Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities has 50 remote-ready activities, which work for either your classroom or remote teaching.
A digital ecosystem, fueled by serendipity.
Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
Year:
- Current postings - 1999/2002 - 1998/1999 - 1997 - 1996
However, I do not believe that behavior will ever be fully explained by information gained from studying the brain. The brain is infinitely complex, and the knowlege gained in neurobiology and psychology will always be an incomplete picture. While these disiplines provide useful insights into behavior, many of the most fundamental aspects of human behavior remain unexplored. For example, consciousness is a fundamental aspect of human behavior that is so complex that it is difficult to define, let alone explore scientifically. I do not forsee a time in which neurobiologists and psychologists have explored every aspect of human behavior and discovered the biological processes responsible for it.
My position on on Prof. Grobstien's assertion is that while I agree that biological processes in the brain are responsible for behavior, some aspects of behavior are simply too complex to be understood in those terms.
I divide conscious free will into three separate categories. First there is strong free will which states :our conscious mind originates or creates our conscious mind eg. when walking along a road you reach a fork and your conscious mind creates the thoughts "there is a fork, do I go left or right?" and then makes the decision. The second form, weak free will, states that it is our subconscious mind which originates (creates) thoughts but the conscious mind makes decisions eg. (from above): at the fork in the road, the subconscious creates the question "Do I go left or right?" and then your conscious mind creates an answer. Lastly, the no free will approach states that the subconscious mind creates the thoughts (and questions), makes decisions (answers the question), and then reports these to the conscious mind so that our conscious mind creates nothing but is only the part of the mind that is aware that any of this is going on. The no free will model seems the most reasonable as simple models can be made to fit this idea. I've never seen any models that were able to explain how we could have strong or weak free will (without using supernatural explanations such as a soul).
I think that the I function integrates inputs from all parts of the nervous system to produce a sense of self. When the brain is disconnected from the spinal chord, as in paraplegia, sense of self continues, but sensation and movement of the body from the neck down are no longer included in sense of self. In behavioral neuroscience last semester, we saw a film about a man whose hippocampi had been destroyed by a viral infection, leaving him unable to learn new information. This man, too, still experienced sense of self, but his sense of self did not include actions which he performed only a few minutes before.
Thus, while the core of sense of self seems to remain intact when parts of the nervous system are destroyed, some part of it is missing.
Name: Miriam Kulkarni Username: mkulkarn Subject: the I function Date: Tue Feb 3 1998
Miriam, you have touched on a most important subject. Not only of psychology, but of the whole universe. I will write a short note on this very soon. Besides, I plan to write a larger contribution for later on. All based on the NEW PSYCHOLOGY, as defined in the BIOLOGY forum. For now, let me just comment that the 'I function' reminds of the 'ego' as defined by psychoanalisis, where 'ego' is just the Latin name for 'I.' Now, 'self' is much more than 'I.' as I'll attempt to explain soon. For today, I limit myself to stress that the consciousness of the body is quite complex, and that the 'body image' is different to what you are writing about. Please stay tuned. I wrote the above on-line. J.G.
Name: Patrick Riley Username: priley@basin.und-w.nodak.ed Subject: memory and color Date: Thu Feb 12 1998
Patrick, I believe you will not get help here, but nice to read your post.
Colors are kept in memory encoded in special 'color' proteins. I see no reason to be surprised if blue is better suited than any other color to be strongly associated with text memory. After all, evolution is guided and constrained by physical laws and by ecological factors. If man has been daily seeing the vast blue of the skies, such color might have become a special influence. I've not read about your specific question. I just checked with askjeeves 'color+blue' without getting any useful information.
Sorry. Keep me posted and come back.
Hola, Maria: Este no es el sitio. Bienvenida, pero Serendip no posee informacion sobre el tema que te interesa. Sigue visitandonos.
Name: NOBODY Username: Subject: NOBODY needs you Date: Thu Feb 19 1998
NOBODY, I believe your high I.Q. demands much from your brain -> mind -> thinking. Thinking demands a lot of neurotransmitters, among them, serotonin. Apparently, your neurons do not produce enough of it. This causes difficulties in coherent thinking and a belief of not being 'understood.' With good reason! The result is that a neurotic personality develops. Obsessions and compulsions may be explained as a faulty thought flow. Depression is unavoidable. In short, a mental hell. Help may be obtained by increasing the concentration of serotonin in the synapses. If you identify with my words, please feel free to contact me.
On Thu Feb 19 1998 you wrote,
Any, we are not experts. We are interested in offering forums for educated propositions concerning areas which are not metaphysical, as I have detailed in several posts on the subject of metaphysics. Our goal is to try and make sense of the ambiguities that surround us, human beings. Therefore, we propound science and
philosophy as the exclusive or preferred areas of knowledge to be pursued in these pages. I am not part of the Serendip management. I am a devoted Serendipian, though, who follows a personal line of thought and discourse. Please do not take me as representative of this forum, only as a contributor. After this disclaimer, I must add that it is convenient to read my lines about the NEW PHILOSOPHY in order to understand my approach. Mainly, this philosophy does not offer counsel, limiting itself to endeavor explicating realities which cannot be analyzed scientifically. However, scientific facts are used when available to support these philosophic realities. The most important of which concerns language, it being human intellect's foremost expression. As for science, the main stress of the New Philosophy is placed on the brain, it being the location of the mind, whose main output are thoughts. It is my contention that meta-thinking (thinking about thinking)
is the supreme manifestation of the human mind.
On Feb 19 I posted to you,
I believe your high I.Q. demands much from your brain -> mind -> thinking.
Thinking consumes a lot of neurotransmitters (as well as glucose and oxygen), among them, serotonin. Apparently,
your neurons do not produce enough of it. This causes difficulties in coherent
thinking and a belief of not being 'understood.' With good reason! The result is that a
neurotic personality develops. Obsessions and compulsions may be explained as a
faulty thought flow. Depression is unavoidable. In short, a mental hell. Help may be
obtained by increasing the concentration of serotonin in the synapses. If you identify
with my words, please feel free to contact me.
Then on Feb 20 you posted,
Thank you very much for your attention, Jacob. I have heard this explanation before
but I don't understand it completely. Why my neurons are unable to produce the serotonin
adequated to my needs? This explanation make me think that the capacity of "thinking" or to reasoning is independent of the brain, because, in my case, for instance, I have too much capacity for my brain (for my neurons); and this problem explain my behaviour. Really?.
Any, please edit and repost the lines you wrote above, correcting the syntax and orthography, also adding some information on your educational background. The subject of serotonin is complex; I'll try to write about it sometime. Lots of people are genetically defective in adequate serotonin production. Anorexia-bulimia may be
also related to special situations of serotonin underproduction.
This will do for now. Any, the present dialogue might interest several readers and move them to participate. Please keep your initiative alive, it might signal a sea change in cyberworld.
Jacob
Why I feel so sad? Is the I.C. a realistic coefficient? Please, I NEED an answer, or some book to read that could help me... Thank you in advance, and sorry for the intrusion.
In
some sense this make me feel abnormal, an it's a very uncomfortable feeling! But, at the
same time, you must to be right because it's true that I have a compulsive behaviour (I am an anorexic-bulimic woman). I am in a psychotherapy since the last four years. My conclusion is that my abnormal behaviour is related (in some way) to the lack of help in my childhood, when I have had need it. As my family (and in general our society) is unable to recognize such failure they educated me as best as they could but in the middle of a generalized "social lies".
Surely they are avoiding the responsability, in an unconcious way. I don't know if you are
understanding, cause it's difficult to me talk about all this. Another thing. I want you to explain
what do you mean with "COHERENT THINKING". I used to have the "fame" to be rational and coherent in my thoughts IN EXCESS, so it's a little be surprising what I undestand that you are saying. Perhaps I have misunderstood you.
