Referendum 2015

I’ll start by saying, like good auld Chomsky, I’m probably a sort of libertarian socialist (and a contrarian one at that). I don’t even think we should have countries. I’m like someone arguing about the finer points of theology while being a bona fide atheist - you can disregard me!

Granted 35 is a a pretty silly threshold for presidency. But then so is 21. The rationale of bringing it down to 21 is IMO a general zietgeisty inclination toward equality and liberalism. I think this is a positive, albeit futile, motivation. As far as I can see it's just the government flashing a progressive, reformist liberalism to get young voters on board for the election. Instead of actually doing anything that is going to have a real socio-political impact they get their kudos for a smidgen of clerical alteration.

{tangent!}To be honest I feel similarly about the marriage referendum. I’ll be voting YES but I irritates me that Fine Gael assholes get to wring their hands on Tv and radio about equality and civil rights all the while propagating a system that protects the rich. At the end of the day allowing gay marriage doesn't affect anyone's pocket and the good Christians in Fine Gael won’t be exposing the conservative members of their electorate to two gay men kissing in a church. {end tangent!}

With the presidential age limit I have no major issue with either result. I think it’s unlikely that any individual in their early 20’s having the profile, statesmanship, or charisma to win a presidential election. The only (horror show!) scenario I can think of where this could occur is if some celebrity (sports star, pop star, reality TV contestant) threw their hat in the ring. I’d also be as cautious about letting 16 year olds vote for one of those morons as I would a full grown adult and I’m not sure I have enough faith in CSPE class and the Irish education system to meet the challenge.

Actually as I write this I’m worrying myself. 

Remember Sean would-have-won-if-it-wasn’t-for-a-rogue-tweet Gallagher? Remember that T-shirt he wore with his grinning baldy head emblazoned with the slogan ‘AS SEEN ON TV’S DRAGONS DEN’? :) Ok.. That bit never happened, but you get my drift. All's fair in love and satire.

So, as I see it, the argument for lowering age limits in this area is as follows.

(Q) Why lower voting or candidature ages? (A) So that more people have a say.

Ipsy facty! in order to placate my own liberal ideology and to follow the kernel of this argument to its conclusion the age limit should just be removed. If you take it that far, rather than simply choosing another arbitrary figure - 21 (it's a societal convergence and could just as easily be eleventyone) - the sensible conclusion would be to just forget the candidature limit even exists. If the electorate of Ireland think a presidential candidate is too young.. Fair enough don’t vote for her/him. There’s no need to legislate for it. Basically if I were the boss I would allow heuristics to take care of it. Rhetorically - Would you like pragmatism to be enforced as a law (age limit) or to exert itself in the wild?

{tangent!}Voting age limits are far more difficult and thinking about it raises a whole slew of philamahsopical issues. If there was no limit children could vote. If heuristics we’re to reign a lot of kids wouldn't bother or would be manipulated by their parents (to be honest we’re all manipulated regardless of age, advertising aka propaganda wins elections and 9/10 times the crew with biggest war chest prevails). Worst of all I can imagine a dystopian future where kids are being canvassed by the teletubbies.. Dipsey says NO! :)

So if you want to philosophically support a progressive agenda in terms of voting age you don’t have many options. How about we employ a mass of neuroscientists and behavioural psychologists (we could round ‘em up backstage at a TED conference or something) :). They could convince us of the cognitive thresholds required for suitably independent decision making. You could then have a weighting system based on age. For instance 5 year old's could get a fraction of a vote. Of course the brain is markedly less plastic after about 26 or so depending on which faction of our specialists win maybe after 26 your vote weighting begins to taper off as your mature IQ begins to drop. Hold on! that sounds like another dystopian nightmare.. Dammit. {tangent end}

Maybe there is a cosy middle ground but I don’t have the imagination or optimism for it. As it stands I’d say most western governments would be happy to footer about with voting ages till the cows come home, ‘whatever you wants guys..’ they’ll earnestly purr . I don’t think it’s going to improve our societies while they remain in their currents models of capitalism and faux democracy.

Lower Dens - Escape From Evil

Along with their Baltimore peers Future Islands, Lower Dens have been peddling a compelling retro-futuristic sound and shtick. Their latest release contains the cerebral lyrics, sparse guitar, and motoric synth rhythms that you’d expect. However the lyrical content has moved in a new direction from that of their acclaimed 2012 release - Nootropics. So before getting into Escape from Evil we need some context! Let’s talk about Nootropics. 

