The Brain              

Index:

  • The Self-Organizing Brain - Deacon, T. (Anthropology& Linguistics)

  • Brain Structures - Perfetti,  C. (Psychology & Linguistics)

  • A Different Kind of Brain - Deacon, T. (Anthropology& Linguistics)

  • Brain Size Differentiation - Deacon, T. (Anthropology& Linguistics)

  • Old Logic of the Brain - Deacon, T. (Anthropology& Linguistics)

  • Early Mammal Brains - Deacon, T. (Anthropology& Linguistics)

  • The Brain's Logic - Deacon, T. (Anthropology& Linguistics)

    • Return to Index of Topics  -  Notes: 1) This page is a work in progress and does not yet comprehensively cover its topic or include all the COTC and web resources its topic deserves.  2) Bold is used to emphasize our [COTC] sense of importance and does not necessarily reflect gestures or tones of emphasis in the original source. This color indicates COTC edits for brevity or flow. See referenced original for exact quotes.

    Share this:          

    The Self-Organizing Brain    

    Most surprisingly is that brains are not, it's hard to say this but, brains are not designed the way we would design any machine. They are not built the way we would build a machine.  We don’t take the parts and put them together to build a whole.  In fact, what happens is just the other way around.  The whole starts out, it’s just undifferentiated. The parts aren’t distinguished from each other and they become more and more different from each other.  The system becomes more and more complicated.  The problem is the process is very indirect. 

    It is not like building something from a plan. It’s a very indirect process.  It became very clear that this process is very much what we would call today, self organization.  A lot of the information that goes into building brains is not actually there in the genes.  It’s sort of cooked up or whipped up on the fly as brains develop.  And so if one is to explain how a very complicated organ like the brain actually evolved, changed it’s function to be able to do something like language, one has to understand it through this very complicated prism of self organization and a kind of mini-evolution process that goes on as brains develop in which cells essentially compete with each other for nutrients.  Some of them persist and some of them don’t.  Some lineages go on to produce vast structures in the brain.  Other lineages get eliminated as we develop, in some ways just like a selection process in evolution.  

    We are going to have to think, in a sense, like biology thinks, like embryology works in this kind of self organizing, self evolving-like logic to get back at what actually causes things to occur and develop in complex ways. 

    I think this is the case with language itself. As it’s passed from generation to generation it has a kind of self organizing and evolution-like character to it. 

    Language has changed the environments in which brains have evolved.  That changes the picture radically because now one can look at the brain, so to speak, with an inside out perspective of the problem and ask the question, “What’s different about human brains and how might that difference tell us something about the forces that shaped it?

    Terrence Deacon, Professor of Biological Anthropology and Linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley. Author of The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. Source: COTC Interview - http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/deacon.htm#Self-OrganizingBrain

    Brain Structures

    Dr. Charles Perfetti: The brain will develop neuro-structures that generally are adapted from other uses. There’s no reason to think the brain has any module in it in the beginning for reading. Written language is too recent a human development to have allowed brain evolution to accommodate it. So, I think this is another aspect of the difficulty.

    The brain has resources it can use for vision, in particular, and it has to recruit these resources for reading. Those visual resources actually are not maximally tuned for distinguishing the difference between an E and a C, for example. There are levels of the visual cortex that can perform that task but it’s quite different from being able to tell one face from another or one building from another, and so on. The high spatial frequencies have to be resolved.

    Now, once that part is done and once you connect these visual form perceptions with your language, that part, speaking loosely, could be considered a module. The connections are pretty constrained from visual areas to temporal and frontal areas that together seem to support rapid word identification and so some of those areas are shared with spoken language as well. So, at that point once you’ve got the visual forms, and not just the forms but mapping them to the spoken language forms, then you can talk about a system requiring some modularity; behaving as if it’s a highly skilled in text system using sub-brain networks that are in some sense specialized for that. But in the beginning you have to recruit other resources and apparently that can be a problem.

    David Boulton: Those resources would also perform, following along your trajectory here, the differentiation inside of word sounds in a way that’s otherwise artificial and that is unique to the kind of distinctions in word sounds necessary to map to the code. So, it’s not the same kind of attention to sound differences that are necessary to participate in oral conversation.

