The beginning of cognitive phase in metaevolution as we know it is
human civilization. Conserved core here is human motivation, while technology and institutions is a more fluid
instrumental phenotype. According to their conserved vs. adaptive properties, our
motives can be grouped into three categories: instincts, conditioned values,
and pure curiosity. Motives of the two higher categories are obviously acquired,
what’s conserved here is their value acquisition mechanism:
- evolution selects instincts fit for their own propagation, innate
but postnatally modulated by usage,
- conditioning value-loads stimuli preceding (instrumental for)
previously value-loaded stimuli,
- cognitive curiosity searches for predictive patterns, even among
initially value-free stimuli.
Higher mechanisms accelerate acquisition of adaptive values to
drive increasingly mediated responses: from specific physiological reactions to
more general longer-term attention, prediction, and planning. Brain areas that implement these value-acquisition mechanisms
likely evolved in the same sequence:
- Instincts, largely physiological and rooted in 4Fs, are encoded mainly in brainstem and hypothalamus.
- Conditioning is initiated by basal ganglia and limbic system, then generalized in cingulate
cortices.
- Value-free curiosity is an intrinsic drive of neocortex, though
heavily modulated by subcortical drives.
This scheme is vaguely similar to triune brain model, but in my interpretation
these substrates differ mainly in the mechanism by which they acquire values,
while values themselves are relatively transient. Relative strength of these
mechanisms themselves is also changed via lifelong mutual reinforcement and inhibition.
Our instincts are similar to those of other mammals. Excellent
account of that level of motivation is Jaak Panksepp‘s “Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins
of Human Emotions“. He catalogs seven innate drives: rage, fear, lust, care, grief,
play, and seeking. Not included are homeostatic drives, related to feeding, sleep,
pain, thermoregulation, etc. They are more basic but mechanically similar.
Panksepp singles out “seeking” as an exceptionally non-specific drive.
It’s the same as my curiosity, but for him the principal driver is dopaminergic
areas, as they were in lower animals. I believe this function has been taken
over by neocortex in mammals, especially in humans. Now these lower areas are
mostly passive mediators of cortical feedback: Dopamine's
Role in Unrewarded Learning, or they simply mess you up with some stupid
urges.
The discussion below is mostly on conditioning and cognition:
increasingly adaptive mechanisms that seem to strengthen with our personal
growth. Until it hits harsh constraints of biological life cycle.
Conditioning by increasingly general instrumentals
Alternative hierarchical schemes are Maslow's hierarchy of needs and ERG. But both treat higher needs as innate, though
latent, while I think they develop via instrumental conditioning. Especially
the top of both hierarchies: self-actualization or a drive toward excellence in
a chosen field. Activity in modern fields can’t be innate, so the drive to
“self-actualize” there must come from instrumental conditioning.
Conditioned values competitively inhibit and potentially displace
each other, as well as innate instincts. Such "value drift" is necessary because
behavioral patterns for effective reproduction of higher animals change too fast
to evolve with their genotype, and are far too complex to fit in it. Goal-directed
planning greatly accelerates this drift, because conditioning can now be driven
by predictions vs. experiences.
This selects for increasingly general instruments, conditioned by a wider
range of benefiting values. Even our notion of self is acquired. Basic self is a conditioned
identification with one’s body, as a tool to control sensory stimuli that
trigger innate drives. Which results in self-preservation and self-promotion
drive: childish impulsiveness is substantially displaced by adolescent egocentrism. Next essential “tool” to be conditioned into one’s identity is society.
It starts with one’s mother, initially almost as necessary as a body, then
extends to family, peers and mates, tribe, nation, humanity. Rough Freudian parallels are ID for the drives, Ego for a body, and
Super Ego for social identification.
The broadest human value with innate component is empathy or
affinity. Probably via medial frontal cortex, it conditions external phenotypes
recognized as similar to self-image, thus building on prior instrumental conditioning.
But self-image changes radically during maturation. It is then anchored by
relatively stable body and proximate society. But if these change, self image will
change too.
Conditioning by similarity probably emerged because evolution
doesn’t select for individuals, it selects for genes. Similarity is the proxy
for affinity: presence of same genes in a different individual. So, empathy
with and resulting support of similar individuals is instrumental to
propagation of one’s own genes. “Gene” here is a pattern rather than a substance.
Metabolism and reproduction don’t preserve substance: atoms come and go, only
their pattern is maintained and propagated.
Empathy becomes more abstract as recognized affinity expands.
Tribal identification is loaded with specifics: customs, mythology, language,
diet, clothing and housing, ethnic history and homeland. All these details
gradually lose significance as one progresses toward universal human values.
Which are pretty hard to define. Even the most basic of our drives may be
subverted by acquired values: pain may be counter-conditioned into masochism,
hunger into anorexia, lust into asexuality, self-image into suicidal ideation,
familiar and tribal loyalty into religious fanaticism, etc.
Our evolutionary imperative: reproductive drive, is already
profoundly confused: birth rates decline in the wealthiest and the most
educated social groups. And of course, no one would spend his life's savings to
manufacture ever greater amounts of his DNA. In fact, the genes may go extinct
altogether, as soon as we have better tools to produce phenotypes that we currently
value.
Increasing respect for freedoms and cultural diversity makes
modern social identification ever more tenuous, while formalization and
automation reduce the role of empathy in economic interactions. Then there is
our biology and developmental patterns, but future life extension and mind
expansion should remove even that anchor from our common identity (Francis
Fukuyama’s worst nightmare).