Please, tell me if my conversation is not "in the line" with this forum, I don't want to be boring someone, but maybe, I am a practical example about the problems in the
relation
Please read my short essay 'On Survival,' in BIOLOGY forum. Dopamine appears to be the neurotransmitter required to make the individual feel hunger when his organism needs food. Dopamine and serotonin are needed for neurotransmission, but only serotonin has given rise to therapeutic uses in depression and in anorexia-bulimia. I am starting to suspect that neurotic ('maladjusted') personality, associated with the belief of 'not being understood' is also related to serotonin deficit.
Name: NOBODY
Username:
Subject: nobody again
Date: Mon Feb 23 12:07:14 EST 1998
Comments:
Hello again, Jacob.
Excuse my faults. My english is not very good. I can read it and I can understand classes or conferences, but it is very difficult to me talk about my feelings. (I use to speak about economics). I am an economist from Spain. I am 33 years old, I am a separated woman, and I have two children. My post-graduate studies are related with the philosophy of economics, the relation between economics and other sciences (like psychology, sociology, mathematics...), the origins of economics and also of the sciences in general (sometimes sciences have the same origin, for instance, some XIXth economist was psychologist too).
Perhaps my last comment was a little bit... violent? Excuse me, please. I write to Serendip because I agree with the main principles stated here, and I need to have ANSWERS. I hoped that Serendip (& contributors) make me think about my problem in a positive way, cause we share the same points of vue in many things. I enjoy very much with some of your articles (I have had no time to read all of them)... I'm learning so much! So, I appreciate very much your comments and the forum. But SERENDIP is the only way I have to express my complaints or deceptions or, at least, to ask the questions that nobody have answer me as I need. I will read the article on "The New Philosophy" and post my comments. May I ask more questions about the power of myself to overcome my quimical deficiencies?
Name: Jacob Ghitis,M.D.
Username: ghitis@isracom.net.il
Subject: TO MIRIAM ON SELF
Date: Mon Feb 23 16:10:37 EST 1998
Comments:
To MIRIAM KULKARNI
On Thu Feb 3 1998 you wrote,
I commented on Feb 19,
Now I continue,
I understand the 'I' or 'ego' as the repository of those attributes which an individual feels to represent his 'free will.' It might be theorized that 'free will' is actually a result of the interplay of the 'superego' --conformed by moral-ethical-social successful teachings by respected authority figures-- and the 'id' --a set of inborn genetically determined behaviors related basically to the individual's --and his group's-- survival. (Please refer to 'On Survival' in BIOLOGY forum.)
The concept of 'self' includes the above mentioned components, largely in a fuzzy manner, giving rise to much debate on the free will, where theologians have the upper hand, their arguments being above contest either by philosophy or by science. The New Philosophy is careful not to enter the fray, waiting for scientific studies of the brain to support one of the opposing opinions or to find a common ground.
Now, I'll conclude explaining why I commented that the self is the most important thing in the Universe. (Please read my short post on 'The Three Laws of Being.') The self is what allows us to be active part of
society, which is actually a composite of many selves. It was not until the first human became aware of 'himself' (his own self) that he could perceive his clear separation from others and from his surroundings ('social' and 'ecological' selves). Until then, the Universe had no 'meaning.' If you read my introduction to 'The Game of Analogies' (in COMPLEXITY forum), you will understand my reluctance to exploit analogies to 'make a point.' Yet I believe that the following one is useful for the present case. If one is asked, "A tree falls in a woods, where no humans are present. Does the fall cause noise?" the answer
oughtd be, "No, because only humans know how to define noise. Were there hearing animals around, they would hear a loud, startling 'sound." Otherwise, in complete desolation, there would be only a vibration of the air."
Ergo, it is the self which endows the Universe with meaning.
The self includes other components, of which I'll limit myself here to just the 'body self' or 'body image.' A person suffering from quadriplegia, unable to move or to feel or control most of his body develops a new body image, which is realistic, not pathological. Contrast this situation with the case
of autopagnosia, where a lesion in the brain's parietal lobe results in the patient's inability to point (on demand) to a given body segment, yet he can identify it when touched. The dysmorphic syndromes observed in psychotic states, where parts of the body are felt as missing, are variable and do not follow anatomical pathways.
These aspects are really not so important in the analysis of the body self image. Important is the way an individual realistically or not accepts or rejects and attempts to modify his body image.
For the moment I consider relevant for this contribution to describe another component of the self. It is called the 'self as a story.' Indeed, just read this: "I was born in such date in such place of such parents. My siblings were this and that. I remember my father telling me that honor is more important than money...I studied, I did this and that... then I became interested in the Internet and... "
To ANN:
* On Feb 19 1998 you wrote,
hi. my name is anne and i'm a senior in high school and i'm new to this whole internet thing... in my psychology ap class, i have to debate whether or not intelligence can be increased... if anyone can tell me of sites where i can get stats and info for my debate (i argue the side that it can not be increased), please let me know...
Anne, since your post has not been attended to yet, I'd suggest you look up this subject in regular libraries. However, for your own advance in "this Internet thing," practice finding sources. Go to www.askjeeves.com and then ask for the word inteligence: you'll get results on sources (web sites) dealing with military intelligence. Therefore, try something different, like mind, mentality, understanding, learning... After all, intelligence is defined as the ability to learn and understand.
My impression is that genes determine the maximum capacity to develop intelligence. Then, the exposure to appropriate heuristic and
empirical experiences will effect this development. It should be clear that individuals with innate intelligence in the upper echelons of the Gauss curve (the 'bell' shaped curve) have a better chance of developing their capacities, to the point of being in good part autodidacts. Those less endowed require devotion and encouragement from capable people, not only for enhancing their intelligence to the possible maximum, but also to prop up
their intellectual-self respect. Which is not secondary to the body-image self.
I would suggest too that you prepare off-line a report on this matter,
once you debate it at school, and post it here, using a modicum of HTML. We also want to learn, don't we?
Name: Jacob Ghitis, M.D.
Username: ghitis@isracom.net.il
Subject: SEROTONIN
Date: Sun Mar 1 10:40:29 EST 1998
Comments:
To SOMEBODY :
On Feb 23 1998 you wrote,
... I am 33 years old,... My post-graduate studies are related to
the philosophy of economics, the relation between economics and other sciences (like psychology, sociology, mathematics...), the origins of economics and also of the sciences in general... I write to Serendip because I agree with the main principles stated here, and I need to have ANSWERS. I hope Serendip (& contributors) will help me think about my problems in a positive way, because we share the same points of view in many areas. I've enjoyed very much some of the articles (I have had no time to read them all)... I'm learning so much! So, I appreciate very much your comments and the forum. SERENDIP is the only way I have to express my complaints or deceptions or, at least, to ask the questions that nobody has answered me as I need. I will read the article on "The New Philosophy" and post my comments. May I ask more questions about the power of myself to overcome my chemical deficiencies?
You have posted an outline of yourself (your self). Now you are somebody, right? Whoever cares to read your unedited posts, will realize that you have described your self as a story, still including aspects of your points of view on your social self (your thoughts on your parents' behavior and of society in general). All this has helped me --as part of the world surrounding you (your self)-- to relate to you with my self.
Somebody, of course you are welcome to continue participating in these forums, whether asking or commenting.
Perhaps you feel now better centered. Many of the answers you're looking for will eventually be found by yourself. My role --as a person who thinks that he has the learned ability to guide-- is to help you find those answers.
