AFRICA, Democracy & the Youth; Inquiries for Reflection;

„Bad faith“and the “Mirror-neurological sense”!


AFRICA, Democracy & the Youth; Inquiries for Reflection;


“It’s as if anytime you want to make a judgment about someone else’s movements you have to run a VR (virtual reality) simulation of the corresponding movements in your own brain and without mirror neurons you cannot do this.”( S. 3 http://williamlspencer.com/mirrorneurons.pdf)

The mirror neurons speak their own language. They care little for philology and linguistics. The political class of Africa, in regions where democratic values don’t prevail, tries to design and introduce political contention or alliance and unity through rhetoric and false faith. If the recent discoveries in the vicinity of neuro-science and human social cognition prove to be tenable and well founded*1), a political environment of concerted action towards development and genuine democracy cannot be engineered employing a “pseudo” authenticity, with the hope of concealing it from the contenders… – since the so-called “mirror neurons “ trigger and flash only in their authentic nature, i.e. only if the genuine intention at the mind – the neurological micro level do not fall short of the declaration of intention, which is limited mostly at the rhetoric level and not manifesting an internal reality . The system of the “virtual reality” anticipated through “the system of mirror neurons” seems to work predominantly according the nature of good faith. If that fails every constituent part of the deal knows the case, and the deal is therefore condemned to fail, sooner or later.

To contemplate the neuro-scientific backdrop of why the practice of democracy among the “democratic” elite of Africa has failed, when it comes to sharing power at all instances, be it at the micro level of its day to day practice or at the macro level of state power, reading the following essays in the relevant fields can initiate a serious reflection to promote some grain of sincerity in the deliberation of democratic practices and to forge sustaining alliances of genuine character towards an all encompassing collective social development, without abandoning a fair and democratic contention at all levels (micro & macro) :

http://www.voirautrement.ca/pdf/Non-Verbal_Guy_Bilodeau_EP_EN.pdf


Abstract:


“The recent research on the MNS in humans may shed light on the social nature of language, and provide neuroscientific grounding to aspects of language investigated by psycholinguistics like, among others, situation models and collaborative and interactive accounts of conversation, according to which the perception of shared environment and behaviors helps in maintaining alignment between conversational partners”
(see Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986; Pickering & Garrod, 2004).” (s. 2 ff.


http://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/research/lang/lprg/gallese_2007.pdf


Abstract:

This paper discusses the relevance of the discovery of mirror neurons in monkeys and of the mirror neuron system in humans to a neuroscientific account of primates’ social cognition and its evolution. It is proposed that mirror neurons and the functional mechanism they underpin, embodied simulation, can ground within a unitary neurophysiological explanatory framework important aspects of human social cognition. In particular, the main focus is on language, here conceived according to a neurophenomenological perspective, grounding meaning on the social experience of action. A neurophysiological hypothesis*the ‘‘neural exploitation hypothesis’’*is introduced to explain how key aspects of human social cognition are underpinned by brain mechanisms originally evolved for sensorimotor integration. It is proposed that these mechanisms were later on adapted as new neurofunctional architecture for thought and language, while retaining their original functions as well. By neural exploitation, social cognition and language can be linked to the experiential domain of action.

http://www.unipr.it/arpa/mirror/pubs/Neural Basis of Social Identification

Abstract:

The shared intersubjective space in which we live since birth enables and bootstraps the constitution of the sense of identity we normally entertain with others. Social identification incorporates the domains of action, sensations, affect, and emotions and is underpinned by the activation of shared neural circuits. A common underlying functional mechanism—embodied simulation—mediates our capacity to share the meaning of actions, intentions, feelings, and emotions with others, thus grounding our identification with and connectedness to others. Social identification, empathy, and “we-ness” are the basic ground of our development and being. Embodied simulation provides a model of potential interest not only for our understanding of how interpersonal relations work or might be pathologically disturbed but also for psychoanalysis. The hypothesis is that embodied simulation is at work within the
psychoanalytic setting between patient and analyst. The notions of projective identification and the interpersonal dynamic related to transference and countertransference can be viewed as instantiations of the implicit and prelinguistic mechanisms of the embodied simulation-driven mirroring mechanisms here reviewed.

