Print
Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral
by Science Daily
Thanks to Catalin Sandu for the link.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080711080957.htm
Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral
ScienceDaily (July 12, 2008) — Children between the ages of seven and 12 appear to be naturally inclined to feel empathy for others in pain, according to researchers at the University of Chicago, who used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) scans to study responses in children.
The responses on the scans were similar to those found in studies of adults. Researchers found that children, like adults, show responses to pain in the same areas of their brains. The research also found additional aspects of the brain activated in children, when youngsters saw another person intentionally hurt by another individual.
"This study is the first to examine in young children both the neural response to pain in others and the impact of someone causing pain to someone else," said Jean Decety, Professor in the Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Chicago.
The programming for empathy is something that is "hard-wired" into the brains of normal children, and not entirely the product of parental guidance or other nurturing, said Decety. Understanding the brain's role in responding to pain can help researchers understand how brain impairments influence anti-social behavior, such as bullying, he explained.
For their research, the team showed 17 typically developed children, ages seven to 12, animated photos of people experiencing pain, either received accidentally or inflicted intentionally. The group included nine girls and eight boys.
While undergoing fMRI scans, children where shown animations using three photographs of two people whose right hands or right feet only were visible.
The photographs showed people in pain accidently caused, such as when a heavy bowl was dropped on their hands, and situations in which the people were hurt, such as when a person stepped intentionally on someone's foot. They were also shown pictures without pain and animations in which people helped someone alleviate pain.
The scans showed that the parts of the brain activated when adults see pain were also triggered in children.
"Consistent with previous functional MRI studies of pain empathy with adults, the perception of other people in pain in children was associated with increased hemodymamic activity in the neural circuits involved in the processing of first-hand experience of pain, including the insula, somatosensory cortex, anterior midcigulate cortex, periaqueductal gray and supplementary motor area," Decety wrote.
However, when the children saw animations of someone intentionally hurt, the regions of the brain engaged in social interaction and moral reasoning (the temporo-parietal junction, the paracigulate, orital medial frontal cortices and amygdala) also were activated.
The study, which was supported by the National Science Foundation, provides new insights for children between childrens' perceptions of right and wrong and how their brains process information, Decety said. "Although our study did not tap into explicit moral judgment, perceiving an individual intentionally harming another person is likely to elicit the awareness of moral wrongdoing in the observer," he wrote.
Subsequent interviews with the children showed they were aware of wrong-doing in the animations in which someone was hurt. "Thirteen of the children thought that the situations were unfair, and they asked about the reason that could explain this behavior," Decety said.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080711080957.htm
Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral
ScienceDaily (July 12, 2008) — Children between the ages of seven and 12 appear to be naturally inclined to feel empathy for others in pain, according to researchers at the University of Chicago, who used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) scans to study responses in children.
The responses on the scans were similar to those found in studies of adults. Researchers found that children, like adults, show responses to pain in the same areas of their brains. The research also found additional aspects of the brain activated in children, when youngsters saw another person intentionally hurt by another individual.
"This study is the first to examine in young children both the neural response to pain in others and the impact of someone causing pain to someone else," said Jean Decety, Professor in the Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Chicago.
The programming for empathy is something that is "hard-wired" into the brains of normal children, and not entirely the product of parental guidance or other nurturing, said Decety. Understanding the brain's role in responding to pain can help researchers understand how brain impairments influence anti-social behavior, such as bullying, he explained.
For their research, the team showed 17 typically developed children, ages seven to 12, animated photos of people experiencing pain, either received accidentally or inflicted intentionally. The group included nine girls and eight boys.
While undergoing fMRI scans, children where shown animations using three photographs of two people whose right hands or right feet only were visible.
The photographs showed people in pain accidently caused, such as when a heavy bowl was dropped on their hands, and situations in which the people were hurt, such as when a person stepped intentionally on someone's foot. They were also shown pictures without pain and animations in which people helped someone alleviate pain.
The scans showed that the parts of the brain activated when adults see pain were also triggered in children.
"Consistent with previous functional MRI studies of pain empathy with adults, the perception of other people in pain in children was associated with increased hemodymamic activity in the neural circuits involved in the processing of first-hand experience of pain, including the insula, somatosensory cortex, anterior midcigulate cortex, periaqueductal gray and supplementary motor area," Decety wrote.
However, when the children saw animations of someone intentionally hurt, the regions of the brain engaged in social interaction and moral reasoning (the temporo-parietal junction, the paracigulate, orital medial frontal cortices and amygdala) also were activated.
The study, which was supported by the National Science Foundation, provides new insights for children between childrens' perceptions of right and wrong and how their brains process information, Decety said. "Although our study did not tap into explicit moral judgment, perceiving an individual intentionally harming another person is likely to elicit the awareness of moral wrongdoing in the observer," he wrote.
Subsequent interviews with the children showed they were aware of wrong-doing in the animations in which someone was hurt. "Thirteen of the children thought that the situations were unfair, and they asked about the reason that could explain this behavior," Decety said.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, July 12, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 68 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #209484 by robotaholic on July 12, 2008 at 12:06 pm
*new study confirms that children learn from their parents & peers* Other Comments by robotaholic
3. Comment #209498 by mordacious1 on July 12, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I can only speak of my two children. At a very young age, they showed a high degree of empathy. I think once they started school it was masked, because they had to toughen up,but not lost. I think they always wanted to please, but morals have to be taught IMHO.[edited for clarity]
Other Comments by mordacious1
4. Comment #209501 by Mango on July 12, 2008 at 12:48 pm
On this website a few months ago a study reported that babies recognize when help is given to an inanimate object trying to move up a hill; they preferred to play with the helper object than with an object that hindered the ascent.So as with Cartomancer (post #1), I see how nature vs. nuture presents some ambiguity in this story, but it does support previous research that sides with nature.
Other Comments by Mango
5. Comment #209507 by macros_man on July 12, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Unfortunately, or fortunately, our ethics prevent us from doing controlled versions of these tests, so that it still leaves a lot of questions of whether the subject's brains are adapting to purely evolved characteristics, or whether they are adapting to conditioning from their environment (parents, interactions with peers, etc).The ideal situation would be to come upon children which have somehow grown up in isolation of society. But if we were to find such children, it would be adding insult to injury to then perform tests on them... although if the tests were sufficiently non-invasive, then I think this could be ethically acceptable... similar to how we perform tests on the brains of people who have incurred brain damage.
The next best thing might be to do these kinds of tests on children from a variety of cultures. For example - it would be interesting to contrast the responses from a child living in America to that of a child who is living in a war-torn part of Africa, and who would therefore be exposed to very different moral conditioning.
Or, of course... once we get a better grasp on the actual functioning of the brain, we might be able to develop abstract models to help us settle the "nature versus nurture" question for specific scenarios.
I think we'd all agree that both nature _and_ nurture play a part in virtually all of our behaviors - but for very specific scenarios, it should be possible to determine in what measure each is having an effect.
Other Comments by macros_man
6. Comment #209513 by 8teist on July 12, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Ha ,not at the primary school I attended we were all evil little shits ,dog eat dog ,show no mercy or you went down in a screaming heap of shit.Tho I must confess I am a lot more empathetic now than I was when younger, having got kids of my own now.
Other Comments by 8teist
7. Comment #209543 by HourglassMemory on July 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Children are naturally empathic and moral because God made it so, of course!Other Comments by HourglassMemory
8. Comment #209562 by Hobbit on July 12, 2008 at 3:50 pm
If our brains were so simple to understand, we would be so simple we couldn't understand them! Other Comments by Hobbit
9. Comment #209564 by shaunfletcher on July 12, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I have no doubt there are some wired aspects to behaviours such as these.. its a practically inevitable result of the evolution of social organisms. However, seven year olds are NOT young and certainly not 'raw' as cartomancer points out. Other Comments by shaunfletcher
10. Comment #209577 by Vinelectric on July 12, 2008 at 4:51 pm
However, when the children saw animations of someone intentionally hurt,..
Whoever granted this study the ethical approval needs more training in research ethics.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
11. Comment #209580 by Teratornis on July 12, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Did the researchers test any psychopaths? Since the incidence of psychopathy in the general population is only around 1%, the research may have overlooked some of the more interesting exceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
For example, it would be useful if researchers could use brain scans on children to predict which ones will grow up to become repeat violent offenders.
Other Comments by Teratornis
12. Comment #209593 by Laurie Fraser on July 12, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Interesting comment, Tera. There does seem to be some evidence that psychopaths, particularly those whose behaviours are extremely anti-social (murder, etc.) have their psychopathology "hardwired" from birth, but they are, obviously, able to learn socially acceptable behaviours in order to survive.
The social skills, however, are always subsumed by the inherent psychopathic drives, which emerge because of an inability to repress these.
Several studies have investigated the predictive factors for recidivist violent offences, with mixed results. Anecdotally, I can report, after having worked with several psychopaths in maximum security gaols, that their attitudinal characteristics seem to follow a similar pattern, in that their "empathy", such as it is, is obviously forced; it is a learned behaviour which is only superficially "real".
As you point out, Tera, it would be interesting to do a study, using MRI,on children exhibiting pre-psychopathic behaviours, to determine whether there was a physical correlation between psychopathic tendencies and a lack of "normal" brain-function response.
Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
13. Comment #209596 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 6:09 pm
TeratonisFor example, it would be useful if researchers could use brain scans on children to predict which ones will grow up to become repeat violent offenders.
It would be a horrible idea. What are we going to do with kids who may "tested positive"? Preventative incarceration,lifetime monitoring and stigmatization, or pre-emitve lobotomy based on statistical possibilities? Statistical tendencies are all that behaviour "science" can tell us even under the best circumstances.
What is next? Use brain scan to find out who may be non conformists, trouble makers...or generally misfits? "Anti-social behaviour" is a very vague and all encompassing term. This sounds like a brave new world masturbation fantasy.
Moreover, human behaviour is complex, we are only beginning to understand some of it. The theories we have about 'human nature' and 'pathology' are likely going to be subjected to a lot of revisions and most of them will probably turn out to be wrong.
We have tried to measure people with the wrong yard sticks before, such as their skin colour, gender, genital size and skull size. While these all turn out to be ethically objectionable and scientifically bogus in hindsight, I am sure the practitioners were utterly convinced that their science and ethics were rock solid based on evidence."Evidence" needs to be put in quotations. While facts are objective, their interpretations are not especially when it comes to complex phenomena that we 1)know next to nothing about and 2) cannot be easily disentangled from confounders and 3) our own objectivity may be seriously compromised because of prevailing and unconscious biases.
Other Comments by Bonzai
14. Comment #209598 by Laurie Fraser on July 12, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Bonzai, I don't think Teratonis (or I) would advocate using such practices as a measure of control on the population. Rather, such knowledge may be useful in formulating treatments for those who have entered the criminal justice system because of their behaviours.
It's a tricky one, admittedly; do we have the right to investigate some people because it may confer a net "good" for society?
Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
15. Comment #209599 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 6:27 pm
LaurieBonzai, I don't think Teratornis (or I) would advocate using such practices as a measure of control on the population. Rather, such knowledge may be useful in formulating treatments for those who have entered the criminal justice system because of their behaviours.
Tera was talking about *children*. I think we are going down a dangerous slippery slope. As you no doubt are well aware that the deployment of technology is not a scientific question, but a political one and power is by and large very concentrated in the real world. If you have a very promising means,--even if it is a false promise,--for population control, the power that be would want to implement it. The way to sell it would be to appeal to our fear and insecurities.
Other Comments by Bonzai
16. Comment #209602 by Laurie Fraser on July 12, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Yeah, I agree, Bonzai - it is a dangerous road, and I would be the last to give governments the power to use such technology in any kind of social exclusion program.
Against this, though, is my own experience dealing with the criminally psychopathic, and I won't go into some of the horror stories I've encountered. Suffice it to say that, were we able to prevent these crimes from happening by understanding what makes the psychopath tick, I'd be reluctant not to take certain steps in that regard.
This is not a utilitarian approach on my part, by the way.
Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
17. Comment #209625 by macros_man on July 12, 2008 at 9:31 pm
If our brains were so simple to understand, we would be so simple we couldn't understand them!
Good saying, Hobbit.
It reminded me of the short story "The Last Question", by Isaac Asimov, where the human race builds a massively complex computer, which no one single person is capable of comprehending anymore.
Or it's even similar with some of today's complex micro-processor architectures, and software.
If we are ever going to understand the human brain, we will no doubt require a lot of assistance from computers, which will process the information, and feed it to us humans in chunks of a reasonable level of detail which we can comprehend.
My guess is that we can reasonably comprehend some of the higher level processes or algorithms which generate things like thoughts and images in the mind, or how we store and retrieve memories, for example - but to understand something as complex as the human brain appreciating a piece of literary artwork, or how the brain ponders complex ethical dilemmas ... I'm guessing that even the smartest among us would have trouble comprehending how the brain does these things at a functional or algorithmic level.
Other Comments by macros_man
18. Comment #209630 by Mitchell Gilks on July 12, 2008 at 10:08 pm
13. Comment #209596 by Bonzai
My thoughts exactly, but I will expand a little. It is not a crime to be a psychopath. I'm sure many make very happy butchers. It isn't a crime to enjoy people's suffering, and to desire to cause it. It becomes a crime when you cause suffering, or wrong someone in some way. Your motivation is beside the point. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by males, between the ages of 18 and 30, that have an IQ below 90. Does this mean that we should heed this statistical correlation, and lock up dumb young males?
It would be a horrible world if we took actions, of any kind, towards individuals because they are a member of a demographic that has a high statistical probability of criminal behaviour.
I do think that from here, it is not hard to imagine other such "preventative measures" being taken against citizens.
For the record, it isn't a crime to desire to have sex with children, or rape women either. It becomes a crime the moment you decide to attempt to bring your desires to fruition.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
19. Comment #209632 by Spinoza on July 12, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Still gross though, Mitch!*(I love the implicit endorsement of free will in your use of the words "you decide" too, lol... not everyone is capable of restraining themselves, and those are the ones we have a problem with.)
Other Comments by Spinoza
20. Comment #209633 by Mitchell Gilks on July 12, 2008 at 10:22 pm
19. Comment #209632 by Spinoza
You're right, and I don't actually endorse free will. I couldn't think of a better choice of words. I only meant to illustrate that I was not saying that the crime must have already occured. Just planning to commit such acts are crimes in themselves.
I agree, it is more than gross, and I pity people like pedophiles, that probably can't help it, and perhaps are uncurable.
What I worry about is opening the door up to taking actions against thought-crimes, and statistically related groups based on no evidence of any actual crimes. These are doors that I think, for better or worse, must remain closed.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
21. Comment #209636 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 10:28 pm
SpinozaI love the implicit endorsement of free will in your use of the words "you decide" too, lol... not everyone is capable of restraining themselves, and those are the ones we have a problem with
How do you know which ones are unable to restrain themselves?
It is unnecessary to get into "free will". "Determinism" is irrelevant to the discussion at hand if you cannot predict with reasonable certainty what an individual would commit crime in the future. By crime I mean actually carrying out an action, not by having the thought of doing it.
The weather is deterministic, chaotic system are deterministic, but we still in principle have no way to make long term predictions.For weather, "long term" means about two weeks.
Other Comments by Bonzai
22. Comment #209638 by Mitchell Gilks on July 12, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Well, not to get side tracked. It depends on what you mean by "free will". Some special, completely conscious form of decision making that only the human species possesses? No, I don't belief such a thing exists. The ability to choose an orange over an apple in the fridge? Sure, but I don't see that as any different than my cat deciding to sleep on the window ceal or the couch.
As, I understand it, only ten percept of our actions reaches conscious awareness. The rest have been (for lack of a better word) programmed by past actions.
Psychology and behaviour is far to complex to just come down to conscious choices. Besides, if it did. You'd never have to ask "why the hell did I do that?"
I don't subscribe to "free will" or determinism". I don't see why it can't be a little of both. That is how it appears to me.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
23. Comment #209642 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Mitchell,"Free will" or its absence is irrelevant to the discussion here. Determinism and tractability are two completely separate issues. Even completely deterministic systems governed by simple, known equations such as the weather can be completely intractable,--even in principle. Such systems are the norm,chaos is generic.
There is simply no way,--and there will be no way,--that you can predict whether a person is going to become a criminal years down the road based on a brain scan.Brain dynamics is highly nonlinear.
