• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Interesting Items...

Black Hole said:
Scientific American (March 2014 page 61) said:
Here is the real danger of the Einstellung effect. We may believe that we are thinking in an open-minded way, completely unaware that our brain is selectively directing attention away from aspects of our environment that could inspire new thoughts. Any data that do not fit the solution or theory we have already clung to are ignored or discarded.
Click to expand...


Mike0001 said:
Very few things enter consciousness, of all the things being processed in parallel in our brains. Consciousness only notices one thing at a time, and it is only when a brain activity goes global that it even enters conscious thought.
Click to expand...


I know I'll regret this, but those two statements do not look incompatible to me, and actually seem to say essentially the same thing.
 
MikeSh said:
I know I'll regret this, but those two statements do not look incompatible to me, and actually seem to say essentially the same thing.
Click to expand...

"Any data that do not fit the solution or theory we have already clung to are ignored or discarded."

Well, that sure isn't covered by the second statement. The right solution can enter consciousness, as well as the bad solution. The brain is not always working against us. The brain is likely processing all data in the background, searching for solutions.
 
Mike0001 said:
"Any data that do not fit the solution or theory we have already clung to are ignored or discarded."

Well, that sure isn't covered by the second statement. The right solution can enter consciousness, as well as the bad solution. The brain is not always working against us. The brain is likely processing all data in the background, searching for solutions.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree. In some/many cases the subconscious may well suppress data that do not fit the solution or theory we have already clung to.
I would perhaps amend the statement to are often ignored or discarded. Few things in the mind can be categorised with a 100% certainty - even death at times.

Years ago there was a fascinating Horizon programme that explored our resistance to changing our ideas about things that we have learned already, or rather developed a mind model for. It was quite scary in a way as they did a test on trainee teachers.
 
MikeSh said:
I'd disagree. In some/many cases the subconscious may well suppress data that do not fit the solution or theory we have already clung to.
Click to expand...


I think the Freudian "subconscious" is by now discredited. Ego, superego, id were unscientific concepts. The modern approach is to study the brain. Scans of the brain show activity in various areas, at low levels. When an activity flares up and lights up the whole brain in a certain way, it enters consciousness. There is no concept of suppression. No concept of clinging to a theory.

There is a well documented and long known experience in mathematics research. You have a problem, say a result to prove, which you have a hunch is true. The conscious brain is not too good at this sort of thing, it can do the logical bit but is not good at finding new solutions and is incapable of parallel thinking to investigate all possibilities. However, the brain itself is highly parallel as a computer, and most of its activity never even enters conscious thought.

Mathematicians have long reported that after failing in a proof, then sleeping overnight, an idea of a solution pops into their conscious thought. (Or an idea for a disproof of what they thought was true.) Their brains have been working in the background and exploring possibilities, until at some stage one takes priority and causes this flaring up of total brain activity, the precursor of the idea flares into conscious thought.

Of course, the conscious thought processes, which are quite pedestrian, then have the task of filling in all the details of a proof.

So, I don't think there is any real bias in what the brain does in the background. Einstellung makes it appear as though conscious thought was all powerful. What we consciously become aware of is a tiny fraction of what the brain is working on. Einstellung is based on an outmoded approach to how the brain is now known to work.
 
Mike0001 said:
Einstellung is based on an outmoded approach to how the brain is now known to work.
Click to expand...
In which case you need an alternative explanation for the experimental observations. The experiments show that people are indeed blinded to alternatives by being tunnelled into one way of thinking, so it doesn't matter what you call it.

If Einstellung really is outmoded, we can be sure the SA letters pages will be full of it in a couple of months time. We're not talking National Enquirer here.
 
Seen in today's Telegraph: a coupon for a book to be exchanged at Sainsbury's. The coupon has a space to be filled in with name and email address.

In the T&Cs, it says "To the retailer: retain this coupon. Securely destroy after the promotion has expired."

What's the point???
 
Black Hole said:
In which case you need an alternative explanation for the experimental observations. The experiments show that people are indeed blinded to alternatives by being tunnelled into one way of thinking, so it doesn't matter what you call it.
Click to expand...
Neuronal reinforcement. Do the same thing over and over and the neuronal pathway becomes so strong that it's hard to break the pattern.

