Meaning fighting and f***ing and all.

Modern grunts (English here) has an elevation about it, a civilized even civilizing elevation, with a perhaps (desired) conflict-free mental state, with a feeling got there, or are there. Culture offers a place for the successful sublimator. The ancient beasties live in the basement, apparently transformed in appearance and expression.

Seeking approval’s like a reptile goes out into the sun to warm. The flipside of seeking approval is the fear of disapproval (and isolation)and reduced reproductive opportunities (historically). So higher homeostatic mechanisms in humans involve disconcerting aspects like humiliation, embarrassment, they’re quite powerful aversive sensations/aversions (with corresponding mental states).

Reptiles can be beat down, feel smaller (equates lowered confidence), or bigger with success.

My question is of humans and how much of ego is reptile.

Would the higher functions, and consciousness work, without the reptile. Working with the reptile within?

I think humans want to love the reptile within, it’s partly the attraction of oblivion through drugs and alcohol, and related perhaps our love of sleep (the twilight zone too). Lowered responsibility, less fear of consequences at every turn.

Would you be a better human with no reptile within? Would you be human?

transition said:

Meaning fighting and f***ing and all.

Modern grunts (English here) has an elevation about it, a civilized even civilizing elevation, with a perhaps (desired) conflict-free mental state, with a feeling got there, or are there. Culture offers a place for the successful sublimator. The ancient beasties live in the basement, apparently transformed in appearance and expression.

Seeking approval’s like a reptile goes out into the sun to warm. The flipside of seeking approval is the fear of disapproval (and isolation)and reduced reproductive opportunities (historically). So higher homeostatic mechanisms in humans involve disconcerting aspects like humiliation, embarrassment, they’re quite powerful aversive sensations/aversions (with corresponding mental states).

Reptiles can be beat down, feel smaller (equates lowered confidence), or bigger with success.

My question is of humans and how much of ego is reptile.

Would the higher functions, and consciousness work, without the reptile. Working with the reptile within?

I think humans want to love the reptile within, it’s partly the attraction of oblivion through drugs and alcohol, and related perhaps our love of sleep (the twilight zone too). Lowered responsibility, less fear of consequences at every turn.

Would you be a better human with no reptile within? Would you be human?

Do you mean a lowered state of sensory perception?

>Do you mean a lowered state of sensory perception?

No, it’s nothing to do with a perception-centric theory of mind.

I’m saying an important part of the human mind is reptile in origin, reptile-like. That it’s necessary to higher functions and consciousness, and exploring the consequences of the denial or part-denial of it (being so). The good works of the right-thinking moral bulb.

CrazyNeutrino said:

transition said:

Meaning fighting and f***ing and all.

Modern grunts (English here) has an elevation about it, a civilized even civilizing elevation, with a perhaps (desired) conflict-free mental state, with a feeling got there, or are there. Culture offers a place for the successful sublimator. The ancient beasties live in the basement, apparently transformed in appearance and expression.

Seeking approval’s like a reptile goes out into the sun to warm. The flipside of seeking approval is the fear of disapproval (and isolation)and reduced reproductive opportunities (historically). So higher homeostatic mechanisms in humans involve disconcerting aspects like humiliation, embarrassment, they’re quite powerful aversive sensations/aversions (with corresponding mental states).

Reptiles can be beat down, feel smaller (equates lowered confidence), or bigger with success.

My question is of humans and how much of ego is reptile.

Would the higher functions, and consciousness work, without the reptile. Working with the reptile within?

I think humans want to love the reptile within, it’s partly the attraction of oblivion through drugs and alcohol, and related perhaps our love of sleep (the twilight zone too). Lowered responsibility, less fear of consequences at every turn.

Would you be a better human with no reptile within? Would you be human?

Do you mean a lowered state of sensory perception?

imagine mapping all human emotions to the chemicals that cause them

then do the same for other species

Do some species that have lowered sensory perception have a lowered set of emotions ?

Dogs have highly developed sensory perception of smell, so they have other highly developed perceptions?

Dogs have a set of emotions as well

humans have around 80 to 100 emotions, I have not been able to find exact figures

how many do dogs have?

I wonder how many emotions are found in other species

and does a higher amount of emotions correspond to higher intelligence?

if higher numbers of emotions corresponds to higher intelligence then a study of mapping emotions to chemicals would make sense

What level does sensory perception play in intelligence?

How does sensory perception relate to emotional development?

transition said:

>Do you mean a lowered state of sensory perception?

No, it’s nothing to do with a perception-centric theory of mind.

I’m saying an important part of the human mind is reptile in origin, reptile-like. That it’s necessary to higher functions and consciousness, and exploring the consequences of the denial or part-denial of it (being so). The good works of the right-thinking moral bulb.

