Interesting site...



The Exploratorium presents Animate (in)Animate: Engineering at the Threshold of Life, a symposium exploring how new technologies are blurring the boundaries between the natural and the artificial.

We’ve long been used to making easy distinctions between the natural and the artificial, the organic and the inorganic, the biological and the manmade. However, new technologies are blurring these comfortable boundaries in unexpected ways. In addition to well-publicized breakthroughs in genomics and genetic engineering, a subtle and growing frontier of biotechnological innovation is creating new classes of artificially constructed “near-life” phenomena and “semi-living” technologies that occupy a gray area between inanimate matter and animate life. DNA based computing, the development of digital “organ printers” that print living tissue, and the use of genetically engineered viruses to assemble nanoscale electronic components are examples of recent technological innovations that suggest the emergence of a increasingly ‘technobiotic” world.


Major Themes:

The threshold of life: Discussion of the traits separating the animate and inanimate, such as replication, metabolic and evolutionary processes, genetics, and responsiveness to environmental stimuli.

Examples of “near-life” in the natural world: Examination of naturally-occurring mechanisms that satisfy some but not all of the traits of life, such as crystalline structures, organic molecules, viruses, antibodies, extra cellular DNA, proteins and enzymes.

Emerging technologies: “Near-life” technologies incorporate life-like subcellular organic elements into a variety of fields such as electronics manufacture and computer design, fuel cells, biocomposite materials, and nanoscale manufacturing processes. “Partial life” technologies involve the creation or use of living tissues in artificial environments for a variety of applications - medicine, food, biological research and art.

Visions and Values: What visions guide development of these technologies, and how should individuals and societies decide whether and how to employ them? How should cultural values be applied to our increasing control of biological processes? What are the longer-term implications of the creation of new kinds of “technobiotic” entities?

http://www.exploratorium.org/traits/symposium.html

http://www.exploratorium.com/traits/index.html main site

If I were another kind of lifeform, I just might.

I wouldn't wanna be in this guy's field of vision come supper time!

Monkey Claims Copyright on Hamlet: Film at 11

In a thought experiment about the typing Monkey problem, George Gamow imagined a 50-character array over a 65-space line and calculated 10 to the 110th possible variations. His account of this matter can be found in “One, Two, Three… Infinity,” a book once universally esteemed by geeky American eighth graders who started to love math. It launched a thousand careers in mathematics and if you want to understand this borrowed and faulty creationist argument against evolution check it out:

One Two Three . . . Infinity : Facts and Speculations of Science
by George Gamow
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/048...5728324-2147805

What that means is that if every atom in the universe (no dark matter and a 1947 estimate) were a printing press, working at the speed of Brownian motion, and the presses had been operating since the Big Bang, only one thirtieth of one percent of the possible variations (of one line!) would have been printed by 1947. This is one of those meaningless little factoids that creationists like to throw around to show how evolution defies the odds.

Another problem with the Monkey writers is -- who is going to read all that random junk looking for Hamlet? Here's one answer -- you can if you visit the website linked below:

The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator
http://user.tninet.se/~ecf599g/aardasnails...onkey/webpages/

The odds against monkeys or random number generators (conceptually the same in spite of ROU's misunderstandings) typing Shakespeare by chance are astronomical. But the odds are on random number generators because they could potentially do it faster. With about 80 typewriter keys, the chance of getting the first letter right is about 80 to 1. The chance of getting 2 letters right is 1 in 80×80, or 6400 to 1. Each letter increases the odds against by 80 times. The odds of getting 10 letters right is about 11 million million million to 1.

So, what do those astronomical odds matter to evolution? Here's where we get into Darwin's insight on natural selection and what it means to artificial intelligence. The set of all possible solutions to a problem is called the search space. And one of the keys to searching search space is knowing there is more than one solution to your problem there.

Think of the "search space" for Shakespeare's Hamlet as a giant library full of books that represent every possible combination of letters, space and punctuation used -- all 80 keys. This library is huge and it wouldn't even fit on our planet, not even in our galaxy or whole universe maybe, because the number of books needed is much larger than if you turned every alphanumeric character in Hamlet into a nine, including spaces and punctuation, and called it one big number it wouldn't a big enough number to represent the books needed to get one book for every possibility. That would only get you enough if there were only ten possibilities for every possible letter. The reason 999 can be written with only three numbers is because there are 999 possibilities for three spaces and ten possibilities per space. Every time you add another 9, to get 9999, you multiply by your base. Our numberic system is called base ten, our Hamlet writing alphabet would base 80. And that's a huge number, but ultimately a finite number even though it's larger than the number of atoms in the universe.

How could you ever find Hamlet in that library larger than our galaxy? Well, it turns out there is a way to do it without knowing what Hamlet looks like and it's a key concept in creative artificial intelligence. It's why AI can do anything and more than humans can when provided with enough computational power. And we can thank Darwin for the insight into how to search those huge search spaces.

Here's one key: Keep in mind that it's not just Hamlet in that vast search space, it's everything humanity has ever converted into the english language, and will and could put into english in the future, that is of similar size or smaller as well as a lot more nonsense that isn't even English words. It's all Ray Bradbury's short stories, Lincoln's speeches, Ted Kooser's poems, it's chunks of "Crime and Punishment," "War and Peace" and the screenplay for "Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure," it has descriptions of Relativity and quantum mechinics, biblical books, chunk's of our debate including this very post and what you will write in response to it. It's stories that will win future Nobel prizes in literature that we haven't yet read. So, finding Hamlet may be hard, but finding literature that makes sense is easier. Still it's only a tiny fraction of the possibilities, but a larger fraction.

There are also versions of Hamlet where Hamlet is called Erwin Shmagelpuk but everything else is unchanged. There are also many versions of Hamlet with just a few missing periods and switched letters, like Pamlet, Samlet and Bamlet. All those things exist in a large but finite space we in AI call "search space."

So, how do we find Hamlet without checking every book? There's one thing you're allowed to do -- arrange the library in any way you want, but it should mirror your ignorance of what's in it and model what happens in nature. Well, stew on that while I write the next entry.

-- to be continued...

-- continued...


Now, back to finding Hamlet without checking every book in the library of all possible permutations of 80 characters in Hamlet sized books.

Computer programmers have come up with all sorts of "search algorithms" that search through real data on big hard drives. There are brute-force search or "naive"/uninformed search algorithms, and there are informed search algorithms that use heuristics to apply knowledge about the structure of the search space to try to reduce the amount of time spent searching. But when searching a non-existant on a hard drive and huge range of possibilities that can't even fit into our universe you need something special. That something special is Darwinian incremental selectionism.

The drawback to brute-force searching is that most search spaces are extremely large, and uninformed brute-force searching will only take a reasonable amount of time for small examples. As such, to speed up the process, sometimes only an informed search will do. Of course, creationists are either stuck with brute search minds or they're lying when they tell you the odds against evolution.

With incremental selectionism you don't try for every book with a random selection for every letter. If you get one letter right, you keep the letter. In other words -- it survives and reproduces with variation. Let's say you're trying to randomly generate the word cat. If you use the creationist random only assumptions it will take you 512,000 tries for a good chance. But if you roll one letter at a time and keep the C after you get it then move to the a space it will take you less time. And that's an way over simplistic illustration of incremental selectionism.

C ......A......T
80 * 80 * 80 = 512,000

80 + 80 + 80 = 240

Thus, this is how you would organise the library and search for Hamlet and have a better chance of finding it. Once you get the first letter you search for the second letter, then the third, then the fourth, etc.. Your non-existant library is thus organized with minor one letter variations next to each other.

Of course, creationists would complain we've used some intelligence to search for the word "cat" or the play Hamlet. Okay, lets not search for the word "cat," lets just see what word happens when we let selectionism only search for a legit word. You'll get a legit 3 letter english word in about 38 tries on average or probably less, depending on what you accept as a word. In such cases you can pretty much keep whatever the first letter is, 1 try, unless you get a 'Z' or something -- though that could spell "zoo." Some starting letters have more 3 letter words that could branch off than others.

And if you don't search for Hamlet but only a good book you'll find that quicker too using incremental selectionism.

What you would really want to do in the galaxy spanning library of permutations is find something great that you've never read before, not find a play that already exists. And that improves your odds of finding something using incremental selectionism.

Richard Dawkins used the generation of the Shakespearean phrase, "Methinks it is like a weasel," by successive random variations to make this point. He started with the necessary characters and spaces and randomly programmed the computer to generate a random sequence from a "soup" of the component letters and spaces used in that sentence. The letters and spaces could be used more than once but the length was made to be precisely 28 objects. He got "WSLMNLT DTJBKWIRZRESLMQCO P." This was to be the starting point for computerized simulation of evolution. The computer made multiple copies (progeny) of this sequence, while introducing random 'errors' (mutations) into the copies. The computer examined all the mutated progeny and selected the one that had the most similarity (however slight) to the line from Hamlet. After 30 generations of this procedure the sentence had "evolved" from the original to "MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRQREZ MECS P." and by the forty-third generation it had arrived at "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL," thus defying creationist claims about the odds George Gamow calculated. That's the difference between Gamow's all random generation and incremental selectionism.

In Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker, he describes a computer program he wrote which randomly generates symmetrical figures from dots and lines. These figures, to a human eye, have a resemblance to insects, animals and technological machines like the lunar lander, lamps or such. He calls them 'biomorphs,' meaning life shapes and in using a computer program to create them, he is in some way simulating evolution itself. He wrote:

"Nothing in my biologist's intuition, nothing in my 20 years experience of programming computers, and nothing in my wildest dreams, prepared me for what actually emerged on the screen. I can't remember exactly when in the sequence it first began to dawn on me that an evolved resemblance to something like an insect was possible. With a wild surmise, I began to breed generation after generation, from whichever child looked most like an insect. My incredulity grew in parallel with the evolving resemblance. . . Admittedly they have eight legs like a spider, instead of six like an insect, but even so! I still cannot conceal from you my feeling of exhultation as I first watched these exquisite creatures emerging before my eyes." -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

ID people and creationists would complain that it is Dawkins, not blind fate, that chooses the lucky survivors to receive the next mutation. He chooses the most promising ones ('I began to breed ... from whichever child looked most like an insect.') That is why they have ended up looking like recognizable images from his memory. That's artificial selection, not natural selection, but it is selection and that's the point.

What creationists and ID people fail to consider is that the natural world necessarily does select for successful replicators. Natural selection obviously exists. If you don't have the genes to live and replicate then you are the end of the line for your personal genetic code and it won't get re-written. Creationists complained but evolutionary software systems, which emulate the processes of genetic mutation and natural selection at speeds high enough to make the process visible, have become a standard feature of most up-to-date biology laboratories. They now help model the mathematical shape of evolution. Here's a link to one example:

Computer modeling method for mapping the evolution of the influenza virus:
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=3479

The method could soon help medical researchers worldwide develop a better understanding of certain mutations in influenza and other viruses that allow diseases to dodge the human immune system.

You can learn a little more about genetic algorithms here:

Introduction to Genetic Algorithms:
http://library.thinkquest.org/18242/ga.shtml

Search space basics:
http://www.jracademy.com/~schillet/basics.htm

Now, if you think about that way of searching the library of all possible permutations of 80 characters in Hamlet sized books just looking for a good read one letter at a time you could say -- "Hey wait, you're writing that book, not finding it." And you'd be right. And you'd be using whatever intelligence you had to write it. All we've done is take away your ability to write letters, instead you have to find them in the library and you can do it systematically because the library is organized with one letter variations next to each other.

