well I think it's work environments more than culture. A lot of companies/government agencies promote competitiveness, and this often means feeding off of one another in the corporate chain, ie. the "shark and carp" mentalities, if your seen as wrong, your competition in the corporation will often use that to attack and use that to discredit you and any ideas you may have. So typically people can never show that they are wrong.
I do agree with thee article though, companies can be much more productive and innovative if they only did not promote such competitiveness.
Exactly, the desktop is the one thing that's easy to upgrade and to change on a whim. Laptops are OK, but don't have the same capabilities. I'm betting the truly biggest innovation will be, once someone has a wireless video card and Monitor to go with the wireless keyboard, mouse and wireless DVD/Blu-ray/CD drive the desktop will be able to be placed anywhere and you'll be able to anywhere you like, giving you more mobility than a laptop.
I do not believe that Jaynes' theory implies that exactly. As I understand it, there are particular social conditions that were once widespread that encouraged hallucinatory experiences. I would expect people to still experience hallucinations today, and they do: imaginary childhood "friends", dead relatives, and "god".
Yes they do have hallucinatory experiences but I don't see a necessary connection to Jayne's theory, and an imaginary childhood friend is defined as a hallucination? Imagination yes but not a hallucination.
I believe Ned Block's criticism was that culture somehow changed to reflect what humans were doing all along. With what we understand about the role of language in thought, this now looks like nonsense.
Really, please show me why this is nonsense? This actually make much more sense than reversing it.
Broadly speaking, yes, consciousness is a cultural construct, but so is agriculture, and the Internet.
Really?! you realize you are comparing consciousness to technologies, both are man-made, I don't see my consciousness as being man-made, sorry.
I do not find "a real chemical imbalance" to be very illuminating, even if it does imply a neurotransmitter deficiency. There are a few interesting associations with schizophrenia, but Jaynes proposes a far more useful way of looking at the condition.
I'll let wikipedia explain it;
Studies suggest that genetics, early environment, neurobiology, psychological and social processes are important contributory factors; some recreational and prescription drugs appear to cause or worsen symptoms...Increased dopamine activity in the mesolimbic pathway of the brain is consistently found in schizophrenic individuals. The mainstay of treatment is antipsychotic medication; this type of drug primarily works by suppressing dopamine activity.
In other words there is quiet a few external factors that cause it and using neurobiology to "fix it", no I'm not saying there is a cure, but that the solution is via medicine to cure it.
I do not understand this criticism at all, please elaborate.
What I'm trying to say is that "a need for external authority in decision-making" is not a very quantifiable remark, some people do need an external authority some don't. I was trying to say that something like this could be simply like a "herd mentality" I wouldn't use this as a support of Jayne's theories.
I must admit that I am very confused by your post. Are you trying to say that people do not experience hallucinations?
No, what I'm saying is that every person would go through this transition where they would have auditory/visual hallucinations, and its clear that not everyone at the time, centuries ago, did.
but I haven't seen anything that can be used to dismiss it today
I have, see the following;
Block, N. (1981). Review of Julian Jayne's Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the
Bicameral Mind. Cognition and Brain Theory
Implying that consciousness is a cultural construct?!
Asaad G, Shapiro B. What about the bicameral mind? Am J Psychiatry 1987
Dennett, Daniel (1986). "Julian Jaynes's Software Archeology". Canadian Psychology
That auditory hallucinations played such a major role in human human mind and history is somewhat difficult to believe.
As for the transition from a bicameral world to the one we inhabit today, Jaynes discusses his idea in detail, perhaps you've forgotten it?
Well if your talking about religion, schizophrenia and the general need for external authority in decision-making as being the "left overs" of bicameralism, I would argue schizophrenia is a real chemical imbalance that has nothing to do with religion, but might have more in common with creative genius, http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/byrd.html
And a need for external authority in decision-making, that's not a real strong argument in itself, as there are plenty of other reasons for this from even an evolutionary perspective.
I have to say I read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind 30 some years ago and found it somewhat implausible. One biggest is problem I have is that there is no clear mechanism that would allow for the two hemispheres of the brain talk to one another as it would appear in an auditory or visual hallucination. Then you have to add why doesn't it occur today? why doesn't anyone who grows up and becomes consciously aware have these auditory/visual hallucinations as they transition? Unless it was the brain evolving in a short few centuries and no longer has that ability? That's just as fantastic in my books.
Still, each story about a scientist gone astray increases the visibility of scientific fraud. Each story reinforces a negative view held by the public and destroys their trust in the scientific system. The potential implications are dire if the public--and therefore those who fund research--regard every scientist as a potential charlatan. Every scientist should therefore reinforce his or her commitment to avoid ignoring any data that do not fit the hypothesis. Honesty is the only weapon against fraud and against public mistrust, and it is available to everyone from technician to professor. We all need to make sure that it remains the dominant ethos in our laboratories.
In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91-19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.
I have a home lab that I tinker in and make things that have been thought of but not quite been made. Try making a magic mirror or something for your kids using a LCD screen, or a automatic door opener that is triggered by voice command, object recognition or RFID. Technology exists but there isn't anything that you can by as yet to do the same thing.
Unfortunately for the real hard scientific research as in labs and universities, it would be far to costly and would take a minimum of a PhD. And if you did have the money and the education well, you wouldn't be asking us.
Now isn't there a lot of methane locked up in methane clathrate? What would the nuclear "option" do to the ~10^10 m3 of methane down there? I'm thinking bad idea...
What liabilities? From a crash into the ocean? You think the squid are going to object? What lawsuits? You don't get to climb into a rocket without signing away EVERY right to sue that you have. When you agree to plant your ass in that seat, you agree that if it doesn't go well, they'll scrape you up, put you in a nice box with a flag on it, and give your wife survivor's benefits. Nobody gets to sue if you get turned into gibs.
Except you can fight written agreements, lawyers do it all the time.
Also let me put it in clearer terms, would you use a spacecraft that the last time one was used everyone died? Not many people would. And yes they maybe able to do a redesign or fix the problem, but not without costing millions if not billions for cost of doing it.
We are talking fledgling companies, if SpaceX were to have similar issues that Toyota has had with their accelerometer sticking and costing them billions of dollars, SpaceX would be out of business, fast.
I hope I'm wrong really, nothing would be nicer to prove me wrong and that SpaceX can handle it and does great. What were are talking about is very high risk, chances are a major accident could easily happen. what happens if it does is the question.
Way back when Ronald Reagan was elected, his big idea was "smaller government and smaller taxes." He cut taxes, and everybody liked that. Then he said "Let's cut Government" and everybody went, "Whoa! Hold on! You can't cut down the EPA! You can't cut down the Department of Education! You can't cut down the Department of Health and Human Services! You can't cut down the Department of Housing and Urban Development! You can't cut down Military Spending! (Actually, I don't think he wanted to) You can't cut down..." and on and on and on.
I wonder just how much is that from politicians saying that the people want it, over the people really wanting it?
Even so, now we have to let go of the things we "think' we want. Never said doing the right thing would be the easiest. One agency like the Department of Eduction that has budgets of Discretionary: $62.6 billion (2009) ARRA Funding: $96.8 billion could easily be cut because since it's inception in 1979 has had no noticeable benefits.
I don't disagree with you, but I'm sure there are others who do. 20 billion dollars would fund a lot of homeless shelters. 20 billion dollars would pay for lots of infrastructure repair. 20 billion dollars could extend unemployment benefits to thousands of unemployed Americans, or train them in new fields. 20 billion dollars could be a 50 dollar tax break for all Americans. Whichever side of the political aisle you lean, having an extra 20 billion dollars could fund any number of projects which some Americans would not find as "pointless" as sending probes to Mars or men into orbit.
