Proposed; model for human cognition

[ScottTheSculptor]

Proposal;

Human have two cognitive modes.

 

From when you are born until you develop emotions you are in a logical cognitive mode.

As you develop the ability to manipulate symbols you are in an "in between" mode with logic and symbolic settling which is in control.

"normal" is when symbolic mode developes early in childhood.

As you age and "learn" symbols you gain enough skill to settle fully into the symbolic mode.

 

These are evolutionary logical modes.

 

The homo sapien evolutionary step was to add this "backwards error sorting" to their memories.

This prioritizes some memories over others.

With an ability to prioritize memory (WATSON like) we gained the ability to use symbols to represent logical ideas.

Language developed much earlier in evolution and is completely logic based.

With the ability to manipulate symbols humans could now write down their language and ideas.

 

"To be human" means to have an ability to store emotion in your memories.

This is the prioritizing mechanism.

To be "more human" is to widen the range of emotion you can store.

Increasing your ability to store more complex symbols.

 

So to manipulate the symbols you must believe in them.

 

The stronger you believe in them the less logic has to do with any decisions concerning these systems of symbols.

 

I was "damaged at birth" and am almost completely in the logic mode.

I have a great difficulty manipulating symbols.

 

Ponder.

 

 

 

[lemur]

"To be human" means to have an ability to store emotion in your memories.

This is the prioritizing mechanism.

To be "more human" is to widen the range of emotion you can store.

Increasing your ability to store more complex symbols.

What would you say about the belief that animals are completely ruled by emotions and humans use reason and free will to transcend being completely driven by emotion?

 

 

So to manipulate the symbols you must believe in them.

Interesting. So what are people doing when they're lying, scamming, and otherwise being insincere? Are you saying they must believe in what they're saying at some level?

 

 

[ScottTheSculptor]

What would you say about the belief that animals are completely ruled by emotions and humans use reason and free will to transcend being completely driven by emotion?

 

I would say that that is incorrect.

 

 

 

Interesting. So what are people doing when they're lying, scamming, and otherwise being insincere? Are you saying they must believe in what they're saying at some level?

 

 

The ones in the logic mode are aware of their lies.

The ones in the symbolic mode can reprioritize memories and believe things that are not "true" to environmental data.

[lemur]

I would say that that is incorrect.

So you would say that a person who loses control in a fit of emotion and injures someone else is more developed than someone who can rationalize their emotion and act in a reasonable manner despite their feelings?

 

 

The ones in the logic mode are aware of their lies.

The ones in the symbolic mode can reprioritize memories and believe things that are not "true" to environmental data.

So you're saying humans develop from having a sense of distinction between truth and lies to having the ability to re-prioritize memories to render anything they want as truth as they please?

 

 

[ScottTheSculptor]

So you would say that a person who loses control in a fit of emotion and injures someone else is more developed than someone who can rationalize their emotion and act in a reasonable manner despite their feelings?

 

*Less* developed.

 

So you're saying humans develop from having a sense of distinction between truth and lies to having the ability to re-prioritize memories to render anything they want as truth as they please?

 

 

Correct.

[lemur]

*Less* developed.

Doesn't that contradict what you said before?

 

Correct.

So you might not believe what you're saying but you could still be saying it out of choice, and you would expect people to respect your words as being meant sincerely, in good faith?

 

 

[ScottTheSculptor]

Doesn't that contradict what you said before?

 

 

No. The emotion system is the same in both modes. Only the Symbolic mode has the ability to *store* emotional memory. They can "imagine" emotional situations and they remember the emotion of a social interaction. Those in the logical mode are far more animal like. They have difficulty interacting with the symbolic mode individuals.

 

 

 

 

So you might not believe what you're saying but you could still be saying it out of choice, and you would expect people to respect your words as being meant sincerely, in good faith?

 

Can you simplify that sentence? I am having difficulty with it.

[lemur]

No. The emotion system is the same in both modes. Only the Symbolic mode has the ability to *store* emotional memory. They can "imagine" emotional situations and they remember the emotion of a social interaction. Those in the logical mode are far more animal like. They have difficulty interacting with the symbolic mode individuals.

