Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Brain / Mind ... Web Site/Blog ...
I’m going to toot my own horn just a bit and put in a plug for my new, improved “Short Course on Consciousness“, found on my web site. I’ve spent the last 3 months doing some pretty intense reading to catch up on what’s been happening in the academic world and research community with regard to consciousness; i.e., the attempts to finally define the nature and functioning of our conscious awareness, i.e. the stuff that happens when we aren’t dead, asleep, under anesthesia, or otherwise out of it.
In some ways, consciousness seems pretty simple; and yet, when you really try to think about it and put it into context, it suddenly gets VERY complex. Around 1995, I got quite interested in the topic, given that a lot of new books and research papers were coming out on the subject. I read lots of stuff by philosophers, neuroscientists, computer experts, and psychologists about consciousness (none of that New Age “woo-woo” stuff for me, thank you), hoping to find a trenchant and powerfully incisive concept that would make it all fall in place.
Well, that concept never came along — or at least I didn’t stumble across it. So, after 2007, I moved on to other intellectual interests, mainly modern physics and cosmology. Not long ago, I looked at the web site pages on consciousness that I had put up back in 2006. They were very well » continue reading …
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Brain / Mind ... Psychology ...
There was an article on Slate the other day about Malcolm Gladwell’s “10,000 hour rule” for success (i.e., Practice Does Not Make Perfect, by David Z. Hambrick, Fernanda Ferreira, and John M. Henderson). Well, actually the article started off about Gladwell and his notion that personal success is mostly an issue of drive and a willingness to put the energy into mastering something — anything, really. But after that, the three authors took an interesting look at recent research about the relationships between genetics, human abilities and ultimate achievements in life. They basically concluded that Gladwell was wrong in that success is much more dependent upon inborn abilities than upon desire and discipline. While practice and drive certainly are a necessary part of any achievement, the bottom line is that people who don’t have the right bodies and brains (and history and environment) just aren’t going to become concert pianists or NFL quarterbacks or theoretical physicists or jet fighter pilots.
It’s starting to look like “we either have it or we don’t” in terms of being able to get somewhere in life. The classic arguments on what drives our lives and who we are often come down to nature versus nurture. In regards to what we can or can’t accomplish in life, modern research seems to be putting more and more stock in “nature”, i.e. genetics.
So, someday (probably soon), you might take a swab test and have a lab determine what you would be good at; i.e. what fields or endeavors that you would be a “natural” for. Hmmm . . . is this really a good thing? In some ways yes — sure, it makes sense that » continue reading …
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Brain / Mind ... Science ...
Given that I’ve done a fair bit of study and thinking about human consciousness (from both the scientific and philosophic viewpoint, intentionally excluding most of the popular mystical and metaphysical approaches to the topic), I took note of the report that a research team at George Washington University managed to switch on and off the consciousness of an epilepsy patient by using stimulatory electrode implants aimed at a structure in the brain called the claustrum.
A few years ago, noted consciousness researchers and theorists Francis Crick and Christof Koch posited that the claustrum was the place where the brain more or less weaved all of the various sensory input responses and stored information (such as memories and learned biases, fears and attractions) into a unified brain state representing the overall experience of being conscious. Their most significant empirical verification prior to the recent GWU study involved a certain type of mind-altering plant from Mexico called Salvia divinorum. The psychoactive chemical in the leaves of this plant were found to stick to a certain type of neuron receptor that is found in high concentrations in the claustrum. This distinguished it from other mind-bending hallucinogens like LSD, peyote and psilocybin, and even the basic feel-good stuff like coke and heroin.
According to unscientific reports submitted by “trippers” who used salvia, they experience » continue reading …
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Brain / Mind ... Science ...
There’s an interesting article on the Nautilus web site (one of many) about how the inner electro-chemical dynamics of the brain are seen as operating on a thin boundary between stability and chaos. The science of chaotic system dynamics has identified various patterns called “strange attractors” in which a system exhibits something of a repetitive, quasi-orderly pattern while at the same time varying randomly in timing and pathway from cycle to cycle. Such a system may sometimes flip to a different pattern with a different cycle direction and space, and then flip back again to the original; but in both patterns, there appears to be an approximate center or a “strange attractor” around which the system characteristics revolve. So, you can have a one-attractor cycle, or a two-attractor cycle, or even more. And no particular cycle around an attractor is quite the same as the last one. The changes from cycle to cycle are unpredictable, but the cycle, or the meta-cycle involving multiple “attractor cores”, does have stability.
