The subconscious

[too-open-minded]

when I say evolutionary history, i'm not talking just homospiens i'm talking all the way back down to a single celled organism. Now ofcourse single celled organisms don't have emotions but at some point in our evolutionary history we became animals and those animals thrived off of fear and anger. Fear drove them to escape from danger and anger allowed them to have the courage to defend against it.

[Ringer]

I seriously and very much doubt it. Language is simply learned at a young age and then is used as much of the template for thought. Language exists outside of higher brain functions even though most higher brain functions primarily use language and idiomatic symbolism assiociated with language.

Well, I'm glad that your doubt doesn't change the fact that evidence strongly implies that there is an instinctual factor in the ability to learn, use, and respond to language. Language is not just learned at a young age, it is learned at an age where one doesn't have basic problem solving skills, let alone the ability to comprehend arbitrary, infinitely complex patterns. Yet children do, and not only do they, they do it without any sort of instruction. They don't just learn words, they learn grammar, syntax, slight phoneme changes that represent past and present tense, homophones, semantics, etc. This is not something you can just write off as, "Oh, they just learn it, no problem." Not to mention saying that people use language as a template for thought is getting it backwards. Have you ever known something and not been able to explain it? Then you just proved language is not the template for thought.

 

So what are you defining as higher level brain function, because it's not any one I've ever heard of if you are leaving out the cerebral cortex.

Human language is not indicative of any intelligence any more than the simplicity of frog language implies a lack of intelligence. Human language is simply the result of a random mutation that created a supersized speech center. This speech center was primary cause of language and human ability to seem intelligent since we can pass down knowledge from generation to generation.

I never said it was indicative of intelligence, I don't see where you got that. Don't straw-man me.

 

Please cite the source where language is the result of one random mutation. . . Actually don't waste your time, just be content knowing that is incorrect.

Humans simply are not much smarter (or necessarily any smarter) than other animals. There might be no more clever animal but this isn't the same as intelligence. Humans have a few advantages in thought with language being chief among them.

As I have said in the other thread, define "smart", "clever" and "intelligence". Otherwise this discussion will be pointless.

[too-open-minded]

I'm sure we evolved crying, smiling, faciel expression and physical expression for communication. We have been communicating for a long, long, long time. Somewhere along the lines, i'm sure we have adapted to communicating so good ole evolution is gonna make sure to instill that in us.

[cladking]

Well, I'm glad that your doubt doesn't change the fact that evidence strongly implies that there is an instinctual factor in the ability to learn, use, and respond to language. Language is not just learned at a young age, it is learned at an age where one doesn't have basic problem solving skills, let alone the ability to comprehend arbitrary, infinitely complex patterns. Yet children do, and not only do they, they do it without any sort of instruction. They don't just learn words, they learn grammar, syntax, slight phoneme changes that represent past and present tense, homophones, semantics, etc. This is not something you can just write off as, "Oh, they just learn it, no problem." Not to mention saying that people use language as a template for thought is getting it backwards. Have you ever known something and not been able to explain it? Then you just proved language is not the template for thought.

 

So what are you defining as higher level brain function, because it's not any one I've ever heard of if you are leaving out the cerebral cortex.

I never said it was indicative of intelligence, I don't see where you got that. Don't straw-man me.

 

Please cite the source where language is the result of one random mutation. . . Actually don't waste your time, just be content knowing that is incorrect. As I have said in the other thread, define "smart", "clever" and "intelligence". Otherwise this discussion will be pointless.

 

Almost every idiot learns language. This probably applies to animals as well but we don't know because we don't know the meaning, nature, or significance of any animal language. If language implied intelligence then the cleverest and most complicated language users should certainly be able to figure out every language We don't. It isn't. And your assumptions are all wrong.

 

Humans suddenly started showing signs of the behaviors we associate with being human about 50,000 years ago. Logically this would seem to indicate something changed. Logically if this change was the ability to pass down skills and knowledge then this would imply a sudden acquisition of language. We can rule out the possibility they found a McGuffy reader from the future or another planet and this leaves the most plausible explanation to be the sudden acquisition of the ability to use language and this implies a mutation of some sort. This is derived from the evidence and logic. It virtually seems self evident.