Thematically Jana Hunter, as the band’s chief songwriter, was exploring transhumanism (think Kraftwerk’s Man Machine) and the outlandish academic and futurist Ray Kurzweil. Kurzweil is the poster boy for the hypothesis of the technological singularity. ‘What in the name of dear science is that?’ I hear you say. In a nutshell it’s the idea that all of our tech-advancements will culminate in humans and artificial intelligence converging in a Philip K. Dick style melange of pharmaceuticals, silicone and, um.. wifi. Now, I don’t know about you, but this is exactly the kind of cyberpunk wet dream that I want from krautrock inspired futurists! In summary Nootropics was a robotic and euphoric exposé. It charmed with its uncanny and, at times, dark overtures (check out their track “Brains” on youtube). So, as you can see, it was always going to be a tough act to follow.

As such, the first Escape From Evil track to mark Lower Dens evolving sound is “Ondine”. Jana Hunter opens up the tune with a languid and sincere vocal delivery over a catchy stock bassline that you’ve heard before. Following this the songs moves into a genuinely earnest and pleading refrain ‘I will treat you better’. Emotive and sentimental, this is commercial synth-pop and Lower Dens do it very well.

On the other end of the scale is the brooding “I am the Earth”. It comes on slow with a lazy sci-fi menace that puts Pink Floyd in mind. Lyrically she works an ambitious metaphor where it seems Hunter is a disinterested planet Earth while her lover is the orbiting debris and organisms living on the surface. Heavy stuff. Sounds to me she’s been reading James Lovelock’s Gaia theory (If you feel like nerding out take a trip over to wikipedia). Basically his theory holds that Earth is an orgaism and humans are a parasite on it’s surface. Crucially the Earth will still be spinning long after Homo sapiens have kicked the bucket. Cue Hunter’s lyric ‘Just like so many things I will still be spinning here long after you’ve gone’. Maybe I’m on the wrong track here and Lower Dens will have a hearty belly laugh or head scratch when they read this, but hey, what are reviews for but a bit of interpretive guess-work? 

After that “To die in L.A” has to be mentioned and not just for the glossy and stylish video. The song itself is catchy, kitsch and aloof; an odd mix that works well. A verse of solid bass being circled by some keys and cloying guitar makes way for a strong chorus - big chords juxtaposed with some guitar licks that carry a whiff of Johnny Marr. Hunter delivers a nice vocal hook on top as well: ‘time will turn the tide’ where the word tide is stretched across four chords like a surging tidal swell. Despite being rooted in major scale the tune retains hints of a dark atmosphere and a character that suits Lower Dens. Hunter also appears in the video reading a copy of Charles Duhigg’s ‘Power of Habit’ as such we could refrain ‘habit will turn the tide’. 

The last stand out tune is “Non-Grata”. Rhythmically this is the one to dance to (in my case provided no one is looking). There’s a swagger to the vocals and a staggered amodal guitar riff that gives the tune a sweet edgy groove. As for the chorus ‘Baby lets roll up to heaven, lets make a getaway’ - Imagine an Elvis style lip curl with Bowie or Nick Cave’s posturing and you’re half way to the kind of charisma Jana Hunter is channelling. If Lower Dens were playing in my town I’d go to the gig for that alone. 

All in all for me Escape from Evil is definitely a grower. The catchy tunes have legs and the darker ones are rich enough for multiple listens. Perhaps the relative evils of transhumanism with its cognitive enhancing pills and sinister riffing has been exorcised. Despite my teething misgivings this seems to be no bad thing. Lower Dens have snared a more commercial sound while maintaining their artistic integrity. 

Release: 30th March 2015, Ribbon Music

Originally published here

Galway Gig Cancelled

Here's what happened

I'd already mentioned that we normally do a 2 maybe 2 and a half hour set.

In the meantime I was looking for other people to play a few tunes to fill out some more time. That said 10 hours is frankly ridiculous.

He responded a long while later.

Lovely..

Now for the record .. I went on some forum pages and asked what the going rate is for bands in Galway. It ranges between 400 and 800 for a normal 2(ish) hour set.

Naturally enough that was that. I told him we'd look for somewhere else.
Should have probably told him to go fuck himself..

Snake Oil, Flouride and Tesco Value Cancer

A little context before reading as this started out as a Facebook reply before it got too long. A friend of mine posted a blogpost poking fun at the snake-oil peddling/pseudo science aspects of the anti-fluoridation proponents. I responded with a fairly tabloidy news article just to illustrate the changing opinions relating to the issue. Primarily I wanted to show that the anti-camp has an argument above conspiracy and paranoia. A third party then rebutted my article so I felt compelled to defend my advocate position!

I posted the Indo article to: Illustrate that there may be a reason to be anti-fluoridation other than conspiratorial paranoia. Unfortunately the Indo don't do citations! But rather than post the articles and reports (the venue being facebook) I figured a news article would suffice. Instead all I did was give John a straw man to batter! I should make clear here that my own knowledge of the subject didn't go beyond that espoused by the snake oil brigade (flouride is a scary communist plot) and childhood classes on dental hygiene (Yay! flouride).

I intended in an off-hand way to balance Marc's (Alypius's) post. Bikini clad girls and new-age folk seemed an easy target and I am always inclined (as you know Marc) to go 'weeell yes.. but what if..." . So in the interest of avoiding the book review I was supposed to be doing I did a little reading and googling to discover if  there was a plausible case for anti-fluoridation (specifically in the sense of the mass-medication of water).

I found that there was. However, rather than posting a selection of links to academic reports and the like, I found an Irish news article that I thought this would serve the purpose "Hey.., is not all faith healing guru's". Also posting the indo article made sense because considering the affable tone of Marc's post it might've been interpreted as rude or bullish of me to go posting a host of  links on the cheery-fwendly-fwends-happy-smiles playground that is facebook. I generally prefer a softly-softly approach to debate and I like that kind of correspondance. It seemed to get pretty heated between Andrew and John and no-one wants to force anyone behind the barricades. In my opinion you have to be aware of the ego and pride of whoever your chatting if you want to change their mind. I hope that doesn't sound passive-aggressive. Its not meant to.

I should mention that it is pretty clear that the majority of scientific texts show that the intended levels of Fluoridation (WHO guidelines) are probably not harmful. Your links and argument helped show this. So that much is obvious, and I have no hidden agenda. However, as iterated in any of the comprehensive reports, measuring effects on entire populations is problematic. This is why many wealthy countries, who could otherwise afford it, don't do it - its legality is unclear in many jurisdictions. Legally and ethically  medication is administered on an individual basis largely because the heuristics are manageable i.e. there is dramatically simpler cause and effect trail (more on that later).

So anyway I'll reiterate my originally flippant and conversational aim ( I reread that and it looks like 'Controversial' I mean Con-ver-sat-ional!) : An anti-flouridation stance is rationally defensible and not the sole product of conspiracies and paranoia.

Here's a fairly haphazard selection of the material that I'd come across.

There’s loads of stuff on Dental Florosis here's one at random. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27492/ You'll find lots more if you care to look.

Also I remember numerous kids with this growing up.. Little maggots gobbling toothpaste I presume ;) .. I knew one guy whose nickname was toffee teeth .. poor fella.

In the Interest of fairness: According to the Aussies switching to other methods of fluoridation will save the day .http://nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/Eh41_Flouridation_PART_A.pdf

 

Next we have WHO material on the long term negative effects of naturally occurring fluoride in the water: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf

(It’s a massive doc so word search for keywords.)

Osteoporosis – Plenty of material but none of it too convincing and lots of conflicting results. The thing here is that Fluoride is sometimes used to treat osteoporosis. However some research shows it is effectively trading increased bone mass at a loss of actual strength. Here’s one:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199003223221203 

They are peer reviewed articles so forming an opinion based on their content is neither paranoia nor conspiratorial inclinations.

Cancer - Once again there's loads of scientific reports on carcinogenic contaminants in drinking water. Obviously Fluoride is way down the list in terms of threats. I find it funny that China don't fluoridate their water.. sure its full of arsenic courtesy of  their industrial revolution.. so you'd think they already have the inexplicable poisoning of their people covered! To be clear.. that's a satirical joke of which the snake oil merchants and 'woo peddlers' are the butt. ( Imagine a Stewart Lee style mock indulgent 'hehehe' here.)

As we know though, Carcinogens and toxins (fluoride being a toxin) work by gradual accumulation. Like Tesco chipper slogan 'every little helps' the rise of the Pink Robots (cancer). If I had the time or will I'd love to photoshop a Tesco logo replacing 'Tesco' with 'cancer.. every little helps'. *ahem* Pardon my sense of humour. I don't mean to be facetious but sometimes it can't be helped

Imagine tesco value cancer.. Or rather their 'everyday' range.. whew..

Here's a pretty nasty report on the effects of Fluoride production in a Commercial setting: http://oem.bmj.com/content/60/10/722.short In this case we're talking large and prolonged exposures.  But, as Fluoride is a toxic material, negative effects shouldn’t be surprising.  It’s certainly clear that within the W.H.O's parameters of 0.5 to 1.0 mg/litre fluoride isn't going to be causing cancer. For more on that see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1518976/

The general toxicity of fluoride is well documented as I'm sure ye know http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842741301312X    This is also one of the reasons its legality is problematic in some countries. It is worth mentioning that there have been numerous accidents where water sources were overdosed. (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Three outbreaks were reported in the U.S. between 1991 and 1998, caused by fluoride concentrations as high as 220 mg/L; in the 1992 Alaska outbreak, 262 people became ill and one person died. In 2010, approximately 60 gallons of fluoride were released into the water supply in Asheboro, North Carolina in 90 minutes—an amount that was intended to be released in a 24-hour period.

Once again public opposition is not merely down to paranoia.Shit happens. I've been living in Donegal for a year now and the rumours of extra bucket loads of Chlorine and Flouride being tossed into to the reservoirs whenever a dead sheep plops into the murk are common. I swear, my water tasted like antifreeze one week last spring! There was an awful stench of anecdotal evidence of it too.. kinda smelt like apricot. :)

Also there are a few biochemists and salubrious organisations that are against Water-fluoridation

The International Chiropractic Association (ICA) makes the point that Water Fluoridation must be proven safe before mass administration.http://www.chiropractic.org/?p=ica/policies#fluoridation  
That seems obvious. But, in terms of legally defensible proof, all we have are statistics that usually correlate i.e. less dental caries in populations where water is treated. (I heard a joke once in the vein of that old idiom ‘correlation does not equal causation’ that would be relevant here.) If you’re dealing with mass medication of the population phrases like ‘evidence suggests’ won’t be cutting the mustard!

For similar reasons Avid Carlsson, no less than a Nobel Prize winner, is against Fluoridation. He figures water fluoridation violates pharmacological principles.

Unfortunately his stuff is mostly in Swedish. (In fact it seems the Pro-fluoridation Zeitgeist is distinctly Anglophone thanks to the yanks - they just love their flouride. The majority of critical papers I’ve found have been in other languages.) Here’s Carlsson in English (screen grab):

Following this there are numerous political parties (cross spectrum but mostly green) which consider Fluoridation of water contrary to international law. For instance the UK greens have been arguing for years now that

[f]luoridation violates Article 35 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights
Under Article 35 of the Charter, the right to health care includes the right to refuse health care, for whatever reason. It establishes the individual's right to receive particular drugs or treatments - or to prevent them from having such treatment administered against their wishes.

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/reports/2003/F%20illegality.htm

There’s a lot more as ye can imagine.. dementia links in the Lancet etc. dodgy down syndrome links (mostly rebutted.., in fairness). My point is that once I did a wee bit of searching I found that opposition to fluoridisation is not, on the face of it, irrational or unreasonable. As you can see the strongest arguments against it are political, ethical and philosophical. The scientific arguments are inconclusive in terms of the negative effects if not the positives. In my opinion mass medication, even assuming you aren't ethically or politically opposed, is not like the individual in the court of law: innocent until proven guilty. Biochemical and pharmaceutical compounds are usually considered, for want of a better phrase, guilty until proven innocent. And I mean in a real world context. Hence my opinion that Fluoride is suitable for addition to toothpaste where the heuristics of testing it are manageable. Administering it to a nation-state (once again this is my opinion) is unpredictable and fragile (I use that word with Taleb's import)

So, in my very recently formed (and still flexible) opinion the host of countries who have phased it out of water treatments are behaving sensibly, rationally and ethically. That's not to say fluoridation of water is unethical in countries where it is practiced. It stands to reason that the motivations are ethical in both positive and negative cases if the general population and government considers it so. If further conclusive reports paint a clearer picture I’m sure it could easily begin to be reinstated. The Zeitgeist is fickle mudder.

I was going to post this on my Facebook page but I’d be mortified if a faith healer or some other header shared it.

