On 10/30/2017 08:34 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > Do humans become more specialized with age? I propose that we go through > cycles of specialization/generalization. Babies are optimized for two > things, ingesting and metabolizing nourishment (eliminating waste is a > sub-process this) and triggering adults to provide nourishment and protection > from predators and the elements. As vertebrates go, we spend a LONG time in > this specialization (until weaned and diaper trained?).
Although this may sound like hair-splitting, I don't think it is. I don't think babies are AT ALL specialized to ingesting, metabolism, and manipulation of their adults. I think babies are maximally generalized. They're not good at *any* particular thing. Their feces isn't well processed. They don't easily focus on things (faces being a well documented exception). They can't really grasp things well. Etc. So, if they're specialized at anything, I'd say they're only specialists at specializing. Why spend so long in that specializing phase? (And why do we have babies that are so generalized and vulnerable?) Because the specialties they must learn are HARD to learn. The semi-universality of the constructors that are humans is very difficult to wander into and navigate once almost-there. When a kid finally *does* learn to do some particular thing, they milk it for all it's worth! When you finally learn to manipulate your mom into feeding you, you'll do it as often as you can ... because it feels good. It doesn't just feel good to eat. It also feels good to exercise your new specialty. > As babies become ambulatory and then learn language, they become generalists. > At some point in their growth into adults, they may at least dabble at > specialization... picking a sport or a topic of study to excel at. Everything you say below the above (snipped) was way too focused on the (illusory) *mind* and *thought*. Yes, you mention lots of specialties that involve motor skills and subsumption of conscious to unconscious tasks. But you're talking/writing as if the mind controls the body, which is clearly not the case. So my argument above, that babies are more general than toddlers are more general than teens are more general than adults allows a body-centric conception of specialization. That mind-centric stuff is nonsense. But that doesn't mean your main objection isn't valid. Yes, we can, to greater or lesser extent, re-generalize, re-specialize, etc. That's the essence of the claim that humans are the most universal of the animals as constructors. Some ways this can happen are psychedelic drugs, meditation, new exercise regimens, as well as the typical (traumatic) events like divorce, losing a job, moving to a foreign land, significant illness, etc. However, my claim would be that the universality is weakened as we age, not that we can't (somewhat) re-generalize at any point in our path to death, only that the extent to which we re-generalize lessens. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
