At the conservancy’s annual general meeting, dried-up old equestrians and amateur botanists talk of their battles with developers and planning commissions.
“Special guest speakers will include...”
I’ve known them for years and still don’t understand them.
“A comprehensive history of working people and their organizations in... A national teachers’ poll was conducted on behalf of... It reveals the views of educators on workplace issues such as workload and hours of work, abusive parents...”
What about abusive teachers? Anyone take a poll on dat?
“... class size, integration of special needs students...”
I got quite a few students wid special needs, da’s for sure.
“... the extent of participation in and spending on professional development activities. The survey indicates that 83% of... have a higher workload than four years ago. They also report growing class sizes and, at the same time, larger numbers of special needs students are being integrated into their classrooms...”
Now is dat increasin class-size due to the number of special needs students being integrated or what? How bout some more freakin percentages here.
“Although a significant number of teachers reported witnessing at least one incident that they would classify as physical assault or verbal abuse, there is an overwhelming view that our schools are safe places.”
I beg to differ wid’at one, hun. Another grizzled eco-veteran slips in and takes a seat. Then de next speaker o’d’hour, good old Hobson, rises to begin his’hit.
“The level of any conscious state in the brain rises and falls in response to the degree of electrochemical activation supplied by the reticular formation in the brainstem core. Whatever consciousness is, and however its components are mediated by the specialized structures of the upper brain, the LEVEL of consciousness is set by an internal electrochemical drive system that has been called the ‘nonspecific reticular activating system’ since its discovery by Moruzzi and Magoun in 1949.”
Hobson might take quantum mechanics a little too far, but at least he seems like he’s talkin sense today. 1949? Sure was a long time ago.
“The main idea is that for the brain to be conscious, its nerve cells must maintain a certain level of electrochemical activity... Consciousness is virtually obliterated during sleep, which leads to the surprising insight that consciousness operates within a very narrow range of activation. Put another way, consciousness is exquisitely sensitive to even slight changes in activation level... By altering the tension in our muscles and by focusing our internal awareness on one channel of data or another, we can navigate into the more peaceful harbors of the conscious world. When we do this, we bring our reticular formation partially under the control of our will, probably via the prefrontal cortex.”
CHALMERS gotta get his two cents worth in here...
“Computational hypothesis...”
He cites Wolfram’s New Kind of Science.
“State of cell at one time is a function of the state of a cell at a previous time...”
Well, as if we didn’t all know dat. Still, I can’t help thinkin o’Kim’s new version o’functionalism. Or at least, I guess it used to be new, probably back when I was a student or something.
“This hypothesis would not require massive revisions in other beliefs.”
David Chalmers has the stench of the desert all over him. I’s in his hair, on his shirt and socks. His mind is thoroughly ensconced in it. The sun and the sand in conjunction with too much dry air has entered his bloodstream. The madness o’Castenada is coursing through his veins. His eyes are seething with a sky that remains unfettered by rainclouds. There are sunsets roaming free in his beard. There’s rock dust spilling from his cuffs and nostrils... Windtunnels forming in his mouth and drilling into his skull. How much longer can he keep them at bay? They are gradually wearing down his abutements and crags. I used to want to be just like him.
“What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience.”
The problem with experience is that we cannot seem to figure out how or why such feelings arise from physical processes.
“This is not to say that experience has no function. Perhaps it will turn out to play an important cognitive role. But for any role it might play, there will be more to the explanation of experience than a simple explanation of the function. Perhaps it will even turn out that in the course of explaining a function, we will be led to the key insight that allows an explanation of experience. If this happens, though, the discovery will be an extra explanatory reward. There is no cognitive function such that we can say in advance that explanation of that function will automatically explain experience.”
I’m gonna get up de courage to actually ask a question myself, now:
“What is a mental state?”
Hobson takes it upon hisself to answer: “It follows that, given sensation, awareness could emerge simply as the sensation of sensation. With the emergence of vocalization and language capability in higher primates and humans, this sensation of sensation could then be represented abstractly in verbal descriptions and drawings.”
I feel like I didn get much of an answer to my question there. Maybe I’ll try something else: “How do we know that it is verbally reportable?”
Hobson’s gonna try again: “What began as mere sensation becomes -in a series of seamless bootstrapping steps- first our sensation of sensations, then our awareness of sensation, and finally our awareness of awareness...”
What the F is dis guy going on about?!
“... The gradual building up of symbol upon symbol upon symbol as brain circuit is added to brain circuit is as palpable in the development of individuals as it is in the elaboration of species.”