 

The suggestion that you can measure or understand anyone's intelligence without a clear understanding of the way uses and processes knowledge is tantamount to saying it is legitimate to make a human construct for measuring that individual's ability to comprehend nature and manipulate knowledge. Essentially you are saying that words are sufficient to not only understand an animal's mind but to gauge its ability to learn. You can't because any such construct will be based on our understanding. Yes, you can make numerous general statements about differences that are almost positively true like a whale's ability to think spatially and know its depth under the water's surface is better than a rabbit's or most peoples' . But what have you really learned after doing the exhaustive study to prove such things? No matter what you find it will be only true to the degree the definitions are true and these definitions will be words that apply primarily to humans and not to the real world. It will be a construct with man as the pinnacle of creation. It can not apply to any animal at all unless we understand that metaphysics. The construct will end up being nothing more than words which rates animal ability to think like humans. In any real world terms it will be meaningless.

 

I believe our efforts would be more likely rewarded in trying to understand animals and there is some progress in this dirwection over the past few decades. It might have been more educational to start with the simplest animals but at least there's a start.

[Ringer]

Almost every idiot learns language. This probably applies to animals as well but we don't know because we don't know the meaning, nature, or significance of any animal language. If language implied intelligence then the cleverest and most complicated language users should certainly be able to figure out every language We don't. It isn't. And your assumptions are all wrong.

They're not assumptions, they are findings in the field of psycholinguistics.

 

Again, I have never said language implies intelligence.

Humans suddenly started showing signs of the behaviors we associate with being human about 50,000 years ago. Logically this would seem to indicate something changed. Logically if this change was the ability to pass down skills and knowledge then this would imply a sudden acquisition of language. We can rule out the possibility they found a McGuffy reader from the future or another planet and this leaves the most plausible explanation to be the sudden acquisition of the ability to use language and this implies a mutation of some sort. This is derived from the evidence and logic. It virtually seems self evident.

What specific behaviors are you referring to?

 

Anatomically identical homosapiens developed ~250,000 years ago. They were in southern Asia ~60,000 years ago so, I highly doubt those isolated populations all developed language and whatever else you identify with human associated behaviors? I believe the generally accepted time language developed is at least 100,000 years.

The suggestion that you can measure or understand anyone's intelligence without a clear understanding of the way uses and processes knowledge is tantamount to saying it is legitimate to make a human construct for measuring that individual's ability to comprehend nature and manipulate knowledge. Essentially you are saying that words are sufficient to not only understand an animal's mind but to gauge its ability to learn. You can't because any such construct will be based on our understanding. Yes, you can make numerous general statements about differences that are almost positively true like a whale's ability to think spatially and know its depth under the water's surface is better than a rabbit's or most peoples' . But what have you really learned after doing the exhaustive study to prove such things? No matter what you find it will be only true to the degree the definitions are true and these definitions will be words that apply primarily to humans and not to the real world. It will be a construct with man as the pinnacle of creation. It can not apply to any animal at all unless we understand that metaphysics. The construct will end up being nothing more than words which rates animal ability to think like humans. In any real world terms it will be meaningless.

 

So we can't use words to explain what we mean when having a discussion? It would seem this whole discussion is moot then.

I believe our efforts would be more likely rewarded in trying to understand animals and there is some progress in this dirwection over the past few decades. It might have been more educational to start with the simplest animals but at least there's a start.

We have been attempting to understand animals since the beginnings of science and before.

[cladking]

 

 

They're not assumptions, they are findings in the field of psycholinguistics.

 

 

Everybody has to define things and have axioms at the root. Soft "sciences" also have many axioms that have more in common with assumptions.

 

 

 

What specific behaviors are you referring to?

 

 

 

...Apparent "religious" behaviors (probably ritual); burying the dead, jewelry wearing, ornament and icon, etc.

