Psybertron Asks

Apparently such a thing exists and people can do courses on it. [Google cross-hit]. Not heard of it before but, call me cynical, I don’t like the sound of it, sounds doomed to failure of planned objectives, with plenty of solid blame-shifting, Brunsson-hypocritical, arse-covering, “somebody else’s problem” problems.

[Post Note Sept 2010 – I have researched this and can find no clear text on “Rational Comprehensive Planning” by that name. Rational Planning models, Synoptic Planning models, Incremental / Evolutionary Planning models, Individual Rationality, Social Rationality and an unspecified “third mode of rationality”. If anyone commenting could please provide relevant reference links. I stand by my point that “rational comprehensive” as a concept is doomed to fail due to its dependence on a presumed core metaphysics. That is, I still favour an evolutionary view, where planning guides and provides the environment for activities, but does not (cannot) comprehensively plan outcomes on any scale where the planner / manager cannot actually control all the individual activities. “All” being a very large and complex word.

And here we find (Luzzi 2001) “Although it has a myriad of names … It has been identified as the ruling or normal paradigm that governs the practice of modern planning.” Received wisdom, as I said, and “It is in the exportation of the model into the social world of practice that the assumptions prove problematic.” ie great in theory, not so good in practice as anyone would predict starting from a less scientistic metaphysics – the kind of model that requires hypocrisy to make it work.]

Speaking at the Faculty of Law, tonight, tomorrow and Wednesday.

Still reading Austin, [here below], [and here], [and again], [and earlier], [and originally], and finding new items all the time.

More apparent how he is linking deliberately learned meditative states with other altered brain states achieved by other physical and chemical abnormalities.

Two amazing items in one. Looking at the classic view of left- and right-brain caricatures (see up to date McGilchrist work), he points out that there are really only tendencies for certain functions to predominate in one or other half, but that at any time the way each half functions can be distinctly different and asynchronous, due to the special way limited types of cortical and sub-cortical cross communications have evolved between the two halves. This allows each half to have different processing strategies. It is perfectly possibly for one half to be processing holistic conceptual pre-cognitive ideas before assigning individual lingusitic tokens to the concept, then recognised by the other half. Quite possible to “experience” pain, for example, without recognising that it hurts and causes suffering. Both meditative and opiate analgesic effects can be explained by the same physiology.

A key aspect of the Brian Josephson paper I linked to here is that using an object oriented programming metaphor for the brain, is that OO involves processing “classes”, conceptual objects where we have as yet not given any name to the individual experienced. The rose before the name.

Experiencing pain without hurting is the classic bed-of-nails / walk-on-red-hot-coals idea (can’t stop the physical damage of course – flesh punctures and burns). Reminds me of David Lean’s introductory caricature of Ned in Lawrence of Arabia, putting out the match with his finger. “Oh yes it still hurts, the [learned] trick is not minding.”

“Minding” – This is coming together.

Not blogged much recently. Been reading hard.

James Austin’s “Zen And The Brain” (1998)
Gerald Edelman’s “Wider Than The Sky” (2004)
Adam Zeman’s “Consciousness, A User’s Guide” (2002)

Completed the latter two, but still only 60% through Austin’s 840 page tome. All three are state-of-the-art brain-focussed, written by neuroscientists. All aim to get somewhere into explanations of consciousness.

Zeman starts with basics – simple everyday concepts of being awake / asleep, aware / unaware, self-conscious, etc then leads into brain physiology aspects of normal, abnormal and traumatic phenomena of sleep and perception. In fact all three dwell on anatomy, physiology and electro-chemistry of the brain – and drug induced states.

Austin I’ve not yet finished, so I’ve not found any link yet between his independantly described Zen philosophy and teaching and the brain science.

Zeman’s book is relatively unsophisticated philosophically, but after passing gratuitous references to duality and quantum physics, really just leaves a number of open ends about how various perceptual and physiological phenomena leave plenty of doors open. He ends suggesting that inconclusive picture of consciousness and existence itself, may simply reflect limits to human understanding. (Like Edelman he includes numerous references to Nagel’s Bat, though never deeply analysed.)

Edelman (a Nobel Laureate) is different. He moves very quickly beyond brain physiology to his own schematic model of how the brain works (and gives rise to consciusness) – TNGS – the Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. Like Zeman much of his description of brain development in species and in individuals makes use of an “evolutionary” model – neurons are extremely “plastic”. Edeleman specifically disagrees with David Chalmers view of consciousness, whereas Zeman seems to be barking up the same tree – searching to explain qualia – the actual qualities we attribute to perception independant of the mental picture we build with them – need to refine that … later.)

I guess I’ll just have to finish Austin – on my 12 hour flight to China later today.
BTW did I mention I had the pleasure of an MRI scan on a neuroma in my leg on Monday last – more than disinterested curiosity. Interesting experence – all that energy and noise at weirdly varying low frequencies ?

But sadly missed, again. 3000 at John Peel’s funeral. I was almost there myself. Can’t help thinking some irony Peel would have appreciated in Liverpool FC Captain Emlyn Hughes death also in the news yesterday and the very hour his own funeral today coinciding with Yasser Arafat’s.

How many times did Peel say “If I died tomorrow, I couldn’t complain.” ?

Peel’s brother Dave made a brief comparison with Diana’s death, but didn’t make any specific comment. Given also Boris Johnson’s troubles last month, daring to suggest Liverpudlians were wallowing in mock grief at the execution of their hostage in Iraq, there’s no denying the “overwhelming response” to Peel’s death was genuine and personal. Emotional, but celebratory – not the mawkish, exaggerated, victim culture of those others. He’ll never walk alone.

All will become clear.

[via BBC] I wonder if the inventor of Jeremiah, Richard Bowden, is a fan of Gilliam’s Brazil ?

‘Ere I am JH.

… of unhatched chicks. Counting the cost the morning after, Emma Brockes in the Grauniad. [via David Dolan at this Working Life].

Well, if we will insist on counting as our only measure of value, what do we expect ?

It’s quite a struggle to avoid religion, party politics and war in a public blog in today’s climate – but they do cloud points being made, despite their undoubted relevance to life, the universe and everything. I lost it with posters on the MoQ discussion board recently when the number of people starting from positions of “mystical faith in fairy stories” seemed to exceed the rest.

I do find the level of (overt / apparent / declared) Christian faith in the US quite terrifying from this side of the pond. I suspected it was just part of the game the democrats had to play to get air time, whereas the republicans actually seem to believe this crap. This visual joke below [ From GLWebb (Link Removed by request), also via Rivets] seems to support that view. Many a true word.

Alex has a link here to similar humour vs religion angle from The Register.

The real things here. [via Rivets]

[On a more serious note, notice these three F40’s amongst the 27 Ferraris, Maseratis and Lambourghinis desroyed in this Dutch car showroom fire.]