child is as close to a 
>definition of "evil" as humanity will ever conceive.   Especially when 
>that denial is made by a society as rich and bountiful as the United 
>States of America.

There are many logical leaps in this paragraph, and after such a carefully
argue sequence, even if based on unsubstantiated claims, it pains me to
see such sloppy thinking.  The paragraph says,

1) The most significant factor in intelligence and free will is upbringing.
2) Upbringing is by nature imposed on infants and non-consentual.
3) It is every child's "absolute" birthright to be born and raised to
   reach their full potential.

How does 3) follow from ANYTHING said before it?  You weren't talking abotu
RIGHTS at all up to this point, and now you talk as if you have proven a
teleological thesis!!!

Greg Stevens

stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu

