Science and Inquiry discussion

Our book club selection for August 2012 is How the Mind Works. You can use this thread for questions and discussions and to post reviews.

Good choice !!! :-) It was in my "to-read" list, so I will join the collective reading and hopefully the discussions.

I'm very excited to read this. And I think it will flow well from Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

Great! I raed the book and will have to review it to refresh my memory.

Since I've read the book, I'll wait until everybody gets a chance to read it before I post things, since I have a tendency to post everything I can about the book if I'm enthusiastic about it. This is one of my favorite books.

I cant wait for amazon to deliver this to my doorstep, I look forward reading it & to the discussions in the group.

I just started this. I read the 1st chapter but will have to re-read it! Like GEB, it's a tough read in the summer! I am too distracted by outdoor activities and I work 2 jobs but I will try to muddle through. He seems like a very precise and deep writer. For me, it's not a book you can pick up and read a few pages and then put down for a while. :)

You're reading that AND GEB? Your mind will explode. LOL.

Superb book.
"We are chauvinistic about our brains, thinking them to be the goal of evolution [but] natural selection does nothing even close to striving for intelligence.
Over time, organisms acquire designs that adapt them for survival and reproduction in that environment, period; nothing pulls them in any direction other than success there and then."

Aloha wrote: "You're reading that AND GEB? Your mind will explode. LOL."

GEB , You mean Gödel, Escher, Bach ?

i didnt start reaidng this book cause i was in the middle of reading other books , so is there any discussion or talk after you read it . or what ?? "im new here :) "

The discussion will continue even after the month is over. Hopefully, some of us will still be receiving notifications from this thread. I can't contribute if I don't know people were responding.

Yes.

Shaaban wrote: "Aloha wrote: "You're reading that AND GEB? Your mind will explode. LOL."

GEB , You mean Gödel, Escher, Bach ?"

Aloha wrote: "The discussion will continue even after the month is over. Hopefully, some of us will still be receiving notifications from this thread. I can't contribute if I don't know people were responding."

nice , i will start reading it as soon as possible then . and i will check the discussion of course .
thanks :)

You're welcome, Shaaban. I hope you enjoy the book.

I have struggled with this book so far. I guess I was hoping for a little more "how the brain works," rather than "how the mind works." It seems so philosophical and so abstract. I'm hoping that changes in chapter 3, so I'm pushing through.

Eric wrote: "I have struggled with this book so far. I guess I was hoping for a little more "how the brain works," rather than "how the mind works." It seems so philosophical and so abstract. I'm hoping that..."

there i a book out there called how the brain works , i didint read it but im in the middle of one of the same series ,"how the immune system works " and its great . hope it help :)

I am reading this now! :D

Glad to see you in on this, Oscar!

I am reading this now also. Like Eric, I am not loving it after the first two chapters, but there is a lot of good information here and I look forward to a good discussion!

Very interested in thoughts from others in the group, and hoping for some overall perspectives from those, like Aloha, who have finished it.

I'll wait until everybody's done. My enthusiasm's been tempered since I read it a while back, unlike my fresh reading of Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. I need to refresh my memory.

I am starting chapter 5 (chugging along, lol). It is somewhat different than what expected, but won't go too much into detail about it yet. ;)

I am pleasantly surprised, however, that it has a Darwinian and Evolutionary Psychology bent.

Understood, Aloha, and I will catch up on your comments on the GEB thread ASAP. Hopefully, with your GEB perspectives we can connect some of the dots for that book and this one.

Just trying to get back in the swing on GR while grinding through the life/work issues. Ugh - need some relief, and this is just what the doctor ordered!

I will have some thoughts for this thread in a couple of days. Thanks for responding!

This is an outstanding book. Since you're in a related field, you might have a different take on it. I hope you'll won't fall too hard from the vacation high, Jim. Welcome back!

Jim wrote: "Understood, Aloha, and I will catch up on your comments on the GEB thread ASAP. Hopefully, with your GEB perspectives we can connect some of the dots for that book and this one.

Just trying to ge..."

Choo-choo!!!

Oscar wrote: "I am starting chapter 5 (chugging along, lol). It is somewhat different than what expected, but won't go too much into detail about it yet. ;)

I am pleasantly surprised, however, that it has a Dar..."

Aloha wrote: "You're reading that AND GEB? Your mind will explode. LOL."

I kind of put GEB on hold for a while. This book seems to delve into some of the themes in that one. Don't want to scramble my brain too much! Just finished Chapter 4 (revenge of the nerds) which was amusing and enjoyable.

GEB and Mind are very different, though. GEB is more philosophical and a work of art, IMO. Mind is mostly scientific, but wonderfully explained.

Aloha wrote: "This is an outstanding book. Since you're in a related field, you might have a different take on it. I hope you'll won't fall too hard from the vacation high, Jim. Welcome back!..."

Thanks, Aloha!

Oscar and Glynn (et al.), I look forward to your thoughts and will toss some of mine in soon.

I noticed that there's a lengthy GEB discussion in this community, but sadly, I haven't read it.

Amusingly enough, possibly because I am superficial, I have been wanting to read GEB for a while because I love the cover. :P

That's not the only reason, of course.

I thought the first couple chapters were slow too, but it picks up after that.

I was just curious. Is there anyone else here who absolutely cannot see those magic eye pictures? I have never been able to see one.

I checked, and the discussion wasn't much. I think they decided to extend the reading of the book indefinitely, since it is so complex. We did it in 2 months! Go S & I! The cover makes all the difference. If it was in plain generic type, I don't think we would want to crack the book.

Oscar wrote: "I noticed that there's a lengthy GEB discussion in this community, but sadly, I haven't read it.

Amusingly enough, possibly because I am superficial, I have been wanting to read GEB for a while be..."

Tasha wrote: "I thought the first couple chapters were slow too, but it picks up after that.

I was just curious. Is there anyone else here who absolutely cannot see those magic eye pictures? I have never been a..."

You might need to join a Stereogram support group! ;)

Oscar LOL.

Tasha wrote: "I thought the first couple chapters were slow too, but it picks up after that."

Thanks for that reassuring comment, Tasha.

"I was just curious. Is there anyone else here who absolutely cannot see those magic eye pictures? I have never been able to see one..."

I took a look at those pictures and I couldn't see the hidden figures either. I saw Bela Julesz give a seminar when I was in grad school, and he showed a lot of random-dot stereograms that were much easier than the ones in this book.

But Julesz did say that some viewers cannot see the hidden figures - around 10-20% as I recall. And it does take practice, even with the easier versions.

I haven't read that chapter yet, but I think the effect Pinker discusses is very similar to that used for 3D movies - the ones where you wear special glasses. If you can see those 3D effects, then you do have stereoscopic vision.

3D movies always look blurry and give me a headache. I'm defective.

O.o.

Not to worry - I think it just means your visual system is optimized for reading! No need for 3D vision there - unless the book has some of those magic eye pictures...

I started to refresh my memory of the book's content yesterday, but a bunch of terrific literature has been waving in front of my nose, which brought me to lining them all up beautifully in my iPad, waiting to be read. I caved in and am delving into another terrific literature. I will refresh my memory after this book, I promise. LOL.

I was thinking yesterday that I read HMW when my science reading was more on the par of Malcolm Gladwell watered down for popular consumption type of books. HMW was my first foray (besides what I read during school years) into books that are more scientific. Since then I've read books on robotics and Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. When I started reviewing the book yesterday, the beginning section on robotics felt comfortably familiar. When I finally refresh my memory of the book, I would be curious as to how I would perceive the content considering that I now have a few more books on AI and cognition under my belt.

I'm back to refreshing my memory with this book. The other discussion won't start until September. I'm in the middle of writing a review for another book, too. I'm so confused! Brain doctor, brain doctor!

I can certainly commiserate with you, Aloha, since we are pulled in several of the same directions at once. I am just trying to finish Chapter 2 before posting some of my thoughts here.

Hopefully I can do that in the next few hours and post a few comments tonight. I feel your confusion!

