One of the central elements of our humanity is our ability to remember. Through memory we access an unlimited theatre of thoughts and experience from our unconscious. But why do we have a memory, and how does it work?
It’s a funny thing, is memory. In many ways I think it is peculiarly human, in that we have a conscious and unconscious mind. Most animals are thought to work through instinct, as if controlled at a species level.
The thing that separates us from the animals is our technology, and to become the technologist, we needed the ability to remove thoughts from our conscious in order to concentrate on a task in hand, thus needing a memory store we call the unconscious.
We couldn’t ‘be’ without this, for it seems that when we sense the world, everything that can be sensed enters the unconscious. In other words, we see, hear, smell and feel everything. It is this factor that, I’m sure, lies behind much of what we call the paranormal.
But if we ‘remembered’ all of this all of the time, we would suffer information overload, making it impossible for us to concentrate. Hence, we have a ‘filter’ which selects only the information we want at that particular time.
Perhaps this is why different people have very selective views of what they experience, even their beliefs being based upon this selectiveness. Maybe if this ‘mechanism’ was better understood, we would learn to understand, and tolerate, others more.
© Anthony North, April 2008
Virtual memory
And now we humans of the XXIst century have another type of memory: a virtual one.
My TDG blog has become a storage of my thoughts. Surely a year from now I will have forgotten what I wrote on my first post blog. But it's there, as long as Greg's servers hold it.
As far as my own memory goes, I'm betting on my biographers to make an account of my life, so I can recall whatever happened with me! My memory can be prodigious on some trivial nonsensical things, like reciting by heart the dialogue of my favorite movies; and truly lousy on more social "normal" grounds like remembering the names of my college condisciples, or the events of my childhood.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
many ways
I agree that memory is at the core of why humans are different from animals.
But first some disclaimers - cats and dogs have memory. The evidence is simple: an animal can't learn without memory, and many animals clearly do learn as individuals. Mammals and to some extent birds. I don't know about fish or reptiles. Perhaps some insects learn. Probably an individual bee does not learn, but a beehive surely does.
But it seems that bees and dogs can only learn bee things abd dog things. There is something different with humans. We can learn about things that are beyond us.
Dogs dream, that is pretty obvious if you havea dog in the house They run in their sleep, and when they wake up, look confused and then realize where they are. So it looks like the separation between conscious and unconscious is not unique to humans.
But it is certainly much more pronounced.
Having said that, I believe that what we consider to be analytical conscious thought relies heavily on how our memory functions. And in particular, creative thought comes from failures in memory. It is a form of dreaming.
If memory serves (ha! lame joke) I said all this before.
As for the paranormal, yes I am sure that there are things in our memory that are not usually available to the conscious mind. At the same time, there are obviously things in our memory that have never happened. Did you have a dream in the last month, and do you remember it?
And I say that we don't know the difference, more often than we realize.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
Memory
Now, what was I going to say? Oh, yes ...
I've been writing nearly every day for the past 20 years, Red, and believe me, you'll soon forget much of it. I always keep copies of everything I write, and it is interesting to look back now and again and see how things have changed.
When I started on the computer, which was less than 2 years ago, I became quite deflated. I've case after case stuffed full of manuscripts - I still print a hard copy of everything - but when I magically stored it all on a memory stick, I thought: is that it?
My own memory has definitely changed over the years. Nowadays I have a marvellous long term memory, but my short term memory is becoming non-existant. I suppose part of it could be down to spending so long thinking about concepts rather than the every day world.
Earthling, the thing that strikes me about ideas on animals and mind is that no one has ever observed an animal in its natural state, for as soon as we observe, we become part of their world, and we cannot know what effect that can have.
We also have an urge to anthromorphise them (I think I spelt that right). We place our own values on what they do, and we can never be certain that this is what is actually happening.
Do animals have a conscious and unconscious? Possibly, but I don't think for abstract thought or distinct concentration on a task in hand.
Do animals learn things? Again, I'm not too sure. At least, not in terms of advancing themselves. Rather, I think they mimic - and often do it marvellously.
...
Reality, like time, is relative to the observer
Anthony North
animal thoughts
All I know is that cats should really try to improve their grammar skills ;-)
Ok, jokes aside, scientists find every day that some of the cognitive process that we thought exclusive of humans are shared by our lesser companions. Even a fish can learn some tricks earthling, and of course octopi are incredibly intelligent and ingenious.
National Geographic printed an article about all this recently, BTW.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
animals learn
Of course animals learn. Probably not by much insight, but they do.
Consider the simple game of fetching a ball with dogs.
First, there is the concept that there is something in it for them if they bring the ball back to you. A conditioned response perhaps, based on affection and the promise of food in the future, sure.
But the concept of food in the future, the concept of future, strongly suggests that a form of understanding.
Another example - with an average dog, not too intelligent. I played the game, I throw a ball he runs and finds it.
But then I throw the ball over top of the house, so it lands somewhere on the other side, and he can't see it.
It took the dog 2 or 3 years to figure this out. But eventually he ran around the house and found it. And he brought it back, immensely proud of himself.
Now the part where you say, "not in terms of advancing themselves", there is something to that. Dogs in association with humans seem to stay as dogs in a dog pack, but with humans. They accept humans as a kind of a better dog.
But they do dream, and they do understand the difference between dreams and present reality.
Having said all that, again there is something qualitatively different about homes. We can reason about these things.
We do reason about why we are wrong. We do reason about why we do not understand, and not just say "I don't understand, let's go eat".
We even try to decide what we can understand and what we cannot. Have you read Goedel, Escher, Bach? it is a popular book on this subject, from 1979.
And while consider what we cannot understand, we understand more things.
Back to Red's point - we have a form of memory now that survives the individual. Old style poetry, where stories are told in a formal way, so people remember. Writing. And now this internet stuff here.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
the 10,000 dollar question
Of course, the 10,000 dollar question, is if our memory can survive the destruction of the feeble organic framework that it currently mantains it.
BTW, I've never understood the desire of post-singularists to download their thoughts to a central mainframe. Surely, a "copy" of their psyche would be preserve for the benefit of others, but what good does that bring to them as individuals?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
beem me up Scotty
Right, how many copies of myself can the world tolerate?
I am not that interesting.
The concept of making a precise copy seems pointless. Unless your the content of your character (sorry MLK) is so unique that we need many more.
I don't know if Richard is reading this, maybe he has some ideas on why, or even if, multiple copies of a personality would converge in some way.
Most likely, those who follow us will just have to sift through all the trash we leave behind. Much like archeology today, where they look at pottery and simple things. They will have to look at vast amounts of trashy writings (like this post), to make some sense of it all.
And if they read my stuff, they will wonder what kind of religious prophet "Mario Andretti" was.
---
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
Are we individuals?
I would, of course, argue we are not individuals, and the point about why do things to outlast our individuality, is an illusion.
Rather, I think our 'self' is an amalgam of species traits - archetypal personality, emotion, etc. This gives the illusion of self. We birthed this illusion through needing to concentrate on specific information due to tech, thus breaking out of controlling species traits such as instinct.
Animals do not do this. They are still basically within their instinctual, species drives, so do not think of themselves as individuals, and thus do not contribute in the abstract.
Why did we break out? Again, tech. And the essential bipedalism and manual dexterity that allowed it.
...
Reality, like time, is relative to the observer
Anthony North
speech
You left out speech. Speech is a much more efficient way of communicating, compared to just physical examples.
When you have confirmed the argument that we are not individuals, will you copyright the publication?
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
Speech
I'd say that speech was a by-product. A means was required to explain the abstract.
Hmm, the individual. Well, first you can't copyright an idea. Second, I'd accept that the 'self' is valid, in that it is a particular amalgam of species-traits, sculpted by our experiences, etc, so yes, I'd want to be known as me, myself, I!
But I'd still argue that those traits can all be deconstructed, and when they are, the inidividual disappears.
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
decontructed?
The concept can be argued the other way - society arises out of the cooperation and communication of individuals.
I would say that technology is a by-product of speech. Without cooperation across generation (also known as speech), there would be no non-trivial technology.
My point with the copyright is that individuals who conclude that there is no importance to individuals still claim that this is their individual idea.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
Individual
I think I accepted your last point - within my overall theories of course :-)
I don't see how we needed to speak when we first realised the value of fashioning a branch for a purpose. That would be inspirational. Abstract language is then required to teach others how to do it.
Bearing in mind that we came from nature, we need to look to nature to see where society came from. Does a beehive represent a society? Which bee is called Fred? And where's his birth certificate?
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
hi tech
Ok I was thinking about a different level of tech. Some animals use rocks to break shellfish. Chimps use twigs to get termites out of whereever termites live.
