What, exactly , is thought?

Is real thought limited to the conscious goings on in the brain, or does it extend to semi-automatic processes like driving, or walking a well known route?

When you look at a picture for example, do you actually look at it and think what you're seeing, or do you just see it?

Do real thoughts appear inside our minds in the format of words or pictures or something else?

Well I can only reply in the best way I know how, to think about typing something in real time :D, anyhoo. I guess with the options you gave I would prefer to think *gasp* yes think, that whatever you are doing is you thinking. I believe that everything you see is your own reality created from your perspective or your consious thought. Hence everything revolving around this.

Yeah, but if you're, say, smoking a cigarette, do you actually think about what you're doing?
Doesn't your mind just send out the orders without actually thinking about it?

Like now, I'm thinking about the words that I'm writing, but I'm not even considering what keys to hit on my keyboard.
When you sign your name on a cheque, do you think about every stroke of the pen, or do you just think 'I'm gonna sign my name'?

(Continues from the “For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals...” thread as we were going off topic.)

SeekerOfTruth wrote:
“remembering a list of names or numbers was to associate the names or numbers with a common path you actually traversed often”

Yep, the “Method of Loci” used by the ancient Greeks.

In addition to the “chaining” methods I’ve practiced other techniques mentioned in cognitive psychology texts. Let’s see…I’ll remember “Jose” because he has a nose like a hose. Better not accidentally call him hose nose. Another technique for recalling numbers is to relate them to number of significance. A runner (faster than Imahamaster) might remember 358 as a great time for the mile. I practiced several techniques by memorizing the main ideas of the text I was reading. Worked at the time. Little remains. Sigh. I still use your number chunking technique.

“Another thing about visualization. In one of the martial arts I was studying I was taught that I could 'watch' myself thinking by attempting to clear my mind for meditation and then just acknowledge the thoughts that came into my head without analyzing them. You can actively 'watch' yourself think in this way while meditating. You can eventually get to a point where you can 'stand outside yourself' and 'watch' thoughts float through your mind as if you are outside the process.”

Hmmm…watching one’s self think. Imahamster pretty much analyzes and dissects every tidbit. Watch without analyzing? Not easy for this hamster. Closest I come is while reading a fiction book.

I do have “self” monitors that track my major thread of thought. They aren’t particularly quiet or polite, interrupt with “But what about..” or “You don’t REALLY mean that…”. My head is a noisy place. Maybe too noisy for martial arts.

Well there are two possible ways of responding to your question:

1. How does one define the word thought? Is it only conscious brain phenomena or unconscious as well?
From the stand point of defining it I say only consious. I would never say I thought my heart to beat ...

2. Scientifically How do brain processes work?
From this stand point I would say both are part of thought, as even your conscious thoughts have lower level components which are more automatic, but they shape your thoughts and are certainly part of them. What I find interesting is that thought is really a physcial process. It's all chemical reactions and physics. Crazy. So even conscious thought and shifts in awareness are dictated by complex chemical reactions.

Just to throw something else out there ... pain is just a thought. How can an idea hurt. Red is just a thought. Why does it look red. How do encodings of ideas in our brain take on the significance that they do in our mental constructions of the world in our conscious mind??

Begin with a function of arbitary complexity. Feed it values, "sense data". Then take your result, square it, and feed it back into your original function, adding a new set of sense data. Continue to feed your results back into the original function ad infinitum. What do you have? The fundamental principle of human consciousness.

--Academician Prokhor Zakharov
"The Feedback Principle"

From Sid Meier´s Alpha Centauri

Yogi’s have demonstrated that they can control their heartbeat and skin temperature through thought. Admittedly I doubt they do this by thinking, “slow down heart”. But then, as Esp pointed out, that is not how we control our muscles. Seems more like magic, wish and it happens. (Or, in the case of Yogi’s, wish in a special way and the heart responds.)

Is there a clear separation between conscious and unconscious thought? Or does one overlap the other. If I’m ignoring most of a conversation and then hear a word that grabs my attention, can I recall the sentence in which the word was spoken? There are intriguing discoveries from split brain experiments concerning awareness. A person writing answers with the hand while the mouth claimed not to know the answers.

Scilosopher, another view is that thoughts cause neurons to fire and synapses to grow. By the mental act of memorization I change the physical arrangement of my brain. (Telekinesis?) Hmmm…your reading my words is altering your brain. So my thoughts are causing physical changes in your brain. (Please don’t sue me.) Mind/brain duality.

People ignore some pain by distraction or by maintaining deliberate focus away from the pain. Some sexual practices seem to be based on pain being perceived as pleasure while a person is in an aroused state. Wonder if that perception reversal happens at the nerve endings or within the brain?

Yang, Imahamster has wandered many an Alpha Centauri world. :)

But thoughts are nerves firing. So nerves firing cause other nerves to fire...

I don't buy a mind/brain duality. Thought can supposedly be measured as nueronal (and possibly glial) activity. It's seems that thought and experience change the brain's physical patterning. It's more likely that a bunch of people trying to make subtle points and using lot's of other subtle arguments in abstract language may convince themselves of things that aren't quite right than that our physical brain is in any way reasonably separated from the thoughts we experience.They are two sides of the same coin ... one in the same. (which you seem to think two, because your saying my physcial mind will be changed by my thoughts after reading your words.)

Biology may seem like magic and it is amazing, but believe me it's pretty mechanistic, just very complicated.

Also even if conscious and unconscious thought can be separated in some cases they clearly interact at some levels, especially developmentally you learn to do things consciously at first and then the act is made more subconscious. Like learning how to throw a baseball. I don't think we should necessarily separate them so I change my answer - I'm thinking myself to breathe all the time (heart beat was a bad example ... I think that's actually just pacemaker cells).

Yang ... I can't quite buy that procedure consciousness is a whole lot more tempermental than that. I wouldn't be surprised if there are maps (or iterative mathematical procedures), that contain many of the same qualities as consciousness, but if the procedure is X2 = X1 all you get is a repeated square with some added noise. The procedures are going to have to be a lot more specific than that.

Imahamster sees “mind” as an emergent property of an actively functioning brain. Thinking, learning, listening, seeing, etc. are functions associated with “mind”. The brain is the biological substrate of “mind”. The two are tightly coupled. (Not likely a mind will slip its anchor and become a wandering hamster ghost.) A mind “thought” is a non-linear variable frequency electrical pattern on the brain neural net. Permanent memories are stored “holographicly” in various brain regions. (StryderUnknown described memory storage pretty well with pictures. Just don’t take the word holographic too literally. Overlaying a new memory causes synaptic changes among neuron regions.) Likely there are separate regions for visual memories, auditory memories, etc. That is the mind/brain duality as seen by Imahamster. Admittedly the hamster usage of “mind/brain duality” may be uncommon in the human world.

(Imahamster puts on his preacher cap.)

Imahamster shares Scilosopher’s concern that the real science of mind and brain not be lost in mysticism and pseudo-science. Imahamster doesn’t open his mind so far that his brain falls out on the floor. (At least it hasn’t yet.)

Many intelligent and knowledgeable people believe that human minds or souls or something do exist independent of the brain. However once one detaches the mind from the brain the door is open for the most “novel” beliefs. Care is needed. Being open to new creative ideas keeps science fertile. Forcing ideas to pass rigorous scrutiny keeps science true. Good seeds may come from the most unlikely sources. Bad seeds may come from trusted “authorities”. Taste and chew before swallowing any seeds.

Imahamster values diverse opinions and derives amusement from some of the more extreme theories. Figuring out just how a fringe theory is flawed can be better exercise than running on a wheel. This hamster likes seeing dogma, whether religious or political or scientific, challenged.

(Imahamster tosses cap away.)

The essence of mind seems to be pattern. If a pattern could be copied and overlaid onto and run upon a different substrate my hamster gut says the mind has been transferred. As this is beyond human technology such speculation may be silly. Besides who cares what noises a rodent’s gut makes?

What we need to be careful about in this thread is to ensure that we differentiate between automatic and autonomic thought processes.

The automatic process of, say, eating, can occure with very little or no actual intervention from the active or top level of the mind.
It would be silly to say that this is an autonomic function, because you make a conscious decision to start eating.
The process of cutting your food, handling your cutlery and flatwear, chewing, tasting and swallowing is handled outside the medulla, within the cerebellum itself.
Once we have swallowed, however, the process of peristalsis and control of the bolus is handled by the area of the brain that controls heart and liver function, ie, within the autonomic centre, the medulla.
Still, at almost any part of the autonomic phase of the process, the cerebellum can take over again at will.
To prevent choking for example.

It's similar to the autonomic process of breathing. We don't think 'inhale... exhale', but at any time we can override the medulla and control our breathing by thought. By slowing your breathing, the body is forced to relax, so the medulla slows the heart to match.

Originally posted by Imahamster
(.....
“Another thing about visualization. In one of the martial arts I was studying I was taught that I could 'watch' myself thinking by attempting to clear my mind for meditation and then just acknowledge the thoughts that came into my head without analyzing them. You can actively 'watch' yourself think in this way while meditating. You can eventually get to a point where you can 'stand outside yourself' and 'watch' thoughts float through your mind as if you are outside the process.”

....

I do have “self” monitors that track my major thread of thought. They aren’t particularly quiet or polite, interrupt with “But what about..” or “You don’t REALLY mean that…”. My head is a noisy place. Maybe too noisy for martial arts.

Imahamster,

Maybe hamsters don't need martial arts:D

Your thought about noise is exactly the reason I was taught to try not to analyze the thoughts. This is very 'Martial Artsie' to coin a phrase, but when facing an opponent in combat, you do not want to be spending time analyzing your thoughts. You want to react without thinking. This takes a great deal of training and practice and speaks somewhat to the points made by you, scilosopher, and esp. You begin your training by consciously thinking about the moves/techniques/actions you take in response to a given attack. At first, you actively have to think. 'move my leg here...raise my arm in this manner...' After a great deal of practice, you get to the point that you can react to a given scenario without having to think.. 'move my leg this way' but instead recognize what technique is applicable in a given situation and use it. However, this is only a plateau. The culmination of martial arts is not having to think about what you are doing at all. To have your mind be a still pool upon which the opponents attack just vanishes into like a stone into a pond. Your actions have become almost autonomic and you can defend yourself without conscious thought.

Speaking to autonomic processes, things like your heartbeat and breathing are typical of these kinds of processes within your body. Both, however are potentially under your conscious control. In this example, your breathing is the easier of the two to control. You can right now force yourself to breath faster or slower, but if you stop thinking about it, your autonomic control resumes without your conscious thought. In a similar manner, with bio-feedback training, it has been proven that you can consciously control your heartbeat. With the proper training you can speed up or slow down your own heartbeat consciously.

So, we now get to the idea of trying to define conscious thought. I think that conscious thought and unconscious thought are just layers of what we call consciousness that are filtering the scensory imput our brain is receiving. The conscious thought process is the dominant one while we are operating, but the unconsciuos thought process has access to all of the same data and is driving the conscious process in directions it sees fit. Use an analogy of a ship at sea. The seaman driving the ship can change the course of the ship to avoid obstacles he sees and generally controls the ship when one views a very short timeline of the ships movement. However, the navigator is the one who has laid the course of the ship and provides input to the seaman as to course corrections that are needed. Finally, the captain of the ship is the one who actually determines the destination point of the ship and has the potential to override either the seaman or the navigator. View each of these individuals as different layers in the mind. Maybe the seaman is our conscious thought process, handling the day to day activities, the navigator is the next layer down and could be considered the unconscious thought process, finally, the captain could be considered to be the ultimate unconscious control that defines where we want to go in life.

In support of the idea that our unconscious has access to the exact same information as our conscious, I have recently read two different articles on research into the subconscious though process. In both, the researchers either asked the subject to watch or listen to a specific information source. In one case, the subject was asked to watch a courser move across the screen as it blinked and moved. It was actually tracing out letters at a speed that was not possible for the conscious mind to recognize, but when tested, the subjects could identify the exact sequence of letters out of different sequences of letters.

In the second case, the subject was told to listen to a specific sound track of someone talking. At a level below conscious detection, a beat was overlaid onto the sound track. It was noted that the majority of listeners' hands began tapping in sync with the beat that was overlaid onto the sound track, but when asked, denied hearing a beat.

I have also read an article on artificial vision that described how the human eye actually perceives the 3D world. Our eye is continually moving very rapidly, scanning the entire field of view. Even as you read this, your eyes are actually picking up information about things 90 degrees to either side of where you are viewing, but your mind is filtering this information out because it is not relevant to the task of reading this post. The information is still there however. If you stop reading for a moment, but keep your eyes focused on the text of this message, you can direct your conscious 'focus' to scan the objects inside your field of view. The information isn't as good as what is directly in focus, but it is still there. Also, the three dimensional world we 'see' is a result of both our stereoscopic vision combined with the continual scanning of our eyes that generates the 3D world of vision we know.

Our vision is not the only sensory organ we have and our brains are continually being bombarded by data from all of our senses. Think. Can you actually feel your socks on your toes right now (that is if you are wearing them)? If you stop and concentrate you can actually move the point of focus of your consciousness to your toes or your fingers. This is data your brain is receiving right now, but your conscious thought processes are discarding as irrelevant. The data is still being presented to your mind and is still available to your unconscious thought process, which may be logging the fact that woolen socks aren't that comfortable with Nike shoes, therefore, when at some future date you go to buy socks, you decide that cotton is much better.

Given all of this sensory input, I think our brains are just the neural network filters and conscious thought, as well as unconscious thought, are the prioritization methods that have arisen to deal with the massive amounts of information our brains are continually receiving and to guide our course through life in the most survival oriented method possible.

Esp, very good. The body is a complete system with multiple electrical and chemical communication systems. These systems are intertwined very messily. (Far worse than old Fortran spaghetti code.) Likely the path from a seed digesting in the gut to the thought of a seed digesting in the gut is continuous. (That is digestion changes blood sugar level and that changes brain function and that changes thought. In addition portions of the brain respond directly to the blood sugar level and respond with both chemical signals and electrical signals that affect the mind’s thoughts.) However claiming digestion is “thought” is silly. Your distinction is excellent. The boundaries between autonomic, automatic, unconscious, and conscious may be rather hazy but are important to remember. (Interesting seeds are found in boundary areas and transition regions.)

Defining thought by brain region is interesting. Much of the brain is organized in layers. The layers are divided into areas that in many cases are maps of the human senses. (Amusing that a distorted wiggly map of my paw is embedded in my brain. Imagine that mental paw sparkling as I wiggle my digits. Somewhere in my hamster head another region is sparkling as I do this mental imaging.) These maps are specialized neural nets. Many functions can be mapped to these local regions. The local regions are connected by nerve bundles to other regions.

Hmmm…think of a city map as a local brain region. The visual regions are the NYC’s. The toe regions are the hick towns. The cities are interconnected by a road system. The amount of traffic between the cities indicates how closely tied the cities are. So “self” and “thought” are likely strongly associated with the big cities, churning with the latest information industries. The autonomic functions are associated with hinterland cities with older industry, e.g., breathing and temperature control. Very important to the country but a little out-of-touch.

Interesting, but this hamster’s thoughts don’t seem to be centered in one place. A prick on my claw gets my immediate attention. Prying open a seed might require focused attention on my paws, each action deliberately initiated. Thoughts seem highly connected to the senses. My thoughts soar easily from sounds, to touch, to sight. When I close my eyes and recall an image or when I imagine a fantasy scene the same brain regions are activated as when I examine an image with my eyes. So memory and thought seems to use at least some of the same brain regions used for processing sensory data.

SeekerOfTruth, I‘ve read similar descriptions from top athletes in other sports. (Playing in the “zone”.) Wonder if cross-fertilization of training concepts would be a fruitful in sports as it has in science? (Bet football players would take better to karate than to ballet.)

Nice “Ship” metaphor. Need to chew on it. Metaphors (like ships) take hamsters to interesting places.

The pieces on conscious and unconscious awareness are interesting. Thanks. Another experiment showed that action sometimes precedes thought. That is, measurement of the brain showed that firing signals to muscles were sent before the higher center “thoughts” occurred. Yet the experimental subjects believed they consciously initiated the action. (Imagine a guy takes a swing at you and you “decide” to hit back.) The mind creates a reality in which events and actions happen in a simple, straightforward manner. That reality seems largely self-delusion.

The results from split-brain experiments really make a hamster wonder. Left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. Seems Imahamster’s unconscious is less a single mysterious stranger than it is an unruly bunch of children that seldom listen to each other.

Re. "The boundaries between autonomic, automatic, unconscious, and conscious may be rather hazy but are important to remember."

Why?

The brains are separated in the right and the left hemisphere and than there is said that your analytical thinking is located in the left part and your more careable thinking is located in the right part.:)

Well, your mind is coming from the Cosmos. Beamed in like a Lightning Struck. That is your own Inner Self and with that, your mind, you have to feel a picture and let it come to you. Everybody looks at a picture in a different way and loves a picture (or not) for different reasons.

Does that have to do with thinking? I THINK not. It is a matter of how you interpretate it. You can do that by simply let it come to you. FEEL, fellow members at Sciforums. Don't THINK so much.;)

How you THINK Yogi's can manage to let their heartbeat go that slow? By letting their MIND do the 'job'. Their Inner Self. I garantee you that they don't think about it. Not in any way.:) They just do it.

Be more aware of yourself fellow members. Let the Inner 'Voice' speak...

Re. "Yogi’s have demonstrated that they can control their heartbeat and skin temperature through thought. Admittedly I doubt they do this by thinking, “slow down heart”. But then, as Esp pointed out, that is not how we control our muscles. Seems more like magic, wish and it happens. (Or, in the case of Yogi’s, wish in a special way and the heart responds.)"

Re. "How you THINK Yogi's can manage to let their heartbeat go that slow? By letting their MIND do the 'job'. Their Inner Self. I garantee you that they don't think about it. Not in any way. They just do it."

High School, mid-40's where students carrying a B or better average could elect 'service' instead of 'study hall';
Elected Library, came across science book that had stereoptic pictures;
Instructed to use piece of cardboard to force rt.eye/rt.picture, lft.eye/lft.picture;
Decide to try without cardboard using 'stare into the distance'/'focus close' approach;
Become proficient enough to view stereoptic cards without stereoscope ... required greater divergence than parallel 'stare into the distance';
Discovered 42nd St. Library, NYC, had a fantastic collection of stereoptic pictures ... Guess where I spent the better part of one Summer.

Curious if pupil contraction/dilation could be similarly controlled;
Discovered it could and that there were practical applications;
As a result discovered how subtle non-verbal communication can be.

"Wish and it happens" or "wish in a special way" ... No wishing, training by 'thinking' ... Making the body learn.

Same years later when into jujitsu.

Originally posted by Chagur
Re. "The boundaries between autonomic, automatic, unconscious, and conscious may be rather hazy but are important to remember."

Why?

Chagur, Imahamster has chewed your seeds with pleasure and appreciates this opportunity to chatter with you.

This world overflows with data. Much too much data for Imahamster’s small mind. Structure, even artificial structure, reduces complexity so that Imahamster may pose and then answer a question.

E.g., Imahamster may divide all objects into two classes those bigger than a hamster and those smaller. Imahamster then hypothesizes that objects smaller than a hamster may be chewed safely. Testing then determines whether the hypothesis is correct. Imahamster has generated knowledge from raw data. If Imahamster passes on the knowledge that chewing smaller is safe and a friend applies the knowledge thinking that "smaller" means smaller than an elephant then Imahamster loses a friend.

Defining classes such as unconscious or conscious allows phenomenon to be assigned to one class or the other (or maybe even both). Hypotheses can then be proposed and tested. Larger knowledge structures can be built on top of these simple beginnings. If Imahamster forgets why a phenomenon was assigned to the “unconscious” class, the knowledge structure begins to crumble. This hamster may remember the rules but doesn’t know to what they apply. Might claim something about conscious thoughts that was really shown for unconscious thoughts.

(Ask Imahamster "Why?" tomorrow and the answer may differ. Ask Imahamster "Why not?" and Imahamster may chatter about rigid thinking impeding creativity and new discovery.)

The knowledge structures that best aid proposing and answering questions are models. Collecting models is more fun than running on a wheel. Imahamster has long admired beautiful models.


Banshee, there are many paths. Imahamster follows the path of sniffing and chewing. Life is too short to wait for seeds to seek the hamster. However this hamster would enjoy sniffing the seeds Banshee’s path has uncovered.

Originally posted by esp


Is real thought limited to the conscious goings on in the brain, or does it extend to semi-automatic processes like driving, or walking a well known route?

Although such actions as breathing and heartbeat are classified as involuntary functions (controlled by our medulla oblongata, the stem of the brain) they require a consciousness to happen: an electro-chemical impulse of any kind is a message from the brain. Whether this constitutes a thought or not is an open arena.

