6 of 8
6
The little things in life.
Posted: 04 September 2017 10:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2015-12-29
Write4U - 04 September 2017 08:52 PM
Titanomachina - 04 September 2017 12:04 AM

Ted talks might as well be synonymous with garbage and your like to mirror neurons doesn’t list anything solid, it’s just speculation.

I am sorry, but that is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. And to ease you mirror neural system which responded negatively to that ambiguous word, “ignorant”, I meant “lack of knowledge”.

Ted Talks hosts recognized experts in their field of research. They are short overviews by knowledgeable scientists in the various sciences and very useful to the layman for gaining a fundamental understanding of how things work.
In the case of the brain.

The brain contains some 100 billion neurons, divided into sections much like the partitions, folders and files in a computer which respond to specific “input data”. As in a computer the brain has a partition that is dedicated to memory, the storage of previously acquired information, in the form of electro/chemical packets.

But what is memory in a computer? They are stored packets of electronic codes which represent something that has been electronically fed to the computer by the programmer.

So what is memory in a brain? It’s fundamentally the same thing, except the programmer is our entire experiential environment from which we select specific information of interest, which is then stored in our mirror neural system as electro/chemical data packets.
And just as with a computer these memories (packets of information) can be accessed by the brain at a later date.

This is the function of schooling. The teacher is the programmer who feeds us packets of information, which are then stored in our mirror neural system (MNS). This is how we gain electro/chemical knowledge of what things are, what they look like, and how they behave.

If you have set your computer to auto-fill names and phrases, or even spelling-correction, and you begin type in a name or a word, the computer is trying to anticipate what it is and will auto-fill a bunch of possible names or if it does not recognize a word, it will suggest alternatives.  Ever seen that little computer question “do you mean (this word) or (that word)?

The brain does the same thing except at a much deeper level.  It can respond to observational input and asks itself; from what I know and can recall from memory, what is it that I am watching. At that point the brain begins to make best guesses as to what our eyes, ears, nose, touch are “telling” us what we are experiencing and from our experience, we are able to recognize the same thing when we see others experiencing something which we are familiar with.

If we see a crashed car, do we say; “poor car, look at all the damage”, or do we ask “poor people, was anyone hurt”? Our emotional involvement is at the personal level with the welfare of the occupants in the car, rather than with the damage done to the car, which we know cannot experience the feeling of pain.

When we see someone hit their thumb with a hammer, we wince as if we were struck by the hammer, even as we are standing 10 feet away. But our mirror neural system (MNS) recognizes the action and we know the hammer doesn’t feel anything, it’s the guy’s thumb that was hurt. However, our actual nerves in our thumb are not traumatized and will immediately inform our brain that our electro/chemical response is an empathic response and that we ourselves are not experiencing the pain physically.

Pain is a electro/chemical experience of the brain with which we are all familiar with and have stored in our memory.
It is to be expected that the guy hitting himself creates the electro/chemical response which his brain translates as pain.

The interesting thing is that when we observe this, our mirror neural system (MNS) responds electro/chemically as if it is itself experiencing the pain, but without actually feeling pain.  But we still wince or even shake our hand, the same as the guy who is experiencing the real pain.

This ability to identify the implications of what we are observing in others is called “empathy”, which often result in a secondary feeling of “sympathy”. After all we were not actually hurt, but we know the other guy was and we can relate to that person’s suffering.

In spite of your negative disposition toward Ted Talks, I’ll post this link primarily for other interested persons

The neurons that shaped civilization

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l80zgw07W4Y

Unfortunately TED talks are more about appearing intelligent than rather saying anything of substance, that and the quality control of the ideas on their isn’t very good. I’ll say this though, based on their speech pattern and mannerisms they can make anything sound profound. But no, TED talks are about giving people their 15 minutes of fame.

And once again, mirror neurons (of which the existence of hasn’t even been confirmed yet) aren’t responsible for that. We have observed them in apes and birds, but in the case of humans you are jumping the gun again (as you have been this entire forum).

