Introduction.
Within the parlance of most Satyric thinking, the doer of an action is the protagonist to which the case eventually is inferred from. This is often independent of whether or not, the necessary course of action is as should be or not. That the doer of the action is the igniter of the will, leaves more to answers and better yet, answers that leave so much to be desired. But, within common discuss; the one to which the action is done, is the one with the end result. That, in itself is the conditioning factor, the constant, upon which every consequence is factored.
The human mind as form of matter is a solidly compounding proponent that constitutes several factors of sort. The human mind, is within its own right, a factor of consideration when matters of pre-conception is put to the draw. As a form, the mind is structured and built within edify-cal constraints, seeming as they are, but answerable to the laws of nature. Thus, for the mind, to be is not a question in itself, but to not be, can call for an impossible sceneraio, one upon which intelligent arguments may not foster.
The mind is an intelligent piece of art, a finely constructed product of design and consequence. It is often called alongside or taken to mean the brain. For the purpose of this piece, both terms will be used intermittently.
The Mind, The Brain: One of Self same. The Proceeding.
The brain is a thinking organ that learns and grows by interacting with the world through perception and action. Mental stimulation improves brain function and actually protects against cognitive decline, as does physical exercise. Cognitive decline in this case, may refer to the activities of day to day living, and events that unfold and manifest over a detailed period of time.
As for the human mind, it is able to continually adapt and rewire itself. Even in old age, it can grow new neurons. Severe mental decline is usually caused by disease, whereas most age-related losses in memory or motor skills simply result from inactivity and a lack of mental exercise and stimulation. In other words, use it or lose it.
According to a Havard Magazine feature, "What Makes the Human Mind?" by Ashley Pettus on the workings of Matt Hauser; the former opines that,
"During the past few decades, a mounting body of evidence has shown that animals possess a number of cognitive traits once thought to be uniquely human. Bees “talk” through complex dances and sounds; birds act as “social tutors,” teaching song repertoires to their young; monkeys use tools and can sort abstract symbols into categories. Yet the more scientists learn about the similarities between human and animal thought, the greater the need to explain the dramatic divide. Are the human faculties associated with language simply an advanced version of capacities that are found in animals, or do they represent something that is qualitatively new?" Credit
Going from the above, a certain puzzle has drawn the attention of professor of psychology, organismic and evolutionary biology, and biological anthropology Marc Hauser, who has written widely on human and animal cognition. Drawing on a range of recent studies that link the fields of linguistics, biology, and psychology, Hauser has attempted to isolate the aspects of human thought that account for what he terms “humaniqueness.” He maintains that even though human brains have inherited many of the raw abilities observed in nonhuman animal species, a divergence arises from the ways in which multiple capacities interact in humans, allowing them to convert information into myriad forms to serve infinitely diverse ends.
Hauser supports his argument with comparative examples. “Some of the capacities that are critical for language acquisition,” he says, “are in fact present in other species, but used toward more specific nonlinguistic purposes.” Take the concept of singular and plural. Experiments with rhesus monkeys have revealed that they always prefer “many” over “one” of a desired object, suggesting that the singular/plural distinction exists in nonhuman primates and thus likely precedes the evolution of language. But the monkeys don’t distinguish among different gradations of “many”—by opting for three objects over two, or four over three, for example—unless the objects are presented sequentially. Humans, on the other hand, through their novel system of language syntax, have transformed and complicated the way the primitive singular/plural relationship is thought about and represented.
**************
To be continued
Within the parlance of most Satyric thinking, the doer of an action is the protagonist to which the case eventually is inferred from. This is often independent of whether or not, the necessary course of action is as should be or not. That the doer of the action is the igniter of the will, leaves more to answers and better yet, answers that leave so much to be desired. But, within common discuss; the one to which the action is done, is the one with the end result. That, in itself is the conditioning factor, the constant, upon which every consequence is factored.
The human mind as form of matter is a solidly compounding proponent that constitutes several factors of sort. The human mind, is within its own right, a factor of consideration when matters of pre-conception is put to the draw. As a form, the mind is structured and built within edify-cal constraints, seeming as they are, but answerable to the laws of nature. Thus, for the mind, to be is not a question in itself, but to not be, can call for an impossible sceneraio, one upon which intelligent arguments may not foster.
The mind is an intelligent piece of art, a finely constructed product of design and consequence. It is often called alongside or taken to mean the brain. For the purpose of this piece, both terms will be used intermittently.
The Mind, The Brain: One of Self same. The Proceeding.
The brain is a thinking organ that learns and grows by interacting with the world through perception and action. Mental stimulation improves brain function and actually protects against cognitive decline, as does physical exercise. Cognitive decline in this case, may refer to the activities of day to day living, and events that unfold and manifest over a detailed period of time.
As for the human mind, it is able to continually adapt and rewire itself. Even in old age, it can grow new neurons. Severe mental decline is usually caused by disease, whereas most age-related losses in memory or motor skills simply result from inactivity and a lack of mental exercise and stimulation. In other words, use it or lose it.
According to a Havard Magazine feature, "What Makes the Human Mind?" by Ashley Pettus on the workings of Matt Hauser; the former opines that,
"During the past few decades, a mounting body of evidence has shown that animals possess a number of cognitive traits once thought to be uniquely human. Bees “talk” through complex dances and sounds; birds act as “social tutors,” teaching song repertoires to their young; monkeys use tools and can sort abstract symbols into categories. Yet the more scientists learn about the similarities between human and animal thought, the greater the need to explain the dramatic divide. Are the human faculties associated with language simply an advanced version of capacities that are found in animals, or do they represent something that is qualitatively new?" Credit
Going from the above, a certain puzzle has drawn the attention of professor of psychology, organismic and evolutionary biology, and biological anthropology Marc Hauser, who has written widely on human and animal cognition. Drawing on a range of recent studies that link the fields of linguistics, biology, and psychology, Hauser has attempted to isolate the aspects of human thought that account for what he terms “humaniqueness.” He maintains that even though human brains have inherited many of the raw abilities observed in nonhuman animal species, a divergence arises from the ways in which multiple capacities interact in humans, allowing them to convert information into myriad forms to serve infinitely diverse ends.
Hauser supports his argument with comparative examples. “Some of the capacities that are critical for language acquisition,” he says, “are in fact present in other species, but used toward more specific nonlinguistic purposes.” Take the concept of singular and plural. Experiments with rhesus monkeys have revealed that they always prefer “many” over “one” of a desired object, suggesting that the singular/plural distinction exists in nonhuman primates and thus likely precedes the evolution of language. But the monkeys don’t distinguish among different gradations of “many”—by opting for three objects over two, or four over three, for example—unless the objects are presented sequentially. Humans, on the other hand, through their novel system of language syntax, have transformed and complicated the way the primitive singular/plural relationship is thought about and represented.
**************
To be continued
Nicely written, David-Leo. The concept of the mind is a topical issue, albeit one of deep interest. I will stay tuned for the sequel of this piece by you. I bet some interesting thoughts are for the coming. I'm waiting!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind coment, Q. I'll do my besting on the topic.
ReplyDelete