One way to "think" about it is to isolate which functions go on while we're asleep. We continue to breathe, to metabolize, and to pump blood to our organs: this apparently doesn't require decision making to happen, and so it is debatable whether they are real thoughts or not. I tend to lean more towards the premise that real thought requires deliberation: most of us cannot adjust the rate of our heartbeat or the temperature of our bodies; however certain yogis and contortionists (masters of the physical body) have been able to modify these functions under observation. Maybe then it is possible with discipline to gain control of all of our bodily functions.

It is also true that we are continually filtering out possible stimuli such as our visual peripheries, background noise, any sensory input that is not imminently necessary, which raises the question: What part of our consciousness is making this decision? There is a good deal yet to be explained about the mind, and since the mind is the only tool we have with which to observe we are left in a bit of a quandary here.

Here’s a rather interesting link not too far off the topic concerning the origin of abstract thought: http://www.scientificamerican.com/news/011102/1.html

Originally posted by Imahamster

....

This world overflows with data. Much too much data for Imahamster’s small mind. Structure, even artificial structure, reduces complexity so that Imahamster may pose and then answer a question.

E.g., Imahamster may divide all objects into two classes those bigger than a hamster and those smaller. ....

Imahamster,

Wouldn't this imply that our frame of reference, the structure we have either learned or obsorbed as we grew from childhood, is embedded within our brain and is the basis for our thought processes. The structure of our frame of reference would also then be the filter of the data our minds perceive and this filter has the potential to be altered by conscious decision. Isn't this learning?

Also, as a kind of separate topic, would the structure for our minds and thoughts that has arisen out of our evolutionary path be locking us into a frame of reference that negates a true understanding of the Universe?

We see the Universe through the senses we have and the filters of our thought processes, but are these the 'best' or even most accurate representations of the true universe?

SeekerOfTruth, Imahamster seems to be running on a similar wheel.

Past learning does affect interpretation of new information. To an extent a conscious mental effort can change interpretation. (As a silly exercise Imahamster looks at an image and imagines what the image would like after a Fourier frequency transformation. The brightest spots would be where the image is changing most rapidly. Interestingly the human visual system pays most attention to changing stimuli. It adapts and quickly ignores the unchanging.)

Applying different models is a more effective way of changing perspective. Imahamster might view an information exchange as a scientific discussion or as a social interaction. The model applied will change Imahamster’s interpretation of the words and Imahamster’s responses. Occasionally Imahamster will re-read a post while deliberately applying a different model.

The Imahamster persona itself is a deliberate construct that alters how information is exchanged and perceived.

Imahamster does believe that the biological brain and cultural conditioning constrain human perception/understanding of the universe.

Imahamster sees a parallel with biological evolution. Evolution does not produce all possible animals. New species are constrained by limited types of change from predecessors. Hence all animals are closely related. Hence the same genes perform similar function throughout the animal kingdom. The seemingly wondrous variety of animal life represents only a minute sample of what could be.

The biological brain has been constrained by its connection to predecessors. The human mind has been constrained by animal survival needs. Imahamster suspects that human perception/understanding of the universe is constrained to only a small sample of what could be.

Yogamojo, Imahamster thanks you for the seed.

The phrase “arbitrary conventions unrelated to reality-based cognition” found in the article is intriguing. Reality-based cognition? Visual cognition, body cognition, smell cognition, sound cognition? What has been explored? What does a baby use before speech develops? What problems are solved using visual cognition? How does the process work?

Don't you humans get tired of yourselves?

Your thoughts and how you think are brought into you by your parents in the first place. :)

What about the young children, most of the time till the age of 3 years old, who can remember a former life? And give specific information about who they were and where they have lived before? You can't say that they have been thinking about this.

And Chagur is right, I have to admit. In Jiu Jitsu they use the same kind of 'training' yes. But try to clear your mind of any thoughts and 'see' what happens than.

You may be surprised here...;)

Those who enjoy this thread should not miss the works of Douglas Hofstadter, especially "Metamagical Themas." His works, over more than two decades, on cognitive processes and the fundamental mechanisms of thought, are riveting.

Hi Imahamster:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Imahamster

.................................................. .................................................. ..........................
There are intriguing discoveries from split brain experiments concerning awareness. A person writing answers with the hand while the mouth claimed not to know the answers.
.................................................. .................................................. ...........................
Disconnection syndrome???

.................................................. .................................................. .......................
another view is that thoughts cause neurons to fire and synapses to grow. By the mental act of memorization I change the physical arrangement of my brain. (Telekinesis?)
.................................................. .................................................. ......................

New synaptic connections after a learning process..."Brain plasticity or Kindling"

www.duke.edu/neurosci/courses/FUN-plasticity.pdf

www.williams.edu/Neuroscience/courses/Biol212/plas.htm

:( Neither link works?

ahhhh.. one should be http://www.williams.edu/Neuroscience/courses/Biol212/plast.htm

don't know the deal on the other.

Bun, Imahamster totally agrees. Might even go so far as to BLAME Hofstadter for many hamster musings. Hehe. Here’s a link provided by Arzak with a review of a NEW Hofstadter book.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.11/kelly.html



Originally posted by Shaman
Hi Imahamster:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Imahamster

.................................................. .................................................. ..........................
There are intriguing discoveries from split brain experiments concerning awareness. A person writing answers with the hand while the mouth claimed not to know the answers.
.................................................. .................................................. ...........................
Disconnection syndrome???

.................................................. .................................................. .......................


Shaman, yes. Think you already know this but included it for others:

"Symptoms of Callosal Disconnection
The most remarkable finding is the presence of intact everyday
cognition and behavior to the point where the patient appears
completely intact and unchanged when observed by family and
friends. If the patient has no other brain illness, then cognitive
functions are usually within the normal range. The symptoms of
disconnection only emerge when specific tests are
administered.
Stimuli presented to the left side of the visual space and objects
held only in the left hand, and hence, only perceived by the right
hemisphere, are not named. Presumably the language
centers in the left hemisphere have no knowledge of the stimulus and
the patient is unable to use language to describe them. Information
presented to the left hemisphere is named and
described in normal fashion. Single words separately presented to
each ear are reported normally. If two different words are
presented to each ear at the same time (i.e., dichotically), the
patient has a strong right ear advantage. This presumably occurs
because the ipsilateral pathway from the left ear to the left
hemisphere language center is suppressed by the stronger, more
dominant information conveyed by the contralateral pathway from the
right ear. Early after surgery, th epatient shows a marked apraxia of
the left hand to verbal command. This occurs because the right
hemisphere, which controls the left hand, has poor language
comprehension. This symptom recovers to a considerable degree,
indicating that the left hemisphere gains ipsilateral control of the
left hand and/or the right hemisphere acquires basic
language skill. Specific postures made by one hand of of view cannot
be copied by the other hand. Also, one hand cannot retrieve objects
held by the opposite hand. These symptoms suggest that
somesthetic sensory information is not exchanged by the hemispheres.
Studies of callosal disconnection have revealed that the right
hemisphere has a significant lexicon of single words. Consequently,
the left hand is able to name some objects or find objects
by touch when given the name."



Thanks for the plasticity link. Imahamster read an article this week on in vitro experiments with brain tissue in which a single electrical stimulus potentiated a synapse. If the stimulus were repeated four or more times within several hours (?) synaptic growth was induced.

Re. "Imahamster does believe that the biological brain and cultural
conditioning constrain human perception/understanding of the universe."

I imagine then that you consider language to be an important aspect of
'cultural conditioning' and a possible constraining factor ... Yes? No?

Curious.

Originally posted by Imahamster

Imahamster read an article this week on in vitro experiments with brain tissue in which a single electrical stimulus potentiated a synapse. If the stimulus were repeated four or more times within several hours (?) synaptic growth was induced. [/B]

Sorry for the typing Goofyfish. My mistake.

This should work...

www.duke.edu/neurosci/courses/FUN-Plasticity.pdf
www.williams.edu/Neuroscienc...ol212/plast.htm

Imahamster:

Disconnection syndromes may help us to understand the complexities of lateralization. Why the right hemisphere may take control of traditionally left (dominant) hemisphere functions after damage to LH?.

Do you have the original referrence on kindling after single electrical stimulues?

thank you, Imahamster

Originally posted by Chagur
Re. "Imahamster does believe that the biological brain and cultural
conditioning constrain human perception/understanding of the universe."

I imagine then that you consider language to be an important aspect of
'cultural conditioning' and a possible constraining factor ... Yes? No?

Curious.

Chagur, a possible constraining factor? Yes. A major one? Imahamster guesses not. (Hehe, Imahamster answers "yes" and "no". Typical hamster behavior.)

A human language could facilitate or hinder certain types of thinking. As significant science is performed in all the major languages this hamster suspects the effect, if it exists, would be minor. (If Hottentot only has words for “one”, “two”, “three”, and “many”, would that limit a speaker’s ability to learn and perform science?) Successful languages evolve. If the word doesn’t exist one can grab it from another language or create a new word or create a new meaning for an old word. For a language to be a significant constraint it would have to hinder certain processes. Hmmm…much like Chinese script has hindered computer usage. Still, “hindering” isn’t “preventing”. Maybe language is a soft constraint instead of a hard constraint.

(One could also wonder about the music and math connection.) Hmmm…does fluency in mathematics enhance one’s ability to understand physics?

What about a chimpanzee that has been taught a human type language? Would there be a sudden jump in IQ? Even in this case the chimpanzee brain is sufficiently like a human’s that it has similar constraints. (Likewise the chimpanzee mind faced similar environmental survival pressures.)

Other cultural parameters might be more restrictive than language. What if one were raised to never question authority? What if science is portrayed as evil? (The Imahamster bias is showing.) Seems almost a truism that what one has learned strongly affects what one can think. (Perhaps Imahamster's learning makes it difficult for this hamster to see it any other way.)

The interesting question to this hamster is how minds that did not share similar biological substrates and that did not evolve under similar environmental constraints might differ. What types of intelligences could there be? And would a difference in intelligence type change what questions could be asked and answered?

Originally posted by Shaman


Do you have the original referrence on kindling after single electrical stimulues?



Shaman, Imahamster KNEW you were gonna ask for that reference.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/uoc--prh112701.php

I've been busy and haven't gotten a chance to check this thread out in a while ... you've all been busy too.

So I have a lot of catching up to do ... and I'm not sure where to start.

