RE: Brain is not a holograph (RE: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
Many thanks for the pointers to Pribram, Ray, and for getting the mental juices rolling on this. It does take me back to an interest I had in earlier years, and which I put aside for other curiosities. And again, thanks for the sharing of information. Best regards, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 6:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Brain is not a holograph (RE: America in decline? (was Re: > What is Economics, Hudson? > > > The > > holographic idea only had flimsy evidence based on earlier > experiments on > > mice and rats which showed that a learned act seemed to be > scattered over > > the most of the perceptual processing areas of the brain, because > excisions > > of cortical tissue had to be very extensive indeed before the > learned act > > finally vanished from the repertoire. It was supposed, therefore, that > > originally there were multiple copies of the learned act scattered over > > large parts of the cortex and, even when very few remained (perhaps even > > only one!), then the full performance of the act could be resurrected in > > rather the same way that a holographic image can be resurrected > from very > > small parts of the whole. However, the mice experiments were > pretty crude. > > I'm way out of my league on this since I haven't done any work in it since > the late seventies and early eighties when I got my certification. > However if you type Karl H. Pribram into Amazon.com you will find > book being > written on it as late as 1994 and I believe there are three > including one of > those expensive types that usually means its too hard for the layman. So > you can find out for yourself.In the early stages they weren't only > talking about brain activity and as recent as last year there was in that > great scientific journal the New York Times Science section an article on > brain neurons found in the gut that weren't just wanderers.I > don't mean > to get into a tete with Keith on this since he obviously has a > lot more time > to donate to it than I but it was in the NYTimes and it did fit with my > experience. > > > > Parts of the learned act are indeed to be found in different > parts of the > > brain but only specialised aspects of it, and if a few of those > parts are > > excised then the other parts can still associate together and > perform the > > act (albeit less skilfully). Had the experimenters excised certain other > > very precise areas of the brain -- namely the motor strip that gathers > > together and synthesises all the specialised aspects of the act and > > instructs the muscles to perform the act as an integrated whole -- then > the > > learned act could not be performed at all. Indeed, over time, > because the > > specialised parts of the original memory of the learned act could never > > again "complete the circuit", as it were, the synapses would weaken and > the > > neuronal cells that were dedicated to the particular act would die from > > disuse. > > > > Here's another example based on the "grannie cell" approach. You and I > will > > have multiple instances of the concept of tomato scattered all over our > > cortex, each with varying proportions of perceptual speciality and at > > different levels of processing according to the inputs that are usually > > involved when faced with a tomato and eating it or even throwing it at > your > > least favourite politician (visual, taste, tactility, etc.) However, it > > would be possible that if either of us had a small stroke in a > > microscopically small area of the Wernicke's areas of the brain (perhaps > > only involving two or three cells perhaps) then the ability to utter the > > word "tomato" will have gone for good. You would be able to > remember that > a > > tomato was pleasant to eat. You would be able to choose a tomato from a > > pile of other fruit when asked to. But if you were asked the name of a > > tomato sitting on a plate in front of you would not be able to > answer. You > > would not even "know" the answer. You would shake your head in > puzzlement > > as though you'd never seen one before. However, if you were then > > instructed: "Pick up the tomato from the plate", you would be able to do > so > > instantly. (This is similar to experiences that occur to tens > of thousands > > of people every year when they have had minor strokes so it is not a > > fanciful e
Re: Brain is not a holograph (RE: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
The > holographic idea only had flimsy evidence based on earlier experiments on > mice and rats which showed that a learned act seemed to be scattered over > the most of the perceptual processing areas of the brain, because excisions > of cortical tissue had to be very extensive indeed before the learned act > finally vanished from the repertoire. It was supposed, therefore, that > originally there were multiple copies of the learned act scattered over > large parts of the cortex and, even when very few remained (perhaps even > only one!), then the full performance of the act could be resurrected in > rather the same way that a holographic image can be resurrected from very > small parts of the whole. However, the mice experiments were pretty crude. I'm way out of my league on this since I haven't done any work in it since the late seventies and early eighties when I got my certification. However if you type Karl H. Pribram into Amazon.com you will find book being written on it as late as 1994 and I believe there are three including one of those expensive types that usually means its too hard for the layman. So you can find out for yourself.In the early stages they weren't only talking about brain activity and as recent as last year there was in that great scientific journal the New York Times Science section an article on brain neurons found in the gut that weren't just wanderers.I don't mean to get into a tete with Keith on this since he obviously has a lot more time to donate to it than I but it was in the NYTimes and it did fit with my experience. > Parts of the learned act are indeed to be found in different parts of the > brain but only specialised aspects of it, and if a few of those parts are > excised then the other parts can still associate together and perform the > act (albeit less skilfully). Had the experimenters excised certain other > very precise areas of the brain -- namely the motor strip that gathers > together and synthesises all the specialised aspects of the act and > instructs the muscles to perform the act as an integrated whole -- then the > learned act could not be performed at all. Indeed, over time, because the > specialised parts of the original memory of the learned act could never > again "complete the circuit", as it were, the synapses would weaken