1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Educational method to be verified and tested

Home Forums Research Law and Politics Educational method to be verified and tested

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Profile photo of Zoltan Zoltan 1 year, 10 months ago.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #21597
    Profile photo of Zoltan
    Zoltan
    Participant

    disclaimer (i look up references later, not many read them anyway, plus many things are basic things thought to neuroscientists and psychologists).
    aims in short:

    -make better people/better society model
    -minimize competition against each-other
    -minimize fear conditioning
    -maximize creative/learning will
    -maximize objectiveness

    [Anyone unable to follow, have propper rest, less alcohol, take some creatine monohidrate have good circulation, and learn some, to extend axonal branches.]

    -why not competition against eachother? since it creates not just will to overperform, but will to destroy or slow others (which apparently doesn’t make us faster). Also under competitions some relevant informations are hidden, for example to save faces.

    -why minimize fear conditioning? since fear itself sets up a mind state for fast response and less analysis, potentially leading to problems (and also contradictions, which can be observed frequently, also neurologically it leads to reduction in dendritic spines and branches sometimes). Also, if many things and behavior is fear conditioned, then the overall time of people spent in a mindset responding to stimulus connected with fear-conditioned behavior, will make them do less analysis, or synthesis, so overall, a worse quality of “thinking” can be expected. Reactions conditioned by non fear related emotions would have contradictions to other responses wich were conditioned by fear or anger – analysis/comparision of reactions/behaviours connected to unrelated emotions (one reaction connected to happiness, other to fear) is less freuqent, so perhaps only one conditioning emotion should be used, otherwise prone to contradictions/double standards and such. Actually, this absence or reduction of analyzis between different emotion linked behaviour lead to “double”-standards as well, and similar.

    -maximize creative/learning will: thats easy, everyone want to strive for learning at times (except when they respond to fear-conditioned behavior, or satisfy needs in a simple, repetitive way). This is based on a need, a sort of need for brain activation. detailed later.

    -maximize objectiveness: that would follow from having less fear-conditioning connected to social interactions, so they don’t feel threatened most of the time (or dont react based on earlier fear-conditioning) when interacting with others. Therefore they are more objective, otherwise they would defend themselves even in situations where they are wrong.

    ###########################################
    This is an experiment, so a couple of uncertain things, which it will answer:
    -is there realy an innate predisposition towards violence? (some babies might display such behavior besides not having shown to them, but having their needs satisfied regularly)
    -how much role in babies and children has inactivity of brain areas responsible for development of symbolic operations and conductive thinking, in determining later capabilities for creativity, ability to improve stuff, solve problems or do research, etc? An experiment showing reduction in grey matter in the neocortex on the occipital lobe when eyes were covered for longer periods, suggests that one can expect, that lesser use of other neocortical areas would lead to less “intelligence” or creativity, since much of neocortex is similar in neural composition they could also lose grey matter when unused -some has different layer number though, but very similar cellular composition. The blood brain barrier has special channels for nutrient molecules, especially sugar and these molecules if i recall, have been shown to be taken up first by glial cells, then these would pass it onto neurons. Glial cells have processes to accomplish the task, these processes wrap around neurons and synapses where neurons are in use, so also, neurons have larger surface to volume ratio, so if they dont get these glial cell processes because of their inactivity, they wont be able to run their sodium potassium pumps, in effect leading to cellular death due to osmotic pressure.. So from it, its likely that all brain areas wich are inactive are subject to grey matter reduction.
    -what is the role of language structure in abstract thinking or otherwise? the babies would have one native language, (a language being designed), aiming for some cognitive optimization as well as unambiguity (i checked Lojban [successor of Loglan], its not good enough).
    -what if individuals have their needs satisfied during development, and no fear occurs? Maybe those areas responsible for the fear response, might be less developed, since less activation? (i know that some areas in emotional response are the same but have different firing patterns for different emotions, but maybe they are just relaystations). Anyway, one can notice that those who have more negative things, tend to react more sensitively to negative things.
    -is there a fear in them innately? (like not shown fearful stuff to them but still they might dream about fearful situations)
    -is there realy (and every time) a “golden cut” or something like that, meaning predisposition towards liking people/animals with certain “looks”/”appearance”? I have seen some “experiment” on tv, where they showed somewhat newborn babies. They claimed the babies had not much different reactions towards pictures of faces, where nose and eyes were unaligned, but later they started to have some more attention directed towards normal human faces (i dont remember time periods mentioned). Then they would put pictures of faces (i dont remember voices or body shapes presented) in front of them, wich are considered by many individuals less attractive and other faces considered more attractive. The babies would have more attention directed towards those considered more attractive. As they claim, they also said the babies were not yet able to talk. They haven’t described the kind of people the babies would encounter before this part of the experiment. Also, consider that if these were generally considered more attractive, then likley these kind of people have babies more often at similar time periods. So its not conclusive, gives little information. However, consider that babies suck on nipples, why would they do so? If they do autonomously then they recognize some pattern with which they want to contact with innately. Its either color or shade pattern which is recognized or maybe smell (or maybe its wetness, and they cant even find it autonomously anymore). Human babies have their eyes open from very early on, but other mammals dont, so maybe its smell or wet touch which they look for and its the swallowing/chewing reflex which drives the sucking behavior, and otherwise they might look for the touch of fluid like thing similar to womb environment. Some claimed that kids drive more attention towards round objects. In nature, most which is round is either food, or other people/animals, trees and other environmental things mostly contain lines, can be interpreted as a set of lines when looked at (even hills from close up can be reduced to lines). Electrical recordings of occipital lobe revealed, that some layers (i dont remember which) recognises lines. I think its one of the early steps of visual processing.
    -is there an innate will of sharing information? because they wont be rewarded for sharing information, and if despite this they would start sharing information before acquiring large ambitions, it would conclude there is such a need for sharing information (ambitions can be gauged based on what they are interested about.. they might also think aloud). Later, it is inevitable for them to realise during the growth of their ambitions, that they need cooperation to accomplish their goals, wich recquires sharing information, responding to questions.
    -other stuff concluded during experiment.
    ##########################################
    Implementation:

