Unifying Theory?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Chagur, May 15, 2003.

  1. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    Sensory input -> Awareness
    Sensory input + Awareness -> Memories
    Sensory input + Awareness + Memories -> Learning
    Sensory input + Awareness + Memories + Learning -> Language
    Sensory input + Awareness + Memories + Learning + Language -> Knowledge
    Sensory input + Awareness + Memories + Learning + Language + Knowledge -> Technology
    Sensory input + Awareness + Memories + Learning + Language + Knowledge + Technology -> Homo Sapiens

    Feedback appreciated.

    :m:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :m:
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xenu BBS Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    706
    Not a bad model, although a little too linear for my taste. Things like memories and learning seem to go more hand and hand rather than one coming from the other.

    The thing I am disappointed in is that you don't include emotion. Emotion is fundamental in describing homo sapien sapiens.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    we have sensory input we are not aware of.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    Xenu

    1) Without memory, can there be learning?

    2) Emotion I have considered to be implicit in the
    concept of 'Awareness' in that it is a reaction to
    a particular sensory input, or group of inputs, and
    determines our future response to situations which
    may result in similar sensory input(s).

    spuriousmonkey

    Agreed, but does not that sensory input also
    affect our awareness?

    Both of you, thanks for the feedback.

    :m:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :m:
     
  8. Xenu BBS Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    706
    1) Ok, I see what you are doing now. I approached your model wrong.

    2) I agree with this.

    How about culture? This is a very important part of being a homo sapien sapien.
     
  9. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    Xenu,

    Re. culture ... I feel that language, which would include
    artistic expression, defines the culture and is modified
    by the culture as the culture matures.

    Just thoughts, no right or wrong.

    :m:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :m:
     
  10. ProCop Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,258
    I think there is more happening in output input area (then you scheme suggests). Encreasingly the technology - output of human inteligence- creates digital input for the same human inteligence. Sensory information is being replaced by "digital" information. (Technology produces information of better quality then the senses can provide.)
     
  11. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    ProCop,

    Technology may enhance our senses but any data produced
    by it has to use our senses to affect our awareness of what
    information the data is imparting. Isn't that why data streams
    (1's and 0's) are converted to graphics now that our computer
    technology has advanced to the present level?

    But you must admit, there are sensory inputs that cannot, as
    yet, be digitalized ex. the smell of a rose.

    :m:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :m:
     
  12. ProCop Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,258
    A part of the information the senses get are computerised halucinations (called "simulations"). These are not "enhance [of] our senses" They are created by technology (are abstract, come not from the "real world"). Therefore technology creates input. It indeed comes in in analog form but the bases of this infromation is digitalised non-existend world.
     
  13. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    Hmmm ... If I understand where you're coming from, ProCop,
    a "computerised halucination" or "simulation" does come from the
    the 'real' world ... that's why they are 'simulations' and the more
    accurately they depict the 'real' world, the better the simulation.

    As for their being abstract, ex. a computer game, they then would
    have to be 'art' in the same sense that a painting by Dali is: A way
    of communicating a 'world' that only exists in the mind of the
    programmer or programmers and therefore would not be a
    simulation.

    :m:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :m:
     
  14. ProCop Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,258
    You surely gave your schema a lot of thinking, I am just musing around:

    Awareness seems to be the basis of the concept of Homo Sapiens, because all other qualities (I will call these ïnteligence")you use can be associated also with "technology"

    Inteligence:
    Sensory input = video camera has it too
    + Memories =databank
    + Learning =self learning AI programs
    + Language = code to store/transfer information
    + Knowledge = Sensory input + Memories + Learning + Language

    Since we can suppose that animals have awareness too I come to following schema:

    awareness + inteligence -->Homo Sapiens

    Homo Sapiens->technology

    (Sensory input + Memories + Learning + Language + Knowledge -> inteligence)

    (inteligence->technology)

    The shcema is circulair. But it shows the difference between the Inteligent Machine and Homo Sapiens more clearly.
     
  15. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    Reading your post ProCop, a few things come to mind.

    1. Actually, it just sort of 'popped' up and I decided to ask
    for feedback to develop what almost seemed too basic;

    2. I think there have been a number of experiments regarding
    'self-awareness' and it appears to be not uncommon among
    mammals;

    3. Again, other species use technology of sorts. And not only
    mammals;

    4. Avoided 'intelligence' because it seems that, like pornography,
    every one seems to recognize it, but no one can define it;

    5. Didn't consider the AI-Machine / Homo Sap. contrast!.

    Thanks for the feedback ... Take care :m:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :m:
     
  16. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    I honestly do not know...I am just reasoning that I am unaware of most processes going on in my body, although they are all dependent on sensory input. Our awareness seems to be derived from selected sources, although sometimes you can become aware of the sensory data that normally goes passed you.

