Think, think, think... 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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Neither link works? ahhhh.. one should be http://www.williams.edu/Neuroscience/courses/Biol212/plast.htm don't know the deal on the other.
Bun, Imahamster totally agrees. Might even go so far as to BLAME Hofstadter for many hamster musings. Hehe. Here’s a link provided by Arzak with a review of a NEW Hofstadter book. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.11/kelly.html
Imahamster ... 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.
Link 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
Re: Imahamster ... 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?
Re: Link Shaman, Imahamster KNEW you were gonna ask for that reference. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/uoc--prh112701.php
I've been busy and haven't gotten a chance to check this thread out in a while ... you've all been busy too. So I have a lot of catching up to do ... and I'm not sure where to start. On metacognition or thinking about thinking (observing yourself think etc.), I think this is very important, but I think that a lot is to be learned both from active wrestling of thoughts within your mind as well as allowing the current of a certain thought run its course through your head. Both teach you different things about how you think and are useful in some contexts. I wish there was more education aimed at learning to learn better and think, better as our thought processes can certainly be trained to be better. On the holism of the body and thought. It isn't just your body. Although, our senses and language are imperfect in many ways our thoughts are shaped by our environment especially those we exchange ideas with (I guess this gets into what hamster was saying about physcially changing people's physical minds). The illusion of separation is a deceptive one. On some kind of time scale and through some chain of intermediate entities everything interacts with everything else. Science has popularized the notion of reductionism and looking at parts. In the end though every part has some aspects that are only brought to light with their interactions with the environment they're in. We break things into entities in our mind, but this is just for convenience and this should not be forgotten. When you smell a flower part of the flower is actually in your nose ... Emotions effect thought in a lot of ways and have a lot of similarities. They may be more hard wired, but in many ways I think evolution is a less plastic form of learning and thought though the ideas are not contained in a single individual. When I think I have many ideas, some good some bad ... I select the good ones and follow that line of reasoning. In terms of where the basic ideas come from it is almost always from experience. One can ponder whether the human mind can imagine something elemental which it has not been made aware of through experience (including evolutionary experience which has hard wired in certain basic structures). If we simply recombine elements, that is actually very similar to mechanisms of variation in most sexually reproducing species. Models of thought and paradigm shifts ... has anyone read Thomas Kuhns "the structure and function of scientific revolutions" (or something like that, I read it a couple years ago). Very interesting stuff. Science is a very well documented history of human thought. It uses very defined models. Maybe it is the best approach to objective thought available. Personally I like intuition based thinking, but that is not disallowed in science. You just can't call it science in some ways even though most scientists speculate a lot ... Regarding the SA article and evolution of abstract thought - I think all thought is abstract and symbolic. No animal has anything it thinks about in it's head. Even if it's a very precise model it is still a model. Using symbols is certainly an important part of conveying and recording that thought, but on a certain level isn't all thought abstract. Even the images I see are abstractions of the real thing. Actually a lot of early symbols were picture based abstractions of a simpler nature than the one the person had in their head. In regard to filters ... they certainly are there which is what makes hallucinogens so interesting (too bad they have those negative side effects). Organization of elements and coming up with the right model is definitely important in thinking to reduce the complexity of the system under consideration to the point that it can be easily reasoned about. (I get a little nervous about our media's filters, but I'm quite happy most of mine are in place). Evolutionary constraints on thought ... as I said evolution was in many ways a learning/thought process distributed over lots of individuals. When individuals picked up independent thought it was just a step in that process. Hopefully evolutionary pressure is still helping to make people smarter, whether or not there are limitations about the way in which we can think and be intelligent is very unclear. Defining intelligence is difficult and maybe an impossible task. Especially for someone with mental limitations (which we all have to some degree). I'm sure there are evolutionary constraints on our thought, even emotions often guide us away from painful thoughts, which imposes a constraint if not on what we CAN think, at least on what we TEND to think. There is always 1984 and language which may constrain thought, but people do come up with new words so it can't be completely constraining ... neither is how you are raised (Though I'm not sure what the implication was about past lives ...). Basically the same point imahamster makes ... they evolve. Memory and synapses, this is the most supported current model but it certainly hasn't been proven. People are very hazy on what glia do and they constitute 90% of our brain. While they clearly have roles in patterning nueron organization early on, help form the blood brain barrier, and are thought to have a role in nourishing nuerons they've also been shown to show more interesting behavior including slow calcium waves. Nuerons and action potentials are really very important for FAST transfer of information, which seems somewhat contrary to their role in memory. I would tend to think that certain things that are learned and remembered - especailly stuff that becomes more subconscious and automatic would make sense to be mediated by alterations in synapses. Like new and better filters for instance. When it comes to remembering someones face? I'm not sold. There's a big leap there. Then again I haven't read a lot of the original research so I'm just speculating ...
Imahamster ... 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Imahamster ... 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? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Scilosopher, interesting speculation on glia cells. This hamster’s reading has always given them short shrift. Ya gotten have ‘em but the REAL story is the neurons. Never heard any possibility that they played an active role. Slow calcium waves huh? Neat. Enjoyed your post. Good chewing.
Chagur, glad you enjoyed the article. The taste of “rote learning” does not appeal to this hamster. Too much maze training in this hamster’s pup days. This hamster favors honing of teeth for good chewing. Experience in sniffing and tasting seeds. Exposing hamster pups to the fun and excitement of the seed hunt. Encouraging each hamster to appreciate and explore her own uniqueness hamsterness while respecting the paths of others. Hmmm…Imahamster remembers Chagur’s link http://www.webelements.com/ That’s a tasty seed for young pups and old. (Imahamster remembers memorizing the periodic table while the teacher droned some “rote learning” at us. Woulda killed for toys like webelements.) There may be no easy path of learning. Survival likely encouraged remembering only the most important events. Study methodologies whether by rote repetition, by outlining, by re-phrasing, by underlining, by memorization technique…all seem to require mental effort or focus. That effort seems to translate into learning. (While speculating Imahamster eagerly awaits the “forget-me-not” pill that will make learning easy.) Hamster irony? Over a month ago Imahamster read a research article ONCE and remembered pertinent details that seems to show that multiple exposures over hours is necessary for long term memory. Yet Imahamster has an average memory (or should that be “had”). Scilosopher may be right that the full story is far from known. (Might wait for the next study before suggesting a curriculum change at the “teaching” colleges.) More chatter on language? While Imahamster admires brevity (in others, hehe), Imahamster doesn’t really understand Chagur’s points. Perhaps more Chagur words would help this hamster see the path Chagur follows. Lots of words in language. Far more than this hamster knows. Is Shakespeare in those words? Is the Bible? How much of science is in the words? Philosophy? Law? History? Is this culture lost when those works are translated into another language? What about culture that doesn’t reside primarily in words? Art? Music? Sports? Career? Family? Certainly some culture is in the words. How much is beyond this hamster. “And if the concept is unique to all languages and the 'new' word has to be defined?” (This sentence puzzled Imahamster. Oh well it a common state for hamsters.) Imahamster will take a hint from German and take a stab at it. The ‘new” word is TheConceptIsUniqueToAllLanguages and its definition is “the concept is unique to all languages”. A concept more difficult to fully describe might require a paragraph, a page, or a book. It might be given a name such as “Relativity”. Its common definition might be “Oh some more egghead stuff.” And differ from its scientific meaning. Hmmm…some meaning is only indirectly contained in words. “The look in a lover’s eyes.” If one has never had such a lover, what do the words mean? (Hypertext link to a picture? Ahhh multimedia dictionaries.) Each discipline has it’s own jargon. What a strange meaning “strange” has in physics. How fun when different disciplines grow and overlap both having their own special meaning for the same words. What glorious misunderstandings. Words seem to have different meaning as they play in each different mind. (Yep, Hofstadter DEFINITELY deserves some blame.) Or even in the same mind under different circumstances. That is a source of both confusion and creativity. New meaning is created as a message passes from one to another. (Imahamster has made stoopid remarks that clever people, expecting better, interpreted brilliantly. Leaving this hamster to mutter quietly, “If only I had meant THAT.”) “Is not language among the earliest 'learned' things?” Well maybe for you. Imahamster was a slow starter. Had a mean quickdraw before learning to say, “Bang”. (Making up for it with this post.) Early language learning is important. Waiting too long has very serious repercussions for a human. Does it matter significantly whether the baby learns English or Spanish or ASL? (Maybe English and Spanish are too closely related for that question to mean much? This hamster has no data on ASL.) (Imahamster seems to remember that humans and chimpanzees display similar learning ability until a human begins to acquire language. Might mean nothing as the species mature at different rates.) "... a possible constraining factor? Yes. A major one? Imahamster guesses not." Imahamster guesses this question relates to “major”. Imahamster has a hamster value system. Differs from most humans. Considering the factors that matter to this hamster this hamster’s guess remains the same. Scratching furry head for example of early language learning that caused a difference that would matter to someone…perhaps a language with no religious words. But a family that was religious could pass on the concepts without words while a family that wasn’t religious wouldn’t use the words even if the language contained them. At a loss… Chagur, Imahamster has chattered long but doubts any of it has addressed your real points. If Imahamster did understand then this hamster likely would consider and reconsider. That is Imahamster’s main purpose for being here. (Here at this site and here in this world.) Thank you for chattering with Imahamster.
Imahamster, This brought to mind an interesting article I read some time ago. The article stated that it was easier for babies to learn sign language than it was to learn to speak. The article also stated that babies who had learned sign language, also 'babbled' in a manner similar to the way babies verbally 'babble' when they are saying 'goo goo' and 'ga ga' type phrases. They knew the babies were actually babbling in sign language as opposed to random arm flailing because the majority of motions sign language uses are constrained to the portion of the body directly in front of the body and random arm flailing takes up a larger portion of the space around the body. When they were 'babbling' in sign language, the babies arm motions were confined to the areas where sign language takes place. When you take this in conjunction with the fact that chimpanzees and larger apes are capable of learning sign language it paints an interesting picture. To me, it would definitely seem to imply that abstract thought, if defined as needing a 'language' to express itself, is certainly not solely the domain of humanity and is cerainly not confined to a verbal representation.
As I said in my excessively long post, all thought is by definition abstract. Even if it is limited to fairly concrete objects they must have some abstract form of representation in anyones mind. Which suggests to me that what might be the limiting factor is an animal having any incentive to focus on truly abstract things as they live in a very concrete world and don't have great building appendages (beavers can design damns though and birds can build nests, both require an abstract mental model as no two nests are the same). What if cats and dogs could learn sign language, but don't have the right appendages? Are horses stomping out answers to numercial questions capable? (Mr Ed was a special example like a certain hamster we all know). Our ability to communicate ideas through language is special, but most animals learn things by watching others, just like we do in sports, dancing, trying do act cool, etc. I think brains are made to be very adaptive general purpose things. Ours certainly has gone a bit farther, but maybe the major difference has been driven not by our brain - but our hands and vocal aparatus. Maybe our vocal aparatus more so from the little I've read on Dolphins. (EDIT: but why do Dolphins need to communicate that much? is it a social thing? Most animals can communicate danger and even honeybees have a dance that describes the distance and location of food ...) Anybody have any good info on Dolphins and their language and maybe even a little about their framework of thought? I'm also curious ... does sign language have all the words vocal language does? Is it slower? Is there any reason anyone has ever suggested that chimps don't have sign language? What is known about body language in chimps? Other animals?
SeekerOfTruth, interesting info on sign language and babbling, thanks. (Imahamster learned about babbling while in a crowded car on a six-hour drive with a new babbler. Hehe.) To this hamster the image of an ape gazing into water and recognizing herself shows deep kinship. When Imahamster first read in a prior post Scilosopher’s words, “No animal has anything it thinks about in its head.” a flurry of counterexamples to animals “not thinking” shouted in this hamster’s mind. Only more careful reading and recollection of Scilosopher’s other posts led this hamster to see Scilosopher’s point that all animals think abstract thoughts. The transition from animal thinking to human thinking might be continuous. Humans may engage in both "word" thought and animal thought. (Ahhh, Scilosopher elaborates on this concept, good.) Imahamster has heard of several different experiments with dolphins. In one, dolphins learned a simple grammar and small “symbol” vocabulary. The dolphin could then understand simple sentences such as “(Place) ball in ring.” Not as impressive as Chimpsky. Still, working with dolphins is much harder and more expensive than working with chimpanzees. (Seem to recall the dolphin's brain/body mass ratio exceeds a human's and that the "sound" region of a dolphin brain is far greater than a human's.) Imahamster seconds Scilosopher's request for info related to sign language. (What about Helen Keller? Did she experience permanent mental handicap by learning language at such a late age? What limits, if any?)
I was just thinking about the babbling a little more. It's interesting that even in language a baby as it learns to speak starts with an imitative phase that isn't really speaking exactly. It does something whether it is wrong or right and slowly get's better and better (personally I still like babbling - I haven't read much Joyce, but apparently babbling can be pretty brilliant. Learning new ways to communicate no one else knows?). Animals are definitely known to learn through imitation. Highest form of flattery. EDIT: I just realized my point might not be clear. What if learning like evolution is basically based on some very loose structure that is very generative followed by removing bad ideas. Process of elimination on a large scale or abstract level. But based on a general imitation of something seen as a good estimate of where to start. I'm also curious if anyone knows about dolphins native language. I remember hearing they have names for eachother and some form of spoken language of there own. Speaking towards contraints on thought it is possible that dolphin thinking is different enough from human thinking that another reason the chimps perform better is they have a more similar brain structure. When I was learning to speak spanish in middle school at some point I switched over to thinking spanish during class. That took a lot of practice and was another language spoken by the same species. When it comes to things like balls and hoops it wouldn't be surprising that dolphins have similar concepts or could grasp objects and physcial stuff. When it comes to teaching them our social concepts they are not primates and might have quite different social concepts that are hard to get past in terms of understanding what we mean. And maybe shape how they think about relationships of things in general. We live on a plane for the most part, they live in a 3D world. Maybe there are differences there too. I must say this is my favorite thread so far on this board. Assuming participants have similar tastes any recommendations? I've never had the time to be thorough ...
With clever interpreters a babbler can be a genius. Hehe. Secret to wisdom…say little and look inscrutable? Let the listener supply their own answer. Isn’t the mark of wisdom, an answer that agrees with one’s own? Hehe. LOL. Thanks Scilosopher. Scilosopher, if you haven’t run across it before, you might find Marvin Minsky’s book the “Society of Mind” an interesting read. You may be following similar paths. A Google news group search on “Society of Mind” gives the flavor. Imahamster recalls that there are pod identification dolphin calls. Then there is whale song. Nope, nothing else in this hamster’s head. Nothing on native dolphin language. Good point on dolphin vs. chimpanzee IQ reflecting human bias. (Never met a human that really understood paper towel roll chewing.) Hmmm…favorite thread. Haven’t dug into the old ones so this hamster is likely missing some gems. The thread that captured this hamster’s interest in SciForums was /777. Recommend starting at the beginning and reading straight through.
Oh no I'm in trouble - I'll never seem wise. I always have a lot to say, much of it clearly stupid. That's the only way I can think of to become smarter/more knowledgeable though. Expose my ignorance and then address it. (Though I do admit there are certain cases - when I just listen, but they only come up when my ignorance is being dispelled continuously by the speaker and I don't feel like I'm missing something or could contribute). I'll try and check out society of the mind. I have too much crap to read for school though => it's destroying my general reading habits. I'm trying to read Robert Anton Wilsons book "Prometheus Rising", which is pretty interesting. It deals a lot with thought, personality, emotion, rationalization, models of the world around you, etc. Definitely a bit fringe but I like it. Besides he coauthored "The Illuminatus! trilogy", which is one of my favourite books (it's now sold as a single tome). I take that back about most of the reading I need to do being crap, but it's just more focused than I am. (Which is one thing I hate about education, the farther you go the more the try and force you to only think about one small itty bit of the realm of interesting stuff. Our world is full of lot's of horses with various types of blinders and the possibility for ugly collisions is getting more and more scary)... I thought I saw something on discovery channel roughly 5 years ago where they talked about dolphin language. I don't remember any details though. While I don't know/remember what a pod is, part of it definitely related to names. You mean \777 man, machine, alien etc. on the free thoughts board? I started to read it and it was interesting, but I started getting paranoid that I might end up knowing too much and be on some FBI list somehwere (if I'm not already ...). That and it was really long. These forums already test my patience for reading off a screen ... So was that part of your inspiration for the hamster persona? (Not to suggest you're not a hamster ... but you did suggest it was a guise or something in an earlier post) I was also curios about your use of "her unique hamsterness", are you a female hamster? sorry that was a bit off topic ...
