This is not my anecdote but of someone I worked with for several years in the 1970s. He worded for an aerial survey company and part of their job was to do magnetic surveys and aerial mapping. The company had a contact in he South American country of Guyana. They had a camp on one of the jungle rives to support some of their survey work. It cam about that some of the electronic equipment at the camp failed and he was asked to go there to repair it. He was taken there along with another employee on board a jet helicopter. The helicopter carried his equipment as well as some supplies for the camp. The helicopter could not land at the camp and so landed on a sand bar in the middle of the river. A power launch from the camp would come to pick them up.
Everything went as planned. The helicopter landed on the sandbar and they unloaded their equipment. The helicopter took off on its return journey and they waited there for the launch. They stood beside their equipment as he said like waiting for a bus. Then the realization came upon them. They were standing on a sandbar in a jungle river. There were caiman (a form of alligator) swimming around them in the river. My colleague’s fellow employee observed that they didn’t even have a pointy stick to defend themselves.
What I took from this is how we take the protection and comforts of our technological society for granted. They cam to the sandbar as full-fledged members of a technologically elite species. They were at the apex of nature and had no fear of other species. The helicopter left and they were on their own. They were no longer invulnerable but were intensely in danger. At any second, a major predator could have attacked them.
I find this anecdote relevant to many of the environmental debates that go on. It is not just one side that forgets this vulnerability. It appears that it is a common blind spot for all political discussions on the environment. The environmentalist sees nature as beneficent but forgets that nature is beneficent if one is a the top of the food chain. For members of vulnerable species, nature is the process by which they get eaten. Those opposed to environmentalism believe that our technology is all powerful and independent of nature. They forget that our technology rests on the basis of the exploitation of natural systems. If these systems are disrupted then there is no guarantee that our society can devise technology to address the disruption.
So we have a technological and environmental ignorance coupled with a technological and environmental arrogance. Owe forget hw dependant we are both on nature and technology. We engage in futile disputes that deny that reality of one side or the other. This is what I see as so wrong, in the current environmental debates and especially of eh AGW debate. We need nature and we need technology. Without either we are vulnerable and will not survive..
Friday, November 27, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Synesthesia and Creativity - The Muse is in the Interconnections
In the previous blog posting, I teid to explain the recent findings that synesthesia is a relatively common condition and results from interconnections between the various sensory components in the brain. So, for example, the colour region may be interconnected with the region responsible for identifying letters. With this the letter "B" could be associated with the colour pink So the subject would report B as being pink.
Interconnections such as this have been proposed by the computer scientist David Gelernter as the basis for human reasoning. He did so in a book entitled "The Muse in the Machine" Gelernter recognizes that the mind is a functional part of the human being. It evolved to help the entire being function within its environment and to say the same thing its functions are defined by the need of the human being to function within that environment. The mind is not an abstract device separated from reality as is the common assumption.
Gelernter identifies the bases of the mind's mechanisms as emotions and memory. By emotion, Gelernter means a way by which the organism can capture and characterize its current state. The commonly known emotions of fear and hunger are obvious examples of this but Gelernter expands this to include very fine-grained feelings that blur the lines between the distinct feelings that are commonly viewed as emotions. He shows how a composite feeling of contentment and anticipation on a boat trip can be viewed as a distinct emotion, for example. With this ability to finely characterize a situation by an emotion, the organism can identify similar situations that it met in the past. It can then select its actions based on the success or failure of actions in past similar situations. His view of the mind is similar to the common engineering techniques of case-based and memory-based reasoning.
However Gelernter expands on these common models by showing how his views on emotions link to poetry as an example of a higher human faculty that is commonly thought to be unexplainable at the functional level. Gelernter identifies that the method for matching of situations by emotional memory may by either loosely of tightly focussed. Tight focus is conventional reasoning in which details are important. Loose focus allows apparently disparate situations to be matched based only on the structure of the connections in the constituent emotions. This type of reasoning is what Gerlernter states as the source of creativity. It is what allows a poet to find common ground with his reader as Gelernter demonstrates with his comparison of his idea to T.S. Eliot's 'objective correlative.' Gelernter shows his ideas with examples from the English Romantic poets and from apparently inexplicable passages from the Bible which can be explained as examples of loosely focussed emotional connectivity.