So why not cut $20 Billion from the military's huge $663.8 billion budget? it probably wouldn't even be noticed.
... until we know of someplace we can permanently stay.
until we're talking about settling another planet/moon, people in space are just tourists. so why is the government funding it?
Well there are plenty of places to stay all we need is the tech to get there. But we keep going back and forth. I don't see Obama's plan working anymore than Bush's constellation plan. It's all open to the next President's whim. Constellation was under funded much like every other government agencies who has a great plan, cost's in Government will always rise, it's the way government is structured. As Obama's plan will seem under funded the next Presidential cycle.
It's obvious that cuts will have to be made, serious cuts to a lot of pointless government agencies, if we are to avoid whats happened to Greece. I just don't think NASA, who's ~20 billion budget which less than 1% of the GDP of the US, should be cut.
I'm emphasizing "human" space travel. The liabilities and law suits could easily put SpaceX out of business. Unless the government will pay any liabilities and costs... wait, then how is that different from what was already done?
Reading some of the post's It looks like most agree to giving up hope on human space travel. How far we've fallen. With Obama's new space agenda, his desire to have private companies take over human space launches, at least to orbit, is admirable. The thing is right now, there is no private company who has launched a single person into orbit. True my favorite, SpaceX, has a launcher and a proposed manned spacecraft, but it has not been tested or launched. If it fails, meaning huge costs to SpaceX and possible liabilities meaning they could easily be bankrupted setting us back years. I have to agree this isn't the way to go.
Articles about lasers...all that's holy name no more! Can't take all the sharks and their lasers on their heads, or lasers with a sharks head on them, enough is enough! Think of something original people!
I believe, sir, that its about the politics that keeps us from real exploration. Going to the moons of mars is OK, but do any real exploration is to go to mars itself and not be satisfied with what comes out as third rate exploration initiatives.
Slashdot Mirror
I do agree with thee article though, companies can be much more productive and innovative if they only did not promote such competitiveness.
Ahmen to that!
Exactly, the desktop is the one thing that's easy to upgrade and to change on a whim. Laptops are OK, but don't have the same capabilities. I'm betting the truly biggest innovation will be, once someone has a wireless video card and Monitor to go with the wireless keyboard, mouse and wireless DVD/Blu-ray/CD drive the desktop will be able to be placed anywhere and you'll be able to anywhere you like, giving you more mobility than a laptop.
I was talking about him http://www.fastcompany.com/1656055/falcon-9-spacex-rockets-commercial-space-musk-launch-nasa-obama being broke, not the company. Still SpaceX doesn't have to much to sell just yet, they are still pretty much in the start-up phase.
Well done Elon, Here's hoping you can stay afloat a little longer to get us back into space!
I do not believe that Jaynes' theory implies that exactly. As I understand it, there are particular social conditions that were once widespread that encouraged hallucinatory experiences. I would expect people to still experience hallucinations today, and they do: imaginary childhood "friends", dead relatives, and "god".
Yes they do have hallucinatory experiences but I don't see a necessary connection to Jayne's theory, and an imaginary childhood friend is defined as a hallucination? Imagination yes but not a hallucination.
I believe Ned Block's criticism was that culture somehow changed to reflect what humans were doing all along. With what we understand about the role of language in thought, this now looks like nonsense.
Really, please show me why this is nonsense? This actually make much more sense than reversing it.
Broadly speaking, yes, consciousness is a cultural construct, but so is agriculture, and the Internet.
Really?! you realize you are comparing consciousness to technologies, both are man-made, I don't see my consciousness as being man-made, sorry.
I do not find "a real chemical imbalance" to be very illuminating, even if it does imply a neurotransmitter deficiency. There are a few interesting associations with schizophrenia, but Jaynes proposes a far more useful way of looking at the condition.
I'll let wikipedia explain it;
Studies suggest that genetics, early environment, neurobiology, psychological and social processes are important contributory factors; some recreational and prescription drugs appear to cause or worsen symptoms...Increased dopamine activity in the mesolimbic pathway of the brain is consistently found in schizophrenic individuals. The mainstay of treatment is antipsychotic medication; this type of drug primarily works by suppressing dopamine activity.
