Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

schu's picture

thoughts

We don’t usually say individual evolution, possibly because that people do not change physically despite the normal routine of aging, and that people’s thoughts are too hard to have a fixed definition of its nature. We can change our thoughts in one second only by one other thought or suggestion, but if thoughts still follow a certain pattern and if they are changing and developing in a collective way, the evolution of individual might come to light.

However, I doubt that frequent and random changes are the only left nature of thoughts. I tried to record my impromptu melody sometimes and listened to it after few months or even one year. It turned out that when I was listening to it, I could sing out the exactly the same melody synchronously with my record. This is not a famous melody or a rigorous composition, but it lies in my memory as a complete and fixed pattern, with my understanding of music. I could not remember it when you want me to sing, but as the first few seconds of my record rings out, I know it and I could sing it out. Is that a sign that thoughts could be a pattern which falls into a road to evolution?

Also, I don’t know if we are really focusing on one individual evolution while we have to give an extension to our in-class discussion. Which is more important? Maybe when we are trying to give proof that individual can evolve,  we still need more than one individual to show our point. I want to connect music and memory and Beethoven altogether, but the problem is how I can know about all aspects of his life, including his thoughts. And this leads to another question. Collection of data is required for a relatively objective empirical observation. We can see that in the evolution of one population. But when it comes to individual, which world and principles, like Russell’s student pointed out, are we referring to?

And what is more challenging is that, if babies can think and tell the truth, how do they do that without learning to have a human logic reasoning? Instinctions?  This may suggest a totally different understanding of reasoning, which is the foundation of all laws and regulations of human society. Or maybe the power babies have is just a prompt of nature suggesting that we can never be the smartest, and we could end up in involution or degeneration as we grow up.

Reply

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
15 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.