The Nature of Thought

[esp]

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?

[caonight]

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.

[esp]

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'?

[Imahamster]

(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.

[scilosopher]

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??

[Yang´s_Matrix]

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

[Imahamster]

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. :)

[scilosopher]

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]

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?

[esp]

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.

[SeekerOfTruth]

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.

[Imahamster]

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.

[Chagur]

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

Why?

[Banshee]

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...

[Chagur]

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.

[Imahamster]

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.

[Yogamojo]

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

[SeekerOfTruth]

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?

[Imahamster]

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.

[Imahamster]

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?

[Banshee]

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...;)

[bun]

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.

[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???

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

[goofyfish]

:( Neither link works?

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

don't know the deal on the other.

[Imahamster]

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.

[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.

[Shaman]

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

[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?

[Imahamster]

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

[scilosopher]

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 ...

[Chagur]

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 ;)

[Chagur]

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? ;)

[Imahamster]

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.

[Imahamster]

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.

[SeekerOfTruth]

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.

[scilosopher]

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?

[Imahamster]

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?)

[scilosopher]

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 ...

[Imahamster]

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.

[scilosopher]

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 ...

[Imahamster]

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.)

[Chagur]

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.

[scilosopher]

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 ...

[scilosopher]

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)?

[Chagur]

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.

[Imahamster]

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.

[SeekerOfTruth]

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.

[SeekerOfTruth]

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.

[SeekerOfTruth]

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.

[SeekerOfTruth]

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.

[scilosopher]

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.

[Imahamster]

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

[Imahamster]

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.)

[Chagur]

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.

[Imahamster]

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.)

[scilosopher]

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)

[Shaman]

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

[Imahamster]

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

[Imahamster]

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.

[SeekerOfTruth]

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.

[Chagur]

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. ;)

[Imahamster]

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.)

[Stryder]

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.

[Yogamojo]

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

[Imahamster]

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.

[Stryder]

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.

[SeekerOfTruth]

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?

[Yogamojo]

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!

[scilosopher]

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 ...

[Imahamster]

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 abstract thought…PET scans of a person blind from birth might be interesting. (Surely this has been done?)

Yogamojo, interesting…

The brain is self-organizing. There are a relatively small set of biological instructions that result in an extremely complicated functioning brain. (Much like the simple rules for the computer game “Life” generating very complex patterns.) The developing brain has to “wire” itself. Neutrons interact with neighboring neurons. (Up to 25,000.) Some connect to neurons in different brain regions. If a neuron gets improper feedback from other neurons it dies. Ninety percent of the developing brain's neurons die. The remaining neurons form functional circuits. If the proper signaling stimulus is not provided at the right development stage the circuits don’t function. (The cat visual system has been extensively studied.)

What does this have to do with your post? This hamster doesn’t know. Seems to relate in interesting ways to embryonic dreaming.

[Imahamster]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-01/uots-rct011602.php

[Imahamster]

http://www.discover.com/jan_02/gthere.html?article=feat_chimp.html

[Imahamster]

http://www.discover.com/neuroquest/neuroquest.html

[Imahamster]

http://www.cai.cam.ac.uk/people/rhsc/consc.html

[SeekerOfTruth]

Imahamster,

Excellent links. I particularly like the one on the similarities between chimps and ourselves.

So, have we reached the conclusion that our thoughts are the results of our neural connections?

[Imahamster]

Originally posted by SeekerOfTruth
Imahamster,
So, have we reached the conclusion that our thoughts are the results of our neural connections?
Imahamster is slow to draw conclusions. The human brain is immensely complicated. As Scilospher has pointed out the biological substrate is far from understood. How that substrate gives rise to “thinking” is largely unknown. No computer simulation of a mind performs as well as a hamster, much less a human. At this stage of “brain modeling” many special phenomena such as idiot savants or people with “photographic” memories aren’t even considered.

The question of “consciousness” is open. No one knows what role it plays, if any. And why can humans only focus on seven items at one time? (Actually varies with the person from five to nine.) How is information from different sensory systems integrated? That is, how does the brain know that this bit of sound data is connected to that piece of image data? There are thousands of unanswered questions.

Some very bright people don’t believe neural connections explain human thought. A few believe nanostructures in our cells act as quantum computers. Only recently has human technology advanced to the level where such conjecture might be scientifically explored. (Single cells evolved over billions or years. Multi-cellular animals evolved over a mere half billion. Makes this hamster wonder just how amazing cells really are. Cells contain hundreds of molecular machines that are only now being discovered and understood.)

Authors of papers generally simplify the complexity and unknowns and exaggerate the conclusions, often ignoring alternative explanations. (Who would read a paper that dragged one through all the messy details only to conclude that one really doesn’t know?)

This hamster sees the picture getting clearer every day. Great fun to watch the discovery process unfold. Too soon for conclusions. Tune-in next week...

[Yogamojo]

Well, I've heard some theories, and even had a few of my own, but this one takes the cake! Good ol' Terrence McKenna (rest his soul) and his brother risked the sovereign integrity of their own delicate cerebral fortresses to forge ahead into the uncharted areas of consciousness belonging to psychedelic study. Here's a snippet told from the angle of the humble mushroom, man and hamster alike can appreciate this objectively:

http://www.deoxy.org/mushword.htm

I don't expect any of you to have an earthshaking epiphany, just appreciation for its quaint novelty...:bugeye:

[Meghan]

Yogamojo---

Thanks for that great story, it was great.

[Imahamster]

Yogamojo, this hamster may have to switch allegiance from the Divine Hamster to the Marvelous Mushroom. Especially enjoyed the vision of symbiosis as it seems compatible with an evolving community of diverse cyber life. Thanks for the seed…oops…spore.

[Shaman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Imahamster

[B]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, yes. Some languague functions may be taken by the right hemisphere.

The mind-Brain Conundrum
http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/shufflebrain-book02.html

The Heart in the Brain
http://object.cup.org/Chapters/0521783070ws.pdf

Hemispherectomy Research
http://abacus.bates.edu/~bodohert/serious/papers/Hemisphcogneuro.html

http://www.drbencarson.com/hem-facts.html

Syntactic development in Children with hemispherectomy
http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/curtiss/isys1.pdf

Outcomes for children with half a Brain
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press1997/JULY/970707.HTM

Quote:
" Language representation in the brain does not seems to be anatomically-bound to the left hemisphere only"
Exploring Neuronal Plasticity
http://www.hcrc.ed.ac.uk/cogsci2001/pdf-files/0244.pdf


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.

And the opposite.....after losing a finger the sensory input is lost, the neural region associated with that finger decrease in size, the neural connections change, then the cortical map change.

http://hcs.harvard.edu/~husn/BRAIN/vol6/p21-25-PhantomLimbs.pdf

Imahamster......The architecture of the brain is hardwired so there are significant limits to any retraining.....

I'm not so sure about this...

[Imahamster]

Shaman, Imahamster has begun to read through the articles. Enjoyed reading the “chapter 2” excerpt so much that this hamster will likely read the entire online book before checking out the other links. It will take time to chew these seeds.

From what this hamster has read so far this hamster understands and agrees with your questioning this hamster’s assertion of limited brain plasticity. Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the seeds.

[whatsherface]

With split brain stuff and the apparent exeistence then of multiple individuals with different ideas, i am forced to wonder who is the "I" thinks it's me, with those what is the other doing which isn't answering as "I" at the time. Are they aware of each other? Are there anywhere any firsthand accounts of what it feels like? I have seen none.

Marsupials don't have corpus callosums. That intrigues me. The most notable thing about those that i am aware of behaviourially is that they are generally not domesticable. Is that related? Is there something radically different about the 'dreaming' of those which caused the Australian continent and the people in it to remain so regressive?

[Imahamster]

WhatsHerFace, this hamster has also wondered. A friend was under anesthesia. A doctor was performing a procedure and my friend was showing outward signs of extreme pain. The doctor claimed my friend “felt” nothing. (This hamster was VERY unhappy.) Afterwards my friend remembered no pain. This incident led to many discussions as to whether pain that was not remembered mattered. Whether pain felt while “unconscious” was truly pain. Also led to the nightmare thought of being trapped in one’s own brain.

[whatsherface]

Also led to the nightmare thought of being trapped in one’s own brain.

:( I feel that. A lot. As if that's such a wrong state to be in.

[scilosopher]

I've only had one out of body experience, so generally speaking I'm trapped in my brain ...

Sometimes I also wonder about the temporal continuity of who I am even if I can think of myself as an integrated whole at some level. It's amazing how just a couple thoughts can change your perspective radically. The worst is when you do what you thought was the right thing and later think it was a big mistake. After you think it was a mistake is the current I still responsible?

On a certain level the person, pragmatically at least, must be held responsible. On another level though the ideas/thoughts/attributes that now drive you were not what was responsible for that act ...

Wondering about different facets of yourself, is certainly relevant if they can all take control under different circumstances and certainly is relevant at one level - but again it's the separation deception at another level they must get integrated at any specific point elsewhere in your mind. It's amazing how much of biology is driven by a certain amount of separation allowing for different types of tasks etc, that get integrated elsewhere.

[Imahamster]

The “Nature of Thought” thread seems to be getting weighted down by links. (Imahamster accepts blame.) These links are interesting and valuable. However people may be reluctant to post their thoughts when they haven’t read all the linked articles. As no one has the time to read everything, fewer people may feel comfortable adding their insight.

Imahamster has started a new thread “Articles on the Nature of Thought” where this hamster will post links related to the topics on this thread. (If an article is particularly relevant to the topic under discussion this hamster will continue to post the link on this thread.)

[esp]

Originally posted by Imahamster
WhatsHerFace, this hamster has also wondered. A friend was under anesthesia. A doctor was performing a procedure and my friend was showing outward signs of extreme pain. The doctor claimed my friend “felt” nothing. (This hamster was VERY unhappy.) Afterwards my friend remembered no pain. This incident led to many discussions as to whether pain that was not remembered mattered. Whether pain felt while “unconscious” was truly pain. Also led to the nightmare thought of being trapped in one’s own brain.

I don't know the generic name, but there is a drug used by A&E units in the UK called Hypnovol.
The effects of this drug allow medics to perform painful procedures without the patient remembering the pain.
The pain is still manifest at the time.

[Stryder]

whatsherface

You mentioned of Multiple personalities, now I've been thinking about this one for sometime, I believe that the old Fraudian classic isn't what is would have seemed to have been.

The way I understand it, people don't suffer true split personalities for a mixture of reasons.

Firstly let me mention the issues of "Do you hear voices in your head?", in truth nobody should hear themselves think, we work on a process that doesn't have vocalisation, although what you might here when you silently read out to yourself is a portion of your temporal lobes.

The temporal lobe has two functions (other than supposedly storing longterm memory)
1: Voice recognition and the ability to hear
2: Voicebox controls (Namely your actual Voice you speak to people with is controlled from here)

Now the true people that are driven to insanety by voices, don't here voices that stop in for a chitchat, but they will hear past voices of traumatic experiences. For instance if a persons father terrorised them when they were younger (Beat them etc) then they might hear the voice of their father sometimes, or have that vocal memory jogged by something someone else does.

This is in regard to people that might act out from passed transgressions, like their father beat them so they beat their offspring and a horrific family trend occurs.

The next is a persons perception being altered or their own possible "Multipersonality". We live in a world governed by Television and films (unless your stuck out in the sticks somewhere, in fact if you were to look for cases of multiple personalities in undeveloped countries you would probably find that there are hardly any cases)

The way we as humans work is similar to our cousins the chimps, they tend to learn from "Copying". We might watch a film with a hero/heroine and be inspired by a great act of courage, or get caught up with a quirky quote.

These images and stories (even from books) become memories, and apart of your neural network. It's only when you start thinking of that film you just watch or the book you just read, that your Sub-consciousness begins to construct your Character futher. (Your character meaning , "You!")

This is easily done, and suddenly your quoting something that is so Cliche, but it gives you a sense of wellbeing when you say it, as your now preportionally apart of that hero/heroine, well at least it's myth or tale.

This is why some people are prone to acting out horrific acts and then later blame television or films for the ideas, feelings or inspirations.

Lastly there are Voices that stop in for Chitchats, these are usually Medical (Psychology) Students and their Physic counterpart professors that sometimes get the go ahead to invade a persons mind. Of course they tend to terrorise the person by placing spots in one of their eyes, or tormenting them from being able to remember a name but placing a internal command that says "It's on the tip of your tongue".

Every interact they do is to work out how your brain works and to get a better clue about how everybodies brain works. The small problem that occurs with this technique is the fact that when they do this they can actually cause damage to an individual. So they wouldn't be insured, or capable of paying out for liablity, so they tend to do these studies with a clandenstine effort. (They don't tell you, contact you or even ask permission.)

There is also the probability that anyone utilised within these studies can end up on welfare for the rest of their lives. (If of coursed they aren't forced into a state of depression to kill them off so they don't take up any more welfare, I mention this only as what some of the nasty ones might try in their personal schedules.)

[Shaman]

Originally posted by esp


I don't know the generic name, but there is a drug used by A&E units in the UK called Hypnovol.
The effects of this drug allow medics to perform painful procedures without the patient remembering the pain.
The pain is still manifest at the time.

Hi esp:

A person under an anaesthesic called ketamine is awake in a surgical procedure. He is suffering pain, but it seems that he doesn't care about it. After the surgery there are no memories of the pain or the procedure itself. This sustance is a dissociative drug.

quote:
"Ketamine shows analgesic effect, this could be NMDA receptor or opiate receptor mediated"

http://www.esraeurope.org/abstracts/abstracts98/errando1.htm

[scilosopher]

Random thoughts ; )

I was just thinking that (despite fluxuations) animals that learn seem to have longer life spans. Which makes sense if the learned skills are necessary for life as it would be a dangerous situation and additionally there is a certain efficiency to reducing the proportion of society that is in the learning process (not that it ever ends and memory lasts all life). I wonder if you can actually use life span of a certain species like house cats and get an estimate of their propensity to learn (I wonder how long hamsters live and if ones with a propensity to learn live longer ; ).

harmonic oscillations:
So if thought/learning is on a certain level a tuning process (repeated stimulations of certain "thinking pathways"), and people converse/teach/learn together there is essentially a harmonic co-tuning process. It's known that pendulum clocks in in the same room sychronize. Keeping in mind also the process of testing ideas against the real world it can be thought of almost as sonar ... bounce ideas off the world and eachother and a certain picture emerges. Caves and shadows come to mind. Going out of tune? Plato thought all democracies were doomed because freedom of speech and overly diverse ideas about how to live life lead to destabilization and crash. I sure hope he's wrong. Then again maybe we don't crash often enough ... considering aging and how life uses generations with trial and error to improve itself. Personally I think we have WAY to many laws. Laws should be accessible to all, relatively clear, and not in such excess that knowing them all is essentially impossible. It especially doesn't make any sense if you don't enforce half of them. That's even more confusing.
It's also interesting how this relates to the idea that science requires death and new generations to get out of ruts in terms of getting to stuck seeing one picture and not able to see the other. Like those pictures that can be two people kissing or a table and you can only see one.

[Porfiry]

Also led to the nightmare thought of being trapped in one’s own brain.

Would that be any different than dreaming? When in a dream-state, I have almost no control over my perceptions. And, of course, I don't really mind. :p

[whatsherface]

Apparently people with split brains have shown that the brain can house at least two distinctly different personalities which can have radically different views about the same subjects. Could such conflict have aggravated the condition which necessitated the surgery in the first place, i wonder?

I think i suspect that we have just one consciousness and only imagine that we are separate individuals. That could reflect in each individual having multiple separate personalities and only imagine we are one, integrated from those, which could account for such concepts as possession, multiple personality disorder etc. Those could just be some flaw in the "i" consciousness. "Who is it that looks through my eyes?"

In dreams, apparently, all those other characters are 'me' too, i am simply projecting aspects of myself to observe externally, but am not consciously being them. Who is, then?


Behavior of Split Brain Patients (http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/UBNRP/Split_Brain/Behavior.html)

[Imahamster]

Imahamster has seen graphs of body size compared to life span. Most mammals fall close to a straight line, larger body goes with longer life. There are outliers such as bats. (Some bats live up to twenty years.) What would a similar graph that compares animal IQ to animal lifespan show? (Intelligence correlates highly with brain to body mass ratio.)

Interesting conjecture. A long life favors the development of higher intelligence. Could even be a dual feedback system.

Long life + intelligence => improved survival => longer life and more intelligence.

This idea leads to the more general concept of intelligence cofactors.

Cofactor + intelligence => improved survival => more cofactor and more intelligence.

What are other potential cofactors? Diet? Omnivores have a wider variety of food sources. More intelligence would aid food discovery and gathering.

Do animal examples support “long life” being an “intelligence” cofactor?

Some reptiles and birds are very long lived. Is there any correlation between intelligence and life span for these animals? (Never thought of a turtle as being smart. Parrots on the other hand…) What about mammals? Aren’t rats smarter than sheep? (Rats are smarter than hamsters. Sigh.)

Might be a good topic for a zoology research project.

Too much thought is likely to get this hamster smooshed. (Hamster ponders asteroid collision while blindly stepping into traffic.)

Harmonic oscillations… Any chance the minds on this thread will synchronize? (Can’t even get the voices in this hamster head to agree.) Hehe.

New generations may be required to bring fresh ideas. Yet old generations supply valuable old perspectives. Perhaps the problem is older generations retain too much control. Life extension could make this a much bigger problem.

[scilosopher]

Good point. Knut Schmidtnielsen (sp?), wrote a really cool book called "How animals work" (or something durned close) that gets into really interesting physiological relationships between animals and the physical principles that these relationships are in part based on. I wasn't thinking of the intelligence/life span from this kind of mechanistic standpoint.

Two things that jump out at me are - 1) typically bigger animals take longer to develop so making one is a bigger investment and it would tend to make sense to make use of it for longer; 2) bigger animals need a bigger brain just to map their whole body as thoroughly. That could possibly explain the rats, maybe the increase for mapping isn't there, but they have a brain bigger relative to their body size (I think those graphs are on log scales so a slight devation from a straight line might be pretty significant especially at the low end).

I was thinking of higher intelligence and more learning tending an animal more towards longer life. Generally speaking selection is thought to end after you have reproduced, but if older more wise animals keep surviving and mating longer life might indirectly be selected. I wonder though if bigger animals have/had more brain to spare for developing higher intelligence. Maybe they needed more to deal with the extra energetic requirements of growing and maintaining such big bodies. I can't think of anything to light my way along this line its such a complex system I can imagine to many alternatives ... fun to think about though.

Actually the mind is unlikely to synchronize too thoroughly a) my theories never come close to explaining everything I see so that keeps introducing change, b) that would be bad as it would hinder diversity of ideas which is useful for dealing with different types of problems, c) your experiences are so different then mine (especially being a hamster) that there is bound to be a certain amount of "inertia". Thank god for that too, people can act too much like sheep sometimes to begin with (I would prefer hamsters from my limited experience).

By the same token, I know this thread has already changed the way I think about thought (I love metastuff) and the direction is clearly towards certain ideas others have expressed. I wonder how much the synchronization is an averaging process (what an average perspective would mean I have no idea [plus I think that even a small subtle idea can drastically change ones perspective {still if you think of the multidimensional space thought must exist in I would tend to think after the converstaion peoples perspectives would have reduced in distance}]). Do the most knowledgeable pull others towards them more? Do the ability to tug correlate with leadership skills? Intelligence? Seed supply? Verbal skills? Charisma?

[Counterbalance]

By the same token, I know this thread has already changed the way I think about thought (I love metastuff) and the direction is clearly towards certain ideas others have expressed. I wonder how much the synchronization is an averaging process (what an average perspective would mean I have no idea [plus I think that even a small subtle idea can drastically change ones perspective {still if you think of the multidimensional space thought must exist in I would tend to think after the converstaion peoples perspectives would have reduced in distance}]). Do the most knowledgeable pull others towards them more? Do the ability to tug correlate with leadership skills? Intelligence? Seed supply? Verbal skills? Charisma?

~~~

scilosopher, anyone...

Counterbalance is very interested in hearing some feedback on all that scilosopher has wondered about in the above paragraph.

This is a most intriguing thread...

thx,

Counterbalance

[whatsherface]

:) yes, i liked that paragraph too. I think the nature of thought is very much fractal, so there are probably very few variations as such but infinite interpretations of very similar ideas.

[scilosopher]

I think biology is very fractal, order at low levels will tend to manifest on high levels and evolution is a scale invariant force.

I'm not sure I agree completely with the interpretations part, but I definitely agree in part. I actually like the idea that Thomas Kuhn discusses in "the structure and function of scientific revolutions", where peoples view of the world is the integration of a constellation of realisations. The interpretation of this constellation is a paradigm (he was the one who coined the paradigm shift stuff that became another annoying business buzz phrase).

When a shift occurs your thinking can change significantly without the constellation changing much. I wouldn't say the interpretation isn't part of thought. I also think that most of the relationships people think of between things are probably quite abstract and can be applied to many different things. That's probably why teachers using analogies can be quite effective (though dangerous as if there weren't differences it would just be useless so it's never quite right).

[Imahamster]

Ah thought space, multi-dimensional and with nonlinear functions. And gene space. And phenotype space. And maps from one space into another, discontinuous transformations representing phenotype jumps. Computational biology. Neat stuff.

“Do the most knowledgeable pull others towards them more? Do the ability to tug correlate with leadership skills? Intelligence? Seed supply? Verbal skills? Charisma?”

Ah...the group mind examines itself. This is an uncomfortable topic as it tugs in non-hamster directions. Certainly the terms represent real human traits and touch on group dynamics. However the terms carry with them social baggage this hamster would rather avoid.

(Warning: Hamster meandering ahead…)

In high school students experience a homogenous environment. Intellectual differences predominantly determine the knowledge acquired. A pattern of thinking that only “smart” people have worthwhile information may develop. As humans expand into the much more varied “real” world and have years to acquire unique experiences and talents that early pattern of thinking could lead one astray.

Going through life everyone gains special insight, knowledge, and skills. If one focuses on what another person doesn’t know or the mistakes they make, one can miss valuable seeds. If one is arrogant one may be blind to one’s own errors and faults. If one places too much value on one’s own ideas one might not truly listen to another person. If one chatters too long or too loudly one may not hear the wisdom surrounding one. (One strives to be a hamster but this one often falls sadly short.)

The concepts leader/follower, teacher/student, boss/employee, commander/soldier, and parent/child relate to asymmetrical relationships. Such relationships may foster arrogance and unhealthy respect for authority. They may provide fertile grounds for dominance games. “Debate” may become an ego competition rather than a cooperative search for good seeds. This hamster feels asymmetric relationships are a poor model for exploration and discovery.

This hamster favors peer relationships. A bird leads the flock for a short time in one direction, then an interesting seed catches another bird’s attention and the flock follows a new “leader”. Any bird may find a new seed and capture the flock. If only one bird found new seeds and led the flock, the whole flock suffers including the “leader”.

(Back to the group mind examining itself…)

Mutual exploration leads to mutual discovery. Even when the facts are in one’s head they may mean little until explored by sharing. Each person brings unique experiences and perspectives. Thoughts converge in some areas and diverge in others. Mutual respect grows in either case.

“Do the most knowledgeable pull others towards them more?”

Attitude may be more important than knowledge or intelligence. Willingness to be wrong, acknowledgement that one doesn’t know or is unsure, openness to new ideas, respect for differing beliefs, kindness rather than cruelty, shared pleasure in discovery create a community mind that is more knowledgeable and intelligent than any individual.

Brilliance that excludes and condemns isolates itself and damages a community.

This hamster suspects individuals cluster. Shared beliefs or modes of thinking pull some together while pushing others away. Some individuals are left in isolation on one thread while strongly interacting on another.

Stryder’s contributions always make this hamster think. Yet this hamster seldom directly responds. Why? Usually this hamster only follows part way before diverging. The part this hamster follows has a good taste but the part this hamster doesn’t understand makes responding difficult. Such partial connections make the group dynamics even more complex.

And again this hamster chatters too long. Sigh.

[scilosopher]

Whatsherface,
I just was rereading the thread and I actually think I agree with you completely. My reply was against an interpretation that you were saying all thought was the same, but interpretations varied. You didn't say that though ... everything I wrote agreed with your comment.

Imahamster,
I was just picturing those schools of fish that swim with the flocking behavior (birds do it to of course), except there were a bunch of groups and sometimes fish jumped from one to another. Then groups talking in parties. Then the way people with similar views clump (I think this was an implicit part from the birds of a feather ...), until they get tired of what they hear and jump to another group for a fresh perspective. The people who bounce around searching. And all through this ideas are bouncing (between clumps in the parties, people switch parties, workmates, family members, classmates, dead people through books, living people through books, people on the internet ... ) and the ideas get more complex as each individual diffracts or absorbs evolves and re-emits differently based on experience and nature and that is thought. You can't sum it up in a single individual as I was mainly thinking (I guess I did a little, but not explicitly). Thank you for your words (you too whatsherface ... the interpretations part got me going too).
A link from another thread ( secular christian indoctrination of all things - http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html ) mentioned cultural mutations and I had thought of education and history as information propagation before in analogy to the propagation of information in genetics before, but I remembered what Imahamster said about someone interpretting a comment in a different more intelligent way. I realized that thought actually has a mode of generating smart mutations due to reinterpretation (and it is probably due to harmonization with ideas someone has in their head with your comment [the one that gets interpretted more inteligently that is]). Genetic evolution can't really do this. The way an amino acid sequence is interpretted into it's functional form is pretty much fixed (though regrouping of genes in a protein complex is mildly analogous, but MUCH more constrained). If you add that in, the mere process of propagation acts as an intelligent filter adding necessary complications and simplifying unnecessary complexities. I wish I could see the dancing picture on the wall and not just a few pixels around me blinking -> though they are pretty interesting pixels for the most part ...

{aside: Computational biology is the best, seems any type of ordering principle you see anywhere appears in biology at some level. By the same token biology is so complicated it's hard to do relevant theory. I've been forced to descend into the dark side of experiment in search of reality.
Also, I'm thinking about how to discuss evolution, but it's one of those things where I can't decide the best place to start. So complicated if you start in the wrong place. So simple in essence.}

[Imahamster]

What no memes? No thought critters of the id? Forgot to discuss the ecology of ideas competing, spreading, evolving in Darwinian fashion. What an oversight. Bring on the memes.

Hmmm…a quick search shows memes have been mentioned on SciForums but largely in the context of viruses. This hamster favors a more positive meme model. One more in tune with Scilosopher’s description of ideas improving with transmission through intelligent minds.

(Scilosopher you mentioned starting a thread on organizing principles operating on random events leading to a non-random macroscopic world…or something like that. Looked but never found your thread. Interested in how evolution is self-similar at multiple scales.

This hamster may understand the dilemma with an evolution thread. The topic is too big and the interesting stuff quickly becomes specialized and technical. This hamster was most interested in an organizing principle that would apply some structure on the gene discoveries that are announced daily. Tried to view it as a transformation from gene space to phenotype space mediated by environment. Quickly found this hamster doesn’t know enough.)

[scilosopher]

Imahamster,
What's in a name? I should have said it though I guess ... meme. Have you ever read engines of creation? That's where I heard about memes. Really cool book and you can view it online somewhere on the foresight foundation website ( http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/index.html#FurtherInfo ). It's an early proof of principle on nanotech. I guess the competition and mutual exclusion aspects of certain ideas is a relevant aspect I left out. I wasn't thinking of that so much ...

(where did i mention that? sounds like an interesting thread ... maybe something in the evolution thread stryder started on free thoughts? it does sound like a good description of what i might write in discussing evolution. genotype to phenotype transformations are not understood in detail by anyone except in very simple cases like pigments [ab initio protein folding doesn't really work for anything more than 70 aa so even there it isn't understood at a certain level]. if you know enough molecular biology you can kind of imagine the transformation, which is what I'm trying to think of how to put in an evolution thread. im not sure how much detail to go into ... protein folding and structure is important, regulatory mechanisms are important, so many stuff is important for context, but what level of detail is necessary for a general idea? im not sure)

Did someone say off topic? (sorry about that ... it kind of relates though on an abstract level)

[Imahamster]

This hamster conceived of “thought critters” competing for mind space on this hamster’s own. (Or perhaps not. Who knows how often one has been exposed to a concept before the eureka moment of “discovery”?) Got excited and shared the idea with several friends. (This was long ago and far away.) Finally met one who said, “Oh yeah, memes.” (Darn human footprints are everywhere one goes.) Enjoyed learning about memes but it wasn’t the same.

This hamster shares your interest in “processes” that “improve”. Mentioning memes distracted from the important concept that an idea may “improve” through the process of being passed and shared among intelligent people. Here “improve” means in the sense that a hamster appreciates not in the sense that a meme occupies more mind space. (A catchy jingle is NOT better than a great idea. Not to this hamster.)

This hamster used to frequent the ForeSight site. (Hehe. ForeSight site. Language is fun.) CAD CAM pictures of molecular rotors got boring quickly. Still watch the field but the real excitement seems to be in biological machines.

[scilosopher]

Yeah biological machines improve themselves as they go. Be it software or hardware they managed to design themselves to do pretty cool stuff.

Amazing parallelization be it of thought in populations of people thinking or genetics in populations exploring genetic space. Both work off the idea of a population of individuals that provides variation that can be selected from. It's interesting that the more evolved an organism seems the more intelligently it can create and tolerate variation to explore this space ... our nervous and immune systems being some of the most advanced at this purpose (both seem to use selection and variation even within one individual in one generation [I say that because bacteria/asexual organisms one individual kind of lasts multiple generations]).

[SeekerOfTruth]

Originally posted by esp


....
The effects of this drug allow medics to perform painful procedures without the patient remembering the pain.
The pain is still manifest at the time....

Hello All,

I'm back. Been busy looking for a new job. No success yet, but several prospects are at hand.

ESP,

I have recently seen an interesting segment on TV, either on PBS, The Discovery Channel or The Learning Channel, about how hypnotism can be used to make a patient immune to pain. In one experiment, subjects were hypnotized and then had one of their arms placed in an icewater bath that was near freezing. The subjects were kept in their hypnotic trance and told they were lying on a sunny beach. The subjects were able to keep their arms in the baths for very long times without even noticing the cold. After just a few minutes, the subjects should have been experiencing extreme pain from the ice baths, but while in their hypnotic trances, the subjects seemed totally immune to pain.

In another case on the same show pregnant women were taking classes with a hypnotist who taught them how to hypnotize themselves and place themselves in trances to ignore the pain of child birth. Out of 9 or 10 women, all but one were able to have natural child birth without experiencing any severe pain from the labor contractions and even the one who said she experienced pain stated that the pain wasn't as bad as she had been told.

I have also heard many different stories about people who have suffered severe trauma to themselves, but didn't feel the pain until they actually saw the wound or until they were done dealing with the situation at hand.

These types of events tell me that pain is just a thought that may be ignored through some special thought processes and if we could determine how those processes actually worked, we could greatly reduce the pain a lot of people feel.

[SeekerOfTruth]

Originally posted by scilosopher
....

harmonic oscillations:
So if thought/learning is on a certain level a tuning process (repeated stimulations of certain "thinking pathways"), and people converse/teach/learn together there is essentially a harmonic co-tuning process. It's known that pendulum clocks in in the same room sychronize. Keeping in mind also the process of testing ideas against the real world it can be thought of almost as sonar ... bounce ideas off the world and eachother and a certain picture emerges. Caves and shadows come to mind. ....

Scilosopher,

This brought to mind one of the classes I had in my MBA program. We were talking about corporate mentalities and how they tend to get slower and less able to respond to markets as they get larger. One of the most interesting discussions our teacher had with us was when he asked us why startup companies were so able to beat larger companies to the markets with new ideas. We came up with the typical responses of "they had younger, newer talents with better ideas" and "they didn't have the corporate culture that larger companies had" when our instructor brought up a list of the top 10 new startups. He went through the list and pointed out that almost every startup in the list had the majority of its major players, the ceos, the head engineers, the chief financial officers, come from large corporations and that these people had been in those large corporations for quite some time prior to joining the startup so they should have had those corporate cultures ingrained with them.

