My thoughts during the last coffee break.
Thinking about music, fashion, arts in general ... Not sure about the whole world, but in the western culture, I think, the Fifties started pretty soon after World War II, before 1950 anyway. The changeover to the Sixties was around 1960, or maybe shortly before. -- The Seventies started in 1968 already. -- Then there was a long transition between the Seventies and Eighties, but I'd say its culmination was close to 1980. The Eighties were another long era: the Nineties began only around 1994. I can't say if or when they were over though. Very unsharp era.
)-)
Wow ... what did you add to the coffee, Hardy ? 8)
I'd be very interested to learn why you picked on these particular
years - for example. why 1968?
Sgt. Pepper's? ... the White Album - (Revolution No. 9) ?
I guess this pre-supposes that each of these decades has a certain distinct 'personality' in your mind. Would be interested to know more.
Cheers,
Shiv
Hardy,
Maybe you didn't get the memo:
No coffee breaks (or any other type of breaks) allowed. If you need coffee, get an I.V. drip installed on your forearm from now on.
Hope there are no further violations.
;-)
Mariano
Mariano, Mariano ...! :-)
Shiv ... before I comment further, I haven't studied history of art, it was just a spontaneous impression, of course :-)
For example, recently I watched a clip of an old TV satire series and I guessed what year this was produced. The clothing included many neon pink elements, the shoulders of the jackets were extremely wide (foam), the trousers looked like balloons (pumped up with 700 litres of air). I thought that episode must've been made in the middle of the deepest Eighties. I was shocked when I read at the end of the clip the time stamp ©1993.
I think, in the mid Nineties, fashion returned to a more natural look, supporting the natural human shape, and even tattoos got a completely new social meaning.
The start of the Seventies. My impression is: they started after the first moon landing, when the haircuts got longer, guitars distorted, students on the streets, when Mick Jagger got a female make-up, when heavy wooden record players and radios were replaced by plastic design, then Stanley Kubrick's Space Odyssey ... etc. pp.
|-|
Quote from: Hardy Heinlin... recently I watched a clip of an old TV satire series ...
My God, Mariano, he's even watching TV now!
Quote from: Hardy HeinlinThe start of the Seventies. My impression is: they started after the first moon landing, when the haircuts got longer, guitars distorted, students on the streets, when Mick Jagger got a female make-up, when heavy wooden record players and radios were replaced by plastic design, then Stanley Kubrick's Space Odyssey ... etc. pp.
|-|
Yes ... and Woodstock.
Personal recollections of early 70's (Cambridge Mass, MIT post doc days). Lived North of Boston, took train to work - they do exist in the US - to North Station every morning. In winter, snow falling, the North Station scene looked like a movie set for Anna Karenina. Guys with long hair (below ears), double breasted suits, longggg sideburns, mustaches, beards (all well-trimmed mostly), gals in maxi-skirts/maxi coats, fir (or faux-fir) hats, beautiful. Not sure any movie of the era really captured this. These folks were all brokers, bankers and (really) students mixed together.
Cheers,
Torrence
EDIT: Gosh I forgot the bell-bottoms (not included in Tolstoy) TVJ
Torrence,
Your description of the snow, long coats etc. brought to mind Dr Zhivago, but I am not sure of its date. ;)
Who or what has a soul?
In my last coffee break I thought, ...
... of course, the first thing is to define the word "soul". Suggestion: A soul must be something active, otherwise it would be dead. However, vice versa, anything active isn't necessarily a soul. So, what else except activity does a soul require in order to be a soul?
It must be something that supports the soul's activity. What supports activity? Activity needs at least time and space, or time and qualities. Time is essential. For if time were frozen, nothing would change. An activity is a change. A color change, a form change, a position change and so on.
If there is plenty of causality in the world, things, once kicked, keep rolling driven by causality (or whatever one interpretes as causality; causality might be just another illusion if Kant was right, but this problem doesn't affect my theory).
Is causality everything that activity needs? Probably not. Causality itself is just a condition. It keeps things rolling, but it doesn't start or stop the activity.
To get things rolling, a kick is required.
