Stanislas Dehaene, reading. The greatest invention of mankind, and what happened here in our heads, Munich 2010 (2009) - description of the subject and the action subject in brain research
- for interdisciplinary brain research
- to neuro-physiological functions of the brain, consciousness and behavior
- to neuro-physiological functions of the brain: competition versus reciprocity
- to neuro-physiological functions of the brain: Perception of Shape
- to neurophysiological functions of the brain: Proto letters
- to neurophysiological function of the brain: school
The last post I have Damasio program for research into human consciousness under the heading of "triangulation" from "mind, behavior and brain" is mentioned. (See Antonio R. Damasio, I feel, therefore I am. The decryption of consciousness, Berlin 8 / 2009, p.25)) The products listed in this research triangle "behavior" is not easy to just any behavioristic conditioning phenomenon, but the whole abundance of observable manifestations of life: "Human behavior in the fullness of its possibilities can not be understood in one aspect." (Plessner: Steps, p. xviii) And again Plessner: "
Only the behavior explains the body , just the man to his reserved opinion and objective types of behavior, speech, action figures, laughter and tears, make the human body, of course, complete his anatomy "(Plessner: laughter / tears, p.11).
We have it almost to a reversal the neurophysiological sight to do: not by neurons can come to infer the behavior but the behavior is the first of the neuro-physiological functions of course. I speak wisely of neurophysiological
functionality because I want to make it clear that we are not dealing with the brain with a sense of itself, with an end in itself, but with a Tool, as tools of manipulation of our hands and our feet are instruments of locomotion. I use with good reason in my post of 19:02:11 Assmann differentiation for type
discussed : I was very aware of that conduct to Dehaene's theory that the brain with its limited possibilities and limits of plasticity of both the cultural development as well as individual learning determined. (See Dehaene, 2010, p. 132, 164f., 195ff., 202, 241f., 245, 247, 249, 352) I think replies that it is the neuro-physiological functions of the brain to the same problems as in the functionality of various cultural Forms of writing: not its functionality determines what benefits different cultures from their writings, but it depends on the use of self, that is used to the way a culture their writing.
At least that is Assmann's thesis, and as I see it also with regard to the limited plasticity of the brain. Interestingly, Dehaene described even his own thesis as "very speculative" (see Dehaene, 2010, p.240), and he cites a number of counter arguments and counter-examples that contradict his thesis. In fact, this series is so extensive and impressive that you can not really help but come to the opposite view: that the neuro-physiological functions of the brain's enormous for us include general yet unforeseen plasticity, which is open to any possible nor conceivable kind of cultural development. So when it comes to making claims against cultural relativism such thing as limits of human nature (see Dehaene, 2010, p.197), then you have to look elsewhere and this limits the emphasis is on the general human anatomy, the brain
and the body, and - as Plessner - try to determine a corresponding ratio determination of body abdomen out unchanging features of human nature.
But here is to make it Dehaene These go to the counter arguments that he gives himself. Dehaene's argument rests on the concept of "neuronal recycling". (See Dehaene, 2010, p. 16, 90, 99, 105f., 162-165, 167, 195ff. And elsewhere), he draws on an already old observation that the evolution not only on the principle of adaptation to local conditions and running but also to the possibility of recourse, remodel already existing adaptations, ie "Exaption. (See Dehaene, 2010, p.164) This is done for example in our ear bones that were once been gills. The brain is known to be composed of different parts at different times, resulting, probably related with the different survival needs in the evolution of man always exaptiert were thus transformed.
Now Dehaene shows on learning to read that a cultural skill that is gerademal only 5,000 years old, in perfect harmony with the neuro-physiological functions of the brain. This naturally raises the question of how this is possible because, for an adjustment in the context of biological evolution, the time span of 5000 years is far too short. (See Dehaene, 2010, p. 12, 14, 17, 133, 194f.u.ö.) Dehaene says that we engage in learning to read back on certain circuits in the lower left temple area, originally were adapted to the perception of objects, but for now, perception 'of letters, so for
Read , converted', ie
can be neurologically recycled.
Dehaene According to the new, only 5000 years ago resulting cultural ability to read each time we learn to read, just looking for those circuits in the brain that are best suited for being placed at the service of this cultural ability - ie for reading functional. Dehaene designates it as a "happy coincidence" that "we have a cerebral network that Sehareale connects with the speech areas, and that is so flexible that it can change for the recognition of letters "(Dehaene, 2010, p.195) -. This particular cerebral network is the world in all people, regardless of which font they learn to read the same . (See (Dehaene 2010, S.87f.)
But great chance this may actually not be, because, as Dehaene stresses in the phenomenon of dyslexia, other circuits can also assume the function of supporting the cultural ability to read . dyslexic namely their handicap in learning to read can be compensated by appropriate training, which means nothing more than to other brain regions to the connect point of the otherwise preferred region of the brain can be: "Everything is so, as if the various areas of the cortex due to their internal requirements in a sort of waiting list lined up. If the first, actually optimal region in the learning process is not available, is the second region - and that seems to be the symmetrical area of the right hemisphere to be - into the game. Better can not illustrate that reading does not have a predefined brain module has. It uses all the options and converts a portion of the inherited from our evolutionary neural hierarchy for a different purpose to "(Dehaene, 2010, p.191) The
grammar of the last sentence is revealing: "It writes, Dehaene," uses all the possibilities "- and" it "with which we are dealing with here is not the brain, but the reading
! So here we are at the behavioral level: It is our behavior that is determined by the neurophysiological function of the brain.
So what are we to make of a supposedly happy coincidence, if only by the use we make of our brain, can occur at any time other circuits in place of those circuits that allegedly restrict the individual learning ability of the people so much? That these other circuits not as beneficial are learning to read is not enough to make Dehaene's theory of the limited plasticity so strong that it affects the cultural skills of the people. Such a thesis is about as useful as the assertion that our freedom is restricted to act, because we only have two hands. Although our hands are no wings, people have not stopped, the learn to fly.
We have to do when reading with a complex behavior, a complex function corresponds to the level of the brain. Not without reason it is such a thing as a "waiting list" means the various brain regions interact with each other, and the complex functions (unconsciously) and activities (consciously) that are required to read a text and understand each other must be coordinated. This complex interplay of conscious and unconscious functions activities are at different levels of a hierarchy of "convergence zones" gathered and organized (see Dehaene, 2010, p. 99, 123f, 140, 180, 370.) "They (certain regions of the end- and temporal regions - d) act as 'convergence zones' ... that signals with very many regions of the cerebral cortex associative exchange. They were scattered fragments of meaning collect and combine in bundles ...." - The concept of the convergence zone was taken over by Dehaene Damasio.
One could also imagine consciousness as a lens-shaped surface that collects the incoming information from the outside and bundles. Dehaene calls this a "conscious memory," which he locates in the frontal lobes. (See Dehaene, 2010, S.359) This memory tries Dehaene explain why only humans not only a culture but also a culture of innovation, which is a constantly evolving and has new cultural objects engendering culture: "Why is but the human species, the only one who invents a culture and as new uses creates for its brain circuits? I propose a hypothesis that the human brain has a new, conscious memory ', a vast system of cortical connections. It breaks up the modular boundaries of the areas of the brain and enables flexible recombination of existing circuits, clearly indicating the new mental tools. "(Dehaene, 2010, p.349)
Thus, Dehaene is critically dependent on Michael Tomasello of the specifically human-culturalism does not at the neurophysiological function Moors, but to the individual "motivation" as Dehaene writes. (See Dehaene, 2010, p.368) In our sense, one could here the Place of the "motivation" put simply, the "behavior" because it is all about, that also Tomasello culture (or individual and cultural skills) not from the brain explained ago, but from their connection with their use.
Dehaene objected against the fact that Tomasello These could "only" half-explain "how did it come to this extraordinary development of the cultural sphere in humans. Although it provides reasons for their rapid expansion, its origin from a local outgoing, almost epidemic spread and the stable, if not irreversible character of our best cultural achievements ... About the spark that leads to the invention, the hypothesis says nothing. "(Dehaene 2010, S.368f.)
course provides the neurophysiological functions to which Dehaene fixed here so much, its indispensable, but only functional contribution to cultural development. But ultimately, Dehaene that a solution to the question raised by him further than Tomasello. Tomasello moved with his differentiation between individual and cultural learning even at the level of ontogeny. If it's cultural development with the "jack" effect describes, he performs this mainly on the identification of the child with the intentionality his parents and teachers back. He has actually said only half of cultural development, as Dehaene rightly criticized, but with the wrong arguments.
What not Tomasello taken into account, we find Assmann: after the long year tens of thousands of orality, in which humanity has not developed in practice (but already on the disposal of Tomasello mechanisms described individual and cultural learning), the real cultural explosion until the invention of writing. Only now rise to something like an objective memory, which enables people to consciously seek innovation and originality in thinking. But this has now nothing to do with the biological circuitry of our brains evolved to do. Namely: the reading does, of course back to the neuro-physiological functions of our brain. But to have only the ability to thought result and to gain these results objectively and save, so to speak, new external convergence zones, thus creating libraries, only this ability leads to the actual cultural explosion!
libraries without books and without what we think today will be forgotten tomorrow - of ourselves, we have thought it! How great our personal memory, is how difficult it is, point to be thought, that may clarify any for themselves. I any case it is already difficult to remember the same day in something with which I had mentally set apart just hours before consuming. Without appropriate mnemonics without rhymes and meters, we live in as if dreamer in the day, stumbling from dream to dream, only dreamed of just aware and without memories of past.
