|
Post by sammy on Sept 5, 2010 14:29:39 GMT
•Seeing, hearing, or sensing things that are not there (hallucinations) •Believing that what other people say is not true (delusions) •Not trusting others and feeling very suspicious (paranoia) •Avoiding family and friends and wanting to be alone As you can see the descriptions are usualy vague because of its enourmity in effect on the patient. These symptoms was from one of the companies with a drug for skizophrenia. Another study is discussing that its a genetic trait or atleast more predisposed to it if its been in your family. Thier goal is to understand why some families are risk free and some arent. Wich made me think immediately of the cultural interpretations of reality. Perhaps some families are risk free because of how thier minds developed depending on thier religious/life practices. In other words shaped thier minds to handle a larger understanding of reality. I think this would be important since memory can be infinite, and our possibilities that are real are aproaching that as well. This also would tie in with my conscious/subconscious line.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 5, 2010 14:46:49 GMT
My original posting on this was basicly to give a simple example of how I see light and life being cause and effect, and how we recieve that visualy at its basic forms. It was more of a wild thought than anything else, I was just trying to elaborate on it. Actualy it was something I had written about 2 years ago. From my own experiences it seems like there is a line the consciousness moves accross in its processes. The line being acting out your thought or processing the thought and acting out the best option at the time. This is common practice as im sure your aware but I think it plays an important role in figuring out oneself individualy, since you can learn to review your actions and take responsibility as well.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 6, 2010 16:50:02 GMT
It is safe to say that there is a genetic component to just about every behavior or condition that humans experience or evidence. This should inform all research.
Though one may have certain genes that predispose an individual to a condition or disorder, that does not guarantee that the condition or disorder will manifest. For example, we all carry a gene that tells our body to develop calluses. These won't develop without environmental input. We also know that many things that we take for granted are fragile. The ability to speak for instance has to be cultivated at a certain time or it will not occur.
This tells us that though the brain is plastic there is a limit to its neuroplasticity.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 6, 2010 17:19:22 GMT
The question im wondering is, is the extent of that plasticity dependant on the biology or on the psyche of the mind? Either one being the extent of what you can handle in your current understanding, or perhaps they work together and against eachother depending on how were trying to shape our result mind. As you stated there is always the X-factor and even with the callus formation im sure there was an individual that doesnt get them because of some genetic deformity. This kinda goes into my point though wich is, because its happened that makes it real regardless if its only from one persons perspective. Since we know it happens that means it has to come from somewhere, unrealistic or not there leaves a discription to be told. Im just trying to put my finger on what that might be, even if in a general sense.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 6, 2010 20:26:58 GMT
The extent to which the various parts of our brains seems to be regulated by our genes. You are correct, there may be an individual out there that cannot develop a callous. It could happen. Of course I wouldn't know if I had met that person as I rarely check to see if people can develop callouses. I get the impression that people would look at me weird if I did check.
Neuroplasticity actually decreases over time. A person still has some but that level degrades as we age, much like everything else. Our intelligence and several other measures also have a great deal to with our genes. In any case genetics just predicts potentials. It does not guarantee. The environmental factors must be there at the right time to develop our abilities.
Our brain is best described as a Swiss army knife. It is a collection of evolved organs that solved particular adaptive problems in our environment of evolutionary adaptedness. It is not necessarily optimal, it is just that the individuals that were successful had those genes. Not best, just better or went along with the better.
This places us in an odd situation. We have a large collection of evolved mechanisms that may not be very adaptive now. Some of our mechanisms are by-products of other adaptions. Our cognitive abilities are mitigated by our ability to perceive the world. By "perceive" I mean the sensory organs and what they respond to.
It is this genetic dance that we sometimes see things like sociopathy or schizophrenia show up. Some of these genes may well be linked to other genes that are adaptive. The manifestation of the gene in the body/brain are also open to teratagens and other environmental pressures. Funny world that we live.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 7, 2010 12:13:38 GMT
With what we know about our history enviroment pressure and religious pressure whent perty much hand in hand. This would leave a genetic growth forming to counter the pressure be it physical or not. What if its this form of confined genetic growth (different area different results) that is responsible for people experiencing "Gods one mind". Similair to this what if skizophrenia is a genetic trait of people that didnt care to listen or think that far ahead, limiting thier full ability to think rationaly while bombarded with constant new thoughts of todays understandings (basicly live for the day untill the new one). Even 200 years ago being adaptable to religion could have been a life saver. I just feal like alot more whent into our upbringing from these religious wars then we even can begin to imagine. I can say without a doubt religion has changed immensely for the better since I was a youngling and in ways unheard of in history. I do think though either side you take on this all I can add is what you said "funny world that we live" but im not sure if funny describes it best HAHA.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 7, 2010 14:08:21 GMT
Our species is about 200,000 years old (biologically Homo sapiens) while the agricultural revolution (the point at which most anthropologists determined that we became behaviorally modern) was only 10,000 years ago. It would be reasonable to assume that the largest collection of our evolved traits come from 190,000 years of hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Schizophrenia is debilitating in that the individual would not be able to contribute to his/her own survival (the extreme cases). In all circumstances evolutionary selection is more pronounced in situations of heavier pressure. Natural disasters after which resources become scarce, epidemics (in the tribe or in the tribe's food sources), or mass warfare can cause a bit of a bottleneck in the gene pool. In those situations only the most adaptable individuals will be likely to succeed. Hierachical religions and governments are a relatively new development but they do serve, and have served, as an environmental pressure. Not necessarily the religion itself but the individual's ability to adapt to the situation. This could be just having enough social agility to negotiate strange waters.
