Paul Bloom talks about research on the morality of small children, and ways in which their morality is similar to and different from adults. Concise descriptions of supporting experiments is given throughout.

Basically, babies prefer nice people over mean people, but prefer people who punish mean people over people who reward mean people. But babies are not impartial; for example, they give favorable treatment to other babies who are wearing the same tee-shirt as themselves.

Also has some content about the cognition of babies in general. Experiments show that, at various young ages, “..babies think of objects largely as adults do, as connected masses that move as units, that are solid and subject to gravity and that move in continuous paths through space and time,” and “…expect people to move rationally in accordance with their beliefs and desires…”, and “…know that other people can have false beliefs”.

Nature sent me a press release about this today and it seemed like it might be of interest to ND readers. There is also a related commentary in the journal this week.

Also, it looks like Neanderthals share the FOXP2 variant that humans have:

Archaeologists have long debated whether Neanderthals could speak, and they have eagerly awaited Dr. Pääbo’s analysis of the Neanderthal FOXP2, a gene essential for language. Modern humans have two changes in FOXP2 that are not found in chimpanzees, and that presumably evolved to make speech possible. Dr. Pääbo said Neanderthals had the same two changes in their version of the FOXP2 gene. But many other genes are involved in language, so it is too early to say whether Neanderthals could speak.

UPDATE: A few days ago, I heard Wolf Enard, one of Paabo’s postdocs, speak on a fascinating project, where human version of FOXP2 was knocked in to mice (replacing the endogenous mouse version). Although the phenotypic effects were subtle, the approach itself is quite revolutionary: Putting human versions of genes into model organisms to see how the subsequent evolution of the gene changes its function. I wonder what other genes might be amenable to this approach.

It was the very last paragraph that caught my eye:

Ever since the atomic bomb, physicists have known that their work has potential military uses, and have spoken up about it. But on the morality of sending orders directly to the brain (of a soldier, employee, child, prisoner …), or of devices that read thoughts and intentions from afar, neuroscientists have been strangely silent. The time to speak up is before the genie is out of the bottle.

Whoa! To me, the physicists who spoke out early on against nuclear proliferation seemed (and still seem) both very courageous and prescient in their ideas. Are we neuroscientists dropping the ball? I would love to start a discussion on this subject and to hear your responses (both from neuro people and others) in the comments below.

I’ll start: I personally don’t think the arena of neural enhancement/intrusion (mind reading, mind control, cognitive enhancement, etc.) is comparable to the sheer destructive power of nuclear weapons. I do see in the near future the unfortunate potential for abuse of neurotechnology and violation of personal freedoms, but the threat does not seem as horrifying or deadly. Still, if neurotechnology allows governments greater control over their citizens, it seems reasonable that scientists who enable such technologies should intervene. Perhaps it is time for a neural bill of rights, which, similar to the freedoms granted by the US Bill of Rights, will clearly state what aspects of a person’s mental state or capacity cannot be infringed upon without permission from that person. Thoughts?

When considered alongside the story of Kevin Warwick who had a 100-electrode array implanted in his arm in 2002 in order to study electrical signals from his hand, one must wonder: is this a starting trend?

From the article:

TR: Do you really want to do this?

BN: Well, I’ve thought about it very carefully. I’ve talked to neurosurgeons, both in the United States and outside the country where the regulatory environment is less strict, about how practical and risky it is. If the risk of serious postsurgical complications was one in one hundred, I wouldn’t do it. If it was one in one thousand, I would seriously consider doing it. To my chagrin, most surgeons estimate the risk to be somewhere in between my benchmarks.

–Stephen

Offhand, one might expect a broad range of perceived dangerous ideas, varying by research interests and such. What’s surprising is that many of the luminaries think that the “most dangerous idea” is this particular, same idea: As neuroscience progresses, popular realization that the “astonishing hypothesis” — that mind is brain — will create a potentially cataclysmic upheaval of society as we know and have profound (negative) moral implications as people claim less responsibility for their actions.

Of course, this just isn’t true. But, would you believe that
Paul Bloom,
VS Ramachandran,
John Horgan,
Andy Clark,
Marc Hauser,
Clay Shirky,
Eric Kandel,
John Allen Paulos,
and, in a more genetic context, Jerry Coyne and Craig Venter
are all very worried about this issue? (And I didn’t even read 50% of the Edge dangerous ideas… there might be even more… ) Is this really the most dangerous idea out there to all of these talented thinkers?

I feel strongly that science and morality have always been separate domains and that any worry that, by “debunking” the mind, we automatically become immoral machines is just ridiculous. Through this scientific knowledge, we might gain some humility, maybe better see our close relatedness to nonhuman primates and place in nature, etc., but we’re not going to flip out and become crazed zombies. This just isn’t going to happen.

Does anybody else think that this just isn’t a truly dangerous idea (although certainly an “astonishing” one, in the Crick sense)? Or am I wrong here?

Samples of academic worrying after the jump.

“Free will is going away. Time to redesign society to take that into account.” – Clay Shirky
“In contrast, the widespread rejection of the soul would have profound moral and legal consequences.” – Paul Bloom
“If all this seems dehumanizing, you haven’t seen anything yet.” – VS Ramachandran
“The Depressing, Dangerous Hypothesis: We Have No Souls.” – Paul Horgan
“Revealing the genetic basis of personality and behavior will create societal conflicts” – J. Craig Venter
“Unfortunately, what appears to be a rather modest proposal on some counts, is dangerous on another. It is dangerous to those who abhor biologically grounded theories on the often misinterpreted perspective that biology determines our fate, derails free will, and erases the soul.” – Marc Hauser

Seems like a lot of worrying to me over very little…

Minute-by-minute liveblog follows after the jump.

4:00pm- Just got in. You wouldn’t think it but highly-educated neuroscientists can sometimes be mistaken for a herd of rampaging elephants. Insane! After passing through the most nominal security imaginable (you need to actually look inside the bag, not just annoyingly ask people to unzipper the bag and then pass it through), the next surprise was that laptop folk are apparently second-class citizens and forced to sit in the back. In the back of a 7,500 seat auditorium. This is worse than Foxboro. But definitely warmer.

4:15- No sign of His Holiness. They’re about 75% full in the main room and they keep coming in droves…

4:25- The man takes the stage. Everyone stands. He tells them to sit. Drops his bag on SfN president Carol Barnes and apologizes. Saying she’s a little bit nervous as she introduces him is like saying that there’s a couple of Lama-hungry neuroscientists here. The woman is shaking… every time he moves toward the podium, she edges away.

4:30- His Holiness opens with some comedy: Fakes the crowd out with his apparent lack of English. Sets the standard low and then breaks out the nearly perfect English. He wants to be your friend, and, by the way, now that he’s your friend it means his talk will be informal.

4:43- How he got into neuroscience: Hair on certain parts of the body (and lack of it on others) was an early interest. (Me too!) The 13th Dalai Lama kept some biology books. The young aspiring 14th Dalai Lama found the anatomical pictures of the body “scary”.

4:48- Best unintentional blunder by His Holiness: “I want to express my appreciation to these great, sort of, scientists.” Let’s study emotions: Man made problems are often due to the desire to take an unrealistic approach, due to ignorance. Reduce troublesome emotion, increase positive emotions on the basis of understanding the brain mechanisms.

4:50- Four hot fields: Cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience, psychology. Watch out condensed matter string theorists… he’ll be at your conferences next…

4:55- “I thought there’s no contradiction.” Science and buddhism: Be skeptical, investigate to find the true nature of reality. If only he could get evangelical Christians on board with this religion and science compatibility thing…

5:00- Wants chemical or electrical ways to change negative emotions
“Everybody needs that.” (sweet!) Hatred, jealousy, little operation here and there and it’s all gone. (seriously sweet!) His Holiness wants to be the first patient. Looks like he wants the drugs/electrodes to save some time: “I spend a few hours in meditation every day, [if we get neuroscience-based englightenment] then no need for these things.”

5:05- Realizes that he has a written statement. What, I didn’t follow it? Oh, no problem, you can get copies of that later from assistant. That’s all. Questions?

1) How do you reconcile your ideas about compassion to all beings with animal research? (great question!)
Do the minimum experiment necessary. Try to minimize pain.
“I am exploiting this poor animal to bring greater benefit to greater number of beings.”

2) Do you think the states attained by meditation should just be available without practice?
Yes, he’s for it.

3) Should everyone be on antidepressants, even if they don’t need it?
Paints a fine distinction: He’s against tranquilizers. Can’t be drugs that surpress intelligence.

4) The mind-body problem. What’s your take?
What is the definition of consciousness? Through neuroscience, we will find neural correlates of those things that make up consciousness. (a born neuroscientist)

5) what’s the best way to overcome addiction?
Takes on modern culture: “I hate the word best… best, cheapest, quickest?” His advice: Addiction is not really my field. Treat case by case.

6) What about the co-existence of religion and science, esp. with the controversy in American education. What are your views on intelligent design?
I don’t know. [Big laugh.] Americans need to do some research.

7) If you were to enter the field of neuroscience, what would your PhD thesis be?
I need at least a few more days to think very carefully.

Well, he’s got four more days of intense SfN conferencing to come up with a topic.

I’m not saying that this is definitely not a good diet drug. The cognitive changes could be minor, or they be beneficial, or they could be outweighed by the weight loss effects. But the cognitive effects might also be subtle and hard to detect. I just hope the patients understand that drug affects the brain in unknown and possibly significant ways. I feel that people should take the decision to chronically consume this drug as seriously as they would consider chronically consuming marijuana (a CB1 agonist).