Hi dude

Yeah, i share the same thought too about the "autism is better" posture, but i try to see the "good" side, where at least she can encourage/inspire fathers or people with autism to know that they could be activities where they can excel and at least feel better about themselves? knowing in the first place that they maybe never could enjoy/experience the love and bonding, and of course we can't blame them for that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn_9f5x0f1Q   

Here is the talk in youtube if you can see it, no rush, only when you have some extra time!

Hi dudes,
Sakiro Wrote:
Hi dude Yeah, i share the same thought too about the "autism is better" posture, but i try to see the "good" side, where at least she can encourage/inspire fathers or people with autism to know that they could be activities where they can excel and at least feel better about themselves? knowing in the first place that they maybe never could enjoy/experience the love and bonding, and of course we can't blame them for that.


Teaching people to 'live with' a problem condition assumes the condition cannot be altered, great if it's a condition that can't be altered, but not if we have very good reason to believe it can. If we focus on showing people all the things they can do to feel better about living with a bag over their heads, we're not focusing on removing the bags, (and meanwhile society's busy bagging the next generation?)

So-called 'high functioning' autistics (previously called Aspergers Syndrome, now out of fashion) are able to learn both social behavior and bonding behavior, develop a mirror system and experience empathy, modeling and the rest. Seriously mentally handicapped people are not, regardless of what they are handicapped with, but neither are they able to excel at much in life. Those who can excel need to know that there's also the option of excelling at not being autistic; not put in their place and forbidden further growth.

When we hear, "I'm happy to be autistic" it hauntingly echoes "I'm so glad I'm am Alpha!"  :  )

Similarly I detest those books; 'living with arthritis' etc, they should be replaced with advice on getting rid of it, and how to avoid it in future.
I am constantly astonished at how much people really believe they can't do or just can't be done though... Maybe that's the most insidious face of the TE?


[s] from around 5:00 she shows a picture of his brain and the difference from a "normal" one, can you explain what are exactly the anatomic difference that she refers too?

If you go here:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gr … ubject/189

and scroll down to figure 746 (about three quarters down). I'm guessing that the tracts in the internal capsule are the intended portrayed part/s. I may be wrong, as the slides are not very high res; I'm wondering why she didn't name the commissure?

To avoid future confusion, TG is a 'her' not a 'him'  :  )
Best,
AR

Scalino Wrote:
Well, let me explain (or die trying)...

Never die while trying to explain anything. It frustrates the reader so  :  )


[s] You are (mostly) using the term 'consciousness' as a 'degree/level/form of awareness' (and you say it yourself, EEG measures frequencies of brain's activity).

My associations are sheer force of habit from practical use, which would be really dodgy if they didn't make sense, but they do, and they work pretty well...”is the patient conscious? ...No? Okay, quick, show me the weird tattoo before they wake up”...”last one conscious pays for the drinks!” (Queens med school, motto) ...“On retrieving the test rat, it was found to be both conscious and annoyed”...  :  )

That's pretty basic but its clear; a good start for understanding. From there we can look at  other things that sometimes do and sometimes don't accompany consciousness, such as awareness, self awareness, sentience, and theory of mind.

But unless people endeavor to unify terminology, we can never really be sure what anyone means; witness the mess made by Star Trek of the term, 'sentience'. Nobody can use it anymore!

At the start of the lecture this dude gives lots of example of what people mean by consciousness, but doesn't make it clear that science can't use wooly definitions and exactly what's being studied must be tightly defined before we start.

Otherwise we hit problems when deviations occur. For example, what do you call a dude who is well aware that they exist but happen to be totally paralysed, insensitive to stimuli and unable to communicate? Or a sleepwalker? Something we can measure is essential.

One of the first signs of woo woo is wooly semantics. Exactly the same confusion, interestingly, hovers around the concept of total absence of consciousness, i.e., death. In “The Romeo Error*” biologist Lyall Watson sums it up nicely: "I find that most of the time my line of investigation brings me in the end directly to the place where my mystic friends have been operating all along, but unlike many of them I know exactly where I am, because I can look back along the line and see how I got there.”


Your own description of 'consciousness' aligns with experiencing a type of awareness referred to as “The Silent Witness Space” by JCP & others. So we don't have to classify it as: "freaking unknown" : )  It IS known about and discussed already. We're also aware of the self-organizing 'chicken/egg' paradox (the hardware shapes the software that shapes the hardware that shapes…..etc)

Maybe it would not be so exciting to have a lecture exploring “The mystery of awareness” as it is to use the term consciousness, because most folks think they know what awareness is. But I do believe that's exactly the term Russell should be using for least confusion-generation.


[s] how to completely discard any potential "relation" between the micro and the macro scale in our bodies...? (just wondering)

We don't have to discard ANY potential relation between micro and macro; there are lots of known  relationship areas these levels have in common that we already know about (quantum stuff and macro stuff is all made of the same stuff after all). But we also know that on different levels of scale, different rules apply, and we know quantum levels don't behave like macro levels even though einstein and newton were both right. If they did align, there would be no problem finding a unified field theory to unite relativity with quantum mechanics and whoever did it would be very very famous and some of the biggest questions in physics would be answered.

One can legitimately ask, and explain, 'why differences?' but one can't legitimately ask, 'what differences?' because they're already known.

Even in our 'macro' world scale changes the way rules apply to us. If we are very small, like an ant, we don't have to deal with gravity much if we fall, but we're gonna have some issues with surface tension, for example, that humans are just not affected by simply because they're relatively large.

...I just found this page which says it all for me:
http://scopesmonkeychoir.com/2011/07/i- … thank-yoo/
...we even get to see the famous experiment that woo-woo lovers love so well, with both the science version and the woo version  :  )

...and a lovely paragraph from the science comics division:
“Being that science is by definition and in process a self-critiquing methodology, this peer review and revision-upon-new-evidence is what keeps it in check from stagnation and self-delusion (at least so long as there are those willing to challenge ideas) and is undoubtedly the most beautiful part of the scientific process.”**

...and finally, the wisdom of the ages from a 7 year old: “I like the debating game, it makes your brain feel all nice and clean.”***
Have a great new year,
AR

*An hilarious book about how incredibly difficult it is to define when people are dead. Hodder and Stoughton, 1974. ISBN 0 340 19136 8

** Maki; <http://sci-ence.org/sacred-cow/>

***Daughter of a friend, at a party  :  )

mindful marines

Marine Corps officials are testing a series of brain calming exercises called "Mindfulness-Based Mind Fitness Training" that they believe could enhance the performance of troops.

This is about mental preparation to better handle stress. The idea is to give Marines a tool so they can regulate their own stress levels before they lead to problem behavior.

The techniques can help warfighters think more clearly under fire when they are often forced to make quick decisions that could mean life or death, and help them reset their nervous systems after being in combat.


"US Marines studying mindfulness-based training." January 20th, 2013. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-01-m … based.html

Hi dudes,

Re: Hawkins http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 5xyF84dw2o

Yeh, I like the way he substitutes 'creativity' for 'imagination'; that's very smart because loads more people will find it acceptable. Oddly he's still hanging out on a frontloader definition of intelligence, mind and brain as the same thing, and rather more oddly neglecting the central role of N3 while attributing many of its processes to the frontal cortex This is initially puzzling as he must know very well the role of the hippo, amy etc. from the very researchers he quotes as having read, plus he clearly knows that the same sequence of events takes place at all levels (including other areas than the neocortex). But on consideration I conclude that this is the limit of what he wants to do, and that's fair enough and there's no point him complicating it further with factors irrelevant to his project. It's a similar but different approach to what Markram is doing.

Hawkins' stated aim was to understand how the brain works sufficiently to create machines that could operate in similar ways; not to understand how the mind works sufficiently to form a foundational theoretical framework for intelligence, as is pursued here. It's great that the two have common ground, as it's good for people to even hear about these ideas.
Best,
AR

Hi dudes,


Sakiro Wrote: Now, anyone can explain me, in a newbie and friendly way the differences of Metaphors, Analogies and Similes? Thanks!


A simile is a figure of speech, often used in poetry or song lyrics, in which something is compared to something (eg, 'her eyes were sparkling jewels of loveliness, her lips red roses'.) [1]
An analogy is a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: (eg, we can make an analogy between the heart and a pump.) analogies are usually about systems, behavior or procedures, but can be about objects [2]
A metaphor is something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else (eg, 1 is a metaphor for one.) Metaphors are usually about objects, but can be about behavior or procedures [3]

“She's a pig” is a simile
“Alice has the manners of a pig” is an analogy
“Here comes MP!” - “MP”, (meaning “Miss Piggy”) is a metaphor used by Alice's colleagues to represent Alice.

Check these etymologies yourselves, as other posts have revealed tendencies for these to vary (see Meta & I looking for etymology of “Religion”):
[1] 1393, from L. simile "a like thing," neuter of similis "like" (see 'similar'). "A simile, to be perfect, must both illustrate and ennoble the subject." [Johnson].

