June 05, 2007
The Biology of the Imagination
Simon Baron-Cohen in Entelechy:
In what sense might something as intrinsically human as the imagination be biological? How could the products of the imagination – a novel, a painting, a sonata, a theory – be thought of as the result of biological matter? After all, such artefacts are what culture is made of. So why invoke biology? In this essay, I will argue that the content of the imagination is of course determined more by culture than biology. But the capacity to imagine owes more to biology than culture.
Let’s start with a few definitional issues. What do we mean by ‘imagination’? I do not mean mere imagery, though clearly the imagination may depend on the manipulation of imagery. Imagery is usually the product of one of the five senses (though it can also be generated without any sensory input at all, from the mere act of thinking or dreaming). Imagery typically comprises a mental representation of a state of affairs in the outside, physical world. I don’t want to put you off from reading this essay by littering it with jargon, so let’s just think of a mental representation as a picture in your head. That is what we are going to be calling an image, but that is not the same as imagination. Consider why not.
When we create a visual image of a specific object in our mind, the image as a picture of the object has a more or less truthful relationship to that object or outside state of affairs. If the image is a good, faithful, representation, it depicts the object or state of affairs accurately in all its detail. So, mental images typically have ‘truth relationships’ to the outside world.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 12:54 PM | Permalink
Comments
Any relation to Sacha Baron-Cohen? Brother, perhaps?
Posted by: Just wondering | Jun 5, 2007 3:32:53 PM
First cousin.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Jun 5, 2007 3:50:34 PM
Very interesting, especially with regards to his comments on autism. I've been thinking quite a bit lately about a theory that autism, far from a brain disorder or malfunction, is an evolutionary reaction to the electrified, computerized world, and that once our brains iron out the wrinkles, we will come to look at modern autism as the first difficult steps toward a biological advancement of the human brain—an evolutionary improvement in the way we think, compute, and, yes, imagine.
Not to self-promote, but for those interested, there is a longer (but still quite brief) post on this topic at my website. Direct URL: http://microscopicallyfictitious.blogspot.com/2007/05/ideas-about-autism-and-human-brain.html
I wonder what Baron-Cohen would think about this...
Posted by: ghostman | Jun 5, 2007 5:45:12 PM
An evolutionary reaction? You mean that the 'electrified, computerized world' somehow selects for autistic people over those with better empathy skills? I'm not sure this idea is ready to be put forth to Mr. Baron-Cohen quite yet...
Posted by: erm | Jun 5, 2007 6:55:02 PM
Not saying that autistic people are selected over people with better empathy... perhaps "evolutionary reaction" is a bad phrase. What I mean to say is that I believe the electrified, computerized world is actually changing the makeup of our brains. And that autism is one of the effects of this change.
Posted by: ghostman | Jun 5, 2007 8:36:10 PM
Ghostman, this seems a little poetic to me -- that our intimacy with computers is helping to create people who from their earliest years are somehow not neurotypical by present norms. I did read your whole post, BTW, and I understand and concur that autists should be seen and treated as people with not only deficits but gifts -- a liberal attitude we might helpfully extend to everyone who is a little bit different. But it feels to me like you are romanticizing the deficits of autists, which are very severe -- if only because whatever stands in the way of empathy will also stand in the way of judgement. So help me out -- I don't get the science of your point.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 5, 2007 9:18:12 PM
To be honest, Elatia, I don't get the science of my point, either. But I'll give explaining it a shot.
My untested hypothesis is that as our world has grown increasingly dependent on electricity and computers, the very makeup of our brains, exposed to this new stimulation, has begun to change. This would have started happening on a very small scale quite a long time ago, but on a more noticeable level in the 1930s, a seminal decade for computer research and development. Around this same time, a few psychiatrists/doctors in different parts of the world noticed symptoms of what could only be an undiagnosed condition. These discoveries were essentially simultaneous, with each unaware of the others. In 1943, autism was officially diagnosed for the first time. It appears that the condition we call autism existed before this, but not long before. No one claims with gusto, for example, that it existed in the 1500s, or even the 1700s, though some do speculate that this or that long-dead genius might have had it. However, nearly every autism timeline I've encountered begins in the 1930s or 1940s—the same birth period as that of the modern computer era. The 1990s add more circumstantial evidence: it was during this decade that both personal computing and diagnoses of autism exploded.