and the > neuronal cells that were dedicated to the particular act would die from > disuse. > > Here's another example based on the "grannie cell" approach. You and I will > have multiple instances of the concept of tomato scattered all over our > cortex, each with varying proportions of perceptual speciality and at > different levels of processing according to the inputs that are usually > involved when faced with a tomato and eating it or even throwing it at your > least favourite politician (visual, taste, tactility, etc.) However, it > would be possible that if either of us had a small stroke in a > microscopically small area of the Wernicke's areas of the brain (perhaps > only involving two or three cells perhaps) then the ability to utter the > word "tomato" will have gone for good. You would be able to remember that a > tomato was pleasant to eat. You would be able to choose a tomato from a > pile of other fruit when asked to. But if you were asked the name of a > tomato sitting on a plate in front of you would not be able to answer. You > would not even "know" the answer. You would shake your head in puzzlement > as though you'd never seen one before. However, if you were then > instructed: "Pick up the tomato from the plate", you would be able to do so > instantly. (This is similar to experiences that occur to tens of thousands > of people every year when they have had minor strokes so it is not a > fanciful example.) So this example is an attempt to describe the phenomenon > that some thought was holographic. Does the description of a unique synapse mean that the map for the human being is not contained on a micro-level? I don't know, its not my area of expertise. On the other hand there are junction models found in all kinds of systems. I have no doubt that in the future there will be some kind of "miracle" healing of what Keith describes. It would have been wonderful for my own mother, for example.However, I don't believe that what he has described is the be all and end all of this question.I also figure that Karl Pribram knows a great deal more than either of us will ever know about it as well. Things that seem simple to the amateurs become a great deal more complicated as informational expertise is added and Pribram is a World Master on this stuff.Again I will mention that Pribram is very much alive as is his theory. I typed his name into Google and found him thriving which pleases me. I also scanned (in a very rudimentary manner) the following http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/which seems to be the comparison that Keith was making. One of the conclusions said a
RE: Brain is not a holograph (RE: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
Greetings, Ray and Keith,
Many thanks for your thoughtful and helpful postings on the idea of the
holographic brain. I am taking the liberty of replying in this email to
both of you, and of troubling you with some additional questions based on
what you describe.
1) I do understand, Ray, the point you made about each cell containing all
the 'information' of a person: our DNA is replicated in each of our cells.
That the cells end up doing different things as the organism forms ( cell
development) is, as I understand it, still one of the big mysteries in
biology. But I think that this passive, activatable coding is not quite the
same as the coding of an idea, say, in the brain, no? That is, the functions
of the brain are the results of collections of neuronal cells acting
together, and not contained within a single neuron. Does this make sense?
2) Holographs If a holographic plate is shattered, does each piece then
still depict the whole of the original picture, or just a part of the whole?
If brain function is generally resilient and can be restored though much of
the relevant parts of the brain have been destroyed, could it not, instead
of many duplicated learned act copies, be because the learned act is
supported by a dense and redundant set of neural pathways? If many of the
neurons are destroyed, this restoration might be ensured by the undamaged
neurons in the original network, with only a bit of re-learning, and, if
necessary, re-growing of some of the messing neurons. It would be very
interesting to compare the recovery rates of brain-damaged individuals to
the time it takes new pathways to be adopted by learned acts that have been
damaged, and the growth of new neurons where the original redundancy was not
adequate.
These are just speculations of course, based on your notes. I am very
interested in what your thoughts are on this.
3) If synapses deteriorate with lack of use, might the opposite not also be
true: and if this is so, might it not be possible that carrying out mental
exercises would actually strengthen specific brain functionings? Gosh!
Might it be possible to train two entirely independent neural networks to do
the same thing, but locate them in different parts of the brain, so that if
one part were damaged, the remaining network would be able to carry on the
functioning, unimpeded? If a person 'can't make up their mind' about
something, might among the reasons for this be that indeed a person has
developed to independent neural nets for the same function, but that they
are just sufficiently different that in some number of cases, they end up in
conflict with each other? More speculation, I know...your thoughts?
4) On this matter of Wernicke's areas and the sensory channel that is being
activated to handle a thought ("tomato"): are you saying that in Wernicke's
areas cells carry out sensory specific operations (visual/tactile/auditory,
etc.)? And that a few cells destruction might cut off a given channel's
access to the thought?
If this is an adequate summary, how does the idea of synesthesia fit in, in
which experience or memory of a thing in one channel triggers a fuller
experience of it in other channels? For example: If I ask you now to
"imagine walking down a street in a quiet village, and you pass by the open
door of a bakery"
What is happening here, in Wernicke's areas, if anything?
5) I can well imagine that functions of analysis and thinking are
distributed throughout the body and that the 'brain is human and limbs are
servants' model is lacking. Why does this seem to make immediate sense to
me? In information technology, we are coming to realize that dispersed
decision-making centers, meshed together through redundant networks, may be
the superior design, in terms of speed of action, local wisdom, overall
wisdom, repair, and resilience to outside damage or attack. So it may be
that the human or other organisms, faced with the need for all of these for
hundreds of millions of years, have 'figured it out' (and I do NOT mean this
teleologically!) through the processes of evolution, and adopted this kind
of architecture for our organic information systems.