So, where's the intelligence writing the genetic codes of life?

I ask you -- what is the meaning of the word "intelligence?"

-- to be continued....

normdoering,
Thanks for the lesson. I look forward to the next chapter.

If your question Norm, is a general rhetorical question as to what is intelligence, I have given some information below to further expand the concept of intelligence....if it is related to ID theory.....then I think it will still exemplify the biological as well as developmental process of our understanding of intelligence.

And that's a very important question for anyone considering the possibility of Artificial Intelligence. In order to do this it's necessary to take a look at the natural intelligence of the human.
Currently, Piaget's Theory is the standard model of cognitive development. It is a process of developmental stages that occur from infancy to adulthood. Central to this theory are the cognitive structures and functions in the brain. Cognitive functions do not vary, but cognitive structure is always changing according to this theory. It is organized as stages below.



http://www.funderstanding.com/piaget.cfm

For more advanced studies on the infant

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Gr...blications.html

It is also explained thusly,

Senorimotor stage (Infancy) ~ intelligence is demonstrated through motor activity

Pre-operational stage (Toddler and early childhood) ~ intelligence is demonstrated through the use of symbols, some language, imagination and memory. (narrative)

Concrete operational stage (Elementary and early adolescence) ~ intelligence is demonstrated through logical and systematic thought processes.

Formal Operational Stage (Adolescence and adulthood) ~ intelligence is demonstrated through logical use of symbols related to abstract concepts.

For learning to occur, individuals must move through each cognitive state sequentially. In order to move out of a stage, the learner had to either assimilate (using or transforming the environment so that it can be placed in existing cognitive structures) or accommodate (changing cognitive structures in order to accept something) to the environment.

http://www.ettc.net/tech/adultlearning/cognitive.htm

Here's an article that tends to support my thoughts on the function of dreaming.....this is just for informational purpose, however there are some interesting points made in this article with reference to learning etc that I also found important and quite interesting.







http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/0...rchLinksSl.html

Kohlberg extended Piaget's work on cognitive development postulating six
invariant stages of moral development:

1. Punishment and obedient orientation.
2. Naive instrumental hedonism.
3. Good-boy morality of maintaining good relations, approval of others.
4. Authority maintaining morality.
5. Morality of contract and demonocratically accepted laws.
6.Morality of individual principles of conscience.

This theory has found substantial support in cross-cultural research.

Yes, I've seen similar themes noted in the multi intelligence theory...ie Moral intelligence

I'll take a look at this....thnx.....

Multiple Intelligences


The different proponents of one general intelligence all agree that there is a single factor that determines intelligence, and the proponents of multiple intelligences agree that there is more than one single type of intelligence. However, the different proponents of multiple intelligences do not agree on how many different intelligences there are, or could be. I believe that the theories put forth by Gardner and Sternberg have the most merit. Both of them have their own theory on multiple intelligences; Gardner (1983) believes there are seven forms of intelligence; Sternberg (1985) believes there are three forms of intelligences.

Gardner's theory. Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences suggests that there are seven different forms of intelligence. They are linguistic, musical, spatial, bodily, interpersonal, intrapersonal and logico-mathematical. In developing his theory, Gardner (1983) attempted to rectify some of the errors of earlier psychologists who "all ignore[d] biology; all fail[ed] to come to grips with the higher levels of creativity; and all [were] insensitive to the range of roles highlighted in human society" (p. 24). So, Gardner based his own theory of intelligence on biological facts. Li (1996) summarizes Gardner's theory as follows:

Premise 1: If it can be found that certain brain parts can distinctively map with certain cognitive functioning A, then that cognitive functioning can be isolated as one candidate of multiple intelligences B. If A, then B.

Premise 2: Now it has been found that certain brain parts do distinctively map with certain cognitive functioning, as evidenced by certain brain damage leading to loss of certain cognitive function. (Evidence of A).

Conclusion: Therefore, multiple intelligences. (Therefore B.). (p. 34)

Gardner's theory has a very solid biological basis. Premise two takes into account the brain as a major physical determinant of intelligence. By studying individuals who had speech impairment, paralysis, or other disabilities, Gardner could localize the parts of the brain that were needed to perform the physical function. He studied the brains of people with disabilities postmortem and found that there was damage in specific areas, in comparison to those who did not have a disability. Gardner found seven different areas of the brain, and so his theory consists of seven different intelligences, each related to a specific portion of the human brain (Li, 1996).
Gardner looked to develop a theory with multiple intelligences also because he felt that the current psychometric tests only examined the linguistic, logical, and some aspects of spatial intelligence, whereas the other facets of intelligent behavior such as athleticism, musical talent, and social awareness were not included (Neisser et al., 1996).

Sternberg's theory. The triarchic theory of intelligence developed by Sternberg is "a comprehensive theory, more encompassing. . . because it takes into account social and contextual factors apart from human abilities" (Li, 1996, p. 37). Sternberg (1985) felt that the theories that preceded him were not incorrect, but, rather, incomplete. Consequently, his theory, like Gardner's, takes into account creative or musical intelligence. But as for the other six intelligences from Gardner's theory, Sternberg classifies them into two different types of intelligences: analytic (or academic) and practical. These two types of intelligences differ and are defined as follows: Analytic problems tend to have been formulated by other people, be clearly defined, come with all information needed to solve them, have only a single right answer, which can be reached by only a single method, be disembodied from ordinary experience, and have little or no intrinsic interest. Practical problems tend to require problem recognition and formulation, be poorly defined, require information seeking, have various acceptable solutions, be embedded in and require prior everyday experience, and require motivation and personal involvement. (Neisser et al., 1996, p. 79)

If an individual could solve one or the other of these types of problems well, then that individual would have a high analytic or practical intelligence, respectively. Also, there exist virtuosos, or individuals who are extremely talented in the fine arts, these people would have a high creative intelligence.

One reason why Sternberg's theory has received so much acclaim is that in real-life situations, is has proven itself. For example, Brazilian street children can do the math that they need to know in order to run their street businesses, but they are unable to pass a math class in school (Carraher, Carraher, & Schliemann, 1985). Evidence such as this shows that there are two different types of mathematical intelligence, an academic classroom mathematical intelligence and a street wise practical intelligence.

Other theories. In addition to Gardner's and Sternberg's theories on multiple intelligences, there are other theories as well, including Thurstone's and Guilford's. Both were proponents of multiple intelligences. Thurstone (1924) stated that "the biological function of intelligence is to protect the organism from bodily risk and to satisfy its wants with the least possible chance of recording failure on the environment" (p. 162). With this in mind, he found several primary mental abilities. As expected, these abilities are those abilities that the individual uses in order to survive and succeed in society. He found this using factor analysis, like Spearman, but Thurstone took the factor analysis a step further and rotated the factors. He arrived at 13 different factors as opposed to Spearman's one and called these primary mental abilities. These factors included spatial, perceptual, numerical, logical, verbal, memory, arithmetical reasoning, and deductive abilities (Thurstone, 1938). Guilford (1967) found that the structure of intellect was composed of 4 contents, 5 operations, and 6 processes. Each of these was mixed and matched to come up with 120 different combinations of abilities.


Conclusion
There are two distinct schools of thought on the nature of intelligence. The proponents of one general intelligence have a theory that explains the biological reasons for intelligence. Given that they see neural processing speed as the root for intelligence, their theory has an effective causal explanation. On the other hand, the theory of one general intelligence does not encompass all peoples. In the example with the Brazilian street children, they would most likely score poorly on an intelligence test, and be labeled with a low general intelligence. However, they are intelligent enough to be able to do all of the math that they need to know how to do. A drawback to the general intelligence school of thought is that it is heavily dependent on psychometric evaluations. Consequently, it cannot take into account the vast array of different talents that people have.
As for multiples intelligences, there are many theorists in that school of thought as well. Some of the theories presented by the proponents of multiple intelligences are excessive and have too many constructs to measure for example, Guilford's theory. But there are reasonable explanations of intelligence put forth by those from the school of multiple intelligences. Gardner's theory has a very clear causal explanation for intelligence, like the explanation of one general intelligence. But, unfortunately, it is very difficult to pinpoint and confirm Gardner's hypotheses experimentally, because of the delicacy involved with the human brain. Sternberg's theory does not have a biological basis to it, and that detracts from its validity. But that may also be its strength. The theory does not focus on the brain and biological functions, but on different social situations. Therefore, the theory applies to different social situations and environments, as none of the other theories does.
But, given that there still is a substantial debate about the nature of intelligence, and no one theory is accepted by all, there is still room for improvement on any given theory.


http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/paik.html

To further elucidate what RLA mentioned regarding moral development as opposed to, or in conjunction with intellectual development, and as an extension of the standard Piaget model here is a bit more information and a contrasting of the two.



PIAGET'S STAGES OF MORAL JUDGMENT

Piaget studied many aspects of moral judgment, but most of his findings fit into a two-stage theory. Children younger than 10 or 11 years think about moral dilemmas one way; older children consider them differently. As we have seen, younger children regard rules as fixed and absolute. They believe that rules are handed down by adults or by God and that one cannot change them. The older child's view is more relativistic. He or she understands that it is permissible to change rules if everyone agrees. Rules are not sacred and absolute but are devices which humans use to get along cooperatively.

At approximately the same time--10 or 11 years--children's moral thinking undergoes other shifts. In particular, younger children base their moral judgments more on consequences, whereas older children base their judgments on intentions. When, for example, the young child hears about one boy who broke 15 cups trying to help his mother and another boy who broke only one cup trying to steal cookies, the young child thinks that the first boy did worse. The child primarily considers the amount of damage--the consequences--whereas the older child is more likely to judge wrongness in terms of the motives underlying the act (Piaget, 1932, p. 137).

There are many more details to Piaget's work on moral judgment, but he essentially found a series of changes that occur between the ages of 10 and 12, just when the child begins to enter the general stage of formal operations.

Intellectual development, however, does not stop at this point. This is just the beginning of formal operations, which continue to develop at least until age 16.
Accordingly, one might expect thinking about moral issues to continue to develop throughout adolescence. Kohlberg therefore interviewed both children and adolescents about moral dilemmas, and he did find stages that go well beyond Piaget's. He uncovered six stages, only the first three of which share many features with Piaget's stages


KOHLBERG'S SIX STAGE
Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. Kohlberg's stage 1 is similar to Piaget's first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey. To the Heinz dilemma, the child typically says that Heinz was wrong to steal the drug because "It's against the law," or "It's bad to steal," as if this were all there were to it. When asked to elaborate, the child usually responds in terms of the consequences involved, explaining that stealing is bad "because you'll get punished" (Kohlberg, 1958b).

Although the vast majority of children at stage 1 oppose Heinz’s theft, it is still possible for a child to support the action and still employ stage 1 reasoning. For example, a child might say, "Heinz can steal it because he asked first and it's not like he stole something big; he won't get punished" (see Rest, 1973). Even though the child agrees with Heinz’s action, the reasoning is still stage 1; the concern is with what authorities permit and punish.

Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking "preconventional" because children do not yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints. "Heinz," they might point out, "might think it's right to take the drug, the druggist would not." Since everything is relative, each person is free to pursue his or her individual interests. One boy said that Heinz might steal the drug if he wanted his wife to live, but that he doesn't have to if he wants to marry someone younger and better-looking (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 24). Another boy said Heinz might steal it because

maybe they had children and he might need someone at home to look after them. But maybe he shouldn't steal it because they might put him in prison for more years than he could stand. (Colby and Kauffman. 1983, p. 300)

What is right for Heinz, then, is what meets his own self-interests.

You might have noticed that children at both stages 1 and 2 talk about punishment. However, they perceive it differently. At stage 1 punishment is tied up in the child's mind with wrongness; punishment "proves" that disobedience is wrong. At stage 2, in contrast, punishment is simply a risk that one naturally wants to avoid.

Although stage 2 respondents sometimes sound amoral, they do have some sense of right action. This is a notion of fair exchange or fair deals. The philosophy is one of returning favors--"If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." To the Heinz story, subjects often say that Heinz was right to steal the drug because the druggist was unwilling to make a fair deal; he was "trying to rip Heinz off," Or they might say that he should steal for his wife "because she might return the favor some day" (Gibbs et al., 1983, p. 19).

Respondents at stage 2 are still said to reason at the preconventional level because they speak as isolated individuals rather than as members of society. They see individuals exchanging favors, but there is still no identification with the values of the family or community.

Level II. Conventional Morality

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. At this stage children--who are by now usually entering their teens--see morality as more than simple deals. They believe that people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in "good" ways. Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others. Heinz, they typically argue, was right to steal the drug because "He was a good man for wanting to save her," and "His intentions were good, that of saving the life of someone he loves." Even if Heinz doesn't love his wife, these subjects often say, he should steal the drug because "I don't think any husband should sit back and watch his wife die" (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 36-42; Kohlberg, 1958b).

If Heinz’s motives were good, the druggist's were bad. The druggist, stage 3 subjects emphasize, was "selfish," "greedy," and "only interested in himself, not another life." Sometimes the respondents become so angry with the druggist that they say that he ought to be put in jail (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 26-29, 40-42). A typical stage 3 response is that of Don, age 13:

It was really the druggist's fault, he was unfair, trying to overcharge and letting someone die. Heinz loved his wife and wanted to save her. I think anyone would. I don't think they would put him in jail. The judge would look at all sides, and see that the druggist was charging too much. (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 25)

We see that Don defines the issue in terms of the actors' character traits and motives. He talks about the loving husband, the unfair druggist, and the understanding judge. His answer deserves the label "conventional "morality" because it assumes that the attitude expressed would be shared by the entire community—"anyone" would be right to do what Heinz did (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 25).

As mentioned earlier, there are similarities between Kohlberg's first three stages and Piaget's two stages. In both sequences there is a shift from unquestioning obedience to a relativistic outlook and to a concern for good motives. For Kohlberg, however, these shifts occur in three stages rather than two.

Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. Stage 3 reasoning works best in two-person relationships with family members or close friends, where one can make a real effort to get to know the other's feelings and needs and try to help. At stage 4, in contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one's duties so that the social order is maintained. In response to the Heinz story, many subjects say they understand that Heinz's motives were good, but they cannot condone the theft. What would happen if we all started breaking the laws whenever we felt we had a good reason? The result would be chaos; society couldn't function. As one subject explained,

I don't want to sound like Spiro Agnew, law and order and wave the flag, but if everybody did as he wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong, then I think you would have chaos. The only thing I think we have in civilization nowadays is some sort of legal structure which people are sort of bound to follow. [Society needs] a centralizing framework. (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 140-41)

Because stage 4, subjects make moral decisions from the perspective of society as a whole, they think from a full-fledged member-of-society perspective (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 27).

You will recall that stage 1 children also generally oppose stealing because it breaks the law. Superficially, stage 1 and stage 4 subjects are giving the same response, so we see here why Kohlberg insists that we must probe into the reasoning behind the overt response. Stage 1 children say, "It's wrong to steal" and "It's against the law," but they cannot elaborate any further, except to say that stealing can get a person jailed. Stage 4 respondents, in contrast, have a conception of the function of laws for society as a whole--a conception which far exceeds the grasp of the younger child.

Level III. Postconventional Morality

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. At stage 4, people want to keep society functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily a good one. A totalitarian society might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moral ideal. At stage 5, people begin to ask, "What makes for a good society?" They begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold. They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations. They are said to take a "prior-to-society" perspective (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 22).

Stage 5 respondents basically believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all They recognize that different social groups within a society will have different values, but they believe that all rational people would agree on two points. First they would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life, to be protected Second, they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law and for improving society.

In response to the Heinz dilemma, stage 5 respondents make it clear that they do not generally favor breaking laws; laws are social contracts that we agree to uphold until we can change them by democratic means. Nevertheless, the wife’s right to live is a moral right that must be protected. Thus, stage 5 respondent sometimes defend Heinz’s theft in strong language:

It is the husband's duty to save his wife. The fact that her life is in danger transcends every other standard you might use to judge his action. Life is more important than property.

This young man went on to say that "from a moral standpoint" Heinz should save the life of even a stranger, since to be consistent, the value of a life means any life. When asked if the judge should punish Heinz, he replied:

Usually the moral and legal standpoints coincide. Here they conflict. The judge should weight the moral standpoint more heavily but preserve the legal law in punishing Heinz lightly. (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 38)

Stage 5 subjects,- then, talk about "morality" and "rights" that take some priority over particular laws. Kohlberg insists, however, that we do not judge people to be at stage 5 merely from their verbal labels. We need to look at their social perspective and mode of reasoning. At stage 4, too, subjects frequently talk about the "right to life," but for them this right is legitimized by the authority of their social or religious group (e.g., by the Bible). Presumably, if their group valued property over life, they would too. At stage 5, in contrast, people are making more of an independent effort to think out what any society ought to value. They often reason, for example, that property has little meaning without life. They are trying to determine logically what a society ought to be like (Kohlberg, 1981, pp. 21-22; Gibbs et al., 1983, p. 83).

Stage 6: Universal Principles. Stage 5 respondents are working toward a conception of the good society. They suggest that we need to (a) protect certain individual rights and ( settle disputes through democratic processes. However, democratic processes alone do not always result in outcomes that we intuitively sense are just. A majority, for example, may vote for a law that hinders a minority. Thus, Kohlberg believes that there must be a higher stage--stage 6--which defines the principles by which we achieve justice.

Kohlberg's conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls, as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.

In actual practice, Kohlberg says, we can reach just decisions by looking at a situation through one another's eyes. In the Heinz dilemma, this would mean that all parties--the druggist, Heinz, and his wife--take the roles of the others. To do this in an impartial manner, people can assume a "veil of ignorance" (Rawls, 1971), acting as if they do not know which role they will eventually occupy. If the druggist did this, even he would recognize that life must take priority over property; for he wouldn't want to risk finding himself in the wife's shoes with property valued over life. Thus, they would all agree that the wife must be saved--this would be the fair solution. Such a solution, we must note, requires not only impartiality, but the principle that everyone is given full and equal respect. If the wife were considered of less value than the others, a just solution could not be reached.

Until recently, Kohlberg had been scoring some of his subjects at stage 6, but he has temporarily stopped doing so, For one thing, he and other researchers had not been finding subjects who consistently reasoned at this stage. Also, Kohlberg has concluded that his interview dilemmas are not useful for distinguishing between stage 5 and stage 6 thinking. He believes that stage 6 has a clearer and broader conception of universal principles (which include justice as well as individual rights), but feels that his interview fails to draw out this broader understanding. Consequently, he has temporarily dropped stage 6 from his scoring manual, calling it a "theoretical stage" and scoring all postconventional responses as stage 5 (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 28).

Theoretically, one issue that distinguishes stage 5 from stage 6 is civil disobedience. Stage 5 would be more hesitant to endorse civil disobedience because of its commitment to the social contract and to changing laws through democratic agreements. Only when an individual right is clearly at stake does violating the law seem justified. At stage 6, in contrast, a commitment to justice makes the rationale for civil disobedience stronger and broader. Martin Luther King, for example, argued that laws are only valid insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. King also recognized, of course, the general need for laws and democratic processes (stages 4 and 5), and he was therefore willing to accept the penalities for his actions. Nevertheless, he believed that the higher principle of justice required civil disobedience (Kohlberg, 198 1, p. 43).

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

I have not "rejected" evolutionary explanations; I think they are quite fascinating. I reject your proclamation that evolutionary explanations represent "facts" that must be swallowed whole, without question.

I also see that the theory of evolution is your religion. You are like all other fundamentalists. You can't stand the thought of someone having a different view of reality. I find your totalitarian view very limited. I like to be free to look out of multiple "windows" into reality.

Spirituality is the essence of human consciousness. Thoughts and memories are the "content" of human consciousness.

Think of this "essence" like "flavor". Scientific method can "measure" flavor, but its mathematical models and instruments cannot "taste" it.

Creating individuals with free will requires that the individuals be given time and opportunity to "discover" their own freewill. If God were to speed up this process, freewill would be lost. God has imposed limits on "herself" in order to "create" individual consciousness possessing freewill.

Rational - prudent ---> anal… Do you know the difference?

Sometimes you just got to live a little - get out and breath some fresh air. Things might look different in the daylight.

No, this is the Religion in Politics sub-forum. The thread is titled: Speculations on Intelligent Design, & the Real World

It would be nice if people would develop their thoughts without "reducing" them to "evidence" or "facts". How about a little more INSPIRATION on this thead. Something people can "speculate" about.

In the movie "Contact", the two main characters - one a scientist the other a spiritual guy, found a working compromise.

Religion in politics needs to have a similar compromise.

[quote=Freedom4all,Feb 27 2005, 02:08 PM]
I have not "rejected" evolutionary explanations; I think they are quite fascinating. I reject your proclamation that evolutionary explanations represent "facts" that must be swallowed whole, without question.

I also see that the theory of evolution is your religion. You are like all other fundamentalists. You can't stand the thought of someone having a different view of reality. I find your totalitarian view very limited. I like to be free to look out of multiple "windows" into reality.

Spirituality is the essence of human consciousness. Thoughts and memories are the "content" of human consciousness.

Think of this "essence" like "flavor". Scientific method can "measure" flavor, but its mathematical models and instruments cannot "taste" it.

Creating individuals with free will requires that the individuals be given time and opportunity to "discover" their own freewill. If God were to speed up this process, freewill would be lost. God has imposed limits on "herself" in order to "create" individual consciousness possessing freewill.

Rational - prudent ---> anal… Do you know the difference?

Sometimes you just got to live a little - get out and breath some fresh air. Things might look different in the daylight.
Not everything is about science -- but this thread is.
[/quote]No, this is the Religion in Politics sub-forum. The thread is titled: Speculations on Intelligent Design, & the Real World

It would be nice if people would develop their thoughts without "reducing" them to "evidence" or "facts". How about a little more INSPIRATION on this thead. Something people can "speculate" about.

In the movie "Contact", the two main characters - one a scientist the other a spiritual guy, found a working compromise.

Religion in politics needs to have a similar compromise.

[/quote]

Other than fear itself, the only thing we have to fear is premature compromise.

I can agree with this because in our current political climate there are some dangerous players out there determined to subvert Democracy, and also determined to impose on us a very narrow worldview.

on the other hand I can also agree with this



Man is more than the aggregate of facts or knowledge...we are also creative unique individuals. Each of us has not only the knowledge that we acquire, but an experential understanding of the world.....this is where we usually find conflict....

Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most...


I think the idea here is something more like making a sincere effort to empathize with someone else's viewpoint. You don't have to "buy" into it, so why do "some people" feel the need to "attack"... pre-emptive pschological defense. Isn't that evidence of of fear ?

Good reply DWB04... you must have children, or you are a school teacher.

Yes, the first part of your comment brings up an important issue for this thread. I am defending my right to freedom of inquiry, but I do not want to play into the hands of those who would use my criticisms to help justify their desire to impose on us a very narrow worldview

I really like your final sentence. Man is more than the aggregate of facts or knowledge...we are also creative unique individuals. Each of us has not only the knowledge that we acquire, but an experiential understanding of the world.

I believe there is a God and a Spiritual reality beyond physical life, but I am not demanding that an atheist embrace my beliefs. I am demanding my freedom to express and embrace my own beliefs and I will defend an atheists right to do the same. But I will oppose anyone who wants to force their beliefs on me.

DWB04, we came to an agreement about teaching "evolution" on the other thread. We agreed that there is a need to preface the subject with an introduction to how/why scientific theories develop and are used by science. That is a great idea. Because I think part of the problem is the perception that kids are being indoctrinated into an atheist/materialist belief system.

When I say "agreement", I don't mean "compromise", You helped me to navigate through this "discussion" and see a practical solution.

That is: The public debate should not be about "evolution" it should be about the "scientific method". Let them go at it!

I am concerned about energy independence and war in the middle east

You're gonna laugh, but the field I was in for many years was medicine (not a life choice, but a job choice...I did have a child to support), that's probably where my understanding of science comes from, though.......

And as I mentioned before I studied Art, Writing, Philosphy, World Religions, Anthropology etc......and that has informed my "other side"!

In my mind, Education is still key......Norm posted an excellent article on a Nobel chemist's view......That there needs to be both more offered in the way of explanation to the public regarding science, and that it should be understood that science indeed has a narrative story.......

Freedom4all,
I agree that the public debate should be kept centered on the scientific method. It is not, however, feasible to just deal with this in the abstract
so that the need to deal with the application of the scientific method
on the issues that citizens are concerned about such as evolution will
persist. We certainly need more empathic methods for carrying on such
dialogue.

In the sense that mere speculation (the title of this thread) does not require evidence........and can be based on opinion or conjecture

Perhaps we need a thread that is more concrete......that utilizes a practical theory or application???

That as you have said is more empathetic, but also has evidence......

Your post reminded me of this line from Anna Karenina.
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
-- Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina, Chapter 1, first line

I also see a paradigm shift in how we view ourselves as human beings, but in a slightly different way. I see the shift as being the direct result of information technology.

I think there is a shift towards wellness but it is not going to fully take root because people really do have pathological problems and want real, cutting edge treatment for those diseases. Wellness doesn't bring people to the ER's but crushing chest pain sure will.

On an outpatient basis we can work on promoting wellness but there again we run into problems. People won't quit smoking, quit drinking, quit having bacon & eggs for breakfast every day for 50 years, etc. They continue to destroy their lungs, livers, and arteries as though there were no tomorrow.

I wish we could promote wellness as a viable alternative to providing treatment for disease. I just don't see it happening. And I'd like to discuss this with you further for my own benefit. Perhaps I could really learn something here.

Let me give you a personal example. My cousin is in alternative medicine school. And he has a great ability to interact with people in a healing way. Plus he can do accupuncture and Rolfing - both of which I think are awesome! The thing is he sometimes comes up with the most wacked out ideas for how to help people pharmacologically. Please forgive me, if there are any alternative medicine people out there. I am closed minded in this regard and only speak out in an effort to anonymouslly expand my views.

Anyway, my grandmother is 85. My cousin told her he didn't think she should get the flu shot - that it's poison - or something to that effect. Now, he's never taken a course in either microbiology or immunology and has not seen 85 year olds come into the ER in respiratory distress from the flu. Most of the patients he sees are healthy. He has no idea how the flu shot works. He just read somewhere that it does something to this or that meridian, that they're toxic, that they actually give people the flu and on and on. The conversation between the two of us often breaks down at this point. I believe flu vaccinations are a raging success. He thinks there's some kind of medical conspiracy to make people sick so we can continue making money off them or something to that effect. I feel insulted that he takes so much hard work and hard science and reduces it to a conspiracy to make little 85 year old grandmothers sick so we can make more money on them and he is insulted that I have so little respect for his profession. I always walk away from one of these conversations with the impression that we have both been diminished but truthfully don't know what to do about it. And to be brutally honest, I envy his ability to convince people they are well. I envy the wisdom behind some of his interpersonal techniques and I envy the freedom he has to use philosophy and non-scientifically proven snake oil rememdies to make people feel better - often better than what I'm able to do.

I have no problem with alternative medicine. I've had accupuncture and it works. Hypnosis works. St. John's wort looks to work OK for mild depression. But they've got pills out to treat everything. Very few of which have good statistically sound studies to support their claims. None of which are regulated so much as to even confirm that what they say is in the bottle is actually in the bottle. And some of those drugs interact with western medical drugs and how are we supposed to know how those drugs interact with our drugs when we aren't really sure what the hell is in the bottle of medicines to begin with.

The problem I have is in doling out advice to people about not taking the flu shot and similar such things that we know have been proven effective in very large double blind placebo controlled studies with metaanalysis. I remember looking at my cousin and saying these exact words: "Well, you are just starting out and it's going to take a while to find your groove. But after the first person you tell not to get the flu shot up and dies from the flu, you will rethink your position. " He looked at me as though I slapped him in the face with the knowledge that his advice could actually kill someone.

When people are gasping for air they don't reach out for alternative medicine. They reach out for steroids, beta agonists, nebulizers, a ventillator, etc. A patient who is having a heart attack doesn't want alternative medicine. He/she wants an physician that knows how to administer nitrates, morphine, aspirin, oxygen, defibrillation. They want a cardiologist who can do angiography/plasty and if all else fails a cardiac surgeon gloved and gowned in the room next door waiting to do an emergency bypass. And often, thanks to these western medicine interventions these and millions of other patients live to see another day. I don't see this changing any time soon.

But perhaps this is hitting me in my blind spot.

I've worked with one physician briefly who believed in chelation therapy and I haven't looked into this too much. But I hear friends who go to an alternative medicine doctor who tells them their fatigue problem is due to their kidneys and liver. They give them some detoxification treatment and they show some improvement. This is really where alternative medicine can teach western medicine a great deal. They listen to the patient more, communicate much better with patients, and cater their cures to meet the psychological needs of their patients. But they can afford to do this because they're dealing primarily with "mostly healthy" people who aren't likely to die and aren't likely to sue them.

When a patient tells their symptoms to a western doctor they listen only for pathological clues (using healthy signs only to rule out other disease processes). This has the effect of making patients feel like a combination of vital signs and pathological processes. It is very demoralizing to be a patient. Very demoralizing. And probably the main reason most physicians don't go to doctors themselves. They don't like to feel themselves in the demoralized, helpless patient role in which they place everybody else without a seond thought.

If there are any paradigm shifts I've noticed in western medicine it's that the patients are much better educated thanks to the internet. They know about their diseases, have reasearched the medicines and their side effects, know about alternative medicine approaches, etc. While this can be irritating to a physician it also relieves a lot of the burden to "do it all." A well-educated patient becomes a partner in treatment. They seem to become less of a legal liability and more of an asset in a new joint veture to improve the patient's health.

Alternative medicine practitioners use their personality, their personal interactions with the patients to heal the anxious, tired, mildly depressed. They use it to heal or alleviate the suffering in pain patients. They use it to heal and strenthen the spirit and return a sense of power to their patients. They make it OK to be healthy. They are very affirming in their approach to patients. Western docs don't care to hear about what is going right - at least not when they're in pure doctor mode. They don't have time. They're too tired. They're too burned out.

MD's, DO's are so focused on curing disease in the limited amount of time they have to see each patient that they forget what a curative force their very presence can be. Just paying undivided attention to a person can be such a healing therapy. Also, they're so focused on malpractice that there is a large white elephant in the examination room of every patient. It sets up an adversarial relationship between physician and patient. Always in the back of the mind of the physician is the thought, "Is this going to be the one that sues me?" It's difficult to be therapeutic when that's what's going through your mind. And so a lot of resentment builds up within physicians. They slave away to serve others who they worry are going to sue them. Many physicians don't even want to be physicians anymore they're so exhausted by the whole process.

Perhaps it is the alternative medicien mindset that can also heal the physicians.

As alternative medicine becomes a bigger force in American medicine the lawsuits will inevitably follow, malpractice premiums will rise, careers will be destroyed, patients will die, and they, too, will become hardened. Especially when they start making enough money to make it attractive to sue them. The artificial intelligence of our monetary system won't leave them be. As I type these words I'm confronted with just how jaded and hardened I've become. I recommend any who are interested read "House of God" by Samuel Shem. It's the best book I've ever read on why physicians get so hardened.

I also see a paradigm shift in the way people interact with their government, the big corporations, etc. In every way people are using the internet to become better educated about everything. This is translating into more power. They online interconnection web we are building with each other is also very poweful. It has an equalizing effect - giving the mass group of "the people" more bargaining power with the powers that be - both government and corporate.

Anyway, I hope my opinions haven't offended anyone. Sorry if they're off topic.

...continued...


Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things.
-Hippocrates

The Intelligent Design (ID) people are saying that they have ways to detect intelligence in the writing of our genetic codes. So, let’s consider one of them: William A. Dumbski -- Whoops, I mean Dembski.

Design Inference Website, THE WRITINGS OF WILLIAM A. DEMBSKI
http://www.designinference.com/

Dembski claims to have a reliable criterion for detecting design from observational features of life and DNA using probability and complexity theory, not metaphysics and theology. However he cannot achieve a logical demonstration, only a statistical justification. His criterion is relevant to biology but it doesn't detect intelligence unless you're willing to define intelligence as something that merely achieves "specified complexity" and other features of Dembski's detection criterion. His complexity-specification criterion only shows complexity-specification in DNA, which might be part of an intelligent system but which is not full intelligence.

For example, Dembski's ideas might be, as he claims, useful to SETI if they ever detected a signal from deep space (and if Dembski's ideas were original). We'd know we had something unique if the signal had "specified complexity," specifying what we'd have to figure out. Carl Sagan, long before Dembski, suggested that design in a SETI signal might be inferred from a sequence of bits counting out the first few prime numbers. It's an example that Dembski uses. But Sagan certainly didn't assume exceptions to naturalism when he proposed it. And actual SETI researchers look for an entirely different kind of evidence. They aren't looking for any pattern in the signal except a narrow bandwidth, which they consider a likely indicator based on what we do with radio, a sign of our kind of technology. Getting such prime numbers doesn't really tell us much at all. Maybe there is a natural non-intelligent phenomenon that can do it? We've been fooled before by pulsars that have an orderly rythm. Prime numbers only mean there's a higher probability of an intelligence advertising itself. It's an inference not a conclusive fact. Once we learn more we may rule intelligence out like we did with pulsars.

