Abstract thought in animals

[SamCogar]

iNow, being an avid fisherman for most all my life I know what the words troll, trolled, troller and trolling means in respect to “dragging a bait”, plus the other common definitions for “troll”, but I am naïve about a lot of Internet “language and jargon” so therefore I was not sure why you posted this, to wit: “Troll.”

 

Therefore I Googled “define troll” and “clicked on” this url and first found these two (2) definitions which I thought you might be inferring by your post.

 

Now I discounted this one, to wit:

 

To deliberately post false or controversial messages to gain attention for the sake of attention, usually from people who genuinely want to help. The act of posting false messages is called trolling.

 

Because I do not deliberately post false information/data, nor do I post controversial messages to gain attention. Therefore I guessed the 2nd definition, to wit:

 

A troll is a user of a newsgroup, forum or message board that posts messages with the intent of inciting an argument or flame-war.

 

Was what you “had in mind” when you posted said “Troll.” And thus the reason my “reply” was what it was. And “Yes”, based on that premise, a good Teacher will oftentimes “incite an argument” amongst their students to teach them to “think and express their opinions”, a Debating Class is a perfect example of said.

 

But then, iNow, you stated “Uhhmmm... No.”, therefore I re-Googled, looking for another definition and found this one which apparently is the applicable one, to wit:

 

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.

 

Well, “sorry about that”, iNow, ……. you can accuse me of such if that makes you feel good, ..... or better, …… but you would be wrong in doing so.

 

I do not, and never have, “trolled the Internet” looking for said Forums to do what you, as per said definition, imply that I am guilty of. As a matter of fact …… this Science Forum is only the 3rd such Forum I have ever “signed on to” and posted to said. The 1st two (2) were both Charleston Gazette Newspaper Forums. Version 1 was terminated and new Forum Software was installed on their Server for Version 2 which I had to “re-sign on to”.

 

Last month, Jan 08, the Gazette decided “No more Forums” and abruptly terminated said without any notice whatsoever. And it was then, “I went looking”, ……. not trolling, ….. but “looking”, via Google, for science related “content” to read to entertain myself ….. because after an hour of “playing Solitaire” it gets boring and watching TV is even worse, especially since I have basically memorized all the Science, Discovery, etc. programs they keep repeating.

 

iNow, it was during said “looking” that Google found this SFN Forum …… apparently, …. just a wild guess though, ……. because the word “science” appears in the “”name.

 

And furthermore Mr/Mrs/Miss iNow, …… I do not, ……. and I repeat “do not”, …. “intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.”

 

iNow, I only post and DEFEND what I personally believe to be the honest and factual “truths”, be they my learned opinions, my observations or quoted/referenced data/information. If another Poster presents/posts something I disagree with, and I am so inclined, I will “voice” my disapproval of said and provide my reasons for do so. And I expect and welcome the “same reaction” from others if they disagree with the content or context of my postings.

 

But if they disapprove or disagree with the content/context of what I post, solely on the basis that it was “I” who posted it and/or of who I am or am not, it really PO’s me because that is a “feminist trait” employed to CTA so that they will not have to defend their beliefs or actions and will still be able to maintain their “position”. And I base that premise primarily on the fact that I have been married three (3) times.

 

So I am a “Redneck” or a ”Wildcatter”, ….. but there have been far more important inventions and discoveries made by them, than there ever has by those who follow around in lock-step behind their mentors or leaders.

 

iNow, such as this “spindletop” one, Years of frustration followed, with most members of the petroleum and geologic communities proclaiming Higgins's ideas to be silly nonsense.

 

Now if I joined the "wrong Forum" for expressing and presenting new thoughts and ideas for discussion that are in conflict with "accepted beliefs" of other members or that violates "hierarchial protocol" and/or "ruffles the feathers" of other members, ....... then I apologize for said and will cease forthwith.

 

cheers

 

Samuel C Cogar

[iNow]

There's a difference between a baseless argument and a meaningful dialog.

 

 

I appreciate the effort you put into your post though. Thank you for that.

[SamCogar]

There's a difference between a baseless argument and a meaningful dialog.

