• Benj96
    658
    The anatomical theory of the mind suggests that thoughts or rather the information that goes to formulate them are stored in connections between neurons. This is interesting and came to light for me during a game with Friends. The object of the game was to first make a choice:
    Null or total.
    In the case of total: you must try to get as many similar associations as possible with your friends when given a prompt word. The one with the most associations at the end wins. In the case of null (which most people find a little more difficult) one must avoid writing the same words as friends and try to keep their score as low as possible.

    For example the prompt word could be “leaf”. You would then have 10 seconds to write down all the associations that come to mind before comparing them with the rest of the group. These could be anything from obvious words like “plant” “green” “tree” “nature” if you opted for “total” to more abstract or technical ones like “chlorophyll” “shade” “waterproof” or “growth” if you opted for “null”.

    Each time a friend also has the same answer you get a point as do they. But it reveals something about the way we think. We can be highly lateralised - thinking in the most obscure way possible to connect two seemingly unrelated concepts or we can think objectively and in a compact discrete highly interrelated format.

    The anatomical theory explains the “total” objective of the game but has difficulty explaining the “null” objective. This is where creativity and lateralisation comes into play.

    What are your thoughts on what this game reveals? Are some people more lateralised or objective than others? What does it mean for the quality of thought that we have and how our brains work? What does it mean for those that struggle to come up with many associations at all?
  • Hermeticus
    181
    The anatomical theory explains the “total” objective of the game but has difficulty explaining the “null” objective. This is where creativity and lateralisation comes into play.Benj96

    The process of both "null" and "total" appears to me as the exact same one. In the case of null, you will still follow a chain of associations the same way you would with "total". The difference is that "null" has an added layer: Instead of just taking the chain of association as it is, you put it through a filter: You remove the associations that you deem as most common from the chain.
  • Caldwell
    1k
    What are your thoughts on what this game reveals? Are some people more lateralised or objective than others? What does it mean for the quality of thought that we have and how our brains work? What does it mean for those that struggle to come up with many associations at all?Benj96
    Given only 10 seconds to come up with associations, there's indeed a difference between thinking in terms of "total" and "null". I believe we retrieve from memory differently. I think sorting out happens -- for null, we start rejecting associations that are common and that come to mind fast. I'm pretty sure "plant", "green", "tree" come up very, very fast and we reject those while thinking in terms of null. So, we start associating the 'fast' words with other words that aren't so common -- dirt, pot, growth.
  • jgill
    2.3k
    What are your thoughts on what this game reveals?Benj96

    With me, it would reveal the difficulty pulling words from my memory at my age. :worry:
  • Caldwell
    1k
    What does it mean for those that struggle to come up with many associations at all?Benj96
    The situation at the moment might present a difficulty -- stress, tiredness. Or just mental block, which happens to everyone.
  • Caldwell
    1k
    Incidentally, if you've ever talked to a negative person, the associations that you would encounter from that person are often negative words despite the neutral words you bring up.
  • Agent Smith
    6.3k
    One or two axioms/premises to kick things off. Everything else follows, logically that is. It's quite odd actually: we write the axioms on top but they're, in reality, at the bottom (foundational).
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.