Gaps in the Synapse

Time to redefine:

RATIONAL MYSTIC - a person who approaches the natural world with scientific scepticism (which in and of itslef promotes 'awe' and 'wonder' whilst recognising the abstract and personal nature of reality. Hence a Rational Mystic approaches 'mysteries' with the tools and mindset of a scientist whilst being able to celebrate the fact that personal metaphors and mythologies have meaning and value.

Rationalist Language is the DAY TIME language of rational thought, consensus reality and empiricism.

Mystical Langauge is the NIGHT TIME language of metaphor, symbolism and personal, spiritual beliefs.

We are all Rational Mystics - but sometimes we forget what langauge we are speaking!

So - Gaps in the Synape?

Well as some of you will know I am a Mentalist (Magician) as well as a lecturer and educator. I enjoy presenting psychological distractions with a 'night time' theme and feel. Magic does have the potential to create questions; produce those mental discointinuities which encourage people to question their own perceptions.

After performances I do like to 'hang around', time and situation permiting, and talk to the people who have seen my performance. Of course as performer I may allude to psychic or psychological explanations for what I do - BUT the focus is entertainment; my purpose to raise questions and my disclaimer is that I use a range of psychological, theatrical and magical techniques to create the illusion of reality I do.

Nevertheless the after-show conversations often turn to talk of the paranormal, the mystical and the 'unknown'. At such times I am happy to accept the language of the mystic but will want to explore the rationale behind what is being said. More often than not even though I may have explained a neurological process such as the ideomotor response or paraiedolia, in the after show discussions people seem to find it difficult to bridge the gap between what I have demonstrated and what they (want) to believe.

Last weeks round of shows were no different to many of the others I have performed.

During the show I performed a pendulum effect and explained the ideomotor mechanism behind the 'trick'. Afte the show a discussion with a science teacher revolved around dowsing (a logical extension) and the rambled onto "earth energies", 'ley lines' and 'earth lights'.

Now putting aside the fact that I was talking to a science educator, what was fascinating was the way in which any rational discussion of these 'pheneomena' was curtailed by his (the teachers) inability to stay focussed on one point at a time. Comments made by me which challenged some of the psuedoscientific generalisations that were being made were dismissed and the conversation diverted to another train of thought.

For example when I suggested that "dowsing" was in fact the ideomotor response; the conversation turned to Ley Lines. When the nature of Ley Lines was challenged by reference to "The Old Stright Track" and ideas that lines of connection between 'sacre sites' could be fitted retrospectively... the conversation was diverted to Druids and the fact that they built Stonehenge based upon 'earth energy'.

At no poiint could we debate the specifics of any claim, nor explore the logic behind the claims because of the diverse thinking of the person I was talking with. Remeber this was a science educator!

It strikes me as both interesting and as a cause for concern that this synapse gap which exists between 'beliefs' and 'rationality' is so prevalent in someone teaching scientific method to children.

I ended the conversation by referring this teacher to two invaluable resources to help him get a check on his thinking..

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe and Skeptoid

Alan

Technorati Tags: rational mystic, mentalism, skeptics guide, skeptoid, sciencel critical thinking

SKYNET arrives!

So we've seen the renewal of the Terminator franchise with the latest block buster Terminator Salvation - and don't worry there'll be no plot spoilers here.

The original movie and the concept was great science fiction. I mean the notion of 'the rise of the machines' set against the backdrop of a computer system that becomes 'self aware' moments after being turned on... yeah, science fiction.

As we all know any robotic artificial intelligence would of course be 'programmed' to follow the Three Laws of Robotics as outlined by Issac Asimov..

1. A Robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except when such orders would conflict with the first law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Ok, so they were created as a plot device in a science fiction story, but they are laws that folks involved in robotics often refer to.

WELL guys, they might sound like good laws, but I have to tell you that we already have 'robots' breaking the first two on a regular basis. Maybe this is not news to you, but when I stopped to think about it I felt a strange kind of turning in the pit of my stomach.

I am a bit of a techno-geek and so enjoy hearing about advances in technology - hell the Rationalist part of me is a science nut!

But when it dawned on me that 'military robots' are currently in active service in Iraq and Afghanistan suddenly visions of Terminator Hunter-Killers seemed far less like a Hollywood fantasy.

