Misc. Science Topics

[austintorn@aol.com]

Seeing an Apple

We can’t see apples absent a retinal change

Technically no, we can't see them,
But we can bring them into awareness via intention
Or due to subconscious processing that does it for us.

There are thus two ways
To bring an object into awareness,
One via intentionality,
And the other by subconscious processing,
Or unintentionally.

I don't see why there is so much ado
About one and not the other.

In any event we can see the apple
Represented in our mind
And whether the apple that we literally see
Or the apple our mind has conceptualized
Is experienced is a question up for grabs.

We're not sure, the answer may be both—
The pattern which we actually see
Will tell us some specifics about shape, size, etc,
But this appears to get mixed
With our conception and representations
Of apples in general
And so that which rises to awareness
Has undergone some additional washing.

This fact explains in some types
Of illusions and hallucinations—
Can we be sure of what we saw?
Sometimes the answer is no—
Awareness can be duped.

Due to the possibility of a deterministic picture
Of human action and decision making,
Intentionality becomes a slave
To experience and interaction
Up to the moment
Where intentionality appears to be occurring.

This would put intentionality under the realm or rule
Of being the product of experience up to that point,
And would make intentionality
Not quite what it seems to be.

So while we might believe
We are making free willed intentional decisions,
These cannot be any other way.

The data that we have indicates
That the combination of many factors
Could explain decision making.

Metanalysis has its flaws
But it is still based on data—

One of the criticisms is that
Any number of the studies being combined
May have different controls or standards
Which could lead to dubious conclusions.
But we should stick with what the data tells us.

The placebo effect shows us
That belief about something can change
How our brain reacts physically,
Releasing endorphins to lessen pain,
But I don't think this is intentional
From the agent standpoint—
We can't decide to tell our brains
To inhibit only glutaminergic neurons
Or allow acetylcholinase processing.

Likewise we can't will ourselves
To escape from depression on call.

Variations exist in the population
As to the extent one can intentionally control anything.
This suggests a physical aspect to intentionality
That I don't think we can afford to ignore.

It also suggests that intentionality has subcategories
And we must be clear which we are referring to.
Nonetheless there is a limit to how this thing
We are calling intentionality works.

This supports an evolutionary explanation
To the this phenomena.

It is not yet well understood, and sure,
We must be observant of the subjective conditions
To keep context, but I don't think we can rest assured
That the answer is a simple conclusion
That awareness is not physical at this time.

The subject-object example becomes confounded
Due to memory and mental models—
The brain recalls and processes objects
It is familiar with differently than novel objects.

We are more likely to see what is "really" there
When we see something for the first time
Because typically not much contextual information
Processing biases our sensory processing,
Which is what happens when
We view a familiar object or scenery.

This becomes further confounding
When the brain does attempt to "fill in gaps"
And match the perception to something
It is familiar with, which essentially fools us.

Thus that which is perceived in awareness
Is not a pure perception—
It's been corrupted by the contextual processing
Prior to arriving there.

Significant corruption in this system
Can cause us not to be able to tell
What is real and what is not real,
So awareness doesn't necessarily help us
Understand the world or get to any truths.

The auditory analog is interesting—
Activation is more prominent in the right hemisphere
For someone listening to, say,
Tchaikovsky for the first time,
As it is processed as one entity
Rather than broken down into constituent parts.
Those who have listened to Tchaikovsky extensively
Are far more likely to reveal activation
In the left hemisphere,
As the melody is abstracted into more symbols.

That aside, I maintain that experience is biased.
We recognize this as true and do our best
To get around it by inventing things
Like the scientific method to make those
Reviewing our analysis comfortable
That we are invoking the minimum bias possible.

In fact, if we were always biased and in error,
We could never know we are sometimes.

And many times we are
Until someone points out our errors to us
Or we come across something
That brings our errors to our attention.

The mind can cause physical changes in the brain,
As the mind is of the brain.

Neurons that fire together, wire together;
Sometimes this is controlled intentionally,
Sometimes we cannot control it.
Meditation is one way to induce these changes.

I would point out that intentionality
Does not seem to play as important a role
As we would like to think,
And I must assume we would
All like to think that it does.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Primed

With respect to intentionality,
It is reasonable to assume it is primed,
Either by the current environment
Or by the product of experiences
Leading up to that point in time.

