Check out what's new in the Thinking Meat Bookstore!
Jun 282008
 

Humankind’s urge to seek patterns and ability to recognize them—or even to find them where they don’t exist— is well known and is arguably one of our prime survival skills. When faced with floods of information, be it sensory data, impressions of the personalities of those around us, or facts and figures, it’s easier to recall and use the information if we can fit it into some kind of pattern. A new theory of humor makes what strikes me as a surprising but fascinating connection between our pattern-recognition skills and our capacity for humor.

Science writer Alastair Clarke has come up with a pattern recognition theory of humor that in itself illustrates the ability to look beyond superficial differences in the content of humor to identify an underlying pattern for the phenomenon. The idea appears to be that pattern recognition is such an essential cognitive skill that our brains are wired to reward us for recognizing an unexpected pattern, and the response to such recognition is laughter. By looking beyond the content, which can vary from culture to culture and person to person, the theory applies broadly across the species while still offering a way to explain individual variation. And because pattern recognition is an important aspect of cognition, the theory is linked to other areas of study involving human evolution and cognitive science. You can read more in this article from PhysOrg.com. Thanks to Keith for passing this one along.

Share
 Posted by at 4:06 pm  Tagged with:
Jun 232008
 

The perennially popular topic of what the Neanderthals were like and how they lived is in the news this week. This article from the Discovery Channel describes some work at an archaeological site in southern England that has been a treasure trove of Neanderthal stone tools. The picture that is evidently emerging through research at the site is of a canny Neanderthal population that was technologically sophisticated (for its day). The site appears to have been occupied just before the disappearance of the Neanderthals, and the new view of how they lived may make their demise a bit more mysterious.

Share
Jun 212008
 

So what is information technology doing to our brains? Neuroscientist Susan Greenfield has written a book about the upside and the downside of a world full of email and other instant electronic communication, video and online games, and the vast, beckoning, vital but sometimes time-wasting web of information at our fingertips. This article from The Australian describes some of her concerns. The article also includes some quotes from nay-sayers as well, so it’s an interesting look at her arguments.

Certainly we’re exposing our brains to things that brains have never had to deal with before. The pace of life and the flow of information can seem overwhelming, and immersing ourselves in the new world created by technology is bound to have an effect on us. The plastic human brain, resilient, adaptive, and often cited as a cause for hope, is also apt to be shaped by whatever environment we provide for it, whether we plan carefully to provide an optimum environment or just go with whatever the latest gadget is. So Greenfield has some legitimate concerns, and the question of how our technology is changing our minds is a good question to be asking. However, some of the concerns mentioned in the article sound more like basic human nature rather than anything caused by technology. For example, take her description of the next generation of young people:

“They will be people who are more hedonistic and tend to live for the moment, a life that is more sensory and less cognitive. People who have a less robust sense of their own identity and are therefore more easily persuaded or swayed by the wrong kind of things, as we see already in the way people are easily persuaded into movements nowadays.

“People with less meaning to their lives, possibly, and less of a strong life narrative, so they may be happy rather than fulfilled: there is a difference.”

Maybe in the book there is some evidence to back up the implicit claim that people are more easily persuaded into movements today, but I’m skeptical. (And even if you could pin down that fact, I’m not sure how you’d tie it to computer use.) People have always gone chasing after things that promise an answer to life, the universe, and everything. Fads and mass movements of all kinds have periodically swept through humankind, or those parts of it in communication with each other, for hundreds of years.

In fact the entire quote seems to me to describe an essential aspect of the human condition. It’s often hard to think rationally, to pursue long-term goals rather than short-term rewards, to establish your own identity and maintain it in the face of societal pressure and the crush of day-to-day responsibilities. Collectively we’ve always been tempted, to one degree or another, towards the herd mind, the short-term, the hedonistic. Maybe information technology does push some of our buttons fairly hard, but I’m not convinced that that’s the whole story. I do believe that we should be cautious about which technologies we adopt and which we decide to leave alone, and it would be good to know as much as possible about how IT affects our ability to do the hard things humans have always had trouble with. But every time I hear someone warning of how the human race is heading into trouble and the young folks these days are just not getting it, I hear in my mind a chorus of voices raised in similar laments going back hundreds of years. By all means, we should examine the effect of our tools on our brains, but let’s not get too wound up about the dire possibilities until we know more of the story.

