What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
42 Comments
- VibhuC812, on 03/16/2008, -0/+10Bad Brains suggest we were created 6000 years ago.
- Ninnux, on 03/16/2008, -0/+5I did some research with this guy a while back. He had a very bright guy work with him at Duke named Alex Hartemink (MIT comp sci Ph.D) who wrote a bioinformatic program called Banjo. I used it for gene signal modeling, but the original intent of Banjo was to model the synapses of song birds. Jarvis' work is facinating.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/16/2008, -2/+7Or perhaps the brain is not segmented into neat little easy to understand sections for the convenience of textbook writers... Why can't both functions have evolved in the same area, and have nothing to do with each other? Or at least separate evolutionary paths leading to the same place? These researchers have latched onto a "this part of brain does ___" model that is rather outdated, and are using it to draw pretty ambitious conclusions that they should not be able to.
Consider an analogy. Somebody who doesn't know much about computers takes one apart, and measures activity as the computer does various tasks. First, they notice that whenever any user input goes in, it always gets routed through the CPU. So they conclude that CPU = input processor. Later, they find that interactions with memory devices also go through the CPU, and that was true first in computers' history. So they conclude that web cams must have evolved from disk drives.
That's about as logical as what they're saying in this article. - a6n28f, on 03/16/2008, -0/+5...nor do you have to know those things to be able to read anymore than you have to understand the inner workings of the internal combustion engine to drive a car. You just need to have recognized their pattern of accepted usage enough to use them in the accustomed way - the same as speaking.
- ozydingo, on 03/16/2008, -0/+4And you felt like you needed to bring that up .... why?
- exomni, on 03/16/2008, -0/+4Why would you need to know what a verb or an adjective is to read anymore than you would to speak?
- exomni, on 03/16/2008, -1/+5What the hell are you talking about?
I guarantee you if you isolated a child from all spoken language, he wouldn't suddenly know how to talk. - smurfsahoy, on 03/16/2008, -0/+3I'm finding it difficult to convince myself personally that it really even suggests it. I admit there could of course be some convincing stuff in the actual study literature that would sway me, but then why wouldn't they have put that in the article? Usually they leave out flaws and details in the article, not big positive pieces of evidence.
And neuroscience of this type is generally referred to as a "social science" as it falls under the psychology penumbra. Especially language related research.
Anyway, yeah. Any further/more meaningful discussion I think would require all those involved to read the study, which is clearly not going to happen. I was just offering first blush feelings toward this. - smurfsahoy, on 03/16/2008, -0/+3As a matter of fact, I happen to be a psychology student at one of the top 5 universities in that field. And I work in a cognition and linguistics lab within that department. Language evolution in particular is not exactly my thing, but I just read a new book on it a month ago, and am familiar with a decent amount of the literature.
So yes, they know more about it than me, but they and I could probably sit down and chat for an hour or two on the topic and be productive and understand one another. I also know enough about social sciences research in general to know that people being experts has very little to do with their propensity to make large logical leaps. I also happen to know that a strict "modular" view of the brain is a state of mind that almost always leads to overly simplistic and failing models, with a scant few exceptions (V1 visual cortex, for example). Language is absolutely NOT one of those exceptions.
You are correct in thinking that gesture is a possible starting point for language, too, by the way. But proof of that comes from complex causal studies and ape research, etc., not looking at two functions that happen to be close to one another in the brain... - smurfsahoy, on 03/16/2008, -2/+5You don't have to teach children to speak? What are you talking about? Of course they have to be taught how to speak. You think it's some kind of happy coincidence that everybody growing up in Russia ends up speaking Russian, and everybody in America speaks English? Each is taught their own country's language...
- stevejobs, on 03/16/2008, -2/+4I thought it read 'Bad Brains Suggest..'
- inactive, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2Now this is a bird with a voice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y
The Lyre Bird: It has the most complex birdsong in the world, it can immatate anything - Ramble, on 03/16/2008, -1/+3Of course it is, everyone with half a brain knows a sky wizard and his magical Jewish son made the Earth in the dark and made man from some dirt.
- Alegoo92, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2They're actually saying "boo-erns"
I need a life..:'( - smurfsahoy, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2There is no evidence that children need to be sat down and taught anything in a formal environment to learn how to read any more than how to speak. They need experience with reading, yes. Not drilling on verb tenses, etc. A parent naturally reading to his child for recreation, reading signs and menus at restaurants to the child, etc. will work just the same way that speaking to the child regularly does.
Adults don't need this structured education, either. If I put you in a helicopter and drop you in Russia, you will be able to speak Russian in a few months, without attending any classes. - smurfsahoy, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2In case it was unclear, after reading over my comment - I mean to put forth the hypothesis that there very well might be ZERO higher-level "constructions," as you say, present in the brain from birth. Just sense organs that are biased toward certain input, and enough connections to make them interact in a useful way with everything else, plus a common environment, could be enough to allow all infant to learn their way to being very similar to other adults later on.
Yes, some personalities, etc. have genetic components. But a gene just spits out proteins. It can be, but definitely does not NEED to be any sort of complex "construction" in order to cause predictable changes in the host. Just protein X bumps into chemical Y and a few dominoes later, you have a lot of dopamine, and are a calm and easygoing person. Or a little more dopamine, and you're schizophrenic. Or not enough, and you have Parkinson's disease... On down the list for every other simple chemical, etc. - smurfsahoy, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2Yes, that's precisely what I am saying, but not in the way you think I am. I am suggesting that all four of them are LEARNED. Or at least we do not have enough evidence to say that this is not the case.
Infants "see," but only sort of. They can tell when there's a big blob of light here versus on the other side of the visual field, etc. It takes a long while before they can see in any way that approaches what we mean when we say "see." Years, even. Sounds similarly start out almost completely random and then get gradually more complex. (as in, they can be explained as spontaneous muscle spasms that then adapt to the environment)
There are also experiments where researchers took the optic nerves of ferrets and rerouted the axons to the ferrets' supposedly auditory cortex near birth. The ferrets grew up being able to visually navigate environments, using their auditory cortex. And when researchers tested the makeup of the auditory cortex, it had organized into the same exact columnar structure you expect to see normally in the visual cortex.
Which suggests that fundamental brain organization can be at least sometimes (maybe always) entirely dependent upon inputs it receives. I.e., the most basic seeming things could be entirely learned/naturally formed on the fly. Yes, genetics make it so that in ferrets and humans, the optic nerve connects primarily to the LGN and then the visual cortex. But aside from the basic white matter framework, perhaps nothing else is inherent at all. - teh_techie, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Award for Best Analogy of the Day - SMURFSAHOY!
- gestet, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1that's coo coo kachoo...i am the walrus....i am the eggman..
- taosk8r, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Movie:Akelah and the Bee
- inactive, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1it can probably even imitate my poor spelling...
- SuperCow1127, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Certain constructions are present in the brain from birth, and the behaviors they are responsible for are evident even in specimens without exposure to a particular culture. We are usually born able to see things, and tell the difference between shapes. Without any instruction or opportunity to learn by example, we are able to make sounds. However, neurological constructions are modified in order for the behaviors associated with reading and speaking to emerge. Are you really suggesting that reading and speaking are the same thing as seeing and making noise?
- Murdats, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1except that you have a lot of people who know a lot more then you researching this.
its not like we grab a mechanic off the street and ask him his thought on the topic.
also it would make sense that language would evolve from movement seeing has how body language is something core to every creature.
even people still use body language, and notice how a lot of people pace while on the phone, or wave there arms around as they speak, I would hazzard a guess that it is all related. - Murdats, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1but it does help if you dont want to sound like a slack-jawed retard.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1It will happen while you are asleep Yoshman...
- burgermind, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1The band?
- jaisin, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar
- Murdats, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1fair, you obviously have some knowledge on the subject matter.
and I do know social scientists are prone to leaps of faith
however these are neuroscientists, not social scientists so I would assume that is less likley, or at least not without at least some basic evidence to follow.
however this is not all to say that this is 100%, even the article itself says that it only suggests, not shows. I am purely offering a counter argument. - yoshman, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1@smurfsahoy: Sweet, I always wanted to ride in a helicopter. :D When do we leave?
- TomPhoolery, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1That would probably be a more interesting article, I'd love to know how H.R. sings like that!
- smithricher, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1bird like humenbeing.:-))
- Findress, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1I have heard of foreign language education programs that have students walk around while practicing conversations in the new language. They claim movement aids language learning. Perhaps it's realted to this.
- forgiste, on 03/16/2008, -2/+2well not really, they could learn to read by watching other people read just like they learn to speak.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/16/2008, -1/+1"Built into the brain?" As opposed to what? Well first of all, I don't even know what you are contrasting, because "making vocal sounds and seeing shapes" sounds like it covers both reading and writing. But whatever it is that this is "hugely different" than, where does this other thing happen, if not in the brain? Does my arm help me read, but my brain help me speak, or vice versa?
ALL cognitive activities are based in the brain, which is built to allow this to happen. So what is the distinction you are trying to make? - lolo2007, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0I did some research with this guy a while back. He had a very bright guy work with him at Duke named Alex Hartemink (MIT comp sci Ph.D) who wrote a bioinformatic program called Banjo. I used it for gene signal modeling, but the original intent of Banjo was to model the synapses of song birds. Jarvis' work is facinating
http://vb.paramegsoft.com/tags/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%85% ...
http://vb.paramegsoft.com/tags/%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1+ ...
http://vb.paramegsoft.com/tags/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%85% ...
http://vb.paramegsoft.com/tags/%D9%86%D9%88%D9%83% ...
http://vb.paramegsoft.com/tags/%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%AF% ...
http://vb.paramegsoft.com/tags/%D8%A7%D8%BA%D8%A7% ...
http://game.paramegsoft.com/category/13/13
http://girls.paramegsoft.com/category/2/2 - Cathinkmonkey, on 03/16/2008, -1/+1...co coo kacha!
- aureliogeorgejy, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0oklahoma, sweet oklahoma
http://oklahoma-services.com - nicko68, on 03/16/2008, -1/+1Thank goodness for the random mutations that led to speech.
- SuperCow1127, on 03/16/2008, -2/+2Reading and speaking are both taught. Making vocal sounds and seeing shapes are built into the brain. There is a huge difference.
- thesquire, on 03/16/2008, -5/+3This is why little kids don't have to be taught to talk, but they do have to be taught how to read. One thing is built into the brain, the other was invented by man.
- thesquire, on 03/16/2008, -4/+2Yes, but you don't have to sit down and tell the kid "this is a adjective, it modifies a noun" or "this is a verb, it is an action word" like you usually do when you're an adult.
- cowsgonemadd3, on 03/16/2008, -12/+2Evolution is fake....
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is