I was thinking about complicated tech, like throwing spears. Or like boats, that can be used to travel in an organized way. Those kinds of things started to show up sometime between 100,000 years ago and 60,000 years ago. Give or take a week.
And I seriously suspect that this took cooperation.
Hence speech was necessary, I think. These things would not have happened without communication across generations, and across family groups.
As for the bees - it is not clear if a beehive is a society, or an individual. The same can be said for an anthill.
But we can observe that there is very little difference that individual bees make. Or individual fish in a school of herring. These kind of groups have been the same for many millions of years.
Human organizations have changed significantly in a really short time. I propose that this is because of the mix of individual thought, and much improved communication between those individuals.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
emergent behavior?
Maybe in organized colonies of individuals that depend of each other to suvive, emergent behavior 'abherrations' that produce compeltely novel outcomes is inevitable.
Perhaps Anthony is right, and there really aren't "individuals" per se, but then that would mean we —that means, our ancesters— could perform cooperative complex tasks before a complex form of language had evolved.
One thing I'm really interested is finding out if Neanderthals had a complex language.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
emergent
yes certainly there is emergent behaviour.
But look at it this way - if we are not individuals, how do we make a growing and evolving society ? With sticks and stones?
No, we can only change societies by communication.
And if you look at every other kind of society, like ant hills, bee hives, herds of buffalo, they don't change for a long long time.
I say that is because the individuals in those societies are much less important than in human societies. We have much more diversity, and much more dynamic change.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
Hmmm
So, is altruism the secret in mankind's success and rapid cultural evolution?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
alruism is selfish, maybe
Personally, I have found that what friendliness I give to random strangers comes back to me. Not from the same people, but from other random strangers.
I give someone a ride when their car is stuck in the snow. Someone else buys me a coffee when I am tired and confused in an airport.
Yes altruism is a factor. not the factor, but it is there.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
what is it then?
What is the factor, then?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
<b>the</b> is not there
I do not know. This happens when I feel, for no reason, that some stranger can use my help. I don't do that all the time, I am not rich enough.
On the other side, it happens when maybe I look lost or sad. I have not really asked for help, as far as I can remember. But people help me anyway. Buy me coffee, or give me a ride. Without me asking, really. People do that, I am not that special, and I don't give them any favours in return. Just that I say "thank you".
Am I the only one who has seen this?
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
:-)
You must have "sad pooch" eyes, to cause such response in strangers ;-)
So, couldn't we say that civility to complete strangers is the key of success in any advanced civilization?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Good points
Good morning,
Some good points here. Don't get too hung up on what I say about the 'individual', Earthling. Of course an 'individual' exists, with all our urges, etc. What I'm saying is 'how' the individual exists may be based on an amalgam of species traits. In other words, I'm not dealing, here, with the 'is', but the 'how'. So to all intents and purposes we can say 'I' does exist.
Beehive as society or individual? I'd actually say the latter - an organism in its own right, more than the sum of its parts, etc. Have you ever read Canetti? He dealt in crowd behaviour, and shows how often the crowd functions above our individuality, turning us into a super-organism.
Which brings us to emergent behaviour, which is also, I'm sure, vital to the process - again, above mere individuality.
I don't deny the importance of language in terms of organising things. What you implied, Earthling, was that language came BEFORE tech. Not at its rudimentary stage - which is where the order of events lies.
If a lower animal picks up something in the environment and uses it, this is not the same as tech we first achieved. The secret is not being a tool user, per se, but realising the practicality of something, keeping it for future use, and then fashioning it. I don't think any other animal does this, except in terms of abode.
Altruism. I think it's fair to say that there isn't much we do in terms of selflessness that doesn't have a reward in selfishness. Seems mercenary, but I think it makes the world go round.
...
I'm fanatcial about moderation
Anthony North
levels of organization and coffee
In other contexts I have looked at families, cities, and countries as individuals. Individuals that have desires, goals, and other behaviour that is not the same as the units (humans and businesses) that they are composed of.
The city of London has behaviour that is unique to London, and to some extent separate from individuals who live there. The state of California has unique behaviour, different from other states, and separate from all the people who live there. Labor unions are run by strong individuals, yet they have consistent behaviour over many decades, when those strongs individuals are all dead, usually by natural causes.
So my guess is that individual intelligence does not translate up or down the levels of organization.
Bees and humans are composed of many many cells, each cell having no intelligence whatsoever, and it gets worse on the molecular and atomic levels, those guys are really stupid.
Then bees and humans show complicated behaviour. In the case of humans, they learn.