However, there are physical realities that demand a physical approach. It would appear that you, as so many people, require more than your genetically determined capacity to concentrate the neurotransmitter serotonin in the synapses of neurons devoted to thinking. Not being capable of thinking lucidly leads to unavoidable desperation, the more so when the person has heavy responsibilities of a personal nature.
Thus, Nature defeats its own apparently intelligent purpose of making man the vertex of evolutionary perfection. Why? Because Nature acts naturally, meaning without a purpose. Teleology is man's creation. Indeed Nature is lazy, following the line of least resistance, looking for the states of least energy. And so, unwittingly, Nature discovered how to compress energy in a little molecule rich in phosphorous,
which we call adenosine triphosphate (ATP).
Nature also discovered almost-perfect woman
(and then imperfect man), who are intent on bettering
it, correcting faulty genes and improving many of them.
Perhaps sometime I'll tell you about phosphoribosyl-pyrophosphate, (PRPP) present in the red blood-cells, and how I came to believe that it plays a role in disposing of excessive energy in man and related organisms.
Name: Jacob Ghitis, M.D.
Username: ghitis@isracom.net.il
Subject: On SEROTONIN AND MORE
Date: Sun Mar 1 16:29:52 EST 1998
Comments:
From Spiritus to Jacobus :
I would be most interested to hear more details of your
observations on any of the topics you have expounded
as significant.
I AM a jack of all trades, and a master of none, which I like, since I prefer to see wide, green pastures instead of an extensive, grim deep cave. I found the truth in The Three Laws of Being. The 1st:
The symbiosis of research in many 'different, 'MULTIPLE areas ---however different they might appear to be-- is vital to 'true,'
DEEP understanding. Your work --rather than PRETENDING to encourage or
demand co-incidence-- has catalyzed what would appear to be new lines
of understanding in my own (wide ranging) beliefs.
VERY NICELY PUT. It agrees with my world-view (sounds more impressive in German: Weltanschuung ). Indeed, one can get a lot of activity with a little bit of ferment if the right stuff is there.
I would be most interested to learn a little more about your
background. (Your writing conveys much already.) As beings that communicate efficiently through abstractions, it aids communication to properly frame abstractions in the context of the receiver's paradigms.
You might wish to edit this paragraph, as if you were going to post it.
In the meantime, here is a CV that has not much to do with your question. (I sent you a concise C.V., and you continued,)
Not wanting to leave this without some obvious seed, I give you this
to consider: If ENTROPY is in fact a partial 'law' with SYNERGY as its co-option, how does this relate to RESULTANT (entropic?) and EMERGENT (synergistic??) phenomena? :-)
OK, you got your smile's worth. Now be serious; why 'partial' :-( ?
It's easy to forget the 2nd law in fact applies to HEAT.. It is
through the assumption of energy as a pure metaphor, and the assumption of heat as pure energy that we derive other laws ... If those assumptions are
flawed.. :-)
WOULD you dare to edit and post that paragraph? :-(
Indeed the truism of this holds example in an 'experiment' I conducted
on myself some time ago. Over the period of about a month, I consumed
several dozens of texts on many subjects. I use the word 'consume' rather than 'study' to highlight the nature of this observation. Texts that I would normally spend a week or month perusing, I would 'read' in several hours. Techniques varied from simply glancing at each page, to having several often seemingly unrelated texts available to cross reference. Focus was directed to concepts/terms and even single words that seemed to have relevance outside of the perceived scope of the particular text. More and more the value of a single sentence, properly understood (c.f.
sent(i)ence) often outweighed the value of an entire tome.
IT is a very personal experience. I can only comment that it takes me an
unusually long time to read an article that interests me, because one
word or sentence will make me think and associate.
For someone with a better than average (by scholastic mensuration)
grasp of my own language (EASY TO NOTICE), I found the most useful text was
often (and this surprise some, it certainly surprised me..) a dictionary or text on etymological roots... I found myself dissecting words and sentences, and in the process uncovering potential pearls of wisdom otherwise hidden (perhaps even to the original author)...
WHEN I learn a new word I check its origin. I have Random House dictionary (one of the few possessions that emigrated with me), Webster in three tomes, and the College one. Also, two Hebrew and one Spanish.
How do we choose which word to use in a particular context? I suspect
most peoples use of words reflects their understanding of things highly
intuitively and with a degree of accuracy and insight that is almost
always grossly underestimated by both themselves and others.
I prefer to express myself in writing, for it allows to find the right word, either using a dictionary or a thesaurus. I prefer English to Spanish
because of its conciseness and its richnes in nuances.
As this experiment unfolded I found it became more and more multiphasic,
the more senses used for simultaneous input the more value was often
found. Numerous open books, a computer screen, TV, music, burning aromatics,
food, tactile sensations all intertwined.
I USE only music. Perhaps these added sensations help suppress the permanent mental 'noise.' (the constant tendency of the mind --thoughts-- to wander.)
Due to the excessive lenght of this column, I'll be returning once weekly only. Analogy Games will continue in
COMPLEXITY.
*You are the most important individual that has been or will ever be created.*
It took me some time to find the 2nd: *And its value is nil.*
The 3rd followed shortly thereafter: *Endeavor to make it meriting paying V.A.T.*
Name: J. Ghitis
Username:
Subject: TOO LENGHTY
Date: Mon Mar 2 15:59:55 EST 1998
Comments:
Name: vera
Username: vbarkas
Subject: corallary discharge?
Date: Mon Mar 2 22:29:30 EST 1998
Comments:
just a question.
Last week we talked about what causes motion sickness and it reminded me of running. When I've run a really fast race, I've thrown-up. Did i throw upo because of the strain of my exersion on my stomach or did I throw up because my brain, or nervous system in general, couldn't handle the changes in my physical position fast enough?
This may sound stupid but I have nothing else to say...
Name: Jake
Username: ghitis@isracom.net.il
Subject: TO VERA: PLEASE WAIT
Date: Thu Mar 5 16:42:03 EST 1998
Comments:
To: MARY
On Mar 19 1998 you wrote,
And now, it is my turn to tell you my own philosophical
story, heard from my wise brother:
An octogenarian was asked what the secret for her young fresh looks was. She answered that she avoided argumentation. "I cannot believe that; you must be wrong!" was the retort. She said, "Perhaps…"
To: Somebody called MARIA
On Mar 18 1998 you wrote,
I have been unable to read or post any message from 23-Feb. until today. I am happy to discover that my reflections and yours are in the same
direction.
It's a coincidence, but my last tale is about someone condemned to live in a cave... I'm not able to render it into English, but if you can
read Spanish (and if you are interested), I will send you my story. Have you written other dialogues? I will be here to read the next one.
Maria, you have been very honest in your posts, and perhaps you are on the verge of being fully rewarded by your efforts. It would appear that there is no more place for Serendip dialoguing. However, in view of your significant contribution to this site and of your continued interest, I have developed a new idea based on your correct understanding of Nature acting without purpose. It might be argued that it is paradoxical that organisms --who act teleologically, doing things for their own benefit and survival-- should spring up from 'blind' Nature.
Let me first explain about paradoxes. Those of Zeno, as told by Plato, were meant just for the benefit of mind sharpening. The argument that Achilles couldn't overcome a tortoise that was already ahead of him because he had to traverse the infinite halves of the distance, is defeated by just saying that
Achilles was running 'digitally' and not 'analogically.' Also, the tortoise
could not have advanced, as it also had to traverse infinite half distances. Again, we have paradoxical statements, such as, "less is more,"
where sober architectural lines add to natural beauty, as contrasted with kitsch. Also, one could say, "saving is wasting," when not spending money rationally results in wasting the pleasurable use of it. These type of paradoxes is explained by saying that the contrasting terms do not refer to the same values. Paradoxes based on just two words are called 'oxymorons.'