This kick itself can't be a causal event, in other words: it can't be a direct consequence of a preceeding event. Otherwise it would be just another event in the already running choice-less causal mechanism. Thus, the thing that I call kick has to be non-causal.
Such a kick may be, for example, the big bang (where was no time at that time), or a radioactive particle jumping out of an Uranium atom (at random time or random places by no exact cause but just some probability), like every event in the electronic chaotic noise inside a transistor, or inside a neuron.
Kicks are true decisions. A calculator that spits out "4" whenever "2+2" has been entered, is no decision maker; the calculator has always only one choice. If there are no multiple choices, there's no decision to make.
Without a decisive kick, an activity would never start. Thirdly, the decision must be self-reflective, self-aware in some way, in order not to destroy itself by its own kick.
I think, "soul" has something to do with all this.
To complete my definition of "soul". A soul must consist of activity, kicks and self-awareness.
Now who or what has a soul?
So, everything that remains active and is unpredictably kicking and doesn't destroy itself might have a soul. Even the entire universe as a whole might have a soul. Or that jumping electron may have a soul, during its ride, or during the change of its motion direction.
Another question: Is a soul's existence only a matter of "to be or not to be"? Or does it have a gradual intensity? Can souls grow? Or do they completely appear and disappear? I can't imagine that any prehistoric man suddenly got a soul over night. It must have been a slow process with an increasing intensity. With that in mind, many animals must have a soul as well, but perhaps not at the same intensity as homo sapiens. On the other hand, why not?
:-)
Good coffee. Back to work ...
P.S.: And if this theory is true, all souls together, from every non-causal particle event up to the big bang process and the universe, all these souls together construct a giantic holistic cascade of multiple souls :-) ... whereby a human soul, consequently, also consists of multiple small and very small souls ...
Forum reader, please ignore these posts if you don't like this stuff. I just had to write it down in public somewhere :-)
The root of your concerns is the fact that you have used the word 'soul'. And from there you have wandered around the impossibilities surrounding the word.
I prefer to avoid consideration of the concept of a soul. Like so many imponderables, it can only lead to a form of madness (which I believe religions to be).
I prefer to think on what makes me feel a sort of responsibility to adding to the happiness of others - why, I don't know.
Cheers, R ;)
No worries, Richard. It's just biological.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal
Quote from: mcdonarThe root of your concerns is the fact that you have used the word 'soul'.
What if I used the word "self-awareness" instead -- and put the other properties into that? E.g. self-awareness develops at places where true decisions are made (here I consider decisions non-causal events because only these deal with multiple choices; pure causality is just a dumb one-choice mechanism). So, all things and creatures that contain chaotic elements are decision makers and that may lead to self-awareness because self-awareness supports decision making.
Speaking of madness. After 15000 hours of PSX programming with wires and relays whereever I look, I would go mad if I wouldn't relax my brain with other jazzy thoughts from time to time :-) (Not to be taken 100% serious though.)
Cheers,
|-|ardy
IMHO your term self-awareness best describes the difference between living organisms and living souls (creatures) ;)
Isn't self-consciousness the prerequisite to see where and who I am and - vice versa - to comprehend where and who I am not?
Out of which comes the 'kick' to move (or not), to decide (or not), to change (or not).... and all of this in relation (and inter-dependence) to other souls! Wouldn't all self-consciousness in the world be useless if there weren't other souls around?
On the other hand, I like to differentiate between 'religion' and the belief in, say, a creator. They dont necessarily have much in common imho (not intending to start a religious war here ;) )
Now what if - to get back to the initial question - it's a creator (a creatoress :) ?) that 'kicked' and even in today's souls still 'kicks'? Is everything closely intertwined from before the big bang right up to now? It's all about information and intelligence - does everything follow a common blueprint or DNA? Has in reality nothing changed over time?
My coffe mug is empty... :P :D
What on earth drove me to build a flight simulator - something (somebody?) must have kicked me :P
Charles
P.S. Hardy beat me with his further conclusions while I was writing mine ...
Interesting, H, that you have equated soul and self-awareness.
Soul means nothing to me at all, although I hear my friends with religious beliefs being clear that only humans have a soul.