Other Comments by Bonzai
24. Comment #209644 by Mitchell Gilks on July 12, 2008 at 10:48 pm
23. Comment #209642 by Bonzai
Although I agree that free will is a red harring in this case, I'm not sure that I can endorse the rest.
I agree that we can't predict the weather, or other deterministic system, but I don't think it follows to "we can't predict deterministic system A, therefore we can't predict deterministic system B".
You seem to be saying that all deterministic systems are in pinciple, and fundamentally unpredictable. I can't even endorse that about the weather. It may be true, I don't know, but I don't think that it follows from the fact that we can't currently predict it, that it is impossible.
There disagreement of mine is also largely a red harring. I don't think that it matters whether we could come up with a statistical figure that said that a person with a such and such a brain scan has a 98% chance of becoming a criminal to lock them up preemptively. They have no committed a crime, and statisitics are hardly something that can't be violated.
We are then not protecting society, we are punishing civilians for having a certain brain scan result.
What I would be willing to endorse, and I am wondering if you would as well, though this is a rather unrealistic, and si-fi example. If, say they checked infants brains in the hospital, for defects, that they could correct, in perhaps the distant future. If there were indeed a defect that caused someone to lack empathetic faculties, and they could correct this in the infant. I would completely endorse doing so.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
25. Comment #209646 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 10:53 pm
You seem to be saying that all deterministic systems are in pinciple, and fundamentally unpredictable. I can't even endorse that about the weather. It may be true, I don't know, but I don't think that it follows from the fact that we can't currently predict it, that it is impossible.
Well chaos is generic, that means, yes, most nonlinear deterministic systems are unpredictable. "Most" means with 100% probability, if you like. The weather is in principle unpredictable beyond two weeks and the weather is a very simple system comparing to the brain. The weather is completely described by the 5 or 6 weakly nonlinear partial differential equations (the Navier-Stoke equations, the equation of state etc) The brain is vastly more complicated.
I agree with you that thought crime and statistical propensities to commit crime should not entail any action from the authority,--especially when the tools to determine that propensity is extremely crude and highly confounded.
Other Comments by Bonzai
26. Comment #209647 by Mitchell Gilks on July 12, 2008 at 10:55 pm
25. Comment #209646 by Bonzai
Oh yes, with 100% probability, I agree that it almost certaintly can't be done. We can predict that a six sided die will land on one side 1 out of 6 times it falls, on average, but I don't believe it is possible to predict with accuracy specifically when each side will turn up.
Though, for the record. I consider all knowledge to be probabolistic. So I reject ideas of certainty off the get go. I misunderstood you as saying that it couldn't be done with a high statistical success rate.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
27. Comment #209648 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Though, for the record. I consider all knowledge to be probabolistic. So I reject ideas of certainty off the get go. I misunderstood you as saying that it couldn't be done with a high statistical success rate.
To be precise, to say that a system is intractable means not only that you cannot predict its future with 100% certainty,--which cannot be done even with linear system as you rightly noted,--it means you cannot even put a reasonable error bound on your prediction.
For chaotic systems "trajectories diverge from each other exponentially", this means small errors in initial data, which always exist because of even very slightly imperfect knowledge, would magnify exponentially in time. And this is for systems whose mechanism are in principle understood like the weather. With brains we don't even have that.
Edit:
Not all sciences are "probabilistic", unless you mean it in the trivial sense that there are always imprecisions in measurements and predictions
Statistics reveals patterns and correlations. It tells you a and b are associated with high probability, therefore next time when you see b you infer that it is very likely that a may be present. This is "making predictions" in the sense of statistics.
But this doesn't tell you the nature of that association, whether a causes b, b causes a or that they may have a common underlying cause c and how. There is no mechanism or explanation in this kind of undertaking. This is the nature of some soft sciences such as the social sciences or a large chunk of medicine and pharmacy. Mature sciences such as physics are not "probabilistic" in that sense. Newton didn't predict the motions of celestial bodies by just identifying statistical patterns, he had a detailed explanatory theory to account for them.
Other Comments by Bonzai
28. Comment #209649 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 11:21 pm
LaurieYeah, I agree, Bonzai - it is a dangerous road, and I would be the last to give governments the power to use such technology in any kind of social exclusion program.