"Sweet pain," "the burning ice in your eyes" --as described by lovers--
are examples. Sometimes oxymorons are used for comic effect, with the two paradoxical words separated, like in, "he is not a perfect idiot because nobody is perfect."
Let us enter now the subject of what appear to be serious paradoxical propositions. But firstly, we must begin by assuming that there are no contradictions in Nature, and by taking a look at absurd propositions: "Nature acts intelligently: if there were no rivers or other nearby sources of water, city dwellers would die of thirst." That the city was built around a water source is somewhat sophistically inverted in this statement.
Matter obeys laws created just moments after the Big-Bang, when
the primal energy of infinitely compacted 'proto-electrons' and 'proto-positrons' was transformed into Hydrogen and the subsequent atoms. By dint of those laws, living organisms came into existence. Until recently, we believed that viruses have been created as separate live forms. Now we know that there is a class of wasp that creates a virus!
All the particularities of evolution are determined by physico-chemical laws and by circumstances. Therefore, there is no "planned" teleology in the resulting developments of evolution giving rise to teleologically oriented organisms. There is no paradox here at all. Even the most impressive type of energy found in nature --direct-current electricity, carried in electrons-- is not the one we utilize at large, but the alternating-current type created by man!
We humans, are the vertex of evolution, no doubt, yet there is no reason for feeling ourselves excessively proud for that. Life in this planet is very imperfect, and none of us should pretend to really know what is essentially good and bad. We create our own values in order to live in society, because Nature "determined" that we be social animals.
I propose that there is no "Nature" at all. We have become accustomed to apply that term to the sum total of the results we detect from the interplay of energy-matter according to physical laws. We were used to talk about the matter states solid, liquid and gaseous. A long time ago we added the absolutely ionized matter state which was named "physical plasma." The past year added the "Bose-Einstein condensate state."
I propose that humans are intelligent, as distinct from non-existent Nature, which is just a result of immutable physical laws. Condesate matter probably does not exist except under extreme laboratory conditions (perhaps in comets?), while the stars have plasma in their superhot parts. Humans have discovered this, as well as the mysterious world of subatomic particles in the quantum mechanics reality. Should it be surprising that we are amazingly intelligent? And are we to be despised for manifesting the supposed hubris of pretending that we surpass dumb Nature?
Well, think of man's creations: can we run faster than a car? Can we fly as
an airplane? Can we calculate and program ourselves as a simple PC?
Isn't it true that we perfect Nature's bungling, lazy evolutionary grappling ? And that our own creations behave much better than ourselves, their creators, in their respective capabilities? No paradox here.
Even worse, as far as "inconsiderate" Nature acts: She did not "take in consideration" that an animal would be developed who would be able to challenge her. And I am going to be specific. I accuse Nature of being selfish, inconsiderate, interested only in the young and procreative.
My absolutely clear arguments are as follows. 1. Men are allowed to procreate up to any age, while women cannot, having recourse to proxy wombs, even their own mothers'. 2. Natural estrogen has two separate functions, which are fine in young, procreative women. But just let women become "useless" for Nature, and estrogen will be dangerous for their uteri and breasts. Enter hubris-drunk man, and he develops a form of estrogen selective for the benefit of those women! 3. Did "wise" Nature
prepare our planet for the appearance of an animal who would poison the atmosphere?
The same animal called man has developed so many technical novelties, that
the mind of a significant segment of the world population has been unable to adapt itself to such revolutionary changes. The result? Consumerist society with crime-prone members being unable to adjust and react for the benefit of society as a whole. More crime, more Police and more confusion.
Is man to blame? No! Just "Nature"!
Do I believe that I'm revolutionary with my New Philosophy reasoning? I plan to show that the Paradise legend already knew that people are divided
in two camps, the Evolutionists and the Creationists. I only claim the merit of having detected such component in the legend, and of challenging Nature as just a convenient name for phenomena that are not intelligent and yet resulted in a highly intelligent non-planned product which is truly intelligent. And that there is no paradox in this phenomenon.
This will do for now. Many questions may arise from this post. I believe I'll be able to answer some of them. This is a basic purpose of Serendip, as defined by Paul (Prof. Grobstein): leisurely striving to disrobe life on our planet off some of its ambiguous wardrobe. The tool I'm pretending to develop is the NEW PHILOSOPHY.
Name: Jacobo Ghitis, M.D.
Username: ghitis@isracom.net.il
Subject: To Maria
Date: Tue Mar 31 10:19:16 EST 1998
Comments:
,
PARADOXES: J'accuse Nature
In just a month, I found many answers about myself (my self ),and have realized that I am able to continue doing so. Now, as I have more confidence in myself, I am willing to discover many more answers in the future. I think that my efforts and work --four years of very deep and intensive psycho-therapy)-- begin to bear fruit.
I agree completely with you when you say (if I have understood your words properly) that Nature acts naturally --meaning, WITHOUT PURPOSE--. One of the answers that MYSELF gives me is related to this idea. I need to enjoy doing "things" without a functional purpose.
"Things" (to write tales, e.g.) guided by my own sensibility, and which I do, not for money, responsibility... but only for my own ENJOYMENT.
Your Dialogue Method is wonderful.
Also, "Eyes were created for seeing." There are cave-dweller fish which have only slit marks where the eyes should be. Obviously, an extremely long period of time in the cave suppressed the determining influence of light in eye development, a process physically dictated by pure "trial and error" in the course of eons. Should Nature act teleologically, it would have "created" very fast the perfect "creatures" and conditions. The preceding are not examples of paradoxes but of faulty thinking.
Truly apparent paradoxes as dealt with by me in this post, I explain as follows.
It is formed in the wasp's genome, serving to defeat immune mechanisms
of a moth caterpillar into which the parasitic wasp injects its fertilized eggs.
Name: maria
Username:
Subject: human being/nature
Date: Mon Apr 13 13:57:10 EDT 1998
Comments:
Why do you speak as if we, human being, were not a part of Nature? Perhaps we are so selfish as the Nature, because WE ARE ALSO NATURE. I don't understand you very well. I think that we have to accept (humbly?) that we are, at least, made as a part of "the system" of Nature and we are always "trying" to believe that we are different, that we are better than the not-intelligent Nature. But... (sometimes, CONTRADICTION is my name!) at the time, I think that we have the power to create, to imagine, to move the feelings of people, to modifie the history... and, perhaps this is the difference between human being and Nature. I'm not sure, it is more a desire than a real fact (?). I hope that IF (and only if!) women and men learn how to develope, how to use, their mental powers (mental include the energy of affections, desires...) in the best way, we were able to save ourselves and the next generations of a disaster (this one told by Mary). But perhaps (and again) it is only my desire and not a real possibility.
Name: Jacob Ghitis, M.D.
Username: ghitis@isracom.net.il
Subject: To MARIA in April
Date: Mon Apr 20 04:07:44 EDT 1998
Comments:
To: MARIA on April
On April 13 1998 you wrote,
Why do you speak as if we, human beings, were not a part of Nature?
Being ourselves a result of the Physical Laws, which determine how energy-matter interact, we are as part of Nature as anything else created by those Laws. The only things that are not part of Nature are the things that we make, be them a chair or a poem. I say, we --or anything else that exists
naturally-- are part of Nature, not its creation. Nature does not create, it is continuously created, starting at the exact moment of the Big Bang. Suppose a child grows in a desert, and he has no opportunity to see anything else, including any images of other places. He will come to the conclusion that Nature is mostly sand. My intention has been to call the attention to the real signification of the name and concept of Nature.
