My suggestion that the Black Box of the mind is “nearly empty at birth” has been challenged.
First: I am quite happy with the idea that an adult personality is defined by both Nature and Nurture in a ratio not a million miles from 50%.
So I do acknowledge the vast contribution of our nature to the experience of our lives, beyond what is learned in our own lifetime.
However I want to distinguish between the significance of the effect, and the raw information input leading to that effect.
There is a big difference between inherited data and most learned data:
Inherited data has been refined over millennia and largely optimised for survival of the species
We might therefore expect inherited data to be incredibly efficient in terms of ultimate value per bit (just as the small information input to a Fractal program can lead to incredibly rich landscapes.) Inherited data probably provides the very basis of our mechanism for perceiving things, (however it is not the source of 50% of WHAT we perceive).
Inherited data has been optimised for the role of humans over many many thousand of years, so will be primarily about physical survival in the world, (as opposed to memorising the works of Shakespeare)
Learned data is often of low value per bit (train spotting information, integrated circuit identification codes) and only gains significance when related to previously learned information and conceptual models.
The amount of novel data presented to a science graduate throughout their education is quite large, and may have quite low value per bit, especially if not successfully integrated into some internal models (c.f. Richard Feynman’s description of the Brazilian method of learning Physics; By Rote).
So to Summarise, our Black Box is nearly empty at birth but comes with a few incredibly valuable jewels at the bottom, (which may become somewhat buried in useless information later!)
PS I don’t think an engineering approach to the mind will ever describe it as it truly is, yet I do believe that we can gain interesting insights by standing back and asking what an alien might make of our claimed capabilities. An “almost empty mind” needs no defending. It is a system with capabilities way beyond anything that man has made.
Richard
|
|
||||||
|
This Month
Month Archive
Login
|
FRCs – 10 – Questioning if mind is really “nearly empty at birth”
Comments
Re: FRCs – 10 – Questioning if mind is really “nearly empty at birth”
by
gofor
on Thu 14 May 2009 15:20 BST | Profile | Permanent Link
So "Nearly empty at birth" could also mean: how well educated!
Richard ;) Re: FRCs – 10 – Questioning if mind is really “nearly empty at birth”
by
Andrew Cook
on Thu 30 Dec 2010 02:35 GMT | Permanent Link
Hi again Richard
Dont know if youve seen this ... http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.114.6753&rep=rep1&type=pdf Basically the sensory/motor capacity is about 10 bits/sec, which ties in with your memory capacity limit. The current theory is that the brain and NS are largely evolved to produce motor responses to sensory inputs. And that is a long term evolutionary strategy (going back to single cells). There is also an issue of non-coscious sensory inputs : these are not meant to be learned, but just compared - information theory and all that - so I would guess that the information rate is maybe 1 or 2 or even 3 orders of magnitude greater. Whilst the electrochemical discharge rate of the NS is limited to about 3kHz, there is an electronic component that goes up to about 300kHz. Re: Re: FRCs – 10 – Questioning if mind is really “nearly empty at birth”
Andrew, Thanks so much for bringing this article to my attention. I have not yet had time to read it thoroughly but the conclusion that "the sensory/motor capacity is about 10 bits/sec" is remarkable in its closeness to the values I estimate for the human learning information capacity.
So much so that my first thought is that the latter bottleneck may in fact be the constraint in the exercise. I had always expected the capacity of processes that did not involve the higher brain functions to be much faster, as they would be key to survival in the majority of sentient creatures, and required little or no access to higher complex brain functions. I will add a link to this interesting paper to the blog. Regarding your point that "...non-conscious sensory inputs...maybe 1 or 2 or even 3 orders of magnitude greater", can you point me to any evidence, or suggest an experiment to confirm the view? The speed of the internal hardware does not imply an information throughput rate. Thanks again, Happy New Year Richard Trackbacks
TrackBack URL: |
Links & Blogs
Recent Visitors
williyamberry - Wed 02 Nov 2011 06:29 GMT
Richard - Wed 14 Sep 2011 23:52 BST
Scottja - Tue 13 Sep 2011 13:54 BST
tonytimmson - Tue 19 Jul 2011 23:13 BST
gofor - Sat 21 Nov 2009 13:58 GMT
Recent Articles
Recent Entries
Recent Comments
Recent Photos
Search
|
||||
|
||||||