http://www.michaelinzlicht.com/research/publications/Empathy constrained

A b s t r a c t:

Perception–action-coupling refers to the vicarious activation of the neural system for action during perception of action, and is considered important for forms of interpersonal sensitivity, including empathy. We hypothesize that perception–action-coupling is limited to the ingroup: neural motor networks will fire upon the perception of action, but only when the object–person belongs to the ingroup; if the object–person belongs to an outgroup these motor neurons will not fire. Using electroencephalographic oscillations as an index of perception–action-coupling, we found exactly this: participants displayed activity over motor cortex when acting and when observing ingroups act, but not when observing outgroups – an effect magnified by prejudice and for disliked groups (South-Asians, then Blacks, followed by East Asians). These findings provide evidence from brain activity for yet another detrimental aspect of prejudice: a spontaneous and implicit simulation of others’ action states may be limited to close others and, without active effort, may not be available for outgroups.

2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.


and more basics on “mirror neurons” see below *1)

A few inquiries:

1. To begin from the far end of the negative pole, why do religion & ideology rally the masses more easily than hypocritical democratic notion?

2. Why does democratic deliberation fail if it is based on “bad faith?

3. How can “the system of mirror neurons” well anchored at the backdrop (or the Unconscious awareness”) of the mind, formed through a process of millions of years of evolution, affect the substantial fundament of social movements and deliberations of common interest?

4. What is the enlightening point in the system of democracy to function as an arbitral system to run a social collective for a just distribution of benefits and interests?

5. If democracy is (pseudo) played and not genuine why does it simply fail due to our inborn system of “mirror-neurological sense”!

6. Why does a hierarchical system of a dictatorship or any highly centralized organized social body function, given the system of the “virtual reality” of mirrored “neurological sense”? …Yes with every part of the hierarchy accepting its role –subservient or dominating? I.e. there is no “bad faith” in the accepted role, until it shatters and begins to “dissipate” like natural phenomenon of systemic changes!

7. At the risk of being blunt and misunderstood ( in the sense of social evolutionary biology) , l would state, “the other primates don’t try to cheat each other” in their social interactions, since they all “know” it would fail, because they simply naturally ( perhaps without anticipating any contingencies) sense how their mirror neurons fire.

8. But “Humans” if they don’t share democratic values, they try to obscure one another with an objective of dominating each other. (cf. Machiavellian intentions and means). Intrinsically interpreted, is this not dramatic and highly inhuman deep down!

And at last the big question:

9. Why does the youth initiate and stage a successful social transformation until the abuse follows by the elite (of the Machiavellian school), which would willingly allow power corruption and all sorts of these stuffs including the deconstruction of the achievements of a democratic revolution to creep in “later in the day”?

These questions are I think very relevant, since in the African Movement of TODAY against tyranny (with the contemporary heroic uprisings of the peoples of Tunisia & Egypt at the front), the contention between the “big” notions is by far not determined, i.e.:

Which one of the contending big IDEAS will win the minds and the hearts of THE YOUTH?

Ideological dogma and Religion or The vision of ENLIGTENMENT and Genuine Democracy!

>>>>>>>>>



*1) Reference-Essay from a scholar in the field:


Mirror neurons and imitation learning as the driving force behind “the great leap forward” in human evolution

by V. S. Ramachandran

(Sorry ! This piece is here reproduced without formal permission, hoping a tacit permission from the author at this crucial time of the African people to get rid of tyranny from their continent, sparked by the heroic peoples of Tunisia and Egypt in North Africa)


From the Third Culture: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/


The discovery of mirror neurons in the frontal lobes of monkeys, and their potential relevance

to human brain evolution — which I speculate on in this essay — is the single most

important unreported (or at least, unpublicized) story of the decade. I predict that mirror neurons

will do for psychology what DNA did for biology: they will provide a unifying framework and

help explain a host of mental abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious and inaccessible

to experiments.

