---------- >From: "Thomas Lunde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Selma Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Futurework] (no subject) >Date: Sun, Sep 21, 2003, 4:58 PM >
> > > Bob Este wrote on this thread: > > Here we are not falling into the old metaphoric trap of saying "the > brain is a computer", but instead are usefully applying the more > flexible and helpful comparison of "the computer and our brain are > similar in some ways". > > Keith wote: > > The truth is revealed by instances of physical brain function > disruption, which can be generated by strokes, or by radical > surgical intervention. The surgical instance is most impressive, > as in this case, the majority of the brain is fully severed into > left and right halves to stop massive epileptic attacks. As a > result, the patients become, at the intellectual, interpretive > level, two distinct entities which do not share any information, > > Selma wrote: > > The other is the distinction between mind and brain which, IMHO, has been > avoided, disdained on this list, because the idea of mind as something > separate from the brain's workings being held as akin to discussions about > 'soul' and 'spirituality', god forbid :). Naturally this subject should > include a discussion of consciousness which I think has also been avoided > here. > > Thomas Comments: > > The outstanding thing to me is why we don't die when our left and right > brains are seperated! Keith promuglates a "lower brain" without giving it > any more detail. My best definition to date after thousands of hours > reading, listening to tapes and attending seminars is: "the brain is a > reprogramable response mechanism." > > This encompassess the physical structure of the brain in more of an > orientation towards the activities we do with computers. It takes > information in and combines that information in some magical way to make > behaviors, language, movement and thought plus a whole host of other things > like releasing hormones which are percieved by different bodily organs and > locations as emotions, etc. Scientist can see this activity with scans and > instruments. > > So now we come to Selma's question: Is there another agency, mostly > unconscious to the conscious mind, that provides input and direction that > may come from other portions of ourselves not yet identified by science or > unable to be identified by science's tools and instruments. If so how could > we know except through observing activities that do not seem to be under the > direct control of the conscious mind or the subconscious mind. > > What would those activities be? Well, a computer model does not create > other than by combining existing knowledge within it's data, so we might > assume that any answer that can be arrived at by deductive reasoning might > well be within the range of a biological computer mode. That leaves answers > that could be labelled inductive. Those leaps away from what is known to > what is unknown. These are the equivalent of biological mutation in gene > structre. Except we all intuit mutation in our thought that seems to defy > our habitual responses and past information. We call this creativity. > > > But that is still chugging along at the level of intellect. Let me try > another example. On Friday, I receive a phone call saying I cannot work > this weekend because the transmission went out on my Taxi. On Sat, I am > driving my daughter around shopping and we are planning a movie and dinner. > All of a sudden I suggest - for no reason I can think of - that we go home, > finish our shopping tomorrow and I will cook dinner. With a small > hesitation, she agrees. We arrive home about 4:30 in the afternoon and as I > walk through the door, the phone is ringing. It is from a friend I haven't > seen in 6 months who arrived in Regina unannounced, had tried to phone me an > hour ago and was heading out of town to pick up some stored material at a > house he owns. I offer to help and he drives 20 km back to town to pick me > up. We have an enjoyable several hours together and then he leaves. Now in > my normal course of life, I would have worked Fri and Sat night as I have > done for the last year. This weekend I didn't. Normally, I would have > gladly forgone cooking and enjoyed dinner and a movie with my daughter, what > prompted me to change my mind, I was suprised at the words coming out of my > mouth. What are the odds that a friend would show up unexpectedly and phone > me at the exact minute I walked in the door. > > Now my question is: Is this an activity that would point towards the > concept of a mind, that is influencing my life outside of my conscious > awareness for purposes of which I have no knowledge. Statistically, it > seems almost impossible that those circumstances happened outside of my > normal routines and planned activities. What purpose was accomplished? > > Any thoughts? > > Respectfully, > > Thomas Lunde > ---------- >>From: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Keith Hudson" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "pete [EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: [Futurework] (no subject) >>Date: Sun, Sep 21, 2003, 8:09 AM >> > >> I really enjoyed this post, but I