    Basics
    Principles implemented in first developmental period
    Next developmental phase (second)
    Next developmental phase (third)
    Possible outcomes and conclusions

    ##########################################

    Basics:
    since we would use non altered humans, everything have to be based on human basics. So, these basics are the well known physiological needs (eat,drink,excrete,breath,temperature regulation, hygiene(learned),physical activity), then the need for touch (non touched babies in incubators, had lower brain activity/brain development) and need for optimal brain activation. Some needs of Maslow are based on brain activation need, usually the higher needs. The brain activation need is called brain activation need, because its not necessary for the individual to satisfy it only with very new stimuly, so many individuals actually satisfy it with sports or games which might not offer much fundamental difference in each play, but still satisfies the person’s brain activation need [the activity demanding quite some information processing, so more areas are activated]. Anyway, usually it is in some way Diversity which satisfies the need. For increasing creativity, its obvious that even small children should satisfy their brain activation need with either creative activities or learning. Also this have to be achieved as non violently as possible. There are so called social needs, but i think these might be emergent needs, not basic ones (there are mirror neurons, but they might as well be just set up so by learning). I think, that social needs build possibly on need for touch and sexual needs, as well as on the cognitive ability to connect somehow some situations with the possibility/feeling of meeting those sexual and touch needs in the future (like “if i am around people i will get touched, so i should want to be around people”). Also, social needs can be weakly connected to brain activation needs too. I might think, that maybe even needs for touch is an emergent need – based on movements felt while the mother was walking about and these satisfied brain activation need (in the womb) activating areas responsible for processing touch or movement. Then after quite emotionally disturbing birth (for the baby) they want to return to something good they already know (varius activation of touch receptors wich satisfied brain activation needs in the womb) – if this the case, then earliest case of compulsion. But i don’t think it have to be checked in this experiment, since its possible that some coordination skills or otherwise, would be less precise as less activation of touch receptors would cause less use of sensing of touch, IF this diversity is withdrawn from the in-utero environment [only realy possible with artificial wombs anyway] -> this would be potentially harmful (especially if its innate need as well), so no need to check whether touch is an emergent need or not.

