In the last 30 years, studies have been carried out with far-reaching effects in terms of understanding the structure of the brain's operation and in terms of the essence of reason, and they have the potential to give directions for thinking about intelligent life in space. We will focus on two areas. One field is teaching monkeys to use sign language and the other field is the investigation of verbal logic
In the last 30 years, studies have been carried out with far-reaching effects in terms of understanding the structure of the brain's operation and in terms of the essence of reason, and they have the potential to give directions for thinking about intelligent life in space. We will focus on two areas. One field is teaching monkeys to use sign language and the other field is the investigation of verbal logic.
Due to a different anatomical structure of the vocal system, monkeys are not able to develop the ability to speak like humans. On the other hand, they have a sign language with which they communicate among themselves. With the aim of trying to communicate with monkeys, attempts were made to teach them sign language and use them. It turned out that these attempts had quite a few successes1. Monitoring these monkeys showed that they are able to do what they were taught - performing complex communicative actions. They invent new signs, combine words independently, create new sentences using syntax rules, conditionals and prepositions. The most significant discoveries were that the monkeys also showed bilingual comprehension and linguistic teaching ability. Davis points out, for example, that "all the chimpanzees who grew up in human families were bilingual, they understood a large part of the English language as well as sign language... and the monkeys are able to translate from one language to another"2. In other experiments, monkeys were able to teach other monkeys the sign language they had learned3. Another interesting and potentially very significant case is that of "chimpanzees who gave their own names to holidays such as Thanksgiving and Christmas - bird meat and candy tree respectively"4. Does this indicate abstract thinking in monkeys?
As for the verbal functions of the brain, two very important basic facts are known today. First, it is clear today beyond any shadow of a doubt that the verbal ability is focused in the left hemisphere of the brain and that different components of this ability are not focused in just one place, but are scattered in different places such as the middle of nouns which is in three places, the middle of verbs, the middle of creating words and sentences which is in two Places 5. A new approach developed in recent years to test the brains of monkeys shows similarities to the human brain as far as the left hemisphere of chimpanzees is concerned. On the face of it, it seems that their verbal ability is also in the left hemisphere6. The ability of monkeys to learn a language, even if it is a sign language, may be significant in this matter. Since sign language is a language for everything (it has nouns, verbs, conditional words and conveying messages and requires the construction of sentences), a possibility arises, although at the moment only theoretical, that even in the minds of monkeys there is a "geographical" differentiation of centers responsible for different linguistic functions.
Since intelligent life at any technological level requires verbal ability, the research done on monkey brains opens a door to a line of thought that may illuminate another aspect of human development and the development of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
Beyond the communicative function, without which communal and intelligent life is not possible at all, there is also a dimension of logical thinking in the verbal ability and its realization. From observations, it can be seen that both babies and animals react to their environment. In babies, receiving words and using them to communicate with their parents requires its own time until the skill of using the language is acquired. Understanding the environment in which they live is done non-verbally. The way animals react to their environment is different from ours. What seems likely, is that their vocal expressive ability is very limited. If they still have some verbal ability, then it can be considered as a negligible ability. To examine these forms of thinking, a distinction must be made between two forms of logical thinking, the logic of verbal thinking and the logic of non-verbal thinking.
Logic by its very nature is concerned with distinguishing between valid and invalid arguments. Familiar forms of operation of logic are claims such as if "A" then "B", and if "A" and "B" are any verses, then verse "A" and "B" are true, if and only if "A" and "B" are both real etc. We see that there is a relationship of conditioning. Due to the operation of logic within the language whether it is written or spoken or both together, in any form of conditioning, the basis of the operation of logic is the word and therefore this logic is defined as the logic of verbal thinking.
Verbal logic deals with individual sentences and the degree of their conditional relationship, when after finishing its treatment with the degree of conditioning, the relationship and validity between two sentences, it moves on to the next two sentences. Non-verbal logic deals with images and sets of sounds. The construction of the arguments in the non-verbal logic, will be done by comparing a certain image with a given image and examining the identity between them and comparing a certain sound to a given sound, when the argument is, if there is an excess or lack of data or certain data, in relation to the source image or the source sound, then it is possible to reject the information the requested or to receive it despite its difference from the original. In this logic, absoluteness is not necessary. Comparing any information to source information can indicate a difference to one degree or another and this information will still be valid.
In terms of human evolution, the ability to speak came at a very late stage. The reactions to the environment were physical and the vocal expression was limited, something along the lines of making noises and commotions. The only brain centers that had a bearing on behavior and reactions were vision and hearing. In this sense man was no different from all animals, his perception and understanding of the environment were without words. He performed three types of matches, image to image, voice to voice and image to voice. In terms of compatibility, there are two types of instances. One instance is a full match. The image he sees today is completely similar to the image he saw yesterday and a second occurrence is a partial match - a situation in which the image he sees today is slightly different from the one he saw yesterday, for example the clouds he sees. This had different meanings, for example whether it was raining or not, or the pitch of animal grunts. Does he hear a small number of growls or a large number of growls, are these animals dangerous for him or animals that he used for hunting. This is important when he hears the animals in the distance, when they are still out of his field of vision. Man's conditioning at this evolutionary stage is non-verbal. This is the logic stage of his non-verbal thinking.
The conditions become literal only from the moment he starts speaking. If we refer to the various intermediaries that we mentioned - the intermediary of nouns, the intermediary of verbs and the intermediary of creating words and sentences, there are two possibilities regarding the process of their development. One possibility is that they developed simultaneously with the development of the brain and they constituted a potential that was waiting for the right moment (a state of readiness to use them)7 or they developed gradually. First, the middle of the nouns developed because the person began to give names to all the phenomena he saw, secondly the middle of the verbs developed because the person had to express himself in relation to the actions he performs, etc. Which of the two options is correct, it is difficult and perhaps impossible to know. In any case, we can safely accept the hypothesis that since man developed and perfected his linguistic ability, he also began to develop the logic of verbal thinking. With the strengthening of this logic, the use of the logic of non-verbal thinking decreased. However, the use of non-verbal logic has not gone away and still has its uses. It is likely that the place of this logic is in the field of intuitive thinking, it is used in examining a basis for insights that turn into words, sentences and written texts.
If we accept as an assumption that intelligent life with one or another degree of technology exists on other stars, we will have to accept the idea that they also put their thoughts in writing and, like on Earth, there is a transition from the logic of non-verbal thinking to the logic of verbal thinking.
Comments
1. Davis Flora - Animal language. Masada Publishing House, 1978, pp. 11-61.
2. Ibid., p. 27.
3. name, name; Stover Duane - "It All Runs in the Family" Popular Science, February, 1998, p. 40.
4. Stover Duane - ibid., p. 41.
5. Damasio Antonio, Damasio Hanna – “Brain and Language” Scientific American,
September 1992, p. 63.71.
6. pp. 46-48. Theodore Gideonse - "Aping Language" Newsweek, January 19,1998, XNUMX
7. Mazer Haim - "Evolution of Intelligent Life" All Kochavi Or issue 3 1997 pp. 129-133.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~328042460~~~98&SiteName=hayadan
25 תגובות
Hugin:
OK fine. We got you.
Michael:
I don't owe you anything.
I really don't care if you understand or not.
Tell me, did you miss out? What interest should I have in sending to Roy? What is your story?
Regarding the residual pride: Yes, it is definitely a product of birth that was added to me..to the blind eye of the Internet and other special bins in the way of the world.
But, I don't care if my illusory images are so in your eyes.
Hugin:
The nonsense of the remaining pride is your permanent residence. I'm not dragging you there and many have even warned you about it.
I repeat that if you speak the truth you can send Roy the solution and as long as you use your arrogant bib language you are only convincing people that you have not even understood the problem.
Let's do a poll here and see which of the respondents understood your words.
I am ready to answer for you and say that you are not.
I ask the others to answer honestly and to take into account the fact that if someone says he understood - I will also ask him to send Roy the drawings.
