Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: siochi on 21/01/2011 11:25:43
-
I am working on a science project, and the aim of my project is to draw a step by step plan to create multi consciousness in a human being.
First of all, let me get clear with the terms. By consciousness, I am referring to the inner talks that our brain does, and by multi consciousness, I am referring to different ways our brain could talk.
The average human (and a majority of the population) possess only an auditory consciousness, that is, that a major part of the population talks with words and sounds in their head.
My project's aim is to draw a step by step plan to build other forms of consciousness, that is, visual consciousness (expression of desires and needs through pictures), olfactory consciousness (expressing of desires and needs through smells), etc.
Any suggestion about how I could do it? Any problem with the feasibility of the project?
-
"The average human (and a majority of the population) possess only an auditory consciousness, that is, that a major part of the population talks with words and sounds in their head. "
What evidence have you got for this? I certainly don't often think in terms of smells, but pictures and visualisations do play a large part. I don't think I am too odd in this respect. I also think numerically or sometimes with patterns that may be related to mathematics - I cannot put this into words very well which, because we tend to communicate with words, may give the illusion that we don't think in other ways. Anyone who reads a map will tell you that he does not need to describe his planned route in words to understand or modify it; he has a mental image of the map and knows, without words, how to use this information.
In any case it is still an interesting idea to see if you can train the mind in different ways of thinking. I would not be so certain of your initial assertions but you could still get results by seeing measurable improvements as a result of specific training. I would be very pleased if you could train my mind to "visualise" 4D or even 5D spaces :-)
-
I would go along with Graham's comments - and add one. I think it is wrong to stereotype/over-categorise our consciousnesses or even sub-consciousnesses. I was one of four brothers - and any claims that we all thought in a similar way or constructed internal models with the same modality would have been instantly dispelled upon meeting the four of us together. Quite apart from not thinking upon the same lines we almost complemented each other to fill in the gaps.
Before building alternative consciousnesses we need to understand the ones we have at present.
-
Thanks for the comment.
First of all, what i really meant by consciousness is the internal procession that goes inside our brains. I don't think any of you guys think and analyse things in terms of pictures. I mean, how could you analyse how a certain graph in terms of pictures? What you all do is that you use the auditory consciousness.
So, the aim of my project is to come up with ways of rewiring the brain, and of creating a visual consciousness that can think and analyse things in terms of pictures, and other things.
-
I am working on a science project, and the aim of my project is to draw a step by step plan to create multi consciousness in a human being.
First of all, let me get clear with the terms. By consciousness, I am referring to the inner talks that our brain does, and by multi consciousness, I am referring to different ways our brain could talk.
The average human (and a majority of the population) possess only an auditory consciousness, that is, that a major part of the population talks with words and sounds in their head.
My project's aim is to draw a step by step plan to build other forms of consciousness, that is, visual consciousness (expression of desires and needs through pictures), olfactory consciousness (expressing of desires and needs through smells), etc.
Any suggestion about how I could do it? Any problem with the feasibility of the project?
I like your project, and I think thre is a lot of feasibility behind your speculations. One example would be schizophrenia. I believe even the mind has a mind of its own :)
-
Thanks for letting me know how I think. When I think of a sinewave, a parabola or a hyperbola for example I think of the picture - I also think where a ball would roll to if it were a track. I would really struggle to vocally describe a sine wave in such a way that would distinguish it from an alternating series of semi-circles - but in my head I can see the difference between a sine and a cosine because in my head they always start from the origin.
you are projecting your thought processes onto the general population - we really do not understand a lot of how the brain works beyond the conscious methods
-
Can you analyze a parabola or a hyperbola in terms of pictures? How can you imbue emotions into your analysis?
Mere representation is not consciousness, thinking and analysis of it is what consciousness is.
