Reply Thu 14 Dec, 2006 09:49 am
Most people if not all, have a little voice in their heads that speaks to them at times. A thinker if you will. I'm curious .... if it were possible to listen in to another persons 'little voice', say, a Frenchman or a German, would the voice be speaking in French, German, or English?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 1,755 • Replies: 31
No top replies

 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Dec, 2006 10:16 am
This is a strange question !

I can tell you this. A 70 year old woman I know who left Poland as a child can no longer understand or speak Polish except within dreams of her childhood !
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Dec, 2006 10:30 am
For most people I would guess it is in their native language. Another twist is the accent in which you hear. Of course the one I typically hear is the accent I hear all around me - New England type accent.

However, I went for a trip in Europe and was there several weeks, the voice inside my head then began to take on the various accents I heard around me.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Dec, 2006 10:45 am
Trying to link the little voice to intellect in which case there would be a universal comprehension. For example, a person is born deaf, certainly the inability to hear would not deny said deaf person the little voice .... would his intellect then converse with him in sign language.

These are the pits I dig for myself while trimming my ear and nose hair .....
Did that come across as a visual or words?



Laughing
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Dec, 2006 11:19 am
There are poems in sign language with tactile puns and "alliteration". Also deaf people have been known to "fidget" thoughts (as in mouthing). Both of these imply the "voice" is in sign language.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Dec, 2006 11:27 pm
I would have little interest in anything a Frenchman had to say. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 11:10 pm
If the language of the little voice is in fact the voice of the 'intellect', then it would appear to be limited to the sophistication of the respective intellect. This would then suggest an intrinsic relationship with the little voice and intellect.
My question then would be: should the little voice be considered in the objective or subjective sense?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 12:39 am
Gelisgesti

Internal chatter has been considered by some as indicative of "the committee nature of self". According to this the idea of a constant single "I" is a delusion. In this sense "inner voices" are nether subjective nor objective but elements of our multifaceted personality arguing with each other for "control".
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 08:27 am
I seek the seat of the speaker, which I believe, lies north of the Übermensch and south of the super ego.[ 1/2 jokingly]
Then there is the translator, he processes the nuances of data transmitted through a vast system of receptors and transmitters into a silent exchange of fungible data. All within a heart beat. Considering that every thing is external to my consciousness or awareness and I don't issue an implicit command to activate the speaker his presence is autonomous yet still intrinsic. In short, this is how we learn.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 05:30 pm
Gelisgesti

You seem to be ignoring current trends which see "consciousness" as "process". According to this there is no entity which "has" thoughts. Nor is there such a thing as "data" which is independent of an active perception process (as opposed to a passive receptor system)..."data" is that which is "significant" and significance is observer specific.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 08:47 pm
I'm bi-lingual -- English and ASL -- and my "little voice" goes back and forth. It's usually English but depending on the situation it is sometimes ASL.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 09:00 pm
The little voice in my head is a mixture of Kunema and Kanarese, which, because I am not familiar with either language, explains the muddled thought process which I have to deal with on a daily basis.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 11:35 pm
fresco wrote:
Gelisgesti

You seem to be ignoring current trends which see "consciousness" as "process". According to this there is no entit'y which "has" thoughts. Nor is there such a thing as "data" which is independent of an active perception process (as opposed to a passive receptor system)..."data" is that which is "significant" and significance is observer specific.


I am ignoring nothing. What is processed to produce consciousness? From toe tip to noggin top there are nerve impulses transmitted to an appropriate area of the brain for processing. The 'optic nerve' for instance;

Quote:
#
Optic nervenew windowshow in clusters
Wikipedia image The optic nerve is the nerve that transmits visual information from the retina to the brain. The optic nerve is the second of twelve paired cranial nerves but is considered to be part of the central nervous system as it is derived from an outpouching of the diencephalon during embryonic development. Consequently, the fibers are covered with myelin produced by oligodendrocytes rather than the Schwann cells of the peripheral nervous system. This is an important issue, as fiber tracks of the mammalian central nervous system (as opposed to the peripheral nervous system) are incapable of regeneration and hence optic nerve damage produces irreversible blindness. The fibers from the retina run along the optic nerve to nine primary visual nuclei in the brain, from whence a major relay inputs into the primary visual cortex.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_nerve
#

I don't understand how a human could be described as having no thoughts. Thoughts are what it is all about ....
Your last sentence was redundant unless I mis-read iy. Information such as is carried in the optic nerve is either data or worthless electrical activity.
I still seek the seat of the speaker.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 11:50 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
The little voice in my head is a mixture of Kunema and Kanarese, which, because I am not familiar with either language, explains the muddled thought process which I have to deal with on a daily basis.


