Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
http://thesciencenetwork.org/progra...ss/the-neuroscientific-basis-of-consciousnessBaroness Susan Greenfield is a British scientist, writer, broadcaster and a member of the House of Lords. She is known as a popularizer of science, with her research focusing on brain physiology, particularly in the areas of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases. She was the first female director of the Royal Institution and has received numerous awards, including the Michael Faraday medal from the Royal Society for her contributions to the public understanding of science.
The problem with a purely physiological explanation is so what. Analogy, if I look closely at a computer hard disk it tells me nothing of the information stored there. I have to see it work. And even if I break it down to all its pieces it still doesn't help. So what if that is stored there.
Watching our grandchildren learn language and develop thinking is much more insightful - see an answer to 'how children learn language'
Can a person think without any language.
Knowing how it works helps you care for it and repair damage to it, though. Imagine if we could restore memory lost to Alzheimer's or trauma, or prevent dementia? Understanding how the brain really works could give us the insight to develop such medicine- as well as satisfying curiosity.
Define 'language' I can think of a beer and want it without 'speaking' the word 'beer' consciously in my mind. Also, one must not assume that not knowing an 'outside' language used to communicate between individuals means one doe snot possess any 'interior' anguge of the mind unto itself.
Does consciousness even required a language or does using an invented one preclude us from even recognizing other communication forms especially self -recogintion.
Knowing how it works helps you care for it and repair damage to it, though. Imagine if we could restore memory lost to Alzheimer's or trauma, or prevent dementia? Understanding how the brain really works could give us the insight to develop such medicine- as well as satisfying curiosity.
Define 'language' I can think of a beer and want it without 'speaking' the word 'beer' consciously in my mind. Also, one must not assume that not knowing an 'outside' language used to communicate between individuals means one doe snot possess any 'interior' anguge of the mind unto itself.
True but cells are cells and we have to know what they do, how they grow die, and how they interact. We certainly need to figure out Alzheimer's etc but I view these as degenerative diseases. A friend's mother has A and that new medicine helps but tearing open a brain and doing a valve job on the engine is still hard. It is change and prevention, but I wonder if like cancer, age and biology will have the upper hand.
Not sure what the LI model is? You have a good link that simplifies the model.
The only reason you can think of beer is you sure as heck know what it is and why you drink them. That is embedded in your head brain mind. Now do this, imagine a doodad drink, now tell me what it is? Actually saying 'drink' gives hints that just the word does not. Or do something Hofstadter suggests explain to a primitive, 'soap digest rack' (soap opera) and do that explaining the technology behind TV soaps. Remember your audience and the thing you are describing. (Actually he give the example differently.)
Does consciousness even required a language or does using an invented one preclude us from even recognizing other communication forms especially self -recogintion.
That's hard, is a fly conscious you are about to swat it or does it just know something is coming its way by some other means? Is a dog more conscious than the fly as it knows (?) you are eating something it would like too as it sits and looks up at you and bays softly? Is the baby conscious of happiness as it smiles happily even though it hasn't a clue what happy is, nor what a smile is nor even why it is smiling? What would I be conscious of if I had no words (concepts). On a low level are all higher level animals conscious?
Wittgenstein wrote there can be no private language, most think he meant language can only occur in a social setting.
Not sure what the LI model is? You have a good link that simplifies the model.
)Pinker argues that humans are born with an innate capacity for language. In addition, he deals sympathetically with Noam Chomsky's claim that all human language shows evidence of a universal grammar. In the final chapter Pinker dissents from the skepticism shown by Chomsky that evolution by natural selection is up to par with the challenge of explaining a human language instinct.