There are many puzzling questions about the evolution of the human mind and brain:


1) The hominid brain reached almost its present size — and perhaps even its present intellectual

capacity about 250,000 years ago. Yet many of the attributes we regard as uniquely

human appeared only much later. Why? What was the brain doing during the long incubation

period? Why did it have all this latent potential for tool use, fire, art, music and perhaps even

language that blossomed only considerably later? How did these latent abilities emerge, given

that natural selection can only select expressed abilities, not latent ones? I shall call this

“Wallace’s problem,” after the Victorian naturalist Alfred Russell Wallace who first proposed it.


2) Crude “Oldawan” tools — made by just a few blows to a core stone to create an irregular

edge — emerged 2.4 million ago and were probably made by Homo habilis whose brain size

was half way (700 cc) between modern humans (1300) and chimps (400). After another million

years of evolutionary stasis aesthetically pleasing symmetrical tools began to appear associated

with a standardization of production technique and artefact form. These required switching from

a hard hammer to a soft (wooden?) hammer while the tool was being made, in order to ensure a

smooth rather than jagged, irregular edge. And lastly, the invention of stereotyped assembly line

tools (sophisticated symmetrical bifacial tools) that were hafted to a handle, took place only

200,000 years ago. Why was the evolution of the human mind punctuated by these relatively

sudden upheavals of technological change?


3) Why the sudden explosion (often called the “great leap”) in technological sophistication,

widespread cave art, clothes, stereotyped dwellings, etc. around 40 thousand years ago, even

though the brain had achieved its present modern size almost a million years earlier?


4) Did language appear completely out of the blue as suggested by Chomsky? Or did it

evolve from a more primitive gestural language that was already in place?


5) Humans are often called the “Machiavellian primate” referring to our ability to “read

minds” in order to predict other peoples’ behaviour and outsmart them. Why are apes and

humans so good at reading other individuals’ intentions? Do higher primates have a specialised

brain centre or module for generating a “theory of other minds” as proposed by Nick Humphrey

and Simon Baron-Cohen? If so, where is this circuit and how and when did it evolve?

The solution to many of these riddles comes from an unlikely source: The study of single

neurons in the brains of monkeys. I suggest that the questions become less puzzling when you

consider Giaccamo Rizzollati’s recent discovery of “mirror neurons” in the ventral pre-motor

area of monkeys. This cluster of neurons, I argue, holds the key to understanding many enigmatic

aspects of human evolution. Rizzollati and Arbib have already pointed out the relevance of

their discovery to language evolution. But I believe the significance of their findings for understanding

other equally important aspects of human evolution has been largely overlooked. This,

in my view, is the most important unreported “story” in the last decade.


The emergence of language


UNLIKE MANY other human traits such as humour, art, dancing or music the survival

value of language is obvious — it helps us communicate our thoughts and intentions. But the

question of how such an extraordinary ability might have actually evolved has puzzled biologists,

psychologists and philosophers at least since the time of Charles Darwin. The problem is

that the human vocal apparatus is vastly more sophisticated than that of any ape but without the

correspondingly sophisticated language areas in the brain the vocal equipment alone would be

useless. So how did these two mechanisms with so many sophisticated interlocking parts evolve

in tandem? Following Darwin’s lead I suggest that our vocal equipment and our remarkable

ability to modulate voice evolved mainly for producing emotional calls and musical sounds during

courtship (“crooning a tune”). Once that evolved then the brain — especially the left hemisphere

— could evolve language.

But a bigger puzzle remains. Is language mediated by a sophisticated and highly specialised

“language organ” that is unique to humans and emerged completely out of the blue as suggested

by Chomsky? Or was there a more primitive gestural communication system already in place

that provided a scaffolding for the emergence of vocal language?