I don’t’hink dat answers my questions at all. Sounds like a lot o’bullshit to me, bringing in Darwin like dat. Shame on you. Da’s blasphemy in my book. Besides, I think der’s no reason why understanding the brain basis for consciousness should eliminate or even limit further phenomenological investigations on the subject. I believe dey go hand-in-hand, like two peas in a pod. But no one really listens to me anyway.
“How can such a verbal report be verified?”
He probably ain gonna like me no more. Oh well, I’m fuckin used to it. How long is dis fuckin presentation gonna go on for anyway?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
“If we want a truly deep understanding of consciousness, we must descend beyond microscopic levels of analysis to that of atoms and subatomic particles, and even beyond that.”
This definitely where Hobson’s account starts to fall apart. I hope he don’t start to cry today. I don’t even feel like listenin to de rest o’what dis guy has to say.
“How can we know that a mental state is internally accessible?”
I’m getting bored. Time to dissociate...Who is dis group of yuppy hipsters next to me? Texting each other bout ad space and news anchors on websites... I’m gonna interrupt Hobson here, I’m gettin sick of his bullshit: “How do we know when an action is deliberate?”
Everyone in de room jus’tops an fuckin stares at me. I guess dat’s enough outta me for today. But I still have so many other questions: Are these phenomena really as straightforward as Chalmers claims? If so, then it would seem as though the experience of consciousness should be equally straightforward. What is this feeling other than an awareness of mental states? If we have no explanation of how the ‘feeling’ that accompanies consciousness translates into some sort of physical process, then it would seem that we have no reason to believe that mental states can be translated into some sort of physical process. But da’s jus my opinion, I could be wrong, yo. Hey, what happened in de last board meeting? Maro?
This definitely where Hobson’s account starts to fall apart. I hope he don’t start to cry today. I don’t even feel like listenin to de rest o’what dis guy has to say.
“How can we know that a mental state is internally accessible?”
I’m getting bored. Time to dissociate...Who is dis group of yuppy hipsters next to me? Texting each other bout ad space and news anchors on websites... I’m gonna interrupt Hobson here, I’m gettin sick of his bullshit: “How do we know when an action is deliberate?”
Everyone in de room jus’tops an fuckin stares at me. I guess dat’s enough outta me for today. But I still have so many other questions: Are these phenomena really as straightforward as Chalmers claims? If so, then it would seem as though the experience of consciousness should be equally straightforward. What is this feeling other than an awareness of mental states? If we have no explanation of how the ‘feeling’ that accompanies consciousness translates into some sort of physical process, then it would seem that we have no reason to believe that mental states can be translated into some sort of physical process. But da’s jus my opinion, I could be wrong, yo. Hey, what happened in de last board meeting? Maro?
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Dear Members, Friends and Colleagues,
For many years, Townsend’s Board of Directors has constructed its annual budget, and authorized both ongoing and new program expenditures, on the basis of its best guesses as to what costs and incomes would be. Sometimes it has actually budgeted a substantial deficit ($92 000 a year) when it has strongly suspected income for the year would actually significantly exceed what had been dependably established at the time of budgeting.
As well, Townsend has also been constrained in its core funding over the course of the last decade. It has risen by a total of 17% from 1995/96 to 2005/06. During the same period, inflation rose by just under 20%, and Townsend’s membership grew by 150%.
This year, we’ve decided to address long-term cost pressures among all its funded agencies with an increase of 5% to the core funding for each of them, this despite receiving no additional money from the provincial Government for this purpose. For Townsend, this meant an increase of $53 000 in its ongoing core funding (bringing the total increase since 1995/96 to the 17% noted).
The Townsend Board of Directors is grateful for the increase to its core funding. However, this additional
$53 000 is not enough to sustain some of the expanded programming that has been put in place; and it is nowhere near enough to fund the further expansions hoped for. So the Board has made a series of very painful budget decisions:
-closure of Townsend’s highly regarded Positive Prevention department
-elimination of three full-time staff positions
-numerous reductions in programming across the range of Townsend’s services
Townsend’s Board of Directors will work vigorously to secure new funding to restore our lost programs and staff.
Man, dat sucks. Who had to present dat shit? Oh yeah, dat was me. Don’t shoot de messenger, folks, please. What were MY notes on all o’dat shit, Maro?
For many years, Townsend’s Board of Directors has constructed its annual budget, and authorized both ongoing and new program expenditures, on the basis of its best guesses as to what costs and incomes would be. Sometimes it has actually budgeted a substantial deficit ($92 000 a year) when it has strongly suspected income for the year would actually significantly exceed what had been dependably established at the time of budgeting.
As well, Townsend has also been constrained in its core funding over the course of the last decade. It has risen by a total of 17% from 1995/96 to 2005/06. During the same period, inflation rose by just under 20%, and Townsend’s membership grew by 150%.
This year, we’ve decided to address long-term cost pressures among all its funded agencies with an increase of 5% to the core funding for each of them, this despite receiving no additional money from the provincial Government for this purpose. For Townsend, this meant an increase of $53 000 in its ongoing core funding (bringing the total increase since 1995/96 to the 17% noted).
The Townsend Board of Directors is grateful for the increase to its core funding. However, this additional
$53 000 is not enough to sustain some of the expanded programming that has been put in place; and it is nowhere near enough to fund the further expansions hoped for. So the Board has made a series of very painful budget decisions:
-closure of Townsend’s highly regarded Positive Prevention department
-elimination of three full-time staff positions
-numerous reductions in programming across the range of Townsend’s services
Townsend’s Board of Directors will work vigorously to secure new funding to restore our lost programs and staff.
Man, dat sucks. Who had to present dat shit? Oh yeah, dat was me. Don’t shoot de messenger, folks, please. What were MY notes on all o’dat shit, Maro?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
----------------------------------------------
COUNCIL ON HIGHER EDUCATION -- CONSULTATION ON FUNDING CONTINUES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A discussion paper on a proposed new funding formula for Townsend was released today by the Townsend Council on Higher Eductaion. The paper outlines principles already determined in consultation with universities, and focuses discussion on details of how these principles can best be met through a new formula.
Council chair Gung Chen explained that the goal is to develop a fair funding formula that responds to changes in student enrolments, programs and universities, while providing incentives to encourage excellence and innovation in both university programming and research.
“The current funding formula is outdated, based on decisions made almost 10 years ago,” Gung Chen said. “Since then, enrolments have chaged, universities have changed, times have changed. The only thing that hasn’t changed is the funding formula, and it’s time to catch up.”
Somethin seems a little off to me, here. But I can’t quite put my finger on it.
The proposed formula is built upon five key principles: equity; policy sensitivity; stability and predictability; public accountability; and transparency. The principles of public accountability and transparency mean universities, students and taxpayers can more easily and logically understand how university funding is allocated, and see for themselves that public tax dollarsare being well-spent.
Equity is linked to the number of students enrolled in a university and the cost of the programs they take. This would be relected in the formula through a ‘weighted enrolment grant’. A minimum-maximum enrolment range or corridor should be set for each university at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Universities could enrol additional students, but would only receive government funding for the number of students within this range.
The number of students would be multiplied by the cost of the programs they take. To determine program costs, programs are categorized into ‘bins’ based on a number of factors including: special facilities from laboratories to music studios; equipment costs; the need for technical and specialized support staff; and average faculty salaries.
Equity changes are proposed for international student fees. Currently, universities equally share additional fees paid by all international students. It is proposed that each university keep the fees paid by its international students to reward the increased effort being undertaken by universities in international marketing.
Universities would receive grants to encourage high-quality research capability. Government would also provide innovation and change, and public policy priorities. This supports the principle of policy sensitivity, which enables government to direct resources to its highest priorities. Restricted grants would continue to be available for alterations, renovations, and library and other equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNCIL ON HIGHER EDUCATION -- CONSULTATION ON FUNDING CONTINUES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A discussion paper on a proposed new funding formula for Townsend was released today by the Townsend Council on Higher Eductaion. The paper outlines principles already determined in consultation with universities, and focuses discussion on details of how these principles can best be met through a new formula.
Council chair Gung Chen explained that the goal is to develop a fair funding formula that responds to changes in student enrolments, programs and universities, while providing incentives to encourage excellence and innovation in both university programming and research.
“The current funding formula is outdated, based on decisions made almost 10 years ago,” Gung Chen said. “Since then, enrolments have chaged, universities have changed, times have changed. The only thing that hasn’t changed is the funding formula, and it’s time to catch up.”
Somethin seems a little off to me, here. But I can’t quite put my finger on it.
The proposed formula is built upon five key principles: equity; policy sensitivity; stability and predictability; public accountability; and transparency. The principles of public accountability and transparency mean universities, students and taxpayers can more easily and logically understand how university funding is allocated, and see for themselves that public tax dollarsare being well-spent.
Equity is linked to the number of students enrolled in a university and the cost of the programs they take. This would be relected in the formula through a ‘weighted enrolment grant’. A minimum-maximum enrolment range or corridor should be set for each university at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Universities could enrol additional students, but would only receive government funding for the number of students within this range.
The number of students would be multiplied by the cost of the programs they take. To determine program costs, programs are categorized into ‘bins’ based on a number of factors including: special facilities from laboratories to music studios; equipment costs; the need for technical and specialized support staff; and average faculty salaries.
Equity changes are proposed for international student fees. Currently, universities equally share additional fees paid by all international students. It is proposed that each university keep the fees paid by its international students to reward the increased effort being undertaken by universities in international marketing.
Universities would receive grants to encourage high-quality research capability. Government would also provide innovation and change, and public policy priorities. This supports the principle of policy sensitivity, which enables government to direct resources to its highest priorities. Restricted grants would continue to be available for alterations, renovations, and library and other equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Hmm... Anyway, where are they now?
“... falliblist: for all beliefs it is possible that any single belief could be false...”
Peirce was an early advocate of falliblism. WTF? Can that spelling possibly be right, Maro? For Davidson, truth does not equal coherence. But the principle of charity entails that we have to have people who are coherent believers.
A lot of life is just putting in time here and there. Is it May? Is it June? I keep mistaking this time for June. It feels like June. You have to be careful when you are writing in public. People are liable to get disconcerted.
If the principle of charity works then it is not possible for all of our beliefs to be false (most should be true). Error makes sense only against a background of true belief. True beliefs are essential to interpretation, though there’s always some possibility of error. Successful communication entails mainly true beliefs held by someone. You have to assume that a believer holds true beliefs in order to allow for communication at all.
Oops, somehow we got on to de next presenter without me noticin: Michael Lockwood is gonna tell us all bout The Enigma of Science. Very exciting indeed.
“Every physical system has its associated state space. This is an abstract space, the dimensionality of which depends on the number of degrees of freedom, and the elements of which -the points or vectors of which it is composed- denote possible states of the system.”
Hmm... Not too bad so far. I wonder what Foucault would say to all of this.
“The last few decades, in particular, have seen striking advances in our understanding of how ordered complexity can arise spontaneously in systems maintained (as are living organisms) far from thermodynamic equilibrium.”
Why is everyone so big on complexity? I don’t get it. Not all de secrets o’d’universe are hidden in complexity. Some o’dem are actually quite simple. ha ha ha.
“The thought, here, is that the whole conceptual edifice that we bring to bear on the external world -from common-sense conceptions, at one end, to the dizzying heights of theoretical physics, at the other- is essentially formal. It is structure without explicit content: a lattice of abstract causal relations between postulated variables, which makes contact with direct experience only at the periphery, where conscious states and events are hypothetically linked into the structure.”
Ooooooh, fascinating. I had no idea, said the robot. ha ha ha. Yeah, right. What about Ned Block, sucker?! Oh, if only I could retort. Maro, where’s dat fucking paper! We gotta find it! I think it’s under ‘B’. QUICK! Before the moment has passed! “Chapter 2: Can the Mind Change the World?” Is that it? Lets see... Page 29? “Later (Putnam, 1967), he argued in favor of the identity on the grounds that it was more plausible to suppose mental states are functional states (as he then called them) than that they are behavioral or physical states.” Yes, yes, get to the punctum already. Ohh yeah, I love dis part:
Putnam was my teacher during both my undergraduate and graduate days, and I fear I have absorbed his ambivalence toward functionalism. My teacher has had a habit of changing his mind, but never has he done so within a single essay, and so in this chapter I have surpassed him. My chapter starts out as an argument for functionalism, but it ends up suggesting an argument against it.
Da’s’o awesome. Anyway, carrying on: “intentional content, that is, what is shared by the belief that grass grows and the desire that grass grows, the that grass grows that both states are directed toward.” Hey, I coulda totally written somethin on dis’hit re: Burge. I remember... I remember... in class one time. When we read this piece... Everyone jumped on Ned Block’s notion of ‘intentional content’, but there was really no reason too. They just did it because it was the weakest point in the piece. What a fuckin shame. Poor Ned Block. “The question at hand is whether the sciences of the mind preclude intentional content from causal relevance to behavior.” And I remember dat when I asked to use Ned Block for my essay topic, the prof shut me down. It seemed really unfair, as though Ned Block wasn’t fashionable enough or trendy enough for me to write on. Real fuckin shame, dat. Real fuckin shame. Der’s actually nothin wrong wid his ‘intentional content’, at least, not in de way dat he uses it in dis chapter. He just needs a little more explanation, da’s all. Oh, here’s de best part. He words dis in a way dat no one else has, in my humble opinion. “the processors in the head are not sensitive to content, so how could content have any effect on the outputs or changes of state of the system of processors?” Isn dat great, Maro? “And if content can’t affect the operation of this system of processors, how could it play any role in producing behavior?” I’m so glad I remembered dis’hit. I have to admit dat when Ned Block gets goin wid all his qualia shit I’m fuckin bored to tears, but dis really hits de nail exactly on d’head.