Self-awareness, on the other hand, is a clear concept to me. At a simple level, I, chimpanzees, gorillas, orang utans appear to know themselves when looking in a mirror. Perhaps other animals would do so to. This seems to suggest that there is a gradient from the highest levels of brain function to the lowest of the concept of self-awareness. I would certainly disagree with a claim of it to only humans.
I can only say that I feel that to try to 'drill down' into concepts like soul can only lead to frustration, not enlightenment, although I am certain many would disagree. Investigation of which animals/plants show signs of what we might call self-awareness, though, could be fruitful in how we treat other sentient animals better.
The research of Frans de Waal is exactly about this, plus the link to empathy, which he suspects is related.
Jeroen,
I am not sure whether you are agreeing with me.
I cannot find the word soul on the Frans de Waal Wikipedia page.
R
Exactly -- it is all about self-awareness only.
Gruess dich, Hardy,
I think, for most of the English speaking world, the word "soul" has particularly religious connections.
'Self-awareness', of course, not so.
So I wouldn't say the two terms have similiar meanings.
what about "organics" do all organics have a soul? apparently a carrot when pulled from the ground screams. Also at death the body is lighter
Quote from: Hardy HeinlinEven the entire universe as a whole might have a soul. Or that jumping electron may have a soul, during its ride, or during the change of its motion direction.
Dies,
this and
dies [size=8]
(allow scripts or else the format doesn't make sense!)[/size] may be relevant.
Or not.
(I remembered it because a
zoologist also once tried his hand on this.)
Kicked but inactive,
Martin
Quote from: Hardy HeinlinThirdly, the decision must be self-reflective, self-aware in some way, in order not to destroy itself by its own kick.
Why?
There is, by common consensus*, a vast range of animals (in fact, practically all, excepting the apes, possibly some whales and relatives, and of course and allegedly Us)
without self-awareness.
But there can be no doubt that they
a) show activity (and thus, by your theory, must also have those kicks);
b) do
not destroy themselves.
Works just fine, as evolution has made sure that the non-self-destructivity is
built right into them.
Without them knowing the first thing about it.*
Cheers,
Martin
* I don't think it is really that simple, but that's another discussion.
"Are you a body or do you have a body."
Not sure where I heard this question, but I think it's the same as we're discussing.
Just because it feels like I have a body doesn't mean that I am not a body, IMO.
Also, neurosurgeons can stimulate specific places in the brain and cause a person to experience various religious and out-of-body events. This would argue that we are a body instead of having a body.
As a (medical) physicist, I told my kids when they asked what happens to a person when they die, it's basically the same as when one turns off a light switch. The light energy turns into random translational kinetic energy aka heat.
But, we may live on in the memories of others, at least for a while, and in the ripples of the things we've done and accomplished, and of the kindnesses we've shown others.
Good morning,
more replies from me perhaps later, just one important reply first: I don't use the word "soul" in a religious sense. Maybe I'm too influenced by musical language or arts. Actually, I don't know what "soul" could mean, I just know that there is this "certain something" and I find no word for it.
Ahoi
|-|ardy
Quote from: martinQuote from: Hardy HeinlinThirdly, the decision must be self-reflective, self-aware in some way, in order not to destroy itself by its own kick.
Why?
There is, by common consensus*, a vast range of animals (in fact, practically all, excepting the apes, possibly some whales and relatives, and of course and allegedly Us) without self-awareness.
But there can be no doubt that they
a) show activity (and thus, by your theory, must also have those kicks);
b) do not destroy themselves.
Works just fine, as evolution has made sure that the non-self-destructivity is built right into them.
Without them knowing the first thing about it.*
Cheers,
Martin
* I don't think it is really that simple, but that's another discussion.
Is seems to me that every creature which is able to move from A to B in a selective way, or which uses social systems in a selective way, has a brain. And it seems that this works best if the control feedback functions with direct qualia instead of longwinded time-consuming data analyses. Acoustic waves are directly converted to sound qualia, there are no wave analyzers; similarly, certain electromagnetic waves are directly converted to color qualia, physical or social injuries are directly converted to pain qualia, there is no injury data report, just a feel of pain, and so on.
I assume the brains of animals work with qualia as well. Why? Well, why does the human brain work with qualia? When your tooth decays by caries, why doesn't your body tell to the brain just ">CARIES"? Why is the smell and sight of caries accompanied by pain? Perhaps pain, just like color signals etc., forces quicker decisions. (I still don't know why. An autopilot, after all, is also quick, even quicker than humans, but an autopilot system probably experiences no pain or any other qualia.) Anyway, for biological creatures, like humans, qualia seem to be a big supporter when it comes to evolutionary survival of moving or social objects. (But then, qualia, too, are just information after all. My analysis is running in circles :-)).
What I'm trying to say is this: The qualia method which humans and animals use needs a certain system requirement: The Self.
Without the Self, qualia have
no target. There must be something that
receives the qualia. "Recieves" in the sense of "suffers", "enjoys" ... The colors, smells, tones, pains, tastes don't exist if they aren't there ... my vocabulary ends here.
Edit: OK, one could also put the Self itself [sic] as another item on the list of qualia. Experiencing the Self be a quale, just like experiencing a color, a fear, a joy etc. It's just a vocabulary problem. Nevertheless, there must be a central qualia experiencing instance in the core of a biologial unit. It's not just a calculator.
Cheers,
|-|ardy
Hardy,
'Qualia' is beyond my OED's ability, so I have to assume that you mean a quality of a signal.
I still feel that you are going in circles. This is because the nervous systems do analyze their inputs. There is no such thing in a nervous system as a middle-C, a green, a pain, or a Bach organ toccata. They are just stimuli (both electrical and chemical) which the nervous system (ultimately the brain) learns and relearns as middle-C, green, pain, good music, etc.
Science has a good reputation of describing and testing most things that previously have been thought the 'works of the creator'. Examples are the workings of chemistry (versus alchemy), physics (quantum theory) and evolution (versus creation). I feel that we shall gradually understand the physical nature of everything within and around us, although I hate to think how our educational system will be able to keep up with the sheer quantity of knowledge that will have to be imparted to our offspring.
I believe that our nervous system will gradually be understood as a chaotic (not random) system where the 'images' of self are built from an ever-changing and learning set of inter-related neurons and their axons. I was impressed to learn recently that the beautiful shapes created by flocks of starlings flying is simply caused by a few simple rules used by each bird regarding its nearest seven neighbours, and the delays inherent in the brain of each bird.
We believe that, at maturity, no new neurons can be created. Axons, on the other hand, continue to grow new connections, break existing connections, and increase/decrease their promotion/inhibition signals to other neurons caused by our experiences.
So learning can be understood as the adjustment of neuronal connections to our individual environments, and 'awareness' as the picture that this appears to present to ourselves. Then, as we grow older and perhaps suffer from dementia, this picture gradually dims, and its parts become less and less inter-related (we lose our individuality) until the point where we can no longer function successfully and we die.
So perhaps we each live a temporary, fantastic delusion of something?
Perhaps you should have looked for the singular form of the word, Richard? In other words 'quale' — as in "Neglege quale, respice quantum" (Never mind the quality, feel the width). The OED in fact offers two definitions of 'quale', and although the first of them is marked as obselete (being about 800 years old), it may not be without interest in this connection, so I will include it:
quale (Obs.)
Death, destruction, mortality.
In combinations: as quale-house, house of torture; quale-sithe, death from pestilence. [The accompanying 'quale-house' quote is from 1205, incidentally].
Also, definition 2:
quale
The quality of a thing; a thing having certain qualities.
That having been said, I do fear that Hardy is using the word in its philosophical context, as a technical term. Since I couldn't philosophise my way out of a wet paper bag, I can have nothing to say about that.
But if I may introduce perhaps one more ingredient into this already rather heady and eclectic mix: an eminent German theologian of the last century called Rudolf Otto introduced the concept of the 'numinous' (a word still in active use in theological circles to this day). The numinous is seen as a sense of the holy which is experienced in a supernatural or other-worldly way, something which can be sensed but not pinned down or clearly defined. Or in Hardy's words '...there is this "certain something" and I find no word for it'. Yup, that's the numinous all right, and the term came into being precisely because of the variability of our perception of such experiences and our ability or otherwise to analyze or vocalise our feelings about them.