only have a minute right now to mention >> that it brought to mind a couple of concepts that I believe are closely >> relatedand that it would be fun to discuss and on which I will try to post >> later: >> >> One is the idea of emergence; that idea is, I think coming out of systems >> theory and probably network theory now; >> >> The other is the distinction between mind and brain which, IMHO, has been >> avoided, disdained on this list, because the idea of mind as something >> separate from the brain's workings being held as akin to discussions about >> 'soul' and 'spirituality', god forbid :). Naturally this subject should >> include a discussion of consciousness which I think has also been avoided >> here. >> >> I think Bob Estey's wonderful post has some very important stuff in it that >> I see as leading to those two or three or more subjects; I'll try to post >> more later about some of my thoughts and reading. >> >> Also, ( I know I should never start to do this when I have to do something >> else) I am intrigued by the fact that Arthur Koestler has been mentioned >> twice here in the last few days. It's no surprise when creativity is being >> discussed but he has some wonderful ideas about levels of analysis and >> their relation to creativity which leads to ideas about language, a la >> Watzlawick, etc., etc., etc. >> >> Exciting stuff! >> >> Selma >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ray Evans Harrell" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "pete >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Harry Pollard" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 3:09 AM >> Subject: [Futurework] (no subject) >> >> >>> All: >>> >>> The weaving of ideas and threads about linear and non-linear thinking >>> resonates with aspects of a paper I'm developing having to do with >>> (for lack of a better term) emergent ambient intelligence, and so I'd >>> like to add a bit of my current effort into those threads. >>> >>> The folks with whom I'm very fortunately working at the moment are >>> greatly talented and highly gifted electrical and computer engineers. >>> They're exploring ideas originating with Koestler's notion of the >>> "holonic enterprise" and, based on this, are beavering away in their >>> respective crafts to come up with robust and elegant algorithms that >>> describe, account for and allow calculation, prediction and >>> simulation in whatever varieties of nested hierarchical computational >>> networks they study and develop. Their application questions address >>> enhancing the computational capacities of organizations, especially >>> in industries of various sorts, to deal more effectively, efficiently >>> and productively with all the new complex, extended, nested, >>> electronically-networked emerging virtual organizations we've >>> recently created, in which we are all embedded, and of which we are >>> all a part: herewith is 'network thinking' beyond the orchestra pit. >>> >>> The current discussion threads about linear and non-linear thinking >>> are addressing far more than what Kolb thought of as learning cycles. >>> So far in the exchange, I think there's an implicit comparison being >>> made between the notions of receiving new experiences essentially >>> through a more or less passive stance (that is, standing on the >>> shoulders of all that we've learned and, to the best of our >>> abilities, adding those new experiences to our foundation), versus >>> actively exploring and seeking new experiences of an entirely >>> different order (essentially, using those shoulders to raise >>> ourselves up, and then leave them behind to climb new, unexplored and >>> previously-unexperienced peaks -- some of which my only be generated >>> as a result of our extended climbing effort). >>> >>> Here, I think we can usefully employ some of the interesting concepts >>> being used by my engineering colleagues in their work discovering >>> "ins and outs" of new emerging complex virtual networks having to do >>> with their holonic enterprises. The conceptual models they are >>> exploring and developing have some isomorphism with the beautiful >>> mish-mash of connections, nodes, channels, synaptic gaps and >>> bioelectrochemical mixtures that flicker and swirl among the nested >>> hierarchies of our neurons, and all the other systems that support >>> and maintain them. >>> >>> Here we are not falling into the old metaphoric trap of saying "the >>> brain is a computer", but instead are usefully applying the more >>> flexible and helpful comparison of "the computer and our brain are >>> similar in some ways". Being careful to make this distinction, we >>> can advance the notion that the brain and the computer have complex >>> features that suggest they are types of system ecologies. We can >>> rapidly spread our conceptual fields regarding ecologies to think >>> about all other such systems: for example, without robust nested >>> networks and sub-systems of a great many varieties, functions and >>> descriptions, our bodies (and, presumably, everything likewise >>> connected to this example) would simply not be. Considering >>> everything from algae to ponds, to lakes and rivers and thence to >>> oceans, from alpine meadows to deserts and forests, from