-
Siochi, I agree with Matthew. I don't exclusively think in words. In fact if you examine linguistics, at a deep enough level the brain analyses grammatical statements in all languages with a common symbolic form. At least there is a large body of opinion that believes this to be the case. People will tend to communicate using this particular innate brain structure - even people using sign language. However this is not the same part of the brain that is used in reasoning, understanding visual images, mathematics or even our basic drives. There is also certainly a "meta brain" who undertakes direction of the more concious parts too. Simplistically, when I have an idea it can be hard to formulate this into words and, on occasions, impossible. This is not an idea that results from processing language.
By the way emotions have little to do with language. It can take a lot of effort to verbalise what one may feel as an emotion.
-
Funnily enough, although I know nothing about this subject, I just saw an article in the latest Scientific American where the author claims that there is a strong connection between language and understanding. You might want to contact the author. Here's a link to the SciAm article.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-language-shapes-thought
-
Thanks for the link !
-
Thinking a little about visualization.
I was thinking of a memory mnemonic that we studied in psychology. Say you have a random list of nouns that you have to memorize. You can use visualization to remember the nouns. For example, we memorized a list of words.
1 - Gun
2 - Zoo
3 - Tree
4 - Door
5 - Bee Hive
6 - Sticks
7 - heaven
8 - Gate
9 - Wine
10 - Hen
So... now when someone gives you an arbitrary list of words. You can make a visual association with the above words.
So, say I start with "Butter". Visualize some connection with a gun and butter. A gun made of butter? A gun shooting butter? Using Butter to oil it, Second word... Cell Phone. Perhaps you dropped the cell phone in the lion cage, or see a monkey using the cell phone.
... etc.
You can recall the list by retrieving the visual association. And, it can be amazing because someone can ask you say for #2... you think of what you associated with Zoo... Lions, and the cell phone, and you get the word back.
There are other ways of doing the visual association. For example, I've heard that people visualize a walk around the neighborhood, and visualize the items with that. Or, other ways to generate your "key list".
So, tying into visualization can be a very powerful tool. But, unfortunately while you can amaze your friends, it may not give you truly useful knowledge.
Mnemonics, however, have been used by students for many years.
Trying to remember trig functions.... the ancient Chinese Proverb was burnt into my brain.
SOH CAH TOA
Sin - Opposite over Hypotenuse
Cos - Adjacent over Hypotenuse
Tan - Opposite over Adjacent.
Short term memory of numbers can be aided by making blocks or chunks.
So, say I give you a number...
364843791870921740921
Normally you can only remember a half a dozen digits.
If, however, you make it into blocks.
364 843 791 870 921 740 921
You may actually be able to memorize the whole thing, at least for a period of time.
Memorizing a license plate... make a story with it... especially using the letters.
Anyway, what you will find is that while much of one's consciousness is tied around words, things like visualization can be extremely powerful tools, but may or may not help with converting random facts into knowledge.
There were some questions that were brought up recently on this website.
What is Braille to a blind person?
What "language" does a deaf person think in?
etc.
Anyway, a "science project" will need some kind of a testable scientific hypothesis.
Perhaps you could find a deaf person that has learned ASL as a primary language, and English as a second language. If you present them a random list of words (signed or with text), would they remember it better than a "normal" person with the same list of words? Or, perhaps someone with English as the primary language and ASL as the secondary language.
Unfortunately getting a good subject pool might be difficult.
Lack of available resources could always be a hindrance to scientific studies, especially for HS or college students.
I presume that technology has entered into the classroom in some extraordinary ways in the past few years.
At one time, all the math textbooks had INTERPOLATION TABLES in the back. And, yes, I think one can do just fine without the interpolation tables, but perhaps one still needs to know the basic concepts.
However, the question comes up. Is there a cost or a benefit of "graphing calculators"?
So... for things like basic trig functions.
Are the people who never had graphing calculators better or worse at estimating various functions.
Linear, Parabolic, Cubic, 4th degree, Logarithmic, Exponential, Asymptotic, etc.
This "multi-consciousness & visualization" certainly would be something that advertising uses.