Clearly, this is not a concept within the comprehension of those who wish to deny the existence of anything beyond their immediate senses: so it would be denied by Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan, whilst being perfectly understood by C.S. Lewis or Carl Jung.
Which brings me (at last — I know, I know) to my point: could the division of opinion within this thread therefore be related to the extent to which the numinous is meaningful to the person concerned?
Just my 2¢.... ;)
Cheers,
Brian
Who, in this thread, do you mean is 'the person concerned', Brian? :-)
(Technical question.)
Cheers,
|-|ardy
P.S.: My OED on the Mac has qualia and quale.
Quote from: brian747...those who wish to deny the existence of anything beyond their immediate senses: so it would be denied by Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan ...
Can't vouch for Sagan, but do seriously doubt that Dawkins would deny the existence of, among other things, ultraviolet, infrared, ultra and infra sound, electric and magnetic fields, neutrino fluxes etc etc
8)
Martin
Quote from: Hardy HeinlinWho, in this thread, do you mean is 'the person concerned'
In my understanding this is not referring to a specific person but generally to "whoever is the respective {reader|writer} {of|in} the thread"
(cf. "
Könnte die Spaltung der Meinungen in diesem Dialog in Verbindung stehen mit dem Ausmaße, in dem das Numinosum für die jeweilige Person von Bedeutung ist?").
[size=8](It appears that we are rapidly approaching the phraseology of German Idealism!)[/size]
Just
(hi Brian!) my 0.01¢ ...
8)
Martin
As far as my opinion is concerned among the diverse opinions within this thread: The phenomenon what they call "numinous" is not meaningful to me. I have no religious experience.
My hypothesis is independent of theism and atheism. I just think that every creature that is able to experience colors, sounds, pain etc. has a certain intensity of self-awareness. Information arrives in form of a direct quality (I call it quale), instead of being presented in form of abstract numbers which are used in robots. (Not to mention that a number is meaningless if it doesn't refer to a quality anyway.) And this very quality is not presented to the Self in form of wavelength millimeter data or geometric expressions, but directly and quickly as an experience ... which cannot be described further by language (blue is blue).
A pain can exist only if there's a Self that experiences that pain. I think pain, for example, is not something that only humans experience. And the Self is not something that is suddenly there, it has a variable intensity.
Cheers,
|-|ardy
Is there another question going around in this thread asking if this is all "real"?
That has never been a problem for me. I consider this question a pseudo problem. When I experience a quality, the quality is absolutely real. Be it in a dream or not, when I see a blue sky I see a blue sky. What's the problem? :-)
Ah, as I had feared, a philosopher indeed. :roll:
Martin's interpretation was indeed the correct one; however I regret that we are unlikely to be able to correlate the reference systems by which we view the universe, my friend. Do you force me to quote the Bard?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Hardy,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." ;)
I can't resist adding (from the same play) —
"Good-night, sweet prince;
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest." 8)
B.
Quote from: brian747"There are more things in heaven and earth, Hardy,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." ;)
Sure. I know that I know almost nothing :-)
I just enjoy thinking about ... many things ...
|-|
I've always wondered what other people actually see when they look at the colour 'blue'. Would I call what they see red? It is only blue because we have both been told 'That IS blue'.
We are each an individual, forever separated from everyone else by how we perceive the common environment.
I hereby invite everyone on this thread to the Pan-Galactic Solipsism Tournament. Even if you don't exist outside my mind, please feel free to attend. I'll dream up a location for it later :) .
Cheers,
Torrence
Solipsist Caught by Surprise
I say, someone who can be surprised cannot be a solipsist.
When the solipsist is surprised, the thing that caused the surprise cannot be created by the solipsist himself intentionally.
And if he created the surprise unintentionally, he had no control in that moment because it was without intention.
And if anything outside the solipsist's control and mind still should belong to him, then anything is anything and solipsism is just anything of anything, in other words, exactly the same as non-solipsism just under a different name :-)
Ahoy
|-|ard
I will agree with Hardy. Numinous has no personal meaning.
I also agree that self probably has a variable intensity amongst living things.
As soon as we head towards discussions about philosophy, I will return to my original point that like so many imponderables, we approach madness if we persist.