This argument sound biased in favor of conformism. People tend to conform to social norms due to emotional experiences of relative shunning for exhibiting relative independence. Expressions of social-cultural independence are built on solid emotional foundations that people are unconditionally loved by family members, "God," etc. I suppose that also relies on emotional memory but in that case emotional memory liberates more independent cognition. Is it possible I'm misunderstanding you as referring to logic at the level of independent reason whereas you are talking about more base forms of practical/reflexive logic, such as direct responses to emotions that don't involve much reflection and decision-making? Or are you saying that animals and "lower humans" are capable of acting in an emotion-less, calculated logical way and that felt-emotions only surface when a certain level of development has been reached?

 

 

Can you simplify that sentence? I am having difficulty with it.

Basically I was asking you if what you meant was that a well-developed person could be lying and expect others to regard their lies as if they were sincerely expressed. That seem juvenile, imo, though many adults behave in such a deceitful way in search of power.

 

 

[ScottTheSculptor]

This argument sound biased in favor of conformism. People tend to conform to social norms due to emotional experiences of relative shunning for exhibiting relative independence. Expressions of social-cultural independence are built on solid emotional foundations that people are unconditionally loved by family members, "God," etc. I suppose that also relies on emotional memory but in that case emotional memory liberates more independent cognition. Is it possible I'm misunderstanding you as referring to logic at the level of independent reason whereas you are talking about more base forms of practical/reflexive logic, such as direct responses to emotions that don't involve much reflection and decision-making? Or are you saying that animals and "lower humans" are capable of acting in an emotion-less, calculated logical way and that felt-emotions only surface when a certain level of development has been reached?

 

These are just facts. They are not biased. I am incapable of comprehending some of your emotional terminology but I will try.

I can say yes to the "or" . The emotional development continues for life. Many stuck in the primitive mode end up in our prisons. They do not do enough math. Emotional control is gained with "exercise" of the symbolic manipulation portion of the brain. This is also called "imagining". Those in the emotional mode also "dream". When they are unconscious they reprioritize their memories. The emotional "trials" of life increase their emotional "resolution".

 

 

Basically I was asking you if what you meant was that a well-developed person could be lying and expect others to regard their lies as if they were sincerely expressed. That seem juvenile, imo, though many adults behave in such a deceitful way in search of power.

 

No. What i am saying is that they do not know that they are lying.

Edited April 6, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[ScottTheSculptor]

A new idea must be accepted by the younger generation.

This generation matures "learning" the old generations "beliefs".

That generation starts a battle with the old over the new "belief".

The next generation grows as they witness the battle between all and have doubt in the old beliefs.

At the quickest . . .it takes that generation to accept the new belief as true.

 

Usually it must await another generation.

 

Edited April 7, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[ScottTheSculptor]

All human constructs are by definition "supra reality". The storage mechanism is to promote a raw recorded memory above all other memories. You can't "see" yourself. You *are* a construct. But an older evolutionary step. Possibly a physical structure of the brain. More "hardcoded" than the "illusion of consciousness" afforded in the supra conscious of living *in* the sorted memories . Adding that subtlety in ability at homo sapien. Any herding or pack animal has at least enough memory promotion to prefer some individuals over others. "Conscious" as in aware of the world and the differences of things in it - with photographic memory. All with the ability to logically extrapolate how to get food and procreate. All while preferring the pack. Humans were pack animals long before Neanderthal. Only tying the mechanism directly to emotion would create the "want" to stick together. This is also "greed". . .

 

Birds and fish are community minds.

 

Ants and bees are variations of community minds. Yes, they can "see" as a single being.

 

We all evolved in the anti-time flow. Every iota of life on earth. We can all "sense" "ripples in time". Every creature. This is "communion with nature". This is communication. This is "landmarks" for travelling species. We call these "ripples in time" electromagnetic waves. Of the earth and every bit of matter. Every bit of life. Tactile sensors *are* electromagnetic sensors. Surfaces are electromagnetic.

 

Humans have a type of community mind. The democratic system is based on good old Greek logic. The votes should be statistically grouped and compared against the whole. This will produce the most logical outcome. BUT only if everyone votes. The young will vote *more* logically, the older *more* emotionally. It is a balance. The yin against the yang (though I have no cultural authority to use that simile). If the society is young it will vote more logically and that is what they hold important. If the society is older they will vote for what *they* hold important. Votes should be Yes, No, and "I don't really have an opinion". This is logical. If voters are forced to choose on issues that they are not "vested" in the outcome is random. Any total less than the majority must be argued further - either it will grow in "importance" enough to gain a majority or it will fail.

Manipulation of emotion should be outlawed in political campaigns. It is using the human cognitive mode knowledge against those in the emotional mode. They are being manipulated. It is too easy.

 

Edited April 11, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor