Spiegelneuronen - Mirror Neurons (German Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Spiegelneuronen - Mirror Neurons (German Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Spiegelneuronen - Mirror Neurons (German Edition) book. Happy reading Spiegelneuronen - Mirror Neurons (German Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Spiegelneuronen - Mirror Neurons (German Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Spiegelneuronen - Mirror Neurons (German Edition) Pocket Guide.

Contents

  1. Hypothesis and Theory ARTICLE
  2. Allan Young
  3. Robin Curtis | Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg - ihosaxupoxyd.tk
  4. Thieme E-Journals - Nervenheilkunde / Abstract

They will argue, with some justification, that's a theory - and no invention. Also fragen wir: So we ask:. Aus den Skizzen und visuellen Schemata wird da, so meine ich, so einiges deutlich. Hier kurz die technische Entdeckung Erfindung? Teilen und Lenken der Aufmerksamkeit nach Parts and directing the attention after. Neuronal mag das dann so aussehen: Neuronal that might look like this:.

NOVA scienceNOW : 1 - Mirror Neurons

The focus of firing shifts constantly - due to shifts within a myriad of synaptic contacts within the network of pyramidal billion on motor neurons. Verhaltensebene Abb. Sketch in monkeys: Dealing with invisible objects. Just visible things exist in the interaction of the monkeys with each other. Primacy of concrete reward the monkey merely the bucket, the crate, seen, not the object lower. He is interested only in the visible object that exists only for him. Invisible things do not seem to exist for monkeys. Dagegen beim Menschen steht die Vorstellung vom Gegenstand im Vordergrund — selbst wenn er eben gerade verborgen ist.

The man seems ultimately merely for character property to interest the indirect benefit of the article. What are the synchronized for molds emotion that is exchanged between human and coordinated. In any case, is the automatic target-relatedness basis that continually adopts goals and purposes in others. Lenkung der Aufmerksamkeit durch Zeichen Directing the attention by signs.

Then already a kind of lifting from concrete vision, movement and action possible - for pure thought and theoretical move? Pyramidenzellen: Bewegungen bei Anderen nachahmen mimic movements in others: pyramidal cells.

Hypothesis and Theory ARTICLE

The mirror neurons this special type of pyramidal neurons Moto allow to mimic movements in others - and use this ability especially for communication. Das pyramidale System der Bewegungs-Steuerung: The pyramidal system of motion control:. Und das bedeutet das Primat der Symbole. That is, inner movement is sufficient in itself. And this means the primacy of symbols. The synchronous neural networks of communication partners form so to speak, associated inner and thus relatively independent systems.

Das hat zwei enorme Konsequenzen: This has two enormous consequences:. Actions are always first acts of communication. These are - very substantial detectable - converted into inner movement: transformation, transformer 'for communication. Ganz im Einklang mit dem Buchtitel von In keeping with the book titles. Sexual topics range from big photos of young women in erotic postures, over a ranking of the hottest women in the current movies, to tips for men who have problems with their own or their girlfriends sexuality.

The biggest part are the photographs of half-naked female bodies an average of 30 pages. Every issue contains three series of women which are photographed completely naked in MAXIM the women always wear bikinis or underwear, the most they display naked is their breasts and those are often covered with hands or arms.

In any case the reader is male and heterosexual, but it is directed to older men as well as to boys in puberty at least some boys around the age of 15 or 16 find it very interesting to look at the pictures in PLAYBOY. The topics, especially life-style see section below , fit to that estimation. About 40 pages deal with the topic sexuality, which includes the nude photographs approximately 36 pages , a satire about typical male and female behaviour, the short story, and one page for the consultation about questions concerning sexuality and other problems.

The photographs on the cover of both magazines are without exception female persons who are shown in sexy and erotic poses. Most often they almost wear nothing or are about to take the little they wear off. They are young, slim, have a well-shaped body with no cellulite, their breasts are rather big and their postures are an unmistakable offer for men. The focus of interest is the looks, everything else concerning women is treated marginally. When they wear clothes, they are rather accessories to point out their womanly characteristics.

Issue No. What stands in the foreground is not their sport but their looks. They are photographed in underwear and with a little kitten on their shoulders or a teddy-bear in their hands, always looking coy or invitingly up to the camera, almost never being eye to eye with the viewer. If the women look straight to the camera, their eyes are half closed, with a seductive expression on their faces. For counting the pages and showing relations I chose the arithmetic mean.

T F Tonia Fondermann Author. Add to cart. Contents 1 Methods and Procedure 2 Introduction 2. The first part of my work will be concerned with the images these magazines promote. Sign in to write a comment. Read the ebook.

Allan Young

African Studies A critical discussion of African Femi Power, Privilege, Sociology - Gender Studies Is gender the basis of social and eco Anglistik - Literatur Women in the Victorian Era. Oscar Wil Anglistik - Literatur Representations of Women as Victims i Feminist S Non-human animals lack two essential skills: first, the ability to search for missing elements and put them together into a syntactic structure; in contrast, they seem to decode each signal instantly and by itself.

While the syntactic level has long been the center of attention mostly in much more complex forms than we can discuss in this paper , the semiotic level has been a blind spot in the discussion of language evolution so far. In this section, we discussed how simple language works; the next section brings us to the key question of this research: how is syntactic competence related to the uniquely human faculty for symbol use , including the ability to produce and understand mimetic gestures.

Peirce , developed a complex semiotic theory, of which only a small portion became well-known outside his field of study. This is his classification of signs according to the way they denote objects:. An indexical sign can be either a pointing finger or such as smoke for fire. An iconic sign could be a figurative object or a mimetic gesture. However, there is an essential discrepancy; while the distinction between an icon and a symbol is gradual , the difference between icons and symbols on one hand, and an index on the other, is discrete. This has essential consequences for a potential evolutionary theory of language; icons can undergo gradual development through use.

Thus, it is easy to construct an evolutionary story of increasing abstraction. A well-known example is the development of Nicaraguan sign language NSL from mostly mimetic Goldin-Meadow and Mylander, home-signs into a conventional full-fledged language Senghas et al. Another example would be the development of the first letter of our alphabet from the Egyptian hieroglyph for ox head through the Phoenician Aleph see Figure 1.

Figure 1. A Egyptian hieroglyph representing a bull-head, B Phoenician glottal stop [? This gradual transformation from icon having features of similarity to symbol conventional signs we refer to as arbitrarisation —the transformation of the elements of a communication system toward communicative efficiency—which is to communicate as much as possible as briefly as possible, while minimizing the danger of confusion.

By the end of the process each sign is shaped by communicative efficiency; signs, while conditioned by historical and technical constraints, tend to find their places in the virtual space of maximal difference from all or significant other signs. As a necessary side-effect, the analogy to the signified object vanishes.

This process of arbitrarisation is completely distinct from the ability of signs to take part in syntactic structures: non-language signal systems can undergo the process of arbitrarisation and mimetic and conventional signs can be functional equivalents within a syntactic structure. The arbitrariness of signals should not to be confused with their ability to take part in syntactic structures.

This can also be demonstrated by the alarm calls of vervet monkeys, which use different signals for different dangers Seyfarth et al. For the same reason, the development of Nicaraguan sign language or any other language cannot be a model for the emergence of the language faculty, but only a model for arbitrarisation. Another argument that mimetic and arbitrary symbols are not discretely distinguishable is that some signs in sign language are conventional and mimetic at the same time; you cannot understand them without learning them, but having learned them, you understand the mimetic relation between signifier and signified.

From this perspective the emergence of language must include the transcendence of the essential distinction between the world of indexes and the cosmos of mimetic or arbitrary symbols. The idea presented in this paper is based on two premises: 1 evolution adapts whatever already exists for new purposes, 2 While not all indexes are of natural meaning, all signs with natural meaning can be interpreted as indexical. The hypothesis that language evolution takes off from indexes is suggested by these premises: the first premise suggests that non-natural meaning cf.

Grice, developed from natural meaning and from the second premise we can deduce that non-natural meaning means indexical. Indexes are closely related to the world itself, up to a point, that sometimes the line between objects and indexes of an objects blur. Is the ear of a donkey behind a bush an index of the donkey or the donkey itself? In a more radical view, the world presents itself to us in the form of indexes, because all of our sense perception could be called indexical.

Robin Curtis | Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg - ihosaxupoxyd.tk

Symbols can refer to displaced future, past, imaginary actions through minimal syntactic structures, while the ability of indexes to refer to displaced actions is inflexible and limited. While an indexical finger pointing only can refer to present objects or events, indexical objects — as we will see — sometimes can refer to past actions or events. In the model presented here we suggest a transformation from a natural index to an index presentation. In the next passage we will investigate the differences between the world of indexes and language more closely. While non-human vertebrates including non-human primates live—roughly speaking—in a world of indexes which in most cases refer to the here and now , people also live in a symbolic world including mental time traveling and the inner presentation of non-present entities of all sorts, including significant others and persons of reference.

Most researchers agree that mental time traveling is limited or non-existent in non-human animals Suddendorf, The gap between indexes and symbols can be investigated in terms of their different functions and in terms of the cognitive requirements for the comprehension of mimetic and symbolic signs and operations.

The abilities of non-human animals to understand spontaneously new mimetic symbols, such as pantomime and mimetic objects, are limited to non-existent. Great apes have been conditioned to use some gestures from conventional sign language, but there is no evidence that they can spontaneously understand new mimetic symbols. They also find it difficult to imitate gestures without objects Tennie et al.

In contrast, people not only comprehend mimetic symbols, but seem to have an innate attraction to mimesis play and mimetic objects such as symbolic toys and puppets.


  • "+_.E(b)+".
  • Rizzolatti Giacomo Und Corrado Sinigaglia.
  • Main navigation.
  • Root of Thought:Reflections on Neuroscience.
  • Dogs in the Yard;
  • UN SOUFFLE DANS LA NUIT (A FAIRE FROID DANS LE DOS) (French Edition)!

Their mirror-neurons do not fire when they observe non-transitive actions such as walking or dancing —actions of an agent not involving another animal or an object Luppino and Rizzolatti, In the case of human beings, the nervous system reacts not only to non-transitive actions Maeda et al. The uniqueness of language includes at least three aspects: 1 syntax in its most basic form: the argument structure: the verb valency with thematic roles , 2 on the level of the function, the representation of non-present such as past or future events or actions, and 3 at the semiotic level, the overcoming of the discontinuity between index and mimetic symbol.

Any explanation for language evolution needs to account for how these discontinuities could have been overcome. The classical generative theories concerned mainly the emergence of syntax e. We have argued that one of the most unique and central functions of language is the representation of absent actions and that this function depends on syntax-like conceptual structures and mimetic or arbitrary symbols.

Why is it—in most cases—impossible to refer to an absent action using only indexes? As we saw in the boy-meets-girl scenario, it is possible if the agents of the related action are present to refer to the agents by pointing. What about the verb? There are at least two ways to refer to an action by pointing: pointing at a present action or at an object that implies an action. However, this would require that the action in question occur in the presence of the communicative partners or that an object that implies the action is present. Language requires referring to actions without these strict limitations.

The simplest way to refer to any absent action is to imitate that action. Such imitation may be done without objects that would be involved in the real action. In sign language, such signs are called manipulators in contrast to substitutors. Manipulators imitate an action for example drinking from a cup , while substitutors imitate an object or a part of it.

For instance, the sign for champagne can combine a manipulator opening the bottle and a substitutor the effervescent champagne squiring out of the bottle. The benefit of mimetic signs is that they can refer without presupposing any semiotic conventions. Thus, we have claimed that representing absent actions requires syntax-like structure and mimetic or arbitrary symbols.

This urgently compels the question of how and why such activity could have begun; what sort of interactions could form the basis for an adaptation that would evolve into the ability to communicate an absent action, by using a mimetic symbol of this action within a minimal argument structure. A natural place to look for this bridge would be among natural indexical signs, for several reasons; 1 they occur automatically in a natural environment; 2 they are likely to be related to food gathering, hunting and territorial conflicts e. In general, as stated above, indexes refer to present objects, actions or events.

However, there exists a class of situations in which the receiver can infer a past action of a present individual; for instance, if a dominant individual shows signs of repletion while another individual gulps down some flesh it bites off from a bone, the observer can infer that the dominant individual gave the bone to the other individual after eating to satisfaction. Also, in this case there is no intention to communicate. Another example: an observer might infer that the individual carrying a hand ax produced it himself.