Finished your coffee yet, Hardy? ;)
Quote from: mcdonarFinished your coffee yet, Hardy? ;)
I just woke up after a 12 hour sleep, after 25 hours of non-stop work yesterday. Yes, the last coffee is finished :-)
But the next is not :-)
Good morning
|-|ardy
Quote from: mcdonarI also agree that self probably has a variable intensity amongst living things.
Of course: Take the simplest uni-cellular organism (an amoeba, say, or even a bacterium), and put something nasty (for her) in her way, and she will remove
herself, and not the colleague next to her.
So, at least an "operational" concept of Self.
QED
Numismatically
*,
Martin
* i.e. my 0.02¢
But can an amoeba experience a quality, e.g. a color, a smell, a pain, a joy when it reacts on something in its way? Or is it just a robot controlled mechanism of numbers and counters?
^^
Quote from: Hardy HeinlinBut can an amoeba experience a quality, e.g. a color, a smell, a pain, a joy when it reacts on something in its way? Or is it just a robot controlled mechanism of numbers and counters?
Just like us really, but with fewer numbers and counters. 8)
Quote from: Hardy HeinlinBut can an amoeba experience a quality, e.g. a color, a smell, a pain, a joy
Do you know if
I can?
Do I know if
you can?
Certainly, we can exchange words
[size=8](or paintings)[/size] on that subject, but do I know what you think your words
[size=8](or paintings)[/size] describe?
Do you know if I know what I think you think your words
[size=8](or paintings)[/size] describe?*
Infinite regress?
** :shock:
*
[size=8]As a matter of fact, do I know what I think?[/size]**
[size=8]"...the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity.")[/size]
Quote from: Garry Richardsbut with fewer numbers and counters. 8)
...and
far less hassle with Reproduction:
O ---> o o
"Now we are two!"
* :shock:
* [size=8]with apologies to Winnie-the-Pooh[/size]
Quote from: martinDo you know if I can?
I don't know.
QuoteDo I know if you can?
I don't know. But the "you" knows. The "you" which is writing these lines is experiencing black forms on a white background, it calls them "letters on a monitor". These qualitities called "black", "white" etc. are definetely there in the "you" or being thrown at the "you", be it a so-called illusion or not, a dream or not. This is the truth.
Y-Y
Quote from: martin... but do I know what you think ...
Quote from: HHBut ...
Why did we reply with "but" anyway? I see no opposition :-)
Actually, I forgot what the original question was :-)
Quote from: Hardy HeinlinActually, I forgot what the original question was :-)
What do Amoebae think of qualia. :mrgreen:
Ah, ya.
That was just a rhetorical question!
I just looked at my screen desktop, at the upper right-hand corner where the clock is. The clock showed 00:00:00 right in that moment.
Such hits are extremely rare.
First I thought my clock has been reset. A second later the problem resolved itself.
|-|
Watch out for 11/11/11 11:11:11 soon - better than the Mayan calendar or binary equivalent of 666 !? Note this works with both US and European Mon/Day/Yr Day/Mon/Yr conventions - also suspicious for the conspiracy inclined.
Re: "Do 'X' think/feel/smell/etc" recommended reading is recent "The Information" by James Gleick.
Cheers,
Torrence
Quote from: torrenceRe: "Do 'X' think/feel/smell/etc" recommended reading is recent "The Information" by James Gleick.
Cheers,
Torrence
Re "The Information" by James Gleick -- thanks for the information. I just browsed the comments at Amazon, most readers give five stars.
|-|
Hi Torrence,
Thanks for the recommendation re James Gleick. I have now ordered my Xmas reading list from Amazon. It consists of The Information, Brian Cox's The Quantum Universe, and Nathan Wolfe's The Viral Storm.
As a long-term follower of Richard Dawkins, I would by default have ordered his The Magic of Reality, but the chapter titles looked as though they could be a little too 'preachy' for me.
Good morning,
we humans scratch our heads when we discover a problem that needs to be solved (or a difficult question that needs to be answered; but questions are problems too).
Do apes do this also?
Why has evolution introduced this behaviour? Is it supposed to stimulate the blood circulation in the brain? Or is it a social signal like "I don't know; help me"?