    Dr. Charles Perfetti: Exactly. Right, and so again, it’s attention to form, a much more analytic form, little pieces of form that in themselves have no meaning.

    David Boulton: So, in a natural setting we’re more attuned to seeing the difference in larger wholes rather than in making differences between such small particulars.

    Dr. Charles Perfetti: Right. I think that’s a big part of it.

    David Boulton: That’s why overall what were trying to get a handle on is whether we can describe this lower part of the process as if its job is to simulate a stream of language inputs to comprehension and fabricate that simulation according to the way the brain has learned to process the code through the visual and auditory modalities, which is providing it with information and instruction.

    Dr. Charles Perfetti: I like that. I think that’s a good way to describe it. I find that very compatible with the way I think about it. Those are your words, not mine, but I think that’s a good way of thinking about it. 

    Charles Perfetti, Professor, Psychology & Linguistics, University of Pittsburgh. Source: COTC Interview: http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/perfetti.htm#BrainStructures

    A Different Kind of Brain

    So, for me, taking the inside out perspective and looking at brains for clues to language rather than the other way around, I ask the question this way. This is probably the most significant departure from any kind of behavior that we’ve seen in any other species and it’s radically different in many ways from what other species can do.  Such a large-scale difference and probably the biggest difference between us and other species ought to be reflected in some of the biggest differences between human brains and non-human brains.   

    With that as a kind of guiding hypothesis, not even a hypothesis, a sort of heuristic as to what to look for, I ask the question, “So what is different about human brains, if one could categorize in a systematic way, what is really different about human brains? Wouldn’t that tell us something about language?”

    The truth is we don’t know much more now about intelligence and what its relationship is to whole brains than we did a century ago. We don’t really know how whole brains work yet.  We don’t have a sort of general theory that everybody agrees upon, or even is close to agreeing upon.  

    Terrence Deacon, Professor of Biological Anthropology and Linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley. Author of The Symbolic
    Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain.     Source: COTC Interview - http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/deacon.htm#ADifferentKindofBrain

    Brain Size Differentiation

    On the other hand, this major change, if it’s not just blowing the thing up larger and adding a whole lot more to everything, if it is somehow distributed in an interesting way, that distribution of how the same parts got changed and enlarged with respect to each other might tell us something about what that difference is. In fact, it tells me something very important and that is when you change the size of something you also change the relationships between the parts.  We know that a small business, for example, can have one kind of organization for doing things whereas a large business, ultimately just simply because of its size, has to have all kinds of middle managers and different kinds of bureaucracy and people don’t get to talk to everybody.  The brain is a different kind of brain because it’s bigger.  The connections are going to be different because it’s bigger. That is going to be a clue to it as well. 

    I began to look at quantitative issues and with a developmental perspective, how changes in size might change the circuits, that is, how circuits might respond to this.  I think for me that has been the biggest source of insights, the biggest source of clues.  They’re not answers, they’re clues.  That is, I think that the connections are different because the brain is bigger and because not all parts expanded at the same rate.  I think that’s the first inside out clue to what is important about this language difference. What was the change in the hardware that supported this new kind of communication and cognition?

    Terrence Deacon, Professor of Biological Anthropology and Linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley. Author of The Symbolic
    Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain.     Source: COTC Interview - http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/deacon.htm#BrainSizeDifferentiation

    Old Logic of the Brain    

    But language, of course, is broken up according to a logic that has to do with communication, has to do with symbols, has to do with the constraints we have on interacting, perhaps, with speech sounds, perhaps with gesture.  The logic of the brain is a very old logic and a very conserved logic.  It’s the logic of embryology.  It’s the logic of self organization.  In fact, it’s the logic that has been shared with a common ancestor that goes back well before vertebrates.  

    We can find hints as to the organization of the genes that develop brains in fly brains.  That logic has probably not changed much.  That logic is the logic of the organization of brains.  There’s unlikely to be a nice, neat direct map between what we see in the external world of language and what we see inside brains.  In fact, the map may be very, very confused and very, very different inside the brain, that is, how the brain does what we see externally in language.  

    It’s not easy to predict from what’s produced in the world what’s going to happen inside, so to speak, in the body.  I think we can say the same about this troubling and complex dynamic in which language evolution and brain evolution are working in tandem interfering with each other, confusing each other, shaping each other.  That dynamic is probably one that is not going to be easy to predict. 

    The symbol processing problem, the automatization, (that is the speeding up of the automatic running of syntax and of analysis), the mnemonic problems, the short term memory problems associated with it  -  these are things that are going to be generally there.  And of course, typically the constraints of producing and hearing sound, or producing it visually and manually and interpreting it visually.

    Terrence Deacon, Professor of Biological Anthropology and Linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley. Author of The Symbolic
    Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain.     Source: COTC Interview -  http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/deacon.htm#OldLogic

    Early Mammal Brains

    I think clearly early language-like behavior had to involve much less vocalization because the brains that preceded us, mammal brains, are not well suited to organizing sound in precise, discrete and rapidly produced learned sequences.

    This is something that mammal brains, in effect, are poorly designed to do precisely because the system we use to produce sound is a system that normally should be running on autopilot so that we can breathe appropriately, so that we don’t choke, and so on and so forth.  There’s literally been a change in that circuitry to override those systems in order for language to be possible.

    Terrence Deacon, Professor of Biological Anthropology and Linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley. Author of The Symbolic
    Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain.     Source: COTC Interview - http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/deacon.htm#EarlyMammalBrains

    The Brain's Logic

    I think it’s interesting that in the history of recent linguistics we have modeled language processing on a Turing Machine.  The original generative grammar that Noam Chomsky pioneered and that made a radical advance in the field is modeled on the way computers work, that is a simple set of instructions and rules to generate something. Almost certainly that’s radically different than the way our brains work.  The question is, can we use that descriptive tool, that engineering model, to go back and try to figure out how brains are doing this?  Or, in fact, does that engineering model actually get in the way of figuring out what the brain’s logic is as opposed to Turing Machine logic?

    Terrence Deacon, Professor of Biological Anthropology and Linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley. Author of The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. Source: COTC Interview - http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/deacon.htm#TheBrain'sLogic

     

    Share this:          

    There is no substitute for your first-person learning.

    SIGN UP HERE to receive general updates about our project or news of future interview releases 

    Note about interviews: Participation in a Children of the Code interview does not constitute or imply an endorsement of the Children of the Code project or documentary by the interviewee. Conversely, including an interview does not constitute or imply an endorsement of the views, organizations, books or products of the interviewee, other than as explicitly stated, by the Children of the Code Project and documentary.  
     


    For more information about
    Children of the Code events     please click here
    or call:         502-290-2526


    Dr. Grover (Russ) Whitehurst  Director, Institute of Education Sciences, Assistant Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education
     Dr. Jack Shonkoff Chair, The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child; Co-Editor: From Neurons to Neighborhoods
    Dr. Edward Kame'enui Commissioner for Special Education Research, U.S. Department of Education; Director, IDEA, University  of Oregon
     Dr. G. Reid Lyon  Past Director, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    Dr. Keith Stanovich  Canadian Chair of Cognitive Science, University of Toronto
    Dr. Mel Levine Co-Chair and Co-Founder, All Kinds of Minds; Author: A Mind at a Time, The Myth of Laziness & Ready or Not Here Life Comes
    Dr. Alex Granzin  School District Psychologist, Past President, Oregon School Psychologists Association 
    Dr. James J. Heckman Nobel Laureate, Economic Sciences 2000; Lead Author: The Productivity Argument for Investing in Young Children
    Dr. Timothy Shanahan President (2006) International Reading Association, Chair National Early Literacy Panel, Member National Reading Panel
     Nancy Hennessy  President, 2003-2005, International Dyslexia Association
     Dr. Marilyn Jager Adams Senior Scientist, Soliloquy Learning, Author: Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print
     Dr. Michael Merzenich Chair of Otolaryngology, Integrative Neurosciences, UCSF;  Member National Academy of Sciences
     Dr. Maryanne Wolf Director, Center for Reading & Language Research; Professor of Child Development, Tufts University
    Dr. Todd Risley  Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Alaska, Co-author: Meaningful Differences
     Dr. Sally Shaywitz  Neuroscientist, Department of Pediatrics, Yale University, Author: Overcoming Dyslexia
    Dr. Louisa Moats  Director, Professional Development and Research Initiatives, Sopris West Educational Services
     Dr. Zvia Breznitz Professor, Neuropsychology of Reading & Dyslexia, University of Haifa, Israel 
         Rick Lavoie Learning Disabilities Specialist, Creator: How Difficult Can This Be?: The F.A.T. City Workshop & Last One Picked, First One Picked On
     Dr.Charles Perfetti Professor, Psychology & Linguistics; Senior Scientist and Associate Director, Learning R&D Center, U. of Pittsburgh, PA
    Arthur J. Rolnick Senior V.P. & Dir. of Research,  Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis;  Co- Author: The Economics of Early Childhood Development  
    Dr. Richard Venezky  Professor, Educational Studies, Computer and  Information Sciences, and Linguistics, University of Delaware
    Dr. Keith Rayner  Distinguished  Professor, University of Massachusetts, Author: Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing
    Dr. Paula Tallal  Professor of Neuroscience, Co-Director of the Center for Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience, Rutgers University
     Dr.John Searle  Mills Professor of the Philosophy of Mind and Language, University of California-Berkeley, Author: Mind, A Brief Introduction
    Dr.Mark T. Greenberg Director, Prevention Research Center, Penn State Dept. of Human Development & Family Studies; CASEL Leadership Team
    Dr. Terrence Deacon  Professor of Biological Anthropology and Linguistics at University of California- Berkeley
    Chris Doherty  Ex-Program Director, National Reading First Program, U.S. Department of Education
     Dr. Erik Hanushek Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
    Dr. Marketa Caravolas Director, Bangor Dyslexia Unit, Bangor University, Author: International Report on Literacy Research
     Dr. Christof Koch Professor of Computation and Neural Systems,  Caltech - Author: The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach
     Dr. Guy Deutscher Professor of Languages and Cultures of Ancient Mesopotamia, Holland; Author: Unfolding Language
     Robert Wedgeworth  President, ProLiteracy, World's Largest Literacy Organization
    Dr. Peter Leone  Director, National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice
         Dr. Thomas Cable  Professor of English, University of Texas at Austin, Co-author: A History of the English Language
    Dr. David Abram Cultural Ecologist and Philosopher; Author: The Spell of the Sensuous
    Pat Lindamood and Nanci Bell  Principal Scientists, Founders, Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes
         Dr. Anne Cunningham  Director, Joint Doctoral Program in Special Education, Graduate School of Education at University of California-Berkeley
     Dr. Donald L. Nathanson  Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at Jefferson Medical College, Director of the Silvan S. Tomkins Institute 
    Dr.Johanna Drucker  Chair of Media Studies, University of Virginia, Author: The Alphabetic Labyrinth
    John H. Fisher  Medievalist, Leading authority on the development of the written English language, Author: The Emergence of Standard English
     Dr. Malcolm Richardson   Chair, Dept. of English, Louisiana State University; Research: The Textual Awakening of the English Middle Classes  
    James Wendorf  Executive Director, National Center for Learning Disabilities
    Leonard Shlain Physician; Best-Selling Author: The Alphabet vs. The Goddess
    Robert Sweet  Co-Founder, National Right to Read Foundation

    FULL LIST OF OVER 100 COMPLETED INTERVIEWS

    HELP US: If you appreciate this interview and the work of the Children of the Code project please take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us. Your comments and feedback not only help us learn to better serve you, they help us get the support we need to continue the project.  Click here to read what others are saying about the Children of the Code Project.

    SIGN UP HERE to receive general updates about our project or news of future interview releases 

    The Children of the Code is a Social Education Project and a Public Television Series intended to catalyze and resource a social-educational transformation in how we think about and, ultimately, teach reading. The Children of the Code is an entertaining educational journey into the challenges our children's brains face when learning to read. The series weaves together archeology, history, linguistics, developmental neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, information theory, reading theory, learning theory, and the personal and social dimensions of illiteracy. 


    CONSIDER HELPING OUR WORK BY CLICKING HERE


    THANK YOU!

     

    Copyright statement:  Copyright (c) 2014, Learning Stewards, A 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Organization, All Rights Reserved. Permission to use, copy, and distribute these materials for not-for-profit educational purposes, without fee and without a signed licensing agreement, is hereby granted, provided that "Children of the Code - www.childrenofthecode.org"  (with a functioning hyperlink when online) be cited as the source and appear in all excerpts, copies, and distributions.  Thank you. (back to top)