Gus, sorry to hear about your problem. Try this ..... take a baseball bat and put the big end on the ground ... hold the small end or 'grip' against your forehead so that the bat is in a vertical position. Now, in this position walk around the bat in a counter clockwise direction 20 times. Then drop the bat and stand up. this should clear things up for you .... repeat as needed.




I am no expert but I drove past a Days Inn this morning;)
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 01:25 am
Gelisgesti

The lay picture of "a human being having thoughts" is in fact the starting point for demolition teams wearing philosophy and psychology hats. In particular, the relationship between "neurology" and "(self) consciousness" is far from being "understood" or even being formulated in way which can be investigated. This link gives you an idea of the range of opinion.

http://consc.net/online.html

You may find amongst some of the above that your question "what is being processed ?" can be deconstructed by the concept of "process" as a two way interaction between "organism" and "environment". (....Observer in state 1 sees the world as A..... which shifts observer to state 2 which sees the world as B...and so on. Observer and observed are mutually co-existent within "process")
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 08:41 am
fresco wrote:
Gelisgesti

The lay picture of "a human being having thoughts" is in fact the starting point for demolition teams wearing philosophy and psychology hats. In particular, the relationship between "neurology" and "(self) consciousness" is far from being "understood" or even being formulated in way which can be investigated. This link gives you an idea of the range of opinion.

http://consc.net/online.html

You may find amongst some of the above that your question "what is being processed ?" can be deconstructed by the concept of "process" as a two way interaction between "organism" and "environment". (....Observer in state 1 sees the world as A..... which shifts observer to state 2 which sees the world as B...and so on. Observer and observed are mutually co-existent within "process")

I think you are describing form while I am dealing or trying to deal with function. You are saying the brain is located in the head while I am asking where in the brain do you place the origin of the speaker. as far as consciousness is concerned I feel it lies in close proximity to the speaker.

Gelisgesti wrote:
Current research says ....



Quote:
Public release date: 21-Nov-2006
[ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ]

Lee Siegel
[email protected]
801-581-8993
The University of Utah

The Brain Institute at the University of Utah
Proteins anchor memories in our brain
Math study: Holding nerve-signal receptors in place is crucial
University of Utah mathematician Paul Bressloff has completed a study suggesting that our memories are held in our brains with the help of proteins that serve as anchors for other...
Click here for more information.

A University of Utah study suggests that memories are held in our brains because certain proteins serve as anchors, holding other proteins in place to strengthen synapses, which are connections between nerve cells.

"The essential idea is that synapses are in a constant state of flux, so how can they be the seat of memories that can last a lifetime?" says mathematics Professor Paul Bressloff, a member of the Brain Institute at the University of Utah. "Part of the answer is that there are anchors inside the synapse that keep proteins in place, and these proteins help determine how strong a synapse is, which in turn contributes to forming and retaining memories."

The research is relevant not only to how memory and learning work, but to Alzheimer's disease, which is believed to involve, at least in part, a breakdown in the normal movement of proteins within synapses.

The study will be published Wednesday, Nov. 22, 2006, in The Journal of Neuroscience. Bressloff conducted the research with Berton Earnshaw, a doctoral student in mathematics. It was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Bressloff says the big debate about consciousness is, "Can it be explained simply in terms of a bunch of nerve impulses in the brain? In my opinion, the answer has to be yes" - an answer reinforced by his findings.