On metacognition or thinking about thinking (observing yourself think etc.), I think this is very important, but I think that a lot is to be learned both from active wrestling of thoughts within your mind as well as allowing the current of a certain thought run its course through your head. Both teach you different things about how you think and are useful in some contexts. I wish there was more education aimed at learning to learn better and think, better as our thought processes can certainly be trained to be better.

On the holism of the body and thought. It isn't just your body. Although, our senses and language are imperfect in many ways our thoughts are shaped by our environment especially those we exchange ideas with (I guess this gets into what hamster was saying about physcially changing people's physical minds). The illusion of separation is a deceptive one. On some kind of time scale and through some chain of intermediate entities everything interacts with everything else. Science has popularized the notion of reductionism and looking at parts. In the end though every part has some aspects that are only brought to light with their interactions with the environment they're in. We break things into entities in our mind, but this is just for convenience and this should not be forgotten. When you smell a flower part of the flower is actually in your nose ...

Emotions effect thought in a lot of ways and have a lot of similarities. They may be more hard wired, but in many ways I think evolution is a less plastic form of learning and thought though the ideas are not contained in a single individual. When I think I have many ideas, some good some bad ... I select the good ones and follow that line of reasoning. In terms of where the basic ideas come from it is almost always from experience. One can ponder whether the human mind can imagine something elemental which it has not been made aware of through experience (including evolutionary experience which has hard wired in certain basic structures). If we simply recombine elements, that is actually very similar to mechanisms of variation in most sexually reproducing species.

Models of thought and paradigm shifts ... has anyone read Thomas Kuhns "the structure and function of scientific revolutions" (or something like that, I read it a couple years ago). Very interesting stuff. Science is a very well documented history of human thought. It uses very defined models. Maybe it is the best approach to objective thought available. Personally I like intuition based thinking, but that is not disallowed in science. You just can't call it science in some ways even though most scientists speculate a lot ...

Regarding the SA article and evolution of abstract thought - I think all thought is abstract and symbolic. No animal has anything it thinks about in it's head. Even if it's a very precise model it is still a model. Using symbols is certainly an important part of conveying and recording that thought, but on a certain level isn't all thought abstract. Even the images I see are abstractions of the real thing. Actually a lot of early symbols were picture based abstractions of a simpler nature than the one the person had in their head.

In regard to filters ... they certainly are there which is what makes hallucinogens so interesting (too bad they have those negative side effects). Organization of elements and coming up with the right model is definitely important in thinking to reduce the complexity of the system under consideration to the point that it can be easily reasoned about. (I get a little nervous about our media's filters, but I'm quite happy most of mine are in place).

Evolutionary constraints on thought ... as I said evolution was in many ways a learning/thought process distributed over lots of individuals. When individuals picked up independent thought it was just a step in that process. Hopefully evolutionary pressure is still helping to make people smarter, whether or not there are limitations about the way in which we can think and be intelligent is very unclear. Defining intelligence is difficult and maybe an impossible task. Especially for someone with mental limitations (which we all have to some degree). I'm sure there are evolutionary constraints on our thought, even emotions often guide us away from painful thoughts, which imposes a constraint if not on what we CAN think, at least on what we TEND to think.

There is always 1984 and language which may constrain thought, but people do come up with new words so it can't be completely constraining ... neither is how you are raised (Though I'm not sure what the implication was about past lives ...). Basically the same point imahamster makes ... they evolve.

Memory and synapses, this is the most supported current model but it certainly hasn't been proven. People are very hazy on what glia do and they constitute 90% of our brain. While they clearly have roles in patterning nueron organization early on, help form the blood brain barrier, and are thought to have a role in nourishing nuerons they've also been shown to show more interesting behavior including slow calcium waves. Nuerons and action potentials are really very important for FAST transfer of information, which seems somewhat contrary to their role in memory. I would tend to think that certain things that are learned and remembered - especailly stuff that becomes more subconscious and automatic would make sense to be mediated by alterations in synapses. Like new and better filters for instance. When it comes to remembering someones face? I'm not sold. There's a big leap there. Then again I haven't read a lot of the original research so I'm just speculating ...

Re. "Pictures reveal how nerve cells form connections to store short-
and long-term memories in brain" article.

Best yet re. importance of 'rote learning'. Should be required reading
at all 'teaching' colleges.

Thanks ;)

Re. Language ...

"Other cultural parameters might be more restrictive than language."

Interesting in that much of 'culture' is imbedded in, and communicated
by, language.

"A human language could facilitate or hinder certain types of thinking."

And if the particular language has no word for the thought ...

"If the word doesn’t exist one can grab it from another language
or create a new word or create a new meaning for an old word."

And if the concept is unique to all languages and the 'new' word has to
be defined?

"Seems almost a truism that what one has learned strongly affects
what one can think."

Is not language among the earliest 'learned' things?

"... a possible constraining factor? Yes. A major one? Imahamster
guesses not."

Care to reconsider?

Curious

GROK? ;)

Scilosopher, interesting speculation on glia cells. This hamster’s reading has always given them short shrift. Ya gotten have ‘em but the REAL story is the neurons. Never heard any possibility that they played an active role. Slow calcium waves huh? Neat.

Enjoyed your post. Good chewing.

Chagur, glad you enjoyed the article.

The taste of “rote learning” does not appeal to this hamster. Too much maze training in this hamster’s pup days. This hamster favors honing of teeth for good chewing. Experience in sniffing and tasting seeds. Exposing hamster pups to the fun and excitement of the seed hunt. Encouraging each hamster to appreciate and explore her own uniqueness hamsterness while respecting the paths of others.

Hmmm…Imahamster remembers Chagur’s link

http://www.webelements.com/

That’s a tasty seed for young pups and old. (Imahamster remembers memorizing the periodic table while the teacher droned some “rote learning” at us. Woulda killed for toys like webelements.)

There may be no easy path of learning. Survival likely encouraged remembering only the most important events. Study methodologies whether by rote repetition, by outlining, by re-phrasing, by underlining, by memorization technique…all seem to require mental effort or focus. That effort seems to translate into learning. (While speculating Imahamster eagerly awaits the “forget-me-not” pill that will make learning easy.)

Hamster irony? Over a month ago Imahamster read a research article ONCE and remembered pertinent details that seems to show that multiple exposures over hours is necessary for long term memory. Yet Imahamster has an average memory (or should that be “had”). Scilosopher may be right that the full story is far from known. (Might wait for the next study before suggesting a curriculum change at the “teaching” colleges.)

More chatter on language?

While Imahamster admires brevity (in others, hehe), Imahamster doesn’t really understand Chagur’s points. Perhaps more Chagur words would help this hamster see the path Chagur follows.

Lots of words in language. Far more than this hamster knows. Is Shakespeare in those words? Is the Bible? How much of science is in the words? Philosophy? Law? History? Is this culture lost when those works are translated into another language? What about culture that doesn’t reside primarily in words? Art? Music? Sports? Career? Family? Certainly some culture is in the words. How much is beyond this hamster.

“And if the concept is unique to all languages and the 'new' word has to be defined?”

(This sentence puzzled Imahamster. Oh well it a common state for hamsters.) Imahamster will take a hint from German and take a stab at it. The ‘new” word is TheConceptIsUniqueToAllLanguages and its definition is “the concept is unique to all languages”. A concept more difficult to fully describe might require a paragraph, a page, or a book. It might be given a name such as “Relativity”. Its common definition might be “Oh some more egghead stuff.” And differ from its scientific meaning.

Hmmm…some meaning is only indirectly contained in words. “The look in a lover’s eyes.” If one has never had such a lover, what do the words mean? (Hypertext link to a picture? Ahhh multimedia dictionaries.)

Each discipline has it’s own jargon. What a strange meaning “strange” has in physics. How fun when different disciplines grow and overlap both having their own special meaning for the same words. What glorious misunderstandings.

Words seem to have different meaning as they play in each different mind. (Yep, Hofstadter DEFINITELY deserves some blame.) Or even in the same mind under different circumstances. That is a source of both confusion and creativity. New meaning is created as a message passes from one to another. (Imahamster has made stoopid remarks that clever people, expecting better, interpreted brilliantly. Leaving this hamster to mutter quietly, “If only I had meant THAT.”)

“Is not language among the earliest 'learned' things?”

Well maybe for you. Imahamster was a slow starter. Had a mean quickdraw before learning to say, “Bang”. (Making up for it with this post.) Early language learning is important. Waiting too long has very serious repercussions for a human. Does it matter significantly whether the baby learns English or Spanish or ASL? (Maybe English and Spanish are too closely related for that question to mean much? This hamster has no data on ASL.)

(Imahamster seems to remember that humans and chimpanzees display similar learning ability until a human begins to acquire language. Might mean nothing as the species mature at different rates.)

"... a possible constraining factor? Yes. A major one? Imahamster
guesses not."

Imahamster guesses this question relates to “major”. Imahamster has a hamster value system. Differs from most humans. Considering the factors that matter to this hamster this hamster’s guess remains the same.

Scratching furry head for example of early language learning that caused a difference that would matter to someone…perhaps a language with no religious words. But a family that was religious could pass on the concepts without words while a family that wasn’t religious wouldn’t use the words even if the language contained them. At a loss…

Chagur, Imahamster has chattered long but doubts any of it has addressed your real points. If Imahamster did understand then this hamster likely would consider and reconsider. That is Imahamster’s main purpose for being here. (Here at this site and here in this world.)

Thank you for chattering with Imahamster.

Originally posted by Imahamster
.....

“Is not language among the earliest 'learned' things?”

Well maybe for you. Imahamster was a slow starter. Had a mean quickdraw before learning to say, “Bang”. (Making up for it with this post.) Early language learning is important. Waiting too long has very serious repercussions for a human. Does it matter significantly whether the baby learns English or Spanish or ASL? (Maybe English and Spanish are too closely related for that question to mean much? This hamster has no data on ASL.)

(Imahamster seems to remember that humans and chimpanzees display similar learning ability until a human begins to acquire language. Might mean nothing as the species mature at different rates.)
....

Imahamster,

This brought to mind an interesting article I read some time ago. The article stated that it was easier for babies to learn sign language than it was to learn to speak. The article also stated that babies who had learned sign language, also 'babbled' in a manner similar to the way babies verbally 'babble' when they are saying 'goo goo' and 'ga ga' type phrases. They knew the babies were actually babbling in sign language as opposed to random arm flailing because the majority of motions sign language uses are constrained to the portion of the body directly in front of the body and random arm flailing takes up a larger portion of the space around the body. When they were 'babbling' in sign language, the babies arm motions were confined to the areas where sign language takes place.