We are ignorant of all the states
Leading up to this point —
But if we could know the initial conditions
And track the system up to some arbitrary point,
We could determine all of the actions
Taken by some subject.

The fact that seemingly endless options
Are available to us I think is illusory,
Or stated differently,
While there may be endless options
That we can contemplate,
It is not true that we will choose any one of them.

Most do not understand this. One person stated,
"Well I could choose to simply do the opposite
Of what my personality would suggest,
Thus confounding the theory".

I retorted, you forget that your decision to do so
Includes our current conversation
As part of your experience,
And often present experience
Is a stronger predictor of choice
(this explains impulse buying,
Or home shopping or infomericial purchases).

The same with raising an arm
During a “free will” discussion.
I might even do the same,
But it’s still my reaction based
On the discussion.

[austintorn@aol.com]

(Mythbusters…)

Here’s a sample of the myths they cover:

• Criminal profiling is helpful in solving cases. In most studies, professional profilers barely do better than untrained persons. Most of what they say can be inferred from “base rate information” about criminals: guessing that a serial killer is a white male will be right more than 2/3 of the time just based on statistics.

• A large proportion of criminals successfully use the insanity defense. The insanity defense is raised in less than 1% of criminal trials and is successful only about 25% of the time.

• If you’re unsure of your answer when taking a test, it’s best to stick with your initial hunch. Darn! I wonder how many questions I got wrong over the years because I believed that. 60 studies have consistently shown that students are more likely to change a wrong answer to a right one than vice versa, and students who change more answers tend to get higher test scores.

• Students learn best when teaching styles are matched to their learning styles. This turns out to be an urban legend not supported by any acceptable evidence. It could backfire because students need to correct and compensate for their shortcomings, not avoid them. The authors cite a satirical story from The Onion about nasal learners demanding an odor-based curriculum.

• It’s better to express anger to others than to hold it in. The evidence shows that expressing anger only reinforces it and leads to more aggression.

• Men and women communicate in completely different ways. There are differences, but they are very slight, probably not enough to be meaningful, and definitely not enough to suggest that they are from different planets as claimed in the book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. Women don’t talk more than men: a study of college students carrying recorders showed that both sexes talked about 16,000 words a day.

• A positive attitude can stave off cancer. Not only does the evidence not support this claim, but there is evidence that women who were highly stressed were less likely to develop breast cancer. And attitudes don’t prolong survival: even the most optimistic cancer patients lived no longer than the most fatalistic ones.

• Memory is like a tape recorder.
• Memories of traumatic experiences are commonly repressed.
• Subliminal advertising is effective.
• Playing Mozart’s music to infants boosts their IQ.
• When dying, people pass through a universal series of psychological stages.
• Hypnosis is useful for retrieving memories.
• The polygraph can detect lies.
• Low self-esteem is a major cause of psychological problems.
• Only deeply depressed people commit suicide.
• Abstinence is the only realistic treatment goal for alcoholics.
• Childhood sexual abuse usually leads to adult psychopathology.

The authors also list a total of 250 other myths in a brief “Fiction/Fact” format with suggested resources for further reading.

Some of these facts intrigued me:

Dreams occur in non-REM sleep as well as during REM sleep.

Transcendental meditation yields no greater effects than rest or relaxation alone.

Most women don’t have worse moods in the premenstrual period.

Women are no better than men at guessing the feelings of others.

Sexual content of ads may make people pay more attention, but they are less likely to remember the product’s brand name.

Individual efforts produce better quality ideas than group brainstorming sessions.

If you read this book, you may be challenged to give up some of your cherished beliefs. Some people find it painful to admit that they were wrong. I find it one of the greatest pleasures of skeptical inquiry and science. When I change my mind about something I don’t chastise myself for the original error; I congratulate myself for having learned better and for having achieved a better grasp on reality.

The proper stance of a skeptic or scientist is to defer judgment pending evidence. In practice, that isn’t always possible. We can’t take the time to thoroughly investigate everything we hear. It is reasonable to provisionally accept something that everyone says is true, that is compatible with common sense, that is plausible, and that is often based on some preliminary evidence. As long as we keep in mind that these claims may be based on inadequate evidence and we remain ready to change our minds when better evidence arrives.