These admittedly superficial timeline similarities are what initially got me thinking about the relationship between autism and electricity/computing. I was also inspired by the factoids that autism rates in Silicon Valley are abnormally high, and that autism is genetic.
I began to wonder: if autism is an affliction of the brain, and if autism is genetic, what is happening in the brains of non-autistic parents who bear autistic children? Something is happening, obviously, that is changing the makeup of their brains, or else there would be no autism to pass on. The parents themselves may not exhibit very noticeable side effects, as their brains were already developed when the changes took root, but if these changes in the brain were passed on genetically, and were incorporated during the child's brain's development in the womb... well, I thought, the effects could be significant indeed.
There are other equally superficial inspirations for my theory—yet to me, all added together, they have been quite convincing. Consider the two most well-known symptoms of autism: lack of social skills (encompassing language, empathy, etc.) and enhanced recognition of and appreciation for patterns (often including improved memory and mathematical ability). These, I thought, do not seem to be the characteristics of a human; they are the characteristics of a computer. Computers are bad at emotions, language, social situations. Computers are good at math, memory, patterns. Furthermore, as one reads the literature, one is struck by how many teachers, parents, therapists, etc., comment on how compatible their autistic students, children, patients are with computers. Half of them seem outright amazed. But if one thinks that autism comes largely from computers, one would not be amazed by this, one would expect it. On top of this, if one is to believe what one reads, the computer industry has more autistic professionals than any other industry. For whatever reason, even if the data is exaggerated, those with autism seem to be naturally attracted to computing. I happen to think that it's because autism owes its existence to computing; and this is the hypothesis I'm trying to prove or disprove.
As for the actual science... I spoke on the telephone last week with a neuroscientist from the University of Illinois, and he made clear to me that modern research shows unequivocally that electricity can indeed alter the makeup of the brain. He also said it has not been shown whether or not these alterations can be passed on to future generations. I'm betting they can, and this is the bet on which my hypothesis rests. I am no scientist, not even close, and though I've read a little on both neuroscience and autism, my interest is purely amateur. In fact, I fully expect some expert to swoop in and embarrass me.
But none yet has, and what I have read so far on both subjects seems to at least allow the possibility of my theory. It's worth noting that there was a theory posited not long ago that television and video games were to blame for autism. The problem with this theory is that it limits the causing factors to television and video games specifically, rather than to electrical computing in general, which I define very loosely to include television, video games, personal computers, telephones, microwaves, etc. In addition, this theory claims that these factors cause autism after the child is born. My claim is that these factors affect the brains of the parents and are part of the child's development from the very beginning, in the womb.
Regarding my rather optimistic outlook for the future of autism, which I admit looks dismissively romantic: I do not mean to brush aside the severe side effects that too often accompany autism, but I do feel that if autism is indeed an "evolutionary reaction"—that is, a neuro-biological response to a changing world—then it will continue to evolve. I have somewhat detailed thoughts on this, but I'll skip those for now and just say that if this evolution is to continue, I expect it to do so in a way that is advantageous to the human species. The side effects of autism can be terribly debilitating, but perhaps they are merely (large) bumps in the road that will be smoothed out over time. After all, before one grows an arm, one must first grow a stump of an arm. (Also, I don't mock the futurist theories hypothesizing the formation of a neurosphere, or collective consciousness, which I think will only have a chance to develop if some kind of advanced and healthy autism becomes standard in our species.)
Finally, because I'm sure you'll find it fascinating, make sure to watch this. It's about Daniel Tammet, an exceptionally gifted autistic-savant who appears to have the best of autism with very little of the worst of it. He is in fact the model on which I base my vision for the future of autism.
Posted by: ghostman | Jun 6, 2007 12:33:33 AM
Ghostman, your view of how evolution works seems to suffer from some all-too-common misconceptions. I don't have time to critique your long comment now, but you may have inspired me to devote my next Monday column to this.
Meanwhile, I applaud you for having the courage to put your ideas out there.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Jun 6, 2007 1:44:10 AM
Thanks, Abbas. I would love to see your thoughts on any aspect of this topic.
I admit that my use of the word "evolution" does not refer at all to natural selection, if that is what you mean. My use of the term "evolution" in this particular case refers to changes imposed upon the human species by outside forces—changes which may or may not prove to be beneficial to the survival of the species. Is it wrong to use it in this sense when I mean to say that the brain, no matter how or for what reason or what the effects may be, is changing in drastic ways? If it is wrong, what is the correct word to use to describe this process? In any case, my use of the phrase "evolutionary reaction" is wrong—for I am not trying to say that the brain is adapting to the world, or that it is selecting for autism, but rather that it is being forced to change by world conditions regardless of what effects this change will have.