Rizzolatti’s discovery can help us solve this age-old puzzle. He recorded from the ventral

pre-motor area of the frontal lobes of monkeys and found that certain cells will fire when a

monkey performs a single, highly specific action with its hand: pulling, pushing, tugging, grasping,

picking up and putting a peanut in the mouth etc. Different neurons fire in response to different

actions. One might be tempted to think that these are motor “command” neurons, making

muscles do certain things; however, the astonishing truth is that any given mirror neuron will

also fire when the monkey in question observes another monkey (or even the experimenter)

performing the same action, e.g. Tasting a peanut! With knowledge of these neurons, you have the

basis for understanding a host of very enigmatic aspects of the human mind: “mind reading”

empathy, imitation learning, and even the evolution of language. Anytime you watch someone

else doing something (or even starting to do something), the corresponding mirror neuron might

fire in your brain, thereby allowing you to “read” and understand another’s intentions, and thus

to develop a sophisticated “theory of other minds.” (I suggest, also, that a loss of these mirror

neurons may explain autism — a cruel disease that afflicts children. Without these neurons the

child can no longer understand or empathise with other people emotionally and therefore

completely withdraws from the world socially.)

(Another important piece of the puzzle is Rizzolatti’s observation that the ventral pre-motor

area may be a homologue of the “Broca’s area” — a brain centre associated with the expressive

and syntactic aspects of language in humans).

These arguments do not in any way negate the idea that there are specialised brain areas for

language in humans. We are dealing, here, with the question of how such areas may have

evolved, not whether they exist or not.

Mirror neurons were discovered in monkeys but how do we know they exist in the human

brain? To find out we studied patients with a strange disorder called anosognosia. Most patients

with a right hemisphere stroke have complete paralysis of the left side of their body and will

complain about it, as expected. But about 5% of them will vehemently deny their paralysis even

though they are mentally otherwise lucid and intelligent. This is the so-called “denial” syndrome

or anosognosia. To our amazement, we found that some of these patients not only denied their

own paralysis, but also denied the paralysis of another patient whose inability to move his arm

was clearly visible to them and to others. Denying ones own paralysis is odd enough but why

would a patient deny another patient’s paralysis? We suggest that this bizarre observation is best

understood in terms of damage to Rizzolatti’s mirror neurons. It’s as if anytime you want to

make a judgement about someone else’s movements you have to run a VR (virtual reality) simulation

of the corresponding movements in your own brain and without mirror neurons

you cannot do this.

The second piece of evidence comes from studying brain waves (EEG) in humans. When

people move their hands a brain wave called the mu wave gets blocked and disappears completely.

Eric Altschuller, Jamie Pineda, and I suggested at the society for neurosciences in 1998

that this suppression was caused by Rizzolati’s mirror neuron system. Consistent with this theory

we found that such suppression also occurs when a person watches someone else moving his

hand but not if he watches a similar movement by an inanimate object. (We predict that children

with autism should show suppression if they move their own hands but not if they watch some

one else. Our lab now has preliminary hints from one highly functioning autistic child that this

might be true (social neuroscience abstracts 2000).


The big bang of human evolution


The hominid brain grew at an accelerating pace until it reached its present size of 1500 cc

about 200,000 years ago. Yet uniquely human abilities such the invention of highly sophisticated

“standardised” multi-part tools, tailored clothes, art, religious belief and perhaps even language

are thought to have emerged quite rapidly around 40,000 years ago — a sudden explosion of

human mental abilities and culture that is sometimes called the “big bang.” If the brain reached

its full human potential — or at least size — 200,000 years ago why did it remain idle for

150,000 years? Most scholars are convinced that the big bang occurred because of some

unknown genetic change in brain structure. For instance, the archaeologist Steve Mithen has just

written a book in which he claims that before the big bang there were three different brain modules

in the human brain that were specialised for “social or Machiavellian intelligence,” for

“mechanical intelligence” or tool use, and for “natural history” (a propensity to classify). These

three modules remained isolated from each other but around 50,000 years ago some genetic

change in the brain suddenly allowed them to communicate with each other, resulting in the

enormous flexibility and versatility of human consciousness.

I disagree with Mithen’s ingenious suggestion and offer a very different solution to the problem.

(This is not incompatible with Mithen’s view but it’s a different idea). I suggest that the socalled

big bang occurred because certain critical environmental triggers acted on a brain that had

already become big for some other reason and was therefore “pre-adapted” for those cultural

innovations that make us uniquely human. (One of the key pre adaptations being mirror neurons.)

Inventions like tool use; art, math and even aspects of language may have been invented

“accidentally” in one place and then spread very quickly given the human brain’s amazing

capacity for imitation learning and mind reading using mirror neurons. Perhaps any major

“innovation” happens because of a fortuitous coincidence of environmental circumstances —

usually at a single place and time. But given our species’ remarkable propensity for miming,

such an invention would tend to spread very quickly through the population — once it emerged.

Mirror neurons obviously cannot be the only answer to all these riddles of evolution. After

all rhesus monkeys and apes have them, yet they lack the cultural sophistication of humans

(although it has recently been shown that chimps at least do have the rudiments of culture, even

in the wild). I would argue, though, that mirror neurons are necessary but not sufficient: their

emergence and further development in hominids was a decisive step. The reason is that once

you have a certain minimum amount of “imitation learning” and “culture” in place, this culture

can, in turn, exert the selection pressure for developing those additional mental traits that make

us human. And once this starts happening you have set in motion the autocatalytic process that

culminated in modern human consciousness.

A second problem with my suggestion is that it doesn’t explain why the many human inno-

vations that constitute the big bang occurred during a relatively short period. If it were simply a

matter of chance discoveries spreading rapidly, why would all of them have occurred at the

same time? There are three answers to this objection. First, the evidence that it all took place at

the same time is tenuous. The invention of music, shelters, hafted tools, tailored clothing, writing,

speech, etc., may have been spread out between 100k and 5k and the so-called great leap

may be a sampling artefact of archaeological excavation. Second, any given innovation (e.g.

speech or writing or tools) may have served as a catalyst for the others and may have therefore

accelerated the pace of culture as a whole. And third, there may indeed have been a genetic

change, but it may not have been an increase in the ability to innovate (nor a breakdown of barriers

between modules as suggested by Mithen) but an increase in the sophistication of the mirror

neuron system and therefore in “learnability.” The resulting increase in ability to imitate and

learn (and teach) would then explain the explosion of cultural change that we call the “great

leap forward” or the “big bang” in human evolution. This argument implies that the whole

“nature-nurture debate” is largely meaningless as far as humans are concerned. Without the

genetically specified learnability that characterises the human brain Homo sapiens wouldn’t

deserve the title “sapiens” (wise) but without being immersed in a culture that can take advantage

of this learnability, the title would be equally inappropriate. In this sense human culture and

human brain have co-evolved into obligatory mutual parasites — without either the result would

not be a human being. (No more than you can have a cell without its parasitic mitochondria).


The second big bang


My suggestion that these neurons provided the initial impetus for “runaway” brain/ culture

co-evolution in humans isn’t quite as bizarre as it sounds. Imagine a Martian anthropologist was

studying human evolution a million years from now. He would be puzzled (like Wallace was) by

the relatively sudden emergence of certain mental traits like sophisticated tool use, use of fire,

art and “culture” and would try to correlate them (as many anthropologists now do) with purported

changes in brain size and anatomy caused by mutations. But unlike them he would also

be puzzled by the enormous upheavals and changes that occurred after (say) 19th century —

what we call the scientific/industrial revolution. This revolution is, in many ways, much more

dramatic (e.g. The sudden emergence of nuclear power, automobiles, air travel, and space travel)

than the “great leap forward” that happened 40,000 years ago!

He might be tempted to argue that there must have been a genetic change and corresponding

change in brain anatomy and behaviour to account for this second leap forward. (Just as many

anthropologists today seek a genetic explanation for the first one.) Yet we know that present one

occurred exclusively because of fortuitous environmental circumstances, because Galileo

invented the “experimental method,” that, together with royal patronage and the invention of the

printing press, kicked off the scientific revolution. His experiments and the earlier invention of a

sophisticated new language called mathematics in India in the first millennium AD (based on

place value notation, zero and the decimal system), set the stage for Newtonian mechanics and

the calculus and “the rest is history” as we say.

