PDA

View Full Version : 2+2=4 injury induced skewed perceptions


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Ejudy
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:04
Ok so **you got yer massive gorey skull cleavage injuries with
maybe less severe versions in this corner (fun and games to
induce unussual brain skills? nah!)

**and you got yer idiot savantism with its associated
incredible leaps in cognitive specific skills which jetison
the human hominid type out of their regular old dolldrums for
brief moments in history in this corner

so you put the two together and what do you get?

PALEO-lithic cave painters!

Here's my idea: Scroll down to the horsie drawing on this page
by Nadia at 3 years old. One very similar thing about those
animals in the paleo cave paintings and these savant drawings
is the lack of linguistic meaning....or at least there is a
difference and I BELIEVE this to be a good explanation of
sorts for some of these drawings on the cave walls. I also
think folks can see someone drawing and learn how to to it by
having seen the paintings. So i think it could be passed on to
a *limited* degree. I have done many years of drawing like
this and there is a very distinct difference in how you are
processing the information ....you are not trying to read it
for human meanings, IOW. You are just recording what it is.
Gets into the questions of signs and symbols and what is going
on in one's head while you are drawing this way.

http://www.discover.com/feb_02/gthere.html?article=feats-
avant.html
============================================================================

(pertinent excerpt) "...Can we shed the assumptions built into
our visual processing system?

"Perhaps someone like Nadia who lacked the ability to organize
sensory input into concepts might provide a window into the
fundamental features of perception.

Snyder's theory began with art, but he came to believe that
all savant skills, whether in music, calculation, math, or
spatial relationships, derive from a lightning-fast
processor in the brain that divides things—time, space, or
an object—into equal parts. Dividing time might allow a
savant child to know the exact time when he's awakened, and
it might help Eric find the sweet spot by allowing him to
sense millisecond differences in the sounds hitting his
right and left ears. Dividing space might allow Nadia to
place a disembodied hoof and mane on a page precisely where
they belong. It might also allow two savant twins to
instantaneously count matches spilled on the floor (one
said "111"; the other said "37, 37, 37"). Meanwhile,
splitting numbers might allow math savants to factor
10-digit numbers or easily identify large prime
numbers—which are impossible to split.

Compulsive practice might enhance these skills over time, but
Snyder contends that practice alone cannot explain the
phenomenon. As evidence, he cites rare cases of sudden-onset
savantism. Orlando Serrell, for example, was hit on the head
by a baseball at the age of
10. A few months later, he began recalling an endless
barrage of license-plate numbers, song lyrics, and
weather reports.

If someone can become an instant savant, Snyder thought,
doesn't that suggest we all have the potential locked away in
our brains? "Snyder's ideas sound very New Age. This is why
people are skeptical," says Ramachandran. "But I have a more
open mind than many of my colleagues simply because I've seen
[sudden-onset cases] happen."

Bruce Miller, a neurologist at the University of California at
San Francisco, has seen similar transformations in patients
with frontotemporal dementia, a degenerative brain disease
that strikes people in their fifties and sixties. Some of
these patients, he says, spontaneously develop both interest
and skill in art and music. Brain-imaging studies have shown
that most patients with frontotemporal dementia who develop
skills have abnormally low blood flow or low metabolic
activity in their left temporal lobe. Because language
abilities are concentrated in the left side of the brain,
these people gradually lose the ability to speak, read, and
write. They also lose face recognition. Meanwhile, the right
side of the brain, which supports visual and spatial
processing, is better preserved.

"They really do lose the linguistic meaning of things," says
Miller, who believes Snyder's ideas about latent abilities
complement his own observations about frontotemporal
dementia. "There's a loss of higher-order processing that
goes on in the anterior temporal lobe." In particular,
frontotemporal dementia damages the ventral stream, a brain
region that is associated with naming objects. Patients with
damage in this area can't name what they're looking at, but
they can often paint it beautifully. Miller has also seen
physiological similarities in the brains of autistic savants
and patients with frontotemporal dementia. When he performed
brain-imaging studies on an autistic savant artist who
started drawing horses at 18 months, he saw abnormalities
similar to those of artists with frontotemporal dementia:
decreased blood flow and slowed neuronal firing in the left
temporal lobe." (end excerpt)

ejudy

Leif
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:04
Sorry, but your savant link doesn't work, but I already know
about Nadia, and the reason she draws like the cave-painters
simply is that she has part of their genetic material.
Couldn't you figure that out?