By calling language an instinct, Pinker means that it is not a human invention in the sense that metalworking and even writing are. While only some human cultures possess these technologies, all cultures possess language itself. As further evidence for the universality of language, Pinker notes that children spontaneously invent a consistent grammatical speech (a creole) even if they grow up among a mixed-culture population speaking an informal trade pidgin with no consistent rules. Deaf babies "babble" with their hands as others normally do with voice, and spontaneously invent sign languages with true grammar rather than a crude "me Tarzan, you Jane" pointing system. Language (speech) also develops in the absence of formal instruction or active attempts by parents to correct children's grammar. These signs suggest that rather than being a human invention, language is an innate human ability. Pinker also distinguishes language from humans' general reasoning ability, emphasizing that it is not simply a mark of advanced intelligence but rather a specialized "mental module". He distinguishes the linguist's notion of grammar, such as the placement of adjectives, from formal rules such as those in the American English writing style guide. He argues that because rules like "a preposition is not a proper word to end a sentence with" must be explicitly taught, they are irrelevant to actual communication and should be ignored. Instead, he recommends guides such as The Elements of Style, which focus on clarity of expression rather than prescriptive rules of grammar.
Pinker attempts to trace the outlines of the language instinct by citing his own studies of language acquisition in children, and the works of many other linguists and psychologists in multiple fields, as well as numerous examples from popular culture. He notes, for instance, that specific types of brain damage cause specific impairments of language such as Broca's aphasia or Wernicke's aphasia, that specific types of grammatical construction are especially hard to understand, and that there seems to be a critical period in childhood for language development just as there is a critical period for vision development in cats. Much of the book refers to Chomsky's concept of a universal grammar, a meta-grammar into which all human languages fit.
Universal grammar (UG) is a theory of linguistics postulating principles of grammar shared by all languages, thought to be innate to humans (linguistic nativism). It attempts to explain language acquisition in general, not describe specific languages. Universal grammar proposes a set of rules intended to explain language acquisition in child development.
Some students of universal grammar study a variety of grammars to abstract generalizations called linguistic universals, often in the form of "If X holds true, then Y occurs." These have been extended to a range of traits, from the phonemes found in languages, to what word orders languages choose, to why children exhibit certain linguistic behaviors....
vidence and support
[edit] Neurological evidence
Recent (2003) evidence suggests part of the human brain (crucially involving Broca's area, a portion of the left inferior frontal gyrus), is selectively activated by those languages that meet Universal Grammar requirements.[3]
[edit] Presence of creole languages
The presence of creole languages is cited as further support for this theory, especially by Bickerton's controversial Language bioprogram theory. These languages were developed and formed when different societies came together and were forced to devise their own system of communication. The system used by the original speakers was an inconsistent mix of vocabulary items known as a pidgin. When these speakers' children were acquiring their first language, they used the pidgin input to effectively create their own original language, known as a creole. Unlike pidgins, creoles have native speakers and make use of a full grammar.
The idea of universal grammar is supported by the creole languages by virtue of the fact that certain features are shared by virtually all of these languages. For example, their default point of reference in time (expressed by bare verb stems) is not the present moment, but the past. Using pre-verbal auxiliaries, they uniformly express tense, aspect, and mood. Negative concord occurs, but it affects the verbal subject (as opposed to the object, as it does in languages like Spanish). Another similarity among creoles is that questions are created simply by changing a declarative sentence's intonation, not its word order or content.
Midcan said:The only reason you can think of beer is you sure as heck know what it is and why you drink them
Now do this, imagine a doodad drink, now tell me what it is?
Does consciousness even required a language or does using an invented one preclude us from even recognizing other communication forms especially self -recogintion.
That's hard, is a fly conscious you are about to swat it or does it just know something is coming its way by some other means? Is a dog more conscious than the fly as it knows (?) you are eating something it would like too as it sits and looks up at you and bays softly
The child is fully aware of the subjective experience of its own happiness; it merely lacks the ability to speak (just like walking, it is an instictive behavior that still must be develioped over time and truly mastered with guidence) and does not know the word 'happines' any more than most on this board 'have no idea what 幸福 is, though you may encounter or experience is within your subjective reality? Is the baby conscious of happiness as it smiles happily even though it hasn't a clue what happy is,
?nor what a smile is nor even why it is smiling
What would I be conscious of if I had no words (concepts).
