Individual, read Osbourne's original post and you'll see that he wondered if one needs to keep an open mind...
Quote:One implication of this (if it's true) might be that it's necessary to intentionally prevent a previously set idea from being triggered as a reaction to previously experienced stimulus (ideas). In this way, "keeping an open mind" might be the effort required to block pre-set neural paths.
I think that, in the case of trauma, it is impossible to keep an open mind--the trauma was too powerful to make that option possible. Keep in mind that I have no professional knowledge, just a long life's experience.
Now I'm off to bed, to sleep, perchance to dream.
Diane,
My first thought, regarding humans and this story, was that adult brains and much younger brains were simply working with different initial assumptions. This argument works perfectly for adult brains with their loss of innocence due to many years of life experience but decays into ambiguity regarding extremely young CNS tissue possessing higher cortical functions (juvenile brains--why didn't I say that to begin with?) My point is, if both types of brains make an "assumption" what is the originality of that the younger possesses and at what point is this no longer considered an assumption, in the classical case, being influenced by past "Life Experiences"? Is there a point in the development of human neural tissue where we can say that thinking is genetically originated and totally uninfluenced by external influences? This might be some hint at the answer to rosborne's original question but, I fear, it may merely shift the ultimate question back to our mammalian ancestors.
(Sorry rosborne, but I can't pull out of this backward extrapolation thing when it comes to evolution.)
As he (rosborne ) and others have pointed out the ability to learn a language (in the sense that we all learn its use and our thought processes are influenced by that specific "tongue") has a relatively small window of time involved. It seems most of us have great difficulty with a second language. Indeed, this acquisition of a second tongue attempted after, say, 5 years of age, requires a combination of linguistic abilities and many hours of study or "immersion" in the language being acquired (personally I feel much human suffering is created by requiring those, of High School age, to learn a second language) . I will not attempt to expound on any theories relating to language actuating different thought processes for the reverse may equally be true and, in addition, a language is itself in constant flux due to the society in which itself is immersed, therefore there are just too many variables for me to sort out.
Diane:
Regarding your statement:
"What is amazing to me is that our brains can work so quickly to connect to a reflex that is not appropriate to the event. You'd think that a reflex would be too immediate for that to happen."
Perhaps you might reconsider the use of the adjective "appropriate" in the context of the above statement. The use of the word "consideration" implies a thought process, whereas a reflex action is a more immediate action directed towards basic survival that by definition requires absolutely no thought process, at least at the level of human neuronal activity. Please forgive me if I have offended rather than informed.
JM
P.S. Diane I noticed your quote from Teddy Roosevelt. I had asked for suggested reading about this great American on a "book thread" here on A2K but was either ignored or asked the question in the wrong thread. Any suggestions by yourself (or others) would be much obliged.
Sorry, but this just occured to me: perhaps the assumption of the child was that the adult was omnipotent, and god like and essentially was immune to any earthly pressures that might work against this belief. There we go! Its not rocket science but...I gotta go!
JM, when I read my post, I realized that 'appropriate' was inappropriate, but was too tired to change it.
A child's brain is amazing isn't it? I'm sure that their innocence allows for acceptance rather than assumptions based on experience, in terms of reflex reactions; but do you think there would be a different reflex if they had had a traumatic experience? Even the youngest child can be traumatized, but they don't have the ability to verbalize their reaction, so it isn't possible to really know if this is the case. I'm rambling and wondering, not making a statement.
Don't give a thought to the possibility of offending me with your comment. I enjoy this discussion and appreciate any suggestions. Too often, the (self-named) professionals in these threads either condescend or ignore those who offer ideas rather than professionally based opinions.
As for Teddy, I haven't read anything about him in years. Without being able to give you a title, there is a book of his letters that I enjoyed. Epistolary novels or histories give such a personal view into the life of the subject--they give an intimate picture that isn't found in books that focus more on the major accomplishments of the person's life. If I remember correctly, Desmond Morris wrote a couple of books about Roosevelt.
Hey, good stuff.
Quote:JM, what a wonderfu example of how different a child's brain is to that of an adult. Children are still capable of fantasy and even of making something in which they believe into reality in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary.
Watching various press conferences these days, I'm not at all convinced that we lose our ability or need to jump into the fantasy realm every now and then. (Ladies and gentlemen, we got him. A-yup, we're all John Wayne cowboys, not West Point geeks. A-yup.)
(Apologies for the diversion. Nothing to add that hasn't already been said more intelligently and succinctly than I would've said it. Just that it's definitely my impression from looking at this stuff that the very last thing to exert its influence in responding to a stimulus is the higher, conscious brain. Stands to reason, since it's been around the shortest time, and lots of other animals are getting around with little more than a swollen brain stem.)
This is very interesting indeed. It seems to justify the Taoist approach to life, which is keep the mind as an uncarved block, to think with a child's eyes.
The innocence of children is a comforting myth. Children can be exceptionally and intentionally cruel.
It occurs to me to take the question of the thread literally. Do I have "reflex" thoughts? Yes, all the time, and not just in response to external stimuli. Once an equation is well-learned, it can be used with little conscious thought as to why it works. Sadly, this is true of an equation that is ill-learned, too.
patiodog wrote:It occurs to me to take the question of the thread literally. Do I have "reflex" thoughts? Yes, all the time, and not just in response to external stimuli. Once an equation is well-learned, it can be used with little conscious thought as to why it works. Sadly, this is true of an equation that is ill-learned, too.
I suppose in some ways the answer to my original question is obvious (as you noted). After all, it seems to be common knowledge that people become "set in their ways". But for me, looking at it from a neuron pathway point of view gives a different perspective on *why* people get set in their ways.
Instead of saying "set in our ways" maybe it should be "set in our thoughts".
Interesting also that the image of a well worn neural pathway fits nicely with the expression "stuck in a rut". Makes me wonder if our choice of phrasing is an expression of the way our thought systems work.
It is fascinating stuff, when you start to get the little bits of detail we know. Didn't understand the flap about Christopher Reeve's limited recovery until I found out the medical significance -- rehabilitating neural pathways they'd thought had to be worked on in a very short time frame or not at all. The ability to reconfigure the synapse -- to move dendrites around -- is so astonishingly simple and elegant. I love it. More interesting than just generating (or regenerating) new cells.
Turns out those amoeba were on to something.
Other animals can hear a wider spectrum of frequencies than us, yet they haven't developed complex speech. I wonder why.
Individual wrote:Other animals can hear a wider spectrum of frequencies than us, yet they haven't developed complex speech. I wonder why.
Why? It's just the way the genetic dice happened to land, along with the selective forces that matter to the species. Our species had a propensity to benefit from the acquisition of complex linguistic symbology. Other species have less potential to benefit from the small variations which occurred for us.
For instance, an animal that is already an effective killing machine (like a big cat) probably benefits less from complex communication than does an apelike creature that depends on a group for survival.
Variation and selection work together; merely having a variety of senses or skills doesn't imply that those things will be molded over time. A selective force is required as well. And for things which are already surviving well using different skills, the selective force is turned in a different direction.
Best Regards,
