Considering the evolved mind Constraints on transhumanism Pascal

Considering the evolved mind: Constraints on transhumanism Pascal Boyer, Washington University, March 2007

The plot A few silly pictures, to suggest that… Transhumanism needs: A proper, scientific view of human nature A primer on culture and the evolved mind Many complicated, specialised, evolved systems… They explain recurrent human culture They constrain envelope of possible trends

A few silly illustrations

Past view of future fashion

…and the reality

What people really look like

What people really look like

What people really look like

What food should have been like

Actual food

What houses should have been like

Actual houses

What cars should have been like

… and the sad reality.

Why are past futures always wrong? Beyond the silliness… Trendism E. g. exponential curves ⇒ infinity or 'singularity' Technology in a cultural void A better way: Understand technology as cultural production Understand culture as an evolutionary phenomenon

Culture and the evolved mind

Culture & Mind The questions What is culture? In what sense are there different cultures? Is culture in the mind? Is culture accessible to inspection? Is it true that anything goes in culture? How do we measure similarity/difference?

Examples of cultural stuff "So great to eat grubs and sit in one’s mother’s brother’s lap…" "In order to make a good soldier of you, we will first break your toe…" "We [men] make love to women and they never retaliate…" Why it’s disgusting to sleep with a potter’s daughter The individual pursuit of happiness The place should be run democratically

Poverty of culturalism A not too refined model: absorption Culture is “out there” There is an osmosis or percolation process Problems “out there” is question-begging No description of the osmosis process We need psychology of cultural acquisition

How do people acquire culture? Examples Syntax Nose maintenance A fondness for raw grubs When (whether) to murder your spouse Differential equations The gods are watching us Judging that Germans are simpatico

How do people acquire culture? Pathways as diverse as domains of representations Different predispositions Different reliance on external storage Different domains activate different mental systems No unified “cultural acquisition”

Is culture contagious? You “catch” culture from other people Several possible pathways Coercion Voluntary adherence Contagion of ideas and preferences Contagion as the main driving force How does it create vast cultural trends? What is the underlying psychology

The “meme” model: Dawkins, Durham Cultural units: memes as replicators Examples: tunes, associations Differential fitness of memes Yankee-doodle / Schoenberg Fitness as reproductive potential Central mechanism: imitation People acquire culture by imitation Some memes better for imitation Cultural selection driven by memefitness

The epidemiology model: Sperber and others… Population of minds and representations Two varieties of representations Mental representations Public representations Causal chains between the two No replication of mental representations No replication of culture, similarity Imitation only explains little Cue + inferences as main model of transmission

Are there cultural universals? Why the question seems silly: Apparently great variation What we find everywhere is not ‘cultural’ But we find patterned variation: E. g. SOV vs SVO E. g. cow dung vs. cheese Culture as parameters on choices that are universal Why those choices, why this list of parameters?

Intuitive ontologies & cultural input

Is learning the opposite of instinct? A very wrong and very widespread syllogism Development is zero-sum Lots of stuff is learned Therefore very few prior dispositions What is wrong here? The major premise is false See comparison: snail, turtle, finch, human See comparison of PCs in 1980 and 2000

Human learning as non-zero sum More information picked up Humans pick up more than any other species Also pick up info from other humans Richer dispositions: Domain-specific principles Attention to particular stimuli Early dependence on conpsecifics

Evolution and normal environments Q: What is a normal environment? A 1: Generic environment? A 2: Normatively OK environment? A 3: Environment of genetic evolution Summary: prior principles: [a] evolved [b] expect normal environment [c] build structures that go beyond input

The relevance of development Culture is acquired by children… Placing constraints on what can be transmitted Children as “cultural sponges” All language, norms, are acquired effortlessly All seem natural and normal But is this a circular reasoning? We only consider actual cultural differences What if these are constrained by acquisition?

