From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jan 20 2002 - 08:39:54 MST
We are pattern identifiers. We have to be in order to survive.
Ugg ate a root <em>like that</em> and died. Perhaps I should not eat that
root.
I enjoyed the root of a plant <em>like that</em> one yesterday. Perhaps I
should dig there today.
Although they are of different sizes, an animal with black and yellow
stripes ate Ugg last week. Perhaps I should throw stones at the
black-and-yellow animal following me in case it wants to eat me.
The plants may be far from identical, yet we identify them as similar. The
animals may be completely different in all other respects, yet we identify
them as dangerous. We must be able to identify the concept of "like" to
survive.
The last time there were clouds it rained. There are clouds. It is probably
going to rain.
That rock is coming towards my head very quickly, perhaps I should duck.
We need to identify temporal patterns as well as experiential patterns.
As far as we know all nervous systems are capable of this level of
processing to some extent or another. Which may explain why our entire brain
acts as a neural-mesh and functions by comparing previous signals to current
ones. When we think of something we have previously seen, we recreate
patterns in our brain that were created when we experienced similar things.
The same happens for all the senses (I assume. I know that it has been
confirmed for sights, sounds, tastes and smells. I am not certain about
touch although it seems likely). The strength of the match then triggers
memories and we can train ourselves for the match to trigger reactions (e.g.
600 ms to 900 ms for an average person to make a shoot-no-shoot decision.
300 ms with appropriate training).
So we see patterns in "like" things. Our ability to detect patterns is
extremely good - maybe to good. Because sometimes we go to far. Perhaps we
say (well trained by the flower industry), "Love is like a rose". So we give
roses to express love. We might also stretch the simile and expect love to
have thorns. Having become programmed by simile, we all to often stretch it
beyond a point where it is supported - and have immense difficulty in
avoiding doing so.
Even where the "patterns" are weak, we say "like," we can't help it, we are
programmed that way. Which is why simile is one of the most powerful
communications techniques possible. Simile can be used to bypass our
rational filters, and cause our brains to create patterns - even where none
exist. Both the religious and advertising industries are very good at this.
This is also how we can be "programmed" through anticipation. If I tell you
what to expect, when something happens, even if it is only vaguely similar
to what you were primed for, you will accept that what I told you will
happen has occurred.
We see this when we tell people that a pill will make them better. Even if
the pill contains nothing useful, they are likely to feel better (the
placebo effect). Why? Because the patient felt better after taking other
pills (whether because of the pills, or because they got better with time -
or even because somebody else was interested in their well-being), they are
programmed to feel better after taking a pill. Telling them that this is the
case simply makes sure that the "improvement" simile is in their mind before
they take it. A really good shaman, no matter how useless his concoctions,
will also tell his "patients" that they do feel better after they have taken
his muti. And the patient will always remember that and be quite unable to
deny it. Some marketers use the same technique. As do the best entertainers
- and all priests.
Simile can mislead us in even more fundamental ways. Even where no
deliberate attempt is made to mislead us. When a person "knows" (at least
think they know) what something should look like, and anticipate seeing it,
then almost anything they see may invoke what they expect. This becomes even
stronger when a person really wants to see something, for then, almost
anything they look at may well look like that thing even where it is really
something entirely different.
For example, everyone knows what a "ruined city" should look like, and many
people do not know that molten rock may crystallize into regular forms when
exposed to seawater. So, when they see a regular pattern of lines, they say
"like" a city - and bingo, you have a city. As with any optical illusion,
having "seen" one thing, we cannot see any other meaning for the thing until
we "refocus" - mentally at least - and change the template we are using for
something else. This becomes extremely apparent when the person invests
belief in what they are seeing. So even if you show a person who has
identified a supposed "ancient city" a basalt formation, the "ancient city"
template may still predominate. And here we get to the point of delusion.
This is commonly seen in UFOlogists, who even when their theories are
debunked, persist in holding to their original belief and assert that any
counter evidence has been fabricated or that those objecting to their
assertions are doing it for ulterior motives or due to poor reasoning. As we
have so recently had demonstrated to us, this can happen even in as rigorous
a field as mathematics!
Based on the above, it is perhaps valid to think of belief as being quite
simply, "the ultimate simile". A meta-simile which filters and matches
everything and one which, having programmed one's mind with it, everything
experienced seems to act to validate. This view might also go a long way to
explaining the comparative popularity and high rate of propagation of
certain stories (particularly proverb, myth (religion)and urban legend),
while others die out. Careful analysis may well show that successful memetic
propagation is dependent on high levels of simile.
Regards
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:40 MDT