Lots of gud. Lots of meh

I was surprised at just how comprehensive and compelling the two theories presented in the book are:
1) the mind is an information processor, i.e. computer
2) many characteristics of the mind can be explained in terms of the selective pressures on humans living as tribes of hunter/gatherers.

Some bits that stand out are viewing emotions as facilitators of cooperation, in that they offer difficult-to-spoof insights to someone's state of mind. They also implement a doomsday-device-like deterrent; an infuriated person acts in a way that seems clearly not in their rational self-interest. The (credible) possibility of such a rage acts as a deterrent to those who might consider exploiting the subject.

One thing I didn't like is the author's tendency to take potshots at different groups.

Contains a ton of interesting information about human thought and what emerged as adaptations in response to the physical world and what emerged from non-adaptational causes.

Topics range from what thought is, intuition about the the theories around abstractions which the mind uses to process information (causal, linguistic, associative,...etc), emergence of culture and traditions from a third person point of view, the development of strong sensory tools like the vision, an investigation around the type of personalities and responses of people.

My main criticism is of the way it's structured.
It is ramble-y and difficult to follow at some points since it's missing a robust abstraction of ideas and topics into chapters.
Many times I've felt like I was driven down a rabbit hole and cannot recall what the chapter's ideas are about.

I started this, listened to 3.5 hours of the audiobook’s total of 26 and simply couldn’t imagine continuing. The first chapter (2.5 hours), which the author calls an “opening brief”, can in simple terms be seen as an introduction. This introduction was not concise; it was rambling and consisted of mundane generalizations. It did not clarify how the book would be organized nor in precise terms what the author wished to show. Nothing enticed me to continue.

To better understand the field of cognitive science I am looking for a book based on solid scientific backing, not one based on speculation. I want at least a modicum of solid proof for what is being claimed, and I found not one smidgeon of that here.

There was an excessive amount of criticism of other scientists’ views while at the same time the author’s own views were not made clear.

I disliked the manner in which the author gave an enormous number of examples which supposedly were meant to prove the generalizations made. Many examples proved nothing. They referred to movie figures, characters in fiction, objects we use in our daily life and further generalizations about human behavior. The list of examples drowned out the statement that was to be proven.

Even in the first introductory chapter there were statements made the validity of which can be debated. We are told that humans today no longer worry about robots / computer programs being made that function better than man. That is not true! In the news recently was a debate about the inequitable use of artificial intelligence programs.

So I finished the unwieldy, long-winded, empty first introductory chapter and moved on to the second. Before quitting the book I wanted to check if perhaps the style of writing altered. It did not.

The narration by Mel Foster started off too fast, but I got used to it. At one point I set the speed down to 75%, and that was too slow! Sentences become distorted. In a book such as this a listener needs time to consider what is being said so they can themselves evaluate what they are being told.

The rambling, chatty writing style, the multitude of generalizations and the lack of both conclusive evidence and scientific backing are not what I am looking for. If I do not want to read a book, this says clearly that I did not like that which I read. I am giving this one star.

So happy to have finally finished this book. It's a long and no an easy one but so worth it. Nowadays we know how the brain works, we know how the parts are connected and what they produce in our bodies but we still know nothing of how the human mind works. What parts of the brain makes us be aware of the world and ourselves? are we really aware of ourselves? do other animals with similar brains have different type of awareness? why does our brain makes us enjoy sex? how come we invented music, art or religion if it serves to nothing from an evolutionary perspective? or perhaps it does serve to something? why did evolution gave way to love, hate, embarrassment, sarcasm? what do these types of feelings really do behind the curtains of our awareness of them ? why do we really laugh at a joke?.... These and more are questions answered in this book and I'm so excited that we can now talk about all this thanks to the evolution of artificial intelligence and the "computational theory of mind".

2015.11.18–2015.11.23

Contents

Pinker S (1997) (26:09) How the Mind Works

Preface

1. Standard Equipment
• The Robot Challenge
• Reverse-Engineering the Psyche
• Psychological Correctness

2. Thinking Machines
• The Search for Intelligent Life in the Universe
• Natural Computation
• The Defending Champion
• Connectoplasm
• Aladdin's Lamp

3. Revenge of the Nerds
• Get Smart
• Life's Designer
• The Blind Programmer
• Instinct and Intelligence
• The Cognitive Niche
• Why Us?
• What Now?

4. The Mind's Eye
• Deep Eye
• Lighting, Shading, Shaping
• Seeing in Two and a Half Dimensions
• Frames of Reference
• Animal Crackers
• Imagine That!