So what's my point? I guess your thought is very much on target in that as organizations grow, the people in them tend to have their thought processes become more and more alike. This may not be a good thing in some ways. Just look at Enron as an example. Also, if everyone's thought processes are becoming more alike, then it may be a very beneficial thing to bring in new blood to stir the pot of ideas.

[SeekerOfTruth]

Originally posted by Porfiry


Would that be any different than dreaming? When in a dream-state, I have almost no control over my perceptions. And, of course, I don't really mind. :p

This brings to mind an intersting question. Are dreams actually thoughts?

[SeekerOfTruth]

Originally posted by scilosopher
....

Two things that jump out at me are - 1) typically bigger animals take longer to develop so making one is a bigger investment and it would tend to make sense to make use of it for longer; 2) bigger animals need a bigger brain just to map their whole body as thoroughly. That could possibly explain the rats, maybe the increase for mapping isn't there, but they have a brain bigger relative to their body size (I think those graphs are on log scales so a slight devation from a straight line might be pretty significant especially at the low end).

...

Scilosopher,

I have also read that their is a correlation between the amount of time a baby of a species is required to be nurtured before they are self-sufficient and the species' intelligence. For example, a human baby takes many years to become self sufficient. A baby horse on the other hand is able to walk almost immediately and after a short time of mother's milk is basically self sufficient. I think this nurture time is important because it provides time for a baby from an intelligent species to learn enough to be self-sufficient.

In Crichton's sequal to Jurasic Park, he brings out the errors in his first assumptions about the intelligence of velociraptors because in his first book he speaks to the intelligence of the velociraptor but has them using pack hunting techniques which are a learned behavior. In his second book he points out how velociraptors, if truly intelligent, would not have been able to use those types of pack hunting techniques right out of the egg, because their would have been no 'experienced' velociraptors around to teach them.

[SeekerOfTruth]

Originally posted by scilosopher
..

Actually the mind is unlikely to synchronize too thoroughly a) my theories never come close to explaining everything I see so that keeps introducing change, b) that would be bad as it would hinder diversity of ideas which is useful for dealing with different types of problems, c) your experiences are so different then mine (especially being a hamster) that there is bound to be a certain amount of "inertia". Thank god for that too, people can act too much like sheep sometimes to begin with (I would prefer hamsters from my limited experience).
...

Take a look at the corporate culture you may be working in right now.

Do you wear the 'right' clothes for the culture? Do you have lunch at the 'right' places? Do you golf?

I think you have hit upon something with the idea of synchronization. I think it occurs to a level far more than we may realize and in some cases I think it is a survival instinct to be able to synchronize with members of our own species. Just think about fish swimming together or a heard of deer wheeling in synchronization away from a preditor. The lone deer or fish is more apt to be killed than the one that conforms with the herd. In a similar manner in our corporate world today, and in human societies in general I think, the people who synchronize the best with the society or the corporate culture are the ones who tend to be successful.

[SeekerOfTruth]

We have talked about how a sequence of DNA may produce a specific amino acid and how that is a fixed process by which there aren't many potential variations of the theme. Our brain structures derive from our DNA and the neural connections are to some extent fixed in a specific pattern for all of us. I mean we all have the same potential types of brain structures and the same potential connections.

So a few questions.

First, how do our individual thought process arise and become distinct, separate personalities if we all have the same basic parts?

How do brilliant people's minds (such as Einstein or Hawking, OK, so I like physics...) differ from the common man's mind?

How do idiot savants do the things they do and why can't the normal mand do those things to if our parts are all similar?

[SeekerOfTruth]

Originally posted by Imahamster
This hamster conceived of “thought critters” competing for mind space on this hamster’s own. (Or perhaps not. Who knows how often one has been exposed to a concept before the eureka moment of “discovery”?) Got excited and shared the idea with several friends. (This was long ago and far away.) Finally met one who said, “Oh yeah, memes.” (Darn human footprints are everywhere one goes.) Enjoyed learning about memes but it wasn’t the same.

This hamster shares your interest in “processes” that “improve”. Mentioning memes distracted from the important concept that an idea may “improve” through the process of being passed and shared among intelligent people. Here “improve” means in the sense that a hamster appreciates not in the sense that a meme occupies more mind space. (A catchy jingle is NOT better than a great idea. Not to this hamster.)

This hamster used to frequent the ForeSight site. (Hehe. ForeSight site. Language is fun.) CAD CAM pictures of molecular rotors got boring quickly. Still watch the field but the real excitement seems to be in biological machines.

Imahamster,

I have read a little on memes and found them quite interesting. Could they be far more prevalent than we think? I mean, couldn't you argue that the idea of 'democracy' is a meme and has been actively trying to reproduce itself around the world? Couldn't the idea of 'human rights' be a meme? This makes me wonder if memes are a natural outgrowth of intelligence and rational thought and if an alien's memes would be able to be transferred to us.

As to biological machines, isn't that redundant? I have always thought that biological entities were machines. What is everyone else's definition of machines?

[Counterbalance]

In a similar manner in our corporate world today, and in human societies in general I think, the people who synchronize the best with the society or the corporate culture are the ones who tend to be successful.

Seeker,

It might depend on how one defines “successful.” (Any chance there are some memes at work here?)

I have read a little on memes and found them quite interesting. Could they be far more prevalent than we think? I mean, couldn't you argue that the idea of 'democracy' is a meme and has been actively trying to reproduce itself around the world? Couldn't the idea of 'human rights' be a meme? This makes me wonder if memes are a natural outgrowth of intelligence and rational thought and if an alien's memes would be able to be transferred to us.

Interesting angles. My understanding of memes would allow me to consider these possibilities.

And speaking of memes... how resistant can a human be to them, providing we are cognizant when such a critter is at play? Would then a higher intelligence and/or a more rational mind lend itself to a better ability to resist...hmmm...assimilation/infiltration/propagation? Provide a better ability (or chance for the prepared mind) to recognize-- which in turn makes it easier to forego “synchronizing” when doing so is not necessarily in an individual’s best interest? Not implying that memes are bad, (they just are what they are), but wondering rather, that not all memes are...how to put this... “equal opportunity?” ...thus, not all who are favourably ’exposed’ and likely to be affected, actually are affected. (I resist using the word “infected” instead of “affected.”)

Posting in a hurry so I hope some of that makes sense. Feedback is welcome.

Thx,

Counterbalance

[SeekerOfTruth]

Counterbalance,

Your words created a chilling thought. What if we, the human race, are just the equivelent of cells to some type of higher conscious and memes are like a virus that invades us, the cells, of that higher conscious?

Kind of like the giant computer mind in Hitchkicker's Guide to the Galaxy....

[Counterbalance]

A chilling thought? Well... not really. Or not for me. I can consider the possibility without involving my emotions, that is. But your analogy is interesting and does stagger the mind a bit to try to comprehend such a thing. True, memes are sometimes viewed like “viruses” but that description doesn’t seem accurate for all. (feels a pair of beady rodent eyes peering intently over Counterbalance’s shoulder ;) ) But yes, in some respects, memes appear to have virus-like characteristics. When they do, and let’s face it... “appearance, like possession, is nine-tenths of the law,” meaning if that’s how they’re perceived, that’s how they will likely be addressed by those who perceive them so.

Which again makes me wonder. How about our ability to resist both the most subtle to the flat-out obvious new or lingering “insights” that bloom in our minds--individually, or collectively--when we think we should resist? This first requires an acceptance that resistance is possible, and then that resistance is sometimes advisable. My understanding of memes is somewhat limited so I question the appropriateness of my own inquiries. *ahem* If Imahamster can ever get his account troubles straightened out here, perhaps he could shed some light? Regardless, feedback from anyone is very welcome.

[scilosopher]

I thought this thread was dead and then Seeker goes and revives it through sheer posting power ...

What is this about our furry friend having problems? I've been really busy recently and not visiting so much.

Anyways, more to the point:

Harmonic oscillations, memes, and synchronization in the context of a constellation of ideas ... Our brain is packed full of context. Any meme can survive or not based largely on it's context. Just as genes only have function in the context of other genes or a spark plug in the context of the engine an idea can only be accepted by you if it fits in with your perspective of the world. That it a big part of synchronization - certain groups of memes together typically convince you of a certain perspective. To once again refer to Kuhn (I know it's getting tiresome, but he wrote some damn relevant things contemplating the sociology/culture of science), elemental ideas can be combined together in many ways making use of ideas about how they fit together. Then groups of ideas are fit together ... when I think at least I tend to try looking at things coming from different levels. Often these are in conflict. If you believe one perspective more or accept it more easily you are more susceptible to misconceptions that support that view. BAD memes are of this type. If you recognize the reasons the other view makes sense to though and a GOOD meme comes along that clears up the conflict you will likely be willing to accept it as it will resolve conflict in your overall perspective of the world. If you have accepted to many memes of the bad type and the new meme makes too many actions you have done wrong and too many things you like doing wrond you will likely reject it.

So we're basically speaking about a model of rationalization (there has to be some emotional basis for anyone to even care enough to think about things). The problem is figuring out which is which. Looking at things from different angles really helps this. I feel understanding science helps you put things in perspective. I agree though that memes can be good too. To make analogy to genetics ideas need to be passed from person to person and generation to generation. Our whole use of culture and technology depends on it. The synchronization process - especially in the context of people using their intellect and having different biases should help to create an overall world view that is acceptable to many and more balanced. The memes get selected for how well they can get along with the other ideas in your head. Groups with too many wrong ideas aren't going to do to well (unfortunately propaganda, force, indoctrination almost bordering on brain washing exist in many societies can survive despite not being in harmony with much of the world [yes the US certainly has problems with this despite all the safe guards there are supposed to be against that kind of thing]). I recommend prometheus rising by Robert Anton Wilson. Interesting book. As well as The illuminatus trilogy if you like the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy (by Wilson and Robert Shea). Actually read all his books, I want to.

Maybe globalization will help. Or maybe certain ideological groups are in too drastic discord with eachother and that's the basis of war. World views that just aren't compatible.

[SeekerOfTruth]

Scilosopher,

You mention globalization as a possible method of synchronization. I was wondering if the spread of memes are directly facilitated by the level of technology a species develops. When we were a low-tech, pre-industrial age technology, the spread of memes was very slow due to the time it took for information to move across the globe. Today, information moves at near the speed of light and if someone has an idea in Japan, I can be introduced to it almost instantaneously. Couldn't this extremely fast interchange of ideas lead to a greater speed of creation for memes? Is our technology directly facilitating the creation of new 'monsters of the id'?

This leads me to wonder if the natural outgrowth of rational thought is technology and if there is some type of natural feedback mechanism that is enhancing our abilities to create new and different ideas/memes.

[scilosopher]

Seeker,
I think most memes are not bad. There are certainly some bad ones out there and we should try and think ideas thoroughly and there potential problems in an attempt to avoid the problematic ones.

There is the possibility that the views that many accept are flawed in subtle ways and over time people can create arguments for very selfish or destructive ways of life, but I don't think this is necessarily facilitated by technology directly. Thinking it through right now though, there is the possibility that more stable parochial positions which are disrupted by increased outside influence (especially with materialist marketing propaganda) are being supplanted by more seductive but inferior views. There are certain memes though which are essentially there just to cure this issue. People definitely put thought into what is wrong with society quite a bit. We just need to make sure they are spread in an effective way. My personal perspective is that we tend to eventually realize most of our mistakes and correct them it just takes time. Then we might make new mistakes. Still we keep moving closer to a deeper understanding over time on average (there were the dark ages for instance, but then people smartened up). My main fear about technology is the harm that can be done by people with wrong ideas and the capabilities of modern technologies.

[ImaHamster2]

Beady rodent eyes gleaming at Counterbalance…

(Counterbalance is playing with this hamster’s pedantic nature. Poke the hamster, get a lecture. Hehe.)

This hamster sees the concept of memes as a model for understanding ideas. The concept allows this hamster to separate human meaning and values from more abstract notions of information flow. The meme concept is merely another way looking at the phenomena of human ideas. Different models help answer different questions.

“And speaking of memes... how resistant can a human be to them, providing we are cognizant when such a critter is at play?”

A human would be just as resistant as a human is to any idea, concept, theory, propaganda, or advertising jingle. Calling something a meme doesn’t make it better or worse or harder to resist.

Viewed from the meme perspective human minds are merely the environment the meme inhabits. Memes that destroyed their environment would tend to survive less. (As with biological viruses a meme could successfully propagate while damaging its host.) A successful meme would likely provide some benefit to its host. (Memes that encourage jumping in front of cars might have difficulty spreading. Memes that encourage flying airplanes into buildings might trigger a global eradication effort.)

[ImaHamster2]

SeekerOfTruth and Scilosopher, this hamster has missed your participation. Sciforums wasn’t nearly as fun.

SeekerOfTruth, this hamster has mused about humans and hamsters being part of a larger being. Would one have a clue if “big” thoughts were riding on top of our little thought communications? This hamster doesn’t find such a vision frightening. On the contrary, self interest would seem to give that larger being reason to protect its “body”.

This hamster does see communications and information technology playing a major role in spreading memes. The historical progression of stories-books-newspapers-radio-TV-Internet significantly affects the kind of memes that may propagate and the speed with which they do so.

Scilosopher, clustering of memes is interesting. (Visions of meme herds grazing on an African plain keeping watch for predator memes.)

(Off topic diversion. A friend shared this novel theory of brain function.

A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.

In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we all know, kills brain cells, but naturally it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first.

In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.")

[ImaHamster2]

Cris posted the following on the “What is “soul”?” thread:

“We cannot remember pain. We can remember that we had pain, but we cannot recall the pain itself. Try it for yourself. Go back to a time when you knew you were in pain, can you recall the actual pain?”

One can remember a needle prodding to extract a splinter but the memory doesn’t have the “pain” feeling. One can remember and re-experience emotional pain. Does this mean they are quite different?

[SeekerOfTruth]

Imahamster,

I would suspect that you cannot remember physical pain itself. What would be the point? How would that enhance our survival to be able to remember pain itself?

I think pain plays a role in our memories in that it highlights areas of our memory that are of importance to our survival. Just like the highlighter I used in college to highlight the important parts of a book.

I think that emotional pain is a far different animal as it involves only thoughts/emotions and not a physical stimulation of pain/nerve centers.

That brings up an intereting thought. What exactly are emotions and how do they fit into our patterns of thought? Also, how could they have arisen out of our evolutionary path? There must be some survival characteristic associated with emotion, but what is/was it?

[SeekerOfTruth]

Originally posted by ImaHamster2
...

“And speaking of memes... how resistant can a human be to them, providing we are cognizant when such a critter is at play?”

A human would be just as resistant as a human is to any idea, concept, theory, propaganda, or advertising jingle. Calling something a meme doesn’t make it better or worse or harder to resist.

...

But couldn't certain memes be as dangerous as cancer is to a human body. Couldn't those memes propagate wildly through the human consciousness and reproduce out of control? And couldn't there be some types of memes that are as dangerous to the total human 'mind' as cancer is to the human body?

Look at Hitler. Wasn't he just a cancerous meme that almost destroyed a portion of humanity?

[Chagur]

'Forgetting' the actual pain of delivery results in a female being willing
to be be reimpregnated and reexperiencing childbirth.

Just a thought.

[scilosopher]

Imahamster2 the sequel ... or is it son (or daughter) of hamster? (trying to keep consistent with the life span of a mere hamster perhaps?)

In an animal context I would see it more as mini ecosystems that sometimes interact (communicate) and trade species. Certain ones can't find a niche and get killed off. Others can throw the whole thing temporarily out of balance and force an entirely new mix of creatures. The thing is in the long run synergy will win out and any bad memes which sap strength and don't contribute will run into a rich and fertile ecosystem robust to such critters and be over run. The main difference from your vision being the the more discrete yet interacting nature of the general framework. Certain amounts of spearation are essential to life though (membranes [organelles/cells] ... individuals ... speciation through the separation of populations ...).

Brain cells and selection through stress ... interesting idea. I actually went on a nueroscience retreat this weekend. Looks like I might actually start studying this stuff for real. I wonder if I've been infected with an interest meme through this topic. Anyways one of the speakers works on song learning in birds as a model system for learning and behavior more generally. He put forward this model of seasonal nueronal death and repopulation in the plasticity of bird mating songs in canaries and zebra finches. He actually argued that long term memories might require a more coherent and gross entity such as a whole nueron with connections to get maximal plasticity and stability. In these birds though the cycles of death and renewal are mediated by seasonal fluxuations in hormones that drive the process. But how do you decide which to kill? And if it happens in people when do you decide which to kill? Some continuity is necessary and at a certain level all memories are somewhat connected. In relation to drinking as killing off "weak nuerons", what chooses which ones become weak? Could it be that nuerons weaken through disuse (maybe Lamarck was just looking at the wrong kind of population)? A cell level elaboration of the current memory model ... also it is interesting to note that stress is also likely to occur during times when the animal is not acting in an adaptive manner or is in dire need of focused and coherent thought.

I don't know about the pain thing though. I remember actual physical pain although in the cases I can think of there was emotional anguish as well. I remember the specific feelings of pain very accurately. I can also remember specific moments of physical pleasure pretty disctinctly and since yin and yang tend to be surprisingly similar, I tend to think you can remember both. Then again there were typically emotions involved there too. That's not to say you necessarily have to in all cases. I can certainly imagine it being necessary to sometimes forget both emotional and physical pain to get on with life. In the reverse there have been times when emotional pain has manifested itself in feelings of physical pain. I can remember that too. There are certain times I know I felt pain of both types I can't remember very clearly. Maybe for some reason I tend to remember raw sensations more. I used to have an amazing memory and still do have a good one despite certain memory depleting habits (which were actually shared by a surprisingly large number of people at the nueroscience retreat [makes you wonder about people interested in thought and alternative ways to explore their consciousness]).

[Counterbalance]

Re: memory of physical pain

I know of an instance of childbirth labor where a woman claims to have experienced an unusual and unexpected pain while being checked for cervical dilation. I’ll spare everyone from further graphic details. Knowing how the pain was inflicted however, suffice it to say that I have no reason to doubt that she could have felt extreme discomfort, and not of a sort that women typically experience while in labor.

She claims that for years afterward she was able to “re-live” the same pain. It usually required that she be dwelling on the incident, or just hearing others talk about giving birth for it to manifest, but occasionally would experience it “out of the blue.“ Either way, she felt it in the original location and described it as a slow-motion replay of the original sensation. Think of striking a match and how short a time it usually takes for the head to spark and the flame to catch. (Happens really quick--as was the original pain she felt, sudden and excruciating.) and then the “replay” pain was a slower, somewhat muted version, like slo-mo ‘video.’ She had time to brace herself, so to speak, when she felt it coming on

Again, without getting too detailed, she also re-experienced this pain occasionally during menstruation, and this version was more like the original pain experience. It occurred spontaneously, like a quick “flare-up” of a match head, felt “hot,“ and would even bring on a sudden wave of nausea (due to the intensity?).

Over time she learned how to fend off the memory-pain that had manifested whenever she ‘thought’ about the original experience. If she felt it coming on, she took a deep breath and mentally fought the memory while the sensations building in her cervix reversed themselves and subsided. The sharper sensation-memory experienced only during menstruation was never something she could control; although, it too happened less frequently as time passed. When it does reoccur however, she claims that it can do so with as much intensity as the original pain.

My speculation is that the ‘slo-mo’ memory brought on by dwelling on the original incident (intentionally or not) was the real memory, and that this memory did dim after a fashion with the passage of time, but that it was unique in nature as it seemed to require mental concentration to control a physical manifestation. In the other instance, perhaps some actual damage was done to her cervix, and that during menstruation a previously damaged area is sometimes aggravated in some manner.

They say that if a man wants to get an idea of what labor feels like, then try passing a kidney stone. (I’ve had a kidney stone, but can’t say that I can “remember” the pain of it.)

Perhaps there are certain types of pains, (a rare few), involving nerves that aren’t typically stimulated in an ordinary human body during an ordinary human life, and that when are harshly stimulated simply aren’t prepared for the traumatic ‘event.’ Perhaps a special memory is created in this kind of scenario?

Any ideas?

[SeekerOfTruth]

Counterbalence,

I guess these types of incidents beg the question what is a memory? Is it neural connections, is it some form of protein, or is it something else?

I would hazard a guess it is something far more complex and perhaps a composite of all of these and more.

Maybe this is why she was able to experience the pain just from remembering it. Maybe the neurons that where formed when her memory was made are now hardwired to the pain centers that reported her pain. Maybe that is why she feels the pain when she remembers the incident.

[Shaman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Counterbalance
[B]Re: memory of physical pain

She claims that for years afterward she was able to “re-live” the same pain. It usually required that she be dwelling on the incident, or just hearing others talk about giving birth for it to manifest, but occasionally would experience it “out of the blue.“ Either way, she felt it in the original location and described it as a slow-motion replay of the original sensation.
.................................................. .................................................. ...

I wonder if is possible for a single intense stimulation (sudden excruciating pain) to reach the threshold for memory creation, a new synaptic pathway, and then the memory of the event is the pain itself?...

Again, without getting too detailed, she also re-experienced this pain occasionally during menstruation, and this version was more like the original pain experience. It occurred spontaneously, like a quick “flare-up” of a match head, felt “hot,“ and would even bring on a sudden wave of nausea (due to the intensity?).
.................................................. .................................................. .....
parasympathic overactivity asssociated with intense pain?


My speculation is that the ‘slo-mo’ memory brought on by dwelling on the original incident (intentionally or not) was the real memory, and that this memory did dim after a fashion with the passage of time, but that it was unique in nature as it seemed to require mental concentration to control a physical manifestation.
.................................................. .................................................. .

I agree with your speculation...
hmmm, and later she learn that by activating other brain circuits the pain memory can be blocked.


Perhaps there are certain types of pains, (a rare few), involving nerves that aren’t typically stimulated in an ordinary human body during an ordinary human life, and that when are harshly stimulated simply aren’t prepared for the traumatic ‘event.’
.................................................. .................................................. ...

In some cases of sudden intense pain a person may develop a neurogenic shock and it may cause even death (ex. uterine eversion after childbirth).

[Backslash777]

We are Backslash777. We observe your thread. Thank you for your insight

[Counterbalance]

I guess these types of incidents beg the question what is a memory? Is it neural connections, is it some form of protein, or is it something else? ...Maybe the neurons that where formed when her memory was made are now hardwired to the pain centers that reported her pain.

Seeker, my understanding is limited at best. I recall that incoming information is encoded before stored, and that the best memory cues are those that were present during encoding. Based on any kind of criteria (categories, symbols, personal or formal meaning, rules, etc...) we supposedly have ’networks’ of ideas or of associated memories that help us organize it all, but I’m far from believing that we know even a fraction of what all memory involves. However, can’t help but wonder about the ability of a memory to be hard-wired to a pain center when hearing a story like the one above. If a special kind of protein is involved, (that was not known to be before), well hey, that’s just more interesting.

Shaman:

I wonder if is possible for a single intense stimulation (sudden excruciating pain) to reach the threshold for memory creation, a new synaptic pathway, and then the memory of the event is the pain itself?...

(More rambling speculation on my part. Apologies in advance.) Pain is first detected by a sensory neuron, and the pain message is ‘flashed’ onward to the spinal cord, (connector neurons, motor neurons, effector cells all involved along the way and in the spinal cord itself), but no brain “activity” is involved yet as muscle cells will contract, say, when we burn our finger and a reflex arc occurs. A lot happens during a (pro-survival) reflex. The brain is being informed all the while, and the rest of the body is compensating, but the body is acting separately from the brain in the initial instance, (it’s believed), when the body encounters unexpected and/or severe pain.

The sympathetic branch of the nervous system momentarily takes over. Regardless of how brief a period of time, I wonder if normally imposed limits (anywhere in the nervous system) are less enforced during one of these extreme instances than at other times, perhaps due to sudden overload, or to a switching electro-chemical malfunction. That perhaps the body is capable of forming such unusual memories outside of the brain/mind, but that our species in general hasn’t evolved in such a way that doing so is part of the norm now. Maybe not everyone is capable of forming pain-memories. Most of us may have had the ability evolved out us--and can’t say as that might not be the best thing--again, this is just loose speculation. But was mankind ever so hardheaded that we needed actual pain-memories to teach us not to toy with the thorn bushes in the Serengeti? --We humans who are renowned for our resistance to learning the hardest lessons the first time around.

parasympathic overactivity asssociated with intense pain? ...hmmm, and later she learn that by activating other brain circuits the pain memory can be blocked.

I wonder about that. Perhaps merely discussing childbirth experiences, or even hearing about them, created in this women a complex emotional reaction to the first ordinary mental memory of her own ordeal, and then this was further complicated/re-enforced by the physical (seemingly) memory that would accompany it (seemingly) unbidden. A mental act of will though seems to be what sets in motion the (assumed) parasympathetic event in this case. A sort of mind-over-matter thing. Willing herself to forget the memory?

Appreciate the feedback.

