It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment.It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved. ~ Galileo

Galileo was a devout Christian, as well as an amazing scientist. He knew the tools and purposes for his faith, and his science, and he knew how to use each set of tools accordingly. He was considered a heretic by his own church, and was threatened with death of himself and family. He was put on house arrest for the remainder of his life, even after... See More being forced to rescend his great scientific work that the Earth did infact revolve around the sun instead of the Earth being the center of the universe. We are all created in his (God's) image, and it is amazing that he created us to be conscious, rational beings who can love and who can wonder and create. We were designed with our scientific minds for a reason, as holy and wonderful as the miracle of life itself. I am glad that 350 years later I can look to the heavens and know that we orbit the sun, still wonder at all there is, and thank God for all of it. I realate to this man because I am both a Christian, a philosopher, and a scientist. I wonder what things that I find non contradictory between science and faith, but the majority on either side find absurd to think, will be accepted as relavent 300 years from now.

So just for kicks (actually to show my instructor that I read the chapter), I came up with a Likert format quiz about Sigmund Freud...

An interesting note on the Likert format is that even numbered likert scale invites the test taker to make a distinctive choice (yes/no; black/white), while the odd numbered scale allows for neutrality.

Since we are young psychologists I will create a Likert format for Sigmund Freud.

1) Do you think Sigmund Freud was accurate in his assessment of the human psyche?
a) very much b) somewhat c) unsure d) not really e) not at all

2) Would you trust Sigmund Freud to put you into hypnosis and administer psychotherapy?
a) You bet! b) maybe c)don't know d) probably not e)No way Jose

3) Do you find Freud to be accurate in his ideas about the Oedipus and Electra complex?
a) absolutely b)a little c) he confuses me d) not so much e) you have got to be kidding!

4) I agree with excessive deduction to the point of nihilism.
a) Not at all ! b) perhaps, but not really C) ??? d) somewhat e) Absolutely, and I like Nietzsche too!

5) Freud probably created his theories based on the need of his own issues with his mother and father.
1) BINGO! 2) probably 3) I like bunnies 4) don't be absurd 5) your mockery is insulting to the greatest psychologist of the early 20th century, NO!

Just for fun...

A life well lived is dedicated to that which will outlast it.

William James once said, "A life that is well lived is one that is dedicated to that which will outlast it". I agree with this idea, fully. So to me, life is short, and we have just a little time to soak up as much of it as possible; bundle it up in some kind of inspirational packet of wisdom; and send it off for the next generation to unravel. This is why I do what I do in the way of knowledge and wisdom, and is why I will dedicate my life to creating a body of work that will inspire the future of generations. I would most like to do this as a professor of psych/ philos/ comparative religion.