In both cases, the past of the observed individual might be imagined, and thus a non-present event conceptually represented; thereby valuable information about the social world could be transmitted. We know that primate societies depend on a variety of sophisticated cognitive skills, and it has been claimed that such abilities evolved in response to social demands Humphrey, and action reasoning Fabbri-Destro and Rizzolatti, As a consequence, A will challenge B before picking a hierarchical fight with C.

Thus, the ability to interpret such indexes could develop because the genes that encode the ability to develop the capacity to interpret such indexes would spread through the population. To identify which cases might be relevant for language evolution, we need to introduce two distinctions concerning the information transmitted:. In situations in which understanding the past would bequeath an advantage to the observed individual, it would be beneficial for the observed individual to draw the attention of the potential interpreter to any indexes of the relevant past actions or to hide them in the converse case.

While the inferences drawn from a whole situation will most often concern the immediate past and the present location or one within sight objects can be carried over a distance. Another difference between drawing inference form an entire situation versus from an object is that, regarding an object, the observed individual has more control over the communication: an object can be presented or hidden, while the inferences drawn from a situation cannot always be controlled as well.

We are particularly interested in situations in which it might be advantageous for an individual to communicate the past, because this needs to be the case to play a role in language evolution: it must be beneficial for the speaker to communicate something only traits bequeathing differential fitness can be subject to evolution. The most promising scenario to be developed into a communicative situation is one in which the past can be inferred from an object and such inference gives the communicating individual a reproductive advantage. The presentation of an indexical object could somehow be considered functionally equivalent to a linguistic utterance representing a past action; but there is also a fundamental difference: in the simplest situations in which the observer infers a past event from an indexical object, the sender need not intend to communicate the past action consciously.

If displaying indexical objects gave the producers of the indexes—implying their own past actions—a reproductive advantage, an index-displaying behavior would spread through the population. In contrast, whenever an indexical object including a traditional trophy of hunting or war is presented as a trophy , the presenter is trying to communicate a past event similarly to a modern language user who wishes to be understood.

Given a sufficient selective pressure, the ability of presenters to understand that audiences understand could probably subsequently develop over a long period of time. But for the development to start, neither joint attention nor the competence to attribute mental states to others such as understanding the understanding must be in place; rather, both could develop through use.

Regardless of whether such later developments would have been possible, the point to be made here is: understanding the representation of a non-present action by means of an indexical object even if not intended by the presenter implies a conceptual structure similar to that of the representation of a situation using a syntax-like structure: the elements of the situation must be classified in terms of thematic roles: in the case of a trophy the presenter is conceptualized as an agent and the trophy as patient, while the action kill is implied by the condition of the patient; thereby information about a past deed can be transmitted.

In this paper, we have tried to show that there is a remarkable structural and functional similarity between the cognitive foundations of linguistic syntax and the understanding of the presentation of indexical signs such as a skillfully made tools or hunting trophies. Hypothetically there are three possibilities:.

This would make them homologous concerning their common foundation and analogous in their later separate development; similar function to refer to a non-present event enforces similar structure. The claim of this paper is that regardless of which scenario is true, language evolved for its capacity to refer to past actions and later other displaced — past, future, imaginary events — and that this capacity could come under evolutionary pressure in various scenarios including trophy presentation.

A much stronger claim with much more exploratory power would be to argue for the third option: inferring a past event from a present sign being a prerequisite for and progenitor of linguistic syntax, including the possibility that the presentation of an indexical object functioned as a precursor for linguistic utterances referring to the past.

In order to further consider the likelihood of this third option, it behooves us to consider more closely the types of indexical objects most likely to have played such a role in human evolution. We have argued that one essential distinction between language and other forms of communication can be described semiotically: while non-human animals live in a world of indexes, language depends on mimetic or conventional symbols. It seems impossible to render a syntactic structure that refers to an absent action using only indexical signs.

In general, indexes refer to the present, although there are exceptions, such as the traces left behind, and other examples given above. Such indexes that do refer to the past can be either complex situations or objects and the information about the agent of the indexed action can be either beneficial or adverse to the agent of the action.

