In the Multiple drafts model Daniel Dennet says:
"The multiple drafts model of consciousness was developed as an
alternative to the perennially attractive, but incoherent, model of
conscious experience called Cartesian materialism, the idea that after
early unconscious processing occurs...
@ArtemKaznatcheev It's a great subject, actually, the question could be phrased maybe a bit better, but it's basically asking who the little man is that reads all of the sensory data as a whole
Oh I meant for the question I posted. No real context. I just have this notion of basis sets in the brain and I'd love to figure out how they are represented, and archetypes are good bases
I'm sure there's work on it out there somewhere, but I like the connection of the seemingly unscientific analytical psychology with something more sturdy and quantifiable
@ArtemKaznatcheev Well, you have more confidence in theory of computation than I do hehe. Maybe we can trade our knowledge like baseball cards or something
It was also a pretty big deal, since it was played in Warsaw and June 12th to Russia is like July 4th to USA
well, sort of
@jonsca they don't have ties when they play elimination, but right now it is the group stage and it was a very exciting 1-1 tie as opposed to a boring 0-0 tie
I never understood American Football really, they stand around not doing anything most of the time; then have a play that last 15 seconds and then stand around some more
@jonsca I think it was introduced in 1991 as a holiday... it is not actually a huge holiday in Russia, but it is a day off work and a sort of "be proud of Russia" day
@HMuster I'm not sure what you mean. Arguably, we have such archetypes (say, we can compare certain people that we know as adults to our parents, or particular characters that pervade mythologies all over the world). I'm asking how we retain such representations of people and things. I think there's a lot of work on language in this regard.
In the Multiple drafts model Daniel Dennet says:
"The multiple drafts model of consciousness was developed as an
alternative to the perennially attractive, but incoherent, model of
conscious experience called Cartesian materialism, the idea that after
early unconscious processing occurs...
@jonsca I am not aware that there is any empirical evidence (i.e., other than descriptive or anecdotic) for those archetypes being anything else than social or cultural constructs. Are there such studies?
@HMuster That I don't know. I'm curious about it. This is what I wrote to Artem earlier:
>Oh I meant for the question I posted. No real context. I just have this notion of basis sets in the brain and I'd love to figure out how they are represented, and archetypes are good bases
>I'm sure there's work on it out there somewhere, but I like the connection of the seemingly unscientific analytical psychology with something more sturdy and quantifiable
(I always mess up the multiline quotes, but I think that's officially a chat bug)
But how can we search for a neural correlate of something that we have no empirical evidence for? Do we know whether archetypes (as a trait or something similar) exist at all?
So, if you don't want to take the actual archetypes (and I don't blame you for that), take what we perceive of our parents in other people. Where is that represented?
These sort of fundamental characteristics that we associate with other things have to be in there somewhere
Is there evidence that these fundamental characteristics are more than just social and cultural constructs? What I mean is, I would rather think that these characteristics depend on how you are raised and not so much on what your genes are.
@HMuster Well, I was even ignoring the nature vs. nurture aspect of the question for now. So, if it depends on how one is raised, then, where is this information stored in the brain and in what form does it exist?
It gets to the "grandmother neuron" hypothesis. I agree, we can probably readily conclude there is no "grandmother neuron", but how is everything we know about the person wrapped up into a little ball in the brain?
And 10:1, when someone comes along and reads 'grandmother' in the text of this chat, that's going to evoke something for them, whether they knew their grandmother or not. I'm asking what is the "that" that it evokes, and where and how is it stored?
I do not think that we have to go that much "down". For me it is just the question whether there is really "scientific" evidence for Jung's archetypes. On this it depends (for me) whether your question can be answered or not.
Basically my argument is, that, before we look for neural correlates of something, we should have evidence that this "something" is really something and come with a good operationalization on how to measure or even manipulate that something. I don't see this for Jung's archetypes.
By the way, this not meant as a critique on your question. I was just curious what you expect as an answer and whether I might miss a bit (e.g., research on those archetypes).
Well, perhaps that's an answer then. I think assuming that there are concepts that are like enough to archetypes that some assertion could be made.
No, it's great to hear your critique. I hope I'm not being defensive
I mean for me there's a fun side to it to, saying "imagine, these sorts of concepts that we rail so hard against for being unscientific could possibly have some merit"
I would have no problem at all with that. But searching for their neural correlates before we are somewhat sure about their existence would be like taking the second step before the first one.
I've never looked closely enough to know. I imagine there are a lot of visual studies with "stereotypical" looking people ('old chubby man with a white beard' -> 'Santa Claus') that could provide a stepping stone
Yeah, I was going to look eventually, but I rushed the question out a bit as I realized that it was almost UTC midnight and we hadn't had a question all day.
In the Multiple drafts model Daniel Dennet says:
"The multiple drafts model of consciousness was developed as an
alternative to the perennially attractive, but incoherent, model of
conscious experience called Cartesian materialism, the idea that after
early unconscious processing occurs...
Seems like the picture he provided comes from there.
Hey! "The homunculus argument accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain" ... this reminds me of when I discuss the topic "does the brain flip images".
But .. that is "up" and that is "down". And your lens flips it, so your brain must flip it back, otherwise it's upside down.
"Homunculus arguments are common in the theory of vision.". :)
@BenBrocka After his edit it's seeming that way. He started out sounding like he was asking about Dennett being against it, but now he's come back to sounding like he's looking for it. I think he took my claustrum answer the wrong way. Still though, I think it's a decent quality question which we sometimes lack.
@StevenJeuris That's me you're after. My only qualm against doing so is that not all in a series may be obsolete. If there was a series where I flagged all, I apologize
I have been going through some of the older posts on the site and finding lots of what I perceive as obsolete comments: chats about edits which have long been committed, "thanks", "welcome", "great question","your avatar is looking at me funny", etc. and flagging them as such. Of course, I avoid...
@HMuster that is an answer. You can say something along the lines of "there is no evidence to support Archeotypes (source). They seem to a social and cultural construct (source). Thus it is unreasonable to expect them to have a clear neural groundin". CogSci.SE isn't just for returning lists of citations to existing papers.
@jonsca CS.SE doesn't really know about us. Unless I come and comment on it and say it should be moved here, I doubt they would notice. However, why not ask about it here? We need good technical questions, and BDI seems on-topic.
@StevenJeuris that is one of the reasons why I linked to your question in the comments :P
is in Japanese. When they write books there is a common technique to write everything in characters but above them right the pronunciation in their simpler more alphabet-like script
So some authors do really beautiful things, by writing one meaning in characters, and then completely different words with a different meaning in the script
@ArtemKaznatcheev I don't have such sources. Actually I think that one might have a hard time to find such sources, because papers like "evidence for blablabla" are much more likely to be published than "no evidence for blablabla". :(
@ArtemKaznatcheev Start by stating what you are after, why do you need examples?
That probably leads you to being able to scope the question to specific examples. Any such specific example would be a suitable one.
And thus answers your question. If a more suitable example appears, it's equally valid (list type question) but as you scope well enough, that shouldn't be a problem. Definitely not on this site.
In the Multiple drafts model Daniel Dennet says:
"The multiple drafts model of consciousness was developed as an
alternative to the perennially attractive, but incoherent, model of
conscious experience called Cartesian materialism, the idea that after
early unconscious processing occurs...
The Axon Terminal
The Axon Terminal