@zophu @FireMadeFlesh
What ju guys are describing is what I call Pure Experiential Awareness. A phenomenon is upon you, either theoretical or observable. I wouldn’t label that as actually thinking about it. No language necessary. I used to believe it relied upon simple sensory perception. However, after considering the research of Wes Warren (St. Louis University), I believe this sensory perception is somehow tied in to how it reacts with the ncRNA. These legacy genes are responsible for turning off our evolved heritage. For instance, our ancient primate olfactory genes are fully expressed within them, yet they are turned off. It is the learned attributes of our primitive ancestors which has been encoded into our genome over time. I suggest these are still accessible, in the manner of representing our natural fear of large fanged animals, or our natural inclination to befriend fire, etc…
Wes Warren has discovered that these very genes are responsible for engaging the language centers in song bird finches. These genes actually control whether or not the song bird’s brain will engage the speaking centers. The implications for this are primary to humans, for song birds are specifically studied because of our nearly identical ncRNA pathways to the brain.
So, upon the pinnacle of Pure Experiential Awareness, I propose the senses interact with the ncRNA, giving some the sense that actual thinking is taking place, when in fact, the ncRNA is merely at the point of being engaged, or not. It occurs at that pinnacle moment where the natural body reactive properties are teetering upon fight, flight, or invite. You label it as a type of sense, and rightly so. It is a natural inclination to move away or move towards the phenomenon. But actually thinking about it, requires us to attempt some form of description.
Imagine you are witnessing the first Sunrise. You don’t know what it is. Your first reaction is one of fight, flight, or invite. Your senses lead this process. But thinking requires descriptions of “warm, big, round, yellow”. That’s a little thinking. More thinking requires more description of “in the eastern sky, rising above the horizon, piercing through the clouds”.
Days later, when the phenomenon has gone, we may continue to think, and we do this with further descriptions of “carried upon a chariot, meeting her in the sky, casting jealous shadows upon the foolish fiends below”. Well that’s how the poet would think about the phenomenon. But the mathematician would have thought by collecting data, and then analyze with further calculations later. Both Poet and Mathematician are accomplishing this with language.
The larger a beings vocabulary, the greater the thinking capacity one achieves. A toddler can only think to the degree of “ball, red, bouncy, round”. But an adult can think to the degree of “30% off at WalMart, Toxic Properties, Polymers, Rubber Trees, Air Pressure, and Lives in the Corner of the Room”.
A Bee can think and be consciously aware of something only to the degree that his limited figure 8 waggle dance may encode and decode for distance, direction, wind drift, and quality of pollen. But he has nothing in his lexicon to allow thinking about a coffee cup. He literally cannot think about it. He’s not even aware of it beyond there being a thing, and he probably can’t even understand concepts of thing. But the sugar on the rim of the cup gives him cause for reacting in fight, flight, or invite.
I know you’re tired of hearing this, but the sugar and the bee are simple cause/reaction. No thinking involved. But the pollen harvest and the bee is language based and a clear case of thought/action, for we have deciphered the figure 8 waggle, and we know what it encodes for.
Composing members:
0