Such systems are seen to be on the ledge between either setting back into a fully-ordered and predictable path round and round some attractor point, or pushing into full-blown chaos where the attractors however strange just fall away and the system’s motions just go wild. Researchers are finding that a healthy functioning brain lives on this knife-edge. Why did nature and evolution select such an arrangement? One clue can be found in the design of high-performance aircraft, especially modern fighter jets. Once upon a time, airplanes were designed for maximum stability against changing wind currents. Pilots manually controlled the aircraft flaps, which steer the plane and also allow the plane to respond to changing winds and turbulent air flows. Recall, however, that humans can only react to things so quickly (typical human reaction times between start of perception and recognition / mental reaction are between 0.15 and 0.3 seconds; then add even more time to carry out the responsive muscle motions); our brains and bodies need processing time. So it takes a while for the hand controlling the airplane flaps to react to what the pilot sees and feels from buffeting air currents. This is not a long time; but when a jet is barreling along at 900 mph, even a few tenths of a second might be too late to put the plane back on an even keel.
So, aircraft had to be designed to be as naturally stable as possible. However, such design also made them more like battleships in the ocean, in that they took a relatively long time to change course when needed (such as when an enemy plane or missile is suddenly spotted). Thus, in modern jet fighters, the airframes are designed to » continue reading …
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Brain / Mind ... Current Affairs ... Psychology ...
It’s been over 8 weeks now since the mysterious disappearance of Flight 370, the Boeing 777 that turned west from its normal south-to-north flight path from Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia to Beijing, and diverted west then presumable south without any communications from the crew or passengers (via cell phone) as to what went wrong. Recall all the assertions that “we have probably found it”, which were soon thereafter retracted. Two days after the incident, oil slicks were spotted in the South China Sea that seemed to mark the spot. But no, military radar reviews showed that the plane headed the other way, to the Bay of Bengal.
There soon followed other various spottings of floating metal and plastic objects, debris fields and such that just must have been the result of a crash into the ocean. Then came the satellite pings and the analysis thereof, and most everyone was then sure that Flight 370 must have went down off the western coast of Australia. Underwater devices in that region soon heard signals that seemed likely to be from the homing device on the plane’s black box. Once again, the mystery was just about solved (at least as to where the plane wound up). But once again, this hot lead went cold, and many experts now doubt that those signals were from the black box.
In the first few weeks, press coverage of the Flight 370 search effort and incident analysis were almost non-stop; every new detail made the front pages. But after a month went by, » continue reading …
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Aspergers ... Brain / Mind ...
I’m not a psychologist or therapist, and I haven’t made much use of their services in my lifetime. But I still try to keep up with what goes on in “shrink world”, i.e. within the realm of the mind and brain, with the theories on how they work and the practices meant to help make them work better. From what I can see, one of the biggest fault lines and sources of tension in the whole field right now revolves around the old classic “nature versus nurture” issue. And it’s not just a dry, academic debate amidst the trained elite anymore; it’s becoming a matter of what the consumers of these services demand from shrink world.
For most of the time since Freud, psychotherapy and applied psychology has mostly involved talking; i.e. the good old “couch method” where the therapist and patient discuss what’s going on in the latter’s head, e.g. fears, compulsions, desires, frustrations, envy, attraction, etc. Sure, psychologists also perform some behavioral observation studies and surveys, plus they administer and analyze the results of standardized written tests as to gauge what is going on in the minds of their subjects. But for the most part, the whole thing revolves around Freud’s paradigm of “the talking cure”, i.e. a long-term interactive process through which the therapist figures out what the patient’s hang-ups are, and slowly directs the patient toward attitudes and behaviors meant to overcome negative, harmful patterns (neuroses), so as to develop healthy patterns that allow personal growth and positive achievement. At least that’s the theory.
In the past generation, talk therapy has become less and less prevalent; » continue reading …
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Brain / Mind ... Science ...
I just read another “theory of consciousness” article attempting to use scientific logic to convince us that our conscious being is nothing more than an illusion. This one is by a Princeton U neuroscientist named Michael Graziano. He calls it the “attention schema“, as it focuses on how we direct our attention and self-awareness.
Dr. Graziano is a clever writer, but ultimately his article is just another attempt to demonstrate that science has it all down and physicalism is all there is. According to the good professor, consciousness isn’t different from anything else that science understands, such as transistors and catalysts and carbon cycles and superconductivity. Dr. Graziano seems to think that he has a powerful conceptual tool that makes consciousness fall into place. He co-opts and then debunks outer body experiences and rays coming out of the eyes and such — kind of a cheap shot, I’d say. The article mixes a bit of information theory and evolutionary process with the human brains’ ability to imagine and conceptualize things that don’t exist, along with the human need to form social structures. Knowing the usual “question of mind” philosophy quandaries, he also tries to defeat “epi-phenomenalism” (or talk around it, in my opinion).
