2+2=4 injury induced skewed perceptions
ejudy
**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=featsavant.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葉ime, space, or an object擁nto 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謡hich 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
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
> 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?
>
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
> 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
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
> 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
{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
> 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 Wagler
leif wrote:
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
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