four routes of cognitive evolution cecilia heyes else / ucl joint else / abc workshop “exploring...
Post on 12-Jan-2016
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Four Routes of Cognitive Evolution
Cecilia Heyes
ELSE / UCL
Joint ELSE / ABC Workshop “Exploring the Boundaries of Rationality”,London, 19-20 June 2003
Natural selection changes rules and representations
or
Developmental selection
or
Input processes
Source Locus
Extension
Naturalselection
Developmentalselection
Rules & reps Input process
LOCUS
SOURCE
Phylogeneticconstruction
Phylogeneticinflection
Ontogeneticconstruction
Ontogeneticinflection
Labels
Heyes (in press) Four routes of cognitive evolution. Psychological Review.
Stomach example
Enzymes= rules & reps
Foods= input process
Natural selectionNew enzymes > higher fitness
(Phylogenetic construction)
Developmental selectionProliferation with use,
loss with disuse(Ontogenetic construction)
Natural selectionNew jaw > higher fitness
(Phylogenetic inflection)
Developmental selectionIngestion > strength > more & better food
(Ontogenetic inflection)
Types of Evidence
Natural selection
• Poverty of the stimulus
• Genetically heritable
Developmental selection
• Wealth of the stimulus
• Not genetically heritable
Adaptive character
Neural localisation
Examples of ‘other’ routes
• Face processing
• Theory of mind
• Imitation
Face processing
Distinctive rules / reps - configural processing Neonatal face preference
Farah et al (1998) Psych Rev, 105, 482-498
BUT Neonatal effect subcortical
Ontogenetic construction
Gautier et al (2000)Nat. Neuro., 2, 568-573
Configural processing of other stimuli
Invariant development
Autism is heritable
Theory of mind
Distinctive rules / representations - reps of mental reps
Phylogenetic or Ontogenetic Construction
Karin-D’Arcy & Povinelli (2002) IJCP, 15, 21-54
BUT • Hearing-impaired / siblings• Nonhuman primates
BUT • Problems more general• Earliest in joint attention
• Neonatal evidence in question
• Learning models now available
Imitation
Innate mechanism with distinctive rules / reps ?
Anisfeld (1996) Dev. Rev, 16, 149-161
Ontogenetic inflection
Open Open CClose Open I
Open Close IClose Close C
TEST
Heyes, Bird & Haggard (in prep)
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
RT
ms
18 ms
C I
Can learning counteract automatic imitation ?
24 hrs
Open Open CClose Open I
Open Close IClose Close C
TEST
Open CloseClose Open
TRAINING
432 trials (6 x 72)
Open OpenClose Close
GROUP
Incompatible
Compatible
RT
ms
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
Comp IncompCC I I
34 ms 9 ms
Conclusion
• There are at least two sources and two loci of evolutionary change affecting cognitive processes
• It is possible that few adaptive characteristics of cognition are ‘adaptations’
Why describe developmental selection as ‘evolutionary’ ?
• Optional • Historical accident that VSR first identified at genetic level • Doesn’t make all cognitive change evolutionary
Information acquisition without systematic change to input or mechanisms (e.g. fact learning)
Changes to input and/or mechanism that are neutral or delecterious wrt fitness
Why not ascribe all adaptive effects of LD&C to natural selection ?
• Some not ‘foreseen’ by natural selection when LDC mechanism phylogenetically constructed
e.g. serrated finger nails
• In these cases ascription to natural selection non-discriminative / non-explanatory, like appeal to ‘laws of physics’
top related