~~~

Counterbalance

[Counterbalance]

Backslash777...

Nice to know you’re enjoying the thread. Any opinions, questions, or “insights” of your own to share? I expect they would be welcome.

~~~

Counterbalance

[Shaman]

Counterbalance:

Sudden (excruciating) pain overload may surpass neural gatekeepers?.

Quote:
" Usually, such pain is based on an initial event, like an amputation, that immediately caused a tremendous discharge of electrical and chemical energy along the nerves of the nervous system.
The experience changes the nervous system, just like learning. It's like a memory of pain that recurs again and again in the nervous system".

www.urmc.rochester.edu/pr/News/teaching.html

Quote:

" Synaptic plasticity in hippocampus is an extensively studied cellular model of learning and memory and recent studies suggest that similar mechanisms also apply to pain pathways and may account for some forms of hyperalgesia, allodynia and analgesia"

www2.neuroscience.umn.edu/plasticity/Sandkuhler.pdf

[Counterbalance]

Very interesting...

Yang is focusing on a compound known as protein kinase C (PKC). Other scientists have created mice that lack the protein completely; those mice feel normal pain but seem immune to neuropathic or pathological pain.

And other intriguing bits.

We believe that the pain no longer originates with the tissue that was originally damaged, but that it actually begins in the central nervous system, in the spinal cord and the brain," says Yang, a professor in the Departments of Anesthesiology and Pharmacology and Physiology. "The experience changes the nervous system, just like learning. It's like a memory of pain that recurs again and again in the nervous system." ...Yang is not the only one finding links between memory and pain. Earlier this year, scientists at Washington University in St. Louis reported that a protein that allows nerve cells to communicate may enhance perceptions of chronic pain. The team showed that mice with more NMDA receptors have enhanced memory and learning skills - they're smarter - but they're also more sensitive to pain. "This type of work reinforces the idea that the basic process that leads to memory formation may be the same as the process that causes chronic pain," Yang says.

Mucho thanks, Shaman...

~~~

Counterbalance

[ImaHamster2]

CB and Shaman thanks for the good chewing material.

[SeekerOfTruth]

If our thoughts and our cognitive capabilities are based upon the neural connections within our brain, then are the neural connections of idiot savants that much different than an average human beings?

Imahamster mentions that the addition of a math co-processor to facilitate mathamatics would be a nice addition to the brain in another thread, but do we really need one, or can we somehow tap into the same types of abilities that other human beings seem to have? Some humans, specific idiot savants, have capabilites such as photographic memory or the ability to do outrageous mathmatical calculations in their head faster than can be done on a calculator. These abilities are soley based upon their brains structure. Does anyone know how their brain structures differ from an average human's brain structure?

Also, if our thought processes and cognitive capabilities are based soley on our neural connections, how did the basic neural pattern a child is born with come to exist and how do we account for these strange abilities? Are they just the results of the random possibilities that can potentially occur because of the trillions and trillions of possible connections within our brains?

[Counterbalance]

Seeker,

Zipped around on the Net for a short time this morning but haven't found anything yet that really addresses your specific questions and too much other stuff to tend to for now. Much emphasis is placed however on the visual imagery aspect of an idiot savant's 'memory', though there are a handful of "normal" people who have learned to calculate as quickly as the savant, and supposedly have done so by improving their ability to focus.

Like I said, this says precious little about their neural connections.

(But you learn good, Seeker. Keep poking at the Hamster and he will eventually get off his wheel. ;) )

Thanks...

[ImaHamster2]

SeekerOfTruth, this hamster has read only a few descriptions of photographic memory or lightning calculators. This hamster suspects that no one knows what is going on, too few cases and too little good research.

This hamster has seen photographic memory described as the ability to recall a page of text in such detail that it could be read in one’s mind. Does this apply to pages that were casually scanned? This hamster doesn’t know the limits of the process but surely some apply.

Supposedly lightning calculators use mathematical algorithms any person could use. They apply an obsessive compulsion or focus beyond (thankfully) most humans. Their ability to do mechanical calculations far exceeds normal humans but pales in comparison to electronic processors. Neural nets are poorly suited to crunching computer algorithms. This hamster would rather use the brain for what it does well. Why turn a brilliant mind into a dumb calculator?

The basic neural architecture forms during development under the control of relatively few genes. The process is dependent on neural and environment stimulus. Micro level randomness yields macro level structure. (Scilosopher?)

UCSD biologists visualize protein gradient responsible for dividing embryo into nervous ...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/cuco-rif020402.php

Researchers identify for the first time proteins vital to maintaining nervous system architecture

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/cuco-rif020402.php

(As CB implies hamsters are simple critters easily directed with prods and seeds.)

[SeekerOfTruth]

Thank you much for the seeds. I don't mean to prod, more like the nagging insistence of the young wanting to eat good seeds....:D

[Shaman]

Is there a little Rain Man in each of us?

www.wismed.org/foundation/eachus.htm

[SeekerOfTruth]

Excellent web site Shaman. Thank you.

[Chagur]

Interesting bit:

<a href=http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/yu-apw020102.php ><font color=red>Narcolepsy/Pain Related Peptide</font></a>

Take care.

[SeekerOfTruth]

Originally posted by Shaman
Is there a little Rain Man in each of us?

www.wismed.org/foundation/eachus.htm

Possibly.

I just finished a very interesting article in the February issue of Discover magazine titled "The Inner Savant". The article is primarily about the work of Allan Snyder, the director of the Center for the Mind at the University of Sydney. He believes that savants directly tap into the human minds processing abilities without the process of conceptual thinking. He believes that savant abilities arise out of abnormalities or damage to the cerebellum. Another researcher has seen savant abilities arise in patients with frontotemporal dementia, a condition that causes "abnormally low blood flow or low metabolic activity in their left temporal lobed."

One researcher used "transcranial magnetic stimulation", a technique which uses a magnetic field to disrupt neuronal firing in the frontotemporal area of the brain. Of 17 volunteers, 5 showed an improvment at savant-type tasks such as drawing, calculating dates, and multiplying.

Snyder believes that it may be possible to utilize a combination of training and hardware to induce savant-like states in order to access savant-like abilities.

All in all it is an extremely intersting article.

[esp]

Back to the point ladies and gents!

The nature of thought.
How does it manifest in your brain?

Is it in pictures, words, numbers or something that is unexplainable?

Sorry, I just wanted to redirect the thread towards my initial query :)

[Counterbalance]

esp...

As for me, I'd love to contribute more--this is a super thread--or contribute whatever I could that might be of relevance. Alas, time will not permit me to do more these days than make a few quick visits. My seed pile runneth over online and off. (thanks to Shaman, Hamster, and Chagur for the recent offerings)

Too, when discussing the "nature of thought" some tend to put extra thought into what they're trying to convey, so the posts may come along in spurts. It's a fascinating topic, and one that's easy to take in many directions. Apologies (from me) for veering too far off course, (guilty as charged), though I'm not sure it's something that can be wholly avoided when we're really only beginning to understand the "nature" of... the mechanics that provide us with our ability to think.. or what, how, why and when we think...

Sigh...

But okay... I WILL try.

(later)