Perhaps we are as selfish as Nature itself, because WE ARE ALSO NATURE.
'Selfishness' is a human concept. The only component of Nature which I can include as capable of acting in a way which we can qualify as
'unselfish' toward man is the dog. We can never attach as deeply to any other non-human creature as to a dog. Dolphins are apparently also capable of empathizing with humans, but it is not possible to have a dolphin around us. Animals in general appear to be 'unselfish' toward their own, specially toward their litter, up to a given age.
Clarifying concepts supplies us with a degree of understanding about ourselves and what surrounds us. The 'Laws of Nature' are actually the
Physical Laws . There is only Physics. Anything else is a part of it. As an example, Chemistry, one of the Natural Sciences is a branch of Physics. So is Biochemistry. But Mathematics is just one of the essential elements of Physics, not a specific derivative or branch of it. That is why Mathematics is not a Natural Science. Medicine is an Applied Science composed of the natural science Biology (which itself incorporates the natural science Biochemistry)
and of diverse technological human inventions, all for a specific application . Natural sciences incorporate no teleological components. Medicine is all teleological, its target being the benefit of man's health.
I think that we have to accept (humbly?) that we are, at least, made as a part of "the system" of Nature and that we are always "trying" to believe that we are different, that we are better than the 'non-intelligent' Nature.
If you peruse the pages I've written at Serendip, you'll notice that I 've proposed that we humans --at least the Serendipians, a class apart-- are entirely different from any other creature because we are capable of meta-thinking.
As I've written previously, Thales is considered to be the first philosopher. Parmenides and Heraclitus, as examples, also left their seal. Then Socrates arrives, to become a pivotal benchmark. So we have the pre-Socratic, the Socratic, and the post-Socratic philosophers. Socrates utilizes the "Socratic method." He stops young people in the street and ask
them questions. Forces them to think, think, think. He writes nothing that we know of. He possesses or is possessed by an intimate god who tells him when he is right or wrong. Lucky fellow! He drinks the hemlock because that's what his god tells him is the correct thing to do, if his teachings are not to be for naught.
... I think that we have the power to create, to imagine, to move people, to modify History...Perhaps this is the difference between human beings and Nature.
Would you now rephrase the above?
I hope that IF (and only if!)...
Serendip forums do not deal with hopes and ifs but with the world of ideas: Brain, Mind, Thinking. No metaphysical concepts, to be avoided at Serendip, as explained somewhere else. No theology, only philosophy, when supported by science, and with science when touching on philosophy.
...(if we) women and men learn to develop our mental powers ('mental' includes the energy of affections, desires...) in the best way, we'll be able to save ourselves --and the next generations-- from disaster.
Who is 'women and men'? Humanity is divided into many cultures, subcultures and mentalities. Individually, perhaps every adult looks for a 'twin soul.'
Even for a limited space of time.
Because TIME COUNTS!
I write 'naturally,' for the benefit of no one, non-teleologically. Just
for my own pleasure and just for Serendip. The New Philosophy offers no counsel. Like jumping into a swimming pool, but having some idea of the water's temperature and depth. The Interdialog provides an opportunity for jumping in with somebody you might be interested in swimming with.
Learning to swim is fun when you're young! You have little fear of drowning or of the people/person you might be swimming with.
With age comes wisdom (and healthy fear). Since I never learned to swim as a kid (and almost drowned as a young adult) I'll stand at the side of the pool for now.
Hey, listen! I think I heard the lifeguard's yelling down to to the show-off...
"No diving in the shallows, kid!". :>
Oops, I'm just teasing, and I could be wrong! Nonetheless, I think the water's a little cool for me right now. I'll jump in later! Promise.
Hamnet
To Maria II: Please post your email address, if possible.
I might need ask you to clarify some points without undue
cluttering of this Forum.
Should you be sincerely interested, I'll try to develop
the myth of Eden as the earliest known depiction of the Cartesian doubt.
Please clarify the subject of "half life." As a prospective
member of this exclusive club called the Serendip Forums,
I suggest you also read my posts on language, with especial
emphasis on unambiguous communication.
You wrote in a previous post (in which you did include your full name and @), that you like my dialogue method. From that statement I have derived the title for the present post. Please allow me explain.
Comes Plato, who invents the Dialogue, letting others express their own ideas-beliefs. Those dialogues are set in writing. Arrives Aristotle, who utilizes a different approach. He wants order, is a taxonomist, looks for convincing explanations. His philosophy now verges on science.
Following these "Socratics" comes a long list of "post-Socratics," the likes of Kant, Spinoza, Nietzche, Wittgenstein, some confusing, some too simple, some mixed-up, none convincing.
Enter Ghitis: he creates and develops the Inter-dialog. Dial-log. Just because now something very unique has been invented and developed. Which is, the Internet. And also because dialogue is the most interpersonal way of communicating with people at large --or at least with other Serendipians. As Ghitis starts to dialog, his previously inchoate philosophical leanings start to gather blood and flesh, and the NEW PHILOSOPHY is conceived. Not for the world at large, not for
just the Western World, but only for Serendipians --you, Maria, being one.
Name: Hamnet
Username: Hamnet@hamnet.edu
Subject: Swimming
Date: Mon Apr 20 17:05:35 EDT 1998
Comments:
Name: Maria
Username:
Subject: swimming
Date: Sat Apr 25 13:16:22 EDT 1998
Comments:
"To jump into the swimming pool with somebody" is a very beautiful image, Jacob. I'm sure I have read it anywhere... (in a poetic prose?).
OK! I agree with you. Serendipians are different... And I know that I'm always saying (writing) contradictory statements, or thoughts...
I'm sorry, I think that DOUBT is the source of evolution of thought. And I doubt...
I don't think that young people can learn how to swim better that "not-so-young" people. Indeed, I'm still learning how to do it... and I'm not a little girl!
It's more a way of living, an attitude. I'm afraid too, but I don't want to live a "half-life".
I have to read again some writings of The New Philosophy before answer JACOB. The words "naturally, nature,..." are used in common language in a way that finally I really don't know their real meaning, and you make me think about it.
Maria
Name: Jacob Ghitis, M.D.
Username: ghitis@isracom.net.il
Subject: Replyng to MARIA II
Date: Sat Apr 25 16:52:33 EDT 1998
Comments:
The simile of the swimming
pool was written by Maria I in an email to me. On DOUBT,
please read my posts on the Cartesian Doubt,
essential for learning disregarding false authoritarian
constraints.
Name: Jacob Ghitis, M.D.
Username: ghitis@isracom.net,il
Subject: CRIME AND PUNISHMENT REASSESSED
Date: Sun May 10 17:03:02 EDT 1998
Comments:
There is a lull on Serendip's forums, preventing me from applying the 'Interdialog' method in the developing of further themes on the NEW PHILOSOPHY. As result, I've decided to post the following letter, sent to -- but not published in-- Newsweek, commenting on the article devoted to the current expansion of Pentecostal 'revivalism' in the USA, the Holy Spirit being the central theme.
"Living on the Holy Spirit" (April 13) is informative, not instructive. Jehovah, His Chosen People, and the Torah (Moses' Holy Writ) composed the original Trinity. The Hebrew God communicated with His People by means of the Torah.
Iconoclastic Jews sought to convert this parochial Jehovah into a universal God. One Jew, Jesus (Jehoshua,' meaning 'Jehovah saves') was made to displace the whole of the Chosen People. He was theologically invested with the 'Letter' ('Word') of Moses' Holy Writ: this Word became Jesus' 'flesh.' The 'Spirit' of the Torah (the Teaching, the Law, the Way, the Guidance) became the Christian 'Holy Spirit.' This evolution took time and introduced an enigma, solved only by faith.