 

 

I appreciate the effort you put into your post though. Thank you for that.

 

And in your expert opinion, ......... which is this:

 

CHICAGO - Brain scans of people in chronic pain show a state of constant activity in areas that should be at rest, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday, a finding that could help explain why pain patients have higher rates of depression, anxiety and other disorders.

 

They said chronic pain seems to alter the way people process information that is unrelated to pain.

 

“It seems that enduring pain for a long time affects brain function in response to even minimally demanding attention tasks completely unrelated to pain,” the researchers wrote in the Journal of Neuroscience.

 

Recent studies have shown that in healthy people, certain regions of the brain take over during a resting state, something known as a default mode network. “It takes care of your brain when your brain is at rest,” Chialvo said in a telephone interview.

 

When a person performs a task, this network quiets down, he said, but not in people with chronic pain.

 

Instead, a front region of the cortex mostly associated with emotion is constantly active, disrupting the normal equilibrium.

 

To study this activity, Chialvo did a type of brain scan known as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) on 15 people with chronic back pain and 15 healthy people.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23017866/

 

 

 

 

.

[iNow]

And in your expert opinion, ......... which is this:

Seems tangential to the topic under discussion, namely the experience of pain in animals (whereas "non-human" is implied implicitly).

 

 

 

Btw, here's the absract for the study referenced in the article you cited:

 

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/6/1398

Beyond Feeling: Chronic Pain Hurts the Brain, Disrupting the Default-Mode Network Dynamics

 

Chronic pain patients suffer from more than just pain; depression and anxiety, sleep disturbances, and decision-making abnormalities (Apkarian et al., 2004a) also significantly diminish their quality of life. Recent studies have demonstrated that chronic pain harms cortical areas unrelated to pain (Apkarian et al., 2004b; Acerra and Moseley, 2005), but whether these structural impairments and behavioral deficits are connected by a single mechanism is as of yet unknown. Here we propose that long-term pain alters the functional connectivity of cortical regions known to be active at rest, i.e., the components of the "default mode network" (DMN). This DMN (Raichle et al., 2001; Greicius et al., 2003; Vincent et al., 2007) is marked by balanced positive and negative correlations between activity in component brain regions. In several disorders, however this balance is disrupted (Fox and Raichle, 2007). Using well validated functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) paradigms to study the DMN (Fox et al., 2005), we investigated whether the impairments of chronic pain patients could be rooted in disturbed DMN dynamics. Studying with fMRI a group of chronic back pain (CBP) patients and healthy controls while executing a simple visual attention task, we discovered that CBP patients, despite performing the task equally well as controls, displayed reduced deactivation in several key DMN regions. These findings demonstrate that chronic pain has a widespread impact on overall brain function, and suggest that disruptions of the DMN may underlie the cognitive and behavioral impairments accompanying chronic pain.

 

 

 

The full paper is available from the professor's website in .pdf format:

 

http://www.chialvo.net/Press/Galleyproof.pdf

[Paralith]

And thus you discredit any and all things that I present ...... based solely on that premise. And I betcha you don't watch Fox "Fair & Balanced" News, either.

 

No, not "any and all". Please don't put words in my mouth. But if you make a statement that goes contrary to what I or other forum members know/understand, then it is only reasonable that you provide a source that supports your statement. The same is expected of all of us.

 

Paralith, the ones you are partial to have been working long, hard and furiously for years n' years n' years to increase their knowledge and understanding how thought processes work ....... and they haven't figured out much of anything yet. And they never will with their NIH mindset. (Not Invented Here)

 

The Class hierarchy structure of the Scientific Community will prevent it from happening. Like Dr. Ward told us, Jonas Salk didn’t discover anything, the two researchers working under him did, Salk just took credit for it.

 

When it comes to a highly complex biological structure like the brain, I would expect that it will take a good deal longer than "years n' years n' years" to completely unravel it. And I'm not sure what counts as "much of anything" to you, but from what I can tell they're learning new things all the time. Did you yourself not just link to a paper that made a new discovery about the workings of the brain? Check out some journals on neuroscience and neurobiology - chock full of papers and coming out with more all the time. They may not have yet answered all the questions we have about animal and human consciousness, but I wouldn't discount all the existing knowledge as being not "much of anything." It's certainly more than we knew even fifty years ago.