I do have a question regarding determinism and free will. It seems that based on computational theory and evolution, that our actions fall under determinism instead of free will. We think we have free will, but our biology and our environment causes us to act and react certain ways. This was especially clear to me when he used the illustration of identical twins. Even when they're separated since birth, they still have the same habits and preferences.

I know that Douglas R. Hofstadter also does not believe in free will. However, his collaborator on The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul, Daniel C. Dennett believes in free will. I have not read Dennett's ideas on that, so I don't know how he came to that conclusion based on his scientific knowledge.

Aloha wrote: "I do have a question regarding determinism and free will. It seems that based on computational theory and evolution, that our actions fall under determinism instead of free will. We think we have..."

I think it is safe to say that the discussion of free will is ongoing, and there are sharp divisions of opinion about it. I have not read Sam Harris' Free Will, but other members have read and admired it and perhaps can comment on their thoughts. I hope to come back to some of the relevant points as we discuss this book (and maybe in the GEB discussion).

I will post some comments on the first two chapters of this book shortly.

Here are some general observations about the early portion of the book (first two chapters). My reactions to this point have been mixed. All of the following are my opinions, and of course these are open for discussion.

On the plus side, Pinker has taken on a major challenge here and approached it in a very ambitious way. This book is an attempt (as of the late 90s) to integrate the histories of philosophy, psychology, and evolutionary biology, and a smattering of neuroscience in explaining the workings of the mind. He grounds these concepts in a new(ish) framework of engineering, computation, symbolic logic and connectionist modeling. In places, I think he does a fabulous job of shooting down failed models of the past – (e.g. the behaviorist (Skinner) school of psychology), and supporting the evolutionary, computational and modular approach to understanding the mind. His writing is usually very clear and crisp, and he entertains with amusing anecdotes and witty observations.

On the other hand, there are striking examples where he argues a point forcefully (and correctly, I think), then comes back with a series of statements that distort or misstate the argument he just made. I thought his discussions of natural selection and the ‘selfish’ gene on the one hand (very good), and how genes ‘designed’ and ‘engineered’ our brains/minds on the other (bad), were particularly annoying in this respect. I will expand on this point in another post. For now, let’s just say that selection and design are two very different concepts, and I didn’t see that clear distinction in his writing.

I will stop there for now, and post a few more related points after I get some sleep. I welcome discussion, disagreement, etc.

Thank you for this, Jim. It's great hearing from people who are in the field. I will respond to this later when I have more focus time.

I have Harris' Free Will. In fact, I have a few of his collection that I have to read. Thank you.

Jim wrote: "Aloha wrote: "I do have a question regarding determinism and free will. It seems that based on computational theory and evolution, that our actions fall under determinism instead of free will. We..."

Aloha wrote: "Thank you for this, Jim. It's great hearing from people who are in the field. I will respond to this later when I have more focus time."

Thanks, Aloha! I will be back later as well.

Jim, I can see why there would be a problem with saying how the gene "designed" our brains/minds, especially in the science of natural selection. That would leave open the possibility of an omnipotent being, a creator. Designing implies creation, a conscious force.

I finished the book! But I am trying to collect my thoughts for a bit. :)

I'll have to reread Pinker's passages on that to see whether he meant that. I think he said that to reflect his idea that we have wondrous computational minds, which ends up conflicting with the science of natural selection. It's kind of a backward look at the accidental result instead of the selection process itself. It's like saying that we have this wonderful result, so it must be by design.

Have you looked at Benjamin Libet's work on neuroscience and free will? He has an essay in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, "Do We Have Free Will?". In his experiment, the brain began the volitional process before the activation of the muscle. However, in the differentiation between "awareness" of wanting to do the act and the act, the experiment showed that the brain initiated " the voluntary act unconsciously". Now, a subject may veto an act once the subject becomes aware of wanting to initiate the act. Basically, the experiment revealed that we can control our volition, but it is not conclusively from free will. Of course, this involves explaining what "awareness" is. He said that it "would include the content of the conscious urge to act and the content of factors that may affect a conscious veto."

That can be literal with this scientist crowd.

Oscar wrote: "I finished the book! But I am trying to collect my thoughts for a bit. :)"