Here are some bits you conveniently left out from the wiki article:

Recently, Cecilia Heyes (Professor of Experimental Psychology, Oxford) has advanced the theory that mirror neurons are the byproduct of associative learning as opposed to evolutionary adaptation. She argues that mirror neurons in humans are the product of social interaction and not an evolutionary adaptation for action-understanding. In particular, Heyes rejects the theory advanced by V.S. Ramachandran that mirror neurons have been “the driving force behind the great leap forward in human evolution.

Neurophilosophers such as Patricia Churchland have expressed both scientific and philosophical objections to the theory that mirror neurons are responsible for understanding the intentions of others. In chapter 5 of her 2011 book, Braintrust, Churchland points out that the claim that mirror neurons are involved in understanding intentions (through simulating observed actions) is based on assumptions that are clouded by unresolved philosophical issues. She makes the argument that intentions are understood (coded) at a more complex level of neural activity than that of individual neurons. Churchland states that “A neuron, though computationally complex, is just a neuron. It is not an intelligent homunculus. If a neural network represents something complex, such as an intention [to insult], it must have the right input and be in the right place in the neural circuitry to do that”.

To date, no widely accepted neural or computational models have been put forward to describe how mirror neuron activity supports cognitive functions.[13][14][15] The subject of mirror neurons continues to generate intense debate. In 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B published a special issue entirely devoted to mirror neuron research

Your entire case for mirror neurons, what they do or their existence is a house of cards on a foundation of sand. The majority of answers you will find regards to the matter are “we don’t know”. So given that I cannot honestly take what you say seriously.

You refuse to alncolwedge simple truths about music or any art form and don’t acknowledge the weaknesses in you case about empathy. This leads me to believe like you want this to be true isn’t he same manner that people want God to exist. But it doesn’t seem to point in that direction.

Sorry kid, tooth fairy isn’t real and neither is empathy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 06:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1307
Joined  2005-01-14
Titanomachina - 04 September 2017 08:04 AM

The really is that we don’t feel, share, or understand others emotions. We are just imagining that we do. The only way for empathy to actually be a real phenomenon would be to involve some kind of neuro link or mind reading ability. Anything less isn’t empathy by the definition they propose and is really just humans kidding themselves. It’s a wonder people frequently feel misunderstood.

The point is that we TRY.  I don’t know anything about “mirror neurons” so I’m not even going to get into that argument, but Humans are social animals, and we get along best by trying to understand what makes other people tick, by using our own experiences as a guideline.  True, not everyone’s emotional response is the same, and we often get it wrong.  But we get it right more often than not.  Why?  Because we have a lot of practice.  Have you ever wondered why people even like fiction?  Movies, novels, fairy tales, made-up stories—why would an intelligent person bother with characters who don’t really exist, who are just figments of someone’s imagination?  It’s because they offer us a good training ground, a simplified stage on which we can see other people’s emotional responses play out.  And for human beings, that’s addictive.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2017 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7741
Joined  2009-02-26

TitanoMachine quoted;

She makes the argument that intentions are understood (coded) at a more complex level of neural activity than that of individual neurons. Churchland states that “A neuron, though computationally complex, is just a neuron. It is not an intelligent homunculus. If a neural network represents something complex, such as an intention [to insult], it must have the right input and be in the right place in the neural circuitry to do that”.

Indeed, the MNS is a whole integrated system of referencing data from exterior stimulation and comparing to what we know as a recognizable object, no single neuron could contain such information.

Moreover we are talking empathy, which is an involuntary reactive response. Intention to insult is a voluntary action, not an involuntary reaction, unless it was preprogrammed in the neural system.

However I am heartened that you actually familiarized yourself with the concept of a mirror function in the brain that allows us to learn and remember.