Consciousness and Blue Brain

AbstractThis essay is written from the interview with Henry Markram from the December 2009 issue of Discover magazine, and originally interviewed by David Kushner. The interview covers Markram’s project, Blue Brain, as well as Markram’s foundations in thought about perception, memory, and consciousness.Forty-seven year old Henry Markram is the lead neuroscientist at Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne in Switzerland, and is the founder and codirector of an amazing project in neuroscience that will open the doors of psychological medicine by understanding pathology specific to disorder in neurological structure, and in understanding specific affects of drug therapies on those pathologies. If successful, his life’s work will literally revolutionize modern psychology from the very foundations. That project is known as Blue Brain. Using the super computer, Blue Gene, Markram has spent the past 15 years collecting data about the mammalian neocortex, and is now beginning to apply that data to reverse engineer a three-dimensional model of the mammalian brain. He has been successful so far in applying his idea to our most advanced computer technology, which has resulted in an emulation of a single neocortical column of a two-week old rat. He feels that the success in this initial step is proof of the concept that the mammalian brain can be virtually mimicked, and predicts that as computer technology advances, a human brain model will exist in Blue Brain within the next ten years.Currently, in its infancy, Blue Gene utilizes 16,000 electronic processors. Each processor runs at 56 teraflops, which is 56 trillion point operations per second, and is able to emulate the behavior and interaction of 1,000 cortical neurons.As our computer technology embraces the quantum processor, the needed computation to account for the 100 billion neurons in the human brain will become available for Blue Brain to continue its mission. Currently our available computer technology is based on electronic transfer and must trudge through digital computations of binary patterns; that is, information passed electronically through a process of decoding and crunching countless patterns of 1 and 0. The quantum processor utilizes light waves for information transfer, and is able to compute a multitude of computations simultaneously, billions of times faster than any conventional electronic processor currently marketed.Harkram stresses the importance that Blue Brain isn’t simply a model of the brain that is constructed to behave a certain way; contrarily, it is reverse engineered utilizing mathematical models of biological elements, and processes of the mammalian brain in simulations to see how they mimic biology, how the parameters set in motion create the working model. More simply put, it is not the model creating the parameters; it is the parameters set in motion that naturally creates the model. It is like starting a brush fire; set up the brush, add a spark, and watch it burn itself into existence before your very eyes.An example of the parameter creating the phenomenon of the brain, emerged spontaneously one afternoon as Markram’s team began to pick up an electrical rhythm known in neurobiology as the gamma oscillation. The gamma oscillation is thought to correlate directly with consciousness. Theory holds that the gamma oscillation, which occurs between 40 to 80 hertz, causes perceptions to bind into consciousness. Markram doesn’t think that Blue Gene is conscious in its infancy, but cannot deny the probability of Blue Gene becoming conscious in its full scope; as consciousness, in Markram’s opinion is an emergent phenomenon. He describes emergent properties in the simile of the shift that occurs between liquid and gas, or in the metaphor of an airplane which must gain enough speed to finally take flight.Markram’s opinion of consciousness is similar to the opinion of James, Freud, and Jung; that it is something which transcends ordinary perception. This explanation easily approaches the soft problem of consciousness: Where modes of perception and consciousness are found to correlate to specific areas and behaviors of the neural tissue of the brain.Some (philosophic materialists) would argue that the soft problem of consciousness is the only problem of consciousness that needs to be addressed, and in that opinion they would assume that consciousness is a property of matter and nothing more. However, there is another problem of consciousness, a deeper problem, which emerges in the mind of the philosophic mentalist and the philosophic dualist. The deeper problem is referred to as the hard problem of consciousness: How does the subjective experience of consciousness arise from ordinary matter? While the answer may seem to be present in the soft problem of consciousness, it cannot be found there because the soft problem deals with consciousness as a byproduct of material function. The answer to the hard problem of consciousness must be approached either from the mentalist view that assumes matter arises out of the function of consciousness, or from the view of the dualist that assumes that matter and consciousness simply correlate and are not necessarily the cause of one another. Though Markram’s ideas can be applied to the soft problem, his contempt for the modern paradigm of perception and memory open the door for the hard problem of consciousness to be considered. In Markram’s own words, “Blue Brain is like a Copernican revolution, because we want to flip things around and say that neural representation does not lie in the spikes of neural activity.”In greater consideration of the previous remark, Markram believes that contemporary paradigms of perception and memory are outmoded. The current view of perception is based on analyzing spikes in neural activity, which are caused by on and off signals existing in the cell body of a neuron which are stimulated by an action-potential. Markram believes that these spikes are not actual representations of perception; rather, they are mere reflections of perception. He does not believe that perception takes place in the action potential, but takes place in “the branches beyond, before the cell body”. He is suggesting then that perception is not the effect of the neuron firing; conversely, the neuron fires because of perception entering into the cell body.The current paradigm of memory being a physical imprint, or engram, is contrived as well. According to Markram there is plenty of evidence that contradicts the idea that