Then bee hives show more complicated behaviour, with more purpose than any single bee.
But cities, labor unions, empires, show behaviour that is probably more stupid than any good human who pays attention.
So I propose that the intelligence does not translate up and down the levels of organization.
As for people buying me coffee, sure, I have pretty eyes, and I am just a real sweet guy :)
[Edit, I forgot something:]
This actually does have something to do with the starting point about memory. As you go upwards in the levels of organization, memory becomes much longer. The British empire "remembers" things that have happened, long after all the individuals involved are gone.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
organizations as individuals
I like that concept.
It also explains why some people are viewed as a "social cancer" a single cell gone rogue that is perceived to threaten the survival of the entire organism ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
And ...
And there was life!
A few things, Earthling. I'm not sure about a definite culture to a city like London, even though there is.
Those damned contradictions again!
Let me explain. I've lived in London, and I've seen the East End culture, the West End culture, the South Bank, the Westminster and the Sloane culture. I've seen the Cabbie's culture, and don't forget all the ethnic cultures, the gay culture, the aristocratic culture, and even the military culture.
A city has a thriving mass of sub-cultures, but yes, above this there is a sense of place, of overall culture, an over-culture. But it is remarkably weak, yet so totally binding. A bit like gravity.
This shows that the reality is not that easy to explain. It's the same with what you say about peole not changing the overall scheme of things. Some people do. Okay they have to be towering individuals, historic characters. Think Marx, think Rousseau, think Darwin and Newton. Think Christ, or Buddha, or Muhammad.
These people's intelligence - is that the right word? - did change things. I call them cultural catalysts, in that they echo and define contemporary frustrations.
But that is not as simple, for in a sense they become cultural playthings. It's a feedback loop between mighty individuals and culture itself. I think the people you refer to, who don't change the system, just get lost in the general mass of thought and action.
As for memory, true, people the world over remember the British Empire above any individuals. But this is because it is so recently current. Go further back to the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.
Few, in Britain, will remember what it was all about. But I bet you they have heard of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
back to memory
There is still a lot of cultural memory of the Romans, the Persians, and even the Celtic and the European cultures that predated the Celtic and Germanic ways.
The Basks are still fighting for independence. Finnish elements can be found in some parts of Japanese culture. I say this is probably cultural memory of some sort. In conflict with individualism.
The reason China protests so hard against anyone, ever, predates Chinese culture is because they know they are wrong. Same for Egypt, Persia.
We cannot change without individuality, yet we do change. And we cannot learn without memory, yet we do learn.
Having said that, it seems that cultures change much slower than idividials learn.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
Can we break in again?
And if we coul, would we want to?
Talk about sinchronicity here. I just finished reading Clarke's "Childhoods End", which deals exactly with these kind of arguments. I don't want to spoil the plot to anyone who hasn't read it, but it's definitely a must-read novel.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Religious prophets et al
Earthling, they'll probably conclude that Mario was the inventor of all those "sacred objects" that they'll uncover when they find the hoards of buried empty beer bottles!
Regards, Kathrinn
Animal memory
Yes, dogs and cats do remember things - and not always as a response to a food reward. They definitely also dream (which is more than I do!).
Surprising to me (because I always thought they were pretty stupid), hens also have a memory span that lasts at least 12 months. One year we had a large decorative tree which had a heavy infestation of caterpillars which I shook down for the chooks every morning. Next year when it grew its new leaves I went to see if it also had caterpillars and within moments was surrounded by a sea of 40 expectant little chook faces all gazing up hopefully and clucking happily! Sorry to say they were disappointed, as there were none that year. They never invented a computer, though!
Regards, Kathrinn
:-)
"They never invented a computer, though!"
Nor WMD, guns & taxes. And they have us to feed them for the pay of an egg.
Which is the smart species now?? :-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
smart species
The smart species are teh cereal grains. Rice, maize, wheat, barley and so on. They use us to clear the land, so there can be more grains. Recently they persuaded us to use their seeds for fuel.
This is all so that the genetic survival of these grain species is ensured.
Some other plants abuse bees for their survival and dominance. The cereal grains use humans.
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
Grain
But would they have done all this by themselves?
And as I see it, modern farming methods are depleting the grain-types, thus risking the gene pool.
...
Reality, like time, is relative to the observer
Anthony North
joke
You don't know a joke when you see one? Do I really have to include the emoticons?
----
if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)
Missed that one
Missed that one. You took me by surprise :-) <------