We're all familiar with the little remote control 'robot caterpillars' that have been used for many years in bomb disposal situations. The fact that these things are obviously 'remote control' and look like something you might 'knock up' from an old mechano set seemed to dispel any fears or concerns that they could turn on their human masters and wage violent techno-war.

Todays military robots are far from mechano and wire affairs.

TALON is a tractor based robot that can travel through sand, water, up to 100 feet of snow and climb stairs (so it's better then the first Daleks!). Equipped with night vision and infra red sensors it has become an essential aid to soldiers 'in the field'.

HAZMAT TALON is fitted with gas, chemical and radiation sensors, SOTAL (Special Ops Talon) has a range of listening devices and SWORDS TALON is equipped with small arms for combat and guard roles...

So all OK there then, keeping the armed forces personnel safe.....

WAIT a moment... SWORDS TALON carries a gun!!!

Well not just a gun. It can be fitted with a M16 rifle a M240 machine gun, a six barralled grenade launcher or a FLASH incendiary weapon.

Not so passive now eh - in fact a pretty mean fighting machine.

TALON has been in military service since 2000 in places like Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The MQ-9 Reaper (Predator B to give it it's first name) is an unmanned aerial vehicle. This lovely little machine can carry up to 14 Hellfire air to ground missiles; or four missiles and two 500lb laser guided bombs and it will soon be able to carry AIM-92 air to air missiles.

One US Air Force Chief of staff (General T Michael Moseley) is on record as saying:

"We've moved from using UAV's (unmanned air vehicles) primarily in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance roles before Operation Iraqi Freedom, to a true hunter killer role with the Reaper."

'HUNTER KILLERS'... and of course all being ordered to break the second and first laws of robotics as proposed by an optimistic Asimov.

USAF Reaper Squadrons include 432d Air Expeditionary Wing (Nevada, with RAF Sq.39); 30th Reconnaissance Sqd. ; 19th Attack Sqd.: 42d Attack Sqd.; 1st Special Operations Wing; 3rd Special Operations Wing; 174th Fighter Wing to name a few...

No 39 Squadron RAF is UK's Reaper Squadron

As of 2009 the reported number of these remote control and autonomous flying robots stood at 195 Predators and 28 Reapers.

At least with these robots humans are 'in the loop' and therefore are making the final decisions. However artificial intelligence (AI) is developing at such a rate that it is feasible that humans can be 'taken out of the loop'. (Shades of War Games here). This could be desirable from a military point of view as on-the-spot decisions can be made faster by the computer software AI system if it does not have to wait for human input.

The Samsung SGR-A1 is a 5.56mm robotic machine gun that is currently guarding the Korean DMZ. It can track multiple targets using infra-red and visible light. We are comfortably informed that this 'intelligent surveillance, guard robot' can "identify and shoot a target automatically from over two miles away" So although under human supervision the system can be 'automated'

Of course you don't want to kill the wrong people so Samsung have thoughtfully equipped the SGR-A1 with microphone and speakers... "so that passwords can be exchanged with human troops" If the person gives the wrong password, the robot can "sound an alarm or fire at the target using rubber bullets or a K-3 swivel mounted machine gun".

A recent report by the US Office of Naval Research makes for some sobering reading. It is the first report of its kind on military robot ethics and it points out that robots could display significant advantages over human beings as soldiers.

“There is a common misconception that robots will do only what we have programmed them to do,” says Patrick Lin, the chief compiler of the report.

“Unfortunately, such a belief is sorely outdated, harking back to a time when . . . programs could be written and understood by a single person.”

The reality, Dr Lin said, was that modern programs included millions of lines of code and were written by teams of programmers, none of whom knew the entire program: accordingly, no individual could accurately predict how the various portions of large programs would interact without extensive testing in the field – an option that may either be unavailable or deliberately sidestepped by the designers of fighting robots.

This issue is of direct relevance now as the US has passed a congressional mandate that a third of all "deep strike" aircraft must be unmanned by 2010 and by 2015 a third of all ground combat vehicles must be likewise unmanned.

So smart, autonomous fighting robots are here. At the moment they are being kept on a leash; but it is not inconceivable that there is a time coming soon when the leash can and will be taken off.

What of SKYNET?