There are 574 references to 'Spirit' in the whole Hebrew Bible ('Old Testament'). Few refer specifically to a 'Spirit' associated with Jehovah, or with Elohim (God, in Hebrew, whose 'Spirit' guided the Creation from Chaos), or with the Sanctity (Spiritus Sanctus in Latin, from the original --Biblical-- Ruach Hakodesh). This latter 'Spirit' (very loosely rendered as 'Holy Spirit') eventually acquired a very specific connotation: Jehovah's bestowal of prophethood, a word deriving from roots meaning 'to foretell' (God's forthcoming punishment or redemption), while the original --Hebrew-- 'navih' derives from ' vocal expression.'
This is understandable, as language is essential for intellective communication. The prophets became Jehovah's (the Hebrew God) 'witnesses,' i.e., His speakers.
I'd suggest that the Christian 'Holy Spirit' refers to God's and Jesus' means of communicating with Women and Men. Being 'hit' by it, however it is understood or unconsciously interpreted, would be tantamount to receiving the Holy Word from the Divinity. No wonder it is manifested by a dramatic physical and emotional effect. The manifestation of the "gift of tongues" is thus very clearly part and parcel of language as the means of godly communication.
Still, all the above is not enough to help interpret the whole phenomenon of astounding Pentecostal revivalism renewal, which obviously has much to thank the technological capacity to fly from far away and to spread the word to enormous gatherings.
After all, gurus creating convulsive trances in 'domino' fashion by a flash of their hand is no fresh news. What is really new is the knowledge that there is in the brain cortex a zone that might be referred to as the 'crime and punishment center' or 'moral area.' The owner's (not only humans) center links her/his acts with the corresponding reactions of mentors, at infancy. It thus becomes the node for 'moral conscience.' A few studies have shown that murderers who were raised in moral environments evince an underdeveloped 'moral area.'
The possibility exists that an 'overdeveloped' area feeds its 'victim' vague-to-clear chronic guilt feelings. If a liability to enter a deep hypnotic trance is added to it, the therapeutic effects of the 'hit' should be scientifically understandable.
TO the only MARIA :
Nobody has forgotten anybody. Yes,
I've been very ill, but suddenly, like magic, I've been
cured.
I believe I've some answers, please be patient. I'll
start working on it. You know, you are the only person
interested, therefore, I must confess that I love you for
being constant.
Yours truly,
Jakov, I mean Jacob
Please avoid using this forum, or any other, for personal affairs. I have been very clear regarding the central point: The NEW PHILOSOPHY doesn't offer counsel.
To the last post: I can only be glad that you have decided to solve your own problems. I do hope that you've picked here and there some useful ideas. I'm quite certain that we all here at Serendip will be hqppy to learn about your progress in self-help. You sound as an intelligent and mature person. Are you perchance the same Nobody who requested "help from experts?"
I told you, there are no experts here, just people looking for answers, in order to make the world that surrounds us in daily social intercourse less ambiguous. I can not claim having succeeded. In fact, it's been a year this month since I started participating here, and I do not recall even one e-mail telling me that I have helped anyone in making his/her life less ambiguous. Yet, I have also explained that I post here for sheer pleasure, just like smelling a flower, which is just there, with no purpose at all. It is not up to her for us to enjoy its aroma, no, it is up to us to know that we can enjoy it, and all for free!
As for the post on the "Sin of the Flesh," it really is not so complicated as it might seem at first sight.
Elohim's first commandment to man and woman and all animals, is "Fructify and multiply." Elohim is the first God, the one of Creation; take a look at Genesis. Note that after this simple introduction, He somewhat later is quite confused, and creates man and woman, and then only man (adam, in Hebrew). Quite confusing, right? How can religious people not be confused about sex, pregnancy, fertility, procreation, man, woman, bisexualism, and so on?
But wait! That's not enough...God now tells adam and havva not to touch something. What is that? Freud was not needed to suspect that God was forbidding sexual relations. Why? How did He expect people to fructify and multiply? What a mess! So, what did the Jews do? They got themselves much later on a private, tribal, parochial God, whom they called, or who called himself, YHVH, wrongly pronounced Javeh or Jehovah. {I"ll tell you how it should be pronounced and why. Also, when and why did this NAME, the Tetragrammaton, become ineffable. But somebody will have to ask me to do so. No gratuitously pronouncing God's NAME!}
So, these Jews said, fructify and multiply, that's God's
first commandment. And they go, and get married according to
Israel and Moshe, and increase the ranks of the Jewish people.
Yet, there are some crackpots, the Essenes, and they become
celibates. Why, not important here and now, they were not
the first crackpots. And then, some Jews decide to make
more interesting the boring Jewish tenets, and create,
unwittingly, a new religion, Christianiry. Now, the Catholics
get touched by the Essenes celibacy, and convert the EX of
SEX into the IN of SIN! Other Christians abhor this abnormalcy
and become protesters.
The central tenet of SEX = SIN has its ups and downs. From time to time there is a revival of the flagging beliefs. This is called "revivalism," although applied almost exclusively to the Pentecostal religion. (See "Crime and Punishment.")
What the poster says about flesh = meat = food, is
interesting, yet valid only when "cathected," meaning, when
charged with "libidinal energy," which is the emotional
energy mostly of the unconscious. Such equivalency cannot
affect a whole religion, only one individual.
Therefore, the present phenomenon of anorectic young women
is not new. It is the times which are new, ever changing.
There is a revivalism now of this tragic sex = sin mess-up.
No psychologist is going to make a mark on this periodic
phenomenon. Let it flare up and then burn down, do not
waste time, smell the free aroma of the flowers in the
wild, make garlands of them for your hair, and strive to be
happy with what you have. Use your brains in order to make
order, not disorder. (See God and the Big Bang.)
Serendipians, wherever you are, tomorrow I am off for Jerusalem, shall return in three days, must retire now, wrote this in a jiffy, no time for any corrections or HTML.
To SPIRITUS:
On 17 Oct 1997, we continued our dialog, and you permitted me to post it at Serendip. I'm doing that now...
I think that once again we are agreeing on the same points here, but simply
choosing incongruous words with which to do it. The only point I really had
there, was that all learning comes from experience, so a strong desire to
learn almost tautologically equates to a strong desire to sample from all of
life's experiences. To limit experience is to limit learning. (Whether this
is 'good' or 'bad' is a moral --and, I believe, personal-- decision...).
Too sweeping! Mostly we learn vicariously, by using our senses passively: reading and listening. A strong desire to learn leads mainly
to a house of study, to books and the like. Desiring to learn by 'sampling'
life's experiences will teach the limited input you get from it. Pleasant, certainly can be, and if you waft through it unscathed, it may be a source of delightful memories and practical lessons. Please enlighten me on a 'sampling' experience which furnished you with essential applicable knowledge, in the strict sense of the concept. I must insist on Linguistic Analysis to convey alethic ideas capable of meaningful dialogue.
I left serotonin alone for now to discuss this.. This line of reasoning
comes from 'experimental' (experiential?) evidence I gained while
conducting mind experiments into the nature of what I call the 'Belief
Tree'. Without boring you with too much detail, I essentially perceive
that most people that we would consider of 'normal' mental health, are
anchored to a definite belief structure with which they identify themselves,
e.g., "I am a Christian", "I am a Jew", "I am an engineer", "I am a good
person."
Experimental, indeed. Experiential too, since you were the subject. Where from did you get the credentials for experimenting scientifically? People fixated on a given immutable personality are not normal; they are rigid and cling to it for protection against anxiety, the latter being the key existential determinant of their apparently irrational behavior.