In other words there is quiet a few external factors that cause it and using neurobiology to "fix it", no I'm not saying there is a cure, but that the solution is via medicine to cure it.
I do not understand this criticism at all, please elaborate.
What I'm trying to say is that "a need for external authority in decision-making" is not a very quantifiable remark, some people do need an external authority some don't. I was trying to say that something like this could be simply like a "herd mentality" I wouldn't use this as a support of Jayne's theories.
I must admit that I am very confused by your post. Are you trying to say that people do not experience hallucinations?
No, what I'm saying is that every person would go through this transition where they would have auditory/visual hallucinations, and its clear that not everyone at the time, centuries ago, did.
but I haven't seen anything that can be used to dismiss it today
I have, see the following;
Block, N. (1981). Review of Julian Jayne's Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Cognition and Brain Theory
Implying that consciousness is a cultural construct?!
Asaad G, Shapiro B. What about the bicameral mind? Am J Psychiatry 1987
Dennett, Daniel (1986). "Julian Jaynes's Software Archeology". Canadian Psychology
That auditory hallucinations played such a major role in human human mind and history is somewhat difficult to believe.
As for the transition from a bicameral world to the one we inhabit today, Jaynes discusses his idea in detail, perhaps you've forgotten it?
Well if your talking about religion, schizophrenia and the general need for external authority in decision-making as being the "left overs" of bicameralism, I would argue schizophrenia is a real chemical imbalance that has nothing to do with religion, but might have more in common with creative genius, http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/byrd.html
And a need for external authority in decision-making, that's not a real strong argument in itself, as there are plenty of other reasons for this from even an evolutionary perspective.
I have to say I read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind 30 some years ago and found it somewhat implausible. One biggest is problem I have is that there is no clear mechanism that would allow for the two hemispheres of the brain talk to one another as it would appear in an auditory or visual hallucination. Then you have to add why doesn't it occur today? why doesn't anyone who grows up and becomes consciously aware have these auditory/visual hallucinations as they transition? Unless it was the brain evolving in a short few centuries and no longer has that ability? That's just as fantastic in my books.
Still, each story about a scientist gone astray increases the visibility of scientific fraud. Each story reinforces a negative view held by the public and destroys their trust in the scientific system. The potential implications are dire if the public--and therefore those who fund research--regard every scientist as a potential charlatan. Every scientist should therefore reinforce his or her commitment to avoid ignoring any data that do not fit the hypothesis. Honesty is the only weapon against fraud and against public mistrust, and it is available to everyone from technician to professor. We all need to make sure that it remains the dominant ethos in our laboratories.
In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91-19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.
As quoted from How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738
Unfortunately for the real hard scientific research as in labs and universities, it would be far to costly and would take a minimum of a PhD. And if you did have the money and the education well, you wouldn't be asking us.
Methane is quite harmless in the absence of an oxidizer. As it is underwater
Didn't say that, thinking releasing all that "super" Greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as a even bigger environmental issue.
Now isn't there a lot of methane locked up in methane clathrate? What would the nuclear "option" do to the ~10^10 m3 of methane down there? I'm thinking bad idea...
What liabilities? From a crash into the ocean? You think the squid are going to object? What lawsuits? You don't get to climb into a rocket without signing away EVERY right to sue that you have. When you agree to plant your ass in that seat, you agree that if it doesn't go well, they'll scrape you up, put you in a nice box with a flag on it, and give your wife survivor's benefits. Nobody gets to sue if you get turned into gibs.
Except you can fight written agreements, lawyers do it all the time.
Also let me put it in clearer terms, would you use a spacecraft that the last time one was used everyone died? Not many people would. And yes they maybe able to do a redesign or fix the problem, but not without costing millions if not billions for cost of doing it. We are talking fledgling companies, if SpaceX were to have similar issues that Toyota has had with their accelerometer sticking and costing them billions of dollars, SpaceX would be out of business, fast.