Well as long as these 'robots' behave according to their programming I guess they'll only be killing, maiming and bombing the 'bad guys'... but when does AI become 'aware'?

Scientists are working on creating an 'artificial brain' and depending upon what sources you read you will discover of estimates of between 5 and 25 years before this is achieved.

If you are a dualist, then this will not really concern you as you will believe that consciousness is something outside of the mechanics of the brain - you subscribe to a kind of 'ghost in the machine'. Unfortunately most neurologists are non-dualists, believing that consciousness is an emergent property of brain function. If they are right then the 'artificial brain' we create will develop consciousness.

I know that this doesn't really seem to have been a topic that a Rational Mystic would normally blog about - I mean where's the mysticism or the pseudoscience?

Perhaps its more about the serious ethical debates that need to take place around this topic that have prompted this outpouring. There's so much here...

Putting issues of consciousness, AI and robotics aside for a moment, we have a range of technologies here that are actually removing some of the barriers to war.

When we wage war, for what ever reason, we accept the responsibility that human lives are going to be lost. If we can now wage war without the potential for loss of (carbon based) life of those on 'our side' in the conflict, then are we in fact removing the one thing that could make us stop and think twice?

In the Star Trek (original series) episode A Taste of Armageddon, two planets were waging a deadly war entirely by computer. The computer would report the damage caused in an attack and the casualties from that attack. The people on the planets would then voluntarily report for 'disintegration'. In this way 'societies trappings' of buildings, commercial infrastructure and material possessions would not be destroyed... but the engine of war would be served.

I get the feeling of some strange parallels here... the notion that warfare can be clinical and clean and sanitised is as far as I am concerned not a good idea!

But there's another futuristic consideration...

What if the robots we build do develop an awareness?

What is our responsibility then?

Should we send these artificial lives out to kill and be killed?

One last point...

Without wishing to sound like a conspiracy theorist it must be noted that however advanced military robots seem to be now the things that we know about are things in the public domain. How much more advanced is the technology being developed in the R&D departments of munitions, science and computer companies... until the discoveries being made there are announced we will never know.

What is in the public domain is always behind what is in the laboratories of the researchers.

Until next time

Alan

Some interesting references:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/08/httpwwwnational/

http://www.foster-miller.com/lemming.htm

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/07/ap_reaper_070715/

http://www.roboticstrends.com/topics/security_defense_robotics/P120/

http://ethics.calpoly.edu/ONR_report.pdf

http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/ai/here-come-neurobots

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l633l146k684530h/

Energy

In the Alternative/Complementary Therapy arena there is a lot of talk about 'energy'. It has various names.. 'vital force', 'chi', 'life force' and so on. BUT what is it?

In there was to be only one sticking point between the scientific community and the spiritual community then perhaps it would be on this issue of energy.

The problem is basically that New Age thinkers tend to use the word energy as a noun. A word which describes 'something'. Scientists have a very different definition of what 'energy' is.

The famous equation E=MC2 defines energy.

E = energy and it is equivalent to the mass of an object (M) times the speed of light (C) squared.

Now both mass and speed are measurements so that means ENERGY too must be a measurement. In simple terms energy is a measurement of of 'work'. It is a measurement of the amount of work it takes (or would) take to interact with the world. Every school child knows that there are clearly defined 'categories' of energy... POTENTIAL ENERGY .. basically energy that is 'stored' in some way and KINETIC ENERGY.. that is energy that is in motion. In reality these categories tend to cover the fact that energy cannot be described as a thing but as something that has specific traits....

Energy is a property or characteristic (or trait or aspect?) of matter that makes things happen, or, in the case of stored or potential energy, has the "potential" to make things happen.

When energy makes things happen it does so by causing a change in shape, speed. volume, pressure, temperature,chemical reactions and density and so on.

Energy is an agent of change.... and it is measure on calories, joules of kilojoules.

When New Age folk talk about energy they are not talking about anything that can be measured.

So what are they talking about...

Well many scientist would argue 'nothing' - and in many of the instances where New Age Alternative folk claim energy at work' science has consistently shown it either to be something else or non existent.

Now lets get something out of the way here..

SCIENCE is not a belief system - it is a process - a way of doing things or thinking about things. The 'scientific method'.

Science does not prove anything it sets out to disprove specific ideas; testing specific claims by trying to identify and control all of the possible variable that make things happen.