;)

~~~

Counterbalance

[scilosopher]

I thought we were still on track ... by considering models of how the brain works I thought we were helping to elaborate the details of what thought is and how it manifests itself in our head.

I see pictures, speak to myself in words, feel intuitions (usually something like shades of abstract concepts and their interactions), as well as the unexplainable. Thinking through things and elaborating helps get across some stuff that there aren't simple statements for or frameworks for explaining.

To go back a bit off topic, is the thread starter intended to have a measure of control over his creation once it becomes a community event? (nothing against you or your interests esp, but I'm a revolutionary at heart ; )

[ImaHamster2]

Esp can always try. The Nature of this hamster’s Thoughts is to be unruly. Surely by the eighth page a thread is out-of-control.

This hamster found the discussion of pain and savants interesting and relevant.

On the other hand this hamster is willing to follow Esp if doing so leads to good seeds.

[Shaman]

Esp:

Like Scilosopher said: we are still on track... the main reason is that (cb): we're only beginning to understand the "nature" of... the mechanics that provide us with our ability to think.. or what, how, why and when we think...


If we start following a single path, then we're lost forever. There are multiple doors...

Hamster/Scilosopher:

Do you have any seeds on synfire chains?.

[scilosopher]

Shaman,
Wish I even knew what a synfire chain was. I have never formally studied nueroscience apart from developmental issues in nueronal fate specification, axon guidance, and general patterning. I actually grabbed lunch yesterday with this girl in an attempt to get some more informal nueroscience education. She does fMRI stuff where you look at brain activity and how it differs between people (they do a statistical mapping into an alternate space to get past the variability between peoples brain structuring). She's working on how menopause changes the way women think ...

Anyways, one interesting thing she mentioned was that epilepsy is basically an infection of nuerons firing too much. They actually cut the connector of the two hemispheres to keep it from spreading. The increased firing also strengthens the connections sensitizing the brain to future occurences.

Also I never realized that white matter is basically the axons and grey matter the nueronal cell bodies. The cell bodies are basically the site where the inputs are integrated and the decision to fire is made. From the pictures she showed me there is more brain dedicated to connections than the operational part. At first I was thinking that this was odd even though there is certainly logic and structure resulting from the connections. After talking with her a bit it made more sense cause they are basically meta circuits interconnecting the basic circuits of the various parts of the brain.

To try and stay "on topic" this brings up the interesting fact that different components of thought really are inherently different. They are based on or originate from inherently different configurations of nuerons which in handling different types of processes are bound to have a different core object/relational scheme. There are essentially languages or logics adapted to different functions and then mappings to inter-relate and coordinate them. Lot's of levels.

Hamster,
I've been thinking about the micro macro thing and this is a good elaboration of it. Evolution is good at making systems that work. To a certain extent they have been modularized since that comes in handy for generating new functionality. The same bricks can build lots of different houses. By the same token selection is brought to bear on the system, not the components so things become very intertwined mechanistically. As I've said before I'm not sure I believe in randomness in pjysical mechanisms as much as an illusion due to lack of information. The brain must often deal with this lack of information. Including in how to initially map itself exactly. The mapping seems to involve making exploratory connections and then reinforcing good ones and pruning bad. The behavior of the cells is mediated by their genetic and epigenetic aspects (such as cell fate decisions that lock them in to certain genetic programs like nueron vs. skin cell). These elements repond to macroscopic stimulation thus integrating macroscopic and microscopic organization.

[Counterbalance]

If we start following a single path, then we're lost forever. There are multiple doors...

Indeed, Shaman. Well said. Many paths, many doors. But as I have a hunch that you're an excellent map-maker, I don't think we're going to get totally lost here. ;)

(I'll also keep an eye out for synfire chain seeds.)

Counterbalance

[ImaHamster2]

Shaman, this hamster is not familiar with “synfire chain”. Google search led to an interesting discussion of forward spiking neuron assemblies and the suggestion to search for “temporal spiking neural network”.


Scilosopher,

Neural circuits have negative feedback loops as well as stimulatory pathways. Much of the circuitry seems structured to “tune-out” unchanging sensory information in preference for novel sensation. (Perhaps the seizures or “kindling” that Shaman has referenced earlier occurs due to a resonance effect in which the inhibitory signals don’t last sufficiently long. Possibly due to a local neurotransmitter imbalance. Just hamster speculation.)

Shaman also provided interesting links that indicate that the brain is far more plastic than might be inferred from studies of specialized brain circuitry.

“As I've said before I'm not sure I believe in randomness in physical mechanisms as much as an illusion due to lack of information. The brain must often deal with this lack of information. Including in how to initially map itself exactly. The mapping seems to involve making exploratory connections and then reinforcing good ones and pruning bad.”

Computer systems aren’t robust. Change a few components and one has junk. Biological systems are highly robust. This hamster feels micro level randomness plays a crucial role in that robustness. This is somewhat of a quibble as this hamster realizes that your emphasis is that the brain is not a seething mass of randomness but instead has a highly ordered structure. How that order first develops, how it is maintained, and how it changes over time are interesting questions.

Similar questions may be posed about the transient electrical/chemical patterns that flicker on the biological substrate. Micro level randomness superimposed on non-random sensory signals yielding a non-random, nonlinear, and chaotic pattern at the macro level. (If that makes sense.)

“Lot's of levels”

Yep, cell type, interconnection topology, electrical, and chemical.

[scilosopher]

Hamster,
Interesting points. CH Waddington once made the point that the reproducible development of a correctly formed adult from an egg indicates that the whole order of the adult is in the egg itself. There is no generation of order during development only an elaboration of it. While environmental differences indicate that there are requirements for correct development on exterior order as well they also can demonstrate the ability of development to yield forms more adapted to a specific environment. This means in some ways there is also more order in the egg than in the adult. It can be many things while the adult is just one. The nervous and immune systems are essentially the most developed biological systems in their flexibility to respond to the environment. Even when we are a single cell that order is still there.

I just can't see how randomness fits into it. While I admit there are some processes that are so uncoupled that there is a flat relationship such that there is no correlation between certain variables. My dictionary defines randomness (in the non-statistical sense) as having no specific pattern or purpose. Just because systems have some level of lack of correlation does not mean that they are not purposeful or patterned. Flexibility is very important to the brain so using molecular approaches that are too stereotyped is clearly not a good idea, but that is quite different from being random.

Negative feedback ... repression and negative feedback are more important in transcriptional regulatory circuits than positive regulation in many ways (repressing a repressor is a very common approach to gene activation), selection in evolution is negative feedback, rules are almost always negative rather than positive. I would have assumed it was there even if I didn't know. It's interesting to note that. Reflecting it would seem that saying what not to do is more flexible than saying what to do (unless you are VERY general) in this world of infinite possibilities. In gene expression regulation robustness seems to come out of the topologies of the regulatory networks (multiple redundant ways of starting a program of differentiation). In signal transducation redundancy seems to come from a lot of signalling molecules and receptors with overlapping specificity and feedback systems that up regulate the transcription of these possible substitues in situations when signalling is impaired. It seems that the parallelization one would expect in the brain would naturally yield redundancy and I expect similar topologies will be found in the brain if not already known.

Sorry that I don't always read posted links and might have repeated a little bit. I just have a ton of technical reading (like the 30 or so development papers I need to review before tomorrows final, sigh). As a favor to the rest maybe posted links can be rated on a scale of 0-5 * for those of us who don't have the motivation to read them all?

EDIT: esp I'm sorry I just am not good at staying on topic. Analogy is my most powerful thinking tool and it tends to get me on tangents ...

[ImaHamster2]

Scilosopher,

“whole order of the adult is in the egg itself”

This hamster’s knee-jerk reaction was to respond that without the proper environment the egg fails to develop into anything. (The message is meaningless without the reader.) However an egg is an amazingly complex structure. (The egg is both message and reader.) To a large extent it is its own environment. Fertilized egg plus womb yields baby.

Now the fun seems to be in determining what human cells share the omni-potent nature of the egg and why.

This hamster uses randomness in the statistical sense. Several optimization algorithms, e.g. simulated annealing, require randomness. However the result of the optimization is not random. (This hamster does realize that the developmental process may not require micro level randomness so this is a strained analogy.)

“Reflecting it would seem that saying what not to do is more flexible than saying what to do (unless you are VERY general) in this world of infinite possibilities.”

That is a profound statement. This hamster hasn’t seen this principle explicitly stated in AI. (The principle may have been implicitly incorporated in some AI algorithms.) Could lead in promising directions. Very nice analogy to legal systems.

“In signal transducation redundancy seems to come from a lot of signalling molecules and receptors with overlapping specificity and feedback systems that up regulate the transcription of these possible substitues in situations when signalling is impaired. It seems that the parallelization one would expect in the brain would naturally yield redundancy and I expect similar topologies will be found in the brain if not already known.”

Such a perspective might help the researchers exploring brain plasticity. Has the brain evolved over sufficient evolutionary time to develop interconnection and feedback systems comparable to those used in gene regulation?

Scilosopher, this hamster doesn’t know the best way to handle linked articles. There is no way that people following the thread have time to read all the articles. That’s why this hamster started posting links on a separate thread. At the same time this hamster wants Shaman to know that this hamster appreciates the links Shaman has provided and tries to read each one. (PMing Shaman directly might have been better.) This thread would die if people had to read all linked articles. The hamster certainly can’t do it.

This hamster doesn’t mind repetition. Revisiting topics from different perspectives is very useful.

[Shaman]

Originally posted by ImaHamster2

Scilosopher, this hamster doesn’t know the best way to handle linked articles. There is no way that people following the thread have time to read all the articles. That’s why this hamster started posting links on a separate thread. At the same time this hamster wants Shaman to know that this hamster appreciates the links Shaman has provided and tries to read each one. (PMing Shaman directly might have been better.) This thread would die if people had to read all linked articles. The hamster certainly can’t do it.

This hamster doesn’t mind repetition. Revisiting topics from different perspectives is very useful. [/B]


Hamster/Scilosopher/CB:

My fault. I understand there is not enough time. I'll try to continue posting links (I hope good ones) in the thread: Articles in the nature of thought. I'm also trying to read every link in this thread, but is hard. There are so many things to understand and learn.
Yes, this thread would die for sure if people had to read all links (the worst kind of deaths: boring death).

Again, my apologies.

Different perspectives are indeed very useful...

[Counterbalance]

As far as I'm concerned, the links you've posted are welcome, and it's great to hear you'll continue posting more. As Imahamster2 pointed out, he's started another thread specifically for links related to this thread, but there really aren't any hard or fast rules about this as far as I know.

No need for apologies from Shaman. :)

~~~

Counterbalance

[ImaHamster2]

Shaman, this hamster plans to continue posting relevant links on this thread and hopes you will continue doing the same.

This hamster will try to post a brief excerpt or description that relates to the topic along with the link. Those that wish may check out the whole article while the others won’t be left wondering what they missed.

[SeekerOfTruth]

Scilosopher,

After reading your comments I thought about them a little and they really struck a cord in regards to raising children. I have three, my youngest being 20 months old and when thinking about raising her, I don't recall as many times when we have encouraged an action as I have discouraging 'bad' actions. What do I mean? Well, I can recall saying 'no' to her more often when she is getting herself into a dangerous position, for example trying to play with power outlets. Positive feedback exists, but it seems the negative feedback for dangerous situations is more prevelant and more vocal than the positive feedback. Maybe that is why most babies learn to say 'no' so quickly?

[scilosopher]

Shaman/Hamster and link posters everywhere,
I think posting links is a good way of disseminating info. A summary might be nice, but is certainly not obligatory. I was just saying it's hard to read all of it and sometimes in not doing so I may put forward thoughts similar and potentially inferior to those in the links. I think this all started with me apologizing for this. There is nothing wrong with posting links though as far as I'm concerned.

Seeker,
I've thought a lot about negative feedback in the socialization process (believe me I experienced it fully). I really thought it was the wrong way at the time and I think that often more positive reinforcement of a general nature would be beneficial. However, I do think there is a method to the madness and it is a good method. The only difficulty with the social aspects is when kids get low self esteem because Teachers get in to the habit of only punishing/scolding for bad behavior, but not rewarding/praising good behavior. I was never sent to the prinicipal to be told what a good kid I could be. At home that wasn't really a problem because you're loved, but in school it isn't always so balanced.

[SeekerOfTruth]

Scilosopher,

I agree. What I was trying to get at is that during development of a child, it is far easier to say 'no' to get the point across. I believe you have hit upon something here with negative feedback in the development process, whether it be social or phsyiological development. I think you are right that it is much easier to define the list of things 'not' to do in order to survive than it is to define a list of all of the potential things you 'must' do in order to survive.

Thinking about it for a minute I took a simple rule such as 'do not starve' as a survival rule and tried to think of all the 'positive' rules this would entail such as 'find food', 'determine if food is safe to eat', 'gather food', 'eat food', and 'save food'.

It seems much easier to simply say 'don't starve'.

[SeekerOfTruth]

Originally posted by esp
Back to the point ladies and gents!

The nature of thought.
How does it manifest in your brain?

Is it in pictures, words, numbers or something that is unexplainable?

Sorry, I just wanted to redirect the thread towards my initial query :)

To answer your question from my perspective, it tends to vary across all of these and more. As I sit here typing my input, I am mentally 'hearing' the words I am typing. When I am trying to solve complex engineering problems, I tend to visualize the problem in something that is like 'pictures' but far more complex because they tend to have complex cognitive associations with them so that a simple picture may represent a great deal more than just the visual information. When problem solving I tend to place things in spacial relationships in my head and examine them from their potential linkages. This is kind of a combination of all of these things and more.

[Shaman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by scilosopher

Anyways, one interesting thing she mentioned was that epilepsy is basically an infection of nuerons firing too much. They actually cut the connector of the two hemispheres to keep it from spreading. The increased firing also strengthens the connections sensitizing the brain to future occurences.