Share
Jun 172008
 

This spring I had a three-month leave from my day job, and one of the things I liked the most about it was that I was freer to follow the schedule my body wanted to follow. In particular, when I got sleepy in the late afternoon, I was often able to take a nap. In the end, that made me more productive and certainly happier than trying to soldier on through intense drowsiness. I’m a big believer in the mental and physical benefits of napping, so I was delighted to find this guide to napping from the Boston Globe. In a poster-like format, it summarizes some recent research into how naps improve mental performance and reduce stress, and provides concrete and useful tips for napping intelligently, taking into account the brain’s sleep cycles and your own circadian rhythms. If I print this out and post it outside my cube at work, do you think I could get away with an afternoon siesta now and then?

Share
 Posted by at 10:24 pm  Tagged with:

Why grimace?

 Psychology  Comments Off
Jun 152008
 

As Charles Darwin suggested and Paul Ekman helped verify, facial expressions for some of the more basic human emotions are universal and universally recognized. This indicates a biological rather than a cultural basis for the faces we make to express happiness, fear, sadness, disgust, and surprise. Some recent research, reported in this New Scientist article, examined the possible physiological benefits that might underlie the expressions of fear and disgust. It turns out that the wide-open eyes of fear allow for faster tracking and quicker detection of objects, and the open mouth lets in more air–all of which sound like useful things in scary situations (future research will check to see how much use the brain appears to be making of this added sensory capacity). Disgust, on the other hand, scrunches up the face and allows in less air. This sounds like the start of some interesting work.

Share
Jun 092008
 

This article from the Boston Globe isn’t about brain science, exactly, but it’s an interesting take on how we find meaning in the results of scientific research. Everyone knows about the butterfly effect, which has to do with very minor changes in initial conditions having profound but essentially unpredictable consequences on later events. The point of the butterfly effect, described by Edward Lorenz, is that the subtle interactions of the natural world confound our efforts to pin down the cause of any particular event. However, the pop culture take on it frequently has it the other way around, focusing on a supposed ability to identify key turning points or critical moments that determine the future. The article is about how we try to wring certainty out of an uncertain world, and about how scientific research is sometimes misunderstood.

Share
Jun 062008
 

The noted futurist Ray Kurzweil was at the first annual World Science Festival in New York last week, and speculated about the possible timeline for artificial intelligence, as reported in the New York Times. He has bet that a machine will pass the Turing test by 2029 (i.e., engage in conversation indistinguishably from a human). Kurzweil has always seemed over-optimistic to my mind, but on the other hand, he has data of a sort to back up his predictions: graphs showing the “amazingly predictable trajectories” of past progress in various technologies. Will neuroscience, computer science, etc., also show exponential progress in the near future? Time will tell.

The argument over whether or not a human-like brain can be artificially created hinges in part on the idea that the brain is a kludge–and kludges are harder to re-create than intelligently put-together objects. Having participated in the creation of many a programming kludge at work, I can vouch for the fact that they can be difficult to unravel later, even if you watched them being made. Now that I think about it, though, at work we typically untangle a kludge as part of the process of replacing it with something more rationally designed. Do AI researchers need to re-create the exact mechanisms of the human brain, with its idiosyncratic history, or do they need to see what it does and figure out a logical way to mimic that? Not that the latter is easy by any means, but it might at least be easier than re-inventing that flawed but fantastic wheel that is the human brain.

Share
 Posted by at 7:31 pm
Jun 032008
 

Based on how people behave, it would appear that we have two ways of solving problems or making decisions. The quick and dirty way comes up with an automatic, instinctive answer, and the slow, careful way thinks a situation through carefully. It’s easy to see the survival value, and the possible shortcomings, of each. Sometimes it’s essential to size up a situation roughly but quickly and take decisive action, but because we don’t always size up a situation correctly, we can get ourselves into trouble. (Actually maybe it would be better to describe them as complementary than as dueling.) This article from Scientific American Mind discusses the psychological studies that have revealed what we know so far about these two mechanisms. The article also talks about the next step: figuring out how the observed behavioral patterns correlate to what is going on in the brain. There probably aren’t two totally independent little circuits or systems in there for each kind of thought, but what is going on when we engage in each type of mental activity?

Share
 Posted by at 6:07 pm