 

HA, are you serious, ..... very few people actually tell another "what they are thinking", ....... they tell them ONLY what they want them to hear. Except in the case of some drunks, aka:..... "A drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts".

 

Paralith, I can guarantee you that there are THOUSANDS of your own "thoughts and dream content" that you would never tell another living soul. No one will. Dreams are the only "window" into one's subconscious mind and people will not tell you what "all" they see happening there.

 

And that "window" is the key to "unlock" the mystery of our "conscious thoughts" ........ because it is our subconscious mind that controls and directs all of our conscious thoughts.

 

Paralith, one's dreams are "assembled" from bits n' pieces of stored memories .... just like a Video Editor creates a "sports flashback" by extracting "bits n' pieces" from various old videos that are stored in their Video Library archives.

 

DUH, how else could it be possible for say, that your spouse, your father or your "wannabe lover" ....... could appear in one of your dreams with you in a place (at work, fishing, in a motel) .... that you absolutely know for sure that that person had never ever been there with you.

 

GEEEZE, even long dead "friends" walk around talking to you ....... in your "dreams". Even in "places" that didn't exist when they were alive.

 

Ask one of your "expert in the field" researchers to explain that to you. Or better yet, you might better first ask if they have ever considered or pondered that part of "brain activity".

 

We know that it occurs as I described it, ...... so someone must be investigating it other than me, ....... right? :-p

 

Haha, yikes, don't get so riled up. Did I ever say that all people are 100% truthful to each other 100% of the time? I would hope not, as that's a silly statement to make indeed. What I was trying to point out is that, relative to studying the thoughts of animals, we can get a better idea of the thoughts of people because we can communicate our thoughts to each other. These communications may not be 100% completely accurate in every detail, but a reasonable amount of honesty can lead to a reasonable assessment of some aspects human thought. A type of assessment that can't be made at all with animals - except perhaps with a few particularly bright non-human primate individuals that are taught sign language. The comparison was my point, Sam.

 

It goes without saying that simply talking to another human is not enough, all by itself, to completely understand all aspects of thought. Hell, even those of us willing to talk about some of our dreams probably can't remember most of their content anyway. Human language is not the ONLY way we can study thought, just one of the ways in which we can gain some additional data, taken with a grain of salt.

[SamCogar]

No, not "any and all". Please don't put words in my mouth. But if you make a statement that goes contrary to what I or other forum members know/understand, then it is only reasonable that you provide a source that supports your statement. The same is expected of all of us.

 

In science, it is folly to have a “closed mind” about what one thinks they know or thinks they understand. And that is because you can not prove anything to be fact. You can only provide proofs that disproves a belief. Thus, one can never be sure of the “truth” in what they know or understand and therefore said knowledge should only be used as reference and they should always be willing to consider alternative ideas, opinions or data before they discredit them.

 

Paralith, how does one provide a source that supports their statement …… if they themselves are the “source” of said statement?

 

What source did John Michell provide that supported his statement about a black hole? And what source did Einstein provide that supported his statement about gravity affecting light? Or what source did Thomas Huxley provide that supported his statement that birds were descendants of dinosaurs? Or what source did Arthur C. Clarke provide that supported his statements about geostationary satellites? And the list goes on and on.

 

When it comes to a highly complex biological structure like the brain, I would expect that it will take a good deal longer than "years n' years n' years" to completely unravel it. And I'm not sure what counts as "much of anything" to you, but from what I can tell they're learning new things all the time. Did you yourself not just link to a paper that made a new discovery about the workings of the brain?

 

Uh, uh, Paralith, I did not cite a link to that article because I thought it was a “new discovery”. On the contrary I thought it was “rubbish” and only posted said to see how iNow would react or respond to it. And he did in a manner I anticipated. And he, the same as you, even missed my “clues” as to what I thought about the research. Paralith, read my post again, but this time pay really close attention to the three (3) segments of the quote that I high-lighted via “bold faced type”.

 

“DUH”, the researcher had to use an fMRI to determine that “constant pain” causes brain activity, ……. and he appears absolutely amazed and excited at finding out that said chronic pain causes an “emotional reactions”

 

I could have told him that. I have a high threshold for pain, but iffen it gets high enough ...... the teardrops start gushing out of my eyeballs. And we all know that teardrops and crying is mostly associated with "emotions".

cheers

[Sayonara]

Paralith, how does one provide a source that supports their statement …… if they themselves are the “source” of said statement?

 

What source did John Michell provide that supported his statement about a black hole? And what source did Einstein provide that supported his statement about gravity affecting light? Or what source did Thomas Huxley provide that supported his statement that birds were descendants of dinosaurs? Or what source did Arthur C. Clarke provide that supported his statements about geostationary satellites? And the list goes on and on.

Do you actually believe those people just spewed out ideas and everyone else generally agreed they were probably right, without any convincing reason?

 

They all formulated hypotheses which made predictions, and those could be - and WERE - tested by observation. The data back up the claims.

 

 

Uh, uh, Paralith, I did not cite a link to that article because I thought it was a “new discovery”. On the contrary I thought it was “rubbish” and only posted said to see how iNow would react or respond to it. And he did in a manner I anticipated. And he, the same as you, even missed my “clues” as to what I thought about the research.

Don't leave "clues" - say what you mean and mean what you say. Trying to talk around your point without actually saying it will simply frustrate the discussion and may well lead people to believe that you are being intellectually dishonest.

 

I strongly recommend that you have a think about how much ideas alone are really contributing to science before you reply again.

[Paralith]

In science, it is folly to have a “closed mind” about what one thinks they know or thinks they understand. And that is because you can not prove anything to be fact. You can only provide proofs that disproves a belief. Thus, one can never be sure of the “truth” in what they know or understand and therefore said knowledge should only be used as reference and they should always be willing to consider alternative ideas, opinions or data before they discredit them.

 

Paralith, how does one provide a source that supports their statement …… if they themselves are the “source” of said statement?

 

Again, you keep putting words in my mouth that I did not say. It's quite irritating to debate someone who keeps responding to points I never made. To be clear: I never said you can prove anything. I said, provide a source that SUPPORTS - not proves, SUPPORTS - the statements made. And I don't know what point exactly you're trying make with all your ranting about "never being sure of the truth;" what I meant is this: Say for example, you describe a certain species of red bluejays. I have never heard or seen of such a thing, nor do I think that birds called bluejays would be red. I ask for a source; a published paper and/or a guide book on exotic birds etc is pointed out, and I find out that yes, there are recorded observations and studies of red bluejays. But, if all you've got is cross-my-heart-swear-to-die I've seen one myself, well, I'll admit to the possibility that you did, but also leave open the possibility that you were mistaken. Note that I am not declaring ultimate absolute truths here.

 

What source did John Michell provide that supported his statement about a black hole? And what source did Einstein provide that supported his statement about gravity affecting light? Or what source did Thomas Huxley provide that supported his statement that birds were descendants of dinosaurs? Or what source did Arthur C. Clarke provide that supported his statements about geostationary satellites? And the list goes on and on.

 

Sayonara answered this one well enough. Ideas are the starting point, and I am not going to condemn a new idea simply because it is new. But I will reserve judgment until the idea is tested.

 

Uh, uh, Paralith, I did not cite a link to that article because I thought it was a “new discovery”. On the contrary I thought it was “rubbish” and only posted said to see how iNow would react or respond to it. And he did in a manner I anticipated. And he, the same as you, even missed my “clues” as to what I thought about the research. Paralith, read my post again, but this time pay really close attention to the three (3) segments of the quote that I high-lighted via “bold faced type”.

 

“DUH”, the researcher had to use an fMRI to determine that “constant pain” causes brain activity, ……. and he appears absolutely amazed and excited at finding out that said chronic pain causes an “emotional reactions”

 

I could have told him that. I have a high threshold for pain, but iffen it gets high enough ...... the teardrops start gushing out of my eyeballs. And we all know that teardrops and crying is mostly associated with "emotions".

cheers

 

Haha, this is quite amusing. So, for the idea that chronic pain causes emotional reactions that are indirectly related to the pain itself, acceptable support of this idea, in your mind, is your telling me that you have had this mental experience. And yet, in your earlier posts, you condemned using first hand accounts of one's thoughts as support for theories about the nature of mental activities.

 

HA, are you serious, ..... very few people actually tell another "what they are thinking", ....... they tell them ONLY what they want them to hear.

...

Paralith, I can guarantee you that there are THOUSANDS of your own "thoughts and dream content" that you would never tell another living soul. No one will. Dreams are the only "window" into one's subconscious mind and people will not tell you what "all" they see happening there.

...

And that "window" is the key to "unlock" the mystery of our "conscious thoughts" ........ because it is our subconscious mind that controls and directs all of our conscious thoughts.

 

According to your own words, dreams are the only window to the true nature of thought, and we humans are incapable for one reason or another of actually communicating to each other through language with absolute truth the nature of our dreams and therefore of our thoughts. Yes, Sam, you could have told him that - but like you, he didn't put his complete trust in first hand anecdotal accounts. They probably played a large role in seeding the IDEA in his head, but then he set about finding objective evidence in support of this idea.

 

At one point in history, many people would have looked at the statement "light objects fall more slowly than heavy objects" and said, "Ha! I could have told you that!" but objective testing of this idea found out that it was false. Human discussions and ideas are invaluable to science, but it's the testing of the hypotheses that come out of these processes that is the essence of science.

[SamCogar]

Do you actually believe those people just spewed out ideas and everyone else generally agreed they were probably right, without any convincing reason

 

"NO", to your question.

 

What I know and actually believe is that .... those people just spewed out ideas and most everyone else generally agreed they were silly ideas and of no value or worth, without ever considering the merit of them.

 

They all formulated hypotheses which made predictions, and those could be - and WERE - tested by observation. The data back up the claims.

 

HORSEFEATHERS, not when their predictions were made public, except maybe Arthur Clarke's prediction. It was years later before they could be tested and/or data was found to "back up the claims".

 

Don't leave "clues" - say what you mean and mean what you say.

 

Well GEEEZE, I thought all competent research scientists were proficient at "seeing and/or recognizing clues". And anyone implying they are literate in science if said clues are "pointed out" to them.

 

.

[insane_alien]

Well GEEEZE, I thought all competent research scientists were proficient at "seeing and/or recognizing clues". And anyone implying they are literate in science if said clues are "pointed out" to them.

 

yes, this tends to be true but

1/ not everyone here is a research scientist and i'd guess a few didn't even do science at school.

2/ when scientists are trying to convey information to other scientists they do not talk in riddles and cryptic clues. they get down to the point and include a lot of precision so there is no doubt about what they mean.

3/ you don't NEED to be good at it to be a competent research scientist. as long as your analytical methods are good you won't need to have any epiphanies.

[Sayonara]

"NO", to your question.

What I know and actually believe is that .... those people just spewed out ideas and most everyone else generally agreed they were silly ideas and of no value or worth, without ever considering the merit of them.

Which takes us nicely on to....

 

HORSEFEATHERS, not when their predictions were made public, except maybe Arthur Clarke's prediction. It was years later before they could be tested and/or data was found to "back up the claims".

At which point people started taking the claims seriously.

 

There isn't any special trick to this progression, and odious arguments from authority do not magically change the rules.

 

Well GEEEZE, I thought all competent research scientists were proficient at "seeing and/or recognizing clues". And anyone implying they are literate in science if said clues are "pointed out" to them.

I couldn't care less whether or not you think that "all competent research scientists" should be able to see or recognise clues. What I care about is that you state your case plainly in this thread - and indeed any other on these forums - so that our members can engage in honest and clear discussion without feeling that they are being spoken down to, led up the garden path, or just generally having their time wasted by someone who refuses to grasp the simple principle that data must support ideas before those ideas will gain widespread credibility.

 

You are beginning to test my patience now. Whatever problem you have with the scientific process is exactly that - your problem. If you really believe that it is a flawed system, then this is probably not the appropriate venue for you to try and get your ideas accepted, what with it being a science forum.

 

You now have a choice before you - there are three options:

 

1) Stop posting in this thread,

2) Respond to the OP and deal with the issues, without waffling on about "adherence to the rules",

3) Continue with the off-topic debate, receive a spamming infraction, and possibly lose access to the biology forums altogether.

 

I am quite sure that you will have a thing or two to say about this (probably several paragraphs, with bits bolded or written in red). It might be an idea to go away from the keyboard for a while first and consider whether or not you really want to continue the discussion and, if so, what the priorities are.

[SamCogar]

Sayonara

SFN Administrator

Location: UK

 

In the couple weeks I have been a poster on these SFN forums …… I have figured out something that has bothered me for probably 50 years.

 

And that is why so many males/men love sports, …. not as participants, …… but as spectators.

 

And that is because if one knows anything at all about “the game”, ….. they are welcome to join in most any public group’s conversation here in the United States and only their ideas, beliefs and opinions will be considered and debated, …… and no one will question their status or position in life, … past or present, … and use said as a “qualifier” of their knowledge or abilities.

 

Sayonara, I am not, nor have I ever been, …… a practicing biological research scientist, ….. but I do have some fond memories of back in the 70’s when ICL sent both Management and peon personnel to the US to take control of the business they had purchased. I use to get tickled at poor ole Derek (a peon engineer) when he would “jump stiff legged and stand at attention” whenever his boss would come anywhere near where he was.

 

Sayonara, from your Post #7 in this thread:

 

Considering yourself to be an "outside the box" thinker is not a means of bypassing conventions when you are debating matters of scientific enquiry with scientists.

 

Sayonara, during my time on this Forum I have spent the greater part of it defending my status and position in life and very little on debating matters of scientific enquiry so don’t be telling me about “your conventions”.

 

They are “class-status” conventions that pertain to the messenger and not the message.

 

I opt for your choice 3), …. both conditions, …. so make them effective whenever you wish.

 

Sam C

[Paralith]

Sam, the only time in this thread that you seriously defended your position in life, you did so largely on your own account. When I stated that you were not a practicing research scientist in this field, it was only to say that NONE of us are right now, that we ALL are expected, as reasonable people interested in science, to conduct our discussions with integrity and be able to back up our claims with supporting references.

 

I don't think I necessarily agree with Sayonara about debating with scientists - because most of the members here are not practicing scientists. But this is a place where we uphold sound scientific practice, regardless of what you do or do not do in real life. If you feel the profound need to defend your real life practices and status in this forum, I suspect it is largely due to a perceived threat, and not an actual one. I personally don't care if you've never done biological research. I'll still debate you either way. I just expect you and myself and every other person here to debate with integrity. That's all.

[Sayonara]

I don't think I necessarily agree with Sayonara about debating with scientists - because most of the members here are not practicing scientists.

I didn't actually specify "practicing" scientists; that is some extra and purposefully specific qualifier that someone else has added along the way.

 

But myself, But this is a place where we uphold sound scientific practice, regardless of what you do or do not do in real life.

Exactly.

 

If you feel the profound need to defend your real life practices and status in this forum, I suspect it is largely due to a perceived threat, and not an actual one.

Moreover, why bring them into a thread/debate about abstract thought in animals in the first place?

 

 

I personally don't care if you've never done biological research. I'll still debate you either way. I just expect you and myself and every other person here to debate with integrity. That's all.

Hear hear.

 

Sayonara, during my time on this Forum I have spent the greater part of it defending my status and position in life and very little on debating matters of scientific enquiry so don’t be telling me about “your conventions”.

I think you mean you have spent the greater part of your time here introducing your status and position in life into discussions where they are utterly irrelevant.

 

Since you apparently don't want to continue or conclude the debate, this thread is locked until and unless Lucas asks for it to be reopened.