[2] [C16: from Latin, from Greek metaphora, from metapherein to transfer, from meta- + pherein to bear]

[3] [C16: from Greek analogia ratio, correspondence, from analogos analogous]

Hi dudes,

Sakiro Wrote:
Hi dudes, This is a google talk called "The Extended Mind"
[s]: alex discuss that bonding could work even in distance, but i can't recall if it explained to why that could happen not receiving "input" from the other person ..?

It's about Sync  :  ) When two systems become synchronized they remain synchronized for different periods of time. Eg -Oysters removed from their habitat into a tank continue to open and close at the times when their 'local' tide would have come in and out. In the same way, two persons synchronized stay in the same cycles for varying times, sometimes permanently. Since our 'systems' include hormonal and emotional cycles as well as behavioral habits, it can appear spooky, but it isn't.   :  )

[s]: Anyways, this could be a case where the author is getting results, but explaining it with a wrong or inaccurate map?

Yeh, it's a very popular one, called David Baum's collective consciousness hypothesis. Together with MacLean's triune brain hypothesis it creeps around the corridors of new age constructs nibbling at  unsuspecting students until trapped by neurologists and mathematicians  :  )

There is ample evidence to disprove both; although they were well-presented in their time and it was good science; hypotheses being proven wrong is what narrows down the way to look for what's really going on.

A real classic from the cited talk that made me laugh a lot:
[RS]: “If you look at the sky, the sky you're seeing is an image of the sky inside your head...” (all sensible so far...but then...)
[RS]:… “So your skull must be beyond the sky.”  ROFL  :  )
...this is the sort of thing that people might say on LSD, preceded by “Hey Man, ...”

So much was demonstrably untrue; here are just a few examples from the first 5 minutes:

[RS]:“There is no known reason why we should be conscious at all”
-There is no known 'reason' anything should exist at all, but that aside, there IS a sound scientific AND common sense reason for all our evolved attributes: they contribute better to our survival. Consciousness is no exception, and conveys obvious survival benefits for humans over not having any; autonomy of choice and foresight being two. Consciousness would be a very BAD idea from our pov in some kinds of organisms; -we definitely don't want Bacteria to start plotting.

[RS]: (re: vision): “There are two problems here -first, there's no explanation in this as to why you should be conscious at all.”
-Of course there isn't -consciousness isn't necessary for vision (observe a robot camera), and vision isn't necessary for consciousness (observe a blind dude). This isn't a problem, it's just a fact. With the exception of deliberately opening/closing the eyes and moving the head around, vision is an unconscious, automatic process; a series of non-conscious programs processing data. It would be a real problem if it wasn't!

[RS]: “According to the standard view all this is supposed to be happening inside your brain.”
-Well, that's where the fMRI etc shows it to be happening, in great detail, down to the individual neuron level in our brains. What's more, MRI scans of our buttocks, the air around our head, or our coffee table show no activity related to conscious thought, or even vision.

[RS]: “The mind IS the brain is the prevalent belief in the academic and medical world”
-true 100 years ago, simply not true now; the 'hardware/software' model is prevalent currently, in some areas now giving way to the emergence paradigm: ('Consciousness is an emergent property from the interaction between organism/mind + environment/context').

[RS]: “Somehow miraculously in an unexplained way, changes in your nervous cells lead to a kind of virtual reality display inside your head by which you see what's going on in the world”
-This is not miraculous nor unexplained; again it is explained in enormous detail both in mainstream neuroscience and all over the internet, including right here on NHA.

On the whole this is unexpectedly bad form for Sheldrake, whose “Morphogenetic fields” hypothesis was much more professionally presented, testable and tested in “A New Science of Life”. It doesn't matter whether it was wrong; it was good science. This isn't good science.
Best,
AR

Hi dudes,
Sakiro Wrote:  but now the question is .. in the case of Oysters, when they are at the tank, if their local tide change their "cycle", the Cysters keep the "old" one right? it doesn't update i suposse because is not receiving the necessary input to update it?

It would seem so, because they have plasticity and given enough exposure to a new environment, they're re-trainable. Like us, they need a critical amount of 'practice' exposure to make the change. Just how sensitive such organisms are has been shown in a series of papers by F.R. Brown.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22823869

Oysters open and close their shells in accordance with the tides. They continue their activity when brought inland, in a dark container. Eventually they adapt their rhythm to the new location by (amazingly) sensing the very weak tides in an inland laboratory tank (Am. Journ. Physiol., Vol 178 (1954), pp. 510).
Best,
AR