I don't think it serves us well to view religion as a separate category. Religion, as it is and was, is a social phenomenon much like government or centralized economic controls. In this view you would be right that being adaptable to religion, or more precisely the social conditions, could be a life saver. We can see this in the former USSR. Religion was on the outs yet it was still important to parrot the partyline in order to not get shot or sent off to some gulag (exile).
Maybe we see rises in items like schizophrenia because we don't experience harsh environmental pressures. This gives us the luxury of caring for those that we would otherwise not be able to. Thought is the result of our several processes. We don't process breath. We process air. Breathing is the mechanism by which it is done. It is our ability to think that saves our walnuts most often.
Since we are social creatures it is important that we quickly develop social skills. This requires what is known as "theory of mind." This comes about in our young very early. It does not exist in many animals. It allows us to infer and make decisions based upon what we think another person has on their mind.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 8, 2010 14:52:46 GMT
I hope you dont think im trying to segregate religion from myself or anyone else. I see everything man-made as the effect of a thought/(cause). This is why I do seperate the mind and body though, consciousness being mind subconsciousness being body and how that interaction is percieved as day to day thoughts. This is also a good segway back to the original posting on this thread, the consciousness processess and percieves its suroundings through light and its refraction. While the body processess and percieves its suroundings through muscle and sensory memory. There are just different levels of how well we can utilize this connection being... Weak: unfocused, not watching or learning thier surroundings, to strong: focused, mental clarity, less friction with thier surroundings. For this to be so it would have to have been mostly overlooked by just about everyone, because it would be our consciousness(individual perspective) vs body (anything physical with mass, our body being the easiest to manipulate) instead of excluding our body from this perception. I say "vs" because its a collision of forces, and if you dont believe me go do construction for a day HAHA. Its just harder to see when its in your brain I.E. smaller scale = less energy/forces. I really enjoyed what you posted brandt, thanks for the additions I hope I havnt given you too much frustration just remember im from a more theorhetical standpoint.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 8, 2010 23:02:05 GMT
No frustration at all, it is actually a welcome change from the regular grind that I have to endure.
Are you speaking more about attention? Attention is an important topic in this discussion. We can decide to focus our attention on a particular item or event, our attention can also be drawn away. Throughout all of this there are biological limitations to what we can do.
I guess that one could be totally focused on reading a book but we would still perceive heat and our body would begin sweating to cool the body. Those automatic processes are great because I would forget to sweat when heavily involved in something else. Perhaps the problem was a difference in use of terminology. Attention is quite a bit different from thought.
On the brain, it is much smaller scale but some real smart folks came up some doozies of gadgets that allow us to a real clear view of what is happening in the brain in response to different stimuli. Researchers have been using these tools for quite some time to map the brain. Nice stuff really.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 9, 2010 12:32:15 GMT
Its hard to pinpoint let alone explain. I guess it would be more like one day while reading a book I noticed a change and it turned out to be heat and I sweated. Same events different focus. Most people overlook subtlety, and I think the subtle events have a large role in our advancements physicaly and mentaly. Lets say your reading on a hot day and this irritation of moisture and book are all you can focus on. lets also say this person has wanted to see a humming bird thier whole life, because of the book and heat focus the sight of the bird was missed and never known to that person. The humming bird was tuned out because of that persons determination to beat the distractions (or focus) on what they were doing. Attention I think is a better word for results, where as its describing a focus but in a general sense.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 9, 2010 14:31:41 GMT
The thought and attention distinction your talking of would come back to my conscious/subconscious. Focus, attention, determination, etc... would all be classified as tools of the consciousness to determine the outcome of a event and satisfy our will/balance, but would also come from subconscious memory as a memory process (or thought). The "thought" would be the subconscious memory of what you are visualizing/seeing. In example: a bird lands on a rock close to you and once this is visualy percieved the thoughts follow it with the ups and downs of what that animal is and will do in harm if any. Once the thought is produced we determine our interaction and most beneficial course of actions. How this is commonly played out however is someone just walking down a path when a bird lands on a rock close to them giving them a start and saying "Oh, its just a bird." then continue walking to thier destination.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 10, 2010 12:39:50 GMT
You lost me. Are you suggesting that we can decide to sweat?