Not only government. I am sure employers and corporations such as banks and insurance companies would like to be able to discriminate against people on the basis of such scans if they are allowed to do that. I heard there are cases in the U.S. where people were fired because DNA tests show that they might be more prone to chronic illness (the companies pay for the employees' health insurance, among other concerns.) In the U.K there were cases where people were denied private health insurance because of DNA tests,
Other Comments by Bonzai
29. Comment #209656 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 12:08 am
Oh, I forgot to highlight a highly ironic aspect of brain scanning for psychopaths. Psychologists have compiled the personality profiles of successful corporate leaders and politicians and found that they share many features with the sociopath.These are the very people who are more likely to embrace new, highly invasive techniques for social control and surveillance and decide how and to whom these techniques would be deployed against. If there is a way to identify psychopathic tendencies through brain scans, we should first use it on the advocates of such technology.
Other Comments by Bonzai
30. Comment #209685 by Laurie Fraser on July 13, 2008 at 2:29 am
Good point, Bonzai - in fact, many business "leaders" and politicians are indeed psychopaths, or sociopaths, but their psychopathology usually manifests in a way that is deemed "acceptable." Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
31. Comment #209720 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 5:11 am
27. Comment #209648 by Bonzai
All knowledge is at its roots, probabolistic. It is probabolistic in the sense that we assume that physics, and the world will behave today as it did yesterday. Each day it continues to behave as it did yesterday strengthens our assumption.
We have drawn the assumptions, and knowledge about physics, and all the roots of any scientific field probabolitically. They themselve may not be use probability, but their foundations are based on assumptions, that themselves are based on observation of past iterations of events.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that such assumptiong are not justified, or aruging against it (as some people do). Clearly you are more than justified believing that if you kick a dog it will yelp opposed to dancing a jig. This doesn't change the fact that your prediction of the dog's behaviour is drawn probabolistically, based on your knowledge of past iterations of similar events.
All knowledge can be reduced to this level.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
32. Comment #209724 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 5:39 am
All knowledge is at its roots, probabolistic. It is probabolistic in the sense that we assume that physics, and the world will behave today as it did yesterday. Each day it continues to behave as it did yesterday strengthens our assumption.
This is a truism. Obviously that was not the point I tried to get across. I meant something more specific and actually has scientific content.
As you probably know, I don't have a lot of patience with that kind of philosophical tagents, they just deflect from the main argument.
Words are only pointers. In discussions we do assume there is a shared substrate of meanings so that not everything has to be explictly spelt out.
That's why I find it frustrating to talk with philosphers sometimes, they like to pretend that they are conversing with Martians and that all common assumnptions would need to be explictly stated. IMO there is no harm in being aware of those things, but they are not always relevant to the conversation at hand. It just becomes tiresome pedantry if they need to be spelt out all the time. If I tell a philosopher to watch for bears tomorrow at sunset, he would go off a tangent questioning how I know that the sun is going to set (or even rise) tomorrow and it would be train wreck from there. You get my drift.
Other Comments by Bonzai
33. Comment #209728 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 5:55 am
32. Comment #209724 by Bonzai
Yes, which is what I presupposed, and why I misunderstood you when you brought up 100% certainty. I had assumed that you just meant a high probabolity, because I do in fact consider it a truism that nothing is 100% certain, and such ideas are irrelevent at best, but I would say more illusory.
(Edit) I see you added. Well, if you look back. I didn't bring it up, nor did I push it. I think your frustation is at your own hand, not mine.
I merely explained the cause of my confusion, and then expanded on it when you didn't seem to understand what I meant. I did not attempt to tie it to the subject at hand, or claim it relevent to anything being discussed. It was meant to be a tangent (I stated "for the record" meaning, "it isn't really relevent, but I think I'll mention it anyway")
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
34. Comment #209730 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 5:59 am
I meant pick a random non-linear system, the probability of it being chaotic is 100% ("Chaos is generic", the integrable non linear systems have "measure zero" in the space of all nonlinear dynamical systems) This is not the precise way of saying it of course, but it conveys the main point that chaos is the norm rather than the exception.Other Comments by Bonzai
35. Comment #209732 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 6:06 am
34. Comment #209730 by Bonzai
I have no idea what any of that means. I'm sure it's not easy to explain either...