The deeper you look everywhere, you find mirror functions, it seems to be a universal potential on the level of “an action causes an equal and opposite reaction)

[ Edited: 10 September 2017 05:24 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2017 02:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2015-12-29
Advocatus - 05 September 2017 06:38 AM
Titanomachina - 04 September 2017 08:04 AM

The really is that we don’t feel, share, or understand others emotions. We are just imagining that we do. The only way for empathy to actually be a real phenomenon would be to involve some kind of neuro link or mind reading ability. Anything less isn’t empathy by the definition they propose and is really just humans kidding themselves. It’s a wonder people frequently feel misunderstood.

The point is that we TRY.  I don’t know anything about “mirror neurons” so I’m not even going to get into that argument, but Humans are social animals, and we get along best by trying to understand what makes other people tick, by using our own experiences as a guideline.  True, not everyone’s emotional response is the same, and we often get it wrong.  But we get it right more often than not.  Why?  Because we have a lot of practice.  Have you ever wondered why people even like fiction?  Movies, novels, fairy tales, made-up stories—why would an intelligent person bother with characters who don’t really exist, who are just figments of someone’s imagination?  It’s because they offer us a good training ground, a simplified stage on which we can see other people’s emotional responses play out.  And for human beings, that’s addictive.

Fiction isn’t even comparable to empathy in practice since you are told everything about the character including their thoughts and a host of other information you don’t get in the day to day with others. In fact it only proves my point about empathy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2017 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4061
Joined  2009-10-21
Titanomachina - 09 September 2017 02:05 PM

Fiction isn’t even comparable to empathy in practice since you are told everything about the character including their thoughts and a host of other information you don’t get in the day to day with others. In fact it only proves my point about empathy.

If it’s written in an omniscient style, but that’s just one style. And rarely do we know everything about every character. Keep trying though. You’ve convinced yourself, now try to convince others. It helps to try to see things from their perspective when you do that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2017 03:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2015-12-29
Lausten - 09 September 2017 02:09 PM
Titanomachina - 09 September 2017 02:05 PM

Fiction isn’t even comparable to empathy in practice since you are told everything about the character including their thoughts and a host of other information you don’t get in the day to day with others. In fact it only proves my point about empathy.

If it’s written in an omniscient style, but that’s just one style. And rarely do we know everything about every character. Keep trying though. You’ve convinced yourself, now try to convince others. It helps to try to see things from their perspective when you do that.

It’s not just a style but pretty much the only way you know what’s going on in the story, it doesn’t even have to be omniscient. Fiction isn’t comparable to reality because we don’t have the same amount of information as in the books. You get in their heads, you can read their thoughts. I wish I had the same amount of information as in books or TV shows, but reality isn’t like that. I know we can’t know everything about the characters, but we get more information than what you usually get in face to face. Even in face to face we only have guesses. Unless you can actually get into someone’s mind and go through their personal history, you won’t know how they are feeling. Not even words are good at communicating feelings, as they cannot capture the actually state of the emotions at hand.

Not the mention that since fiction is pretty much what the author wants you to experience is enough to strike it as a comparison for reality. Empathy by it’s nature and how we define it is a lie. We cannot understand the feelings of others and we cannot share them (especially since we don’t understand them).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 12:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7741
Joined  2009-02-26

Titanomachine said,
You refuse to alncolwedge simple truths about music or any art form and don’t acknowledge the weaknesses in you case about empathy. This leads me to believe like you want this to be true isn’t he same manner that people want God to exist. But it doesn’t seem to point in that direction.

Where did I give this impression that I cling to some made up story, such as that God exists?
Let’s get one thing clear, I was a professional musician for 10 years on the road, in places such as Las Vegas, Lake Tahoe, Chicago, Los Angeles and the rest of the circuit. I studied music and am well qualified to speak for most serious musicians about the meaning and history of music worldwide.

Secondly, I am an atheist and don’t believe in ghoulies, ghosties, and things that go bump in the night. OK, kid?

Unless you speak from greater experience in the world of art and especially music, or have special knowledge in psycho-analysis, you may want to withhold judgment about my qualifications or the quality of my arguments (usually accompanied by examples).

Sorry kid, tooth fairy isn’t real and neither is empathy.