What do you mean by reptile like?

By comparing behaviours of various primates, we can see that almost all human psychology is new with Homo, and most of what remains is shared with the chimps and bonobos but not with other primates, so these MacLeanian notions of reptilian brain components deeply influencing psychology did not much headway in psychology (of the non-pop variety).

>>Seeking approval’s like a reptile goes out into the sun to warm.

lights pipe

dv said:

By comparing behaviours of various primates, we can see that almost all human psychology is new with Homo, and most of what remains is shared with the chimps and bonobos but not with other primates.

I’m inclined to disagree here. Reading Fossey on Mountain Gorillas I can see a very great similarity between their psychology and ours. In particular I was impressed by Fossey’s description of how different tribes of Gorillas on meeting after being away from one another for many weeks will sit down together and converse in a language of mixed grunts and gestures quite complicated concepts pertaining to relationships, health and environment.

There are suggestions that the same is true of other social vertebrates including docks and hens.

As for “reptile brain”, recent taxonomy has turned the relationship between reptiles and mammals upside down. Reptiles – to be more specific “sauropsida” – evolved from mammals rather than the other way around. For example, the most ancient dinosaurs, pterosaurs and crocodiles were bipeds, whereas some mammals only evolved a bipedal nature much more recently, being hindered by the lack of a heavy tail to counterbalance the torso. For the skull, too, mammals have a primitive heavy skull with one hole, reptiles have an advanced lightweight skull with two holes – except for turtle skulls which have have regressed to a more primitive heavy form.

“The reptilian brain is a myth that should not be taken seriously and yet is referred to by many writers and is even seen in educational sites for children. It is the idea that we have three brains: a reptilian one, the paleomammalian one and the mammalian one” from http://dyslectern.info/2014/03/09/do-we-have-a-reptilian-brain/

> disconcerting aspects like humiliation, embarrassment, they’re quite powerful aversive sensations/aversions

I don’t see anyone claiming that reptiles don’t have these problems, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_brain

The triune model of the mammalian brain is seen as an oversimplified organizing theme by some in the field of comparative neuroscience It continues to hold public interest because of its simplicity. While technically inaccurate as an explanation for brain activity, it remains one of very few approximations of the truth we have to work with: the “neocortex” represents that cluster of brain structures involved in advanced cognition, including planning, modeling and simulation; the “limbic brain” refers to those brain structures, wherever located, associated with social and nurturing behaviors, mutual reciprocity, and other behaviors and affects that arose during the age of the mammals; and the “reptilian brain” refers to those brain structures related to territoriality, ritual behavior and other “reptile” behaviors. The broad explanatory value makes this approximation very engaging and is a useful level of complexity for high school students to begin engaging with brain research.

Howard Bloom, in his book The Lucifer Principle, references the concept of the triune brain in his explanations of certain aspects of human behavior. Arthur Koestler made MacLean’s concept of the triune brain the centerpiece of much of his later work, notably The Ghost in the Machine. English novelist Julian Barnes quotes MacLean on the triune brain in the foreword to his 1982 novel Before She Met Me. Peter A. Levine uses the triune brain concept in his book Waking the Tiger to explain his Somatic Experiencing approach to healing trauma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_ganglia

mollwollfumble said:

As for “reptile brain”, recent taxonomy has turned the relationship between reptiles and mammals upside down. Reptiles – to be more specific “sauropsida” – evolved from mammals rather than the other way around. For example, the most ancient dinosaurs, pterosaurs and crocodiles were bipeds, whereas some mammals only evolved a bipedal nature much more recently, being hindered by the lack of a heavy tail to counterbalance the torso. For the skull, too, mammals have a primitive heavy skull with one hole, reptiles have an advanced lightweight skull with two holes – except for turtle skulls which have have regressed to a more primitive heavy form.

“The reptilian brain is a myth that should not be taken seriously and yet is referred to by many writers and is even seen in educational sites for children. It is the idea that we have three brains: a reptilian one, the paleomammalian one and the mammalian one” from http://dyslectern.info/2014/03/09/do-we-have-a-reptilian-brain/

The Clade of Amniota is the common ancestor of reptiles and mammals (which at this early evolutionary period were mammal-like reptiles). Amniota branched into the Class Synapsida that evolved into mammals, whilst the other branch Sauropsida, evolved into the reptiles.

There is a long line of mammal-like reptiles in the Synapsida class before they evolved into actual mammals. Therefore, to say that some reptiles evolved from mammals is nonsensical.

substitute primitive for reptile

transition said:

substitute primitive for reptile

Next time you see Trump he’ll be dragging his missus by the hair, swinging a club and grunting. Don’t thank me yet……..