Another thing Michael:
I'm willing to bet you no money that 90 percent of the site's readers understood the visualization I described, but the 10 percent you hold onto with material/masked/brain fanaticism. They block everything else from seeing my words in a clear light or just 'rattle' from a 'main' block.
Let go, you are dragging me into nonsense and excessive pride, pity myself and all of us.
Michael:
1) Something defined as 'stretchable' must be elastic and flexible.
2) See the continuation of the stunt in my other responses and a link between them.
3) I'm always right! :) And certainly when it comes to the issues and difficulties between me and you.
Wait, wait, wait, why don't you admit that I gave a correct solution? Huh? Huh?
Shabbat Shalom to all:)
I'm on a little break between two events and will try to thread some comments.
lion:
This is indeed a cool puzzle.
As soon as there is a solution and it can be demonstrated then there is a proof. The beauty is that the solution can be demonstrated without relying on any knowledge of topology.
You say that it will be difficult to solve it with a model in hand, so allow me to surprise you and say that in my opinion - a model in hand will only make the solution more difficult.
I will expand a bit on the matter because I think it is interesting and maybe it will help someone with the solution but it will be a decent help and not a hint.
I received the riddle from a friend when we spent time together guarding the settlement.
During that part of the shift we were supposed to sit in our car and see if any suspicious vehicle entered the settlement or if a resident's vehicle left it being driven by a thief.
It was ten to one at night and the shift was supposed to end at one.
My friend drew the picture and let me look.
The last ten minutes of the shift when I look at the picture and the road alternately but I did not solve the problem.
At one in the morning the shift ended.
I drove my friend to his house and started driving back to my house - a distance of one minute of driving.
The advantage of that minute was that I couldn't look at the page, so as soon as I got home I called my friend and told him what the solution was.
The point is that the power of imagination - when it is freed from all kinds of restrictions such as playing with the model or - in my case - looking at the picture over and over again - is much greater.
Although I didn't make the mistake that Hogin made when she called one of the pieces a rubber band and I knew that nothing in the puzzle meant that something underneath or shrunk would return to its original shape, but despite that - the repeated look at the painting functioned as a kind of restoring force that prevented my imagination from sailing too far.
In fact - all the topological puzzles I have solved in my life (and they are not few) - I solved them only in thought and without a model.
I have no doubt that it is easier that way.
In another case where a friend showed me a certain game where you have to separate a loop of rope from some wooden fixture (she showed me the puzzle while we were traveling together to some meeting in the army) - I thought about the puzzle for a minute and then simply - without holding the game in my hand I told her (she didn't know the solution) - do this, now do that, now do this and now that and suddenly she was left with the loop separated from the device without realizing what happened there. We spent the rest of the way with her explaining on the phone to whoever gave her the game what a wonderful thing happened here.
Actually it wasn't that miraculous. I - because I drove - was freed from the restrictions placed by the model on my thinking.
Hugin:
OK - as you wish.
We will see you draw a series of drawings demonstrating the solution.
I suggest you send her toRoey Tsezana.
If you solved the problem then drawing these pictures is really easy.
I am, of course, sure that you have not solved but you have a very simple way to conjure up my argument.
Tomer:
What is "going through the rings"?
It is impossible to tear them (and as mentioned - not to stick either). They are made - we say - of plasticine but a little better - one that doesn't tear and doesn't stick - on one hand - but that can be deformed by stretching and shrinking parts of it to whatever extent we want.
I call it "topological matter".
Such material that if you get a piece made of it you can twist it into the shape of a mug with a handle.
Tomer, the flexibility of rubber is capable of many spiral paths, especially if it has the support of mobile peripheral rings.
Can you go through the rings?
Michael
Which pass through the rings?
My scholars will forgive me:
Houdin, Bogin, Nonin, Shumonin Hogin is neither wrong nor mistaken!!! You must learn to read the beginning well and clearly and also understand how the lower 'commissioner-loop' turns over after wrapping the rubber band around it and creates a closure of the two circles together.
Michael. Is it possible to prove using topology that there is a solution?
A cool puzzle, suitable for use as a mage item, even though it's not magic. It is reminiscent of disassembly and assembly puzzles of shapes made of bent metal rods, which were once common. I think the current one is more difficult. I think this is difficult to solve not only through abstract thought, but also difficult when you have a XNUMXD model in hand.
I have to run to a series of family events.
All the "solutions" presented so far are wrong.
I don't have a movie of the solution.
If I feel like it, I'll try to find time to draw a series of pictures that clarify it.
In the meantime, bye
Is there an animation or video of the solution?
Michael: The upper balanced 'rubber' must be stretched down and brought under the lower 'solid'/stable vertical: this way the two circles will meet. (without tearing and without piercing).
Well, I hope I didn't fall into the trap of recklessness for your liking :)
I have no idea what the solution is but I assume the solution involves attaching the 2 loops to one loop.
fresh:
You don't explain anything.
You're just showing that you decided to call a certain type of thinking "non-thinking".
Instead of analyzing what you think the person who solves the problem is doing, I suggest that you just solve it and only then speak.
My theory about this painting is that whoever solves it does so through verbal thinking and I will explain. Although he doesn't use actual words to arrive at a solution, he still uses some kind of logic and reason. That logic is a product, what to do, of language. If a person who by chance acquired a non-language (there were such cases of children raised in the forest by wolves for example) and no effort was made to teach him a language at all, manages to solve it, then it is said that non-verbal thinking does exist. By the way, even the instructions of the painting are expressed in words so that it Yet another difficulty that a person without language must understand, the painting expresses a problem that needs to be solved.
I also have my doubts about animals, even if animals solve some kind of problem, let's say use a stick to reach a banana, this still does not mean that they have non-verbal thinking, it only means that they have intelligence that is genetically instilled in them in advance
fresh:
Here - I drew you a challenge:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgz8mg3w_338gpbx35fr
We'll see you solve this question using verbal thinking (or no thinking at all).
By the way, Hugin: you have already risen above the words stage, you are welcome to try to solve it in your own way.
A word, words are halacha in practice: the 'scaffolding and ladders' so that we don't fall into the abyss of womanhood (self-forgetfulness).
They are the tools and intelligences (patterns of intelligence), which developed in a long process of evolution and perhaps also 'suddenly' from the levels of 'free will' (and seemingly random)
, such as the instinctive instinct for existence, which comes from instinct and the urge - for control, action and culture and up to > rising towards a 'higher desire' and the awareness of a higher urge (as a short-term to long-term 'memory' for preserving the world-as a universe!).
Of course: Shami, who is not yet in the deep internalization stage necessary for him to stage 'taking responsibility' for the verbal feature and its precious function, will take more 'time' and a prolonged delay to understand this message.
By the way, in topological problems it is even more pronounced.
I will try to find time to draw you such a problem and we will see you deal with it yourself.
fresh:
You probably have no experience in this matter because I use it, as mentioned, for the purpose of solving geometric problems (among other things) and if you think it is possible to solve geometric problems without thinking, then either you don't know what a geometric problem is or you don't know what thinking is.
Michael:
Manipulating an image only in imagination without adding words is imagination and not thought. To think you need words, otherwise it's just feelings and sensations or imagination.
fresh:
I'll go ahead and say that non-verbal thinking certainly exists.
For example - when I solve a problem in geometry (two or three dimensional) - a large part of the thinking is manipulating the images in the imagination.
It is clear that the verbal ability is an important ability but it is not the only way of thinking.
I have not read the article you are commenting on before and skimmed it only now - following your comment.
Towards the end, the article asks a question about what came before what - language as a means of communication or as a tool for thinking.
I found the solution to this question, in my opinion, a long time ago (long before this article was written) and recently - with the beginning of my activity on the science website, I also wrote an article describing the answer:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/birth-of-language-1110084/
Is it possible to think without words? How is non-verbal logic or non-verbal thinking possible? If it is not verbal how can it be called "thinking"? Maybe you can call it "feeling" or "sensation", you can be afraid or angry even without words.
This logic is from the realm of black or white, "non-verbal logic" as described here is the realm of shades of gray and therefore in my opinion it is dull logic and not logic in the classical sense of the word.