PS.

John

If I’d expected a blow by blow rebuttal I wouldn’t have thrown you a straw man (the indo article). You battered it manfully! As I said above I just wanted a summary article to show that there is another side. Its not just hippies and newage chakra-guru-slacktivist-facebookers.  Incidentally Wikipedia have a page on Fluoridisation by country that I assume you’ve seen. It’s pretty clear that, outside of the English speaking world water fluoridisation has fallen out of fashion over the years. It seems more sensible to me to put it in salt but that is another issue – water Fluoridisation is the issue. This is neither here nor there because I agree that the Indo article is weak but the journalist wrote it in 2000 when Wikipedia and Google.Translate were not available so who knows her source of misinformation.

John, I’m going to finish with a Bertrand Russell allegory that works as a mischievous joke in this context  (I think you know it Marc) : 

"Imagine a turkey that has lived for 1000 days on a farm, well fed, with proper shelter, playing with the farmer’s children and so on. The turkey has reason to expect, based on its historical experience that this will go on forever – the 1001st day, the Thanksgiving, not being an exception."

One man’s 30 years feeling fine won’t cut it if your defending mass medication!

If you are going to take issue with this post by all means reply. I’d appreciate if you respond to my argument specifically as I am partially convinced of the dental benefits of water flouridation so delivering me links singing its praises won't add to what you've already achieved in your respective posts. In other words explain to me why my impression; that anti-flouridation isn't just for headcases, is false.

To be honest I'm still unsure how to feel about it ethically and that is an issue I'd also be happy to debate. So feel free to convince me of that too.

I love debates so long as there isn't too much testosterone flowing and there's no tar and feathers. That's why I felt the need to check for anti-flouride materials in the first place.
 

Regards and good-will

Roger.

I had good craic writing this .. Got an extension on the book review too! Woo hoo.

Second Year Lectures

Introduction to seminars and Wolfflin lecture here

Content analysis and Panofsky here

Clement Greenberg's brand of Modernist Formalism here

T.J. Clark and his social history of art here

High Order Thoughts

This will hopefully be a quick post to finish my ideas on David M. Rosenthal.

Opinions culled from 'Consciousness and Mind'

To recap he’s a philosopher who figures that verbally expressed thoughts must be ‘High order thoughts’ (HOT’s). These HOT’s are literally an agent thinking about a mental state he or she is in. ‘Desire, doubt, anticipation’ inclination, expectation wondering etc.’ all constitute high order thoughts. 

Here is a useful distinction: The sensual experience of ’coldness’ is a mental state whereas the desire to be warm constitutes a HOT (semi-intentional pun). This means we can imagine a ‘dumb’ animal feeling cold and doing its best to find warmth by implementing other mental states all without out ever actually having the HOT of desire to be warm. While Rosenthal’s theories are materialist they leave room for all kinds of qualia and jigger pokery among humans (or less dumb animals!)

As detailed before, Rosenthal breaks mental states into two positions with a third (potential) conditional feature.

1.      1. State consciousness, which refers to a mental states being conscious.

2.      2. Transitive consciousness, which refers to an individual being conscious of something.

3.       3.The Magic ‘Transivity principle’. This is where mental states are conscious by virtue of one being in some way conscious of them.

This transivity principle is the clause whereby Rosenthal can establish that verbally expressed thoughts are automatically conscious. Meaning the process of a certain reception of stimuli becomes consciously available because you somehow perceive their results. Think bootstrapping your mind.

Here I gave an analogy with a cat and mouse that went like this:

Think of a mouse and his perception that a cat lies in wait outside his hole. We would assume that the mouse is responding to sensory stimuli which point to the presence of our exo-orifice kitty cat. We would not assume the mouse is in possession of a HOT that inveigles a sense of expectation that there is a Tom to his Jerry lucking outside the hole. We assume the mouse is reacting, the way natural selection intended, to the smell or other signals that signify the presence of a predator. At a push however, would we be so sure that Tom doesn't harbour a HOT of desire that the mouse might wander out? Rosenthal attempts to establish that when thoughts are expressed verbally this questions answer becomes conclusive. A hungry human in the predatory role of our cat could easily prove its possession of HOT’s by merely verbalising it.

So what happens in the verbalising human mind?