In the case of a display whereby comprehension is beneficial to the producer, it could be plausible for display-making behavior to evolve. Now, we could render a menu of different possibilities: individuals may make objects that display their abilities, such as painted shells and skillfully made tools. How would objects develop during cultural transmission if they were selected for skillfulness instead of usefulness?

This might be one beginning of simple forms of art. If displaying such skillfully made object would produce a selective advantage e. Another class of indexical objects could be corpses of animals killed in the hunt. Differently from the skillful crafting of objects, hunting shapes the ecological conditions in which a population survives through interactions between the hunting population and their environment. Many people—e. If this would be the case, selection would be based on the fact that families of good hunters and thereby their genes would flourish while other die of hunger.

Selection would be mostly negative. Hunting abilities would therefore only adapt when confronted with new environments and environmental changes. With negative selection death by hunger only the families of the worst hunters would be likely to die off entirely, if any; because people can survive without meat on the other hand, high-protein food, such as meat, could definitely increase the average height and brain development of the children of good hunters.

However, if the best hunters were always selected, hunting abilities could develop in a runaway-process, because competition would never end, since all hunters of the same group are competitors and hunting techniques and technology can improve with every new generation. Also, if hunters displaying trophies were positively selected—due to social status or by sexual selection, for instance—it could become a runaway process. This might raise the value of rare trophies such as dangerous or hard to hunt animals over the mere nutritional value.

This hypothesis is supported by the fact that when Homo sapiens spread around the world, the first animals to disappear were large game Martin, If hunting abilities evolve for the better in a population, this group will also have a competitive advantage in territorial conflicts with other groups, since hunting big game and group conflicts require similar strategies, weapons and abilities.

Thieme E-Journals - Nervenheilkunde / Abstract

This makes it likely that groups in which such positive feedback circles emerge would displace all other groups—who hunt merely for nutritional purposes. Because it is a good choice for a female is to mate with the most successful hunters, it is possible for the ability to interpret the value of a trophy to have evolved. Although our ancestors were not chimpanzees, comparing chimpanzee behavior with ours is a commonly accepted starting point for understanding the development of unique human faculties.

Female chimpanzees mate more often with males that share meat with them Gomes and Boesch, This behavior has been interpreted as sexual selection von Heiseler, If females were to choose mates presenting an index of a rare kill over nutritional value a choice that could be the result of runaway process that could have started, because the orientation toward rare kills produces more distinctions , they would choose mates presenting hunting trophies, giving such male conspecifics reproductive advantage.

It is also possible that the presentation of corpses of animals killed in the hunt would raise the status of the presenter among the males of the group and that the female choice would orient toward that status. This could also occur without any mental representation of past deeds: the system could work without anyone conceptualizing the events leading to the presentation of the hunted animals.

A corpse of animals killed in the hunt would only turn into indexical objects when they produce mental representations of a past deed. There is another important point that concerns motivation and group structure: if trophies were to motivate actions that benefit the group, the costs that are paid by the individuals for their expensive signaling could cash out for the group. It is possible that different groups would favor different indexical objects.

Some of them could be more beneficial for the group than others. If in one group, for instance, war trophies in the form of body parts were preferred, this might give this group an advantage over groups living in the same habitat that favor rare objects and replace them slowly. Another possibility would be a skillfully manufactured object. Individuals would compete either by winning hunting or war trophies or by excelling in the artfulness of produced objects. Although both could play a role, trophy presentation seems particularly worthwhile to consider, because if then—after evolving, the tendency to choose trophy-bearers—females were to comprehend the implications of a trophy because this should give her a reproductive advantage , this would constitute conceptualization of a past event.

Such concepts, as we have seen, would have to include categorizations similar to the thematic roles shaping syntactic structure. In this constellation, the instinct to show the trophy to a group or to a female could evolve without the intention to be understood. Because in this scenario awareness of the attentions of others can bequeath reproductive advantages, this awareness could have become subject to a selective pressure; the ability to understand how one is seen by others could have thus develop.

We should consider whether a mimetic sign representing, for instance, killing , could have also emerged under such conditions. If such a mimetic gesture were to have been understood, the abilities to perform and understand such gestures could be put under a selective pressure and this might have opened the whole world of human actions to be symbolized. While not all indexes are of natural meaning, all signs with natural meaning can be interpreted as indexes.

The idea that signs with non-natural meaning cf.