The Nature of Thought

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)
 
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.
 
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]).
 
Re: Re: “I have no mouth and I must scream.”

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....
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. ....
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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

...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).
...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.)
 
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.")
 
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?
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top