As for the other crap about savants, yes your free too
shoot-off your frontal lobe and see if you get any savant
abilities. I guess you might very well, but at the expense of
severe loss of other functions.

However, you've misunderstood everything. There are in fact
savant-like people that still have moderate social and verbal
abilities, but still also possess creative talents. They
usually work with IT or science, and many of them fit onto the
Asperger diagnosis. Maybe you want to call Einstein, Tesla and
Leonardo Da Vinci for idiot savants? They really where...

Let me also reference to you to a recent article about the
primitiveness of social behaviour.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/8/5744 How about the
proposed cognitive skills involved in social abilities? Too
me it more looks like utterly primitive mechanisms we share
with worms!

Leif

Ejudy
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:04
"leif" <leif@rdos.net> wrote in message
news:<1Tsy8.3370$p56.782323@newsb.telia.net>...
> Sorry, but your savant link doesn't work, but I already know
> about Nadia, and the reason she draws like the cave-painters
> simply is that she has part of their genetic material.
> Couldn't you figure that out?
>
The link works from my side of the ocean just fine. And that's
goofy what you said about Nadia. You have it all figured out
so why didn't you draw like the cave painters when you were
three years old?

> As for the other crap about savants, yes your free too
> shoot-off your frontal lobe and see if you get any savant
> abilities. I guess you might very well, but at the expense
> of severe loss of other functions.

Yeah well, i am not the one experimenting with this sort of
thing (much to your chagrin ;-). On these subjects i notice
you are taking that "i know it all and you are a mere pion"
position as you do with neandertal thinking processes
subjects. And, as ussual, you cannot tell the difference
between serious and lighthearted.
>
> However, you've misunderstood everything. There are in fact
> savant-like people that still have moderate social and
> verbal abilities, but still also possess creative talents.

And you think because i didn't mention all the different
versions on the theme that i have misunderstood the
whole topic?

>They usually work with IT or science, and many of them fit
>onto the Asperger diagnosis. Maybe you want to call
>Einstein, Tesla and Leonardo Da Vinci for idiot savants?
>They really where...

Or maybe we all have potential to work some areas of our
brains more than the average and certain circumstances simply
enhance or necessitate those kinds of things. In fact that is
the hypothesis i believe...... And you missed my point about
Nadia and the cave painters and what they shared in common.

You probably missed the point because you so smugly cannot
conceive that there is anything worth conceiving of which you
have not already conceived of. ;-))

>
> Let me also reference to you to a recent article about the
> primitiveness of social behaviour.
> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/8/5744 How about the
> proposed cognitive skills involved in social abilities? Too
> me it more looks like utterly primitive mechanisms we share
> with worms!
>
> Leif

It would be interesting for one individual to split into about
three or four individuals in a newsgroup (like this one) and
try to establish a fake dominance heirarchy. I wonder how many
times this has been done.

I really don't think a worm would meet some of the criteria
for certain types of social graces. I think they are talking
about the primitiveness of the setting up of the ladderlike
structures of dominance heirarchies.

Sort of like pennies in a tube or rocks sorted by the waves
on a beach as in the chips have to fall in a pattern? I think
the social mechanisms may not prove all that primitive but
perhaps the sorting is primative in that it is merely a
function of groupings and ordering of the grouping based on
pertinant criteria (which probably gets into selection
processes, too, eh?).

Interesting way you emphasised the primitive lowliness of what
you didn't find palatable. Perhaps that method you have of
doing that is in itself put under a process of selection
within the group which receives it? hehe...

"Forming dominance hierarchies and being a social animal in
general may require the evolution of considerable cognitive
power in individuals to meet the contingencies of interaction
in groups."