5. Good Ideas
• Ecological Intelligence
• Little Boxes
• Core Curriculum
• A Trivium
• Eureka!

6. Hotheads
• Universal Passion
• Feeling Machines
• The Suburban Savanna
• Food for Thought
• The Smell of Fear
• The Happiness Treadmill
• The Sirens' Song
• I and Thou
• The Doomsday Machine
• Fools for Love
• The Society of Feelings
• Kidding Ourselves

7. Family Values
• Kith and Kin
• Parents and Children
• Brothers and Sisters
• Men and Women
• Husbands and Wives
• Rivals
• Friends and Acquaintances
• Allies and Enemies
• Humanity

8. The Meaning of Life
• Arts and Entertainment
• What's So Funny?
• The Inquisitive in Pursuit of the Inconceivable

9. Afterword (2009)

Notes
References
Index

What parts of the brain create awareness? Are we really aware of ourselves? Why has the mind evolved to make decisions in the way it does? why do we really laugh at a joke? Why does a face look more attractive with makeup? Why does our brain drive us to enjoy sex? Why is the thought of eating worms disgusting? Why do paintings and music alleviate the hunger and thurst of mind? Why did we invent religion, music and art? How did these items adapt in the long run if it serves to nothing from an evolutionary perspective?

... ... ...

The book covers the computational theory of mind (mind is the computational product of the brain) and evolutionary psychology. There is a very little discussion about the biology of the brain but it still ponders over human natures to explain them from the biological adaptations and the by-product of evolution perspectives.

The book was published over 20 years ago but Pinker is an engaging writer. So, at least the connecting experience with a first-rate mind might not be frustrating :)

I'm only about 200 pages into Mr. Pinker's book, but I was gladly served a reason to distrust most forms of consciousness discourse, due to the facts argued in his work suggest the mind works in ways most people in the humanities willingly discount.

If the computational theory of mind Pinker drives home is measurable, then, well, traditional theory is pointless to me.

But, we shall see how his book holds up.

“Как работи умът”, чудото на еволюцията без цел според Стивън Пинкър
http://www.knigolandia.info/2011/12/b...

На първо място – за какво, по дяволите, се говори в тухлата “Как работи умът”. Всъщност за нещо простичко, както пише той още в началото:
“…умът e сложна система за невронна обработка на информация, която изгражда мисловни модели на физическия и социалния свят и преследва цели, свързани по същността си с оцеляването и възпроизводството в една предмодерна среда”. Туйто. Пинкър се опира изцяло на еволюцията и математиката и изгражда стройна теория за появата на разума и неговото преимущество за разпространението на нашия вид до доминиращ на планетата. А че още в главите си сме в праисторията, това едва ли може да се отрече.

As of this post, I am pursuing an M.A. in music and worship. My thesis is going to be something about music as language, so I was particularly interested in reading Pinker's "The Language Instinct." I stumbled upon HTMW before purchasing a copy of TLI, so I read HTMW first. It proved to be a valuable basis for understanding Pinker. I think Pinker might be surprised to hear that Scripture does not conflict with many of his beliefs (Scripture and science work well together - but that's another discussion). Here's an interesting issue: Pinker believes emotions to be adaptive (they were developed for survival and replication of the organism). He asserts that music is strictly a device for communicating emotions. He believes music is not adaptive (music does not aid in survival or replication of an organism). Does anyone see the problem here?

Note: This book was read sporadically, sampling chapters throughout, but by no means read in its entirety.

Pinker is a big name in science, and perhaps I expected too much from such a reputable individual, but I found his writing lacking. It is easy to read, true, but the simpleness of his writing comes at the cost of rigor and depth, satisfying itself with easy answers and haphazard conclusions, which becomes more pronounced in the later chapters dealing with evolutionary psychology.

Pinker does raise good points, but unfortunately this does not absolve his poor reasoning, creating a "sugar with poison" problem that requires the reader to discern relevant information from utter bollocks, not unlike another Canadian Psychologist that comes to mind, who employs a similar rambling argumentative style instead of backing up his assertions with concise evidence.

Regardless, it is what it is, popular science, and I would argue that the sacrifices made are not worth the costs on this one, but that a critical reader will nonetheless be able to take some worthwhile ideas from it.

This book explains how the human brain feels and thinks from an evolutionary biology stand point. How we see, smell, hear, perceive, abstract and memorize has all been shaped by tangible survival needs of our ancestors. However, the surprising and interesting part of the book is about how our emotions and social skills were also a product of evolution. Even romantic love!! :)

However, there was a point ~60,000 years ago when evolution (a very slow process that works over millions of years) became secondary in shaping the human mind who started to discover itself and the world around it. We were the first species to have such advanced mental faculties that moved on from solving survival problems to ask fundamental questions about the meaning of the world itself. The problem is our brain is not biologically built to answer these questions and therefore we probably need a different mind or type of mind (an AI maybe?) to attempt such answers.