Now the thing to bear in mind is that none of this need have happened. It certainly did not

happen because of a genetic change in the human brains during the renaissance. It happened at

least partly because of imitation learning and rapid “cultural” transmission of knowledge.

(Indeed one could almost argue that there was a greater behavioural/cognitive difference

between pre-18th century and post 20th century humans than between Homo erectus and archaic

Homo sapiens. Unless he knew better our Martian ethnologist may conclude that there was a

bigger genetic difference between the first two groups than the latter two species!)

Based on this analogy, I suggest, further, that even the first great leap forward was made

possible largely by imitation and emulation. Wallace’s question was perfectly sensible; it is very

puzzling how a set of extraordinary abilities seemed to emerge “out of the blue.” But his solution

was wrong. The apparently sudden emergence of things like art or sophisticated tools was

not because of god or “divine intervention.” I would argue instead that just as a single invention

(or two) by Galileo and Gutenberg quickly spread and transformed the surface of the globe

(although there was no preceding genetic change), inventions like fire, tailored clothes, “symmetrical

tools,” and art, etc. may have fortuitously emerged in a single place and then spread

very quickly. Such inventions may have been made by earlier hominids, too (even chimps and

orangs are remarkably inventive — who knows how inventive Homo erectus or Neanderthals

were?). But early hominids simply may not have had an advanced enough mirror neuron system

to allow a rapid transmission and dissemination of ideas. So the ideas quickly drop out of the

“meme pool.” This system of cells, once it became sophisticated enough to be harnessed for

“training” in tool use and for reading other hominids minds, may have played the same pivotal

role in the emergence of human consciousness (and replacement of Neanderthals by Homo sapiens)

as the asteroid impact did in the triumph of mammals over reptiles.

So it makes no more sense to ask “why did sophisticated tool use and art emerge only

40,000 years ago even though the brain had all the required latent ability 100,000 years earlier?”

— than to ask “why did space travel occur only a few decades ago, even though our brains were

pre-adapted for space travel at least as far back Cro magnons?” The question ignores the important

role of contingency or plain old luck in human evolutionary history.

Thus I regard Rizzolati’s discovery — and my purely speculative conjectures on their key

role in our evolution — as the most important unreported story of the last decade.


*


V.S. Ramachandran is Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Professor with

the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San

Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the Salk Institute. Ramachandran initially trained as

a doctor and subsequently obtained a Ph.D. from Trinity College at the University of

Cambridge. Ramachandran’s early work was on visual perception but he is best known for his

experiments in behavioral neurology, which, despite their apparent simplicity, have had a pro –

found impact on the way we think about the brain. He has been called “The Marco Polo of neu –

roscience” by Richard Dawkins and “The modern Paul Broca” by Eric Kandel.

In 2005 he was awarded the Henry Dale Medal and elected to an honorary life fellowship

by the Royal Instituion of Great Britain. His other honours and awards include fellowships from

All Souls College, Oxford, and from Stanford University; the Presidential Lecture Award from

the American Academy of Neurology, two honorary doctorates, the annual Ramon Y Cajal

award from the International Neuropsychiatry Society, and the Ariens-Kappers medal from the

Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences. In 2003 he gave the annual BBC Reith lectures and

was the first physician/psychologist to give the lectures since they were begun by Bertrand

Russel in 1949. In 1995 he gave the Decade of the Brain lecture at the 25th annual (Silver

Jubilee) meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. Most recently the President of India conferred

on him the second highest civilian award and honorific title in India, the Padma Bhushan.

Ramachandran has published over 180 papers in scientific journals (including five invited

review articles in the Scientific American). He is author of the acclaimed book “Phantoms in

the Brain” that has been translated into nine languages and formed the basis for a two part

series on Channel Four TV (UK) and a 1 hour PBS special in USA. NEWSWEEK magazine has

named him a member of “The Century Club” – one of the “hundred most prominent people to

watch in the next century.”


This entry was posted in standard. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s