(Also, I'm not a philosopher. I'm just someone who easily misunderstands, is easily misunderstood, for lack of clarify. States the obvious, and brings up irrelevent points, and opinions, making things needlessly complicated. Though I can see how you could confuse the two.)
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
36. Comment #209738 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 6:28 am
Well if you have a random "experiment" with finitely many outcomes, say throwing a die (there are six possibilities), the probability being 1 means a certainty, if it is zero it means it will never occur. So in the die throwing example the event that one of 1 to 6 turns up is 1 (certaintly one of the face will turn up, assumming that you won't throw the die so that it ends up spinning on an edge or a corner like in the kung fu movies) The probability of a 7 turning up is zero, because it will never happen.But it is tricker if you have a random experiment with infinitely many outcomes. Say you pick a real number between 0 and 1 with uniform distribution (any number is equally likely to be picked). Or more commonly, measure a quantity that has a normal distribution, that means, the probability density is a Bell curve. Then the probability of picking any number is zero, though it is a certainty that *some* number will be picked. In the case of the uniform distribution, in fact the probability of picking any rational number is zero! But in these cases zero probability doesn't correspond to an impossibility, just that these events (picking a rational number, say) has "measure zero" in the language of probability. These are, roughly stated, very very unlikely events. (now the philosopher may want to ask if real numbers are "real" , or does it make sense to talk about a continum of outcomes like a Bell curve. I won't get into that except to say I think it is justified and I can justify it if need to)
So imgaine you have a "sample space" of "all" dynamical systems (this is not a mathematically precise notion, but it conveys an impression). If you were to pick a system randomly, the chance that it is non chaotic is zero.
I am sorry I cannot explain it any better. The main point is simply that most systems are non tractable, even though they may be deterministic. So to debate about determinism is moot on a practical level. Even if something is deterministic the norm is that we wouldn't know its destiny for practical purposes.
Other Comments by Bonzai
37. Comment #209744 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 6:52 am
36. Comment #209738 by Bonzai
I think I have somewhat of a grasp of what you are saying now.
Though I should have clarified ( and this is of course obvious, and I hope you won't take it as an insult to your intelligence) that things that are tautological are of course 100% certain. This appears to be such a case, to my uneducated eye.
Well I wasn't wondering if real numbers were "real" but I was wondering what they were, and was confused by the whole "between 0 and 1" thing until I looked up what they were.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
38. Comment #209746 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 6:56 am
that things that are tautological are of course 100% certain
No, because remember a chaotic system is one that not only you cannot predict with certainly, but you cannot even meaningfully estimate the uncertainty. In practical science something is tractable means you can estimate an error bound, not that you can make exact prediction.
Other Comments by Bonzai
39. Comment #209748 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 7:01 am
No, because remember a chaotic system is one that not only you cannot predict with certainly, but you cannot even meaningfully estimate the uncertainty
The weather is chaotic, but I can predict that the uncertainty is not greater than -100C to 100C for the temperature of the Earth's surface anywhere next year.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
40. Comment #209749 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 7:03 am
38. Comment #209746 by Bonzai
Yes, but the example you have was an abstraction. There is no chaotic systems in the world with an infinite number of possible outcomes, so it then would not "measure zero" would it? If there are only a finite number of possible outcomes (even if we don't know what they are, and can't calculate them) does that not mean that the same rules do not apply?
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
41. Comment #209750 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 7:05 am
The weather is chaotic, but I can predict that the uncertainty is not greater than -100C to 100C for the temperature of the Earth's surface anywhere next year.
The key point is "next year".
Edit How fast you lose information of course depends on what you want to measure and the context.
An error bound so big would essentially means you have lost track completetly if your purpose is to make say, weather forcasts.
Other Comments by Bonzai
42. Comment #209751 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 7:07 am
Yes, but the example you have was an abstraction. There is no chaotic systems in the world with an infinite number of possible outcomes,
I was using an analogy to try to explain the meaning of "generic".
Other Comments by Bonzai
43. Comment #209757 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 7:57 am
An error bound so big would essentially means you have lost track completetly if your purpose is to make say, weather forcasts.
But that is the point. There are error bounds on chaotic systems. Whether or not the chaos matters depends what you want to predict.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
44. Comment #209759 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 8:05 am
42. Comment #209751 by Bonzai
Sigh, just ignore me, I'm an idiot. I shouldn't be trying to figure this stuff out when I've been up for so long. I guess I found it difficult to sagway back into the actual subject, and was focused on the 100% probabolity thing. I wasn't thinking about the original point you were attempting to explain.
After going back and reading through you posts again. I think I may -- MAY -- understand what you are saying now. You are saying that a nonlinear system (which I take to mean is subject to future change, or does not carry constant values) is such that it is not only unpredictable to a great degree of accuracy in the short term, but as the time in which you try to draw predictions increases, your ability to predict decreases exponentially, until eventually it is analogous to your explaination? Am I even close?
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
45. Comment #209765 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 9:25 am
Am I even close?
Close.
Suppose we have a chaotic system like the weather. Your ability to predict decreases exponentially up to a point. After a few weeks, you lose the ability to forecast typical rainfall, but you can still say that winters are colder than summers.
In the real world, chaotic systems have constraints. The orbits of planets are subject to chaos. We can't predict with precision where pluto will be within it's orbit 100 million years from now, but we can predict that it will still be in orbit.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
46. Comment #209768 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 9:35 am
In the real world, chaotic systems have constraints.
That is true. But I don't think we are even able to figure out what the relevant constraints are for something like trying to predict psychopathic crimes based on brain scans even if behaviour is "deterministic". This is not only nonlinear, but also strongly coupled to the external world. Same is probably true with anything pertaining to human behaviour. This is the original point. The thing about chaos is not even necessary since we don't even have any equation here even for an isolated brain, let alone a coupled brain environment system. I just use that to highlight the fallacy of eqauting determinism with predictability.
Other Comments by Bonzai
47. Comment #209771 by Steve Zara on July 13, 2008 at 9:57 am
Comment #209768 by Bonzai It may be. I don't think we have enough information yet. In a century or so, I would not be surprised if one could model a brain fully, and run simulations of behaviour resulting from different inputs. I don't think brain activity is chaotic in the same way the weather is.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
48. Comment #209777 by gr8hands on July 13, 2008 at 10:12 am
This research confirms what I've known from my own personal (translated: anecdotal, therefore not scientific) experience.I was born into a jehovah's witness family, which discourages associations and influences outside their faith, yet even as a pre-school child I disagreed with their dogma. I believed all people were deserving of love and the full measure of god's bounty, not just those who were jehovah's witnesses.
This was frowned upon, punished, and I quickly learned not to say such things out loud. However, I knew a loving god could not possibly do or allow such evil as there was in the world. Which is why I had such a long struggle to try and reconcile this with what I had been taught and raised. And, of course, why I eventually decided I was an atheist.
In fact, it is why I state that I've been a "goodie-two-shoes" from birth, because I didn't have to be taught empathy, or a desire for fairness or justice applied to everyone. I didn't have to be taught the dogma of the faith my family held concerning not lying or stealing -- I was definitely "pre-wired" with such beliefs.
It is also my opinion that we, as a species, are evolving to a point where this pre-wiring is more dominant. There are more altruists now than ever before, there are more philanthropists, more people donating blood, etc.
Other Comments by gr8hands
49. Comment #209778 by mordacious1 on July 13, 2008 at 10:12 am
MitchellWould you please get your butt off to university? You have the makings of a fine student...dog knows they need more of those.
Just saying.
Other Comments by mordacious1
50. Comment #209890 by Clappers on July 13, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Steven Pinkers "The Blank Slate" suggests that children are socialised by their peers, not their parents. He takes this from "the Nurture Assumption" by Judith Rich-Harris.Her main suggestion is that children turn out the way they do, 50% genetic and nearly all of the other 50% from peers that they mix with.
Other Comments by Clappers
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #209481 by Cartomancer on July 12, 2008 at 11:57 am
I could understand the conclusion for small babies, but seven year olds have taken in an awful lot of social influences in their development. Is there some way you can tell from neurological imaging whether a particular brain response "looks" hard-wired, rather than learned? Are there patterns of synapses which are associated with instinctive behaviour and different patterns with habituated behaviour?
Other Comments by Cartomancer