Wittgenstein wrote there can be no private language,
Editec, change metaphor to analogy and I would agree. Metaphor comes much later, give a child a metaphor and they will look at you, tell them something is like something and they get a better idea.
The Freudian divisions sound interesting but don't get us anywhere.
JBeukema, I agree with Pinker that language is innate in humans (but probably other species too) but that is as far as I go. Would a child brought up in total isolation know language?
Good luck. I just tried and failed to find examples to support my contention. Pehraps you'll have better luck than I.Another goggle research item.
I watched my granddaughter learn language and as a baby she would make sounds constantly, we all marveled as she'd coo and aah even in her crib alone, at 2 plus she attached words and experiences and would lie in bed and talk about all the experiences of the day week or month, I think she is a gifted child but she gives a clear picture of both the naturalness of sounds and the more mature thinking words give to sounds.
How do you know a baby has subjective experiences, or maybe in a sense that is all a baby has. Again if a child didn't interact with people who oh and aah and smile would it smile all on its own? Hm, we are raising more questions than answers. A baby does cry at birth with just a little coaxing so maybe smiles are innate too, but even the whack in the backside if needed is a social act.
I still need to know more about that natural language isolated from society, don't think it exists. Even twins who presumably had a private language turned out to be just a take off on the parent's language. Does a baby hear in the womb? Or what does it hear.
A study carried out at the University of Leicester, to be shown on BBC's Child Of Our Time today (Wednesday July 11, BBC1, 9pm) reveals for the first time that babies remember sounds they heard in the womb and recognise them well into later life.
The study, by Dr Alexandra Lamont from the Music Research Group at the University's School of Psychology, demonstrates how one-year-old babies recognise music they were exposed to up to three months before birth.
The discovery explodes the theory that babies can only remember things for a month or two and suggests that memory could last a great deal longer than that.
This provides important new evidence for the influence of nurture in early child development, said Dr Lamont, who is a lecturer in psychology.
She said: We know that the foetus in the womb is able to hear fully only 20 weeks after conception. Now we have discovered that babies can remember and prefer music that they heard before they were born over 12 months later
Would a child brought up in total isolation know language?
Philosopher v scientist? So the person who looks at the cell knows more about the person than the person who looks at the person?
I found a link that leads me to believe that that language can only form in a social situation. If you watch monkeys and higher primates they make noises that are a basic language but they operate on a lower level. Sorta like the tennis players who make those weird effort noises. lol
Would humans isolated form language? Maybe over time but I doubt they would sound like Shakespeare. But back on topic, consciousness is a weird thing to try and isolate as we live in it. Trying to step back from it is like Hofstadter's strange loop. I did look up Helen Keller and she too learned language in an unusual way.
FeralChildren.com | Language acquisition in feral children
Keller:
"Miss Sullivan began her task with a doll that the children at Perkins had made for her to take to Helen. By spelling "d-o-l-l" into the child's hand, she hoped to teach her to connect objects with letters. Helen quickly learned to form the letters correctly and in the correct order, but did not know she was spelling a word, or even that words existed. In the days that followed she learned to spell a great many more words in this uncomprehending way.
One day she and "Teacher"—as Helen always called her—went to the outdoor pump. Miss Sullivan started to draw water and put Helen's hand under the spout. As the cool water gushed over one hand, she spelled into the other hand the word "w-a-t-e-r" first slowly, then rapidly. Suddenly, the signals had meaning in Helen's mind. She knew that "water" meant the wonderful cool substance flowing over her hand. Quickly, she stopped and touched the earth and demanded its letter name and by nightfall she had learned 30 words."
Helen Keller Biography - American Foundation for the Blind
Helen Keller - American Foundation for the Blind
