To Mr. Phelps : previous panel talked about the origins and mapping of cognitive abilities in evolution and used a different vocabulary than you did : cognitive functions as types and variations across species as tokens. Using those terms : «is spatial memory a token of the episodic memory type?» be an accurate way to ask your very first question. If so, would it be possible to find a genetic foundation for those «types» and «tokens» ? Or are those in the philosophical realm?
Posting my verbal quesiton here: I asked Simmons if the mega-bats (supposedly non-echolocating ones) have a big difference in brain morphology compared to echolocating ones, and if these bats echolocate at all, is there a degree of echolocation use? Turns out there is huge difference in all of that across the Chiroptera order.
Several factors make the social environment promote interindividual differences, such as frequency-dependent selection and stuff like that. We saw in the last presentation that variability can be maintained by selection and how disruptive selection can promote different behavioral phenotypes. My question is: What is your insight about the most promising avenue to explain interindividual differences in flexibility, under the influence of social environments? Why aren’t we all as much flexible, if different behaviors are better in different social context?
I was really surprised when Mr. Simmons said in his talk that echolocalisation among bats and dolphins works quite differently. This made me thought about many other traits and abilities that look apparently the same but works differently underneath. This lead me to question studies with a reductionist approach, trying to find the substratum of what we call « consciousness » and « sentience » for example. How far can the bridges be made when a single ability as echolocalisation can as much varied in its use. In other words, my question is addressing your opinions : why study the multiple manifestation of cognition, consciousness and sentience, rather than trying to find where those traits « begin »?
Hi Frédérick, you use the term "reductionist approach" but are you sure it means what you think it means..? At this point, no one is even dreaming to be able to find a substrate of consciousness or sentience. No one even understands why consciousness exists nor what it physically amounts to. Some call it the Hard Problem.
You also ask : "why study the multiple manifestation of cognition, consciousness and sentience, rather than trying to find where those traits « begin »?"
I have no answer, but I do have a few questions for you:
First, how do you propose we find "where something begins" without relying on the usual investigative method of looking at individual cases(and then you rinse and repeat)? Surely you're not implying we can look everywhere at once?
Second, what do you mean by "multiple manifestations of cognition"? What are "manifestations of cogniton"? Do you mean: why study different species? And if so, what alternative would you propose..?
I was amazed by human "echolocators", and tried to find more about those individuals! https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-does-human-echolocation-work-180965063/ https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cholocalisation_humaine (for the included links) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation (for the included links) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20514997 http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/285/1873/20172735 https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.4987156 Dr Harnad often says « When it comes to the feelings of others, we can only infer them, based on their behavior, unless they tell us. » I think these remarkable human beings can be a solution to this problem when we’re talking about what can be felt when « seeing by the sound »! https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=113&v=2IKT2akh0Ng Social aspects of cognition are usually found in the cortex, but we also talked about sub-cortical here: The problem is that "brain" is a short word for a range of behaviors. The criterias are rather abitrary ones. The activity is in fact distributed across the regions, within groups of individuals neurons. So we have to find what the computations are. Some are cortical and some sub-cortical. The «social» is not a specialized brain function either.
At the beginning of the panel, Professor Simmons said that most experiments on spatial cognition concentrate on the visual sensory system of animals. Although vision is undoubtedly important for a lot of animals, I wonder if the study of spatial cognition throught the olfactory system might not offer a greater window to find proof of sentience in animals. In humans, odours are very powerful triggers of memory and emotion. Is this the case for animals? Considering that the neuroanatomical size of the olfactory system is greater than any other sensory system in a lot of animals, why are scientist so fond of studying vision? I know that from a methodological perspective the study of the olfactory system can be really expensive, but should the scientific community put a greater emphasis on it to make strides in animal sentience?
To Mr. Phelps : previous panel talked about the origins and mapping of cognitive abilities in evolution and used a different vocabulary than you did : cognitive functions as types and variations across species as tokens. Using those terms : «is spatial memory a token of the episodic memory type?» be an accurate way to ask your very first question. If so, would it be possible to find a genetic foundation for those «types» and «tokens» ? Or are those in the philosophical realm?
ReplyDeletePosting my verbal quesiton here: I asked Simmons if the mega-bats (supposedly non-echolocating ones) have a big difference in brain morphology compared to echolocating ones, and if these bats echolocate at all, is there a degree of echolocation use? Turns out there is huge difference in all of that across the Chiroptera order.
ReplyDeleteSeveral factors make the social environment promote interindividual differences, such as frequency-dependent selection and stuff like that. We saw in the last presentation that variability can be maintained by selection and how disruptive selection can promote different behavioral phenotypes. My question is: What is your insight about the most promising avenue to explain interindividual differences in flexibility, under the influence of social environments? Why aren’t we all as much flexible, if different behaviors are better in different social context?
ReplyDeleteI was really surprised when Mr. Simmons said in his talk that echolocalisation among bats and dolphins works quite differently. This made me thought about many other traits and abilities that look apparently the same but works differently underneath. This lead me to question studies with a reductionist approach, trying to find the substratum of what we call « consciousness » and « sentience » for example. How far can the bridges be made when a single ability as echolocalisation can as much varied in its use. In other words, my question is addressing your opinions : why study the multiple manifestation of cognition, consciousness and sentience, rather than trying to find where those traits « begin »?
ReplyDeleteHi Frédérick, you use the term "reductionist approach" but are you sure it means what you think it means..? At this point, no one is even dreaming to be able to find a substrate of consciousness or sentience. No one even understands why consciousness exists nor what it physically amounts to. Some call it the Hard Problem.
DeleteYou also ask : "why study the multiple manifestation of cognition, consciousness and sentience, rather than trying to find where those traits « begin »?"
I have no answer, but I do have a few questions for you:
First, how do you propose we find "where something begins" without relying on the usual investigative method of looking at individual cases(and then you rinse and repeat)? Surely you're not implying we can look everywhere at once?
Second, what do you mean by "multiple manifestations of cognition"? What are "manifestations of cogniton"? Do you mean: why study different species? And if so, what alternative would you propose..?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was amazed by human "echolocators", and tried to find more about those individuals!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-does-human-echolocation-work-180965063/
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cholocalisation_humaine (for the included links)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation (for the included links)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20514997
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/285/1873/20172735
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.4987156
Dr Harnad often says « When it comes to the feelings of others, we can only infer them, based on their behavior, unless they tell us. » I think these remarkable human beings can be a solution to this problem when we’re talking about what can be felt when « seeing by the sound »!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=113&v=2IKT2akh0Ng
Social aspects of cognition are usually found in the cortex, but we also talked about sub-cortical here: The problem is that "brain" is a short word for a range of behaviors. The criterias are rather abitrary ones. The activity is in fact distributed across the regions, within groups of individuals neurons. So we have to find what the computations are. Some are cortical and some sub-cortical. The «social» is not a specialized brain function either.
At the beginning of the panel, Professor Simmons said that most experiments on spatial cognition concentrate on the visual sensory system of animals. Although vision is undoubtedly important for a lot of animals, I wonder if the study of spatial cognition throught the olfactory system might not offer a greater window to find proof of sentience in animals. In humans, odours are very powerful triggers of memory and emotion. Is this the case for animals? Considering that the neuroanatomical size of the olfactory system is greater than any other sensory system in a lot of animals, why are scientist so fond of studying vision? I know that from a methodological perspective the study of the olfactory system can be really expensive, but should the scientific community put a greater emphasis on it to make strides in animal sentience?
ReplyDelete