Humans – Page 14 – Harmonia Philosophica

Tar. Adhesive irrelevancy.

Neanderthals seem stuck with unflattering reputations. The entire species of early human ancestors has long been reduced to a pejorative for describing someone who isn’t very bright, despite growing evidence of the sophistication of Homo neanderthalensis. And recent research suggests another overlooked mark of their ingenuity: they made the first glues in the form of tar.

Archaeologists first found tar-covered stones and black lumps at Neanderthal sites across Europe about two decades ago. The tar was distilled from the bark of birch trees some 200,000 years ago, and seemed to have been used for hafting, or attaching handles to stone tools and weapons. But scientists did not know how Neanderthals produced the dark, sticky substance, more than 100,000 years before Homo sapiens in Africa used tree resin and ocher adhesives.

In a study published in the journal Scientific Reports, a team of archaeologists has used materials available during prehistoric times to demonstrate three possible ways Neanderthals could have deliberately made tar. While the study does not prove that Neanderthals used any of these methods, it aims to demonstrate that they had access to the ingredients and means to produce tar. (1)

Men killing.

Men dying.

Blood on the ground.

Screams in the air.

People trying to figure out how the tools were made…

Neuron connections… Not so important?

Neurons are connected to each other to form networks that underlie behaviors. Drs. Akira Sakurai and Paul Katz of Georgia State’s Neuroscience Institute study the brains of sea slugs, more specifically nudibranchs, which have large neurons that form simple circuits and produce simple behaviors. In this study, they examined how the brains of these sea creatures produce swimming behaviors. They found that even though the brains of two species – the giant nudibranch and the hooded nudibranch – had the same neurons, and even though the behaviors were the same, the wiring was different.

The researchers blocked some of the connections in the giant nudibranch using curare, a paralyzing poison used on blow darts by indigenous South Americans. This prevented the brain of the giant nudibranch from producing the pattern of impulses that would normally cause the animal to swim. Then, they inserted electrodes into the neurons to create artificial connections between the brain cells that were based on connections from the hooded nudibranch. The brain was able to produce rhythmic, alternating activity that would underlie the swimming behavior, showing these two species produce their swimming behavior using very different brain mechanisms.

The findings are published in the journal Current Biology.

“Behaviors that are homologous and similar in form would naturally be assumed to be produced by similar neural mechanisms,” said Katz, co-author of the study and a Regent’s Professor in the Neuroscience Institute at Georgia State. “This and previous studies show that connectivity of the neural circuits of two different species of sea slugs differ substantially from each other despite the presence of homologous neurons and behaviors. Thus, the evolution of microcircuitry could play a role in the evolution of behavior”. (1)

Change the brain and you will still have a being which swims.

Change the brain and you will still have a being that thinks.

Change the brain and you will still have a human who is self-conscious.

Your brain changes all the time and yet you are still “you”.

The cosmos changes all the time and yet the laws governing it are the same.

The universe changes all the time and yet it is eternal.

Everything seem different and yet similar patterns arise everywhere.

Time seems to pass and yet you can always remember.

People die only to show that they are still alive.

Things change only to prove that they do not…

Go swimming.

We all do.

Biometrics. Changing faces. Old young souls…

Biometrics experts set out to investigate to what extent facial aging affects the performance of automatic facial recognition systems. They found that 99 percent of the face images can still be recognized up to six years later.

The results also showed that due to natural changes that occur to a face over time as a person ages, recognition accuracy begins to drop if the images of a person were taken more than six years apart. (1)

AI vs. Philosophy: A game that cannot be won.

We know we are the same.

And yet the computer cannot tell it.

We have based all our progress on algorithms.

But an algorithm cannot tell who we are.

Only a human can see beyond your eyes…

I may look young.

But I am an old soul…

I may look old.

But I am young as the very first day I was born…

Look closely.

It’s me.

Tripping on acid. Finding significance where none is. Finding meaning. Via senses. Where no meaning is there…

An enhanced sense of meaning is one of the hallmarks of the psychedelic experience. People who have been under the influence of drugs like LSD, mescaline or hallucinogenic mushrooms often describe finding profound significance in even the most prosaic objects and sensations. LSD dramatically changes the way people perceive the environment and themselves, often blurring the boundaries between the two. When tripping on acid, people often say that everyday objects become drenched with deep meaning and significance.

In “The Doors of Perception”, Aldous Huxley famously wrote of becoming utterly captivated by the folds in his gray flannel pants during his first-ever psychedelic experience.

But the brain changes underlying these dramatic shifts in consciousness haven’t been entirely clear. A University of Zurich study, published recently in the journal Current Biology, traces the effect of heightened meaning-making back to certain important neurochemicals and receptors in the brain that are activated by the drug. The findings highlight what’s going on in the brain to create a sense of personal meaningfulness ― not only during the psychedelic experience, but also in our normal waking consciousness.

“[We now know] which receptors, neurotransmitters, and brain regions are involved when we perceive our environment as meaningful and relevant,” Dr. Katrin Preller, the study’s lead author, said in a statement. (1)

So, the brain creates meaning even where there is no meaning.

But how can you judge on whether something is meaningless?

Where have we found meaning to be able to judge where there is none?

The world is what it is.

And we make sense out of it.

Is it our tripping brain?

Or perhaps something deeper?

LSD or no LSD, the chemical substances on the brain do exist. And what tells us that the non-LSD state is the ‘correct’ one? Who says that the brain-state is in general the ‘proper’ way to see the cosmos?

Imagine seeing the world without brain.

Meaningful lack of meaning…

Eye contact. Thinking. Being. With your ears closed.

Maintaining direct eye contact really is strenuous for the brain, according to new research, and it uses up scarce cognitive resources that we need for things like reasoning and verbal processing.

There are many reasons for avoiding eye contact ― social anxiety, being lost in thought, or feeling strong emotions like guilt or embarrassment ― but sometimes we drop another’s gaze simply because it’s too mentally taxing.

A Japanese study published in the December issue of the journal Cognition found there is some interference between eye contact and verbal processing in the brain, which may be why we periodically avert our eyes during conversations. The researchers found that eye contact uses the same mental resources as complex reasoning ― so, when carrying on a conversation that requires us to reason, we may periodically drop eye contact as a way to conserve those cognitive resources. In other words, maintaining eye contact can take a lot of effort. (1)

Seeing. Listening. Thinking.

Everything entails using the brain. Everything entails thinking. And research also shows that the development of our brain, sensory perception and motor skills happen in sync. (2)

So why do we think of thinking as something special? “I think therefore I am” said a philosopher once upon a time. But could something so common be so important as to define who we are? If thinking is the default, shouldn’t we seek our identity in something less common? And what does the synchronized development of the brain, the senses and our self actually mean?

Lower your gaze.

Close your ears.

There is no one talking…

You are talking to yourself. You are the only one here…