    Principles implemented in first developmental period:

    No competition, more cooperation:

    competition goes mainly for satisfying needs (or the thought, that “im more safely satisfied if im winner in competition”). So all the needs are satisfied for the kids without conditions. Physical are obvious, touch is satisfied partly by teachers, and more with each-other between small groups of kids. Kids (doesn’t matter if relatives or not) would be together, and many kind of “teachers/nurses” would care for them; from their perspectives, they see more types of “teachers” then types of kids at first, later it changes. This way chances increase that interactions of babies at first would be more frequent with those who are more experienced (previous generation/teachers)..”It’s possible, that if too many kids are together [at first], they might go about satisfying their brain activation needs” {Edina who i traveld with} by simply altering the person (another kid) with which they interact, so that way it would be more likely that they interact more with kids (undeveloped uninformed persons) rather then teachers. In such a case the interaction would be defined by environment, and babies knowledge (wich is limited perhaps). If that has some strong effect on motivations, then it should be avoided. For this initial period small number of infants/small children would live in a living compartment (maybe with a few rooms, but at least two). im not quite sure about it, im guessing 3-4 kids should be together, but this number could be corrected based on observations of behavior of children in childcare centers or kindergarten). This is a temporary period (not sure at all but its temporary).

    Minimize fear conditioning:

    that is by trying to shape their motives with limiting their environment and stimulus they receive, instead of playing out an authority figure who bans interest(s) of wrong kind. Everything which they might want to reach in their environment (at infancy) should be within close enough reach, so that their slow movement doesn’t cause too much stress (ok this might bee too much); So check babies reactions, as to what objects they aim to reach within what distance. The limitation can be achieved by closed environment at the first period (windows on the roof), and using artificial simulated environments (where they can explore and stuff). This way they are limited, but no harm from it, because they satisfy all their needs. Besides, when children are born and in womb, they should recieve the least amount of stress possible. So if its safe, use safe methods to relieve stress of birth, and have them born in dark environment (sudden light on eyes makes your eyes hurt). Introduce them to light gradually. Maybe they should be born in a breathable liquid pool (i dont remember the molecule usable for it).

    Maximize creative interests:

    Toys should be minimal, all wich satisfactorily helps in sensory motor development. Also, toys should be present which facilitate development of observation, and “problem” solving (compared to the fact that most toys today are based on puppets and social role-play). Virtual “toys” would offer more information rich stimulus. Artificial environments are explored with body movement based controllers. There are lenses on the virtual googles the shape of which might be changed by artificial muscles or other small actuators, so no problem with eye development when using virutal goggles for longer, also the small eye-piece component tracks eye movement [actually no need for large monitors, no idea why still used, mabe small cameras can be placed into it to watch people perhaps?]). This would also consume less electricity than projectors; would be also healthier for the eye compared to monitors (and much better). eye is only about 13-16 megapixel, so a 20 megapixel organicled/microled screen could work.

    Next developmental phase (second):

    By this time they have already learned ways in which they can satisfy their brain activation needs very well, so they would be willing to do similar things to things they have done (could turn their attention to, based on the limitations of environment) to satisfy their brain-activation needs. Think about how most children dont want to learn, but they want to play. This is because they have played some sort of games long before school, and they would strive more towards such activities which they learned to satisfy their brain activation needs. And learning is just not similar enough to it, and cant make the connection between. This is different however for those who have better imagination (which can also be trained – or lost perhaps due to disuse).

    As they can speak, and walk comfortably, and seems they have interests towards learning new things or creating things (that can be expected somewhat early) then they can be moved to join the other kids who are already past the previous developmental stage (however the whole infancy group should only move together into the larger group of kids at this early stage). This is not determined by age, age is only noted for the record, to know how “good” was the educational method so far. In the new environment their education accelerates more, since they can talk and such. So at this point, they will start to have solid beliefs of the world surrounding them, so this is here (or perhaps earlier in virtual environments?) where its optimal to show them how much their senses are limited (their believes are incorrect), so that they will know about some more “places” where they can look for new stuff (for satisfying brain activation needs) – this probably happens early in development too. Obvious, here can be used some inventions like microscope or other stuff able to sense things different from what humans can sense but similar, so it can be understood by them. For example, one could show them objects, which they could touch and they would “have to” guess patterns/surface features based on touch (if they want) which might be verified visually. Then show them magnification of the image, and show that they could not tell all the real features of all of the samples only by looking at it or touching. More samples however should have correlation between some of their looks and other percepts (sound, touch or whatever connectible with other senses). First they should have connections of such, so they grow a habit, that they might interlink different sensual memories more (looks like thing, then sounds like that), and they might subject differing kinds of percepts to analysis with one another, not just analyse withing the percept category but in between categories as well. This way they have more interlinked memories, so they can more easily discover abstractoins/properties which apply for every kind of percept (more likely to bend towards math, and abstract things). Only after that should be shown that however, its not always correct what they might guess based only on their own senses (in reality, there is correlation, however, its not always possible to tell by looking at it with naked eye [or listening, or whatever]), so that they recognise the limits of their senses, at early stage. Actually, here if some of them can tell beforehand that they are unable to define the features with complete certainty, then they might be better at abstract thinking tasks, (since they were able to find out about the existence of properties and work/reason with them, reducing to a possibility that things might be even “smaller” beyond their perception, so they cant decide surface features for sure -> that is abstract thinking/thinking about properties).
    Also, at this developmental stage (at any point in this stage) they might be thought to meditate/concentrate, or train their imagination (but maybe that would be more appropriate on later stages, when their abstract thinking and knowledge about themselves is higher in most of them, since at just that earlier stage they might not be interested about such things, as there might be not enough memories to which they could link new knowledge). Anyway, what i mean here is basicly traning the brain to imagine things, enable certain functions more, or silence them more.