I am not a kid and I agree the tooth fairy is not real.
However, empathy is true. If it was not evident, then why would we investigate?
Amazing, we even have an entire scientific discipline which deals which studies the neural functions of the brain, including the Mirror Neural System and how this cognitive and response system is formed by world experience. 

Yet you waltz in and make declarations regarding things about which you have no clue, kid.
If you have an argument, present it. Don’t resort to ad hominem.

I bet you are not even looking at the links which clearly explain that my position is based on clear evidence of assimilation of information about what goes on outside our body.

I am sure, I have read just a little more on the subject of the mirror neural system than you and trust me I use my own critical analysis about any scientific proposition which addresses a field of which is little known.

[ Edited: 10 September 2017 12:21 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 12:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7741
Joined  2009-02-26

Titanomachine quotation, used as argument against a mirror neural system (network),

She makes the argument that intentions are understood (coded) at a more complex level of neural activity than that of individual neurons. Churchland states that “A neuron, though computationally complex, is just a neuron. It is not an intelligent homunculus. If a neural network represents something complex, such as an intention [to insult], it must have the right input and be in the right place in the neural circuitry to do that”.

This supports my position, not argue against it.

Perhaps, you should pay closer attention, kid.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 09:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4061
Joined  2009-10-21
Titanomachina - 09 September 2017 03:31 PM
Lausten - 09 September 2017 02:09 PM
Titanomachina - 09 September 2017 02:05 PM

Fiction isn’t even comparable to empathy in practice since you are told everything about the character including their thoughts and a host of other information you don’t get in the day to day with others. In fact it only proves my point about empathy.

If it’s written in an omniscient style, but that’s just one style. And rarely do we know everything about every character. Keep trying though. You’ve convinced yourself, now try to convince others. It helps to try to see things from their perspective when you do that.

It’s not just a style but pretty much the only way you know what’s going on in the story, it doesn’t even have to be omniscient. Fiction isn’t comparable to reality because we don’t have the same amount of information as in the books. You get in their heads, you can read their thoughts. I wish I had the same amount of information as in books or TV shows, but reality isn’t like that. I know we can’t know everything about the characters, but we get more information than what you usually get in face to face. Even in face to face we only have guesses. Unless you can actually get into someone’s mind and go through their personal history, you won’t know how they are feeling. Not even words are good at communicating feelings, as they cannot capture the actually state of the emotions at hand.

Not the mention that since fiction is pretty much what the author wants you to experience is enough to strike it as a comparison for reality. Empathy by it’s nature and how we define it is a lie. We cannot understand the feelings of others and we cannot share them (especially since we don’t understand them).

Of course it’s a style. Look up styles for fiction. Sometimes the author tells you what is going on in their heads, sometimes they don’t. And obviously reality isn’t fiction, or we wouldn’t have those two words. Stop and think about what you’re saying before you post again. One to think about, do you know everything about your own history? Can you express to yourself your own emotional state? Any moment of stopping to think about that question, any attempt to reflect on an emotional state think about how you describe it proves that you aren’t able to do it. You don’t have a perfect picture of yourself. Get together with friends and recall something you did together 5 years ago. There will be differences. Think, man, think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 09:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2015-12-29
Write4U - 10 September 2017 12:17 AM

Titanomachine said,
You refuse to alncolwedge simple truths about music or any art form and don’t acknowledge the weaknesses in you case about empathy. This leads me to believe like you want this to be true isn’t he same manner that people want God to exist. But it doesn’t seem to point in that direction.

Where did I give this impression that I cling to some made up story, such as that God exists?
Let’s get one thing clear, I was a professional musician for 10 years on the road, in places such as Las Vegas, Lake Tahoe, Chicago, Los Angeles and the rest of the circuit. I studied music and am well qualified to speak for most serious musicians about the meaning and history of music worldwide.

Secondly, I am an atheist and don’t believe in ghoulies, ghosties, and things that go bump in the night. OK, kid?

