The Nature of Thought
- Thread starter esp
- Start date
Counterbalance
Registered Senior Member
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
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
Registered Senior Member
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 ; )
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
Registered Senior Member
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.
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.
original query
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?.
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
Registered Senior Member
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.
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
Registered Senior Member
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
Registered Senior Member
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,
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
Registered Senior Member
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 ...
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
Registered Senior Member
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.
“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.
links
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...
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...
Last edited:
Counterbalance
Registered Senior Member
Hold up there, pardner...
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
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
Registered Senior Member
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.
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.
Negative Feedback
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,
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
Registered Senior Member
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.
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.
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'.
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'.
Re: And so:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry, for late and haven't read previous pages (i'll do it later). But i can't hold my hand to post this
Based on this post:
...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:
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.
Based on this post:
...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:
[
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.