6) That our understanding of the brain and human functioning is in a very
young stage is obvious, if frustrating. I have personal experience of this.
One of the areas that I have been trained in is NLP. I was able to improve
on it in some areas that were critical to me, and in the course of doing
this pushed the limit of research pretty aggressively in some the advanced
courses that I taught. In one class, challenged by one of the students, I
was able to cure him of his substantial and debilitating arthritis (elbows
and knees). He and I have stayed in close contact over the 17-18 years that
have passed since then, and he has had zero reoccurrence. Now, the amazing
thing to me is that this worked at all. I had winged an approach after he
offered curing this as a challenge to me. All I did, literally, w
Brain is not a holograph (RE: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
At 12:23 18/08/02 -0700, you wrote: >Greetings, Keith, > >I agree with Ray's "Wow!" >I must have missed the fling -- could you take a couple of minutes >to summarize what Probram's 'holographic' model suggested? Apologies for >not already having some acquaintance with it -- my library is a couple of >thousand miles from here. > >Thanks, >Lawry Lawry, I can't tell you much about Pribram's holographic suggestion because it was never worked out in any detail at all. It was just a interesting hypothesis because holographs had not long been invented and it seemed like an exciting possibility for the brain which at that time was still largely mysterious, micro-electrode probes not having been developed. The holographic idea only had flimsy evidence based on earlier experiments on mice and rats which showed that a learned act seemed to be scattered over the most of the perceptual processing areas of the brain, because excisions of cortical tissue had to be very extensive indeed before the learned act finally vanished from the repertoire. It was supposed, therefore, that originally there were multiple copies of the learned act scattered over large parts of the cortex and, even when very few remained (perhaps even only one!), then the full performance of the act could be resurrected in rather the same way that a holographic image can be resurrected from very small parts of the whole. However, the mice experiments were pretty crude. Parts of the learned act are indeed to be found in different parts of the brain but only specialised aspects of it, and if a few of those parts are excised then the other parts can still associate together and perform the act (albeit less skilfully). Had the experimenters excised certain other very precise areas of the brain -- namely the motor strip that gathers together and synthesises all the specialised aspects of the act and instructs the muscles to perform the act as an integrated whole -- then the learned act could not be performed at all. Indeed, over time, because the specialised parts of the original memory of the learned act could never again "complete the circuit", as it were, the synapses would weaken and the neuronal cells that were dedicated to the particular act would die from disuse. Here's another example based on the "grannie cell" approach. You and I will have multiple instances of the concept of tomato scattered all over our cortex, each with varying proportions of perceptual speciality and at different levels of processing according to the inputs that are usually involved when faced with a tomato and eating it or even throwing it at your least favourite politician (visual, taste, tactility, etc.) However, it would be possible that if either of us had a small stroke in a microscopically small area of the Wernicke's areas of the brain (perhaps only involving two or three cells perhaps) then the ability to utter the word "tomato" will have gone for good. You would be able to remember that a tomato was pleasant to eat. You would be able to choose a tomato from a pile of other fruit when asked to. But if you were asked the name of a tomato sitting on a plate in front of you would not be able to answer. You would not even "know" the answer. You would shake your head in puzzlement as though you'd never seen one before. However, if you were then instructed: "Pick up the tomato from the plate", you would be able to do so instantly. (This is similar to experiences that occur to tens of thousands of people every year when they have had minor strokes so it is not a fanciful example.) So this example is an attempt to describe the phenomenon that some thought was holographic. Does this satisfy? Keith -- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
ssage - From: "Lawrence de Bivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 3:23 PM Subject: RE: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson? > Greetings, Keith, > > I agree with Ray's "Wow!" > > I must have missed the fling -- could you take a couple of minutes > to summarize what Probram's 'holographic' model suggested? Apologies for > not already having some acquaintance with it -- my library is a couple of > thousand miles from here. > > Thanks, > Lawry >
RE: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
Greetings, Keith, I agree with Ray's "Wow!" I must have missed the fling -- could you take a couple of minutes to summarize what Probram's 'holographic' model suggested? Apologies for not already having some acquaintance with it -- my library is a couple of thousand miles from here. Thanks, Lawry
Re: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
Keith, You are right on! There are a couple of supporting bits of evidence. 1) We are willing to put security over freedom [John Ashcroft is the first step in a fulfilling of the novel '1984' although the author blew it by 24 years]. 2) Willingness of the Bush/Cheney combo to delay action on Enron because of their deep links with Enron even at the risk of having voters express their anger in the November elections shows the extent to which this party feels they can get around the legal system. 