:-)
|-|ardy
Greetings,
[size=8](scratching my head)[/size]
Quote from: hardyIs it supposed to stimulate the blood circulation in the brain? Or is it a social signal like "I don't know; help me"?
First, a bit of a conceptual trap here, i.e. a common misunderstanding (or rather outdated idea) of evolution: not every observable phenomenon (structure, behaviour)
has to have a functional significance (colloquially: "survival value") -- it may well be a "useless" side effect of something else.
I think that head scratching is in this category, and does not have a direct "functional value". The applicable term in classical ethology* (coined by N. Tinbergen, and discussed extensively also by K. Lorenz) is "
Übersprunghandlung".
The correct English technical term seems to be "
displacement activity", but I also saw "substitute activity" and "behaviour out of context".
Essentially (= grossly simplified) it means that if an intended behaviour (in this case: solving a problem) is for some reason "blocked" (the problem is too difficult), the organism will "switch over" to some other behaviour completely unrelated to the original intended one. (One obvious criticism being that "unrelated" may very well depend on the observer and their knowledge...)
It's like a kind of "safety valve" which can release the "pressure" accumulated in a situation where the "normal" channels of action (esp. as commanded by "instinctive" behaviour) are blocked for some reason.
And yes, animals have it, too (this whole concept was developed in animal ethology). It can be seen e.g. in fights when both opponents are equally strong, and thus not quite sure if they want to fight at all, and what their chances are: They may switch to "feeding behaviour", for instance (such as cocks in a fight situation suddenly starting to pick at the ground for non-existent grains of food).
If you want to see it in your pets, watch out for situations where they appear "embarrassed" (they have perhaps done something they bl--dy well know they are not supposed to do, etc.). You may see it in their "general expression" already, and they may e.g. suddenly start preening themselves (of which head scratching is probably a variant).
The
theory behind it is much more complicated than "safety valve". It may also be outdated (the whole classical idea of "instinct" is perhaps no longer generally accepted; I'm behind the times by now). And the concept certainly has been criticized.
So, read on
here (in German)or
here (in English).
HTH
8-)
Cheers,
Martin
[size=8](pulling his leg)[/size]
*
ethology (German:
Verhaltensforschung): the branch of zoology studying animal behaviour.
(not to be confused with ethnology or ethics)
Interesting. Thanks! :-)
To me, it seems a lot of those activities, which were originally just "substitute activities", have been established by evolution because it enriched the nonverbal communication with more "words", which then improved the social system of a group. Perhaps facial expressions (those hundreds of nuances in eye brow movement etc. pp.) may have been such random "substitute activities" originally.
Cheers,
|-|ardy
I see such behaviour in apes. But I am wary of interpretations by 'scientists'. To me, it is just interesting to speculate.
Quote from: Hardyit enriched the nonverbal communication
True in general.
(Konrad Lorenz' first major work was to analyze the evolution of the "ritualistic" gestures in the courting behaviour of various species of duck and geese. The significance beyond ducks was that he proved that
behaviour traits are subject to evolution, and can be analyzed in the context of evolution, in the same way that
structural traits had been analyzed earlier already.)
In our specific case of head scratching the question is then of course, why one would "wish" to communicate a conflict situation to one's peers. OK, in social species it may be a request for support; and Homo sapiens is a social species.
But it remains to be seen for how long...
(If in a meeting, do
not scratch your head, it communicates (in the eyes of your manager) incompetence. Giving a wrong answer in an assured and self-confident tone is a better strategy than honestly signaling ignorance... cf. "
Imponiergehabe" ( ~ "
showing-off behaviour") :oops: )
Cheers,
M
Quote from: Richard McDonald WoodsBut I am wary of interpretations by 'scientists'
So are scientists!
[size=8](at least those without the quotes around them)[/size]
:mrgreen:
Cheers,
Martin
QuoteHomo sapiens is a social species
Some people over here don't believe this and think that social behaviour was introduced by the enemy to bring us down. But then, you're from Finland. :-)
Quoteit communicates (in the eyes of your manager) incompetence
More advanced species of manager correctly interpret it not as a sign of incompetence, but as a sign of "lack of data" and respond accordingly. :-)
Hoppie