I hope I'm wrong really, nothing would be nicer to prove me wrong and that SpaceX can handle it and does great. What were are talking about is very high risk, chances are a major accident could easily happen. what happens if it does is the question.
Way back when Ronald Reagan was elected, his big idea was "smaller government and smaller taxes." He cut taxes, and everybody liked that. Then he said "Let's cut Government" and everybody went, "Whoa! Hold on! You can't cut down the EPA! You can't cut down the Department of Education! You can't cut down the Department of Health and Human Services! You can't cut down the Department of Housing and Urban Development! You can't cut down Military Spending! (Actually, I don't think he wanted to) You can't cut down..." and on and on and on.
I wonder just how much is that from politicians saying that the people want it, over the people really wanting it? Even so, now we have to let go of the things we "think' we want. Never said doing the right thing would be the easiest. One agency like the Department of Eduction that has budgets of Discretionary: $62.6 billion (2009) ARRA Funding: $96.8 billion could easily be cut because since it's inception in 1979 has had no noticeable benefits.
I don't disagree with you, but I'm sure there are others who do. 20 billion dollars would fund a lot of homeless shelters. 20 billion dollars would pay for lots of infrastructure repair. 20 billion dollars could extend unemployment benefits to thousands of unemployed Americans, or train them in new fields. 20 billion dollars could be a 50 dollar tax break for all Americans. Whichever side of the political aisle you lean, having an extra 20 billion dollars could fund any number of projects which some Americans would not find as "pointless" as sending probes to Mars or men into orbit.
So why not cut $20 Billion from the military's huge $663.8 billion budget? it probably wouldn't even be noticed.
... until we know of someplace we can permanently stay.
until we're talking about settling another planet/moon, people in space are just tourists. so why is the government funding it?
Well there are plenty of places to stay all we need is the tech to get there. But we keep going back and forth. I don't see Obama's plan working anymore than Bush's constellation plan. It's all open to the next President's whim. Constellation was under funded much like every other government agencies who has a great plan, cost's in Government will always rise, it's the way government is structured. As Obama's plan will seem under funded the next Presidential cycle.
It's obvious that cuts will have to be made, serious cuts to a lot of pointless government agencies, if we are to avoid whats happened to Greece. I just don't think NASA, who's ~20 billion budget which less than 1% of the GDP of the US, should be cut.
I'm emphasizing "human" space travel. The liabilities and law suits could easily put SpaceX out of business. Unless the government will pay any liabilities and costs... wait, then how is that different from what was already done?
Reading some of the post's It looks like most agree to giving up hope on human space travel. How far we've fallen. With Obama's new space agenda, his desire to have private companies take over human space launches, at least to orbit, is admirable. The thing is right now, there is no private company who has launched a single person into orbit. True my favorite, SpaceX, has a launcher and a proposed manned spacecraft, but it has not been tested or launched. If it fails, meaning huge costs to SpaceX and possible liabilities meaning they could easily be bankrupted setting us back years. I have to agree this isn't the way to go.
Let's say banning salt in New York? and having a $1000 fine if you break that "law" http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_assault_on_salt_an_insult_chefs.html
Facebook is pretty good for things like this.
Who watches CBS news? I don't know a sole who does.
Except if it gets wet. I imagine due to effects from humidity these cells wouldn't last long enough to do much of anything.
Articles about lasers...all that's holy name no more! Can't take all the sharks and their lasers on their heads, or lasers with a sharks head on them, enough is enough! Think of something original people!
Even if it's decades away from being a viable power source, I wonder how much development would be needed to make it into a fusion drive?
I believe, sir, that its about the politics that keeps us from real exploration. Going to the moons of mars is OK, but do any real exploration is to go to mars itself and not be satisfied with what comes out as third rate exploration initiatives.