3) More disturbing to Republicans running for election in November is the Bush administrations' continuing to push for shifting Social Security deductions to the stock market even with the disastrous ride. They realize that the thing that has been keeping the market high is the enormous number of baby boomers who have been fueling the speculation. Now that boomers are starting to retire and pull money out of stocks to live [the recent crash has accelerated that], we are living in a house of cards. The large tax cuts arranged by this administration will increase the trend. Their goal has been to diminish government by cutting available funds, much more Reaganistic than a following of the policies of George Bush #41 [or '41' as the son refers to him]. Bill Ward On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 08:29:28 +0100 Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ray, > > I'm mainly replying to your posting, but also copying to Karen and > Ed. > > You found my final description (of the frontal lobes of the cortex) > just a > little too cute. Well, yes, I brought it in almost as an adjunct to > the > economistic-type argument previously -- but mainly because I wasn't > able to > intertwine both trains of thought more organically in a brief > posting. > Nevertheless, I regard the fact of the large size of our frontal > lobes (our > "novelty-seeking brain") as of great importance. > > But before I mention frontal lobes again, let me answer your charge > that > Americans are not so much motivated by novelty as by security -- > "Homeland > Security, Public Health, Financial Security, etc." You may well be > right -- > you know America and Americans better than I do, obviously. (In > fact, I'm > sure you're right -- England has long been in this condition.) How I > would > answer this (and there have been many traces of this view in my > previous FW > posts going back months/years, so I haven't cooked it up for > present > purposes) is by saying that I believe that America is now in > decline. > > Now I hope you will not be offended by this. Just bear in mind -- as > I'm > sure you do -- that all empires and civilisations have their day. > In > previous times they lasted for centuries, the earliest ones for a > millenium > or two; in more recent times, their lifespan is shorter. Think of > the > immense economic power and territorial span of the British Empire at > around > the turn of the 20th century. No-one could have possibly dreamed > that the > mere matter of the First world War should have debilitated it so > profoundly > that everything that characterised Britishness withered away quite > rapidly > from then onwards. By mid-century, to all intents and purposes, the > British > Empire had totally vanished, even though some residual institutions > (the > so-called "British Commonwealth") linger on. > > If I say, therefore, that America might be in steep decline -- even > now, > while it appears to be immensely powerful -- history shows that it's > got to > be a respectable proposition. As you'll know, America's possible > decline > has been discussed pretty thoroughly by Paul Kennedy in "The Rise > and Fall > of the Great Powers" and I won't attempt to repeat his analysis. > Suffice it > to say, however, that when a nation has lost that vital spark of > discovery > and adventurousness of the mind (which is what I suggest is > happening), and > is more concerned with deep worries about security, then that is a > very > important symptom of decline indeed. I hope you will accept that > this has > not been said in any sense of being anti-American as many European > intellectuals are wont to do. In fact, I am a great admirer of what > America > has achieved and, in many ways -- constitutionally and > educationally > (particularly in its best universities) -- it is still a far better > country > than dear old England. > > Nor have I written this because I have necessarily transferred my > affections elsewhere already. I have written in times past on FW > about > China as possibly being the next predominant civilization. I also > happen to > think that, for cultural, legal and institutional reasons, it is > probably > better place than any other country to develop what I think will be > the > next economically powerful "novelty good" -- biogenetics generally > and > organ replacement via cloning in particular. Be that as it may, > China has > other very considerable institutional problems (like
Re: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
At 15:45 17/08/02 -0400, you wrote:
(REH)
Wow Keith,
That is some gift you gave me this morning.I'm having to work more on
other projects due to the financial issues that we all are talking about on
the list.e.g. I lost an "account" yesterday which amounted to 20% of my
income when that account had to cut 30% of its work force because one of
their accounts declared bankruptcy.So I have less time for
contemplative writing due to the fact that my business comes not from
salary but from individual job to job. But let me make a couple of
statements.
I am sorry to hear about your economic problems. I am afraid that I can't
comfort you with an optimistic view of America's economy generally. There
are too many debts (literal and metaphorical) acquired during the
profligacy of the past ten years to be paid off quickly. In my view, it's
going to be a long haul of painful deflation in the years ahead that could
only be circumvented prematurely by a resumption of the sort of
hyper-inflation of the 70s. If this is helpful in your planning for the
future, so be it. Certainly if I were a touch younger (I don't much care
now, except for the future of my grandchildren) I would not really know
what I would do by way of maximising my own financial security for the
years immediately ahead.
1. You answer my point about the Supra Limbic Brain in the end of your
post, which is that we are all still speculating on brain material.
Brain Neurons have been found in other parts of the body as well, including
the stomach and we may very well find that Carl Pribram's "holographic"
model of physical consciousness, on a cellular level, is closer to the
mark than the individual mechanical systems model that you are using.
No brain scientist of any repute espouses Pribram's ideas today. It had a
fashionable fling a decade or two ago as neuroscience was beginning to take
off rapidly but, as the cortex is being increasingly mapped, it is
certainly not believed to be holographic. Most brain cells are highly
associated with many others all over the cortex and brain activity and
versions of a particular memory may be found in multiple places, but there
such things as extremely specific neurons ("grannie cells") which, if
removed (or affected by a stroke, for example), constitute a memory loss
which cannot be restored from elsewhere in the brain (as would be implied
by a purely holographic cortex).
(REH)
That is my only point as was yours when you said:
"our knowledge of neurophysiology is totally insufficient to bear my case
for novelty in "Hudson Economics"
It doesn't bear building an economic theory, but it is certainly the case
that the vast extent of the frontal lobes (compared with other primates) is
known to be concerned with novel perceptions (and various ways of dealing
with them by way of planning future action).
2. I find it interesting that you now return to the Arts as artifact of
cultural advancement rather than thought i.e. math.I share that model
and welcome you back aboard.It is the discovery of great expression in
the Art of an Era that defines what is truly novel and inventive and that
which is merely derivative.Derivation being that which one protects as
Tradition. Understand I value Traditional Art as living history but I
believe that a society whose current art has either sunk to derivation and
imitation or whose expression has withered IS in decline.That happened
in England during the time of George III. But you said and I agree.
I don't think I've ever said that Art in a general sense had terminated.
What I have said is that the specific arts that arose in the medieval ages
have probably developed as far as they are able because they have explored
all possible skills within the physiological parameters on which they
depend (the human hand-and-eye for the graphic arts, the range of voices
for music, the size of the human frame and its requirements for
architecture, the abilities of the human body for dancing, etc, etc).
Perhaps new forms of Art may emerge in the future -- but (in my view) not
of the sort that disfigure the world of Art today (paintings from elephant
dung, pickled corpses of sheep, Cage's music composed of silence, etc).
(REH)
3. I think that your comment on species difference is not scientific.
In fact most science loses objectivity when talking about that.
EVERYTHING that is written about the consciousness of other species is pure
projection.It is much worse than a mono-lingual Englishman writing
about the significance of French thought in the French language. I would
think that the common mis-understandings in our species alone around the
behavior of other languages and cultures would create a certain amount of
humility but that is too much to ask at this point.As we become more
linguistically sophisticated what we used to claim about other cultures is
now claimed about species that we have no in
Re: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
Wow Keith, That is some gift you gave me this morning. I'm having to work more on other projects due to the financial issues that we all are talking about on the list.e.g. I lost an "account" yesterday which amounted to 20% of my income when that account had to cut 30% of its work force because one of their accounts declared bankruptcy. So I have less time for contemplative writing due to the fact that my business comes not from salary but from individual job to job. But let me make a couple of statements. 1. You answer my point about the Supra Limbic Brain in the end of your post, which is that we are all still speculating on brain material. Brain Neurons have been found in other parts of the body as well, including the stomach and we may very well find that Carl Pribram's "holographic" model of physical consciousness, on a cellular level, is closer to the mark than the individual mechanical systems model that you are using. That is my only point as was yours when you said: "our knowledge of neurophysiology is totally insufficient to bear my case for novelty in "Hudson Economics" 2. I find it interesting that you now return to the Arts as artifact of cultural advancement rather than thought i.e. math. I share that model and welcome you back aboard. It is the discovery of great expression in the Art of an Era that defines what is truly novel and inventive and that which is merely derivative. Derivation being that which one protects as Tradition. Understand I value Traditional Art as living history but I believe that a society whose current art has either sunk to derivation and imitation or whose expression has withered IS in decline. That happened in England during the time of George III. But you said and I agree. "why we, humans, should be so much concerned with philosophies and religions about our significance and the future, making discoveries, rearranging basic elements into objets d'art, etc." 3. I think that your comment on species difference is not scientific. In fact most science loses objectivity when talking about that. EVERYTHING that is written about the consciousness of other species is pure projection. It is much worse than a mono-lingual Englishman writing about the significance of French thought in the French language. I would think that the common mis-understandings in our species alone around the behavior of other languages and cultures would create a certain amount of humility but that is too much to ask at this point. As we become more linguistically sophisticated what we used to claim about other cultures is now claimed about species that we have no instruments for defining intent beyond observing our own children. I'm reminded of a student of mine who was participating in a cellular study at Rockefeller University here in New York City. She spoke of how, after watching the activities of bacteria for a long period of time it became easy to ascribe human consciousness to their activities even though there was no evidence to support it. In short I believe this is not a viable argument given the information that we possess in the judgment of non-human life's intentionality. Thanks again for your wonderful post. I must admit to preferring Hudson's Economics to many of the models that I've seen. I apologize for being brief although I suspect there are those who will applaud such things. Have a good day and enjoy the tea and walk. Your Friend in New York Ray Evans Harrell - Original Message - From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 3:29 AM Subject: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson? > Ray,> > I'm mainly replying to your posting, but also copying to Karen and Ed.> > You found my final description (of the frontal lobes of the cortex) just a> little too cute. Well, yes, I brought it in almost as an adjunct to the> economistic-type argument previously -- but mainly because I wasn't able to> intertwine both trains of thought more organically in a brief posting.> Nevertheless, I regard the fact of the large size of our frontal lobes (our> "novelty-seeking brain") as of great importance.> > But before I mention frontal lobes again, let me answer your charge that> Americans are not so much motivated by novelty as by security -- "Homeland> Security, Public Health, Financial Security, etc." You may well be right --> you know America and Americans better than I do, obviously. (In fact, I'm> sure yo