Two ways of looking at mental architecture General capacities: Memory, attention, reasoning… Each applies to many domains: foraging, mating, coalitions Domain-specificy: Capacities for mating, forming coalitions, foraging, etc. Each domain has its way of using memory, attention, reasoning

Domain-specificity: computational claims Different domains different requirements Acquire syntax vs. acquire motor control Eg interact with animals species-level, people individuals Mate-selection vs. friend-selection General-purpose architecture problems Computational overload: biases necessary Problems of vanishing intersections Talking to tigers, or Finding Mr Right in ripe old age: evolutionary constraints

Domain-specificity in cognitive development Different domains, different principles Syntax Living things Intuitive Physics Theory of Mind Many other domains… Different developmental schedules Against Piaget, not just structural change Specific development in each domain

Predispositions drive inferences from cultural input Dramatic examples Re-inventing syntax: NSL, creoles Ignoring propaganda: PC versions of stories More general point Cultural input is always fragmentary Needs framing, inferences These are provided by prior structures

Against naïve realism Good tricks of the mind

Several “illusions” (aka Good Tricks) of high-level mentation Narrative coherence and explanatory value The past really is the same country Personhood in other people They do have causal stability Physics is all about invisible processes Centres of mass and forces and momenta Essences in things and beings Water is watery and giraffes have girafeness

Illusion / Good Trick 1: Make physics a theoretical affair

Intuitive physics and hidden stuff Theory of Body (To. By) Causal innards Inner sources of energy

Own body as a physical affair Specific systems for bio-motion Reactions to perceived biomotion: Creating motor plan Inhibition of motor plan Impossible bio-motion Even more inhibition Represent inner energy source

Illusion / Good Trick 2: Treat other people like animals

We are all sinners …in living-kind essentialism From 3 years of age Stable species Exclusive categories From 5 or earlier Species-specific essence Causal role of “essence” Stability of essence

What are other people like? They have causal essence Internal features called dispositions Causally efficient Stable Causal essence matters more than situation specially so for other people

Good Trick 3: Solid dualism a la Eccles

Are we all dualists? It would seem so Commitment to non-physical causation Folk-psychology with vague implementation But we are much worse than that Not even consistent dualists We are multiplists

Faced with dead people Animacy systems: shutoff (Clark Barrett syndrome) Social intelligence: preserved inferences Result: A tangible counter-intuitive object

Dead bodies as agents PEOPLE BURIED WITH CELL PHONES IN SLOVAKIA [Pravda] “A priest had to stop the funeral ceremony because a dead body’s cell phone rang. A call from the coffin had an indescribable impression on the people present at the ceremony. ”

Good Trick 4: Keep the past relevant

Two ways to create narrative coherence Method 1 Register/post states in robust format Demand path dependence Use past to explain present states Method 2 Register/post states in not so robust format Modify past states to fit explanations of present

Autobiography is strangely biased Autobio memory favours second method Anchoring effects Theory-driven inferences Is that for functional reasons? Easy access to present information Mmmh… seems to presume self-narrative Is that for adaptive reasons? Here and now does have fitness consequences

Good Trick 5: Turn groups into persons

What makes humans special: Symptoms of social intelligence Hypertrophy of social inferencing: Bob realised that Lou could not believe that Pat did not know that Cindy had forgotten to tell Jack that… Capacities for trust-evaluation Coalitional reasoning Complex standards of fairness Emotional interest in gossip

Coalitional Psychology Coalitions are ubiquitous Warfare Political struggle Office politics Coalitional action seems easy No-one bothers to think Strategic moves are intuitively obvious Psychologists can create coalitions!!!!

Coalitional Computations Computation is automatic, unconscious People have coalitional intuitions These are based on principled computation Principles are complicated Benefit of other member = own benefit Expectation of non-direct reciprocity Signals of [1] Treat non-members as equivalent Make defection less likely (more costly)

So what about the future?

This was only a sampler Some other domains of complex inference Estimate value of potential mates Compute foraging resources and decisions Compute potential danger in one's environment Estimate possible niches in social hierarchies Etc etc Principles are complicated, specific Naïve realism gets us nowhere…

Take home message Technology not such an obvious guide Path dependence of cultural representations Depends on assumed state of motivations/capacities Consider cultural evolution Depends on transmission mechanisms Depends on evolved motivations/capacities All this can be studied and is being studied…