Any philosopher can do that The goal of science is to provide tools, so we can modify the world around us to our advantage. — YuZhonglu

Welcome to the philosophy forum, dude.

NKBJ Fine, fine. But on a physical level why is it that we can only "think" one sentence at a time? On a broader philosophical level, if our brains were a bit different and we could, for example, think 4 sentences simultaneously, wouldn't that mean all of our philosophy today be different? — YuZhonglu

It might be the case that our brains CAN think of 4 sentences at once, but only one sentence at a time can pass through the narrow aperture of consciousness. It seems to me intuitive that the 100 billion neurons between our ears are capable of doing many things at once. In fact, they do -- we just don't/can't monitor them consciously. But when it comes to bringing them into consciousness, there is only that one elevator, so we never see groups of ideas exiting the elevator at one time.

Everyone's brain composed the responses we are reading while managing breathing, heart rate, blinking, posture (you didn't fall out of your chair), listening to the radio/television/stereo -- something, smelling supper cooking (or whatever meal) and so on. While your fingers were being managed by your brain, the text your fingers were producing was being fed into a motor queue, and IF your fingers hit the wrong key, you would probably have noticed that. Had your dog walked into the room and whined, you would have heard it and continued typing (unless the dog has trained you to jump up instantly when it wants to go out side).

@ NKBJ

Right. Which is why I consider most of the things that people type here little more than self-serving rationalizations. Do you have more to contribute? Your point about "fruit" was relevant, but since then we've just been arguing in circles.

That's a good way of expressing it. So I guess that narrows down my question:

Why do we only have ONE elevator to bring our thoughts into "consciousness?" Also, where is that elevator in the brain? Can we, for example, create more through genetic engineering or surgery?

Your point about "fruit" was relevant, but since then we've just been arguing in circles. — YuZhonglu

:roll:

I gave you a pretty good explanation about evolution and the brain, plus an article with the view of a neuroscientist backing up my theory. I'm fairly certain I've done my due diligence.

You, on the other hand, just keep asking the same question with odd parameters, and dismissing any attempt to answer it. You clearly have an agenda, which is just so anti-scientific I could laugh.

The article doesn't address the question at hand. Also, it was published in the Daily Mail.

Also, it was published in the Daily Mail. — YuZhonglu

How does that discredit Earl K. Miller, Ph.D., a professor of neuroscience at MIT?

The article doesn't address the question at hand. — YuZhonglu

From the article:
"But in returning to the first task, the brain has to use more energy to focus and get back into the flow.

According to Professor Miller, the small interruption wastes time and increases the chances of making mistakes.

Research carried out at Stanford University has shown that those people who multitask frequently may actually be worse at filtering out distractions.

Proponents of multitasking may question why our brains are so drawn to a habit which has such a negative effect on productivity."

and:
"One idea which may explain the penchant to take on more than we can mentally chew is a result of how our brains evolved.

At some point in the past being able to pick up on any new sight or sound may have helped to spot danger, offering an evolutionary advantage and saving our prehistoric skins.

But this same adaptation could be having the opposite effect today.

‘In today’s modern society where our lives are rarely on the line, the ceaseless onslaught of information has the potential to cripple us,’ wrote Professor Miller.

‘Our brains aren’t equipped to handle the sensory overload.’"

So, it literally does explain why the brain can't multi-task. It may not be specifically talking about two sentences or explain in depth the exact reaction neuron A and neuron B have when trying to process two sentences. But it does address the root of your concern: why can't we mentally multi-task.

If you want a more neuro-sciency response that does tackle neurons A and B specifically, I suggest you actually contact a neuroscientist instead of being dismissive of layperson philosophers here who are just doing their best to give you an honest and researched answer.

Ugh. Nothing in the article explains or your responses provide an answer to my question. Sure, if it makes you feel better, you're right. Happy? Congratulations, you've provided an answer. If that satisfies you, so be it.

Does anyone else have anything useful to add?

Ugh. Nothing in the article explains or your responses provide an answer to my question. Sure, if it makes you feel better, you're right. Happy? Congratulations, you've provided an answer. If that satisfies you, so be it.

Does anyone else have anything useful to add? — YuZhonglu

You're rude.

Look, you're right. Ok? If you're happy with your response, I don't want to argue with you about it anymore.

Look, you're right. Ok? If you're happy with your response, I don't want to argue with you about it anymore. — YuZhonglu

Then don't. No need to be a jerk about it.

Again, do others have something useful to add?

EDIT: For example, if we could "bring to consciousness" 4 sentences simultaneously, how specifically would that change the way we do philosophy?

Also, people like to think of philosophy as "observing the universal." I.e. I exist as a neutral observer and from my aloof standpoint, I observe the universe with my brain. That's a pretty common attitude here and elsewhere.

Is that accurate? I mean, in order to make philosophical statements a person must first have a brain and brains have very real mechanical limitations. To what extent are our philosophies "observations of reality" and to what extent is it just a byproduct of specific neurobiology [that may be modified in the future]?

I have something useful to add.

To use Donovan's phrase, there is only one "elevator in the brain hotel". IF, in the fullness of evolutionary time, we had needed a bank of elevators in our brain hotel, we would have developed them. Add more elevators? We'll have to change the whole brain around. We don't have a map of an ant's brain, let alone a human brain. Good luck on that remodeling project.