    Maybe we live in two worlds at the same time, which have some overlap.
     
  17. Xenu BBS Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    706
    Chagur,

    Language doesn't seem to be enough to encompass culture. Language may give rise to culture, but culture is too complex to be covered by language.

    ProCop,

    Your use of words like "digital" and "computerized" are confusing.

    l think that in order to be considered a homo sapien sapien, one must (loosely) have all of the characteristics... ie

    Sensory input + Awareness (emotion) + Memories + Learning + Language + Knowledge + Technology (and culture in respects)

    So a computer or an animal don't quite fill all these areas.

    A computer doesn't have awareness. (however this breaks the notion that memories necessarily follow from Awareness)

    An animal doesn't have language (most aren't nearly highly developed at least), very little or no knowledge, and practically no technology.
     
  18. ProCop Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,258
    RE:Xenu

    Ants and bees have all these too.
     
  19. sargentlard Save the whales motherfucker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698
    Doesn't learning come before memories in certain situations....any ideas?

    Good model though it doesn't nail being a human on the head. I agree with Xenu in saying culture is a big part of a person. Or could it be that you are not trying be subjective in that sense and are just trying to aim for the basic foundation of the human mind.

    Also what about the early years of newborns where memory is defunct...does learning still persist...i would think so????

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    **slams Xenu's face through glass**

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. thinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    93
    I aggree in that this model is too linear. Try a model with a few main ideas (such as: sesory, emotion, knowledge, creativity) and branch out from this in a sort of web. This would allow a more complex model.
     
  21. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    spuriousmonkey

    Agree. I'd say that we are not cognizant of most sensory inputs,
    internal and external, particularly internal. It's for that reason
    I feel 'awareness' at any particular time is not total but limited
    and specific, restricted primarily to those sensory inputs needed
    to enable us to interact with our immediate environment.

    Not 'two worlds' but rather one world along with a filtering system
    that says 'this needs immediate attention; relax, all's okay here'

    Xenu

    That's why I feel language, in a sense enables culture but then
    culture requires modification of the language. Although a basic
    language is sufficient to 'activate' culture, as a culture develops
    and becomes more complex the language too has to expand,
    become more complex, and segments (subgroups) develop.

    sargentlard

    What situations did you have in mind wherein learning comes
    before creation of a, shall we say, 'memory track'?
    As for the model, it is very general in that it's initial 'step' would
    apply to most of what we term 'life' even, I imagine, plants. The
    only reason the final ' step' ends with '-> Homo Sapiens' is due
    my feeling that all prior 'steps' apply to other taxa also.
    As to memory being 'defunct' in newborns, how would you
    explain the recognition of 'mother' very shortly after birth?

    thinker

    I guess I feel that linearity equates to the simplicity needed
    to understand the complexity we are faced with. And, in a
    sense, provides the 'trunk' where upon limbs, branches, and
    twigs may grow. A 'complex' model is exactly what I tried to
    avoid when creating the basic paradigm.

    Please keep the feedback coming.

    Thanks all :m:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :m:
     
  22. Xenu BBS Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    706
    Chagur,

    Ok, you agree that language and culture are separate (but intertwined in how they affect each other). I assume that you think that culture is an important part of being human. So how is culture represented in your model?

    Maybe I still don't understand what your model is? Are these the neccessary qualities of being human?

    Procop,

    Ants and Bees don't have language. Bees may communicate through dances, but a language encompasses much more than this. They don't have a body of knowledge either. They don't have technology, things like beehives and ant mounds are instinctive (like a bird nest), and not a result of technology.

    However I retract what I said earlier. It doesn't take those characteristics to be a human. Roughly, to be a human one must simply carry the genetic structure of a human.

    Sarge,

    Newborn's have a very good memory capacity. Just because we don't remember the stuff we did as a baby, it doesn't mean that we didn't have memory back then.

    I would say that learning implies prior memory. The act of learning assumes that one remembers a past event.
     
  23. sargentlard Save the whales motherfucker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698

    Hoo- haa my ignorance kicks me in the arse again

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    As for Chagur i don't think a baby recognizes his/her mother very shortly..infact it takes atleast a yer or two for a baby to get into it's head who it's parental units are. At birth a child only sees muddled shape and it only responds to touch and sound to report to it the safety zones. It's just a survival thing i guess...just like grabbing a whoevers finger the baby comes in touch to grasp on.

    I know there are many mistakes here and there so correct away

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page