The authors have done us a great service by compiling all this information in a handy, accessible form, by showing how science trumps common knowledge and common sense, and by teaching us how to question and think about what we hear. I highly recommend it.

[Fredrick]

Well Austin,

You earned your way into the Poetry section of my website. Let me know if you have any objections to it being posted there and if not whether you need some changes made.

http://www.poetry.pentapublishing.com/Austin.html

I also want to let you know I have posted the Solar Framework at http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...eteness-5.html
Next to the Universal Framework, and the Galactic Framework, you can read about the specificities of this framework, one of the frameworks our brain can follow if it (we) so desires.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Thanks, Fredrick. It looks great. Words with pictures make an unbeatable combo, for they speak to both sides of the brain.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Here's another version:

— Music —

Memory’s ideas recall the last heard tone;
Sensation savors what is presently known;
Imagination anticipates coming sounds—
The delight is such that none could produce alone.

[austintorn@aol.com]

THE VAULT OF EVERYTHING

A spirit led us onward,
Who knows how,
Toward the Library of Babel,
Which contains all the possible books
That could ever be written,
Including, for example,
Better and worse Shakespeare plays,
Brand new plays,
Books with only one word
Of difference among them,
Everyone’s life story
(Even the parts not lived yet),
The Secrets of the Universe,
The true Theory of Everything,
A lot of gibberish, and so on,
As we can’t imagine.

[In fact, I found this story in there,
In a short story book of mine-to-be,
So I just copied it to here.
(yes, it said that too.)]

A clear night sky of infinite possibility
Showered us with photons,
Lighting our way
To the fountain of all knowledge.

“True enlightenment awaits me there,”
I offered to the guiding spirit.

“Don’t be so sure,
Although you might chance upon it,
For the deep truths of enlightenment
Are as needles surrounded and consumed
By the near infinities of the stacks
Of deception and confusion,
For, remember,
EVERYTHING exists in this library.”

“It must be a massive building,” I remarked.

“Well, yes, but it’s bigger on the inside
Than on the outside;
Otherwise, it would have been
Larger than the universe.”

“Bigger on the inside? How?”

“Well, you’ll see, but I’m not sure how—
Maybe through some dimensional extensions—
Or perhaps it’s constructed digitally
And expands as you move about, somehow,
To conserve space;
But, even with compression,
It’s still hundreds of miles wide
In every direction—on the inside.”

“What is Everything, in principle?”

“Every arrangement possible,
Given whatever constraints there are, if any.
Of course, not all paths may be stable,
Sensible, or last very long.”

“That’s a lot—
Why do we live on this particular path
That our Universe has taken?”

“Who the heck knows!”

“What about making the forms of
Substance(s) of a Universe?”

“Well, in the case of the emission
Of the secondary substance(s), let’s say,
It’s every one of the ‘alphabets’
That can be conceived by
The Timeless-Formless-Motionless,
Plus, all of its resultant workable combinations
And interactions of substance.
For this Babel library,
It is every possible arrangement
Of words in every language,
With punctuation, too, naturally.”

“Hey, here it is. I can’t wait!”

Upon entering, they saw stacks of books
In every direction, even up and down,
Stretching toward infinity.

“Where’s the card catalog?”

“There can’t be any,
For many titles and descriptions
Of similar books are too long to differentiate.
Think of the books themselves
As the card catalog.”

“How’s the library organized?”

“It can’t be. It would take forever.”

“Who runs it?”

“Borges is the lone librarian,
But he’s somewhere in the back
And hasn’t been seen for decades.”

“OK, I’ll pick some at random.”
(Hours pass)

“Anything?”

“No, mostly mumbo-jumbo,
But I found one on a table
That someone must have treasured.”

“Oh, yes, he spent his entire lifetime here.
It’s Plato’s ‘Beyond Metaphysics’.”

“Wow! That’s been lost for thousands of years.
But is it the true version?”

“Who knows.”

“This library contains
No information whatsoever!”

“True, but there’s another library next door
That also claims to have Everything.”

“You mean that little ‘hut’
No, wait—I get it—
The library next door is empty.”

“Yes, for the All sums to the None.”

