Showing posts with label Evolutionary psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evolutionary psychology. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Sensory substitution, plasticity, and extended consciousness

Image via Wikipedia
Paper by Julian Kiverstein & Mirko Farina - University of Edinburgh

Sensory substitution, plasticity, and extended consciousness

{{de|Phrenologie}}Consider for instance a blind perceiver that has undergone training with a TVSS device so that he can use the device to perceive objects in his surrounding environment. The TVSS device produces activation in somatosensory cortex. After training however the perceiver doesn’t consciously feel the tactile stimulation the device is producing. Instead he undergoes experiences that in some way resemble vision.
...
We will argue that the perceiver does undergo some change in experience as a consequence of using the sensory substitution device (SSD), but we agree that is may be problematic to call it visual. Instead we will argue that SSDs make possible a new variety of experience only available to a perceiver trained up to use a sensory substitution device. ...

My excited (and probably naive) comment:

Astonishing. Could this be a way to study how new perception systems can come into being? An intermediary evolutionary step, for instance? First there was smell, then touch, then hearing, then vision, etc. Is this a framework to study how these each came online as a full featured system of perception?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, January 29, 2010

Rand vs. Evolutionary Psychology - Norms promoting tolerance and honesty

Bryan Caplan at EconLog wrote something worth reading.


Devils Punchbowl Waterfall at Arthurs Pass in ...Image via Wikipedia
Rand vs. Evolutionary Psychology: Part 2, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty: "If Rand really wanted to build an individualist sub-culture, she would have done so in an evolutionarily informed way. If people naturally care about the opinions of others, jumping on people is a good way to get dishonest conformity, but a bad way to get an honest exchange of ideas. Instead, an individualist sub-culture must be built upon tolerance and honesty. I'd suggest three key norms:

1. Don't think less of people who sincerely disagree.

2. Do think less of people who insincerely agree.

3. Do think less of people who think less of people who sincerely disagree.

I don't claim that these norms are easy. It's tough for humans to follow them perfectly. But they're do-able - and given human nature, they're self-reinforcing. In fact, these guidelines are pillars of the legendary GMU lunch. Our tradition is now in its thirteenth year, and I'm proud to say that unlike the Objectivists, we've never purged a member."


Image via Wikipedia
People moan about overcoming bias - but the unstated is that they bemoan the bias in other people. Disciplines that actually allow one to shed personal bias are very uninteresting to most people. The disciplines that actually allow an individual to shed his own biases are practically the only interesting things in the world.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]