Let me tell you about Emily Rosa.

At the age of 10 she was given the rare honour of being the youngest person to have a paper published in a scientific journal. She was interested in Therapeutic Touch and wondered what kind of 'energy' the practitioners were feeling - if indeed they were really feeling anything.

She set out to test the practitioners claims of the human energy field.

I leave it with you to read the full story but suffice it to say that a simple experiment actually showed that experienced practitioners of Dolores Kriegers TT could not detect the human energy field let alone interact with it. Emily's work was published in 1998 and to date, there is no published experimental replication or refutation of Emily's original study. It presently stands alone as a test of TT practitioners' raw ability to detect or manipulate the 'human energy' field.

NOW here's the thing..

ALL traditional, spiritual and New Age ideas about energy are pre-scientific and tend to defer to magical thinking. (PLEASE don't get me onto the misuse of Quantum Theory by the New Age community...!!!) So there will be NO common ground between the rationalist and the mystic in the way energy is talked about...

So, shifting focus a little now...

In 'energy based' therapies the client does percieve an effect. There as lot going on here and we should not deny the individuals subjective experience.... and that's an issue for next time...

HOWEVER before the next installment you may like to look at this..

WARNING
 

The clip is from Penn and Tellers sceptic show B**LLS***T and does contain adult language.
If this offends then do not play the clip

Background: The show brings a critical eye to all commonly held conspiracy theories; New Age scams and so forth. The experiment in Listen-etics was not set up in the sense that the 'clients' thought they were experiencing a legitimate experiment/trial of an actual technique.

NLP on SKEPTOID

Firstly I just have to say that I am a fan of Brian Dunning and his Skeptoid podcast... everyone should listen to this it's a breath of fresh air. Skeptoid and  The Skeptics Guide to the Universe are shows I always listen to and heartily recommend.

On the 26th May the Skeptoid podcast was on NLP - and as ever Brian did a great job.

As an NLP guy myself I often think that the flavour of NLP I am promoting is not quite the same as that which is presenting itself to the 'New Age' and 'Alternative Community' today.

NLP does have history somewhat fragmented history and indeed legal wrangles, sex, drugs, rock and roll together with the odd murder do feature. No one would deny that in the 'heady days' of NLP's rise to fame those that were  swept along with it had more than a little of the 'rock star' approach to life.

Anyone really interested in NLP needs to listen to and read Brian Dunnings analysis. He is coming at the subject as someone who has not been caught up in the rhetoric and hyperbole of some of the practitioners 'out there'. I mean let's face it NLP does tend to attract more than it's fair share of 'charismatics'. I've been in training with both John Grinder and Richard Bandler and there's no two ways about it - these guys have 'something'.

Brain focusses the bulk of his comments on the dogged, terrier like approach that the 'Meta Model' takes with what people say and the vague, wishy-washy statements that the "Milton Model" (or Inverse Meta-Model) leads practitioners to make. More importantly however is the generalised observation that many NLP Practitioners seem to focus on these two language patterns almost exclusively as the 'patterns for change'.

The problem here I think is that so many of the 'professional level' trainings (in the UK) are of the 'intensive' 'nuts and bolts' type. I mean, seriously, how can anyone learn effective communication patterns that can be applied in a therapeutic context in five or six days?

The motivating factor for many of these trainings is purely and simply 'money'!

NOW, I started by saying that I think I think of NLP differently to some of those who have been through the NLP sausage machine. Welll that may, in part, be due to my training in education and counselling. For me NLP is NOT a tricksy all singing all dancing therapy... NOR is it the 'power play' demonstrated by the superb psychological illusionist Derren Brown (I am also a magician and member of the Magic Circle so am aware of the wonderful interplay of fact and fantasy woven by Derren).

NLP is a set of ideas about HOW our minds make sense of the world around us.

NLP presents a number of 'models' about how people MIGHT be responding to subjective relaity. (Philosophically the model pays more than a passing nod to Radical Constructivism and Psychologically owes a lot to Skinner and Adler).

The NLP 'tools' are approaches which, to all intents and purposes, help people shift their 'perspective' on issues, problems and challenges. Such dialogues, linguistic and mental mind games can bring new insights and considerations.