But, in his book "No Free Lunch," Dembski says: "I want, then, to argue that specified complexity is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I want to argue that the complexity-specification criterion successfully avoids false positives -- in other words, whenever it attributes design, it does so correctly." That's not normal "scientific inquiry." It describes the operation of an oracle, not an inference. He's contradicting his own terminology. Thus they pump up ill-informed guesses to sound like facts.

There's a lot to human intelligence that ID criterion doesn't detect. For example, a lot of the stuff DWB04 reports (see DWB04's post) that psychologist Jean Piaget found in developing children and at least four of Gardner's different forms of intelligence; linguistic, musical, interpersonal and intrapersonal, nor does Dembski detect general things like symbolic reasoning, world modeling, morality, seeking approval of others, etc.. Not only are these things not detected, they're conspicuously absent.

A loopy case might be made for incremental natural selection being spatial, bodily and logico-mathematical in its functions, but that's it. You don't need the full intelligence Piaget found to achieve specified complexity.

Michael Behe’s supposedly "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems might, if they actually were irreducibly complex, detect "world modeling." By that I mean an ability to workout in your head beforehand, or imagine how things behave in the real world, before you write the DNA code for them. Darwin himself knew this and even said that if it could be demonstrated that any of life's structures could be shown not to have been arrived at by gradual modification his theory would fall apart. No one has done that yet in spite of Behe’s claims.

Dembski's ideas about specified complexity and his information-theoretic analysis are, in a way, somewhat on target... until we try to draw conclusions about what intelligence is based only on his criterion. Then we see that his criterion were obviously, if unconsciously, invented to note the similarity between the products of human and evolutionary design, but are blind to the obvious differences. And it's the differences that matter in the end. It's the differences between the human and the biological evolutionary, which are the differences between a genetic algorithm and a neural-net operation, that tell us that evolutionary design does not come from complete and human-like neural-net intelligence.

Dembski has only figured out what people have known since long before Darwin; that life exhibits inventive complexity that might signify intelligent design if we had nothing else to go on. But now we do have something else to go on. In fact, this is exactly what Darwin so successfully argued. The idea that an organism's complexity is evidence for the existence of a cosmic designer was believed centuries before Darwin was born. One proponent was theologian William Paley, creator of the famous watchmaker analogy. If we find a pocket watch in a desert, Paley said, we'd infer that it was produced not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human intellect. This is the argument from design and it prevailed as an explanation of the natural world until the Origin of Species in 1859 because Darwin showed that there was indeed another system besides human intelligence that could produce inventive complexity and he described it.

Not only did Darwin describe what is shaping life on our planet, he described it well enough we can now use computers to model it. Below is a book link and a couple examples of such software and computer systems:

Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence
by John H. Holland
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

PolyWorld : An Artificial Life System and Computational Ecology
http://www.beanblossom.in.us/larryy/PolyWorld.html

Devolab : The Avida digital evolution research platform.
http://devolab.cse.msu.edu/

Echo : A simulation tool to investigate mechanisms which regulate diversity and information-processing in systems comprised of many interacting adaptive agents, or complex adaptive systems.
http://www.santafe.edu/projects/echo/

Dembski, Behe and the rest of the ID crowd have no algorithmic concepts we can model on a computer because their view of intelligence isn't algorithmic or computational, it's supernatural and indefinable (unless their criterion is also their definition of intelligence which they won't admit too because it's a crippled definition). Thus they are also anti-artificial intelligence. Almost all the ID people admit that they really want to overthrow "materialism" and "naturalism." They've never bothered to propose an effective empirical test methodology for their claims. Instead, critics like Wesley R. Elsberry, David Wolpert and others propose empirical methods of determining if ID claims have any grounding in fact. Nor have ID proponents, so far, analyzed potential counterexamples, and critics have proposed many.

The counterexamples are more important than the examples in this case. Here's why, consider again the library of all possible permutations of 80 characters in Hamlet sized books and consider some methods to search that library. Instead of having a person search it we could have a robot search it using only a semi-random book graber and a simple judging algorithm as it chooses books. It chooses books randomly but always from the next letter variation shelf and marks books that conform to its letter by letter checking rules and moves to the next letter selection space. Its rules only tell it to accept legit English words that fit into properly constructed sentences and paragraphs and so when it ends its search it has book that's full of proper grammar and correctly spelled words but odds are it's not going to mean much.

Now imagine that you've got thousands of these robots wandering through the library of permutations. When they get to the end you'd be reading books with well constructed nonsense like "The dog grew a green spoon before then night exploded. So, cars are free in China..." But, every once in awhile you'd get a sentence or two that sounded sensible, even profound, as if written by someone who understood something. The sense of meaning is in your own perceptions, not in the process used to create the sentences. Before you consider it meaningful or a sign of intelligence in the robot you have to consider all the nonsense counter examples.

I would say the examples of life on this planet are more like those nonsense books, they're properly constructed to survive and breed and compete with other life forms for a niche in the ecosystems around us, but ultimately they don't mean much.

You seem to have implied that "they cannot take God out of the picture." It sounds like an out of hand rejection of any evidence that would make your beliefs less probable.



I have never said that "evolutionary explanations represent 'facts' that must be swallowed whole." I have criticized you and ROU for demonstrating gross and obvious misunderstandings about what evolutionary theory is and I've said that you have to have evidence and reason to challenge the conclusions reached by people like Dawkins.

You can't just ignore his evidence for his conclusions because he's an atheist -- that's bigotry.



I guess you have to believe that in order to make sense of your blind faith.



Oh, I can stand it -- I just think your views aren't necessarily doing you any good.



What's totalitarian about it?



That's an example of a claim that isn't even good enough to be wrong. You've just used two fuzzy suitcase words that have no precise meaning. What is "spirituality" and what is "consciousness?" They mean different things to different people.

What about emotion, how you feel about something? Isn't that also a necessary "content" of human consciousness? Computers have memories. Computers have algorithms which are much like thought.



Actually, the chemical sensors in our tastebuds are quite crude compared to our chemical tests.

What you really mean, I think, is that our instruments can't "enjoy" it.

You seem to be using "spiritual" to mean "emotional."



And there's another of those fuzzy suitcase words, "freewill," that mean different things to different people.



Speed up what process? Evolution?
Are you talking about the free will of dinosaurs? We humans haven't been around that long.



I think so. Do you?

Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principles that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.
-Ethan Allen (quoted from Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World)

Gabrielle,
I thought your post brought a lot of balance to the discussion and shows that
the thread is working. If the wellness movement is as successful as we could
hope for, it will only reduce the number of people who need emergency room services, not do away with it. It is still too difficult to buy the services of a medical doctor to help one stay well or get better than not sick but the situation is improving. The social system needs a better way of channeling some of those
persons who are not finding usefull and meaning vocations into all kinds of human
services including treating diseases. I think this will require a better sense of community and some readjustments to our money system(Bill, I can be influenced).

I found an interesting site that includes an intermodal compilation of "theorys of consciousness"......it would be exciting to explore this question as to what comprises consciousness and recent studies in relation to that subject.

http://www.sci-con.org/news.html

Who they are:

"Science & Consciousness Review is a community-building effort. Many scientific communities study how the human brain makes possible perception, memory, and even attention. But for historical reasons, we have no scientific community for exploring consciousness --- including our own experiences of the world, of each other and of ourselves. It is probably the most important neglected topic in science.

Students and scientists all over the world are vitally interested. Hardly a week goes by without another major article in headline journals like Science and Nature. The flow of evidence has increased enormously. But so far we have few institutional resources for teaching, learning, and sharing this information. "

By what method could we possibly understand the self as observer, the subjective and the experential [or experiences of others].....placing the concept of empathy to one side for a moment....

Understanding Subjectivity: Global Workspace Theory and the Resurrection of the Observing Self

Bernard J. Baars
The Wright Institute, 2728 Durant Avenue Berkeley CA 94704, USA.
Email: baars@cogsci.berkeley.edu
Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3, No. 3, 1996, pp. 211-16


The world of our experience consists at all times of two parts, an objective and a subjective part . . . The objective part is the sum total of whatsoever at any given time we may be thinking of, the subjective part is the inner 'state' in which the thinking comes to pass.

William James, Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature, p. 499

Abstract: Why is the problem of subjectivity so hard, as David Chalmers claims? This essay suggests that it becomes hard when we adopt an implausible, perfectionistic standard. In the last two decades the standard has come to be 'observer empathy' -- the ability to know what it's like to be a bat or another human. That makes understanding consciousness difficult indeed. Far more practical criteria are used every day in medicine and scientific studies of consciousness, and indeed traditional philosophy from Kant to James took a much more relaxed view of subjectivity. Once we adopt these more workable standards, subjectivity is suddenly revealed to involve a familiar concept, namely 'the self as observer' of conscious experiences. Contrary to some, this sense of self is conceptually coherent and well-supported by hard evidence. For example, the 'left-hemisphere interpreter' in split-brain patients behaves as one such self. Given a modest and practical approach, we can expect to make progress toward understanding subjectivity.

Introduction

"Can human beings learn to understand conscious experience, even in its subjective aspect? Many analytic philosophers in this century have said no. David Chalmers is more optimistic, believing that human consciousness is understandable but that subjectivity presents a particularly hard problem. Chalmers takes Global Workspace theory as a prototype of a cognitive theory of consciousness, but raises the question whether such a theory can deal with subjectivity. (See Baars, 1983; 1988; and 1996) GW theory gives the most complete account to date of the interplay of conscious and unconscious processes in perception, imagery, action control, learning, attention, problem-solving and language. These topics can all be usefully treated as types of information processing, and today we are discovering many of their brain correlates as well. Indeed, GW theory shows many striking points of convergence between brain, behavioural and experiential evidence.

David Chalmers endorses a central hypothesis from GW theory, namely that conscious contents become 'globally available' to many unconscious systems. The reader's consciousness of this phrase, for example, makes this phrase available to interpretive systems that analyze its syntax and meaning, its emotional and motivational import, and its implications for thought and action. It appears therefore that even single conscious experiences have global consequences. Global availability is an information-processing claim about consciousness -- what Chalmers considers to be part of the 'easy' problem. Whether a scientific theory like this can deal with subjectivity is the central point at issue.

I would suggest that GW theory has a number of plausible implications for understanding subjectivity. The really significant distinction is not between inherently hard vs. easy problems, but between the contents of consciousness and what we intuitively think of as an observing self. 'Subjectivity' from this point of view corresponds to the sense of an observing self.

In the last ten years I have presented evidence for the proposition that we need a concept of self to fully understand consciousness (e.g. Baars, 1988; 1996). The notion of self has been criticized mercilessly in analytic philosophy, yet a great body of evidence from brain and behaviour speaks in its favour. I believe that we must deal with the self in an intellectually rigorous fashion if we are ever to understand the meaning of such humanly vital terms as subjectivity. This quest for understanding can be seen as a deeply humanizing enterprise, promising to bring us far beyond the mechanistic tendencies that have so vitiated life in this century (Baars, unpublished).

What makes the hard problem so hard, I suggest, is the criterion we adopt for subjectivity. By shifting criteria we can make the problem either easy or hard.

The Hard Problem is Hard Because it Involves an Implausible Criterion
In traditional philosophy 'subjectivity' was a fairly well-understood idea. One can imagine a conversation between Immanuel Kant, William James, and Aristotle, for example, with a good deal of mutual agreement. Traditionally, subjectivity concerns the experiencing self. Thus Kant writes that 'It must be possible for the "I think" to accompany all of my (conscious) representations, for otherwise ... (they) would be nothing to me.' (italics added). And James, in the epigraph to this paper, tells us that 'the subjective part (of consciousness) is the inner "state" in which the thinking comes to pass.' That state, he writes, is what we generally mean by self. From Kant to James, subjectivity was not viewed as impossible to understand.

It is only in this century that subjectivity was first expelled from Anglo-American philosophy and then, decades later, reintroduced as a hard or even impossible problem. For that reason we need first to untangle the current philosophical sense of subjectivity and show that at bottom it has not changed. In recent years 'subjectivity' has come to be identified with Thomas Nagel's question, 'What is it like to be a bat?' In Nagel's view, the key to understanding whether bats or humans are conscious is to know what it is like to be a bat or a human. To know whether you, the reader, are conscious, I must know what it is like to be you. In more traditional language the Nagel criterion demands proof of 'observer empathy' as the criterion for consciousness. Chalmers writes, 'As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience.'

For empirical studies of consciousness, however, the empathy criterion is not helpful. In practice we use a much simpler standard. Neurologists who routinely evaluate patients with head injuries define consciousness in terms of waking EEG, the ability to answer questions, report perceptual events, show alertness to sudden changes in the environment, exercise normal voluntary control over speech and action, use memory, and maintain orientation to time, place, and self. These practical criteria are used all over the world to evaluate mental status in head injury cases. Physicians make life-or-death decision on the basis of these observable events, and in practice this works very well. Very similar criteria are used in psychological and brain research. Thus medicine and science seem to agree with traditional philosophy that consciousness and subjectivity can be identified in practical ways.

The empathy criterion is far more demanding. It requires something that has never so far been a scientific aim, namely that one observer should somehow share the experience of another. That may be a commendable ethical goal, but it does not help us decide in practice today whether a person looking at a chair, who can describe it in great detail, is actually conscious of that chair. It therefore fails to tell us what we need to know in practice, and insists instead that we cannot meaningfully talk about subjectivity until, in some indefinite future, we learn what it is like to be a bat or another human. This is not the mark of a useful criterion. The empathy criterion constitutes a rhetorical blocking position instead, one that tends to keep us from thinking about subjectivity at all. It is much like the demand made by vitalists about 1900 that biologists adopt the criterion of an elan vital, an unspecified vital essence, as the standard for living organisms. Doing so would have blocked progress on the molecular basis of life for an indefinite time. If we are honestly interested in understanding consciousness it is not the right way to go.

The traditional philosophical concept of subjectivity is much more plausible, as shown by the words of William James and Immanuel Kant quoted above. The Oxford English Dictionary points out that 'subjectivity' originated in the concept of being a subject, including being the subject of a reigning king. Over time it evolved into a more general sense of being a person with certain traits. In psychological terms, subjectivity in this sense has to do with a sense of self. This meaning, I would suggest, is a theoretically deep yet workable sense of the term. It has a long and distinguished history in philosophy and psychology. And as usual, once we find a workable criterion, the way toward genuine insight becomes much clearer.

For example, there seems to be a close connection between the sense of subjectivity and what Michael Gazzaniga has called the 'left-brain interpreter', the part of the brain that maintains a running commentary about our experience. In split-brain patients, where transfer of information between the two hemispheres is blocked, the left side can be shown to maintain a narrative account of its reality that can be quite different from the right side's story. But the left-hemisphere system is clearly not the only 'self-system' in the brain. There is good evidence for a sensorimotor self, an emotional and motivational self probably represented in the right hemisphere, a social self-system, and perhaps an appetitive self. All these self-systems ordinarily work in reasonable coordination with each other, though they can be in conflict at times.

Notice that we need not know 'what it is like to be a split-brain patient' in order to come to reasonable conclusions about the left-side self system. We can simply ask the patient's left cortex, and it seems to give sensible answers. Given practical criteria for consciousness and subjectivity therefore, we can increase our understanding significantly.

The following points can be made on the evidence we have to date.

1. Consciousness is generally accompanied by a subjective sense of self.
You are the perceiver, the actor and narrator of your experience. Every statement of personal experience in English refers to a personal pronoun, an I, as in 'I saw a pussycat', 'She believes murder is wrong', and 'He smelled a rat'. Unconscious and involuntary activities do not mandate such a connection with a self. 'We' do not acknowledge permanently unconscious knowledge as our own, and 'we' disavow responsibility for slips and unintended errors. They are not ours. Conscious events are invariably attributed to yourself. People routinely report having some definite but hard-to-specify sense of themselves in connection with conscious experiences. All this suggests that consciousness is generally accompanied by subjectivity.

2. The interpenetration of 'easy' and 'hard' aspects of psychological reality.
Let us take an 'easy' claim about consciousness, one that is understandable in information-processing terms. For example, we know that if you can experience the letter 'p' you will be able to discriminate, to distinguish 'p' from 'q', 'b' and 'd'. The ability to discriminate is taken by David Chalmers to be an easy problem, because we can easily imagine a robot that can do the task. Given that robots can do it, evidently without consciousness, leading many philosophers to conclude that consciousness is not a necessary condition for discrimination between perceptual events. However, scientifically this is an odd argument indeed, because empirically we know that many things we do to decrease conscious access to the letter 'p' will also change the ability to discriminate between it and other letters. We can decrease your conscious access to 'p' by means of distraction, overloading immediate memory, boredom, fatigue and a dozen other factors. As you become less clearly conscious of 'p', your ability to discriminate between it and other letters tends to decline precipitously. Empirically, therefore, consciousness appears to be a necessary condition for discrimination, at least in creatures we believe to be conscious.

But as we pointed out above, consciousness is always accompanied by subjectivity. It appears therefore that far from being separate from information-processing functions, the 'hard' problem interpenetrates what are said to be easy problems!

3. Causal interaction between 'hard' and 'easy' aspects of consciousness.
Take the phenomena of limited conscious capacity, the fact that we can only be conscious of one consistent percept or concept at any given moment. To go back to the ambiguous word 'focus' mentioned above, try for example to be aware of two separate meanings of that word at the same time. The evidence is strong that humans cannot keep two inconsistent ideas in mind at the same time, though we can often find metaphors and images that unify the two meanings. Nor can I see two perceptual interpretations of an ambiguous figure, nor can I hear two streams of conversation at a cocktail party.

Limited conscious capacity implies that different conscious contents will interfere with each other. Try, for example, to read the following few sentences while keeping in mind three numbers such as 92, 14, and 6. Interference is understandable in Global Workspace theory as competition for a small working memory, the stage of the theater of the mind, called the global workspace. It is rather well understood in modern information-processing theories. But it also happens to correspond with your personal experience! That is, as soon as you try to keep the numbers listed above in immediate memory while reading, you also lose conscious access to the meaning of any sentence you try to read at the same time. There is clearly some sort of causal interaction between your personal experience and our information-processing account of limited- capacity interference. Further, the self-systems described above, like the left-brain narrative interpreter, clearly respond to conscious information. It seems therefore that there must causal interactions between the 'hard' and the 'easy' problems. But how can that be, if the hard problem is so different from the information-processing account?

4. Independent variation of a sense of self and the contents of consciousness.
While conscious contents and a sense of self generally go together, that does not mean that they are identical. We can maintain what seems to be a pretty stable sense of self while shopping in the supermarket or reading this sentence, even though those are different conscious experiences. But we can also keep conscious contents stable and change our sense of self. That is what seems to happen when we become absorbed in a fairy tale as children, actually identifying with the characters. Years later we may read the same story again without such identification, though the conscious stimulus is the same. There are numerous other examples of such changes in self independent of conscious contents (Baars, 1988, and in press). In technical jargon, conscious contents and self may be orthogonal constructs, which always coexist but do not necessarily covary. In this same sense all objects have size and shape, but size and shape do not necessarily covary.

5. Consciousness creates access for self.
Daniel Dennett has phrased our common intuition about self and consciousness as "That of which I am conscious is that to which I have access, or (to put the emphasis where it belongs), that to which I have access"

'I' have access to perception, thought, memory, and body control. Each of us would be mightily surprised if we were unable to gain conscious access to some vivid recent memory, some sight, smell or taste in the immediate world, or some well-known fact about our own lives such as our own name. The 'self' involved in conscious access is sometimes referred to as the self as observer. William James called it the knower, the 'I'.

One way to think of 'self' is as a framework that remains largely stable across many different life situations (Baars, 1988, and in press). The evidence for 'self as stable context' comes from many sources, but especially from the effects of deep disruptions of life goals. Contextual frameworks are after all largely unconscious intentions and expectations that have been stable so long that they have faded into the background of our lives. We take them for granted, just as we take our health and limbs for granted. It is only when those assumptive entitlements are lost, even for a moment, that the structure of the self seems to come into question. Losing a loved friend may be experienced as a great gap in oneself. 'A part of me seems to be gone', is a common way of expressing such a gap. It helps to take this common tragedy seriously as a basic statement about the self in human psychology.

6. Is the subjective self an illusion?
Oxford philosopher Gilbert Ryle famously pointed out an apparent contradiction in the everyday notion of 'the self as observer'. He thought it made no sense to postulate an observing self because it does not explain anything at all, it merely moves the job of explanation to another level. If we had an observing self contemplating the contents of consciousness, he argued, how would we explain the self itself? By another observer inside the inner self? That would lead to a infinite regress of observing selves each looking into the mind of the preceding one, little imaginary men sitting inside our heads observing each other's observations. The observing self -- the homunculus or little human -- was said to be a fallacy of common sense. Ryle's arguments against the 'ghost in the machine' persuaded countless scientists and philosophers that 'the self' is a snare and a delusion.

The only trouble with Ryle's impossibility proof is that some notion of self is indispensable and not noticeably problematic in daily life, and indeed in much contemporary psychology and brain science. Ryle's impossibility proof applies only if the concept of self is not decomposed into cognitive or brain entities that are better understood than the word 'self'. As Daniel Dennett has written, 'Homunculi are bogeymen only if they duplicate entire the talents they are rung in to explain. If one can get a team or committee of relatively ignorant, narrow-minded, blind homunculi to produce the intelligent behaviour of the whole, this is progress.' (Dennett, 1978, p. 123) .

Consider William James' 'self as observer'. It is hard to see anything impossible about it if we think of observers as pattern recognizers. Many brain systems 'observe' the output of another, and we now know a great deal about pattern recognizers in the brain. There seems to be plentiful brain and psychological evidence regarding self-systems.

All that is not to deny the existence of genuine mysteries about self. But there seem to be aspects of self that are not beyond human understanding. If they were, we would have an awfully difficult time dealing with ourselves or other people. As we understand more of the details of the cortical self system, Rylean doubts may begin to sound more and more dated.

Oddly enough, in the sensorimotor area on top of the cortex there are four maps of a little upside-down person, distorted in shape, with every bit of skin and muscle represented in detail. This upside-down map is called the sensorimotor homunculus, the little human. The nervous system abounds in such maps, some of which appear to serve as 'self systems', organizing and integrating vast amounts of local bits of information. The anatomy of the brain looks like a physical refutation of Ryle's position."

http://www.imprint.co.uk/online/baars.html

Yes, more empathy would facilitate dialogue. A sincere attempt to see what another person is trying to say encourages meaningful exchange, and perhaps a shared experience of learning something new.