“Wait‚ I found two more good ones
In the stack right near the entrance…”

“One is by you and one is by your friend, Rascal.
You put those there in the first stack
So someone would find them easily
And read them, even though they exist again
Somewhere else in the library.”

“Yes, and I’m even going to let them
Stick out a little on the shelf.”

…

In another chilling Borges’s story,
I read the actual book that he refers to,
The one whose infinite pages
Are ever-changing,
For that’s how books appear to me
In my night dreams.

Sometimes there are even digits occurring
In the middle of words,
Plus, if I look away and then back,
Then the contents of the page have changed.

One time, when the page stabilized
To quite understandable words,
I realized I was reading
Something very profound.

In fact, it was the Ultimate Answer.

I dared not look away
Nor try to copy it with a dream pencil,
But, instead, tore out the page
And crumbled it into my hand,
Then forced myself awake
(it was a lucid dream).
When I awoke,
I had the page in my hand,
And it said:

This page intentionally left blank,
Except for the above,
And the above, etc.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The microcosm of all threads continues…

What is laughter,
Such as that begotten by the
‘Daily Laughter’ thread?

Hardly anything is deemed
To be more parochial
And ephemeral than laughter.

Or more lowly,
For, during much of human history,
The comical has been a mix
Of lewdness, aggression, and mockery.

It begets a peculiar panting
And chest-heaving behavior,
Traditionally viewed as a
“Luxury reflex” serving no purpose.

However, could it be
That it derived from the “false alarm”?

A seemingly threatening situation presents itself;
You go into the “flight or fight” response;
However, the threat proves spurious,
So you alert your social group
To the absence of real danger
By emitting the vocalization of laughter,
One that, as it passes,
Is amplified, contagiously,
From member to member.

The mechanism was then hijacked
For other purposes such as
Hostility or showing superiority.

Still, at the heart of laughter
Lies incongruity,
Such as a grave threat
Revealing itself to be trivial.

It has become a kind of intellectual emotion,
Every joke being an interrupted syllogism,
For example,
“The important things is sincerity.
If you can fake it, you’ve got it made”.

The odd and incomprehensible
Suddenly turns into nothing.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Unification or Separation?

Electricity and magnetism each
Lead to the other, being transformational.
They facilitate action and motion
Through EM’s push-pull of regularity.

The strong force binds the atomic nucleus,
Barely beating EM’s repelling force.
The weak force counters strong’s stability
Through decay that promotes changeability.

Electromagnetism and the weak force
Unify when the temperature gets hot,
As during the Big Bang, and they oppose
The strong force as duality’s balance.

What about gravity? Where has it been?
It needs matter and motion to exist
And so it is the blended result of
All the forces, a secondary effect.

Dualities seem to assist nature:
Good/evil, on/off, hot-cold, man/woman,
Up/down, left-right, here-there, past-future,
And, so, none can exist without the other.

There can be no more unification,
For what One could be versatile enough
To form both the electroweak force and the
Strong—as different as the north/south poles.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Intentionality

It is clear that what we are calling intentionality
Can cause physical changes in brain structure,
But there is nothing special about intentionality
With respect to changing structure—
For, this happens when
We think about something often,
Whether intentional or not.

It turns out that neuron nuclei release factors
Which reach oligodendrocytes and schwann cells
(These glial cells can detect action potentials
In some manner despite not having the capacity
To receive or transmit voltage signals)
And cause “greater” degrees of myelination
For certain circuits or loops.

Likewise the lack of use,
What we can deem to be lack of motivation
Or any intentionality or any thoughts
Can result in atrophy of brain regions.

Intentionality is possible due to our awareness
Of both internal and external states,
Or internal states as the case may be.

We can change the degree
Of perceived intentionality in a subject
By administering drugs, DBS, and other methods,
From inducing lack of motivation to creating it.

Thus, intentionality is in some way
Tied to motivation—
Which is further tied to other states,
Processes and so forth.

This suggests that awareness is critically
And completely dependent on the bottom up—
Cells with genes which link to systems
With processes and so forth.

We don't have any evidence telling us
That it exists in the absence of these things,
So it is very reasonable to conclude dependence,
Over invisible schemes merely pronounced.

It’s difficult to then argue that despite this
It has its own phenomenal explanation
Separate and apart from that
Which appears to give rise to it.