America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
Ray, I'm mainly replying to your posting, but also copying to Karen and Ed. You found my final description (of the frontal lobes of the cortex) just a little too cute. Well, yes, I brought it in almost as an adjunct to the economistic-type argument previously -- but mainly because I wasn't able to intertwine both trains of thought more organically in a brief posting. Nevertheless, I regard the fact of the large size of our frontal lobes (our "novelty-seeking brain") as of great importance. But before I mention frontal lobes again, let me answer your charge that Americans are not so much motivated by novelty as by security -- "Homeland Security, Public Health, Financial Security, etc." You may well be right -- you know America and Americans better than I do, obviously. (In fact, I'm sure you're right -- England has long been in this condition.) How I would answer this (and there have been many traces of this view in my previous FW posts going back months/years, so I haven't cooked it up for present purposes) is by saying that I believe that America is now in decline. Now I hope you will not be offended by this. Just bear in mind -- as I'm sure you do -- that all empires and civilisations have their day. In previous times they lasted for centuries, the earliest ones for a millenium or two; in more recent times, their lifespan is shorter. Think of the immense economic power and territorial span of the British Empire at around the turn of the 20th century. No-one could have possibly dreamed that the mere matter of the First world War should have debilitated it so profoundly that everything that characterised Britishness withered away quite rapidly from then onwards. By mid-century, to all intents and purposes, the British Empire had totally vanished, even though some residual institutions (the so-called "British Commonwealth") linger on. If I say, therefore, that America might be in steep decline -- even now, while it appears to be immensely powerful -- history shows that it's got to be a respectable proposition. As you'll know, America's possible decline has been discussed pretty thoroughly by Paul Kennedy in "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" and I won't attempt to repeat his analysis. Suffice it to say, however, that when a nation has lost that vital spark of discovery and adventurousness of the mind (which is what I suggest is happening), and is more concerned with deep worries about security, then that is a very important symptom of decline indeed. I hope you will accept that this has not been said in any sense of being anti-American as many European intellectuals are wont to do. In fact, I am a great admirer of what America has achieved and, in many ways -- constitutionally and educationally (particularly in its best universities) -- it is still a far better country than dear old England. Nor have I written this because I have necessarily transferred my affections elsewhere already. I have written in times past on FW about China as possibly being the next predominant civilization. I also happen to think that, for cultural, legal and institutional reasons, it is probably better place than any other country to develop what I think will be the next economically powerful "novelty good" -- biogenetics generally and organ replacement via cloning in particular. Be that as it may, China has other very considerable institutional problems (like Japan, mainly the state of its banks) and may not make it into the first ranks for these reasons. (And also -- mark this as being very important -- the previous involvement of Bush and Cheney in share schemes similar to those of Enron suggests a moral turpitude at the very top of America's establishment -- the sort of things that appears to be so prevalent in the decline of civilisations of the past. I wouldn't want to give too much weight to this at this stage, but the very heart of American decency and honesty has been compromised.) Now let me turn to your charge that the avidity of the frontal lobes for novelty is too vague and general because it can also include "Colliseum murders in Rome or the invention of Opera". Indeed it can (particularly the latter!). But let's take murder for example. If a demented person violently attacks my nearest and dearest, and I have have a suitable weapon to hand, it is quite likely that I will kill him if there is no other method of pacifying him. My frontal lobes would be scarcely involved in that. Emotions springing from the deepest parts of my brain, and fairly mechanical perceptual processing of the situation, plus some well-practised muscular movements on my part, would do the job. But if I were to carry out a premeditated murder which involved planning very particular circumstances (a novel situation, indeed) then my frontal lobes would certainly be involved -- probably for days beforehand. (Also, interestingly, PET scans show that the frontal lobes of a "depressed" person are very active indeed -- the brain is seek
RE: What is Economics, Hudson?