Many NLP 'models' deal with finding ways of describing behaviours. Exploring the consequences and possibilities of these actions externally whilst creating frameworks (metaphors) around which the internal emotions and motivations can be explored.

It's not simply a question of to Meta-Question or Not Meta-Question the application is much broader than that.

There is no way that NLP Practitioners who have been subjected to an 'intensive' course with a charismatic leader should consider themselves as therapists of any tone, colour or falvour. Unfortunately many do. Hence the somewhat icy reception NLP has with it's closest therapeutic counterpart CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy).

NLP is a mindset - and approach - which is infact more art than science. The narrow consideration and promotion of it as a method of gaining influence and power over people is ethically questionable and demonstrably improbable. (Derren Brown is a magician with a brilliant grasp of the psychology of deception as well as the psychology of human behaviour - in magician old speak he is a Mentalist... like Banacek, Kreskin, Max Maven.... and that should in no way detract from his skill!). However the internet is awash with NLP Trainers promising the secrets of "personal power" and somehow trips neatly into the psuedomystical hogwash we know as the Law of Attraction (see my Rational Mystic blog for some thoughts on that one).

Somewhere along the way some of the folks in the NLP community turned to marketeers rather than people helpers; entrepreneurs rather than explorers and some of the heart was lost. NLP is certainly not the 'star' it once was and some of its proponents are reinventing themselves as Svengali like perveyors of mind manipulation or as Mystical Mavericks who actually really undertsand the 'quantum nature' of the mind-body link and the way energy 'transduction' works. (Yes there is a course being advertised on Quantum NLP and I've seen one being promoted as "Fifth Dimensional NLP").... OH PLEASE!!!!

Nothing could be further from I what I though NLP was aspiring to be than this pseudo-msytical nonsense. Now I've no problem with mysticism (actually I think of myself as part Mystic) BUT you can't have it both ways - ie. claim scientific credibility and follow an approach which recognises the subjectivity of human experience. The two are imcompatible.... scientific process and mystical experience.

What NLP can do, is provide a neutral third position from which to question the assumptions we make about the reality we perceive. It does this by exploring behaviour within the context of a number of 'what if' postulates - what NLP folk call the key NLP presuppositions. In having this conversation, as in any focussed and deep conversations, attitudes can be explored, behaviours challenged and personal benefits derived. When such conversations are supported by tools to encourage creativity, behaviour flexibility, emotional expression (as in exploring emotional intelligence) and set 'targets' that are motivational people do find a benefit.

Talking to someone does help ...

NLP is not a psychotherapy as it would like to be considered, neither is it counselling as it tends not to rely on narrative, but it is a form of coaching which can help people understand something of themselves. I think NLP practitioners need to think carefully about what they say they do and what they can actually do.

Thanks Brian for stirring these thoughts and maybe starting some form of debate within the NLP community.

Alan

I see the light...

Greetings fellow Rational Mystics.

Apologies for being away from the blog for a wee while.

So.. what to talk about...

WELL....

Several months ago I was sent an odd photograph. It was taken at night near a particularly favourite spot of mine, Lanyon Quoite an ancient stone monument in the West of Cornwall.

Before I show you the photograph that was sent to me, I must say something about the report that came with it.

Apparently a friend of mine and her two freinds visited the Quoit late one evening. They had a camera with them and so were taking some snaps.

Upon reviewing the photograph my friend had taken of her two friends (sounds like one of those awful Urban Legend stories doesn't it!), they discovered a strange trace of light travelling over the stones and towards the camera. My friends-friends recalled that at the time the photo was taken they had 'felt' a 'chill' or 'something odd' but could not quite place it.

The photograph was sent to me because of my interest in these things with the question "Is this the EARTHLIGHT we have read about in books on sacred sites?"

To set the scene further for you, the road which passes alongside the Quoit is not a probable source for the light that you are about to see passing over the stones.

So, here's the photo...

I must admit when I first looked I did see the light-trace (earthlight) I had been told to see.

The source seems to be from behind the silhoutted Quoit and the people who 'felt' the presence (or what ever) are dutifully holding the stones....

BUT... if you look again you will see what the light actually is....

(OK, in all probablity is)...

Can you see it?

Well first you must remember that this photo was taken with a small digital camera with inbuilt flash...

And...

Secondly....

That small digital camera had a camera strap!

What do you think?

Alan