Let’s imagine a more passive scenario:

Here we have a not-so hungry human named Sarah sitting on a chair looking out a window. Her visual system (eyes, sensory cortex and all that gunk) perceives dark clouds on the horizon. The ensuing data is managed by neurological structures causing a first order thought; an incommunicable nonconscious sense of ‘yuck rain’. The High order thought now may brew (depending on circumstances, attention span etc.) to activate a desire to avoid getting wet. At this juncture Sarah, by virtue of a desire to avoid rain, may express the first order thought with a shake of the head and statement ‘it’s going to rain’. This means the verbally expressed (first order) state of ‘yuck rain’ is conscious while the HOT may or may not be. Equally if Sarah sincerely pronounces ‘I think it’s going to rain’ she has effectively proven that she comprehends that her mental state is occupied by a high order thought and that she knows about it. In both cases the agent desires to avoid getting wet and is therefore state conscious and having a HOT. In the second case the state is transitive not because of the illocutionary performance of ‘I Think’ but because it is an illocutionary performance i.e. the transivity principle has been engaged by the illocutionary force of ‘I think’.

Think about it! It actually does make sense. Just try not to get hung up on the word ‘conscious’ which has far too much semantic wrigglness to it. ‘Consciousness’ is a stinking and slippery wet fish.

Now we can also establish that expression, not just verbal, encourages transitive states. These states allow analysis of one’s own thoughts and perceptual systems. It seems communicative action is pretty much the cornerstone of the Cartesian proposition.

Fred Dretske (1993) wanted to tackle the idea that what makes a state conscious cannot be consciousness of the state. His idea went something like this:

Sam meets Tom on Monday. They chat for a while in clear view of each other. They meet again on Friday in similar circumstances. On Monday Tom was sporting a moustache which he had shaved off by the time of their second meeting. After the second encounter it turns out that Sam hasn’t noticed that Tom has shaved. However we know that he has seen the moustache on Monday and seen none on the Friday (he just hasn’t noticed what his eyes have seen). The second encounter did not include a moustache but despite this conscious difference Sam is unaware. 

I’m not concerned with Dretske’s conclusions here, what interests me is the weakness of the transivity principle in the prescribed interaction. Remember that the transivity principle is what allows you to become aware that you are actually having a HOT. In the Sam/Tom moustache story there was no occurrence of the transivity principle to make Sam notice the disappearance of facial hair.

So Sam doesn’t consciously notice the moustache but it still constituted a mental state; his eyes saw it! This mental state of moustache viewing may become a HOT of inclination that one is superior to those sporting the moustachioed aesthetic (Sam doesn’t have to notice the tache, he might just walk away feeling superior without realising why). It would be unlikely for one to glean self-judging awareness of one’s own shallow apprehensions about facial hair i.e. reach a transitive state of inclined superiority. Hence, even more unlikely to have ones consciousness sufficiently raised to notice the absent moustache at a later meeting i.e. purely on the weight of a transitive awareness of the HOT of superiority.

I started to think how we might amend the scenario so that Sam is fully aware of Tom’s tache. What if the transivity principle is extended by communicative action (i.e. talking, writing, pictograms, morsecode, cave paintings etc.)?

From the ground up let’s imagine Sam’s sensory activity which allows him to appreciate the visual contrast of the moustache. Let’s decide that based on the relevant socio-psychological factors Sam visual reception of the moustache conjures up a first order thought of negativity; ‘yuck moustache’. Sam now has a HOT of jealousy because he feels socially threatened by Tom who it turns out looks good with the moustache! From this point on any semantic segment of Sam’s HOT of jealousy (or related HOT’s) may be raised to a transitive state by the transivity principle. Let’s imagine two such scenarios remembering that it’s this principle that is the potential deliverer of phenomenal awareness of the downstream cognition that eventually amounted to jealousy.

In a first scenario Sam verbalises his HOT of jealousy by poking fun at his appearance when he’s not around. Haha have you seen Sam recently?  He has a shit moustache. Depending on the social backlash it is unlikely that this will serve to make Sam aware of his jealousy it will however make him aware of the first order visual experience and when they meet again Sam will almost definitely notice that Tom has shaved.

Let’s us imagine a second scenario where the scope of the transivity principle is extended. In this version Sam refers to Tom and his new facial hair in a written note to a colleague. Haha have you seen Sam recently?  He has a shit moustache. In jest the colleague posts it on a bulletin board. Wouldn’t the likelihood of Sam noticing the petty intent he has shown increase the potential of his jealousy reaching a transitive state? Imagine the slight became a viral email; wouldn’t this further empower the transitive principle? On viewing the note on a social networking site it’s plausible that Sam would acknowledge his own shallow behaviour and maybe even perceive his socio-psychological prejudices.