"Memories, behavior, feelings all are determined by patterns of nerve impulses in the brain," he adds. "If you change the pattern of nerve impulses, then that changes the memories, behavior and feelings. … What determines that pattern of nerve impulses is a mixture of stimuli we are receiving from the outside world and the strength of connections between nerve cells."


"Our knowledge and memories are determined by these connections in the brain. Who we are is determined by the strength of connections between neurons in the brain."

The Anatomy of Memory and Learning

A synapse is the junction between nerve cells or neurons. The synapse includes three parts: the end or "axon" of the upstream nerve cell, the microscopic gap between nerve cells, and a mushroom-shaped "dendritic spine," which is part of the downstream nerve cell.

What we learn and hold in our memory is believed to be distributed across many synapses, Bressloff says. Some memories, such as a person's face, may be held by just a few synapses, while other memories may be distributed across a large number, he adds.

While a nerve cell has only one axon to transmit outgoing signals, it has numerous structures called dendrites, which are like branches of a tree. Each dendrite, in turn, branches into twig-like dendritic spines. A single nerve cell may have 10,000 dendritic spines, and each spine is part of a synapse. So a single nerve cell can receive signals from 10,000 other nerve cells.

Nerve cells fire electric impulses. When an electrical nerve signal from one nerve cell arrives at the synapse, it triggers the release of chemicals called neurotransmitters. Those chemicals travel across the synapse and attach or "bind" to proteins on the dendritic spine that are called receptors.

One of the most important neurotransmitters is named glutamate, and it binds to proteins known as "AMPA receptors," which are embedded in the dendritic spines on the receiving end of nerve cells. The AMPA receptor proteins are held in the membrane by other proteins called "scaffolding proteins." Bressloff says AMPA is one of two key nerve-signal receptors known to "play a crucial role in learning and memory."

Earlier research indicates learning and memory depend on the strength of synapses between nerve cells. Bressloff says a synapse's strength depends not only on how much neurotransmitter is released by the upstream nerve cell, but on other factors, including the number of receptors like AMPA.

Source
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 10:19 am
Gelisgesti

I don't think we differ along a form-function dimension (if anything "process" is about "function"). There are certain celebrated philosophical issues underlying you concept of "the speaker" which you need to at least acknowledge for meaningful dialogue to proceed.

For example, in Gilbert Ryle's "Concept of Mind" he uses the phrase "category mistake" for questions involving "location" of higher cognitive processes. When you ask "where is the speaker" Ryle might liken you to a naive tourist visiting Oxford, who having been shown the colleges, libraries and other buildings asks "but where is the University?". To stretch the analogy further we can perhaps leave physicality behind and conceive of "the University" as an "organ" of "society" in "social space" (think "like cyberspace"). It may be the case that "self" is a similar such "social organ" and that all "conversations" (including internal ones) are social transactions using the "common currency" of linguistic tokens.

Ryle's "category mistake" indicates a direction for meaningful discourse beyond a simplistic reductionist model which some "neuroscientists" pursue. Note that more "enlightened" neuroscientists, like Hameroff, are aware of "the locality problem" and are seeking "quantum consciousness effects" at at sub-neuronal level in the hope of epistemological linkage with "non-locality" findings in quantum physics.

http://www.dailygrail.com/node/842
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 07:03 pm
As I understand it, thought and language are not separate things. One's ability to think is increased by one's ability to use a language. If one understands the language of mathematics, one can think in mathematical ways also.

Does this mean people who speak different languages actually think in different ways? Yes, I think so.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 07:53 pm
I've followed this thread with fascination, never thinking that I would post, but something Eorl said made me remember a story of a Korean girl.

The girl was being tutored in English be a friend of mine. During a conversation about languages, my friend asked the girl if she thought or dreamed in different languages. In answer, the girl said that she often thought in English, but when thinking of math, the language was always Korean.

Off topic? Maybe, but I wonder what you think about the flexibility of the mind and how such diverse knowledge is accessed.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 08:08 pm
Sometimes my thoughts are mere whispers, semi-consciousness events driven, I suspect, by equally out-of-awareness feelings. You have to sit still and look very carefully to experience this kind of hard-of-hearing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Just curious
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 04:47:31