Interconnections such as this have been proposed by the computer scientist David Gelernter as the basis for human reasoning. He did so in a book entitled "The Muse in the Machine" Gelernter recognizes that the mind is a functional part of the human being. It evolved to help the entire being function within its environment and to say the same thing its functions are defined by the need of the human being to function within that environment. The mind is not an abstract device separated from reality as is the common assumption.
Gelernter identifies the bases of the mind's mechanisms as emotions and memory. By emotion, Gelernter means a way by which the organism can capture and characterize its current state. The commonly known emotions of fear and hunger are obvious examples of this but Gelernter expands this to include very fine-grained feelings that blur the lines between the distinct feelings that are commonly viewed as emotions. He shows how a composite feeling of contentment and anticipation on a boat trip can be viewed as a distinct emotion, for example. With this ability to finely characterize a situation by an emotion, the organism can identify similar situations that it met in the past. It can then select its actions based on the success or failure of actions in past similar situations. His view of the mind is similar to the common engineering techniques of case-based and memory-based reasoning.
However Gelernter expands on these common models by showing how his views on emotions link to poetry as an example of a higher human faculty that is commonly thought to be unexplainable at the functional level. Gelernter identifies that the method for matching of situations by emotional memory may by either loosely of tightly focussed. Tight focus is conventional reasoning in which details are important. Loose focus allows apparently disparate situations to be matched based only on the structure of the connections in the constituent emotions. This type of reasoning is what Gerlernter states as the source of creativity. It is what allows a poet to find common ground with his reader as Gelernter demonstrates with his comparison of his idea to T.S. Eliot's 'objective correlative.' Gelernter shows his ideas with examples from the English Romantic poets and from apparently inexplicable passages from the Bible which can be explained as examples of loosely focussed emotional connectivity.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Synethesia and Creativity
Synesthesia is a form of perception in which sensory impressions are crossed. So, in one example, people will experience colour as a musical tone. Higher level impressions can be crossed as well so alphabetic letters can be experienced with colours. So, for example, the letter ‘B’ may be experienced with a shade of pink. It had long been thought that synesthesia was a rare condition. As such, it did not receive much research interest. However current research has found that at least one percent of the population exhibit synestesic perception. It is not a rare condition. However people who experience it are surprised to find that others do not share their experience. They learn to keep silent about their perceptions.
Current research has shown that synesthesia arises because of connections between centres of perception. So using the colour/letter example above, a brain scan will show the region concerned with colour will be activated when the letter ‘B’ is presented to the subject. It was thought that these cross connections were unusual but it has been found by research that they are a standard part of the structure of the brain. In subjects without synesthesia, these connections are inactive but they are present. A research question arises as to why thee interconnections exist if their functioning is suppressed.
Current research has shown that synesthesia arises because of connections between centres of perception. So using the colour/letter example above, a brain scan will show the region concerned with colour will be activated when the letter ‘B’ is presented to the subject. It was thought that these cross connections were unusual but it has been found by research that they are a standard part of the structure of the brain. In subjects without synesthesia, these connections are inactive but they are present. A research question arises as to why thee interconnections exist if their functioning is suppressed.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Sokal and Postmodernism - His Conclusion Does Not Follow
The physicist Sokal published a paper in a leading postmodernist journal which he later revealed to be full of nonsense. He used this as evidence that postmodernism itself was nonsense. This conclusion does not follow from Sokal's evidence.
Sokal demonstrated that a postmodernist journal would publish a paper full of nonsense. A paper full of nonsense passed peer review and was published. Now Science and Nature have published articles that were clumsy frauds. These fraudulent papers passed the peer review of the two jounral that are regarded as the most prestigious in scicne publishing.
So Science and Nature have published nonsense in the form of clumsy frauds. Postmodernist journals have published nonsense in the form of Sokal's deliberate hoax.
Soka;'s comnclusions do not follow from his evidence
Sokal demonstrated that a postmodernist journal would publish a paper full of nonsense. A paper full of nonsense passed peer review and was published. Now Science and Nature have published articles that were clumsy frauds. These fraudulent papers passed the peer review of the two jounral that are regarded as the most prestigious in scicne publishing.