Scilosopher:

epilepsy is like having the flu...a neuron in the middle of an electrical storm "infects" the next one, and another, and another, etc...

Yes....secction of the connector of the two hemispheres do not stop the abnormal firing in a single hemisphere, it just stops the spreading to the contralateral hemisphere.

The increased firing also strengthens the connections sensitizing the brain to future occurences... This is the "kindling effect". Kindling is not a seizure, is the plasticity (neural changes) that occurs after multiple stimulations. The paper ImaHamster show us said that "just four electrical stimulus in an hour are needed to cause sprouting". And with every "electrical storm" the possibility of the next one is increased.

[esp]

The wiring of the Human brain is quite amazing.
It makes car electrics look like house wiring.

Innovative technique:

When the spinal cord is broken we now have the ability to repair it. In theory.
There is a polymeric sponge which, when soaked in stem cells, can be used to bridge the gap in the spinal cord.

How do we make sure the right dendrills are connected?

We dont. The brain reads the new inputs and adapts around them.

This has been trialled on mice with startling results.

Within days, the mice are walking around capable of swimming and seemingly, as good as new.

[ismu]

Sorry, for late and haven't read previous pages (i'll do it later). But i can't hold my hand to post this :o

Based on this post:

Originally posted by SeekerOfTruth
To answer your question from my perspective, it tends to vary across all of these and more. As I sit here typing my input, I am mentally 'hearing' the words I am typing. When I am trying to solve complex engineering problems, I tend to visualize the problem in something that is like 'pictures' but far more complex because they tend to have complex cognitive associations with them so that a simple picture may represent a great deal more than just the visual information. When problem solving I tend to place things in spacial relationships in my head and examine them from their potential linkages. This is kind of a combination of all of these things and more.

...It's looks like what our braind DO while thinking is to COMPARE with previous experience. SeekerOfTruth can hear (not deft since born :) ), so his mind comparing writing words with previous experince of hearing words. While he imagining engineering stuffs, his brain comparing it experience of movement/phenomena, he have seen before.

Otherwise blind people since born, will hardly to imagine something visualy. but he still can imagine 3D object by comparing object he has ever touch. He can imagene it's geometry, softness, temperature, roughness, etc. But he'll never can imagining color. Because there is no experience to compare with.

This is another fact:
Originally posted by esp

When the spinal cord is broken we now have the ability to repair it. In theory.
There is a polymeric sponge which, when soaked in stem cells, can be used to bridge the gap in the spinal cord.

How do we make sure the right dendrills are connected?

We dont. The brain reads the new inputs and adapts around them.

This has been trialled on mice with startling results.

Within days, the mice are walking around capable of swimming and seemingly, as good as new.
[

This shows that brain store information in paterns. No matter how the patern form are, in general it should be comparable with new information accepted from sensors. This works looks similar with Artificial Neural Network in AI.

Thus, i think we can make a conclusion that brain storing information from sensors a pattern. Any individual may have different patern, since the have (fairly) different structure of brain. While processing, brain compare inputs with previous pattern which previously formed. That's why babies sometimes seems doesn't have obvious thought. They don't have enough experience yet to compare. Babies still acting based on instink such as to milking and crying.

[Counterbalance]

Any individual may have different patern, since the have (fairly) different structure of brain.

And this, I think, just helps to underscore the individuality of a human and it's brain/mind/personality/yadda-yadda... and how difficult it's going to be for researchers to understand the 'nature' of thought. Six billion (and counting) sets of patterns...

Quite a challenge but very interesting.

~~~

Counterbalance

[Cris]

Apologies for not partcipating in this thread sooner, although I have been posting what appears to be relevant posts to this thread but in philosophy and religion instead.

I haven't read the entire thread, but I can see there are some good discussions here. I think this post doesn't overlap too much with what has gone before.

This question was raised by Belelina and seems to follow on from the more recent posts in this thread.

But what creates the brainpatterns, what creates the neural network, what creates this physical reality?You have 5 senses. From the time your brain is formed you have a bunch of raw neurons in your brain each with thousands of tentacle like dendrites flailing around. As your senses develop and you start using them, sensory input causes the dendrites to start making connections to other neurons. Your brain begins to form patterns (neural networks) that correlate directly with sensory input. Input that is repeated frequently tends to reinforce the corresponding networks; in fact the dendrites and the synaptic connections are physically strengthened by a glue-like coating (i.e. your brain has learnt). Even within the womb your brain is continually being bombarded by sensory data which it continues to relate to either existing networks or it creates new ones. When you are young you have relatively very few neural networks, since you are just at the start of the learning process. As we grow older we continue to learn and form new neural networks but nowhere near the rate of that of a baby.

Everything you experience even from the time you are in the womb is associated with neural networks. And everything has come to you via your 5 senses. But we also have the ability to process the stored networks and create new networks via that process. Every thought, idea, concept, memory and emotions, are held in your brain. Your brain is you.

So essentially the nature of thought is physical neural networks. But the formation of the networks is interesting, i.e. the learning process. Consider learning to swim or learning to drive a car. When the patterns are not present then the task is difficult, after a while, we are hardly aware that we are thinking when we drive a car.

Cris

[SeekerOfTruth]

Originally posted by Cris
....

So essentially the nature of thought is physical neural networks. But the formation of the networks is interesting, i.e. the learning process. Consider learning to swim or learning to drive a car. When the patterns are not present then the task is difficult, after a while, we are hardly aware that we are thinking when we drive a car.

Cris

Cris,

So if this is true, and learning is the creation of neural networks that perform specific tasks, how do you explain the abilities of idiot savants who seem to spontaneously develop their capabilities? Some of these people have never heard a piano before, but upon hearing one for the first time can play the piece heard better than the original player. Or how about people who, after trauma to the brain, have suddenly developed savant-like capabilities in areas they have never had previous experience?

I personally believe that the brain is pre-coded for specific neural networks at birth and that these capabilities are fine-tuned during the learning process.

[scilosopher]

Seeker/Cris,
These two points aren't necessarily at odds, there are basic circuits that the brain can flexibly map to eachother and interconnect. Building blocks of a mind growing into a machine for effectively navigating the world you come to inhabit. Evolution would shape inherent circuits and the details of how to go about mapping and experience would train it to the adaptive needs of our everyday life.

Everybody,
I recently heard about a paper that indicates that peri-synaptic glia are necessary for synapse strengthening and possibly memory ... which opens up new worlds of complexity in the human mind. There are 10X as many glia as nuerons.

I also read a paper about a new class of cell adhesion molecules called protocadherins localized in synapses. There are three tandem arrays of them in the genome and the amount of alternative splicing seen in them (including TRANSPLICING or splicing between two genes in different locations!!), making them a possible candidate for specific genetically encoded determinants of nueral connections ... the theroretical maximum of variant forms was I believe larger than the number of nuerons in the brain and multiple types are expressed in each nueron.

Also I don't know if you all know about it, but at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov you can search pubmed for primary research papers and now there are some links to freely available pdf reprints. You can also freely download sequence data, which is the original purpose, but that isn't as much fun.

Searching for "protocadherins maniatis", will get you to a free copy of the paper:

"Large exons encoding multiple ectodomains are a characteristic feature of protocadherin genes." (Sounds fascinating doesn't it ...)

[Counterbalance]

From the article “A.I. Reboots” by Michael Hiltzik in Technology Review, March 2002:

“’Absolutely none of my work is based on a desire to understand how human cognition works,” says [Douglas B.] Lenat. ’I don’t understand, and I don’t care to understand. It doesn’t matter to me how people think; the important thing is what we know, not how do we know it.’”

And Hiltzik finishes that section of the article with...

“One might call this trend the “new” A.I., or perhaps the “new new new” A. I., for in the last half-century the field has redefined itself too many times to count. The focus of artificial intelligence today is no longer on psychology but on goals shared by the rest of computer science: the development of systems to augment human abilities. “I always thought the field would be healthier if it could get rid of this thing about ‘consciousness,’” says Philip E. Agre, an artificial-intelligence researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It’s what gets its proponents to over-promise.” It is the scaling back of its promises, oddly enough, that has finally enabled A.I. to start scoring significant successes.

~~~

First of all, I don’t wish to throw this discussion off permanently by bringing in a related topic like A.I. However when I read this article my thoughts kept returning to this thread. Apologies to all who’ve posted recently on other “nature of thought“ topics here. Please, carry on with whatever is of current interest to you, but if you’ve also any comments or musings to offer about this, I’d enjoy hearing them.

Because I wonder: If “the goals shared by the rest of computer science [are] to develop systems to augment human abilities...,” then how appropriate is it to “not care” about how human cognition works? I understand the point that more progress is made by lowering the standards or expectations of what should be attempted in developing A.I. I understand how impossibly high expectations could impede efforts unnecessarily. It sounds like they want to make their programs work--and work well; they want to grow the field in directions they deem appropriate; they want success. Fair enough. But could this also mean that the technology will be shortchanged? That humans will be shortchanged? Is this a case of short-sightedness? That what might have opened many more doors for research and understanding about the “nature of thought” in the near and far future may not be opened as quickly or easily--as they might be if more A.I. researchers and developers did care to unravel these mysteries?

My questions are not meant to suggest that Lenat and others who share his view are wrong. I’m not knowledgeable enough about A.I. to make that judgment. I am interested however in how you guys interpret these remarks.

The importance of understanding more about the nature of thought--as it relates to developing new technologies--for humans--and in general.

Whatcha think?

~~~

Thanks,

Counterbalance

~~~

P.S. Sci, Seeker and Cris... enjoyed your posts. (the update and link, too, Sci.)

[esp]

Bio-neural gelpacs?

Seriously, if biological computing was advanced enough, would the machine become sentient?
Will we be posting about The Nature of Artificial Thought ?

[Shaman]

Originally posted by scilosopher
[B]Seeker/Cris,
These two points aren't necessarily at odds, there are basic circuits that the brain can flexibly map to eachother and interconnect. Building blocks of a mind growing into a machine for effectively navigating the world you come to inhabit. Evolution would shape inherent circuits and the details of how to go about mapping and experience would train it to the adaptive needs of our everyday life.

Quote:
From:
A Universe of Consciousness (how matter becomes imagination)
Gerald M. Edelman

"Neural Darwinism: this theory embraces selective principles and applies them to the functioning brain. its mains tenets are (1) the formation during brain development of a primary repertoire of highly variant neuronal groups that contribute to neuroanatomy (developmental selection), (2) the formation during experience of a secondary repertoire of facilitated neural circuits as a result of changes in the strength of connections or synapses (experiential selection), and (3) a process of reentrant signaling along reciprocal connections between and among distributed neuronal groups to assure the spatiotemporal correlation of selected neural events."

[Yogamojo]

Hi there ESP! You have inspired another musing out of me.

Along a slightly different vein...
How do I know if I am entertaining a "real" thought or an "artificial" thought. This is an interesting distinction. ¿If a machine or a software program first "postulates" a certain pattern does it remain "artificial" until it is processed by a human (or other biological unit as the case may be)? Also, does this have anything to do with the complexity of the hardware/software or the complexity of the "thought", or is it because of other reasons that this distinction is made?

[Yogamojo]

So I'm a little bit analytical, so what???