Hi, Karen, I just came from the bookstore: Coulter's rant is on sale, 50% off. "We just want to unload it," said the clerk, who then added "I can take some more off if you want it." But instead I bought for friends two second copies of Armstrong's THE BATTLE FOR GOD, and Barber's JIHAD VS MCWORLD. Cheers, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karen Watters > Cole > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Ray Evans Harrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson > Cc: Ed Weick; Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: What is Economics, Hudson? > > > Cousin, I won't comment on your lengthy remarks re: Hudson Economics, but > surely you don't think Ann Coulter got to the top of the best seller list > without the artifice of friends and assorted vested cronies purchasing in > lump orders? I wonder how many copies the American Spectator and > hate radio > biggies purchased? > I saw her on the Phil Donohue show and she absolutely stumbled in her > stunned inability to counter his debate of her book. She has been > exposed as > a fraud, me thinks. > Also, I read the sad story last year of an author who personally purchased > his own book in quantity via Amazon, using his own credit card, and then > reselling the books later. I think they call that the Darth Vader play in > Enronitis, but in his case it was unnecessary greed (unlike Ann > Coulter) to > push an otherwise interesting book above its naturally rising sales. > Yes, greed and novelty, there is unfortunately that link too. > Karen > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray > Evans Harrell > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:08 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson > Cc: Ed Weick; Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: What is Economics, Hudson? > > (snip) Not because I didn't like it, in fact I loved it. I > would say that > this is my favorite post of Keith's of all time. I would give > you a Nobel > for it but it would have to be shared with the James Burke and > his wonderful > "Connections" television program.Here in the US we are really > more about > what I would call a contrary security blanket.In the rest of > the world I > would assume that expertise would be applauded and that you would go to an > expert to solve a problem in the area that they were expert > within.Here > in the US there is a twist to all of this that must be understood > if you are > to understand why things are done the way they are.But let you finish > first. You said: > > > Just one final comment. Apart from a relatively few extra genes than > > chimps, the supremely significant development of the human > species was the > > vast enlargement of the frontal lobes of the cortex (our vertical > > foreheads). They are *huge* compared with those of other primates. The > > primary purpose of the frontal lobes is to deal with novel perceptions. > The > > frontal lobes have an avidity for novelty. Even while most of the > > population of the world may continue to suffer poverty and extreme > > deprivation, the economies of the developing countries of the world will > > continue to be primarily motivated by the emergence of novelties and not > by > > the suffering of the rest of the world. And that's a fact that Messrs > > Samuelson, Norhaus. Mankiw, Baumol and Binder don't address and never > > discuss. > > Unlike the part I snipped, I think this is just a little too cute. In > short I am not going to say much about it except that it ignores too much > and endangers your thesis by elevating a biological story that is too glib > even for an artist.As you said wonderfully earlier in this post (the > snipped part) the definition could be applied to too many other > areas for it > to work seriously in this one. For example it could explain the Coliseum > murders in Rome or the invention of Opera but the real answer is more > interesting and complicated than that. > > But let me go back to the "novelty" or James Burke "connections" theory of > motivation.In America it is not so much about "novelty" except in the > very idle rich, but about what Americans call "security". Homeland > Security, Public Health, Financial Security, etc. This > could produce a > very Anal retentive population that would get little done and could become > murderous in its defensiveness. Yes, I know that HAS happened > but there > is another side to all of this that stops it to some degree. I > wo
RE: What is Economics, Hudson?
Cousin, I won't comment on your lengthy remarks re: Hudson Economics, but surely you don't think Ann Coulter got to the top of the best seller list without the artifice of friends and assorted vested cronies purchasing in lump orders? I wonder how many copies the American Spectator and hate radio biggies purchased? I saw her on the Phil Donohue show and she absolutely stumbled in her stunned inability to counter his debate of her book. She has been exposed as a fraud, me thinks. Also, I read the sad story last year of an author who personally purchased his own book in quantity via Amazon, using his own credit card, and then reselling the books later. I think they call that the Darth Vader play in Enronitis, but in his case it was unnecessary greed (unlike Ann Coulter) to push an otherwise interesting book above its naturally rising sales. Yes, greed and novelty, there is unfortunately that link too. Karen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray Evans Harrell Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson Cc: Ed Weick; Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is Economics, Hudson? (snip) Not because I didn't like it, in fact I loved it. I would say that this is my favorite post of Keith's of all time. I would give you a Nobel for it but it would have to be shared with the James Burke and his wonderful "Connections" television program.Here in the US we are really more about what I would call a contrary security blanket.In the rest of the world I would assume that expertise would be applauded and that you would go to an expert to solve a problem in the area that they were expert within.Here in the US there is a twist to all of this that must be understood if you are to understand why things are done the way they are.But let you finish first. You said: > Just one final comment. Apart from a relatively few extra genes than > chimps, the supremely significant development of the human species was the > vast enlargement of the frontal lobes of the cortex (our vertical > foreheads). They are *huge* compared with those of other primates. The > primary purpose of the frontal lobes is to deal with novel perceptions. The > frontal lobes have an avidity for novelty. Even while most of the > population of the world may continue to suffer poverty and extreme > deprivation, the economies of the developing countries of the world will > continue to be primarily motivated by the emergence of novelties and not by > the suffering of the rest of the world. And that's a fact that Messrs > Samuelson, Norhaus. Mankiw, Baumol and Binder don't address and never > discuss. Unlike the part I snipped, I think this is just a little too cute. In short I am not going to say much about it except that it ignores too much and endangers your thesis by elevating a biological story that is too glib even for an artist.As you said wonderfully earlier in this post (the snipped part) the definition could be applied to too many other areas for it to work seriously in this one. For example it could explain the Coliseum murders in Rome or the invention of Opera but the real answer is more interesting and complicated than that. But let me go back to the "novelty" or James Burke "connections" theory of motivation.In America it is not so much about "novelty" except in the very idle rich, but about what Americans call "security". Homeland