So Science and Nature have published nonsense in the form of clumsy frauds. Postmodernist journals have published nonsense in the form of Sokal's deliberate hoax.
Soka;'s comnclusions do not follow from his evidence
Maxwell's Demon as the Observer
For examples in which observation changes the obeserved, check out the idea of Maxwell's Demon.
Maxwell conceived of a system in which there were two chambers. A demon controlled a valve between the two chambers. The demon could observe the velocity gas molecules that approached the valve. If the molecule were energetic, the demon would open the valve if the molecule was in the left chamber (say) and was traveling to the right chamber. If it were in the right chamber, the demon would keep the valve closed. Similarly, the demon would do the same for slow or less energetic molecules traveling to the left. Fast molecules would travel to the right chamber and stay there and slow molecules would travel to the left chamber and stay there. Thus the right chamber would become hot and the left chamber would become cold. This temperature difference could be used to drive a heat engine such as a steam engine.
Thus Maxwell's demon could obtain energy for free and could create a perpetual motion machine in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It took may years of research to discover why Maxwell’s Demon could not exist and the Second Law would not be violated. It turned on the analysis of what “observation” meant. If it meant observing light that had interacted with the molecules then the amount of energy that would be used in these interactions would overcome any advantage that the Demon could generate. The Second Law was preserved.
Thus there needs to be a definition of what “observation” and “observer” menas and how observation can be affected.
Maxwell conceived of a system in which there were two chambers. A demon controlled a valve between the two chambers. The demon could observe the velocity gas molecules that approached the valve. If the molecule were energetic, the demon would open the valve if the molecule was in the left chamber (say) and was traveling to the right chamber. If it were in the right chamber, the demon would keep the valve closed. Similarly, the demon would do the same for slow or less energetic molecules traveling to the left. Fast molecules would travel to the right chamber and stay there and slow molecules would travel to the left chamber and stay there. Thus the right chamber would become hot and the left chamber would become cold. This temperature difference could be used to drive a heat engine such as a steam engine.
Thus Maxwell's demon could obtain energy for free and could create a perpetual motion machine in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It took may years of research to discover why Maxwell’s Demon could not exist and the Second Law would not be violated. It turned on the analysis of what “observation” meant. If it meant observing light that had interacted with the molecules then the amount of energy that would be used in these interactions would overcome any advantage that the Demon could generate. The Second Law was preserved.
Thus there needs to be a definition of what “observation” and “observer” menas and how observation can be affected.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
How Does My View Of Evil Fit?
The previous blog described my view that evil is a non-functional attribute or description of certain social strategies. Social strategies that deny the benefit of cooperation can be described as evil. So thievery is evil because its effects are counter to the benefits that productive efforts can provide.
My theory seems to be based on my understanding the concepts found in evolutionary psychology. it is my understanding that evolutionary psychology regards the human psyche as being made up a number of individual components. Some of these may be inherent and some may be learned from observations of the activities of others. The behavior of the psyche results from the interaction of these individual components. These components interact through the sharing of outputs and the observation of external activity – the activities of the self, the environment and others in the environment. The psyche is then built through a learning process which is analogous to natural selection in that successful components are preserved and unsuccessful one are removed. Learning strengthens the connections between components to produce new hybrids.
My understanding of traditional moral philosophy is that there are two classes of theories – the ideal and the consequential. In theories of the ideal, behaviors are inherently good or evil. In consequential theories, behaviors are good or evil depending on the consequence that they incur. It appears to me that the evolutionary conception of evil that I have been trying to understand has elements of these two classes. The interaction of the psychological components relies on recognizing the implications of behavior. Actions are chosen by a consideration of their consequences from the current situation. So there are aspects to the idea here, in which proposed actions can be considered to have inherent properties. However these properties, such as good or evil, are generated from an evolutionary learning process
My theory seems to be based on my understanding the concepts found in evolutionary psychology. it is my understanding that evolutionary psychology regards the human psyche as being made up a number of individual components. Some of these may be inherent and some may be learned from observations of the activities of others. The behavior of the psyche results from the interaction of these individual components. These components interact through the sharing of outputs and the observation of external activity – the activities of the self, the environment and others in the environment. The psyche is then built through a learning process which is analogous to natural selection in that successful components are preserved and unsuccessful one are removed. Learning strengthens the connections between components to produce new hybrids.
