CraigD Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 Take the example of the concept of resonanting structures of molecules and the mind of Kekule. What led to his sudden inspiration? This is a question which the analogy I just mentioned fails to address.I agree with what I believe hallenrm is stating – that insight and intuition are critical to scientific discovery, explaining why, from the same data, only one or a few people produce scientific breakthrought. However, the popular story of Kekulé’s discovery of the ring structure of benzene following a flash of insight from dream, doesn’t appear to be true, even though Kekulé himself wrote that this was the source of his discovery. Most science historians believe that Kekule’s discoveries were the result of his painstaking research, and his awareness of the research of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted March 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Welcome to the discussion CraigD! It might be as well very true that the story about Kekule's dream is as much a legend, true or untrue one never knows, as is the story of the apple falling on the Newton's head. But, I do believe that there is sometimes a flash of insight, inside the mind of any person who can concentrate on thinking about a particular issue over a prolonged period of time, that leads to a brekthrough. How does it come about? Any thought??? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 … But, I do believe that there is sometimes a flash of insight, inside the mind of any person who can concentrate on thinking about a particular issue over a prolonged period of time, that leads to a brekthrough. …I agree. My personal experience supports this belief – I often find myself stuck on a problem, only to have a solution “come from nowhere” some time after I’ve taken a break from it. Occasionally, the “flashes” occur in dreams. The only explanation with which I’m comfortable is that something at least slightly like the unconscious described by early psychodynamic theorists (Freud, Jung, etc.) is at work here, continuing to puzzle over problems after the conscious mind has moved on to other concerns. Although I can’t support these early theorists’ idea of that the unconscious mind is “super-genius”, erring only intentionally or very rarely, it does sometimes seem to be in ways superior to the conscious mind, if only in that it seems less susceptible to frustration. Some clearly brilliant folk, such have offered very different explanations. Ramanujan stated on several occasions that he seriously believed his insights to be given to him by God. Even though such folk are way smarter than me, I think my explanation is fundamentally the correct one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Our minds pick up on cues all around us all the time... cues that are not paid much attention, but still are stored (or, at the very least, result in some neural reorganization). The passage of a car or a plane above, something in a radio commercial, or a conversation of some random person in the grocery store or on a train... When we direct our attention on some problem, or have been contemplating something grander than ourselves, much like a magnet pulls iron filings, a current target of our attention will pull those previously stored cues out, lending support to a previously non-existing idea, and sometimes orgainizing the current thoughts into some more complete picture. What seems like a "poof" is really more of a structure resulting from the aggregate of all our previous experience, whether we call that conscious or unconscious...it's a result of experience and genetic predisposition. A harmony of all of it together, like notes in a symphony... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 WRONG Infinitenow,Our BRAINS.not our minds. There IS a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 other than that I love your post :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Infinitenow,Our BRAINS.not our minds. There IS a difference.I agree that there is a difference between the mind and brain, but not that our brains are the only place neural pathways are at play. It's important to recognize that the brain is not all there is too our perception or nervous system. The synaptic pathways are reorganized in this manner all throughout the body depending upon the stimuli... not just in our brain. other than that I love your postThanks. :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 i Think our mind is intangible though,it has influence on the nervous system by our conscious...thoughts, memories, and what we bind to "feelings."But the brain does all the "processing" and all of the things I can't explain :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 i'm beginning to wonder if our mind is purely human...Some scientists who have been working with fungi lately found a huge resembleance in human neaural pathways,and the ways that fungi "communicate" If only we knew how to communicate with them. The thing is, I do.And I believe I do.And Until someone tells me i'm insane and proves otherwise, I will be communicating with the fungi,AND ALL EARTH,oh so much passionfor this menacing life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 My mind is Chained to this human body :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted March 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 What seems like a "poof" is really more of a structure resulting from the aggregate of all our previous experience, whether we call that conscious or unconscious...it's a result of experience and genetic predisposition. A harmony of all of it together, like notes in a symphony... Do you mean to say that all discoveries and inventions, acts we often ascribe to a genius, are infact ordained by genes and chance. There is no scope for culturing/educating humans to contribute there mite, by conscious effort? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayra Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 Do you mean to say that all discoveries and inventions, acts we often ascribe to a genius, are infact ordained by genes and chance. There is no scope for culturing/educating humans to contribute there mite, by conscious effort? The way I see things probably does not follow with most of modern science, but it suits my view on the world nicely :hihi: I believe that, at conception, we have a set of innate talents for (or against) particular aspects of our world. This includes talents for intuition as well as creativity. I define a talent as a mostly static concept. Simply put, an organization of the neural pathways that predisposes us to being able to accomplishing particular tasks. On top of that, we have skills and interests. Skills are developed as we grow, usually driven by our interests (but not always). Skills are dynamic, and may include things like intuition and creativity. How easy we find a particular skill to master will depend on our talent for it, and our level of interest. I also believe that if we are not talented (meaning we do not have a genetic predisposition for) at a particular task, but have an intense enough interest, we can develop the skills we are interested in. As to the source of intuition, I believe that when we think for a long time on a problem, or a problem is unusual enough to make an impact on us, that we spend a lot of time visualizing and trying in our minds eye to create a solution for it. This sets up a neural organization that has 2 sides to it. One is the problem.. a mostly static structure, and the rest are possible solutions, various and dynamic patterns we construct mentally to try to fit to the problem. If we can not solve the problem, the mental construct of the problem can remain in our minds for a considerable time. Our brains, being the pattern recognition marvels that they are, will continue to apply any mental construction that happens to be in our mind towards a solution to that problem, even when the current mental construct has nothing to do with that problem. I do not think that how we do this is a conscious process, but is a process that can be directed by our consciousness. In the end, genius in a particular area may be attributed to a person winning the genetic lottery and having a talent in that area, as well as enough interest to develop mental skills to understand that area. This can facilitate the conscious and subconscious creative process. HmmThis post turned out to be much longer then I had intended. Sorry about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 Do you mean to say that all discoveries and inventions, acts we often ascribe to a genius, are infact ordained by genes and chance. There is no scope for culturing/educating humans to contribute there mite, by conscious effort? I try not to speak in absolutes. My post was as clear as I could make it, but basically, yeah... genes and chance (chance being the factor which incorporates everything else I may have left out). Conscious effort itself is a result of both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted March 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 ........................................... I also believe that if we are not talented (meaning we do not have a genetic predisposition for) at a particular task, but have an intense enough interest, we can develop the skills we are interested in. ........... Sorry about that.You need not be sorry, Karya! I think I have started getting the kind of responses I wanted, and that fit the pupose of the Lounge. The only thought that occurs to me, as I read your response is "What determines that a person develops an intense interest in a particular subject?" Any thought, anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted March 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 yeah... genes and chance (chance being the factor which incorporates everything else I may have left out). Conscious effort itself is a result of both. O.K. , but remember that most of the immediate relatives, say siblings or parents, of the scientists that made to the Hall of fame, ever succeeded in distinguishing themselves as the genius in question. Which means that it is not any sequence in the chromosomes that led them to be what they were. It seems there are some extra-genetic factor at play, a factor not yet explored by the scientists of any genre.... I think the one who takes a step in this direction, would be the genius of the century. Any dissent?:eek2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 O.K. , but remember that most of the immediate relatives, say siblings or parents, of the scientists that made to the Hall of fame, ever succeeded in distinguishing themselves as the genius in question. Which means that it is not any sequence in the chromosomes that led them to be what they were. While I agree that there's more to it than just chromosomes, I disagree with your point about their dumb relatives indicating that genes don't play a role (more b/c of the fallacy of making such an assumption than anything else). As for the extra-genetic factors and where they're being explored... It seems there are some extra-genetic factor at play, a factor not yet explored by the scientists of any genre.... ...psychology, sociology, philosophy, statistics... all are used in an attempt to answer such questions. I think the one who takes a step in this direction, would be the genius of the century. I elect you! Good luck! :eek2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted March 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 While I agree that there's more to it than just chromosomes, I disagree with your point about their dumb relatives indicating that genes don't play a role (more b/c of the fallacy of making such an assumption than anything else). As for the extra-genetic factors and where they're being explored... ...psychology, sociology, philosophy, statistics... all are used in an attempt to answer such questions.:) Well, I never used the word dumb, between a genius and a dumb person there's lot of space, and I consider myself occupying this space.:( The extra-genetic factors, you have mentioned are almost cliche in modern scientific lingo, I would like to go beyond them. Lately, I thought of a theory, according to it, the sum total of a human body is like a string, a la the "string theory" different persons have a different characterstic frequencies, as does the knowledge and the skills about different topics, as and when these frequencies match, there is resonance; that empowers a person to think and explore a particular topic much more efficiently than others.:) I know, it sounds vary amateurish, but I do believe that the primary thoughts that lead to breakthroughs are often similarly termed.:shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.