Unless you speak from greater experience in the world of art and especially music, or have special knowledge in psycho-analysis, you may want to withhold judgment about my qualifications or the quality of my arguments (usually accompanied by examples).

Sorry kid, tooth fairy isn’t real and neither is empathy.

I am not a kid and I agree the tooth fairy is not real.
However, empathy is true. If it was not evident, then why would we investigate?
Amazing, we even have an entire scientific discipline which deals which studies the neural functions of the brain, including the Mirror Neural System and how this cognitive and response system is formed by world experience. 

Yet you waltz in and make declarations regarding things about which you have no clue, kid.
If you have an argument, present it. Don’t resort to ad hominem.

I bet you are not even looking at the links which clearly explain that my position is based on clear evidence of assimilation of information about what goes on outside our body.

I am sure, I have read just a little more on the subject of the mirror neural system than you and trust me I use my own critical analysis about any scientific proposition which addresses a field of which is little known.

The links actually undermine your points about it existing and the the function of the supposed mirror neurons. You haven’t read them and it has been clear to me that you are just focusing on what you want to be true and not what is true (that you don’t have any hard evidence for empathy).

Having ten years experience in music is like saying someone is an art critic, it’s a meaningless statement, especially since music is just noise that people respond to differently

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 09:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2015-12-29
Write4U - 10 September 2017 12:27 AM

Titanomachine quotation, used as argument against a mirror neural system (network),

She makes the argument that intentions are understood (coded) at a more complex level of neural activity than that of individual neurons. Churchland states that “A neuron, though computationally complex, is just a neuron. It is not an intelligent homunculus. If a neural network represents something complex, such as an intention [to insult], it must have the right input and be in the right place in the neural circuitry to do that”.

This supports my position, not argue against it.

Perhaps, you should pay closer attention, kid.

It actually goes against it, try again kid.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 09:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2015-12-29
Lausten - 10 September 2017 09:14 AM
Titanomachina - 09 September 2017 03:31 PM
Lausten - 09 September 2017 02:09 PM
Titanomachina - 09 September 2017 02:05 PM

Fiction isn’t even comparable to empathy in practice since you are told everything about the character including their thoughts and a host of other information you don’t get in the day to day with others. In fact it only proves my point about empathy.

If it’s written in an omniscient style, but that’s just one style. And rarely do we know everything about every character. Keep trying though. You’ve convinced yourself, now try to convince others. It helps to try to see things from their perspective when you do that.

It’s not just a style but pretty much the only way you know what’s going on in the story, it doesn’t even have to be omniscient. Fiction isn’t comparable to reality because we don’t have the same amount of information as in the books. You get in their heads, you can read their thoughts. I wish I had the same amount of information as in books or TV shows, but reality isn’t like that. I know we can’t know everything about the characters, but we get more information than what you usually get in face to face. Even in face to face we only have guesses. Unless you can actually get into someone’s mind and go through their personal history, you won’t know how they are feeling. Not even words are good at communicating feelings, as they cannot capture the actually state of the emotions at hand.

Not the mention that since fiction is pretty much what the author wants you to experience is enough to strike it as a comparison for reality. Empathy by it’s nature and how we define it is a lie. We cannot understand the feelings of others and we cannot share them (especially since we don’t understand them).

Of course it’s a style. Look up styles for fiction. Sometimes the author tells you what is going on in their heads, sometimes they don’t. And obviously reality isn’t fiction, or we wouldn’t have those two words. Stop and think about what you’re saying before you post again. One to think about, do you know everything about your own history? Can you express to yourself your own emotional state? Any moment of stopping to think about that question, any attempt to reflect on an emotional state think about how you describe it proves that you aren’t able to do it. You don’t have a perfect picture of yourself. Get together with friends and recall something you did together 5 years ago. There will be differences. Think, man, think.

I know more about my history than other people would. I can describe an emotional state but really only to myself in a way that I would understand it. The only differences in what happens five years ago is that I have photos for proof and they don’t, even then I have a clearer picture of it then others, but it’s only in regards to certain events.

