Ignoring the Mind-Body Gap

George Lakoff: neuroscience of politics - David Pescovitz @ BoingBoing

I always have trouble with books and theories like this. The idea that somehow our political minds are hardwired, either by nature or by nurture, to favor one kind of political thinking over another smacks far too much of biological determinism. While slightly informative on how the brain works in a certain area, this kind of thinking typically ignores the philosophical problem of the mind-body gap by implicitly denying its existence. I will agree that Lakoff's earlier work on how framing a debate will affect the outcome but I think it takes that good idea and stretches it too far into the realm of hard science. We are not born liberals or conservatives (definitions which themselves change with each generation) and nurturing people to think one way or another has had little permanent success; i.e. the French Revolution, fascism and communism.
So take arguments like Lakoff's with a large grain of salt. They are interesting thought experiments but that's all they are.

Try Staking Awake for Three Years

Three-Year-Old Boy has Never Slept, Parents Maintain 24-Hour Vigil - Mark Frauenfelder @ BoingBoing

Not to belittle the plight of this boy, but I find the idea that this boy has never slept too far-fetched. If true, serious neurological problems should plague the boy: hallucinations, lack of internal body rhythm, trouble with focus, trouble understanding things, and a litany of other ailments that come from prolonged lack of sleep. I just find the story lacking credibility based on what little information given in both Frauenfelder's post and in the original news story.

Frames Per Second

Working Memory Has Limited 'Slots' - Science Daily

For more than a few years now there's been a debate in the enthusiast gaming community over whether the fact that a graphics card can display a certain number of fsp's (frames per second) really matters when it reaches beyond what the eye and brain can physically process. Now, with this new study it appears that the idea that fps only matter up to a point is true. It also makes sense in terms of how we are able to recall events and the fuzziness that can occur in translating working memory into long-term memory. While working memory captures a certain number of images per second it seems the high resolution of those images degrades when shifted into the long term memory. Hence the reason why eye-witness testimony days or months after an event can differ drastically from what actually happened.
But it also explains to some extent the abilities of those who can speed read or have a 'photographic' memory. The ability to take in large amounts of data and then retain the original resolution of that data is a mark of intelligence, it seems. Moreover, since everything our eyes perceive must go through that initial interpretation process it makes more sense that the data is captured by a series of images rather than one continuous stream. There's a momentary gap between what is actually happening in reality and the interpretation our brains make of all that sensory data. Why would evolution make a mind that cannot see reality at a high level of detail unless it allowed some advantage? High resolution fps must then have been an advantage to the early human mind.

Cog-Enhanced, Continued

Debate Around Brain Enhancement Drugs - David Pescovitz @ BoingBoing

Some more reading about cognitive-enhancement and academia. I think my cat needs some though. She's trying to attack the cursor right now.

The Hyperreal Academic (Turning the Mediocre into Genius)

This is your brain on drugs - Michelle Cottle @ TNR

I've often wondered what the implications of brain-enhancing drugs might have on the intellectual world. Most of the basic questions surrounding the use of Provigil and Adderall are whether students should have regular, non-prescriptive access to such drugs and whether professors should take the use of such drugs into consideration when grading papers. Personally, after seeing many students perform at their typical level but for a longer period of time on these types of drugs I don't believe it is a serious issue. However, and you saw this coming, what of drugs that might enhance cognitive function beyond the norm? If an average student can take a drug that makes them an above-average student then does that negatively impact the student, the class and the way a professor can fairly assess the performance of the class overall? What of competitions such as chess matches where the use of cognitive-enhancement would give a player an edge over the competition, or whether the rest of the competition is on such enhancements themselves? When being assessed for applications, scholarships, tenures or other such life-enhancing positions, what role can we put cognitive-enhancement in?
For those of you who think that academia is not a competitive place then take a quick glance at grant allotments and professorial pay. Academia is very competitive, from undergrad to tenureship, and people will look for anything that could give them the edge to make it pass someone else for the prestigious scholarship, the highly-regarded research award or the continuation of funding for your academic work. Unlike sports where professional players only have a decade at most to make their mark, academics are in it for the long haul. This is not a past-time for them, it is a career. And when the difference between taking a trip to Oslo for that Nobel prize or sitting in some backwater community college is a simple cognitive-enhancement drug it's obvious what any sane person would do.
Even so, curiousity gets the better of me. What are the potentials of such drugs? Can a simple drug treatment turn a 130 IQ into a 150? Could we have cadres of scientists all working at the levels of a Bohr or an Einstein? Or how about historians who can grasp the sub-disciplines of economic history, social history, cultural history, political, military, micro, diplomatic or every other kind of history all at once? What kind of groundbreaking works could they produce? Could we have neuroscientists that can see how both the single neuron and the whole network of neurons work together? What advancements to society are possible? It's a genie that cannot go back in the bottle though. Once out, cognitive-enhancement is here to stay, whether it be through cyberization, chemistry or a combination of both. How far beyond the childhood of the mind we are still in could we progress?

Mind Reading - FAIL

Neuroscientists May Soon Be Able To Read Minds - evolution @ Truemors

I'm sorry, that's cute and all but come back when you have something real to tell me.

Down the Rabbit Hole

First Peek Into Deepest Recesses of Human Brain - Science Daily

I still see a problem with overstating the physical role of the brain in our conscious thought. While the hard sciences have continued to make advances in our understanding of how the physical brain works and how those workings affect our mood, disposition and perception, I still haven't seen any attempt to bridge the mind-body gap that metaphysical philosophy has long dealt with. Wittgenstein did overturn Descartes' cogito ergo sum with his theory of language but that still hasn't produced a working metaphysical theory of how the mind interacts with the brain and whether there is a separation at all. I tend to believe there is, but it's hard to prove in an real way. Even so, I like these kinds of studies as they take apart the brain bit by bit. Once the hard sciences have had their way with the brain I get the feeling that they will still need the help of philosophers to understand just what the hell it all means.

Cognition of the Real

Nature of Consciousness: How Activity of Single Neurons in Human Brain Reflect Conscious Perception - Science Daily

My quasi-girlfriend is working on her doctorate in neuroscience; specifically on the function of single neurons and their relation to other neurons. Thus I've taken a closer interest in the scientific aspects of consciousness. The philosophical implications are still there, at least until the soul cell is discovered or whatnot. This also intersects with my interest in hyperrealism and the effects of information technology on human consciousness and social practices. I'm currently reading a several decades old text by Henri Lefebvre on the relation between mental, social and physical space. This is all jumbled in my head at the moment, but suffice to say, reading about how conscious recognition is an 'all or nothing' sort of thing when it comes to the firing of single neurons it shows some of the physical component to the mental-social-physical relationship. My question has to do with whether a simulated reality can produce the same results in the physical brain. It's all terribly interesting but probably very boring to most of you. Still, it's what gets my brain going so it's what I'm going to write about.