We do know that humans are more prone to notice change when it involves a living thing instead of an artifact or landscape feature.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 10, 2010 14:23:06 GMT
I wasnt suggesting that no, but there are people that can control the act to an extent. Similair to ice man it just depends on what the body thinks it needs depending on the brains input and your ability to maintain that. What I was saying is that a different perspective can determine a completely different outcome from the same events.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 11, 2010 6:23:53 GMT
There are exceptional individuals and their abilities are open to debate but they do not offer predictions for 95% of the population. I am still lost on what you are trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 11, 2010 12:25:47 GMT
Ill try this again. As I said earlier, What I was saying is that a different perspective can determine a completely different outcome from the same events. So your side of this being "I was reading a book on a hot day and I was sweating". From this perspective you are more of a victim to the forces unable to control thier influence. However if you change your perspective to something else you can result in a different sometimes better outcome. "I was reading a book when I felt a change in weather getting hotter" options: take off coat, move to shade, make icewater. One person is observing the change before it effects them and the other is just saying it got too much and I started to sweat. "I tried to keep reading but sweat was all over me and stinging my eyes making it hard to read" meanwhile he was wiping off sweat and missed a beautifull hummingbird. This would be the focus becoming the distraction (sweat and book perpetuating). " I got some icewater and continued reading when I whent to take a drink I saw the most beautifull hummingbird" after observing a possible outcome steps were taken to see the goal through wich was reading on this cold to hot day.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 11, 2010 12:34:41 GMT
BTW I have worked at 6,000 feet during the hottest summer the area had seen, and im here to tell you there are frames of mind where nothing effects your body untill your ready to think about it later. I think this would be a trigger close to the reactions the body has in moments of shock. I can recall one time a lady was walking through a fountain area downtown, the steps were long between but short in fall. Somehow this lady managed to step down wrong maybe 6 inch step and it broke her shin right in half and was poking through the skin. I remember running to the lady and talking to her to make sure she didnt have any head trauma. She said she was fine and needed to get back to work and started to try and stand up. I literaly freaked making sure she didnt move and leaving people with her knowing this while I whent to try and find a phone to call 911. She was allright and everything so atleast theres that HAHA.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 11, 2010 21:25:34 GMT
Perspective doesn't have an effect on reality though. There are perfectly reasonable explanations for someone being able to withstand or not even feel pain etc.
I am trying to get a grasp on your premise. Are you saying then that one's perspective determines reality?
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 14, 2010 22:30:59 GMT
Perspective has everything to do with reality. You might say that isnt so since the scientific evidence is the truth of the situation, but science cant even explain an atom let alone the mind wich makes its truths fallible. The only real truth is how one see's it, meaning thier point of view determines to them whats real. What I have been saying is that a schizophrenic persons reality is as real to them as your reality is to you, you can just define one with more physical basis. This does not change thier reality however and no matter how real you think things are thier reality has not changed.
Lets even take this to a common ground with religion, I believe in God and I would say it/he is as real to me as gravity. You would say that gravity has physical impacts on reality thus making it more real then God, but I could also say the same for God depending on your perception. You could then say that those impacts are distortions of reality to understand something that doesnt make sense. I could then say that God has been "real" longer then gravity has been and was a much larger impact on humans then gravity (I.E. falling, tripping, etc...). The point is both have substantial backing in humanity and the reality is, that is real. Just because it might be said God isnt real, doesnt stop people from having that point be thier reality nor many other things.
Perspective and point of view to me defines any individual existance, if we all viewedand defined the same things, individuality would be lost as well as humanity being no better then ants. If you had to call this something I guess you could call it perceptual relativity, because reality like time and space is all relative.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 15, 2010 4:14:53 GMT
My particular or possibly peculiar beliefs are mine entirely and I make a point of not bothering other folks with those beliefs.
If perspective or belief could determine reality one could point a .357 directly at your heart and pull the trigger and you could believe the bullet away. How is your faith these days?
Intersesting point but science has brought far more empirical evidence to the table and provided that fancy computer you are using. That wasn't faith, it was science. People can believe and behave as they wish. If it runs contrary to reality they will pay the price of being wrong. That is a natural law. One could decide to not believe in gravity no matter the hard evidence in front of them. When they jump off of a building, gravity will not ask about their beliefs or opinions.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 15, 2010 12:56:21 GMT
You dont have to believe, but I do have proof a thought is reality. When I get that ringing in my ears from whatever thats from, im able to desolve the tone by a simple thought. for the most part there is 3 ranges of the tones involved low, medium, high. This is similair to soundwave nullification in that two tones will wash out the other. So lets say a high tone ringing starts in my ear, I just think (not hum) of the low and medium note and then think them playing simotaniousely. If what you were saying is real then nothing should happen since my thought is only subjective. What realy happens though is that the real noise was only percieved by me, and because my brain was washing it out with other tones as though they resonated to stop the ringing. As far as your .357 there are men that have trained thier mind to move faster then the person pulling the trigger enabling them to "move out of the way" hope this helps!
|
|