Yes, Consciousness will be the next huge field of study - and perhaps it will produce a new economic opportunity, similar to physical fitness". We may already be seeing the beginning of a new industry in Yoga, meditation, and biofeedback.

Think about it, if all pleasure and pain, and all variations of emotions are within the mind; then why spend so much effort at gaining material wealth, if full satisfaction can be gained by developing "Spiritual" fulfillment.

Here is an interesting note regarding "Speculations on Intelligent Design"

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) is generally regarded as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. He discovered the binomial theorem, invented differential calculus, made the first calculations of the moon's attraction by the earth and described the laws of motion of classical mechanics, and formulated the theory of universal gravitation. He was very careful not to publish anything not firmly supported by experimental proofs or geometrical demonstrations -- thus he exemplified and ushered in the Age of Reason.

Sir Isaac Newton, who is generally thought of as the archetypal materialist scientist, was astounded by the startling, and contradictory, nature of his own theories.

That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by which their force and action may be conveyed to one another....

Here he has framed a major problem that remained unsolved until Einstein developed his theory of General Relativity. The problem continues to remind us of the incompleteness of a "common-sense," materialistic viewpoint. Gravity is such a common effect that it is taken for granted. Nevertheless, Einstein's understanding of gravity, while it solved Newton's problem of "action at a distance," requires that we accept that space itself is curved. The quest for a completeness in science, articulated by Sir Isaac Newton, has now found its expression in the search for a "grand unified field theory" in physics. This theory, in its most current form echoes the Pythagorean principle of a mathematical structure underlying all of reality -- consciousness and matter.

However, if we look at Newton's own personal notes and diaries, over a million words in his own handwriting, a startlingly different picture of the man emerges. Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist. He devoted himself to such endeavors as the transmutation of metals, the philosopher's stone, and the elixir of life. Lord Keynes describes this work in the Royal Society's Newton Tercentenary Celebrations of 1947:

His deepest instincts were occult, esoteric, semantic -- with profound shrinking from the world...a wrapt, consecrated solitary, pursuing his studies by intense introspection, with a mental endurance perhaps never equalled.

He attempted to discover the secrets of the universe in apocalyptic writings like the Book of Revelations or in occult interpretations of the measurements of Solomon's temple. But Lord Keynes even maintained there was a magical quality to his scientific thought as well -- that he solved a problem intuitively and dressed it up in logical proofs afterwards. Columbia University historian Lynn Thorndike feels one can safely go further than Lord Keynes and compares Newton's method of scientific discovery "to that of a medium coming out of a trance."

Newton used the term ether following Descartes to refer to a hypothetical substance that permeated the entire universe and was responsible for gravitation and electromagnetism as well as sensations and nervous stimuli. He felt this ether itself was the living spirit, although he recognized that sufficient experimental proof did not exist in his own time.

It was only in the twentieth century that scientists actually discarded the concept of ether, although the term is still used pervasively in occult and spiritual circles. The elucidation of the field that unifies both psychical and physical phenomena is still one of the greatest challenges facing scientific research.

Newton normally spelled the word Nature with a capital and regarded her as a Being or at least a wonderful mechanism second only to God. Newton described his conception of God as:

Creator and governor of this mechanistic universe, who first created the fermental aether and its principles of action, and then assigned to a lesser power, Nature, the duty of forming and operating the perceptible mechanical universe.

Like most men at the close of the Seventeenth Century, Newton still believed in the existence of animal spirits (animal magnetism) in the human body. He described them as of an ethereal nature and subtle enough to flow through animal voices as freely as the magnetic effluvia flow through glass. For him, all animal motions resulted from this spirit flowing into the motor nerves and moving the muscles by inspiration.

His followers, however, emphasized his mechanistic view of the universe to the exclusion of his religious and alchemical views. In a sense, their action ushered in a controversy that has existed ever since. Since Newton's time, all hypotheses suggesting the presence of a force that transcended time or space were ironically considered to be in violation of Newton's Laws -- even though Newton himself realized that his laws were not sacrosanct!
http://www.williamjames.com/History/ENLIGHT.htm

Animal magnetism or biologically closed electric circuits?
http://www.iabc.readywebsites.com/page/page/623957.htm

You seem to be making some erroneous assumptions about DWB04's links.

Words like spirituality don't appear and things like meditation and psychic get negative articles and comments at this site: http://www.sci-con.org/news.html

You'll find this there:
http://www.sci-con.org/news/articles/20030701.html

Is consciousness a psychic power, which can broadcast messages and control people’s minds? Scientists are doubtful, but millions of people believe it.

On 18 June 2003, a crew from Channel Nine Australia’s popular A Current Affair news program filmed an experiment conducted by Bond University psychologists Norman Barling, Michael Lyvers and Jill Harding-Clark that was designed to test the claims of a well-known Australian “psychic healer.” Dennis Puffett says he can relieve pain simply by manipulating people’s photographs, even when the “patients” themselves are far away – even as far as Africa! Twenty volunteers who suffered from chronic pain were recruited for the study via advertisements in a local newspaper. Participants were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups, with 10 per group. After completing a consent form, photos were taken of all participants. They then completed a questionnaire designed by Lyvers assessing belief in psychic healing, paranormal phenomena, hypnosis and alternative medicine, after which Barling obtained initial McGill Pain Questionnaire ratings from each participant. Then as all participants waited in a nearby room, Lyvers gave Puffett each photo, as well as information about the type and location of pain, for each participant in the treatment condition. While being filmed by the TV crew, Puffett attempted to relieve the pain of each participant whose photo he was given, and was allowed as much time as he required per photo to perform his “healing” ritual. Upon completion of the “healing” procedure for all 10 participants in the treatment condition, Barling obtained McGill Pain Questionnaire ratings from both treatment and control groups a second time. The experiment employed a double-blind design, that is, neither the participants nor the psychologists who evaluated them knew to which condition, treatment or control, each participant had been randomly assigned.

All participants then assembled together in another room. Channel Nine reporter Mimi Kwa (who was also blind to each participant’s group) asked them to raise their hands if they had felt any improvement in their pain. Of the 8 participants who raised their hands, 5 were from the control group (not subjected to “psychic healing”), and only 3 were from the treatment group (subjected to “psychic healing”). Analysis of McGill Pain Questionnaire data indicated no difference between treatment and control groups. Exactly half of the participants in each group gave worse ratings and half gave better ratings on the second McGill, which is what would be expected by chance. Thus, the findings unequivocally showed no effect whatsoever of the “psychic healer” despite his animated claims to the contrary.

Some very interesting findings were nevertheless obtained. The 8 participants (3 treatment, 5 control) who said they felt better after the “healing” period scored statistically significantly higher on faith in alternative medicine compared to the 12 participants who said they did not feel better after the “healing” period. Even more interesting, the change in McGill Pain ratings was highly and statistically significantly correlated with faith in alternative medicine, belief in psychic phenomena, belief in psychic healing, belief in hypnosis, and belief in Dennis Puffett’s psychic healing ability. These correlations ranged from .50 to .70, which are surprisingly high. Thus, irrespective of whether they were in the “psychic healing” group or the control (untreated) group, those who had strong beliefs in psychic healing, psychic phenomena, alternative medicine and hypnosis tended to show positive changes on the McGill Pain Questionnaire over the course of the experiment, whereas those without such beliefs did not. The findings indicate that anecdotal accounts of so-called “psychic healing” represent a kind of placebo effect that is strongly dependent upon the “patient’s” degree of belief in such phenomena.

Copyright 2003 © M. Lyvers

Michael Lyvers
Associate Professor of Psychology
Bond University
Gold Coast, Qld 4229
e-mail mlyvers@staff.bond.edu.au

This is an interesting study, norm. I agree that any beneficial effects these people received were due to some qualities they have in themselves. I have been hypnotized before and sometimes use self-hypnosis as a form of relaxation therapy. I know from my experience that it works. I have also seen a film given at a hypnosis seminar of a woman who had major, non-laporoscopic abdominal surgery without any anesthesia/analgesia whatsoever - just self-hypnosis. She was teaching the course. They did the surgery at one of our local hospitals. It was quite impressive. I haven't kept up with this but will look and see what I can find as far as the underlying neurological mechanisms that might account for this. Biofeedback is also in the same neighborhood. Prayer and religious trance seem to have something in common with hypnosis, too. It's an interesting topic!

I've been reading up on this in my free time and am having a difficult time getting my mind around the curving of space & time.



You know, you just got to respect a man/woman who spends his/her days searching for "a mathematical structure underlying all of reality -- consciousness and matter!



What a lovely, lovely post. I've heard Einstein dreamed of his mathematical solutions.



And I was worried my support of hypnosis would sound odd in light of my views of some alternative medicine practices.  Poor Newton.  His visions were the architect of laws which seemingly denied the possibility of the visions that created them.  Somebody ought to make a movie out of this! 

I thought so. It had nothing to do with the psychic:

Of the 8 participants ... 5 were from the control group (not subjected to “psychic healing”), and only 3 were from the treatment group (subjected to “psychic healing”). ... no difference between treatment and control groups. Exactly half of the participants in each group gave worse ratings and half gave better ratings ... what would be expected by chance. Thus, the findings unequivocally showed no effect whatsoever of the “psychic healer” despite his animated claims to the contrary.

But the people who thought they might get treated felt better even though they weren't treated -- thus indicating it's all in their heads. Subjective belief and subjective pain:

... nevertheless ... The 8 participants (3 treatment, 5 control) who said they felt better after the “healing” period scored statistically significantly higher on faith in alternative medicine compared to the 12 participants who said they did not feel better after the “healing” period. Even more interesting, the change in McGill Pain ratings was highly and statistically significantly correlated with faith in alternative medicine, belief in psychic phenomena, belief in psychic healing, belief in hypnosis, and belief in Dennis Puffett’s psychic healing ability. ... The findings indicate that anecdotal accounts of so-called “psychic healing” represent a kind of placebo effect that is strongly dependent upon the “patient’s” degree of belief in such phenomena.

Skeptic groups look into these kind of things all the time -- you might be interested in Skeptic Magazine or looking into James Randi's commentary here:

http://www.randi.org/jr/022505thank.html
http://www.skeptic.com/



At least you're in control. Belief in the psychic power of others can kill. There are records where witchdoctors have cursed people and they died only because they believed they would.

But even in cases where you're in control you have to consider to what degree are you fooling yourself?



Yes, they do -- look into cult and evangelical techniques like "voice rolling" and the effect of slower beat music on brainwaves.

No, I don't think hypnosis has anything to do with the psychic powers of others. Hypnosis is something we are taught to do to ourselves. I suppose it can be abused, like anything. But if people can die from the belief that they're going to die then there's something pretty powerful going on "in the head" that we aren't very knowledgeable about. Alternative medicine uses this much more effectively than western medicine does. I'm a believer. Most people wouldn't view the stimulation of pain fibers from a midline abdominal incision to be "subjective." But this professor was able to demonstrate that either pain was subjective or that it could be reinterpreted by the cortex and assigned a different meaning.

She talked about not saying the pain doesn't exist but rather transforming it into a different sensation such as cold or warmth. It seems that the pain and temperature fibers run together so maybe this has something to do with how she was able to trick her cortex into reinterpreting the symptoms. It's a fascinating field and I want to take some more classes on hypnosis.