 

Earliers "humans" appear to have been more like clever animals. They might have passed down most learning by example and communicated with grunts and gestures. Real knowledge is visceral and even animals can pass down complex behavior like stone flaking, fire making, or nest building.

 

 

I believe the generally accepted time language developed is at least 100,000 years.

 

 

I've seen various. I don't know but the authors whom I most trust tend to suggest a later time period. This later time period also seems to better fit my theories since I believe human advancement was linear up until 2000 BC.

 

 

 

So we can't use words to explain what we mean when having a discussion? It would seem this whole discussion is moot then.We have been attempting to understand animals since the beginnings of science and before.

 

We all have horrid conversational skills because of the nature of language. We spend far too little time understanding (sharing) definitions. We tend to have our minds made up long before we discuss anything so argument and fact tend to be irrelevant.

 

Again, I have never said language implies intelligence.

 

Ask yourself this; do you believe you are intelligent. Many of the things people say imply this belief. Most people believe they are far smarter than animals. I believe most people really are smarter than most animals but that all modern humans grossly overestimate human intelligence and underestimate animal intelligence significantly.

 

Almost every single thing people will cite in support of human intelligence has more to do with habit and language. Thought is mostly just habit once we reach adulthood and often becomes increasingly inflexible with age. We have experience (visceral knowledge) with things like swimming upstream or moving into an opposing force so we mistakingly think a plane couldn't take off from a conveyor belt. We are constantly making misstatements of fact. We have the belief that everything is known by someone or other. We tend to see that squirrels are more likely to get hit by a car than drive one and assume this is indicative of relative intelligence.

 

People simply don't understand animals but think we can use human constructs and human language in such ways as to apply to nature or nature's other creatures. It's not legitimate and it doesn't illuminate anything.

 

I realize this is somewhat off-topic but it does relate to peoples' belief in a sub-conscious indirectly. Most people aren't even willing to admit animals are conscious at all but believe humans are so brimming with the good things of life that we have ids and superegos that are just dying to get out and expresss themselves. Such beliefs are not founded on science and neither is our belief in animal intelligence or lack of it.

 

[Ringer]

Everybody has to define things and have axioms at the root. Soft "sciences" also have many axioms that have more in common with assumptions.

Funny that I said they were findings, meaning evidence points towards this being the case. Soft sciences has many problems, but it seems to get more information in these areas than philosophers using armchair wisdom.

 

 

 

...Apparent "religious" behaviors (probably ritual); burying the dead, jewelry wearing, ornament and icon, etc.

 

Earliers "humans" appear to have been more like clever animals. They might have passed down most learning by example and communicated with grunts and gestures. Real knowledge is visceral and even animals can pass down complex behavior like stone flaking, fire making, or nest building.

Earliest undisputed grave is 90,000 years (http://books.google.com/books?id=3tS2MULo5rYC&pg=PA163&dq=Uniquely+Human++qafzeh&ei=F-AeR_ntI5WGpgLkrsWzBg&sig=k7GcMq8PU_B6tX56Cf95ENxmJIQ#v=onepage&q=Uniquely Human qafzeh&f=false)

 

Evidence these behaviors are much older : http://www.originsnet.org/Harrod IACM 2010 PPT.pdf

 

 

 

 

I've seen various. I don't know but the authors whom I most trust tend to suggest a later time period. This later time period also seems to better fit my theories since I believe human advancement was linear up until 2000 BC.

Please cite them, the only one I know of who uses those dates was Chomsky. Plus this is a blatant admission to confirmation bias.

 

 

We all have horrid conversational skills because of the nature of language. We spend far too little time understanding (sharing) definitions. We tend to have our minds made up long before we discuss anything so argument and fact tend to be irrelevant.

WHAT?! I have asked you to share your definitions of words multiple times so we could communicate better. You have made statements, that doesn't make them facts. In a science setting you cite sources to show something has merit. So, let's forget my asking you for definitions, just cite sources with evidence that whatever claim you are making is the case.