When you take this in conjunction with the fact that chimpanzees and larger apes are capable of learning sign language it paints an interesting picture.

To me, it would definitely seem to imply that abstract thought, if defined as needing a 'language' to express itself, is certainly not solely the domain of humanity and is cerainly not confined to a verbal representation.

As I said in my excessively long post, all thought is by definition abstract. Even if it is limited to fairly concrete objects they must have some abstract form of representation in anyones mind. Which suggests to me that what might be the limiting factor is an animal having any incentive to focus on truly abstract things as they live in a very concrete world and don't have great building appendages (beavers can design damns though and birds can build nests, both require an abstract mental model as no two nests are the same).

What if cats and dogs could learn sign language, but don't have the right appendages?

Are horses stomping out answers to numercial questions capable? (Mr Ed was a special example like a certain hamster we all know).

Our ability to communicate ideas through language is special, but most animals learn things by watching others, just like we do in sports, dancing, trying do act cool, etc.

I think brains are made to be very adaptive general purpose things. Ours certainly has gone a bit farther, but maybe the major difference has been driven not by our brain - but our hands and vocal aparatus. Maybe our vocal aparatus more so from the little I've read on Dolphins. (EDIT: but why do Dolphins need to communicate that much? is it a social thing? Most animals can communicate danger and even honeybees have a dance that describes the distance and location of food ...)

Anybody have any good info on Dolphins and their language and maybe even a little about their framework of thought?

I'm also curious ... does sign language have all the words vocal language does? Is it slower? Is there any reason anyone has ever suggested that chimps don't have sign language? What is known about body language in chimps? Other animals?

SeekerOfTruth, interesting info on sign language and babbling, thanks. (Imahamster learned about babbling while in a crowded car on a six-hour drive with a new babbler. Hehe.) To this hamster the image of an ape gazing into water and recognizing herself shows deep kinship.

When Imahamster first read in a prior post Scilosopher’s words, “No animal has anything it thinks about in its head.” a flurry of counterexamples to animals “not thinking” shouted in this hamster’s mind. Only more careful reading and recollection of Scilosopher’s other posts led this hamster to see Scilosopher’s point that all animals think abstract thoughts. The transition from animal thinking to human thinking might be continuous. Humans may engage in both "word" thought and animal thought.

(Ahhh, Scilosopher elaborates on this concept, good.)

Imahamster has heard of several different experiments with dolphins. In one, dolphins learned a simple grammar and small “symbol” vocabulary. The dolphin could then understand simple sentences such as “(Place) ball in ring.” Not as impressive as Chimpsky. Still, working with dolphins is much harder and more expensive than working with chimpanzees. (Seem to recall the dolphin's brain/body mass ratio exceeds a human's and that the "sound" region of a dolphin brain is far greater than a human's.)

Imahamster seconds Scilosopher's request for info related to sign language. (What about Helen Keller? Did she experience permanent mental handicap by learning language at such a late age? What limits, if any?)

I was just thinking about the babbling a little more. It's interesting that even in language a baby as it learns to speak starts with an imitative phase that isn't really speaking exactly. It does something whether it is wrong or right and slowly get's better and better (personally I still like babbling - I haven't read much Joyce, but apparently babbling can be pretty brilliant. Learning new ways to communicate no one else knows?).

Animals are definitely known to learn through imitation. Highest form of flattery.

EDIT: I just realized my point might not be clear. What if learning like evolution is basically based on some very loose structure that is very generative followed by removing bad ideas. Process of elimination on a large scale or abstract level. But based on a general imitation of something seen as a good estimate of where to start.

I'm also curious if anyone knows about dolphins native language. I remember hearing they have names for eachother and some form of spoken language of there own. Speaking towards contraints on thought it is possible that dolphin thinking is different enough from human thinking that another reason the chimps perform better is they have a more similar brain structure.

When I was learning to speak spanish in middle school at some point I switched over to thinking spanish during class. That took a lot of practice and was another language spoken by the same species. When it comes to things like balls and hoops it wouldn't be surprising that dolphins have similar concepts or could grasp objects and physcial stuff. When it comes to teaching them our social concepts they are not primates and might have quite different social concepts that are hard to get past in terms of understanding what we mean. And maybe shape how they think about relationships of things in general. We live on a plane for the most part, they live in a 3D world. Maybe there are differences there too.

I must say this is my favorite thread so far on this board. Assuming participants have similar tastes any recommendations? I've never had the time to be thorough ...

With clever interpreters a babbler can be a genius. Hehe.

Secret to wisdom…say little and look inscrutable? Let the listener supply their own answer. Isn’t the mark of wisdom, an answer that agrees with one’s own? Hehe.

LOL. Thanks Scilosopher.

Scilosopher, if you haven’t run across it before, you might find Marvin Minsky’s book the “Society of Mind” an interesting read. You may be following similar paths. A Google news group search on “Society of Mind” gives the flavor.

Imahamster recalls that there are pod identification dolphin calls. Then there is whale song. Nope, nothing else in this hamster’s head. Nothing on native dolphin language. Good point on dolphin vs. chimpanzee IQ reflecting human bias. (Never met a human that really understood paper towel roll chewing.)

Hmmm…favorite thread. Haven’t dug into the old ones so this hamster is likely missing some gems. The thread that captured this hamster’s interest in SciForums was /777. Recommend starting at the beginning and reading straight through.

Oh no I'm in trouble - I'll never seem wise. I always have a lot to say, much of it clearly stupid. That's the only way I can think of to become smarter/more knowledgeable though. Expose my ignorance and then address it. (Though I do admit there are certain cases - when I just listen, but they only come up when my ignorance is being dispelled continuously by the speaker and I don't feel like I'm missing something or could contribute).

I'll try and check out society of the mind. I have too much crap to read for school though => it's destroying my general reading habits. I'm trying to read Robert Anton Wilsons book "Prometheus Rising", which is pretty interesting. It deals a lot with thought, personality, emotion, rationalization, models of the world around you, etc. Definitely a bit fringe but I like it. Besides he coauthored "The Illuminatus! trilogy", which is one of my favourite books (it's now sold as a single tome). I take that back about most of the reading I need to do being crap, but it's just more focused than I am. (Which is one thing I hate about education, the farther you go the more the try and force you to only think about one small itty bit of the realm of interesting stuff. Our world is full of lot's of horses with various types of blinders and the possibility for ugly collisions is getting more and more scary)...

I thought I saw something on discovery channel roughly 5 years ago where they talked about dolphin language. I don't remember any details though. While I don't know/remember what a pod is, part of it definitely related to names.

You mean \777 man, machine, alien etc. on the free thoughts board? I started to read it and it was interesting, but I started getting paranoid that I might end up knowing too much and be on some FBI list somehwere (if I'm not already ...). That and it was really long. These forums already test my patience for reading off a screen ...

So was that part of your inspiration for the hamster persona? (Not to suggest you're not a hamster ... but you did suggest it was a guise or something in an earlier post) I was also curios about your use of "her unique hamsterness", are you a female hamster?

sorry that was a bit off topic ...

Scilosopher, any hamsters in your family tree? Imahamster finds interesting waterholes and lurks. Occasionally finds a very dependable source of good seeds. When Imahamster can’t personally taste a seed’s flavor this hamster depends on the opinion of those sources. Reading old Imahamster posts teaches humility. Errors of fact and reasoning abound. Imahamster depends on the kindness of strangers.

“Pod” is just jargon for a dolphin family group, sorry. Jargon is often used to intimidate, to make one sound more knowledgeable than one is. Tends to be exclusionary, a secret handshake, the trappings of a new priesthood. Most of what Imahamster “knows” about dolphins came from “Flipper”.

/777. Yep, that’s the thread. Hmmm…Imahamster wrote the following without posting:

People make mistakes. Lots of ‘em. The more one says the more errors one makes. In reading through /777 posts. Imahamster has noticed only one potential error. /777 made a statement to the effect that the Law of Conservation of Energy applied universally. Such statements cause hamster warning signals to flash. Science models have limits, that is, ranges where they give good answers. Outside those ranges the answers are not-so-good or just plain wrong. Does the Law of Conservation of Energy apply at the quantum level? What about vacuum energy? Imahamster doesn’t know. Even if /777 is wrong on this point, it could have been a reasonable simplification for his audience.

After all those /777 posts that’s it. That is it. If Imahamster had written a fraction of that amount, there would have been numerous errors of fact and reason. People would have trounced this hamster’s claims to be an AI. Does this mean /777 is an AI? No, just because Imahamster don’t understand a phenomenon doesn’t mean that there is not a pedestrian explanation. It does mean Imahamster finds the /777 entity very interesting. (Imahamster would love to have a super “spell/grammar/fact/reasoning” checker to apply before posting. Hmmm…MS Word not only dictates spelling and grammar but also facts and truth. Might have to reconsider.)


The Imahamster persona developed on another forum, a friendly place that died with the dotcom crash. (Sigh.) The topic of personal beliefs came up. No one on the forum was trying to convert or condemn, just explore with friends.

Imahamster claimed to be a devotee of the Divine Hamster who understands as much about the true nature of the universe as any human. The Divine Hamster accepts all worshipers. The Divine Hamster listens to all prayers but never responds. The Divine Hamster graciously accepts donations of seeds but grants no boons. The Divine Hamster promises neither heaven nor hell nor anything else. The Divine Hamster neither forbids nor guides. The Divine Hamster is warm and furry.

In posting, “I” often gets in the way of discussion. People tend to defend ideas not because the ideas are right but because somehow they are defending themselves. People also tend to relive previous arguments. A poster that reminds one of an old enemy becomes that enemy. Imahamster is all too human. Better to start fresh with a cuddly hamster who is not "I".

As to Imahamster’s gender…there are clues. Imahamster makes no great effort to disguise this hamster’s history. However, Imahamster believes ideas should stand on their own. Gender, age, formal education, career should play little if any role. (Interesting to wonder how Imahamster words are perceived as the listener thinks man, woman, child, or hamster.)