fields of >>> corn to ocean-bottom 'black smokers', to dust storms and thunderheads >>> to biomes of every description, we see a huge variety of >>> interconnected networks of nested hierarchical systems and >>> sub-systems, furiously (and otherwise) engaging each other with >>> countless energy, materials and information transactions. >>> >>> Man-made things and systems of things are little different from this. >>> We can think of what are appearing as our new nanotechnologies, or >>> our old familiar washing machines and fancy new laptop computers; >>> automobiles old and new, production lines, supply chains and >>> spaghetti junctions; the shop floors and quality circles and >>> inventories and distribution centres and retail outlets, and all the >>> things that have converged and continue to do so, over and over and >>> over, to shape our realities; the homes we live in, the skyscrapers, >>> the cities and our the largest spreading interlinked conurbations; >>> our phone networks, power systems and infrastructure grids of every >>> type and description, all the way to the Internet -- every one of >>> them complex networked nested hierarchical systems and sub-systems, >>> again engaging each other with countless energy, materials and >>> information transactions. >>> >>> All of these networked ecologies are engaged in processes of bounded, >>> robust, networked computation, all interacting, all dependent on, >>> steered by and making use of thresholds with varying permeability and >>> purpose and countless channels of varying size and capacities, all >>> comprised of vibrant tuned and self-tuning networks carrying and >>> supporting every conceivable energy, material and information >>> transaction. >>> >>> I paint this image because I suspect that our senses of, or what has >>> been discussed as 'lateral thinking' and 'linear thinking', of >>> creativity and inventiveness and adaptability, of foundations of deep >>> robust knowledge permitting our excitement and pleasure of design, >>> exploration, discovery and achievement, and perhaps of eventually >>> arriving at what we hope really does turn out to be wisdom -- I >>> suspect all of these are features of our own emergent ambient >>> intelligence that resides at all levels of our own holonic enterprise. >>> >>> My electrical and computer engineering friends are pretty sure they >>> are on the right track, that their investigative and exploratory >>> efforts will lead them to develop new and very useful computational >>> tools applicable to and capable of dealing with the growing levels of >>> systemic complexity and ever-increasing speed of our aforementioned >>> transactions; and, of course, being agents in a holonic enterprise, >>> what they develop will recursively add to that complexity as well as >>> enhance capacities to understand and deal with it. They are sure we >>> will understand holonic enterprises better, and as a result will be >>> able to make improved use of them as they evolve and self-organize >>> into areas, features, capacities and niches we can't even imagine. I >>> think my engineering friends will successfully accomplish what >>> they've set out to do. >>> >>> I also suspect that our minds are just like that. I think that our >>> colleagues in many fields are doing the equivalent of what so many of >>> our greatest trail-breaking explorers have already accomplished -- >>> explorers such as Galileo, Copernicus, Liebniz, Newton, Boole, Frege, >>> Russell, Einstein, Gödel, and Feynman, to name just a few. With >>> their variously-focused efforts, they reveal, explore, explicate, >>> model and apply facets of what our minds already have the potential >>> to do, and thereby create the spaces where innovation can take place. >>> As with the development and application of the telescope and >>> microscope, for example, and the emergence of conceptual models of >>> non-euclidian geometry, of formalism, intuitionism and logicism, of >>> chaos and complexity theory and all that has been thereby generated >>> and continues to flow from them, they provide new scientific, >>> conceptual and organizational tools that amplify, enhance and combine >>> anew our already-present capacities, to allow us to reach into >>> nascent levels of perception and abstraction and worlds with orders >>> of magnitude far beyond what we ever once thought we could perceive, >>> think about, or imagine. But now, we do this, we will continue to do >>> this, and even more so. And we will do it well. >>> >>> All of this emphasizes that what we think of as 'linear' and >>> 'lateral' thinking are necessary parts of the whole. When we >>> appreciate really good, first-class jazz, read an article that >>> reveals a new and powerful insight, or when we gaze down at the >>> valley from the wonderful vantage point of the peak that may have >>> taken us the equivalent of our lifetime to first see and finally >>> scale, every step we have taken is of both varieties. 'twas always >>> thus, methinks. >>> >>> Cheers / Bob Este / Ph.D candidate / U of Calgary >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Futurework mailing list >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Futurework mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