The only two drives left in common will be instrumental
self-improvement and curiosity. And curiosity should subsume the former because
it drives cognition: the only universally instrumental tool. Cognition also drives
invention, which is a vastly accelerated evolution. And the concept of
evolution is an ultimate target of instrumental conditioning: evolution
produced humanity itself.
In effect, cognition should be recognized and then conditioned as
being instrumentally superior to conditioning itself. This is similar to the
way conditioning may inhibit and displace instincts, even though they initiated
conditioning in the first place. So, given sufficiently deep self-reflection,
curiosity should displace all other motives. Which already happened for the
best scientists.
So, curiosity is
an intrinsic cortical motive, but it competes / combines with all sub-cortical
motives. As with other values, relative strength of curiosity is modulated by
conditioning. Being the most generally-instrumental motive, pure curiosity has
longer and less obvious payoff. Thus, it initially works the background,
“researching” subjects selected by other, more urgent motives. But range and
depth of such research spills over multiple subjects, ultimately into curiosity
about fate of the universe and the meaning of life. This is facilitated by a
broad intellectual exposure, if combined with weak specific pressures and temptations,
especially during one’s formative years.
Hippocampus is necessary for
declarative memory consolidation, hence for sustained cognition. Evolutionary
reason for this constraint is probably that hippocampus also mediates conditioning
by spatio-temporal association, via its “maps“ and grid cells in conjunction
with its direct connection to amygdala. All behavior is local and memories
aren’t be valuable enough for animals to consolidate unless associated with
emotionally charged locations: proximate in past, present, or potential future.
Despite such constraints, cognition will displace conditioning
because its mechanism will be recognized and conditioned as being instrumentally
superior to that of conditioning itself. Mechanically, that means frontal
cortex will gain effective control of VTA, NA, amygdala, and such. This similar
to the way conditioning inhibits and displaces instincts, in spite of the fact
that instincts initiated conditioning.
Popular culture vs. value generalization
Looking around, eventual dominance of higher motives and corresponding
expansion of attention span seems quite implausible. Mass media serves our
innate preference for 4Fs, intense sensory stimulation, and novelty: the lowest
common denominators of curiosity. Constant exposure desensitizes and addicts us
to such entertainment, which actually *shrinks* attention span in much of
modern society.
Likewise, wealth weakens
instrumental conditioning by easily satisfying lower motives, starting with
fast food and junk TV / games / social media for children. Still, a proper upbringing could raise motivation to a level where
instrumental self-improvement becomes a main motive and inhibits the lower
ones.
Also, value generalization process is constrained by the limits
and pressures of our life cycle, as well as the range of experience. Most of
“identity expansion” I described is over by the end of adolescence, when
myelination of neocortex is mostly complete and neuroplasticity declines. Jobs, dating, family
and child-raising puts a lot of stress on people, shrinking their purely
intellectual.
Cultivating values in children expands, but also stabilizes one's
own values: a good actor must believe his act. Also stabilizing is a fixed
social role: at work, in extended family, & broader community. Later, aging
weakens more general motives as the loss of myelin impedes stimuli propagation
to and from higher levels of cortical hierarchy. And constant health concerns
further displace less urgent motives.
But overall, there are long-term trends toward extended
adolescence, reduction of specific pressures via longer general education, delayed
and reduced family formation, more fluid social roles, life extension. Even
more important could be extreme educational aids and environments, as well as
some form of direct brain stimulation to improve focus on abstract problems,
which is likely to become available soon. These trends have no end in sight,
they should extend value generalization process indefinitely.
>Overall, the value drift “selects” for increasingly general instrumental motives, -
>they simply last longer, being conditioned by correspondingly broad range of associated prior values.
Also, more general instruments could allow doing more with less efforts in less time - generalization can be optimization.
>Childish impulsiveness is substantially displaced by adolescent egocentrism,
>which in turn is displaced by increasingly broad socialization.
Then sometimes it's followed by selective de-socialization/cha
for subjects who has reached to understanding of the reasons for their prior socialization, because it's conditioned as well.
>This development of broader "self" is initiated by specific inherited motives: somatosensory feedback,
>imitation & respect for authority, the patterns of human beauty, sexual drives, parental instincts, the need for
>social support & status, empathy or altruism.
I'd question that respect of authority is inherited motive, authority just can punish you or you're afraid it can/will; and you believe it's more capable and more dangerous than you, you respect it because of this and because you believe that others believe that it is, and they may punish you as well.
Respect of authority can be derived very simply: the only "animate object" for a new born mind are mother, father etc. They are dynamic and harder to predict, unlike environment; they change "randomly" sometimes, they are there when needs are satisfied and they are missing when needs are not satisfied (or are there where mind is punished), they are older, bigger, have money and decide instead of you etc. This can be badly conditioned. Further church (where it has this access to people), school, police, army, government etc. make people respect authority by displaying their "authority" == force and superiority.
I think also that empathy, altruism, the need of social support are not inherited as well, they are product of the environment and availability of competing agents around. I guess all of those are initiated the same/similar way as respect of authority and have common source. Also they are a form of optimization/maximiz
...
However in a world with only one person who doesn't know that other intelligent beings have existed or could have existed, there couldn't be altruism or social support at all. If one is capable and secure enough to be "untouchable" in a normal world with billions of agents needing social support, he also may escape from the social support urge, I guess you know an example
I guess patterns of human (physical) beauty and general visual beauty (graphics design etc.) are implicitly inherited, they are rediscovered and shared by many because of our common cognitive algorithm.