If this structure is not challenged significantly in any way, it gains
strength and becomes a consistent 'ground plane' from which this person may
act comfortably and securely. Problems for this person only arise if this
structure is challenged in some significant way. If the structure is too
'rigid,' it may not withstand change without breaking entirely. If the
challenge is to a subconscious or "core belief" -- it is usually responded to with some form of primal 'fight or flight' mechanism.
Well put! Compare with my words immediately above: yours are the same ideas, expressed in plain language, employing quotes instead of pompously saying: 'people who appear to be within the range of mental normalcy,' or saying 'core belief' instead of 'fixation.' Using the terms 'subconscious' and 'unconscious' is fraught with dangers, since they are quite different in meaning. 'Fight or flight': correct, and they are the mechanisms of response to the anxiety aroused by the challenge you mention.
So, after spending our entire lives building this belief tree (which
basically consists of a series of interrelated decisions, with
'generations' of decisions based on parents' and grandparents'
decisions etc.), what happens, if we successfully challenge and overthrow
one (or more) of the fundamental (core) beliefs near the top of the tree? The answer is, that all childhood beliefs not anchored to another unchallenged 'sibling' belief, potentially become invalidated, or at very least, warrant reexamination. Hence we have 'puberty blues', 'midlife crises', 'menopause', and a whole range of other 'change of life' psychological illnesses. So, what does this have to do with schizophrenia and ego-states and their like?
"...building this belief tree..." Are you sure? Isn't the tree being built without our being aware? How can we challenge-- and less, overthrow--- unconsciously created fixations? What I'd like to add is that perhaps a "Low Serotonin Mental Status" has much to do with the liability to falling into psychoneurotic personality problems. This is a rather new concept of mine, I believe, which would lead to early diagnoses and supplemental preventive measures. As for adults now, supplements after correct diagnosis might prevent the 'blues' and other mental suffering related to 'transition states'.
Well, if you hadn't already guessed, a strong ego results from firm
identification with one of these core beliefs (and hence, with its associated 'siblings').
'Strong' applied to the ego is not the correct adjective. Preferably, 'robust.' There is a contradiction here, since a 'core' belief is actually an abnormality, termed 'fixation.' A robust ego allows for flexibility.
Multiple ego states result from changing identification with different core beliefs. If the change is high up in the tree and the associated 'siblings' are quite unique to that particular branch (i.e., there are no, or few, cross links to other branches), then we might see the kind of drastic behavioral swings we associate with 'multiple personality' phenomena (I'm loathe to blanket them with the word 'disorder'). At a smaller scale we all shift beliefs regularly on a daily basis, as we 'change hats' to suit our situation, 'Doctor', 'Father, 'Husband', 'Teacher', 'Pupil', 'Judge', 'Lover'....
A 'strong' ego actually doesn't identify with a given personality. Such
identification is a defense mechanism. An unconstrained --robust-- ego automatically adopts the 'hat' required for the given circumstances. I would think that the basis for 'multiple egos' is biological, with special
life circumstances creating the problem, which then can be psychoanalytically reversed, although the biological basis remains.
Good points! I shot all this from the hip (so to speak) and it did turn
into more of a rant than I intended...It was supposed to be a simple
description of a human response structure that I have observed, but the act of describing it was not as simple as I thought! Perhaps I should replace the word 'strong' with 'stable' (relatively 'constant/unchanging'). People who tend to have most of their answers already decided upon and to do things 'by the book' (at least their own edition of it, anyway), are perhaps the sort we may refer to as 'narrow-minded'.
'Strive' together with 'static'? An oxymoron!
I'm happy with your definition of unconstrained ego, though it was not what
I had meant by 'strong', but what I believe to be the 'ideal'. A situation where we do not hang blindly by a single set of universal beliefs
but rather intelligently, adopting changing beliefs that are appropriate to each situation as it arises.
Nature's shining model is evolution and change, so why do so many of us strive to be static?
It isn't "brains", "philosophy", or exchange of new ideas.
It is posts like this one, posted by him on 10/7/98, and similar ones, posted either under his name or aliases such as Trogly etc.
******** line deleted by webmaster ********** http://www.sabra.net/SABRABoard/society/
You can learn there a lot more about human behavir than in what's in Ghitis' long posts.
Speaking of embedded codes, someone needs to re-introduce the appropriate html "closing tags" to reset all this underlining and non-default font.
...And, on the presupposition that the following programming is going to work...
..Presto!
There, isn't that better? :)
...a former BMC Alumnus
And, if at first you don't fully succeed, (at the correct code)
...try, try again.
..And again. --What I'm trying to do in these posts is to un-embed the incorrect codes to return the page to the original defaults that were altered in some of the previous posts. It's not going well. :)
And now for my comments regarding Blindsight... Intriguing concept --and real result. After a few test attempts to be able to settle on settings that would yield responses that were predominantly, "I don't think I saw.." or "I didn't see.." (Settings: speed=1, radius=4, contrast=1), I took the test with about forty iterations. Of the ones that I saw, I scored 100%; of those that I thought I saw, I scored also 100%; but finally, surprising to me, of those that I did not see, I scored 56%! Fascinating, all of this.
And as explanation of the last three posts, I suppose there are those of us who can be just a little too tenacious in the value to implement correct html code (and other areas) —simply because I felt that it was correct, and that it would make the rest of the posts easier to read. My attempts and efforts were to fix a problem that probably most people would've walked away from. But I suspect most Mawrters understand this, right? :)
In case there are any who are interested in seeing my --hopefully html correct-- websites, the first and second (newly underway) are at those links.
Jacob Ghitis, M.D.
The following is the link to my new Page:
I am not taking this course, but am interested in this discussion.
What are all these thoughts concerning the nature/origin of behavior? It is amusing and interesting to entertain notions of some intangible forces having some control over the behavior of human beings. But, let’s think for a moment. Actually, let’s think empirically for a moment. If some "force" is not observable, it is beyond the realm of science. If you are in the proximity of someone who is physically ill, and then develop similar symptoms of illness, do you ask yourself if the person you were exposed to was possessed by "evil forces" or do you wonder how the virus/bacteria entered your system? Do you wonder over the infinite permutations and combinations of what is possible or do you use the principle of parsimony? Questioning whether or not there is a "god" is analogous to questioning whether or not you got sick from those dreaded "evil forces." If a thing cannot be observed, it cannot offer itself to scientific examination. Before the scientific method emerged, you may have had your arteries opened to cure your illness. Hell, it was "possible" that bloodletting would cure you. Our universe could be a speck of dust in an infinitely larger universe; which could be a speck of dust in an infinitely larger universe; and so on. All this is "possible", but it is most probable that such speculation is ludicrous and potentially dangerous. If there is no empirical evidence – nothing that can be tested with the scientific method – don’t satisfy some emotional need to explain something that cannot be explained. Yes, it may someday be empirically feasible to know and explain everything concerning our existence, but until that day, let’s not waste our time pondering untestable possibilities.
So, I’m an empiricist. I think the reader understands my thoughts on the subject of "god" and what is possible. Trying to be as arrogant and pompous as possible (while still being correct!), the only realistic viewpoint for an intelligent and educated human being to have regarding the existence of such possibilities is that of agnosticism. Because there is no direct evidence that supports or denies the existence of a "god," it is not rational to be an atheist or a believer.
Why is there such an emphasis on the unobservable when it comes to discussing human behavior? I guess we like to feel that we are somehow more important than we are. It is comforting emotionally to think that we are all part of some "plan." I’m more interested in the observable "truth" than feeling good.