My understanding of traditional moral philosophy is that there are two classes of theories – the ideal and the consequential. In theories of the ideal, behaviors are inherently good or evil. In consequential theories, behaviors are good or evil depending on the consequence that they incur. It appears to me that the evolutionary conception of evil that I have been trying to understand has elements of these two classes. The interaction of the psychological components relies on recognizing the implications of behavior. Actions are chosen by a consideration of their consequences from the current situation. So there are aspects to the idea here, in which proposed actions can be considered to have inherent properties. However these properties, such as good or evil, are generated from an evolutionary learning process
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Evil
The question of what evil is a perennial one. I have seen a long and sometimes heated discussion about it on a list that is concerned with the poetry of T. S. Eliot. One participant states emphatically that evil cannot be defined because there is no common agreement on whether or not something is evil. He points out as an example that slavery was not considered evil until relatively modern times. The slaves who were involved in Spartacus' rebellion were not opposed to slavery in general but only to their own servitude. If they had made good their rebellion and made new lives outside of Italy they would likely have kept slaves. Others point out that there is evil and that torture is an evil practice. I do not see how this meets his objection because torture has a long history and is commonly practiced.
To me, their discussion of what is evil fails because they do not begin with the essentials. In what cases can it be said that evil exists. Killing is regarded as evil but if a lion kills a gazelle their can be no question of the act being evil. It is the nature of the existence of these two species that they interact through a predator-prey relationship. Each species benefits from this. It is part of the Platonic idea of each of them.
Part of the Platonic essence of humanity is the nature of social cooperation. Humanity has evolved as a social species. Human Social evolution has discovered social cooperation and the advantages that it confers. Humans have been selected both physically and socially to cooperate in a large society. Experiments have shown that dogs have an innate sense of fairies. Humans have a similar sense of fairness and will recognize breaches of this expectation.
Cooperation produces this sense of fairness and this cooperation is also the basis of society.
This provides the basis for a concept of evil. Evil can exist only within a background of a cooperative society. Evil is a characteristic of a social strategy that deny the benefits of cooperation to others.
The T. S. Eliot discussion is premature. They cannot discover evil because they have not defined how it can come into existence and the reason for its existence. They presume that evil exists a priori but fail to see that evil is something that did not exist before it was discovered. It has no individual Platonic essence because it cannot exist without the cooperation that gives it its advantages.
To me, their discussion of what is evil fails because they do not begin with the essentials. In what cases can it be said that evil exists. Killing is regarded as evil but if a lion kills a gazelle their can be no question of the act being evil. It is the nature of the existence of these two species that they interact through a predator-prey relationship. Each species benefits from this. It is part of the Platonic idea of each of them.
Part of the Platonic essence of humanity is the nature of social cooperation. Humanity has evolved as a social species. Human Social evolution has discovered social cooperation and the advantages that it confers. Humans have been selected both physically and socially to cooperate in a large society. Experiments have shown that dogs have an innate sense of fairies. Humans have a similar sense of fairness and will recognize breaches of this expectation.
Cooperation produces this sense of fairness and this cooperation is also the basis of society.
This provides the basis for a concept of evil. Evil can exist only within a background of a cooperative society. Evil is a characteristic of a social strategy that deny the benefits of cooperation to others.
The T. S. Eliot discussion is premature. They cannot discover evil because they have not defined how it can come into existence and the reason for its existence. They presume that evil exists a priori but fail to see that evil is something that did not exist before it was discovered. It has no individual Platonic essence because it cannot exist without the cooperation that gives it its advantages.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
First Blog
This is my blog. There are many like it but this is my blog. I intend to use this blog to capture thoughts as they occur to me that I cannot feasibly express to others because of my position and location. With my job, I am privy to some information that could be considered commercially sensitive. I will not be posting anything on any of those subejects.
I do not expect that anyone will read this blog. I am not posting here to be read which does seem to make the effort pointless. However I hope that the effort of posting will hep to clarify my thoughtss and give me a place to return when I wish to reconsider them
I do not expect that anyone will read this blog. I am not posting here to be read which does seem to make the effort pointless. However I hope that the effort of posting will hep to clarify my thoughtss and give me a place to return when I wish to reconsider them
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
