Social Brain

What Hacker News says

1. westoncbJun 2018
   Interesting no one has pointed out that those explicitly studying human behavior might have some insights on the subject as well, by which I mean psychologists.

   This is one the most unfortunate things I commonly run into when reading philosophy (or talking with those who study it): imagine if once physics became an established, separate scientific endeavor from philosophy (though it was once a part of it), and yet the majority of philosophers kept on inventing their own versions of physics (without ever doing experimental verification) and pretending the scientific branch didn't exist. I think this is a fairly accurate analogy for the relationship between psychology and philosophy.

   To be certain there are many subjects bordering on psychology which are still correctly in the domain of philosophy (e.g. free will or the 'hard problem' of consciousness), but then there are many more mundane issues which are already basically settled in psychology which philosophers still treat as if they were some deep fundamental aspect of reality.

   I suppose part of the difficulty is finding quality material in psychology, since it's a vast field with many sub-disciplines. That said, the search can be richly rewarding. There are experiments described in Gazzaniga's The Social Brain, for example, which profoundly changed my understanding of the human brain (and have remained consistent with much more reading over the decade following).

   Show morethread
2. westoncbJan 2018
   The Social Brain - Michael S. Gazzaniga

   (Relays a bunch of super interesting experiments done on 'split brain' patients with important consequences for normally functioning brains. Not at all gimmicky, doesn't read like a popularization—I think my dad said he read it in grad school for cognitive psych. But I read it as a teenager so it's generally accessible, and it'll likely change the way you think about people and their brains.)

   The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Thomas S. Kuhn

   (Looks at large scale trends in scientific progress [as well as looking more closely at the notion of 'progress' in this context]. Probably the most important features he extracts have to do with distinct phases that scientific work can typically be classified under: 'normal' science and 'revolutionary' science. These concepts are easiest to understand in relation to the notion of a 'framework'. In revolutions, we are developing new frameworks and potentially abandoning lots of old work; during normal science, we are elaborating within an established framework. Phrases like 'the dominant paradigm' in this context are due to Kuhn [IIRC he uses 'paradigm' rather than 'framework']. The book isn't so long and his argument for and presentation of these ideas is well worth reading.)

   Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution - Steven Levy

   (Traces the major trends, personalities, and events leading to personal computing as we know it today, starting with IBM mainframes mediated by an IBM employ. Also describes the origin and meaning of the 'hacker ethic'. The hacker ethic, especially as exemplified by early MIT programmers in the book, was hugely influential on how I came to think about programming and creative work generally.)

   The Varieties of Religious Experience - William James

   (It's largely an attempt at a scientific account of the potential cognitive/emotional impacts of adopting various beliefs, though especially religious/philosophical beliefs. James was an early experimental psychologist and philosopher. The book is mostly a transcription of his Gifford Lecture series of the same name.)

   The Philosophy of Physical Science - Sir Arthur Eddington (Got me thinking about deep issues where we still trip ourselves up by assuming that parts of our own mental makeup are parts of the objective universe instead. Also clarified my understanding of the notions of 'structure' and 'analysis'. Also gives an interesting example of using Group Theory for physics work. Not as scary (or long) as it sounds, though it takes some work.)

   Also: Three Scientist's and their Gods, Metamagical Themas, The Society of Mind, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Chaos: Making a New Science, and Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

   Show morethread
3. westoncbSep 2017
   > Consciousness is correlated strongly and solely with the brain.

   One thing to consider with that is that only the brain is able to give answers about consciousness—i.e. it's producer of verbal content and thought,' so there could be no communication of it if something like consciousness were going on at other loci in the body. To get a better feel for how something like that might happen, I'd highly recommend checking out some research on split brain patients who's corpus callosums (callosi?) have been severed (this connects the two brain hemispheres). One of my favorite examples: split brain patient shown an instruction to go out through the front door only to one eye (each eye is connected to the opposite brain hemisphere)—specifically it's shown to the eye which connects it to the hemisphere not used for speaking. The split brain patient will get up and follow the instruction, walking toward the door. Then the researcher asks the patient, "what are you doing?" and cognitive dissonance resolves itself into some plausible but essentially bullshit answer like, "I was, umm, going home to get a Coke..." If you'd like to hear more, check out [0]

   Also, to be clear here—since this conflation derails just about every discussion of consciousness—the article is talking about the 'hard problem' of consciousness. So, the issue at hand is immediate subjective experience, not a self-reflective mechanism (simple versions of that could readily be coded up).

   > If consciousness exists in this universe then it must be explained by the laws and constants of this universe.

   If our universe is likened to a board game with some finite set of rules, e.g. Monopoly, the 'physics' of this universe is fully determined by the rules of the game (even if there are non-deterministic aspects where you have to e.g. roll dice). The non-hard problem of consciousness is a question in this realm, like "can I sell one of my properties to another player?"; the hard problem is necessarily outside the scope of the rules; it's a question more like, "what is the molecular composition of a 'Chance' card?". The rules of Monopoly do not cover this. In a similar manner I believe the 'hard problem' of consciousness is getting at what it means to be a part of the fabric of the universe, and the laws of physics are expressed through that medium, but no specific laws create it.

   [0] Social Brain, Michael S. Gazzaniga

   edit: I wrote 'not used for language' previously and changed it to 'not used for speaking,' which is an important distinction.

   Show morethread
4. tomrodJul 2025
   Or Minsky's Society of Minds, Dennets Multiple Drafts, Gazzaniga's Social Brain, etc.
   thread