Although, one has to whether a stupid beer commercial actually increases one's likelihood of going out and buying it, as well as making sure you have product recognition so that you actually buy the advertised product, not that from the competitor.
-
I don't think any of you guys think and analyse things in terms of pictures. I mean, how could you analyse how a certain graph in terms of pictures? What you all do is that you use the auditory consciousness.
Others have dismissed this mistake on your part. I am involved in the drilling industry and when analysing problems have to consider a mutiplicity of variables that may affect the progress of the drill bit. I do this without words, other than passages that link one suite of 'pictures' and 'conceptual explorations' to another. Phrases like 'and then I suppose that would come into play'. That is then represented, not by words, but by a mix of 'pictures' and a 'feel' for what is occuring.
For example, if I suspect the drill bits progress is being inhibited by water sensitive clays I have a brief flash of a schematic of a montmorillonite clay structure, with bipolar water molecules invading the interlayer space, morphing to a generic image of drilling mud, then the clay plastering the cutting surfaces of the bit. That sequence would take less than a second and might be followed by a chaotic, apparently random interval in which I let my subconscious choose the most probable degree of impact of this 'plastering'. That would take maybe another second. Then another series of link words before I proceed with the rest of the thought.
The active thinking is without words and I'm pretty sure some of it is entirely subconscious. Once I have reached a conclusion I shall convert that conclusion to words in order to communicate it, but that's all.
-
I don't think any of you guys think and analyse things in terms of pictures. I mean, how could you analyse how a certain graph in terms of pictures? What you all do is that you use the auditory consciousness.
Others have dismissed this mistake on your part. I am involved in the drilling industry and when analysing problems have to consider a mutiplicity of variables that may affect the progress of the drill bit. I do this without words, other than passages that link one suite of 'pictures' and 'conceptual explorations' to another. Phrases like 'and then I suppose that would come into play'. That is then represented, not by words, but by a mix of 'pictures' and a 'feel' for what is occuring.
For example, if I suspect the drill bits progress is being inhibited by water sensitive clays I have a brief flash of a schematic of a montmorillonite clay structure, with bipolar water molecules invading the interlayer space, morphing to a generic image of drilling mud, then the clay plastering the cutting surfaces of the bit. That sequence would take less than a second and might be followed by a chaotic, apparently random interval in which I let my subconscious choose the most probable degree of impact of this 'plastering'. That would take maybe another second. Then another series of link words before I proceed with the rest of the thought.
The active thinking is without words and I'm pretty sure some of it is entirely subconscious. Once I have reached a conclusion I shall convert that conclusion to words in order to communicate it, but that's all.
Consciousness is more of like an operating system. If we compare the human brain to a computer, then consciousness is something that runs it.
By multi consciousness, I mean multi language operating system.
The basic language on which all our mind's activities and thinking is performed is an auditory language(consciousness).
But if somehow we could rewire the brain, and make it work on visual language (consciousness), then it could speed up the processing of the brain.
-
Siochi, I think your ideas in brain training in different ways have much merit, but I think you should take note of the observations here, which relate to your seemingly preconceived views. Maybe it is because most of the people on this site have a science bent there are more examples of non-verbal reasoning - I don't know. It would be worth looking at the seminal works on linguistics by Chomsky where all language structure is based of symbolic manipulation. This does not mean other parts of the brain can't make use of this processing of course, and I'm sure this happens, but I would not be so sure of your assertion about it nearly all being done this way.
-
Consciousness is more of like an operating system. If we compare the human brain to a computer, then consciousness is something that runs it.
There is much evidence to point to the exact opposite being the case. Your statement is simply wrong.
The basic language on which all our mind's activities and thinking is performed is an auditory language(consciousness).
No it isn't. If you believe it is, please provide citations to back up this claim.
You continue to make the same claim while ignoring all of the counter examples. Are you suggesting that the three (?) people who have said they often think in symbols, or visually, are extremely rare cases in the population who just happened to be on the same forum reading the same thread.