 

 

Ask yourself this; do you believe you are intelligent. Many of the things people say imply this belief. Most people believe they are far smarter than animals. I believe most people really are smarter than most animals but that all modern humans grossly overestimate human intelligence and underestimate animal intelligence significantly.

What I believe is irrelevant to what data would show. As I have said multiple times, intelligence is an ill defined concept so depending on the definition used I could be both intelligent and unintelligent. Hence why I have asked for a definition.

 

Almost every single thing people will cite in support of human intelligence has more to do with habit and language. Thought is mostly just habit once we reach adulthood and often becomes increasingly inflexible with age. We have experience (visceral knowledge) with things like swimming upstream or moving into an opposing force so we mistakingly think a plane couldn't take off from a conveyor belt. We are constantly making misstatements of fact. We have the belief that everything is known by someone or other. We tend to see that squirrels are more likely to get hit by a car than drive one and assume this is indicative of relative intelligence.

It doesn't matter what most people do, I don't care what they believe or say, I didn't say it. Nor do I believe in he least that even most things are known by someone. If I did my hopes of doing research would be completely moot.

 

People simply don't understand animals but think we can use human constructs and human language in such ways as to apply to nature or nature's other creatures. It's not legitimate and it doesn't illuminate anything.

People simply don't understand Stars but think we can use human constructs and human language in such a way as to apply to nature or nature's other chemical factories. It's not legitimate and it doesn't illuminate anything

I realize this is somewhat off-topic but it does relate to peoples' belief in a sub-conscious indirectly. Most people aren't even willing to admit animals are conscious at all but believe humans are so brimming with the good things of life that we have ids and superegos that are just dying to get out and expresss themselves. Such beliefs are not founded on science and neither is our belief in animal intelligence or lack of it.

Show me scientists working in the field of consciousness who believe humans are the only conscious animal or that animals are not intelligent. Edited January 31, 2013 by Ringer

[Bill Angel]

 

You don't like the educational system? Well I'm beggining my scientific education in psychology to help make a better educational system. I've already made a thread about it but my system would involve emotional therapy, building self esteem, and actually teaching people of their "subconscious."

 

However things take time, Martin Luther King didn't live to see his dream along with many dreamers before him fold out to the way it is now dealing with racial discretions in this country.

Is the analysis of dreams something that can be done scientifically? If the brain is a machine like a computer, then it would seem that any activity that it engages in, including dreaming, should be amenable to scientific analysis.

 

Dreaming has been described as an information processing activity that functions to match new experience with representations of past events already stored in long-term memory. ~ Lillie Weiss, Dream analysis in psychotherapy, 1986, pp. 32-33, Psychology Practitioner Guidebooks, New York: Pergamon Press.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Bill Angel

[Popcorn Sutton]

A little while back, I came up with a hypothesis about consciousnesses, its an interactive process between knowledge, the cellular membrane, and the forces that adjust the shape of the two. There are plenty of reasons to believe this is true, especially when you research anesthesia. I'm not an expert about this but I've heard that it paralyzes the membrane by blocking something that interacts with it from within the cell.

 

But if youre referring to consciousness as being aware of thought, then yes the subconscious definitely exists. You can see this by looking at sentences like this.

 

He wondered if the mechanics fixed the cars.

 

How many cars did he wonder if the mechanics fixed?

 

*How many mechanics did he wonder if fixed the cars?

 

This is said to violate something called the empty category, which is clearly a subconscious process. All categories must be specified, even if they don't have a phonological component. This much is necessary for full interpretation of language (and probably behavior all together).

 

More examples that demonstrate the empty category below.

 

Do they expect to see each other?

*Do they expect to see John each other?

*Who do they expect to see each other?

 

Alot more to say about this but Ill stop there.

 

When you guys talk about instinct, I think youre referring to innateness. I cannot accept the premise that any descriptive regularities are innate and there is a very simple reason. Everything exists within the environment, and it is proximity that really determines these things. That explanation is generalizable for all observable phenomena.

 

I'm with iNow on this. The terms "belief" and "instinct" are completely vacuous.