"Scientific Background We draw on the latest discoveries in the neural sciences, linguistics, psychology and anthropology and apply them in the world of business. Recent discoveries in the field of the neural sciences teach us that:
Emotion is the trigger to action
The rational system follows the emotional system
Present actions are driven by past experiences
Present experiences dictate our emerging needs
The Imprint analysis incorporates this knowledge of the human mind to determine people's emerging needs and 'entry-points' for effective communication."
Is actually more like truth (science) versus belief (religion). Or, as Dawkins aptly wrote:
Let's all stop beating Basil's car
Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution. There may be passing mention of deterrence or rehabilitation, but the surrounding rhetoric gives the game away. People want to kill a criminal as payback for the horrible things he did. Or they want to give "satisfaction' to the victims of the crime or their relatives. An especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian crucifixion as "atonement' for "sin'.
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software.
Basil Fawlty, British television's hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn't start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. "Right! I warned you. You've had this coming to you!" He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the carburettor flooded? Are the sparking plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don't we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn't the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?
Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn't surprise me).
But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.
As in add some appropriate environmental stress such as toxins and radioactivity. Many man-made compounds that are highly unlikely to ever exist in any significant amounts through "natural" processes are now very common globally. Specifically things such as medecines, and household and industrial chemicals.
Oddly enough, we appear to have a drive to accelerate our won progress. X-men IV anyone?
the company I work for, which makes components for folks like Cisco and Nortel, was buying parts from a US suppler. The parts are machined on CNC-like equipment. However, after months of bad parts we ended up switching to a supplier in China to get better quality. The lowest price was from the US supplier.
I tend to believe the fact we can better parts from China is the fact that they now have more experienced workers and engineers in their plants. We've been outsourcing for so long that the expertise is gone in NA.
The worrying part is: what will happen as fuel costs rise and equalizes the cost "savings" that many management people used to justify outsourcing. We're shipping raw materials there and getting back finished goods but that only works while the transportation cost stays low. Those days are almost gone...
"Neuropsychologists and researchers studying certain types of brain damage have come to the conclusion that many of our actions and perceptions are carried out by unconscious parts of our brains (New Scientist , 5 September 1998, p 30) . For example, if you want to reach out and pick up an object, you don't need to be conscious of the exact size and shape of it, or what each of your muscles needs to do.
But surely it's not like that for higher level mental activities, such as our thoughts and feelings? Most people--and many researchers--consider that these originate within the realms of consciousness. We don't agree.
We suggest that all the thoughts, ideas, feelings, attitudes and beliefs traditionally considered to be the contents of consciousness are produced by unconscious processes--just like actions and perceptions. It's only later that we become aware of them as outputs when they enter our consciousness. As pointed out by Jeffrey Grey of the Institute of Psychiatry in London--consciousness occurs too late to affect the outcomes of the mental processes that it is apparently linked to.
You may prefer the notion that you are in charge of your own mind. But where did that idea come from? If you stop to think about it, you'll probably find that it just popped into your head--like all your thoughts. Perhaps you have decided to read the rest of this article. But did "you" really make that choice? Keep reading, if you can. You may never think of "yourself" in quite the same way again."
Which is what many meditative traditions have been saying for quite a long time. For more, see Libet's work on the "delay" of what is termed "normal consciousness" in decision making.
does the futures market still exist and continue to function as it presently does as demand exceeds supply by a significant amount? Oil supports the thing we like to call "the military/industrial complex" and there's a reason that the word "military" comes first.
Who will do without? The military? I doubt it very much. Do they play by typical economic "rules" when they need something? History says that they don't...
The real question here is what social and political evolution will occur to compensate for the gap between increasing demand and dwindling supply.
Marshall McLuhan, of course...Quite a while ago.
There is a more complete article here:
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/lif e_sciences/report-38309.html
From Robert Logan's "The Extended Mind Model of the Origin of Language and Culture"
"The evolution of notated language has lessons that can help us understand the origin and
emergence of speech. In a study of notated language (McLuhan and Logan 1977; Logan 1986)
the effects of the phonetic alphabet and literacy on the development of deductive logic, abstract
science, codified law, and monotheism were revealed. We showed that these five developments,
which emerged between the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers and the Aegean Sea between 2000 and 500
BC, formed an autocatalytic set of ideas that supported each other's development. The alphabet
not only served as a convenient way to notate speech it also taught the lessons of analysis
(breaking up words into their basic phonemes), coding (writing), decoding (reading) and
classification (alphebetization).
From this work emerged the notion that language is both a medium of communication and an
informatic tool since the structure of a language influences the way in which people organize
information and develop ideas. This work led to the hypothesis that speech, writing, math,
science, computing and the Internet represented six independent languages each with its own
unique semantics and syntax (Logan 1995; 2000a). It was shown that these six forms of language
formed an evolutionary chain of languages with each new language emerging from the previous
forms of language as a bifurcation to a new level of order à la Prigogine in response to an
information overload that the previous set of languages could not handle."
So now we are finally linking the structural (genetic) changes that must accompany the intellectual changes. Why is everyone so scared of this? Because behaviour might (gasp) be largely genetically encoded?
Slashdot Mirror
So say the neurobiologists:
d f
b rain/book_newsci.htm
"Scientific Background
We draw on the latest discoveries in the neural sciences, linguistics, psychology and anthropology and apply them in the world of business.
Recent discoveries in the field of the neural sciences teach us that:
Emotion is the trigger to action
The rational system follows the emotional system
Present actions are driven by past experiences
Present experiences dictate our emerging needs
The Imprint analysis incorporates this knowledge of the human mind to determine people's emerging needs and 'entry-points' for effective communication."
From:
http://www.culturalimprint.com/about.html
Who have a fascinating (and scary, since the marketin world is actively using this theory) article:
http://www.culturalimprint.com/emerging%20needs.p
The question is, what kind of cultural imprinting are kids getting these days?
Further references are Rapaille's book "The Culture Code"
http://www.randomhouse.com/broadway/culturecode/
And LeDoux's book "The Emotional Brain":
http://www.cns.nyu.edu/home/ledoux/the_emotional_
Is actually more like truth (science) versus belief (religion). Or, as Dawkins aptly wrote: Let's all stop beating Basil's car Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution. There may be passing mention of deterrence or rehabilitation, but the surrounding rhetoric gives the game away. People want to kill a criminal as payback for the horrible things he did. Or they want to give "satisfaction' to the victims of the crime or their relatives. An especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian crucifixion as "atonement' for "sin'. Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software. Basil Fawlty, British television's hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn't start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. "Right! I warned you. You've had this coming to you!" He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the carburettor flooded? Are the sparking plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don't we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn't the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes? Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn't surprise me). But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car? Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.
As in add some appropriate environmental stress such as toxins and radioactivity. Many man-made compounds that are highly unlikely to ever exist in any significant amounts through "natural" processes are now very common globally. Specifically things such as medecines, and household and industrial chemicals.
Oddly enough, we appear to have a drive to accelerate our won progress. X-men IV anyone?
the company I work for, which makes components for folks like Cisco and Nortel, was buying parts from a US suppler. The parts are machined on CNC-like equipment. However, after months of bad parts we ended up switching to a supplier in China to get better quality. The lowest price was from the US supplier.
I tend to believe the fact we can better parts from China is the fact that they now have more experienced workers and engineers in their plants. We've been outsourcing for so long that the expertise is gone in NA.
The worrying part is: what will happen as fuel costs rise and equalizes the cost "savings" that many management people used to justify outsourcing. We're shipping raw materials there and getting back finished goods but that only works while the transportation cost stays low. Those days are almost gone...
"hi fidelity boom box"???...wtf???
Compression, crappy plastic speaker enclosures and cheapo components...
Sorry, I'll go back to cleaning my vinyl now...
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hypnosis/articles/Halligan200 0a.pdf
"Neuropsychologists and researchers studying certain types of brain damage have come to the conclusion that many of our actions and perceptions are carried out by unconscious parts of our brains (New Scientist , 5 September 1998, p 30) . For example, if you want to reach out and pick up an object, you don't need to be conscious of the exact size and
shape of it, or what each of your muscles needs to do.
But surely it's not like that for higher level mental activities, such as our thoughts and
feelings? Most people--and many researchers--consider that these originate within the realms of consciousness. We don't agree.
We suggest that all the thoughts, ideas, feelings, attitudes and beliefs traditionally considered to be the contents of consciousness are produced by unconscious processes--just like actions and perceptions. It's only later that we become aware of them as outputs when they enter our consciousness. As pointed out by Jeffrey Grey of the Institute of Psychiatry in London--consciousness occurs too late to affect the outcomes of the mental processes that it is apparently linked to.
You may prefer the notion that you are in charge of your own mind. But where did that idea come from? If you stop to think about it, you'll probably find that it just popped into your head--like all your thoughts. Perhaps you have decided to read the rest of this article. But did "you" really make that choice? Keep reading, if you can. You may never
think of "yourself" in quite the same way again."
Which is what many meditative traditions have been saying for quite a long time. For more, see Libet's work on the "delay" of what is termed "normal consciousness" in decision making.
does the futures market still exist and continue to function as it presently does as demand exceeds supply by a significant amount? Oil supports the thing we like to call "the military/industrial complex" and there's a reason that the word "military" comes first. Who will do without? The military? I doubt it very much. Do they play by typical economic "rules" when they need something? History says that they don't... The real question here is what social and political evolution will occur to compensate for the gap between increasing demand and dwindling supply.
Marshall McLuhan, of course...Quite a while ago. There is a more complete article here: http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/lif e_sciences/report-38309.html
From Robert Logan's "The Extended Mind Model of the Origin of Language and Culture"
"The evolution of notated language has lessons that can help us understand the origin and
emergence of speech. In a study of notated language (McLuhan and Logan 1977; Logan 1986)
the effects of the phonetic alphabet and literacy on the development of deductive logic, abstract
science, codified law, and monotheism were revealed. We showed that these five developments,
which emerged between the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers and the Aegean Sea between 2000 and 500
BC, formed an autocatalytic set of ideas that supported each other's development. The alphabet
not only served as a convenient way to notate speech it also taught the lessons of analysis
(breaking up words into their basic phonemes), coding (writing), decoding (reading) and
classification (alphebetization).
From this work emerged the notion that language is both a medium of communication and an
informatic tool since the structure of a language influences the way in which people organize
information and develop ideas. This work led to the hypothesis that speech, writing, math,
science, computing and the Internet represented six independent languages each with its own
unique semantics and syntax (Logan 1995; 2000a). It was shown that these six forms of language
formed an evolutionary chain of languages with each new language emerging from the previous
forms of language as a bifurcation to a new level of order à la Prigogine in response to an
information overload that the previous set of languages could not handle."
So now we are finally linking the structural (genetic) changes that must accompany the intellectual changes. Why is everyone so scared of this? Because behaviour might (gasp) be largely genetically encoded?
designed to provoke an emotional response... "Let me tell you about my mother."