Whoa, Maro, frickin Gung Chen is frickin adjournin de meetin already. Where to now? Well, maybe I’ll jus go home an go to sleep for a change. I’m done worn out.
“... falliblist: for all beliefs it is possible that any single belief could be false...”
Peirce was an early advocate of falliblism. WTF? Can that spelling possibly be right, Maro? For Davidson, truth does not equal coherence. But the principle of charity entails that we have to have people who are coherent believers.
A lot of life is just putting in time here and there. Is it May? Is it June? I keep mistaking this time for June. It feels like June. You have to be careful when you are writing in public. People are liable to get disconcerted.
If the principle of charity works then it is not possible for all of our beliefs to be false (most should be true). Error makes sense only against a background of true belief. True beliefs are essential to interpretation, though there’s always some possibility of error. Successful communication entails mainly true beliefs held by someone. You have to assume that a believer holds true beliefs in order to allow for communication at all.
Oops, somehow we got on to de next presenter without me noticin: Michael Lockwood is gonna tell us all bout The Enigma of Science. Very exciting indeed.
“Every physical system has its associated state space. This is an abstract space, the dimensionality of which depends on the number of degrees of freedom, and the elements of which -the points or vectors of which it is composed- denote possible states of the system.”
Hmm... Not too bad so far. I wonder what Foucault would say to all of this.
“The last few decades, in particular, have seen striking advances in our understanding of how ordered complexity can arise spontaneously in systems maintained (as are living organisms) far from thermodynamic equilibrium.”
Why is everyone so big on complexity? I don’t get it. Not all de secrets o’d’universe are hidden in complexity. Some o’dem are actually quite simple. ha ha ha.
“The thought, here, is that the whole conceptual edifice that we bring to bear on the external world -from common-sense conceptions, at one end, to the dizzying heights of theoretical physics, at the other- is essentially formal. It is structure without explicit content: a lattice of abstract causal relations between postulated variables, which makes contact with direct experience only at the periphery, where conscious states and events are hypothetically linked into the structure.”
Ooooooh, fascinating. I had no idea, said the robot. ha ha ha. Yeah, right. What about Ned Block, sucker?! Oh, if only I could retort. Maro, where’s dat fucking paper! We gotta find it! I think it’s under ‘B’. QUICK! Before the moment has passed! “Chapter 2: Can the Mind Change the World?” Is that it? Lets see... Page 29? “Later (Putnam, 1967), he argued in favor of the identity on the grounds that it was more plausible to suppose mental states are functional states (as he then called them) than that they are behavioral or physical states.” Yes, yes, get to the punctum already. Ohh yeah, I love dis part:
Putnam was my teacher during both my undergraduate and graduate days, and I fear I have absorbed his ambivalence toward functionalism. My teacher has had a habit of changing his mind, but never has he done so within a single essay, and so in this chapter I have surpassed him. My chapter starts out as an argument for functionalism, but it ends up suggesting an argument against it.
Da’s’o awesome. Anyway, carrying on: “intentional content, that is, what is shared by the belief that grass grows and the desire that grass grows, the that grass grows that both states are directed toward.” Hey, I coulda totally written somethin on dis’hit re: Burge. I remember... I remember... in class one time. When we read this piece... Everyone jumped on Ned Block’s notion of ‘intentional content’, but there was really no reason too. They just did it because it was the weakest point in the piece. What a fuckin shame. Poor Ned Block. “The question at hand is whether the sciences of the mind preclude intentional content from causal relevance to behavior.” And I remember dat when I asked to use Ned Block for my essay topic, the prof shut me down. It seemed really unfair, as though Ned Block wasn’t fashionable enough or trendy enough for me to write on. Real fuckin shame, dat. Real fuckin shame. Der’s actually nothin wrong wid his ‘intentional content’, at least, not in de way dat he uses it in dis chapter. He just needs a little more explanation, da’s all. Oh, here’s de best part. He words dis in a way dat no one else has, in my humble opinion. “the processors in the head are not sensitive to content, so how could content have any effect on the outputs or changes of state of the system of processors?” Isn dat great, Maro? “And if content can’t affect the operation of this system of processors, how could it play any role in producing behavior?” I’m so glad I remembered dis’hit. I have to admit dat when Ned Block gets goin wid all his qualia shit I’m fuckin bored to tears, but dis really hits de nail exactly on d’head.
Whoa, Maro, frickin Gung Chen is frickin adjournin de meetin already. Where to now? Well, maybe I’ll jus go home an go to sleep for a change. I’m done worn out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)