Some interesting blogs that are worth reading. I stored them in the hope of using them to stimulate a reflective blog (and may still do so) but for the moment I share them.
6 iconoclastic discoveries about the brain from Neurophilosophy, and number 5 puts the kibosh on ideas that computers and the brain are similar.
A wonderful series in Nature which attempts a scientific explanation of music, all nine parts available here
Cosmic monster, a great picture not to mention a fascinating explanation
Neurophilosophy again on the way in which Shakespeare's use of functional shift and its impact on the brain.
Finally the really scary stuff. I found this tracking down the background of one disruptive editor on the Wikipedia article on Philosophy.
Comments (5)
And the conclusion of the study of Shakespeare's use of functional shift?
"We propose that this dissociation between syntactic and semantic evaluation enabled Shakespeare to create dramatic effects without diverting his public away from meaning."
There are a few points about this which are worht considering:
1. Context. The paper states: "We extracted 40 functional shifts from their original setting in
verses from Shakespeare’s works and created a context in modern English so as to create an expectation for the critical word. Special
emphasis was placed on keeping a balance between faithfulness to the original text and semantic transparency. In particular, we provided a clear contextualising environment at the beginning of
the example, which did not normally bear much resemblance (in terms of wording) to the original Shakespearean text.
So - it wasn't really Shakespeare's texts which were being used - nor of course anything like the context in which 'Shakespeare's public' would experience his work. I am surprised by the jump to extrapolate these results to a situation several hundred years ago. From my (limited) understanding of the context then, experiencing a play by Shakespeare would be a noisy, vibrant and visual experience where the words (although important) provide just part of the meaning. And of course, it is the actors who provide the depth and dramatic effects.........isn't it?
2. The study involved 21 students. Is this representative of the 'public' - let alone 'Shakespeare's public'? How can you make a jump from 21 students to the 'public'?
3. What is the purpose of this deep analysis of literature and neuro-science. It has a slightly scary edge if New Labour were to get hold of it. You could project forward to the year 2020 when school children would be taken into machines, where they would listen to Shakespeare and results and league tables would be published. ("Ah - I see Eton came top again in late centro-parietal positivity for King Lear this year").
Please just let the literature operate in the context it was meant to....no need for this kind of study!
Ok - the authors admit in their conclusion that some of the issues I mention above are 'challenges' - however I am amazed at what seems a waste of money and valuable equipment.
Posted by David Cronshaw | July 13, 2008 9:47 AM
Posted on July 13, 2008 09:47
Great links.
I found the last one scary too. I'm intrigued that (if I understand correctly) the author has some interest in philosophy as his argument seems utterly incoherent (champion the individual over a group but at the same time treat individuals in Iran as a group and nuke them all).
Posted by Johnnie Moore | July 13, 2008 11:40 AM
Posted on July 13, 2008 11:40
David Cronshaw, ref your point 3. New Labour have got hold of it. The RSA is going to be doing it
http://www.thersa.org/events/speakers-archive/matthew-taylor
http://www.thersa.org/projects/pro-social-behaviour/changing-minds
Posted by Brian Sherwood Jones | July 13, 2008 5:10 PM
Posted on July 13, 2008 17:10
Brian - thanks very much for pointing this out........
Dave - I would be very interested in your analysis of the lecture given by Matthew Taylor on the subject of neurological reflexivity...
see:
http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/cognitive-capacity
Some of the other projects the RSA are/have been doing are, to use a word, 'scary'. I find them far 'scarier' than that American bomb Iran guy. He is just a lone nutter. Some of these projects are truly amazing. Quote:
"Most recently, the RSA Risk Commissions work on risk and childhood suggested that children and young people need the opportunities to seek excitement, and to learn to identify and manage the risks in their lives."
.....Really? Amazing stuff....
And the RSA Response?
Our response
This project will pilot a pioneering online gaming tool that will enable young people to generate some of the skills we believe are needed to make positive choices about risk.
....So a computer game.......
Well the good thing about the RSA is that there seems to be some governance in place and the RSA board can be contacted by email.....which I will be doing....
Posted by David Cronshaw | July 14, 2008 12:05 AM
Posted on July 14, 2008 00:05
The link to the "Cosmic monster" is the same one as for the Nature article on music. The description of the cosmic monster has got me curious to see it! What's the real URL?
Posted by Steve Holt | July 14, 2008 4:42 AM
Posted on July 14, 2008 04:42