Imahamster has heard of several different experiments with dolphins. In one, dolphins learned a simple grammar and small “symbol” vocabulary. The dolphin could then understand simple sentences such as “(Place) ball in ring.” Not as impressive as Chimpsky. Still, working with dolphins is much harder and more expensive than working with chimpanzees. (Seem to recall the dolphin's brain/body mass ratio exceeds a human's and that the "sound" region of a dolphin brain is far greater than a human's.)I do think it's gone a good deal farther than the experimental stage:MISSION OF EOD MOBILE UNIT THREE: EODMU3 is a subordinate command of Commander, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group ONE within the Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet. Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit THREE provides operational EOD capability as required for the location, identification, rendering safe, recovery, field evaluation and disposal of all explosive ordnance including chemical and nuclear weapons, up to the high water mark of coastal and inland water areas and within the boundaries of naval activities in southern California. Functions of EODMU3 include providing EOD Mine Countermeasure (MCM) detachments; MK 18 Mine Detection and Neutralization System (MDNS); MK 2 Swimmer Detection and Neutralization System (SDNS); the MK 5 Pingered Object Recovery System (PORS) for deployment and employment worldwide; providing assistance to Navy commands within the COMNAVBASE San Diego area of responsibility for the clearance of unexploded ordnance in and around their establishments; providing EOD support to SOCAL carrier operations; providing parachute insertion capable EOD detachment; instructing the Underwater Object Detection and Marking Systems Operator Training Course (A-431-0049); assisting the United States Secret Service as directed by higher authority; participating in research and development projects, including support of the Naval Ocean Systems Center Marine Mammal Research and Development effort; and providing other routine diving and demolition services. The highly effective mission completion in a multitude of Fleet exercises and the recent declassification of certain aspects of the program is leading to Navywide awareness of the absolute efficiency and effectiveness of these navy programs. Additionally, the implementation of a recently approved proactive public affairs plan has served to remove false perceptions of the navy's use of the marine mammals. Take care.

No hamsters in my family tree so far as I know (though if you are a typical hamster I wouldn't mind it being true). I only asked about gender out of curiosity, it wouldn't change my judgement of your posts. Though as you suggest I do think women seem to reason slightly differently then men. As does the same person as they age, even accounting for increased knowledge and education. Not sure why that is. Different stages/roles in human life.

I don't see why an AI wouldn't make mistakes. At least if it was made by a human, as I doubt we could make a perfect intelligence. Also if they make less mistakes it might just be a smart person. I would even think an alien might make mistakes, though again it could just be an intelligence enough smarter that we wouldn't notice.

Jargon is annoying, but with complex ideas it is certainly easier than working a definition in each time. Good glossary/dictionaries for various fields would help overcome this but rarely exist.

I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, but I certainly used to always try to defend any statement I made. There's no shame in being wrong and even if you're always argue well and it isn't clear you were wrong there is no benefit like people decide you're infallible. Human thinking is flawed and so is everything else. With that we might as well get back on topic ...

Chagur, that's interesting but not entirely clear. Do you have any idea how they communicate with the Dolphins (I assume they are using dolphins)?

They are using dolphins and sealions (see info. added to initial post) and in the following ways:

(1) The MK 4 MMS is a four dolphin detachment used for close-tethered, deep-moored mine-hunting and neutralization. The Navy is working to expand this system's capability to neutralize all bouyant mines.

(2) The Mk 5 MMS is a four sea lion detachment used for pingered object recovery. Sea lions attach recovery pendants to exercise mines, torpedoes-and other test objects equipped with acoustic pingers at depths in excess of 500 feet.

(3) The Mk 6 MMS is a six dolphin detachment used for swimmer detection and defense. These dolphins provide defense for harbors, anchorages, and individual ships against swimmers and divers.

(4) The Mk 7 MMS for mine detection, location and neutralization of proud and buried mines. The Mk 7 MMS is the Navy's only operational buried mine detection and neutralization capability in the mine warfare inventory. The sealions have only limited use. Not as proficient, 'trainable' or dependable in part due to a non-verbal communication mode.

Take care.

Scilosopher, Imahamster agrees that AI’s would make mistakes. This hamster suspects such mistakes would have a very non-human flavor. What interests this hamster is how were technically sophisticated answers generated without the human errors this hamster notices in most articles and texts. Several /777 answers did not seem to be of a type that could be solved by extensive search. (If searches were used this hamster would like access to the search tools or an explanation of the search techniques.) The /777 phenomenon doesn’t seem consistent with any explanation this hamster has seen offered. To this hamster /777 remains an interesting “unknown”.

Jargon can be very useful. Jargon facilitates concise and precise communication. Also establishes (sometimes falsely) a particular knowledge background that sets a context for later communication. Tools may be used well or poorly. Outside a specialist domain jargon is all too often used poorly. Animals play animal games.

Chagur, thanks for the seed.

Originally posted by Imahamster
.....

Words seem to have different meaning as they play in each different mind. (Yep, Hofstadter DEFINITELY deserves some blame.) Or even in the same mind under different circumstances. That is a source of both confusion and creativity. New meaning is created as a message passes from one to another. (Imahamster has made stoopid remarks that clever people, expecting better, interpreted brilliantly. Leaving this hamster to mutter quietly, “If only I had meant THAT.”)

...

Imahamster,

Sorry for the delay here. Both you and scilospher post such large amounts of good information that it takes me several readings to connect certain thoughts of mine. This thought from your earlier post combined with dolphin language made me think a little bit. The English language is rife with words that sound the same but have different meanings as well as several words that have totally different meanings depending upon the context in which they are used. Your example of 'strange' is an excellent one.

Maybe our inability to communicate easily with dolphins, chimps, great apes, or in the future some other alien species, is based on our inability to place ourselves in their contextual realm. Maybe their abstract thoughts are just as complex as ours when given and used within their context. Scilospher makes a good point about the 3D world of the dolphins. What abstract thoughts or words have they developed solely because they live in such a 3D world and how do we place ourselves in their context? It would seem to take a great act of empathy to do so.

As to the /777 thread, it is also my favorite. In fact, it is what hooked me on sciforums and made me decide to become a participant as opposed to a spectator. I to am undecided as of yet on what or who /777 is. I have noted that several of his/her/its posts have been on topics that I am familiar with and are somewhat escoteric in nature, the one on how to detect a stealth aircraft being an excellent example. /777's knowledge appears to be quite good in these areas, areas which I might add are not something you find with a general search of the net.

I currently don't have enough information to make a decision either way, but all in all it is still an interesting thread to read.

Originally posted by scilosopher
...(EDIT: but why do Dolphins need to communicate that much? is it a social thing? Most animals can communicate danger and even honeybees have a dance that describes the distance and location of food ...)...

Scilosopher,

I am not sure, but this may apply to dolphins as well.

Orca whales hunt collaboratively and that may be why they have developed a language. When a pod of Orcas have identified a school of fish, several of the orcas will swim on the outside of the school blowing bubbles. The bubbles rise towards the surface creating a 'net' of air and confuse and confine the fish. The orcas will slowly draw their 'net' in and when the 'net' is small enough, all of the orcas will rise through the center eating a lot of fish on the way.

This collaborative hunting illustrates some fairly complex abstract thinking as well as some fairly complex communications abilities. Much beyone the 'food here' types of communication as the creation of the bubble net has to be very well coordinated so that the fish do not escape.

Originally posted by Imahamster
....
Secret to wisdom…say little and look inscrutable? Let the listener supply their own answer. Isn’t the mark of wisdom, an answer that agrees with one’s own? Hehe.

....

One of my favorite quotes, and unfortunately I cannot remember who said it, maybe I need some more stimulation of my synopsis or that memory pill, is the following:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Originally posted by Imahamster
....

The essence of mind seems to be pattern. If a pattern could be copied and overlaid onto and run upon a different substrate my hamster gut says the mind has been transferred. As this is beyond human technology such speculation may be silly. Besides who cares what noises a rodent’s gut makes?

Imahamster,

I have been thinking about this statement and I tend to agree. One place this thought has lead me though, is if the essence of mind is truly a pattern, then, in just 20 to 50 years, we should be able to replicate the mind and therefore the thoughts of an individual on a computer. Also, if we can somehow monitor the minds activity to the resolution needed, we could potentially have a thought to thought transference of information.

Finally, maybe our essence could somehow be maintained beyond our deaths, leading to immortality of a different kind.

Seeker you certainly seem to have made up for the delay ... glad you enjoy my posts. Yours are interesting too. I don't think either of us have as creative a persona/writing style as imahamster though...

Interesting that both of you were drawn here by the \777 thread. I really have to set aside some time to read it.

Regarding our ability to understand dolphins, the various meanings of words and transfer of thought to a computer: My mind literally is different from yours, more so a dolphins, more so a computer - if you transfer a thought exactly it's meaning would still change. In fact it might not make sense. I'm not sure a human can really ever understand (or at least REALLY grok at the deepest level) anyone else because of these differences. I might think you must mean what I would (ima's comment about people thinking he meant something more intelligent [though I do find that a little hard to believe]). Or assume at a very basic level we really think the same. I've definitely found this to be false at a pretty basic level with some women I've known and to a lesser degree some men. At some level it might be true, but language isn't detailed enough by that point. I certainly think trying to do direct thought transfer might clear up some of these issues, but I wouldn't rush to thinking it possible and straightforward. All abstract logical apparati are not necessarily created equal or equivalent. Even if we were all turing machines so that we have the same inherent capability it might take a modification of the thought to make sense in the context of our head. Or there might be more extra info needed at least for it to make sense.

That stuff about the killer whales is really cool. Do you know where I can read more about it? With dolphins it might also be coordinating to beat up sharks or something (I always loved that they did that). The way they help humans lost at sea has always intrigued me as well. That requires a really developed moral/emotional aspect that indicates they have much complexity. The following ships behavior is another interesting one.

I've been thinking of the \777 thing and the oddity is the fact that it could exist with the pitiful state of published AI research. That and the fact I don't think the government would let out anything they had created. I have to read the posts, but are you sure it isn't just a person with great intuition, solid education, good verbal skills, and ample time on their hands. If I reread most of what I write after a break where I think about something else, I usually pick up most of my mistakes (at least the ones I am capable of catching). It's interesting what you say about the ways in which it differs from human thought. I've always wondered if AI will be superior to human (biological) intellect in all ways or if a hybrid is necessary to maximize the total capability.

SeekerOfTruth, Imahamster suspects that the “multiple meanings for the same word” that to a programmer might seem “poor design” plays an important role in human intelligence and creativity.

SeekerOfTruth, good point. Humans may believe meaning lies in a few words tied together and not comprehend how meaningless those words are to a critter living in an entirely different context. Words are the code and minds are the players. A mind playing the wrong code yields gibberish. At least with chimpanzees evolution has given similar “mind players”. (Similar biological substrate, similar physical environment, similar survival and social pressure molding the mind.) Presumably dolphins share a similar biological substrate but have had 50 million years to adapt to a water environment. Even a human raised in a water environment (or freefall space environment) might be significantly different. (Though Imahamster suspects not.)

“/777's knowledge appears to be quite good in these areas, areas which I might add are not something you find with a general search of the net.”

EXACTLY, few seem to appreciate the breadth and quality of the /777 answers. (Or perhaps it’s Imahamster that doesn’t understand.)

“Finally, maybe our essence could somehow be maintained beyond our deaths, leading to immortality of a different kind.”

Interesting speculation. However hamsters are near sighted. Focused on closer possibilities. Warning, off topic hamster interest ahead - http://research.mednet.ucla.edu/pmts/sens/article.htm

Opps, Scilosopher snuck in a response first. Gotta type faster. Darn paws.

(Interesting to see such similar responses to SeekerOfTruth’s posts. Pleasure in sharing with kindred minds. Danger in re-enforcing one’s own beliefs. Where is the dissenting view that challenges? Ah well, minds won’t parallel very long as there are so many different paths.)

Scilosopher, Imahamster isn’t sure about /777. Humans are strange critters, strange enough to be /777. If /777 is a human, it is a human that very much interests this hamster. There seems little advantage in drawing conclusions at this point. As long as the seed tastes good this hamster will continue to chew.

This hamster shares your speculation that AI’s would be superior in some tasks (e.g., chess) and inferior in others. Imahamster feels evolving into a hybrid might be an interesting future for this hamster. Imahamster believes a diversity of minds working and playing cooperatively might be “optimum”. Insight comes from hamsters and from gods. (Horde of seed seeking hamsters sharing with friendly god.)

Found you thoughts re. language interesting but was surprised by your feeling
that language wasn't that important regarding conceptualizing (if I understood
you correctly) until I read your comment: "Imahamster was a slow starter.
Had a mean quickdraw before learning to say, 'Bang'."

I take it then that you do not differentiate between learning a language and
learning to speak a language (in the context of childhood development).

Curious.

Chagur, if Imahamster understands (not sure?) then you are leading in a very interesting direction. Chimpanzee and human infants show similar learning abilities until humans begin to learn language. Then the human leaves the chimpanzee in the dust. Why? Imahaster doesn’t know. Speculation… Speech may be a more efficient means of learning information than environmental observation and discovery. Or maybe speech implies an internal mind transition to symbolic memory and reasoning from an earlier system based on image storage and processing.

Consider a baby’s memory as a series of snapshots with emotional associations. The baby learns that certain images cluster into mom objects, dad objects, etc. Learns that images occur in predictable sequences. Perhaps the baby ponders these images. Mentally replays different image sequences. Some sequences lead to pleasure. Learns that certain baby actions can alter the image sequences and hence increase pleasure. If so the baby is “visually” thinking. (Should note, as Scilosopher has pointed out, that these internal mental images are abstractions that bear little resemblance to reality.) (Note also that this is Imahamster speculation, not supported by cognitive research to this hamster’s knowledge.)

Then the baby learns to associate words with these image clusters. A strong link forms between “mama” and the “mom” cluster of images, sounds, actions, and feelings. Instead of remembering a sequence of images of mom leaving the room, the baby might begin to store the event as “mama” left the room. When “remembering” the event, the baby uses appropriate images linked to “mama” to create a visual memory of mom leaving. Presumably storing and manipulating “mama” symbols is more efficient and faster than early “visual” memory and reasoning. (Cognitive scientists have studied symbolic reasoning extensively and have developed models such as semantic networks and schema systems to simulate human thinking. The models are far from complete. Significant gaps exist when tying these models to the underlying neural substrate.)

As for the Imahamster pup…this hamster has no recollection of those days. However this hamster’s mother said this hamster seemed to understand speech but said virtually nothing until age four. (Mother feared mental retardation.) At which time this hamster began speaking in complete sentences with complicated grammar. Childhood was normal and not a likely cause of present hamsterness. Hehe.

(Looking back it seems strange that understanding and speaking weren’t more closely associated. Interactive feedback usually speeds learning.)

Great post. Cool idea. I wonder though if it makes us more error prone as our symbols lack many of the details that the real thing has. Even our raw abstractions of reality such as an image of someone is closer then them in many ways than the name (though we most likely know things about them that are more relevant than what they look like).

Unless of course the relevant information is still linked in such a way that it is considered and it is simply the unimportant stuff that is not involved. Of course this could still lead to an ease of over-simplification if we don't run through the information at some level.

To language more directly and not just symbols generally, could the same difficulty apply? Double speak?

Argument by analogy is a troublesome thing. At each step a little error can accumulate and at the end you have proved something that doesn't truly follow.

I wonder how such effects are amplified as population grows and languages evolve. Do people build a whole world of ideas to rationalize that which they want losing sight of the real world. Especially in a society that builds it's environment to its needs and wants.

As cool and powerful as that idea is it is just as scary. Especially since we seem to have so much trouble making intelligent use of the powerful tools at our disposal.

(I wonder though if it is one of those things where the transmission of a point mutates into something new)

Originally posted by Imahamster
[
“Finally, maybe our essence could somehow be maintained beyond our deaths, leading to immortality of a different kind.”

Interesting speculation. However hamsters are near sighted. Focused on closer possibilities. Warning, off topic hamster interest ahead - http://research.mednet.ucla.edu/pmts/sens/article.htm [/B]

Imahamster:

After the sens article.....

Radical r'aging: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ng/journal/v19/n2/full/ng0698_105.html

Gene Therapy in the CNS:
http://www.chgb.org.cn/special/therapy/pdf/cns.pdf

Mitochondrial and Aging:
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/mutagen/ames.PNASREV2.html

Transplantation of Cultured Human Neuronal Cells:
http://www.neurosurgery.pitt.edu/imageguided/papers/neural.html

Premature Aging in Children:
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/medicine/medicine13.html

Shaman, Imahamster started a new thread “Reversal of Aging by Biological Intervention“ under “Biology & Genetics”. Hope to see you there.

Scilosopher said, “I wonder though if it makes us more error prone as our symbols lack many of the details that the real thing has.”

Imahamster strives on abstraction, models, and assumptions but Imahamster would never fly on a plane built by this hamster. This hamster is pretty sure that Scilosopher is right. Humans tend to see what they expect to see and hear what they expect to hear. (Some more than others.)

“Argument by analogy is a troublesome thing. At each step a little error can accumulate and at the end you have proved something that doesn't truly follow.”

Exactly why feedback from the real world is so important. Imahamster might “prove” that it’s not raining but this hamster will still stick out a paw to see if it gets wet. Thought is fun. Thought backed up by verification and facts is science.

Scilosopher,

Agreed that our minds are different for all of the reasons you state, but if we do somehow progress our technology to the point where we are able to map a human mind into a computer, implying that all of the distinctions, biological and otherwise are somehow simulated, then, because both of our minds exist within the same device, it would be possible to create transforms that map your thought processes to mine and vice versa. We could therefor 'know' each other in ways that are not possible now due to our dissimilarities.

As to the orca info, I can remember two places I have seen it. One is in National Geographic and the other was on either the Discover Channel or the Learning Channel were they actually had a video showing the Orcas hunting in that manner. It was pretty interesting to see them obviously communicating and working together.

As to /777, I don't have enough information yet to make a determination. I agree that the amount of published material on AI is very small and not very informative, but think about the amount of published material available on Stealth technologies and then look overhead when the F117 or the B2 flies by. Lack of information on a topic does not necessarily imply lack of the topic. Yes, it could be possible it is one person and if so, as Imahamster mentions, I would be interested in meeting this person because they show a diverse range of capabilities and information that is quite impressive.

Imahamster,

I think context plays a very large role both in communications and in abstract thought in humanity as well as potentially other species. I believe the multiple meanings for words in our language is both a 'compression' technique as well as a link to specific domains of context. The word 'strange' you listed before is once again a good example. Even within the physics 'contextual reference' the word 'strange', while having specific meanings in relationships to quarks, also denotes other meanings that still apply even though they reside outside the context of physics and may lead people using the word 'strange' to other abstract thought domains.

The topic of hybrids between AIs and humans is also interesting. The first thought it brings to mind is the Borg, the ultimate SciFi marriage of technology and biology. This in turn has lead to the thought of Borg hamsters. I found the Borg interesting in that they only seemed to consider advanced thinking species useful. Thinking about this a little while, when coupled with your name, made me think that a Borg hamster would be useful for handling things that a human could not handle due to their physical size. This in turn has lead to the idea that if we actually emulate a thought process, either human or animal,we could potentially begin to truly understand other species and their thought processes because it would only take a transform to link the two abstract domains together.

About speech or language in general. I think speech is not necessarily a more efficient means of learning ( I remember too well being completely lost in some classes where the instructor only talked), but instead is indicative of the capability of abstract thought. The more complex the speech capability of the species, the more complex their abstract thought processes.

About memory and images. If you replace the word 'images' with the word 'patterns of sensory inputs' I would agree with you. Helen Keller is a good example of why. She had neither sight nor hearing, but was still capable of developing a language as well as abstract thought processes solely through the use of her other senses, primarily touch. The 'patterns of touch' she developed were the basis for her abstract thought associations that she ultimately made. This thought links back to the idea that our conscious and uncounscious thought process are the filters and transforms of the sensory inputs we are bombarded with. I think your representation of learning is actually very correct.

I also find it very interesting that you seemed to learn language without feedback and were able to develop complex communications in the form of language without that active feedback. I would think that some form of feedback had to exist. Maybe it was not a direct form of feedback. Did you have any sibling hamsters that were close to your age from whom you could gain that feedback?

Good article on the extension of human life. I am somewhat familiar with the research going on with tolemers. I will try to find some good links. I also find it intersting that scientists are actively thinking about the consequences of their research on society. Would have been nice if the scientists who developed the atomic bomb had that kind of thought process.

Scilosopher,

I think you are right that abstraction may make us more error prone because our abstract symbols lack the details of reality. However, I also think that the ability to abstract the details away allow us to make connections between abstract concepts that we could not make if we were bogged down in the details. I think this is the origination point of creativity and originality and is the way we come up with 'Eureka' concepts.

You understood where I was coming from.However this hamster’s mother said this hamster seemed to understand speech but said virtually nothing until age four ... At which time this hamster began speaking in complete sentences with complicated grammar.