Leif
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:04
ejudy:
> The link works from my side of the ocean just fine. And
> that's goofy what you said about Nadia. You have it all
> figured out so why didn't you draw like the cave painters
> when you were three years old?

Because I never was mute like Nadia. Besides, I have this
figured out since I've discussed this before.

> And, as ussual, you cannot tell the difference between
> serious and lighthearted.

Of course not, if I could, I wouldn't be autististic!

> Or maybe we all have potential to work some areas of our
> brains more than the average and certain circumstances
> simply enhance or necessitate those kinds of things. In fact
> that is the hypothesis i believe......

To some degree I believe in the same hypothesis, only I'm
pretty sure that genetics is determining this. I'm also pretty
sure that savant abilities in many cases cannot be acquired
with whatever methods you try to use. They are simply built-in
into the brain-structure. BTW, you did of course know that
autististic people generally have large brains, and with
another disposition?

> And you missed my point about Nadia and the cave painters
> and what they shared in common.

Hmm, enlighten me about what I missed.

> You probably missed the point because you so smugly cannot
> conceive that there is anything worth conceiving of which
> you have not already conceived of. ;-))

Highly unlikely. I updated my theory just a couple of days
ago.

> It would be interesting for one individual to split into
> about three or four individuals in a newsgroup (like this
> one) and try to establish a fake dominance heirarchy. I
> wonder how many times this has been done.

How would you do that? Dominance heirarchy generally depends
on meeting in a group. If you don't, a linear structure
won't form.

> I really don't think a worm would meet some of the criteria
> for certain types of social graces. I think they are talking
> about the primitiveness of the setting up of the ladderlike
> structures of dominance heirarchies.

Ceretainly, but all other primates have ladder-like
structures, and I don't think HSS status is much more
advanced than simple ladder-like structures. Especially not
since status problably don't have an ancient age, and
developed in Africa after Erectus left. In fact, it's very
easy to explain it's emergence. It all comes from concealed
estrus and large tribes.

So, I believe in the worm-theory. Besides, it's also just as
inflexible in humans as in worms.

> Interesting way you emphasised the primitive lowliness of
> what you didn't find palatable. Perhaps that method you have
> of doing that is in itself put under a process of selection
> within the group which receives it? hehe...

It's just an response to the ridiculous discussion of
Neanderthals lacking cognitive abilities. Or the lacking
cognitive abilities of those that doesn't happen to use the
same social scheme as mighty HSS.

Leif

Leif
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:04
Came to think of it. Study "primitive" ants. They have a far
more complex social context than any primates, including
humans. The common denominator although is that they are based
on a primitive genetic component, which doesn't work outside
of it's original context. The same applies to humans. Humans
cannot stop fighting, even though a nuclear war might mean the
end of our world.

For an experiment, try to put a human into the social context
of a chimp group, and see how "superior" he is in that
context. I bet the chimps won't care much about his
"sophistication" or "symbolic" behaviour, neither would his
"superior" cognitive and verbal abilities do him any good

Leif

Leif
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:04
ejudy:
> The link works from my side of the ocean just fine.

Ah, now the link obviiously works here too.

Since you seems to be so interested in this subject, I'll give
you a more credible explaination, that doesn't take any
evolutionary information into account.

First to central coherence, which the article also describes.
There is weak and strong central coherence. Weak central
coherence means you use information in a more raw form. This
is the natural way most autistic people work. They form their
view of the world from details collected from sensory input
(perception). Therefore they are naturally also more aware of
this process that the article describes as unconcious.

The author is "deadly" wrong in his assumption that
"conceptual thinking, making conclusions" is stripped away.
This is certainly not the case, rather these people
conceptionalize in "pictures", and not in words. This means
they cannot express them verbally, and therefore the authors
think they don't exist.

In fact, dyslexia, which is frequently also seen in autistic
people, has exactly this cause. It's caused by the
right-hemiphere handling reasoning, and not the left. This
makes it troublesome to handle language, and to make out the
"big picture" of things. The positive side of this of course
is, much less prejudices. Prejudices comes from strong central
coherence, where people subconciously make up their picture of
things by comparing to fixed sets of scenarios.