Security, Public Health, Financial Security, etc. This could produce a very Anal retentive population that would get little done and could become murderous in its defensiveness. Yes, I know that HAS happened but there is another side to all of this that stops it to some degree. I would call it the "law of reaction." You may not defend yourself until something has already happened.For example, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the World Trade Center on the Mega side but on the Mini side you may not look for someone until you have found a body, or in medicine you may not begin prevention until you have discovered cancer.The excuse to this ignoring of prevention is usually economic.It costs too much. But the reality is that we like the possibility of chance in the midst of all of our retentiveness. "Don't care for it until its broke." Europeans may have marched off to war in WW I because they were bored and had toys but Americans would never do such a thing unless 1. it was economical and 2. it gave us relief at the toilet. Why else would the media push the perfect Anal Retentive Authoress and self-described constitution scholar Anne Coulter to the no. 1 spot on the nytimes book list (Slander) while ignoring world class artist and non-anal Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" who in spite of b
Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
(snip) Not because I didn't like it, in fact I loved it. I would say that this is my favorite post of Keith's of all time. I would give you a Nobel for it but it would have to be shared with the James Burke and his wonderful "Connections" television program.Here in the US we are really more about what I would call a contrary security blanket.In the rest of the world I would assume that expertise would be applauded and that you would go to an expert to solve a problem in the area that they were expert within.Here in the US there is a twist to all of this that must be understood if you are to understand why things are done the way they are.But let you finish first. You said: > Just one final comment. Apart from a relatively few extra genes than > chimps, the supremely significant development of the human species was the > vast enlargement of the frontal lobes of the cortex (our vertical > foreheads). They are *huge* compared with those of other primates. The > primary purpose of the frontal lobes is to deal with novel perceptions. The > frontal lobes have an avidity for novelty. Even while most of the > population of the world may continue to suffer poverty and extreme > deprivation, the economies of the developing countries of the world will > continue to be primarily motivated by the emergence of novelties and not by > the suffering of the rest of the world. And that's a fact that Messrs > Samuelson, Norhaus. Mankiw, Baumol and Binder don't address and never > discuss. Unlike the part I snipped, I think this is just a little too cute. In short I am not going to say much about it except that it ignores too much and endangers your thesis by elevating a biological story that is too glib even for an artist.As you said wonderfully earlier in this post (the snipped part) the definition could be applied to too many other areas for it to work seriously in this one. For example it could explain the Coliseum murders in Rome or the invention of Opera but the real answer is more interesting and complicated than that. But let me go back to the "novelty" or James Burke "connections" theory of motivation.In America it is not so much about "novelty" except in the very idle rich, but about what Americans call "security". Homeland Security, Public Health, Financial Security, etc. This could produce a very Anal retentive population that would get little done and could become murderous in its defensiveness. Yes, I know that HAS happened but there is another side to all of this that stops it to some degree. I would call it the "law of reaction." You may not defend yourself until something has already happened.For example, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the World Trade Center on the Mega side but on the Mini side you may not look for someone until you have found a body, or in medicine you may not begin prevention until you have discovered cancer.The excuse to this ignoring of prevention is usually economic.It costs too much. But the reality is that we like the possibility of chance in the midst of all of our retentiveness. "Don't care for it until its broke." Europeans may have marched off to war in WW I because they were bored and had toys but Americans would never do such a thing unless 1. it was economical and 2. it gave us relief at the toilet. Why else would the media push the perfect Anal Retentive Authoress and self-described constitution scholar Anne Coulter to the no. 1 spot on the nytimes book list (Slander) while ignoring world class artist and non-anal Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" who in spite of being ignored has been on the list for 24 months without hype or pushing from the corporate Media. Moore is the compassionate hedonist who asks why something couldn't be planned ahead of time to eleminate the massive loss of jobs in his hometown of Flint Michigan while Coulter in her finishing school manner complains about Moore's complaints while complaining about the liberal media's assault on her rich friends who pay all the taxes and support all of the charities. i.e. not prevention or planning but "reaction". "You can't have it unless we give it to you and we will only give it to you if we get it first." Game theory is the best America can do on the novelty end and it is poor indeed since it is the joy of chess. Ray Evans Harrell
Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
Very interesting posting, Keith. I'll think about it, and may or may not reply off-list. But let me briefly introduce another thought that comes from a limited amount of reading I've done in things like chaos theory and cosmology. I tried to introduce the thought in my response to Robert a day or so ago, but the point may have been missed. It goes something like this. Economists, like all scientists, try to understand reality by attempting to stabilize it as definitions, rigorous formulations and indices. They wind up drawing supply and demand curves, indifference curves, and keeping track of the interest rate, the employment rate, etc. But these are static cocepts, highly dependent on the assumption that certain conditions will hold. Even when they are treated dynamically, the conditions under which variables move from one state to another are necessarily tightly restricted. I'm not saying this isn't useful, but it involves the contradiction that to be useful, it must leave a huge, infinitely huge, chunk of reality out. And what is left out may be far more important than what is included. This isn't a new idea. But I think we've come to appreciate it more since September 11th. We continue to draw supply and demand curves and to measure consumer confidence, but we are now beginning to understand more fully that phenomena that lie outside the traditional sphere of economics may have a greater influence, and perhaps far greater, than things that have been included in it. I suspect that climate change will also provide lessons in this regard. What chaos and cosmology suggests is that there is no static, nor even a dynamic as we conventionally think of it. Everything is in a state of flow, without beginning or end. Little influences can, unpredictably, build up to big influences and change the whole direction of things. To try to think of economics this way would probably drive us nuts. But to think of economics the way we do also strikes me as being a little nuts. Perhaps Lottie knows the answer. Regards, Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax (613) 728 9382