As opposed to psychologists' mumbo jumbo and half baked theories.

Same goes for Thinking Fast And Slow.
 
BBC Radio 4, Sunday 16th March 1330-1400: "Crypto Wars" - BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera tells the history of the war between the libertarian techies and the titans behind America's spy agency over the keys to our privacy.
 
Black Hole said:
BBC Radio 4, Sunday 16th March 1330-1400: "Crypto Wars" - BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera tells the history of the war between the libertarian techies and the titans behind America's spy agency over the keys to our privacy.
Click to expand...

That's a lot to cover in 30 minutes!

I am an open supporter of Snowden, and wish he could be given global immunity from prosecution/extradition. The establishment always reacts like this when their wrongdoings are exposed.
 
I am utterly opposed to that view. There is far too much exposure to what goes on behind the scenes, international diplomacy is now like playing poker while news reporters go around telling everyone what cards are in each hand.

I don't think you would like it if you were haggling to buy a car if somebody whispered to the seller that, actually, you were prepared to pay another £500.

You will say it's not the same thing, but these are aspects of the same broad discussion.
 
I suppose there is some argument in saying that the average man in the street doesn't need to know what GCHQ, NSA etc. are doing, BUT you have to be able to trust these organisations if they are not going to be monitored in some way. There are too many examples of security organisations, politicians, police etc. not working in everyone's best interest
 
Why exactly did the NSA tap Angela Merkel's phone anyway? They thought she was a terrorist?

The car salesman analogy just trivialises things. The fact is we would have known nothing about what these jerks were up to without Snowden. They are no better than the ones they pretend to fight, unless, that is, Angela really is a terrorist.
 
One might use one's spies to try to find out what cards the other players are holding, but one does not expect one's own side to tell everyone else the cards one is holding.

I signed the official secrets act, and so (I imagine) did Snowden. He has committed an act of treason and should be shot. Whether we ought to know what our secret services get up to on our behalf doesn't come into it.
 
America has no "Official Secrets Act." Signing it is irrelevant to disclosing fraud, cover ups, deceit and other bad practices, ie, whistle blowing.

To say Snowden should be shot is to say that the perpetrators should be allowed to get away with it. Weak people don't speak out. Treason doesn't enter into it. Treason is determined by the wrongdoers, in this case. It took a lot of courage to release that evidence of wrongdoing and I admire his strength, as opposed to the weaklings who hide behind the US Espionage Act (1917).

To change the subject, I guess the weak people would suppress the following too?

 
Black Hole said:
I signed the official secrets act, and so (I imagine) did Snowden. He has committed an act of treason and should be shot. Whether we ought to know what our secret services get up to on our behalf doesn't come into it.
Click to expand...
The Official Secrets Act is not a contract, it's a law, everyone is bound by it whether they sign it or not. Anyone that signs it, (yes I did as well) is merely being reminded that the law exists
 
Ezra Pound said:
The Official Secrets Act is not a contract, it's a law, everyone is bound by it whether they sign it or not. Anyone that signs it, (yes I did as well) is merely being reminded that the law exists
Click to expand...


The OSA has been discredited several times when it has been used to prevent politicians from embarrassment. One should always hold in mind that laws are for the benefit of the population, not politicians and security services. However, when politicians have an act they can hide behind whenever they or their minions do wrong, they have no incentive to repeal or modify it.

However, we are talking here about the US Espionage Act. The person concerned could hardly be described as a spy.
 
Ezra Pound said:
The Official Secrets Act is not a contract, it's a law, everyone is bound by it whether they sign it or not. Anyone that signs it, (yes I did as well) is merely being reminded that the law exists
Click to expand...
Agreed, but the offence is more serious if you have been specifically made aware of your responsibilities to your country.

Want anther trivialising generalisation? Your team's goalie decides not to bother defending the goal. Like it or not, we only have what we have in this world in competition with everyone else. If everything were to be shared out equally, we would all have a third-world existence (that may well be moral and fair, but it would be uncomfortable). As time goes on, it's going to get worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top