In sum, Dr. G defines consciousness in a way that fits his pre-stated objectives. That’s groovy. But is what Professor Graziano conceptualizes as “consciousness” really what » continue reading …
Friday, February 22, 2013
Brain / Mind ... Politics ... Society ...
Over the past few decades, America seems to be getting less homophobic and more accepting of gay life-styles. And that’s a good thing, obviously (well, I HOPE this is obvious!). Between 2001 and 2012, Gallup reports that the percentage of Americans who feel that homosexual relationships are moral increased from 40% to 54%. I did not see any data before 2000, but I would have to imagine that this percentage down in the 30’s or upper 20’s back in the 1950’s. Some other gay acceptance factoids: Public acceptance of gays in the military grew from 51% in a 1977 Gallup Poll to 80% in 2003; and approval of gays as elementary school teachers grew from 27% in 1977 to 61% in 2003.
One of the key factors to increasing acceptance of homosexuality appears to be the notion that gayness is more a matter of nature than nurture. Over the past 25 years, there have been many articles citing scientific research showing links between intra-family traits, genes and homosexuality. The Gallup report cited above said that in 1977, 56% of people polled believed that being gay was caused by their upbringing and environment, while 13% said it was something that people are born with. In 2012, those numbers are 35% environment and 40% born-with.
Obviously, there is still some resistance to fully accepting gay people; again, about one-third still feel that gayness is caused » continue reading …
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Brain / Mind ... Psychology ... Spirituality ...
Last week at the zendo, one of our members gave a talk about holotropic breathwork; the person in question was quite qualified to do this, as she has been practicing it for over 15 years and is now a group facilitator. I wasn’t familiar with that particular form of “bodywork”, so I listened with interest. It sounded quite interesting, especially the claim that holotropic breathers plumb the depths of the psyche and glean great personal and metaphysical insights — without expensive long-term talk therapy or the use of dangerous psychotropic drugs. And without any extraordinary life commitment; the typical breather attends a day-long session every two months, and that’s it. Hey, I’m all for personal and metaphysical insights without a repetitive and burdensome daily practice! So, like many of the other listeners at this talk, I was interested in signing up.
But before I signed on the dotted line, the quasi-scientist in me wanted to know how it worked. The other parts of me said, “oh come on, quasi-scientist, that kind of attitude is exactly what holotropic breathwork puts on hold”. It’s all about the Journey to the Center of the Mind (remember that cheezy song by Ted Nugent and the Amboy Dukes?).
Nonetheless, the quasi-scientist soon had me in front of a Google page typing in terms like breathwork and hyperventilation. Hyperventilation? It was made clear at the recent zendo talk that breathing fast for a good long time (around an hour) is the key to holotropic breathwork, the gateway to » continue reading …
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Brain / Mind ... Psychology ... Technology ... Zen ...
I just found out about the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect is all about “psychometrics”, i.e. the measurement of human intelligence. About 28 years ago, a New Zealand sociology researcher who specializes in intelligence issues (whose last name is Flynn, not surprisingly) noticed that IQ scores have been rising steadily since at least the late 1940s, possibly since 1932. This effect has been taking place for both the highest and lowest scoring groups, as well as the middle. In effect, every new generation seems to be smarter than the one preceding it. That effect goes on today. I got out of college in 1975, so the class of 2012 has me and my peers beat by quite a bit — around 12 points (the effect is about 1/3 IQ point per year).
According to a recent Scientific American article (which brought me up to speed on this issue), the Flynn effect has been driven by one specific component of the IQ tests. It is not the component for arithmetic skills, nor the component for vocabulary skills; these scores have only gone up a bit over the past 60-odd years. The big jump is in “similarities”, the measurements of “fluid intelligence”. These are the tricky questions that attempt to gage a person’s “abstract intelligence”, the ability to see patterns (according to someone’s judgment about what patterns are important to see). I.e., which of the following animals is least like the others: orangutan, anteater, skunk and zebra; or BOOM is to 4267 as ZOOK is to (choose one): 3902, 54892, 3319 . . . or Mary is 16 years older than her brother, and is four times her sister’s age; if her sister was born two years before her brother, then . . . (these are not real IQ questions, of course).
Interestingly, the Sci Am article points out that Dr. Flynn and others feel that the Flynn Effect reflects changes in what society expects from us, both in » continue reading …