(Looking back it seems strange that understanding and speaking weren’t more closely associated. Interactive feedback usually speeds learning.)I find it rather interesting too in that supposedly I had begun to read before speaking more than minimally (usually single words and only when necessary, hence the nickname "Sonny, the Sphinx') before becoming a blabber-mouth at about four and a half. Well, maybe not a blabber-mouth.

Still haven't figured out why the pattern but have run across it a few times over the years. Quite a relief the first time in an "I'm not that different" sense.

Sorry for the brevity; an old habit, I guess. ;)

SeekerOfTruth,

“multiple meanings for words in our language is both a 'compression' technique as well as a link to specific domains of context”

“denotes other meanings that still apply even though they reside outside the context of physics”

Imahamster strongly agrees. (Leads this hamster to wonder what selection pressures mold language evolution today.)

Re: Borg hamsters
This hamster envisions a cooperative community of self-aware and self-directed entities with their own emotions, hopes, and desires. Diversity would be prized for the unique viewpoints and special flavors added to the community. Cyber hamsters would have their niche as would cyber birds and fish and worms and microbes.

“it would only take a transform to link the two abstract domains together.”

The answer is “42”. Understanding the question and why “42” is the answer is where the “meat” lies. This hamster wonders how much information that “transform” must contain. Some transformations are simple others are very complicated. (E.g., genotype into phenotype?) (On the other paw, the transform need not be perfect, only better than present means of communication. So maybe...)

“Helen Keller is a good example of why. She had neither sight nor hearing, but was still capable of developing a language as well as abstract thought processes solely through the use of her other senses, primarily touch. The 'patterns of touch' she developed were the basis for her abstract thought associations that she ultimately made.”

Imahamster finds this interesting. The reason this hamster stressed images is that much of the brain’s matter seems devoted to processing images. The Keller example might mean those portions play a minor role in abstract thought. (Or Keller somehow recruited visual processing centers even though she had no vision.) (Indicates how little this hamster understands.)

In any case Imahamster agrees that 'patterns of sensory inputs' encompasses all the senses and better describes the process.

“I also find it very interesting that you seemed to learn language without feedback and were able to develop complex communications in the form of language without that active feedback. I would think that some form of feedback had to exist. Maybe it was not a direct form of feedback. Did you have any sibling hamsters that were close to your age from whom you could gain that feedback?”

This hamster finds the entire story highly suspect. This hamster’s mother was intelligent and attentive and had prior children so would presumably be a reliable observer. At the same time this hamster could have been interacting with neighbor kids and older siblings. There may have been reasons why Imahamster’s speech was limited with his mother. (Perhaps this hamster said little so as to keep a low profile and thereby follow more hamster pup desires. Hehe.) Silly speculation at this stage in life.

(Chagur, Imahamster just read your post. Hmmm…maybe mom was right. However Imahamster was not an early reader.)

“Would have been nice if the scientists who developed the atomic bomb had that kind of thought process.”

This hamster suspects they did. Perhaps more so than is common today. The international physics community was small and tightly knit. Important team members were Germans, Italians, etc. Their generation was not inured to the death and pain of others by violent movies and games. There was fear the Nazi’s would develop the bomb first. (Aiii, Imahamster has killed the thread. Hehe.)

I tend to think instead of compression, but more Holographically in the way a memory is contained. The more recent the memory or memorised, the stronger the photoelectric effect, the older the memory or more used the region of memory, the less of a photoelectric effect. (When I mention photoelectric I mean how our atoms has a knock on effect across our quantum entangled brain, and how memory is actually held in an electromagnetic entangled postion.)

I've proven to some that if the head takes a sharp impact the very force can generate a Electromagnetic spike across the brain cells that can be strong enough to wipe out any trace of memory. (Namely Amnesia)

It's possible that information for years can be lost in one major head injury, and cause the person to regress to that of an infantile state of mind.

An assuption also gathered produced a theory:

Melalin that is produced in the Pineal Gland, is also used in structuring the Neural pathways. This gave rise to two conclusions:

1: People that stay up late at night produce less Melalin and therefore can suffer memory errors, which could possibly over time become worse.

2: Older people will find that eventually the Pineal gland can Crystalize, when it does this, it reduces or stops the amount of Melalin produced, this means that older people naturally start to lose their memory.

I would have explained more at the beginning of this thread, but I find it increasingly hard to format the information thatI can place forwards on this subject.

Is melatonin the neorotransmitter/hormone in question? I am pretty sure melanin is a pigment which causes our skin to tan...

http://www.drproctor.com/os/melaninfunction.htm

VS.

http://www.sleepfoundation.org/publications/melatoninthefact.html

Zion posted a truly superb article (by Hans Moravec?) on the “Robots: are We Close Yet?” thread under Intelligence & Machines. Much of what the article says about robots applies to the nature of thought. Zion, thanks for the delicious seed.

Yogamojo

You are right Melalin goes to certain areas and is transformed into Melatonin and is mentioned throughout many documents as pigmentation for skin colour, and being a natural UV protection (although nothing to gloat about as it's not enough), and also the reason why the pupil of the eye is dark.

My point was simple, If you sit in a lit room on a dark night your window can act as a mirror, for one instance, another instance is that a pigmentation asorbs light. Between those two points I concluded that melalin could be of use within a neural pathway because during sleep it would normally be increased (Only night-time) and it would dampen or reflect photoelectric signals.

Of course my interpretation of Atomics has changed since my first look at the classical and modern theories, thanks to something that Kmguru mentioned about holograms, since that point I've understood that our atomics is basically Standalone holograms.

I will post a URL to a more indepth discussion on the subject at a later date.

Originally posted by Imahamster
....

“Helen Keller is a good example of why. She had neither sight nor hearing, but was still capable of developing a language as well as abstract thought processes solely through the use of her other senses, primarily touch. The 'patterns of touch' she developed were the basis for her abstract thought associations that she ultimately made.”

Imahamster finds this interesting. The reason this hamster stressed images is that much of the brain’s matter seems devoted to processing images. The Keller example might mean those portions play a minor role in abstract thought. (Or Keller somehow recruited visual processing centers even though she had no vision.) (Indicates how little this hamster understands.)

....

Imahamster,

I believe you have hit on something here. I have read of cases where an individual has suffered damage to a given portion of the brain, thereby losing some specific capability, which was later regained. In one case it was something to do with speach and after extensive therapy, the individual was able to reacquire the capability. The theory was the individual's brain had rewired undamaged portions of the brain to support that function. Perhaps Helen Keller was able to rewire her unused visual brain functions to support her needs.

What really interested me the most about Helen Keller was that she was able to perform complex abstract thought processes in the abscence of either visual or auditory information. This tells me that abstract thoughts are not dependent upon any given sensory inputs or centers of the brain that use them. So where do thoughts originate?

As it stands, it appears that thought need not be supplemented by all of the senses or even most of them; i.e. the Helen Keller example and numerous other recorded instances of people who, since infancy, either lacked or were deprived of a certain sense and flourished in a field where their uniquity was considered a handicap. And perhaps the lack of stimulus through these missing channels is what makes some of these examples superlative. Beethoven’s works mounted into greater magnitude after his hearing was long gone, so we know with certainty that he was not relying on his ability to hear to generate the tones and rhythms that made up his music. (Of course he, unlike Keller, was born able to hear) ¿Would Beethoven have developed into one history's greatest composers had he been born deaf, or even blind and deaf? ¿In contrast, would Stevie Wonder (just an example) have realized the extent of his potential as an entertainer if he had not been blind since birth? And what does any of this have to do with the supposed generation of an abstract thought?

One thing that is rather interesting is the fact that infants in the later embryonic stages during sleep experience REM: they dream. ¿What are they dreaming? ¿What do they know that they might generate enough material to substantiate any dream? ¿Is it aural holographic random patterning derived from what they hear through their surrounding womb? ¿Or do they also dream visually, because they certainly do have the hardware to do it...and if so, is this hallucination or abstract thought? ¿Is hallucination and "abstract thought" the same thing? The embryonic hypothalamus is already ticking.

Terrence McKenna describes a type of hallucination called "auto-replacement" in some of his later rants from his book "The Archaic Revival". A few natural substances on the planet can induce this state. (The above-mentioned book can give more info without me getting into the chemical names of these substances: okay, one of them is Dimethyltryptamine, DMT, not much is known about it, however it does occur as a part of our natural neurochemisty in small amounts). The effect of this phenomenon to the observer/adventurer is that while experiencing this, random and previously uncharted areas of patternization occur which override the transmission/translation of signals from the optic nerve, nothing that one would be able to defer to experience. McKenna believes that this type of hallucination is responsible for the formation of spoken language. And after all, that which cannot be described cannot be created...


All comments are welcome, so please post away pilgrims!

I actually know someone who's tried DMT, said he left the real world for a while. Not like LSD and other hallucinogens where the hallucinations had any basis on reality.

Personally I would differentiate hallucination from abstract thought. Hallucination is typically regarded as a distortion of the senses. Abstract thought is may change your interpretation of the world, but not the appearance supplied by your senses (though if you learn filters through some abstract process it might alter what you notice to the extent that you interpret things in a radically different way).

If people lose certain senses they probably excel because they focus more strongly (and maybe increase the amount of brain devoted to) certain types of thinking (presumably visual/auditory/olfactory/touch/taste thinking has different structure so you are better at understanding certain types of things). Also once Beethoven lost his hearing he had to think more and experiment less. That's probably why he was so mathematical in his playing (unless I'm confusing Bach and Beethoven again, I'm not such a huge classical music listener).
Loss of senses are a certain type of defect with much less overall distortion than idiot sevants etc., so presumably we can still relate to/communicate with them better so we don't miss the beauty of their mental creations ...

SeekerOfTruth, Shaman touched on brain plasticity earlier. Some right brain/left brain stuff. If the left brain is damaged or removed some language functions may be taken over by the right brain. (Right brain has some rudimentary language skills such as being able to name certain objects but most language skills are left brain.) Imahamster has not followed the extensive literature in this area. (Volunteers? Shaman?)

Imahamster is aware that extensive training of a finger results in the neural region associated with that finger expanding into areas previously devoted to other brain function. That seems to imply that at least some recruitment of unused or little used brain mass is possible. The architecture of the brain is hardwired so there are significant limits to any retraining.

(Yogamojo, Imahamster wrote this before seeing your own reply on this topic.)

Helen Keller had touch. The loss of sight and hearing may be less important than that a major sensory pathway still existed. The brain mechanism for recognizing, predicting, and altering patterns might be independent of any particular sense. (But could only function if a person is able to interact with their environment.)

As for recruiting some of the visual brain regions for abs