So it seems that when we externalise our high order thoughts it increases our chances of became existentially aware!

I have to admit I’m cautious about this, surely inane facebook comments aren’t key to a qualia riddled sense of self-awareness!? My intuition leaves me thinking something different. It may come off as cryptic (at least till I make some more posts) but here goes...

The more we outsource the calculations inherent to metacognitive awareness into the epigenetic niches of culture the more we relax selection on the innate cognitive architectures that allow us to appreciate phenomenal awareness without the cognitive scaffold which culture reciprocally gifts us.

I’m too tired to simplify that brute of a sentence.

Do Androids Dream of The Chinese Room Argument?

I meant this post to be more Rosenthal and the primacy of 'verbally expressed thoughts' but I've run into that old chestnut: The Chinese Room Argument.

This famous beast was originally designed to shoot down 'strong AI' (the artificial creation of  intentionality). John Searle put it to paper in 1980 and it's been argued up and down for the last 30 years. 

Searle suggests we imagine him locked in a room with a batch of Chinese lettering. These symbols are meaningless oriental squiggles to Searle who couldn’t deliberate between them and Japanese script. Following this Searle is provided a box of English instructions for manipulating the Chinese symbols. Once these have been examined by Searle, fluent Chinese speakers begin to insert what are to him incomprehensible strings of symbols. Searle is unaware that these are in fact questions, but by following the English instructions he begins to convey the correct answers by sending out the original batch symbol by symbol.

The implication is that the people outside could satisfactorily deduce the system inside is comprehending Chinese. Of course Searle, the processor of the system, has no comprehension of Chinese what-so-ever. Therefore Searle argues if a man following instructions (a program) processes input for an informative output he has no actual comprehension of the material itself then why assume a digital computer would.

Seem reasonable? No!

I can understand why this has had such a tough reputation but I have to admit it puzzles me that it wasn't critiqued more aggressively at least in the 80's. Anyway let's give it a go.

My own criticism of the Chinese Room would underline Searle’s perception of the comprehension of language as the problem. The Chinese room argument both undermines its power and its source. Like a machine I learn that sounds and vocal inflections signify objects, actions and all manner of conditions in the real world, this makes me fluent in a language. Like a biological self replicating gene machine i feel compelled toward communicative action, an action that amidst the Human animal has allowed me to conceive of myself existentially.

Following this it seems to me that what is actually at the root of the Chinese room argument is a latent qualia argument. Searle intimates that while a computer program might have fluency in the semantics and syntax of a communication system it doesn’t really understand. I would argue in that case I don’t really understand these words I type; I am merely making use of an established set of symbols and values.One might say; "Inside my head I speak Quali-ish but I have this database that allows me to appear as if i speak a material language to the outside world..., good trick eh?"

Lets turn it on its head:

I'll imagine my everyday agency and interaction with the physical world as analogue to the Chinese room argument. The unconscious processor(s) in my brain manipulate incomprehensible chaotic stimuli (Chinese lettering) in relation to the accretion of indigenous and externally assimilated information (English instructions and their implementation) in order to successfully engage phenomenally with the big bad world (Chinese answer). Either I'm a freakish zombie-send-Rick-Deckard-after-me-android or it turns out Deckard and everybody else are too so we can relax and pretend to learn Chinese to our hearts content.

Logically I think this makes Searle's argument a dud.

Instead of dwelling upon the fact that a processing machine in the place of Searle might not understand Chinese why not marvel at the power of the deception? Why not examine the power of the calculating system? How strange that one human animal can establish a blind system so that another individual can process questions into answers without even a rudimentary comprehension. Neither biological nor artificial intentionality are the interesting factors in the Chinese room. It is the inanimate system of calculus that exists outside the heads of our actors that provides the most interesting anomaly. We have reached a juncture in human evolution where we can establish systems that can be processed without comprehension. We (as our sentience might pluralise) are just processors favoured by natural selection to increasingly externalize our memory and cognitive operations.

So in the end Searle's argument makes a handy intuition pump for its own antithesis!

---

John. R. Searle: Minds, brains, and programs. (Cambridge University Press,1980)