My guess is those in both the control and treatment group who experienced a reduction in their pain were able to self-induce trance without even knowing they had done this. Perhaps a form of dissociation. I don't know.

After being in the medical field for many years, I know that there are now more doctors that are open to some Eastern or natural healing practices.....on the whole though, this is a tough thing for all clinicians to accept.

But there is a change in some medical schools with regard to understanding the treatment of the "whole patient'....Funny, but doctors were never even given nutritional courses before, but that is changing as well.

I think the fact that the practice of medicine physically deals with human beings and not just symptoms or illness might help to expand their therapy. I have also heard of hypnosis being utilized for surgical procedures and childbirth, so as to alleviate pain without the use of drugs....primarily that is auto or self-suggestion.....there are also some alternative medical procedures being done with regard to sports medicine like acupuncture and stress reduction.

We have to remember that many drugs were also once considered just herbal remedies, but they are now synthetically reproduced as modern medicines....

here's an article I found on Duke University using acupuncture for post-operative breast surgery [nausea symptoms].....it is not the standard practice of acupuncture but employs the principle.

Using Acupuncture to Reduce Nausea

date : 11/2/2001
media contact : Tracey Koepke , (919) 684-4148 or (919) 660-1301
koepk002@mc.duke.edu


"How does a five-thousand-year-old healing practice fit into modern medicine? A recent study suggests acupuncture, an ancient Chinese healing technique, can help treat nausea in women after breast surgery.

Women who are recovering from breast surgery are being helped by one of the world's oldest healing practices. Dr. Tong Gan, associate professor and director of clinical research in Duke University Medical Center's department of anesthesiology, says acupuncture offers relief from post-operative nausea, a condition that affects up to 70 percent of women who have breast surgery. In a recent study of 40 patients, he reports the ancient Chinese technique is just as effective in reducing nausea as commonly used anti-sickness drugs.

"Patients having gone through the study actually expressed a very high degree of satisfaction with the use of acupuncture to reduce their incidence of nausea and vomiting."

Rather than using needles, Gan's acupuncture technique uses electrodes placed on the wrists. These electrodes administer mild electrical currents to nerve centers on the wrists, called acupoints, during the operation.

"The patient often feels that there is some tingling sensation, but that is not painful."

Gan says he is optimistic his study and others will lead to acupuncture and other Eastern healing techniques becoming increasingly integrated into standard medical practice."

http://www.dukemednews.org/av/medminute.php?id=5064

Okay, let me put this question another way -- do you think hypnosis can really remove pain, or do you think it only affects your perception of pain?

For example, a study concluded that chronic back pain has a great effect on the physical structure of the brain, the equivalent of up to 20 years of normal aging.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art...rticlekey=40756
http://www.northwestern.edu/observer/issue...01/06/back.html

Now, there is no knowing for sure yet what the effects of the structural changes are, if any. The change may be unimportant. And confirmation by other investigators in larger studies is necessary. But what if this is a negative effect of pain and it is bad for your brain? It's possible that merely altering your preception might not alter the other effects of pain like say, a drug would. (Then again, maybe it's the drugs that are shrinking the brain?)



Don't be so sure. There's probably a lot of belief in doctors.



It might be both subjective and objectively detectable. It's probably possible to be in objective pain even though you don't feel it. Pain, as best I recall from my readings, does have detectable nerve signals and neuro-chemicals associated with it.

But then, everything subjective is in your brain, yet it may be objectively detectable. Physical and mental are the same when talking about one's brain.



Which leaves behind what kind of reality about pain?



You don't need a trance for dissociation. Tranceless dissociation seems the most probable to me.

It is my considered opinion that emotional responses are the most under-researched and unappreciated sub-system of the personing process or what
many are beginning to call the Self-system. In teaching human relations and counseling skills I used a lot of the work developed by Charles Truax and
Robert Carkhuff in the 1960's and 70's. They classified the easily identifiable
feeling states into--Happy, Mad, Scared and Sad--as general categories. Extended
interaction provides information about more specific feelings. Based on my experience and research and many years of monitoring the scientific and professional literature in this field, I agree with their conclussion that our
culture and language generates about three times as many "negative" feelings
as "positive" ones. This probably helps account for the fact that people in general
are so out of touch with their feelings. Developmentally for the individual and
evolution wise for the species, monitoring and taking into account one's emotions
is probably our most important source of information for self-in-situation adaptation. Every one has a customary level of arrousal and maintaining an optimum level of arrousal is critical for achieving a happy productive life and for avoiding
the need to correct for excessive "negative feeling" and the pathology that so often accompanies over-correcting.

that's alarming......I think hypnosis might be more effective as a temporary measure, like a surgery or during childbirth etc....

Certainly you couldn't go around hynotized for the rest of your life (although we could argue some people seem to be!)....they actually have pain clinics for people with extensive pain and I'm not sure just how successful their treatments are either.

So, it would seem a matter of acute vs chronic pain and with chronic pain there is additional stress placed on the brain and an increase in natural chemicals activated in the inflammatory process.....however, as to atrophy I'm not sure if they mean brain atrophy itself or the atrophy of the body as a result of the debilitation caused by the pain.....it could be both

What research is being done?


Clinical investigators have tested chronic pain patients and found that they often have lower-than-normal levels of endorphins in their spinal fluid. Investigations of acupuncture include wiring the needles to stimulate nerve endings electrically (electroacupuncture), which some researchers believe activates endorphin systems. Other experiments with acupuncture have shown that there are higher levels of endorphins in cerebrospinal fluid following acupuncture. Investigators are studying the effect of stress on the experience of chronic pain. Chemists are synthesizing new analgesics and discovering painkilling virtues in drugs not normally prescribed for pain.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/chronic...hronic_pain.htm

Certainly true RLA.......from what I've been reading there is continuing research on this part of our humanness.....I just read an article with regard to some of that research...apparently emotions can be system-wide, but certain ones have been located in specific areas of the brain.....this seems to contradict William James's theory that there are no centers in the brain for emotion and no centers for specific emotions.


..."Two emotions that have received considerable amount of attention are fear and disgust."
.

Now where have we heard amygdala before? If you remember what I posted about dreaming this organ was also related to intense dream activity....and perhaps some of our dream function, besides being learning and integration processes are also related to fear.....as when we have nightmares or our natural flight/fight instinct kicks in in relation to some experience we had in the awake state.

as to disgust



http://www.open2.net/humanmind/article_faces.htm


Neuroanatomical correlates of externally and internally generated human emotion
EM Reiman, RD Lane, GL Ahern, GE Schwartz, RJ Davidson, KJ Friston, LS Yun and K Chen
Department of Psychiatry, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Positron emission tomography was used to investigate the neural substrates of normal human emotional and their dependence on the types of emotional stimulus. METHOD: Twelve healthy female subjects underwent 12 measurements of regional brain activity following the intravenous bolus administration of [15O]H2O as they alternated between emotion-generating and control film and recall tasks. Automated image analysis techniques were used to characterize and compare the increases in regional brain activity associated with the emotional response to complex visual (film) and cognitive (recall) stimuli. RESULTS: Film- and recall-generated emotion were each associated with significantly increased activity in the vicinity of the medial prefrontal cortex and thalamus, suggesting that these regions participate in aspects of emotion that do not depend on the nature of the emotional stimulus. Film-generated emotion was associated with significantly greater increases in activity bilaterally in the occipitotemporparietal cortex, lateral cerebellum, hypothalamus, and a region that includes the anterior temporal cortex, amygdala, and hippocampal formation, suggesting that these regions participate in the emotional response to certain exteroceptive sensory stimuli. Recall-generated sadness was associated with significantly greater increases in activity in the vicinity of the anterior insular cortex, suggesting that this region participates in the emotional response to potentially distressing cognitive or interoceptive sensory stimuli. CONCLUSIONS: While this study should be considered preliminary, it identified brain regions that participate in externally and internally generated human emotion.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/short/154/7/918

In addition, along with our Neuroscientific or biologic understanding of the brain, We need to consider a social psychology of emotions.....

"Standing at the threshold of the third millennium, the reflection from our recent past points to technological advances as the doorway to the future. Institutions of higher education have made these technological advances possible, and they should and will continue to promote technological developments in the future. However, one also might keep in mind the less rarefied achievements that have been made possible by technology. Where does the intelligence and humanity to develop and use technology well come from?
As we enter the third millennium, institutions of higher education might consider that facts and technology alone cannot elevate humanity, that emotion is not the antithesis of rationality, that emotions are an essential ingredient for and an overwhelming obstacle to optimizing human potential. Graduates of institutions of higher education should leave not only with an ability to think and build, but also with a heightened ability to monitor one's own and others' emotions, to discriminate among them and to use the information to guide one's thinking and action to the benefit of all."




http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/77777760800/

I have also had accupuncture (courtesy of my cousin - he needed a "victim" ) and I was quite impressed with it. I have a chronic hip pain for several years. It was relieved for several days after accupuncture. I knew in my mind that the most likely explanation was "placebo response." But it: 1) didn't hurt me and 2) helped. I mean, what better therapy can there be for mild pain? No problem with ibuprofen causing kidney/liver problems, no tylenol liver toxicities, no opiate addiction, no constipation, no analgesic withdrawl headaches.

I also felt the tingling sensation and a feeling of euphoria. Go figure. I wondered during accupuncture if there wasn't some central release of dopamine??? I swear I could almost "feel" the dopamine neurons firing. This doesn't jive with the placebo part of my theory. Because the dopamine rush didn't last when he wasn't twisting the needle or something to that effect.

Either way, if it is placebo or peripheral stimulation resulting in central dopamine or other neurotransmitter changes, it "felt" real. Why does it "feel" real? What neuronal pathways carry "feels real?" How is placebo explained neuroanatomically/neurophysiologically?

More links for Social psychology and human emotion
http://dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Psychology/Social/

read what I posted on endorphin release.....there is a correlate it seems with accupuncture and the release of endorphins......I don't regard that as a placebo effect necessarily......

I agree emotional responses are not understood well at all. Probably because they are so much more complicated than, say, the visual system.

What do you mean by our society generates about three times as many "negative" feelings as "positive" ones? Is it something inherent to our culture and language? Could it be alleviated by "reframing" our language? Is that what you are swaying, or something else?

No, this is not placebo. That must have been what I was feeling. Endorphin release. I wonder how that works? I will look for your post on that right now.

Endorphins are the brain's natural opiate......

here's a site for you


Endorphins belong to a class of biochemicals commonly referred to as neurohormones that act by modifying the way in which nerve cells respond to transmitters. The discovery of this class of biochemicals has an unusual and interesting history. In the 1960s, biomedical researchers studying the causes and effects of opium addiction had detected what they suspected were "opiate receptors" in brain tissue. Since it seemed quite unlikely that humans (or other vertebrates) would contain a specific receptor designed for a chemical derived from the poppy plant, the researchers focused their attention on biochemicals that might be synthesized in the brain itself. Early in the 1970s, several small peptides were isolated that appeared to possess natural analgesic properties, and these were collectively termed enkephalins and endorphins. The modification of neural transmissions by these biochemicals now appears to be responsible for the insensitivity to pain that is experienced by individuals under conditions of great stress or shock. The effectiveness of analgesic opiate derivatives such as opium, morphine, and heroin is an accidental side effect that derives from the ability of these substances to bind to neurohormone receptors despite their very different structure.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/micro/gallery/...endorphins.html