I'm not trying to save face here, I promise. I just don't want some poorly chosen words on my part to detract from what I still think is a plausible theory. Speaking of which, is it that you disagree with the entire premise, or merely with my use of the word "evolution" to describe what I think is happening?
Again, thank you everyone for your comments, and for not being angry that I've essentially jacked this post.
Posted by: ghostman | Jun 6, 2007 9:53:32 AM
Ghostman, for what it's worth, you've resurrected the long vanquished theory of Lamarck that acquired characteristics could be inherited: in this case, that brain defects acquired by scientists during their lives could be passed on to their children. Darwin's biology begins with a rejection of Lamarck's theory. There is, as far as I know, not a single biologist in the world ... perhaps not a single thinking person in the world ... who still believes in the inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarckianism, i.e.)
Posted by: Jonathan | Jun 6, 2007 10:32:20 AM
Thanks Jonathan, I was entirely unaware of Lamarck's theory. I'll look into it. It might be fun trying to resuscitate a dead and universally discredited idea.
But what if we are talking about more than just characteristics? What if we are talking about actual changes to one's DNA structure? From what I understand, DNA cores are rather conductive, and it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that they could be altered by electricity—alterations, it seems to me, that would then be passed on genetically.
Posted by: ghostman | Jun 6, 2007 11:42:15 AM
Ghostman,
Chiming in on Abbas and Jonathan's comments, what biologists call the "central dogma" states that genetic influence runs only one way: from DNA to organism, never from organism to DNA. The discovery of the function of DNA in the mid 20th century pretty much put the nail in the coffin for Lamarckian theory.
There is a loophole, however. There is evidence that individual cells are able to induce mutation in the DNA given certain environmental stresses. This activity would be too small in scope and scale to induce complex traits, but it does suggest that Lamarckian influence is not unknown in nature.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Jun 6, 2007 11:49:40 AM
Ghostman, all,
At the risk of asking a stupid question: why couldn't you have a natural selection version of this theory? Changes in the environment commonly drive evolutionary change by selecting for fitness. I'm not suggesting that this theory is necessarily correct - I'm agnostic on that point. I'm just wondering whether it can be formulated in straightforward natural selection terms.
Posted by: Just wondering | Jun 6, 2007 12:29:41 PM
Ghostman,
Thanks for the link to the documentary about Daniel Tammet. Fascinating stuff. And Simon Baron-Cohen also looks a lot like his cousin Sacha!
Posted by: Just wondering | Jun 6, 2007 1:23:17 PM
Isn't he incredible? I mean, the guy learned Icelandic in a week! I've been studying Spanish, a much easier language, for several years now and am still not fluent. How inspiring he is. And how depressing.
Posted by: ghostman | Jun 6, 2007 1:33:30 PM
Yes, I agree: incredible and inspiring. Very rare also for someone to have such gifts without the disabilities (such as complete lack of social skills) that often accompany them.
Posted by: Just wondering | Jun 6, 2007 4:10:27 PM
Ghostman, autism was first described in 1911. It seems to have existed, under a more general diagnosis of mental incapacity, long before that. Autism is widely accepted as being genetic in cause, so if it were of recent origin there would be an obvious family connection between all patients (which there isn't).
Back to the post, I wonder why the Earl of Cohen (why not upgrade?) doesn't consider play behavior in primates and other animals as evidence of "secondary representation". A kitten knows that the ball of wool it is playing with isn't a mouse, but its play activity will help it catch mice when its older.
Posted by: aguy109 | Jun 6, 2007 7:37:39 PM
Ghostman, autism was first described in 1911. It seems to have existed, under a more general diagnosis of mental incapacity, long before that. Autism is widely accepted as being genetic in cause, so if it were of recent origin there would be an obvious family connection between all patients (which there isn't).
Back to the post, I wonder why the Earl of Cohen (why not upgrade?) doesn't consider play behavior in primates and other animals as evidence of "secondary representation". A kitten knows that the ball of wool it is playing with isn't a mouse, but its play activity will help it catch mice when its older.
Posted by: aguy109 | Jun 6, 2007 7:37:45 PM
Re: chris schoen's comment above: What about jumping genes?
Posted by: missVolare | Jun 12, 2007 6:34:32 PM
Post a comment