    Then one more thing, at this time or even earlier its possible to teach them physics, chemistry or biology but likely differently, only the qualitative part without much math notions can be thought to them (since all of them can be explained through motions [of particles, or objects], which they are already familiar with). Of course as above mentioned the language they learn is an artificial language only. They will learn later a few other languages, by inviting other kids (that is after puberty of the second generation, since only then it is obvious wheter social behaviors would turn out as peaceful as expected). Also this artificial language have some adventages, regarding computerized processing of language, wich enables many kind of organisational methods to work effectivily, and to interpret spoken language with clarity without training to persons voice; this interpretation requires minimal hardware, and it immediatly makes it possible to send speach as text. There is an ibm made computer/algorithm called watson, wich requires some resources. Anyway, a similar can be made on artificial language with less hardware requirements, and perhpas with more punctuality.
    Its also possible to teach them programming (also qualitative, with simple quantitativeness). They learn later on the quantitative part based on the creation of specific objective things (but maybe simulations would suffise, of course strong computers are required). So obviously there is a need for some material stuff on the experimental community (or whatever/whereever). Most people (in the current society) are more interested or motivated if they can see what they can do with the knowledge in real world (some have good imagination though), so for them to be convinced of result they must see material proof.

    In the previous stage and from that on, reducing competition is obvious, since the very first stage would show if innate violence or fear is present or not in many (or some of them), so therefore just one principle have to be true: They would not get valued in a way which would influance their needs getting met, then as the first stage already managed to shape their way of satisfying brain activation need with learning or exploration, their motivation should work on its own, as they have learned to satisfy the need with learning. You simply present them with new information they might be ready to take it up, or learn about it. Or maybe a machine presents the information, because its easier to write algorithm of such to be based on language.

    Next developmental phase (third)..

    comes with emergence of new needs (actually strengthening of sexual needs). How to approach it is somewhat questionable to me. Anyway, normally, if no cultural behavior is thought to them (only their motivations are shaped as described) its highly likely, that until and after they explore their bodies, they would explore other kids bodies as well. That comes even before puberty, only they probably care less about it until then as long as they can satisfy their brain activation needs and otherwise, provided having no fear about whatever in them (even small kids from time to time use sexual stimulation as a relief from anxiety (but not only as a relief from anxiety)). So because of that, i think they should get education about sex even before puberty (because they would explore each-other very early anyway). The other idea is just teach them hygiene and let them do what they want later on (only to caution them if it might be dangerous or unpleasant in some way). Another thing which would also suggest to teach them about sexuality earlier then puberty, is if some of the kids become more “popular” because of some (more or less) random thing, or the presence of some innate predisposition towards liking some specific shape (or any kind of pattern) or feature of people more than others. If there is such a thing, then there might still be some more “popular” ones after puberty. Since it can be visible earlier than puberty, i think its wiser to educate the center of attention person differently, and teach them about sexuality and human behavior earlier along with a more wide knowledge base (those with elevated manipulative possibilities should have wider knowledge). Separation shouldnt occur since it might cause some distress in those remaining or the separated (but maybe just momentarily).

    If there is innate violence, that means even though kids live in abundance, some would use violence to get something from the other. Although have to watch very closely to see, that there were no conflicts and have to rule out diseases being the cause. For those violent kids, separation have to occur, so they can only be with such persons, against whom they cant use violence, and eventually they will realize that they don’t realy have to use violence (in optimal case). Take note that human babies can observe things earlier than they can walk. Many of their trials result in failure (at least it seems), as their body is not yet developed enough for optimal movement, and it takes quite a while to develop. Negative effects of this is ruled out with using limb movement based controls for virtual envionrments.
    Maybe even newborns (who cant walk) would also become more sensitive towards failures if they had many when the for example wanted to reach for a target of interest, or whatever. Maybe the possibility of them interpreting it as failure should be avoided.