As for the face-part, it's pretty bad reasoning on their part.
It's pretty obvious that autistic people cannot recognize
faces since they don't handle facial expressions in the same
way. This leads to not understanding the importance of the
face. Another factor is that facial-recognition is related to
altruism. Altruism is not part of their behavioural repertoar
either. They are simply not designed to recognize faces.

Snyder's hypothesis about the possibility to "turn-off" verbal
thinking and go into picture-thinking mode (he doesn't
describe it like this, but that's the essence of it), seems
pretty impossible to me. I mean, I cannot switch to verbal
thinking consciously, so why would anybody using verbal
thinking be able to switch to picture-thinking mode? I know
through a book about dyslexia that it's possible for a
dyslectic to turn-off "creative" mode, and learn to read. I
also know I subconscously did this as a child, but this is
still not the same as to switch to verbal mode. It only
enhances your reading- speed, it still won't compare with a
verbal-thinker's speed. The book describes this as placing
your point of conscience at the back of your head. When it's
in the front, your in "imagative" mode, and you cannot
interpret symbolic things..In fact, I've observed myself. I'm
normally in "imagative" mode, but when I read, I switch to
"verbal" mode. However, I never think verbally, and in fact I
don't even have a prefered internal language. If I'm in a
english-speaking country, my translator is tuned-in to
english, and when I'm home it's tuned-in to swedish. When I
visited USA 15 years ago, I didn't use or think a swedish word
for 3 weeks! The same goes for discussion groups. When I write
for a english discussion group, I'm tuned-in to english, and
there isn't a single swedish word in my mind.

Leif

Rapdor
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:04
"leif" <leif@rdos.net> wrote in message
news:vTSy8.3609$p56.864168@newsb.telia.net... {snip}
> For an experiment, try to put a human into the social
> context of a chimp group, and see how "superior" he is in
> that context. I bet the chimps won't care much about his
> "sophistication" or
"symbolic"
> behaviour, neither would his "superior" cognitive and verbal
abilities do
> him any good

what a fascinating idea obviously it couldn't be done in a
natural setting, but it would be possible in an open zoo
environment put a human in the cage for a few months and see
what social relationships develop great idea for an
adventurous new study

Leif
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:04
rapdor:
> what a fascinating idea obviously it couldn't be done in a
> natural setting, but it would be possible in an open zoo
> environment put a human in the cage for a few months and see
> what social relationships develop great idea for an
> adventurous new study

Let me know if somebody tries it. :)))

Leif

Richard Wa
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:04
leif wrote:

> rapdor:
> > what a fascinating idea obviously it couldn't be done in a
> > natural setting, but it would be possible in an open zoo
> > environment put a human in the cage for a few months and
> > see what social relationships develop great idea for an
> > adventurous new study
>
> Let me know if somebody tries it. :)))
>
> Leif

Social experiments of this type are carried out on a massive
scale. Think 'prisons'. It is, by and large, not a pretty
picture...

Rick Wagler

Leif
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:04
Richard Wagler:
> leif wrote:
>
> > rapdor:
> > > what a fascinating idea obviously it couldn't be done in
> > > a natural setting, but it would be possible in an open
> > > zoo environment put a human in the cage for a few months
> > > and see what social relationships develop great idea for
> > > an adventurous new study
> >
> > Let me know if somebody tries it. :)))
> >
> > Leif
>
> Social experiments of this type are carried out on a massive
> scale. Think 'prisons'. It is, by and large, not a pretty
> picture...

Prisons is not the same. I would be more interested if some
"social" competent individual would get involved. It's also
important for the conclusions, that this individual has no
criminal or psychiatric record. Otherwise, that would be used
to disregard the results. Why not put some well-known
politician in the jungle, and let him/her live with chimps? Of
course, (s)he cannot bring anything from our civilization with
him / her.

I'll bet (s)he would not be able to use his/her demagogic
traits in this setting. (S)he would not be able to become the
leader of the chimp group either. The social abilities would
simply not be understood by chimps. They would be
fundamentally incompatible.

Leif