but is predisposed to learn language during childhood, as in Chomsky's theory of universal grammar
Yes and no. People are predisposed to learn language, absolutely, however chomsky's theory of universal grammar in the beginning claimed to explain too much, which was since discovered could also be learned through other more traditional mechanisms. Predisposed in my view is the notion that we have a body and a brain that will learn language and develop the neural structures to support it, provided we are exposed to it. So the selection criterion is on people to have A: The size of brain that we have and B: the plasticity needed to "mold" the developing brain to make it fit and work in the environment it is exposed to and finaly C: that it be situated in a normal social environment.
I differ from Chomsky in one very crucial way in pointing to the fact that if you were not a human being, growing up in a social environment engaging in interactions with your significant others, you WOULD NOT develop the charactaristic self-reflective consciousness found only in Homo Sapiens Sapiens. To a lot this sound like a radical notion, and furthermore it is fairly difficult to test empirically for obvious ethical reasons. There is already some support for the hypothesis though as mentioned before and I strongly suggest you read George Herbert Mead for a thorough epxplanation on how our higher psychological functions develop through the process of internalisation of real social interactions. In short it means that the product that is your higher psychological functions, cannot be reduced to workings in the head but is a combination of sociohistorical, phylogenetical and ontogenetical processes intermingled (see point A,B and C in the above section).
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying about monks, do you mean that they must develop language socially before they are able to meditate
This is sort of where I am trying to get to. If you weren't situated in a social environement, you wouldn't, first of all learn how and what meditation was, but at a more fundamental level you wouldn't develop the capacity to volitionally direct your awareness on to a topic for meditation (as it requires self-reflection, which is the crucial aspect of our consciousness that is learned through social interaction). If you couldn't engage in the activity of mediation, you wouldn't be able to modify your brain structure via directed action.
A lot of work and theories postulate that our brains are the sole creator of our psychological funtions, but what I am pointing at, is that these won't develop independently of social factors, but if exposed to a normal environment the brain will form the connections needed to support normal human consciousness.
All I have said so far is scientifically sound and well described in the litterature. Where I am taking a quantum leap of faith (pun inteneded) is by hypothesising that through directed conscious training (of some sort or the other) we might be able to make our brains either more perceptive or able to sync up quantum field style. But then again I am moving waaaay out of my comfort zone and hence I approach my personal endeavours in shared dreaming by relying on "alternative pseudo/non-scientific" books that describe how to achieve it. If you will.. I skip part of their explanation for how it is possible and get to the nitty gritty practical stuff to see if it will work for my friends and I =)
@ unda: By the way I like your comments mate, I hope you find my comments useful, as I certainly enjoy formulating my ideas.
A couple of theories you may find useful are: Edelman's notion of a primary and secondary element of consciousness. Allan J. Hobson investigates this notion during dreaming and hypothesise that normal REM dreaming can be compared to the "primary" (unreflective) consciousness and that the Secondary (self-reflective, constiuent of volitional action) is unique to human beings and is activated during lucid dreaming. Hobson focus primarily on the physiological aspects of these things, but I am about write my bachelor project basically testing the same notion, but where I hypothesise that what he terms Secondary consciousness is a product of the A: Primary consciousness (shared by mamals and birds who also experience REM sleep) and B: the capacity and activity involved in human linguistic communication. I am working under the framework of Dynamic Systems Theory which basically means that Secondary consciousness wouldn't emerge without the constiuent elements, but cannot be reduced to them either. Contrasting normal REM dreams (NLDs) versus Lucid Dreaming (LDs) gives us as a species a unique paradigm for actually exploring these notions 
So as you can see, and as I mentioned in the first post. My scientific work is far FAR from shared dreaming as I have a fuckload of explantions to provide for so many things in between, at the minute I am sticking myself firmly in the knowledge delivered by classical physics/biology/psychology and if I should experience shared dreaming I will have to include more esoteric notions such as quantum gravity/fields/consciousness in order to make sense of my experiences. HOWEVER, what I also have in mind is that I wouldn't be able to experience the esoteric stuff without first having gone through all the "basic" stuff (basic is by no means a way of saying it is easy or isn't complex).
There.. I still can't quite limit my answers...
|
|
Bookmarks