Which is all besides the point, and goes to show that when it comes to communicating your state to others you can’t do it. Doesn’t mean you can’t describe it to yourself. I would know what I meant by the words I use for an emotional state, but no one else would. Hence it just proves my point that empathy is a myth.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4061
Joined  2009-10-21
Titanomachina - 10 September 2017 09:31 AM

Hence it just proves my point that empathy is a myth.

No it proves that understanding is difficult,  including understanding ourselves. We can know ourselves better by interacting with others. But that’s work you don’t want to do

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 05:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7741
Joined  2009-02-26
Titanomachina - 10 September 2017 09:25 AM
Write4U - 10 September 2017 12:27 AM

Titanomachine quotation, used as argument against a mirror neural system (network),

She makes the argument that intentions are understood (coded) at a more complex level of neural activity than that of individual neurons. Churchland states that “A neuron, though computationally complex, is just a neuron. It is not an intelligent homunculus. If a neural network represents something complex, such as an intention [to insult], it must have the right input and be in the right place in the neural circuitry to do that”.

This supports my position, not argue against it.

Perhaps, you should pay closer attention, kid.

It actually goes against it, try again kid.

No it does not even address the neural system but the function of a single neuron in the greater scope of the “neural circuitry”

She is declaring that there is a “neural circuitry” but that individual neurons have to be located in it’s proper place and specific response abilities.
a) a neural network exists. (and is divided into several sections, each with specific functions.)
b) from the billions of neurons, specific neurons need to have the"right input” (be programmed)
c) the specially programmed neurons must be in “in the right place” in the “circuitry” (the mirror neural network)

Churchland is describing the specialized neurons, located in the mirror neural system.  You can’t see that??

Yes, those specialized neurons are located in the Mirror Neural system of the greater Circuitry. There is also a monitoring and control neural system which control our bodily chemistry only. These neurons also employ a mirror function but it is below our conscious thought and you are not even aware of that, unless something goes wrong and we develop symptoms, such as pain, nausea, breathing, etc.  IOW, these neurons mirror the state of your health, do you feel good today or is something wrong, headache, nausea. lethargy, etc.

The Mirror Neural System an established brain function. We just don’t know how deep it can research its stored knowledge.

We know that we can fool it, which is an indication of adaptation to specific “assumption” about our real world, which may not always be correct,  such as a person seeing a color when hearing a specific sound.

Recently saw a clip of a totally blind person, who bicycles a narrow winding forest path every day, by means of clicking his tongue.
In his case he was able to reprogram his mirror network to use sound (echo location), in order to see (create an image of what ahead of him).

Our conscious sensory neuron system mirrors the “input” from the environment and compares that input to those neurons which have been programmed to do so, in the right place of the brain, which we have named the Mirror Neural System.

Your objections without any knowledge of the subject is hasty and ill-considered.  Seems you mirror neural system could use some tweaking.

How much or how little we know about theses functions is the current focus of investigation, with very promising results.

I believe the choice of the term Mirror Neural System is well chosen, because it constantly mirrors our observations and acts in accordance to what the mirror function tells us what’s out there. The physical and emotional responses are a product of prior experiences in relation to our environment.

[ Edited: 10 September 2017 05:32 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2017 03:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7741
Joined  2009-02-26

Titanomachine said,
“I know more about my history than other people would. I can describe an emotional state but really only to myself in a way that I would understand it. The only differences in what happens five years ago is that I have photos for proof and they don’t, even then I have a clearer picture of it then others, but it’s only in regards to certain events.

Which shows, you haven’t got a clue about the subject of mirror neurons.

Which is all besides the point, and goes to show that when it comes to communicating your state to others you can’t do it. Doesn’t mean you can’t describe it to yourself. I would know what I meant by the words I use for an emotional state, but no one else would. Hence it just proves my point that empathy is a myth.”

Now you are completely lost in a fantasy of your own making. The mirror neural system does not function that way at all.

You are still caught up in this mindset that there is something mystical about its function. It has nothing to do with mind-reading or parapsychology.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 8
6