    Also, when some of the non aggressive kids are already turning towards interests in understanding behavior of humans and animals, such kids are able to more safely be close to aggressive ones (others who don’t understand such behaviors or don’t have motivation to understand human/animal behavior would have just fear, and thats contrary to fearless/non-violent conditioning).

    After quite some of the kids have some knowledge about development of humans (psychology and otherwise), then maybe some new young kids (preferably newborns) can be brought/born into the community, so it can be checked, if the already developed kids can also bend the behavior of developing kids satisfactorily/nonviolently. When/if that is so (after the second generation), outsider kids/people can be brought into the community. Of course the inborn kids should have remaining potential for their own development.

    Some possible outcomes of the experiment, and some conclusions to those:

    So There is a point, when the second generation have been educated in the manner as the first one, partially by the first one. Lets consider some outcomes at this point:
    if (s):
    -much higher creativity and objective problem solving ability is established, then its a win situation, others should take note and see the results and ways it has been achieved or (because they are creative) they finish some university in „outside world” and split and create some more new communities, or the methods is just taken up by everyone.
    -if no much high creativity, although the persons were predisposed towards wanting to learn more or create more, then its conclusive: genetics or womb environment had a strong impact on mental abilities, and the would be reduction of the neurons in less used brain parts would have had less effect. In this case, cloning might be already available, so then clone those who were more able, if that is not available or not even in sight (which i doubt) then use some more thought out eugenics.
    -many cases of innate aggression have been detected: consider eugenics/cloning. also share result, since it might be the same on the general population (or very similar at least)
    -almost no cases of innate aggression: tell people that aggression is not natural in humans, only in bad environments (it seems).
    -innate attraction towards some kind of “shapes” have been discovered: depending on how easy was it to solve/prevent conflicts it should be noted, or if hard, also cloning/eugenics
    -no innate attraction realy: then “beauty” is just cultural construction.
    -if that was possible to reduce their fear in “adulthood” towards (otherwise) apparently dangerous things without using fearful stuff as desensitization, then fear control areas is also likely subjected to much rewiring based on how much fearfull things they encounter (or good-emotion part becomes more sensitive at least).

    Some Methodology: Since everyone has (so far) much fearconditioned behaviour (spotlight effect, for example), even if they dont want to pass it on sometimes, other times they would. Because of this, it is also useful that numerous teachers would educate/supervise smaller groups of kids, so that its easier to control themselves and check eachother.
    Some might think, that generations educated this way might be “soft” and would be easier conquered by a possible outside agressive society. This can be avoided, by simply making them familiar with possible violent situations, as well as teaching them a mentally based physical pain reduction method (only if they are interested, because for learning biology they learn that they can get blood samples from themselves with the use of painkillers). Pain can be reduced by simple concentration. I describe a method you can try for example if you have migrane or whatever. The basis for it is that physical pain sensation have at least two components: one being the sensory input, while another is a judgement reagarding oneself [that is, im hurt]. It seems that in this judgement, “Me” would be a conscious object processed very similarly to any kind of objects (for example a jar on the table). Take note what happens if you try to concentrate on one object in your view for example, then try to concentrate on one more (now two in the same time), and start adding objects, you will notice the less used would be deleted from your attention, after your attention span gets “filled”. It seems that this “i” object can be also removed such a way. The simplest is to focus on one point with sight, and then dont move your eyes and concentrate on some object or shape near the center of view (or somewhere). As you notice you are concentrating on it, switch to another object, then when you see you can concentrate on it, switch back, or ot anothe one ( object or just shape). You can keep switching this way, even only using the same two objects, the pain would surely lessen under 30 seconds, it can go away completely, after a while though. This way, the eye starts to hurt somewhat after a while if the original pain was great, then you have to switch to another percept, like hearing, or touch, same thing, concentrate on an “object”(kind of sound, portions of body touched by shape, etc). There is a much better method, i dont know however if it is easy for everyone: do nothing, but recall and concentrate on the shape and location of landmarks on the body part being hurt. This might require ability to concentrate on multiple objects easily. However this can completely remove the pain for sure. marked results can be reached with 1-2 minutes (for me, and one more person)

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate