ntoevs Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) What is everyone's take and theory on the human mind? Including memory, and if its possible for it to be related to our ancestory Cause I believe that there may be a connection with the human mind and our ancestral blood Edited October 3, 2012 by ntoevs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badcompany Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Personally I believe it happens what you know is handed down from your mother and father (how do you think instincts exist?). And also (I'm gonna say he stole this from Assassins Creed) it's possible that memory is handed down from generation to generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EquisDeXD Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Personally I believe it happens what you know is handed down from your mother and father (how do you think instincts exist?). You can ask in the biology forums, but I'm fairly 100% sure that knowledge itself can't be genetically passed down, but aptitudes for certain things like art or science can. Edited October 8, 2012 by EquisDeXD 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 What is everyone's take and theory on the human mind? I don't see a meaningful way to answer this. Hundreds of text books and thousands of research papers have been written on just single aspects of the mind. That said, the mind is an emergent property of complicated biochemical processes arising between neurons and their associated architecture, interlinked in a complex network that allows, among other things, control, communication and conscious thought. You seem especially interested in memory. The functioning of memory is quite well understood and their is no evidence for 'memories' carried from parents. Nor is there any plausible mechanism by which such transfer could occur. As EquisDexD says, we may inherit certain skills from our parents, though how well these are expressed will depend upon our environment during development. Those skills, however, were inherited by your parents, from their parents and so on. (Instincts are a quite different matter from memory - they are a tendency to certain behavioural patterns.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Well their has to be a relation with our modern brain and ancestral blood. Everything our brain perceives is built off of what parent brains have perceived in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Well their has to be a relation with our modern brain and ancestral blood. Everything our brain perceives is built off of what parent brains have perceived in the past. No it isn't. It is built off of two things: 1. Our genetic ineheritance from our parents (which is not determined in anyway by what they have perceived with their brains - unless you wish to get pedantically convoluted.) 2. The environment in which that genetic inheritance is expressed. We've had this discussion before: evolution is not Lamarkian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badcompany Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Op has a point but on the other hand there is cell memory we have people who have surgery and change completely from the organ they have been given. For example I don't like sports and I need a kidney transplant I get the new kidney and I start watching basketball, football, etc. Then again we make ourselves have new cells with memory restart... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekan Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 No it isn't. It is built off of two things: 1. Our genetic ineheritance from our parents (which is not determined in anyway by what they have perceived with their brains - unless you wish to get pedantically convoluted.) 2. The environment in which that genetic inheritance is expressed. We've had this discussion before: evolution is not Lamarkian. Depends what you mean by "evolution". Obviously you're thinking of the old-fashioned "Darwinian" system. That does still apply to primitive wild animals. Because they lack speech. So they can't pass on very much of what their brains have perceived, to their offspring. But this has all changed. The poor outmoded animals have been superseded by a modern species, Homo Sapiens. Our species has invented talking, and especially - writing. These wonderful innovations, enable us to educate our young. And pass on to them, all our achievements in art, culture and science. We are throwing into the dustbin of history, all that horrible, cruel and disgusting Darwinian nightmare. Human evolution is now gloriously Lamarkian! And shouldn't we welcome it, and rejoice in progress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Op has a point but on the other hand there is cell memory we have people who have surgery and change completely from the organ they have been given. For example I don't like sports and I need a kidney transplant I get the new kidney and I start watching basketball, football, etc. Then again we make ourselves have new cells with memory restart... I've never heard this. Can you cite a study that shows a person's affnity to basketball is stored in the liver (or whatever organ you choose)? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badcompany Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 That was an example and sure here: http://www.paulpearsall.com/info/press/3.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Depends what you mean by "evolution". Obviously you're thinking of the old-fashioned "Darwinian" system. That does still apply to primitive wild animals. Because they lack speech. So they can't pass on very much of what their brains have perceived, to their offspring. But this has all changed. The poor outmoded animals have been superseded by a modern species, Homo Sapiens. Our species has invented talking, and especially - writing. These wonderful innovations, enable us to educate our young. And pass on to them, all our achievements in art, culture and science. We are throwing into the dustbin of history, all that horrible, cruel and disgusting Darwinian nightmare. Human evolution is now gloriously Lamarkian! And shouldn't we welcome it, and rejoice in progress? Irrelevant. too-openminded and ntoevs both speak about ancestral blood. Therefore they are clearly referring to genetic inheritance not cultural inheritance. Everything you have said is true it just doesn't apply to the topic being discussed. badcompany - what makes you believe you are not gullible? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Every single person on this planet is gullible, just some more than others. When I say inherit from our parent brains I don't mean like our homosapien parents giving us memories they had. I mean every organism that evolved into the homo sapien race has put in its fair share of things for us to inherit. I wonder if optical illusions look the same to every species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 When I say inherit from our parent brains I don't mean like our homosapien parents giving us memories they had. Thank you for the clarification. However, this was your original statement: Everything our brain perceives is built off of what parent brains have perceived in the past. That is the opposite of what you have just said. I recommend more careful writing in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Well by parent brains I meant brains of our ancestors. We like sweet food, high in calories. I'm told this is because were still used to wanting to consume lots of calories like our ancestors did during the ice-age. We may prefer food because thousands of our ancestors grew to like it but were not going to prefer the ham sandwich our mother made on october 11th, 1962. Do you see what I meant? Now does it looks like that was the opposite of what I said? Or are you just like "Dam, this dude is freaking nuts." I really should be more careful about what I write but, meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Well by parent brains I meant brains of our ancestors. We like sweet food, high in calories. I'm told this is because were still used to wanting to consume lots of calories like our ancestors did during the ice-age. We may prefer food because thousands of our ancestors grew to like it but were not going to prefer the ham sandwich our mother made on october 11th, 1962. Do you see what I meant? Now does it looks like that was the opposite of what I said? Or are you just like "Dam, this dude is freaking nuts." I really should be more careful about what I write but, meh. Yes, it sounds like the opposite, and it sounds like you are back to your original position. Once the genetic material of an an ancestor is combined at fertilization, no additional information can be added to be passed to offspring. Therefore, if an ancestor 'grows to like' something, they cannot pass that preference on to their offspring. It doesn't matter how many of your ancestors 'grew to like' something, you will not be born liking it also. As an example, if for thousands of generations your ancestors broke their right arm, you will not be born with a broken right arm. On the other hand, if an ancestor has in their genetic material, gathered at fertilization, a propensity for weak bones in the right arm, then you may have weak bones in the right arm. Or if an ancestor has in their genetic material a propensity to consume lots of calories, then you may also have a propensity to consume lots of calories. This is much different than a propensity coming from 'what our ancestors grew to like'. Nothing your brain learns after birth can be passed on to offspring. Edited October 9, 2012 by zapatos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 By grow to like, I meant the environment required a high calorie intake. The human race grew to intake a high amount of calories to sustain life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntoevs Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 All great arguments. But what I'm also trying to get at is, that as evolution continues to advance mankind, what if (this is hypothetically speaking) science and technology eventually discovers that there is much much more to the human mind then what we believe there to be. Just because someone says they see a fairy while no one else sees it doesn't mean its not there. And what I mean by that is, our science isn't absolute and perfect. We still have many advances in technology and discovery. What if in 50-100 yrs they discover something new about the human mind that we haven't seen before just because of the sole fact that our current technology wasn't advanced enough to see or understand it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Thankyou ntoevs, for thinking with an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 All great arguments. But what I'm also trying to get at is, that as evolution continues to advance mankind, what if (this is hypothetically speaking) science and technology eventually discovers that there is much much more to the human mind then what we believe there to be. Evolution doesn't "advance mankind", in the sense that everything we gain from it is an improvement. We're not moving towards some kind of ideal state. Just because someone says they see a fairy while no one else sees it doesn't mean its not there. And what I mean by that is, our science isn't absolute and perfect. We still have many advances in technology and discovery. But if there was something to be sensed that we don't have the senses for, it would still leave some other gap in the pattern we could distinguish. Granted, we have no evidence for the existence of fairies, but we also don't have any evidence of unexplained encounters with them. No running into things that aren't there, nothing physical that seems to do something for no reason, and no smoke/dust/powder that seems to avoid certain spots as if something we couldn't normally see was there. What if in 50-100 yrs they discover something new about the human mind that we haven't seen before just because of the sole fact that our current technology wasn't advanced enough to see or understand it. Again, most everything leaves patterns or gaps in patterns, such that even if we lacked one way to perceive them, there are other ways they can be detected. Like cockroaches always seem to disappear before you can turn the light on, but if you lay down some flour on the floor you can see their footprints and tell they've been there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Phi, I don't think Nteovs meant it so literally. How does evolution not advance mankind? Your right, were not going to reach an "ideal state." We might eventually become an abomination due to our environments demands. Were still going somewhere though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 All great arguments. But what I'm also trying to get at is, that as evolution continues to advance mankind, what if (this is hypothetically speaking) science and technology eventually discovers that there is much much more to the human mind then what we believe there to be. Just because someone says they see a fairy while no one else sees it doesn't mean its not there. And what I mean by that is, our science isn't absolute and perfect. We still have many advances in technology and discovery. What if in 50-100 yrs they discover something new about the human mind that we haven't seen before just because of the sole fact that our current technology wasn't advanced enough to see or understand it. Then we will know more about the human mind. But I would not say "What if" they discover something new about the human mind, I would say "When" they discover something new about the human mind. Or about anything else for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Phi, I don't think Nteovs meant it so literally. What don't you think he meant so literally? If you're talking about "fairy sight", I'm well aware he was using it as a for instance. But this is a common misconception, that there are physical things out there we may not have the senses to perceive. I can assure you, unless whatever it is interacts physically differently with our universe, there would be other ways we could determine the presence of something that exists but can't be sensed. How does evolution not advance mankind? Your right, were not going to reach an "ideal state." We might eventually become an abomination due to our environments demands. Were still going somewhere though. "Advance mankind" seems synonymous with improvement. Evolution doesn't have an agenda to improve us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) Well maybe not improve us but evolution does have an agenda to improve our rate of survival. side note - Phi, check the thread I just posted about the book I started writing. I'll put a good bit in the book about an alien species with the best intentions of only their own survival and how their hostile life filled galaxies environment caused them to be the most war like species in the known universe. Ending all life that may have some type of resource in their possession or on their planet. An example of evolution driving a species to be an "abomination." Their will also be examples of evolution driving a species to be righteous and honorable towards all life with the goal of seeking knowledge their main concern. I'm thinking this to be a really good book if one like it hasn't already been written lol. Edited October 11, 2012 by too-open-minded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now