Back to the brain/behavior conundrum. Everything that we can observe; everything that science has to offer regarding this immense, leviathan of a brain-teaser points to the brain being the source of all behavior. We must, however, have a biological support mechanism for the brain. I would think that it would be obvious to most that if we yanked the brain and central nervous system out of any individual human being, there wouldn’t be much "behaving" following such a procedure. The brain needs its support mechanism in order for it to remain "functional."
Sorry for the sarcasm and arrogance of my writing but the mere idea of debating whether an unobservable "god" is responsible for our behavior is intellectually repulsive to me. We are not far removed from a time in our history when "witches" and other "evil" forces were viewed to affect our behavior. Human beings were persecuted or killed because others believed that they were "possessed" with unseen forces. And it was fear of the "unknown possibilities" (and probably the search for power) that drove their tormentors. Let’s not revert to those "glory days."
I am now thinking of Carl Sagan. I wish I could be as articulate and eloquent as he was in his defense of science and rational thought. In his book, "The Demon Haunted World," he stressed the importance of logic and the scientific method. He also warned of the pitfalls of believing in such "mystical" things as the power of crystals and "ESP." I feel that I am doing Sagan a great disservice just by mentioning his name. I know I am not as persuasive and mellifluous as he was. (Yes, I looked up "mellifluous" in the thesaurus!) But, in any case, I’m getting tired of this. Why don’t we all just go out and join a cult? Thats a form of behavior.
Crick and Koch
Crick and Koch’s use of visual consciousness to explore consciousness did not seem to be very thorough. This could very well result from my own misunderstanding of their article however. However, I do believe that much of their paper was fairly unclear. For example they mention that they believe that the number of neurons in a group which might be a representation of a face is probably closer to 100-1,00 than 10,000-1,000,000 without giving any discernable support for this hypothesis. Another question arises from their hypothesis that the brain "always tries to use the quickest appropriate pathway for the situation at hand". How would the brain know what is the most appropriate pathway? And what higher conscious process has ultimate control in determining this? I believe that it is questions such as these that make it impossible for visual consciousness to be used as a possible model for other forms of consciousness as Crick and Koch intended which is the impression that I was under. Another aspect of their argument that I find puzzling is that regarding the relation of the encoding of the visual neurons to that of the motor neurons used for speech, for example. Crick and Koch mention that they theorize that information must be recoded when one wishes to talk about a certain visual image, but I do not seem to see any proof that they have for this or even why the information is necessarily "recoded". Another semantical problem I had with this paper was that Crick and Koch never seemed to define what a bistable precept was. The major fault of their paper in general seems to be lack of proof. Maybe for someone who has more background knowledge about the topic of the neural correlates of consciousness the article would not seem as confusing but I found it generally to be fairly uninformative due to the lack of support for many of their theories.
March 28, 1999
Unconscious Vision
I enjoyed Lawrence Weiskrantz’s article on the phenomenon of blindsight. I thought it brought up some valid possible starting points for looking at and understanding the mechanisms behind unconscious thought. From what I understood from the article, Weiskrantz’s basic argument is that blindsight results from neural connections outside of the main connections to the visual cortex. In the situation of blindsight, individuals who claim they cannot see after damage or removal of part or all of their visual cortex still perform better than chance on various visual tasks such as discriminating between vertical or horizontal lines, locating objects, etc. So even though this individuals with blindsight do not consciously see an object, the information about the object is getting into their brains.
Weiskrantz and other researchers make the logical hypothesis that blindsight is due to connections that the optic nerve makes with regions of the brain outside of the visual cortex, including the superior colliculus. They suggest that other areas of the brain that receive this neural input continue to process vision when the visual cortex is not functioning. It was unclear to me after reading this article if the author proposes that these other neural networks are activated solely in the absence of the typical visual processing or if they are typically part of the visual subconscious. If this is what they are suggesting, it seems to be a reasonable theory. It could possibly explain not only visual subconsciousness but other senses as well such as hearing. For example, maybe an explanation for why we sometimes pick up information that we do not consciously remember hearing but must have heard is that the auditory neurons are going to other parts of the brain which can also process the information, just not in a conscious format. I am still unclear as to how one could extrapolate this information to understand abstract thought processes, it does seem to be a promising place to start understanding basic sensory consciousness.
April 12, 1999
Artificial Intelligence
For this paper I decided to discuss the article by Nicholas Humphrey "The private world of consciousness". The concept of artificial intelligence seems to be gaining more popularity in this age of computers. One does not necessarily have to be involved with the sciences or philosophy to be interested in this topic. Artificial intelligence is even the topic of current science fiction movies. However there are complications with the idea that there can be symbolic representation of thoughts which can be physical entities that can therefore be programmed into a computer so that computer can therefore manipulate these symbols to create conscious thoughts. And these problems stem from more then the dilemma that we don’t exactly know how to program these symbols. The subjective quality of feelings is still missing. This is what Humphrey discusses in his article. Humphrey spends a considerable portion of the article talking about how the subjective quality of sensations evolved and this is the point where he looses me. He argues that "natural selection can only act on those features of an organism that make a difference to its chances of survival. And it follows that there can only have been selection for the quality of sensory perception if this quality has a public effect – which apparently, it does not". It is on this point that I disagree with Humphrey to a certain extent. To a certain degree, the quality of sensory perception does have a public effect. It must have been important for our ancestors to evolve some sort of similar perception. Everyone would need to see colors in approximately the same way so that, for example, one of our ancestors could tell the dark red berries from the lighter ones because those were poisonous. Admittedly, once as long as we all have the same basic sensory perceptions, more detailed perceptions could evolve that could be individual and for which natural selection could not act upon due to the privacy of these subjective experiences. It seems to be that Humphrey is entirely correct in pointing out how the subjective experience of perception is often overlooked in AI models. I believe that that is why a top-down approach to AI would not work. I believe that we need to know more about the neural networks of qualitative feelings before we can create a program to artificially create intelligence.
Isn’t that the same type of thing that we see when we recognize a voice (speech pattern), or a gait (walking pattern) or any other kind of motor symphony. They are all different from each other but again they possess all of the necessary components to make them recognizable as being what they are. But within the pattern of each individual voice or walk are variations that can be again attributed to huge number of causes. The person who displays the voice or walk might be frightened or cold, or sick or hurt, etc, which would produce variability within that person’s own unique pattern. Again it is the patterns that make something recognizable as itself. A motor symphony that produces walking we have concluded is caused by a pattern generator. But that pattern has variability within itself.
When Professor Grobstein, studies frog behavior and sees variations
in the snapping behavior of any individual frog or the fact that a frog
does not snap when presented with a worm he concludes that variability
is part of the pattern of behavior that frogs exhibit.
And clearly as we have seen and everyone is thinking and talking about
after last week’s Colorado events, patterns of behaviors, while clearly
possessing the qualities of being behavior are sometimes unimaginably unpredictable.
Why are incarnate objects (snowflakes, rocks, etc) and all living things
(animals, plants, cells) different from each other but each still possessing
qualities of patterns that make them identifiable as belonging to a particular
classification? I’ve been thinking about that question by extending our
metaphor of the nervous system as being a series of boxes, to the natural
world as boxes within boxes, within boxes? I have a sense (for what ever
that’s worth) that one of the reasons has to do with the fact that the
myriad of possibilities for the arrangements of things or organisms within
themselves (creating individual examples) or in combination with each other
do produce unlimited possibilities of combinations. Therefore any
and all organisms which exhibit behaviors must posses the qualities necessary
to behave, i.e. have responses that recognizes variations/sameness and
respond/behave in ways that have intrinsic variability.
| Brain and Behavior Forum | Brain and Behavior | Serendip Home | |