We don't even know where the conscious mind is located, let alone how to re-engineer it.

The "one track railroad" (to which the conscious mind can be compared) has been in successful use ever since the telegraph enabled train dispatchers to schedule trains and prevent collisions on the single track. Our brains are more than capable of managing the flow of information into and out of the conscious mind.

After all, you're doing it right now.

Agreed. But you're providing reasons why we shouldn't change it. And, as you pointed out, scientifically, we don't have the means or the knowledge to change it, even if we could.

But that may not be the case in the future. If we look forward ten thousand years, it's entirely possible neuroscientists then will have the means to remodel consciousness on an anatomical level.

When that happens, to what extent will any of the "eternal" philosophies of today survive?

EDIT: People like to think their questions are "eternal." We will "always" search for meaning. We will "always" have concepts of God, or zero. Is that accurate? Thoughts are physical processes. If the underlying physics and anatomy behind the brain changes, the very nature of thought will change, too. I can easily imagine a future where many of the "eternal" concepts people argue about today will simply be incomprehensible to our descendants.

EDIT: Also, more specifically, what are the mechanical limitations of human thought? I've mentioned one. What are the others?

If we look forward ten thousand years, it's entirely possible neuroscientists then will have the means to remodel consciousness on an anatomical level. — YuZhonglu

That might be the case. I can't imagine (literally) how consciousness might be changed.

When that happens, to what extent will any of the "eternal" philosophies of today survive? — YuZhonglu

Assuming that there is anyone around in 10,000 years...

So, given 10,000 years of more or less civilized existence, one would hope that by 12000 AD we will have laid the perennial philosophical questions to rest. Perhaps by then we will have finally accepted that questions that can not be answered (what happens to the soul after the body dies?) need not be asked.

Perhaps we can learn how to widen the gate between our consciousness and greater, not-conscious mind, and consciously think about more than one thing at a time. Again, I literally can't imagine that. Maybe we will learn to access more of the mind that isn't conscious, making it conscious. Did you read "Dune"? The Bene Gesserit (the sisterhood in the novel) had learned how to gain access to the mind/body at a very deep level. They used disciplined exercises and drugs, and all that is, of course fiction. It is suggestive, though, of untapped potential. Advanced meditation adepts can gain a significant control over their bodily processes through deep meditation.

10,000 years is the sort of time scale that Dune covered. Unless we find the planet Arrakis--complete with the sand worms--there isn't much chance of trying to accomplish what the reverend mothers of the Bene Gesserit accomplished. Alas.

I was thinking more dystopian. It can go the other way, too. The desire to argue is problematic for tyrants. So why not remove it entirely?

Regardless, you can't coherently think both thoughts at the same time. Right? — YuZhonglu

I don't think it works to just plow over someone saying that in fact they can think both sentences at the same time.

Even if you can't do that, and I'm not sure if I can or not, maybe some people can. So we'd need something better than simply asserting/reasserting that no one is capable of something (mental that we can't directly observe if we're not the person in question).

Am I the only respondent that can actually do the OP's challenge? Weird.

The multitasking argument is always unbelievably overrated.

Just because it is more difficult or impossible to multitask two certain things doesn't mean that it is completely impossible to multitask. People have conversations while doing other tasks like reading, being on their phones, playing videogames, etc. Even within those tasks, there is multitasking to do.

Sure, we type one sentence at a time. But we could also be thinking a multitude of other statements while we type the current statement we're typing -- onto the next thought.

Yes, there are certain things we cannot multitask on, but by overloading the subject into doing two things that they simply cannot do or intentionally making it difficult doesn't mean that humans cannot multitask.

Like, on a physical level, what is the reason we can't think more than one sentence at a time? Obviously, there has to be a scientific reason for it. What is it? — YuZhonglu

I don't know the answer in terms of neuroscience. Ask a neuroscientist. Or at least a science forum. This is a philosophy forum. But we can't do so because evolution doesn't work like that. We didn't jump straight from fish to humans. Advancement takes time.

No, I can do that too.

Get rekt scrubs. Not impossible.

Only really smart people can do it.

(I can't do it.)

Funnily enough, I didn't think it was possible until I tried.



I really doubt that's it. Although I don't object to the sentiment. :smile:

Funnily enough, I didn't think it was possible until I tried. — Baden

Me too. What's it like for you? I have to bend my mind a bit with a visualisation to bring on the auditory effect of both at once. If I try to picture 'saying' it myself I can't 'say' both at once, but if I imagine two different speakers speaking at once (they need to be familiar voices) I can hear 'I like oranges' and 'I like bananas' at the same time.

Only really smart people can do it. — Purple Pond

Baden can do it.

I thought my "fruit" answer was doing it!

But, yeah, if I try the way you describe, it does work.

I just applied the principle of flabberty and assumed that he meant to pick an example along those lines which is actually impossible. The difficulty can be increased with two statements of greater dissimilarity in wording, and greater length.

You guys should apply the principle of dohaggerty.

I wasn't experiencing an auditory effect. I was "seeing" both sentences simultaneously in my mind with maybe a quasi-auditory echo of sorts, but certainly not the voices of two different speakers. Might give that a try though and see if I can pull it off.

I imagine we both had the same kind of 'quasi-auditory echo', I don't want to say that I literally experienced sound, or even something like a memory of sound, though it was probably closer to the latter than the former.