memory is an imprint in neural patterns. Markram suggests:“All evidence indicates that the neuron does not reset. The synapses do not reset. They are always different. They’re changing every millisecond. You’re brain today is very, very different from what it was when you were 10 years old, and yet you may have profound memories from when you were 10. What has to be answered in neuroscience is this: How do you remember something from long ago when your brain now is actually different?”Markram believes that Blue Brain will demonstrate the fundamental elements to better understand perception, which will lead to understanding emotion, which will lead to understanding memory, and eventually to understanding consciousness.Markrams ideas relate to similar hypotheses about the fundamental nature of consciousness. As we approach the hard problem of consciousness, there is a hypothesis popularized by Aldous Huxley in his book, The Doors of Perception. In Huxley’s hypothesis he claims that the physical brain is not in itself a transmitter of perception and consciousness, but that it is a transducer of perception and consciousness. This view holds that perceptual information comes into the brain from an unseen dimension, and is then decoded by the machine of the brain into useful information which we then recognize as subjective experience. An easy way to understand this hypothesis is by comparing it to a radio broadcast. A radio broadcast is sent through time and space, as information jumbled in radio waves. A radio wave is undetectable until a radio transducer is built. The transcendental consciousness is much like the invisible radio wave. The brain is like the radio transducer, built of physical parts in a specific design so as to receive and translate the invisible radio wave. Once the wave of information (be it a radio wave or consciousness) comes within proximity of the transducer, it is translated into compartmentalized bits of coherent information. Whether or not Markram is coming from this angle, his new hypothesis invites these mentalist and dualist metaphors, as it is not that the material is creating the perception, but that the perception is creating a reaction in the material.These notions of perception are also reminiscent of properties of waves and particles, and with new properties of light being discovered in quantum physics. Though a thought can be correlated to neurological behavior, like electromagnetism (radio waves, light waves, etc…) it can only be observed as a wave. But when someone focuses their consciousness into a productive form, those thoughts become physical artifacts of the imagination. This is similar to the properties of light. Light behaves both as a wave and a particle. When it is unobserved a photon can exist as a wave, simultaneously with itself in several locations; however, once it is observed and focused upon, the waveform collapses into observable phenomenon (physical matter). This deepens the question of the hard problem: is consciousness a reflection of a waveform? To some it is a ridiculous notion to try to correlate quantum physics to consciousness; however, others believe that the new physics will welcome a new paradigm of consciousness. Are Markram’s ideas a precursor to that new paradigm?Along with revolutionizing paradigms of perception, memory, and consciousness, Markram believes that Blue Brain’s discoveries will revolutionize modern psychological medicine. In his own words, “we are living in such a primitive time of medicine, you cannot imagine”. In other words we are living in a dark ages in our medical technology, and Blue Brain is one of the new tools that will contribute to a medical revolution of much greater understanding.Markram comments on the fact that even our greatest modern understanding of neurological medicine is at best a shot in the dark. He states, “…There’s not a single neurological disease today in which anybody knows what is malfunctioning in the neural circuit—which synapse, which neuron, which receptor…” Similarly, doctors don’t even know how modern drugs correlate specifically to which synapse, which neuron, or which receptor. Their understanding of causes and effects of neurology are rudimentary at best. Billions of dollars are spent in trying to discover cures for neurological diseases through trial and error experiments. What Blue Brain offers to the medical world is an opportunity to directly understand the pathology of neurosis, and how drugs work or don’t work very specifically, simply by entering a set of parameters into Blue Gene that would mimic the circumstances. Then instead of waiting to see if an experiment does this or that, a researcher can actually view on a monitor what is occurring on which synapse, on which receptor, on which neuron. Blue Brain will revolutionize the neurological medical sciences by taking the guess work and wasted time out of the bigger picture.We are at the edge of modern paradigms involving our understanding of perception, memory, and consciousness. We are at the forefront of a new era of neuropsychological medicine. A great revolution is about to take place. Henry Markram, Blue Gene, and project Blue Brain are at the helm of the discoveries that will lead our understanding of neuropsychology into a new era.ReferencesKushner, D. (2009, December). The discover interview: Henry Markram. Discover, 61-63,77).
Posted by Alex K. Marthaller.

To boldly go...

"The question of consciousness has always intrigued me. It starts with the question, 'Are we our bodies or are we our consciousness? What are we made up of?"~ Gene Roddenberry.

Is the primary stuff of the Universe: Consciousness; Material; both; neither; or something else? This is the departure when approaching the hard problem of consciousness. Check out David Chalmers for an insightful look into how quantum physics may suggest that matter and consciousness are merely two dimentions in which we perceive the stuff of the ... See Moreuniverse, but there is way more stuff of the universe than we are capable of ever understanding existing within multiple dimentions beyond time and space... sitting only a millimeter away from you. God, Heaven, and the essence of which, could dwell beyond these dimentions, neither "fully" existing or not existing (it does, however, exist in terms we can comprehend) in the way we understand, but something much more complex and wonderful than we know as the central entity of creation manifested in so many wonderful ways, material and consciousness being only two of an infinate number of possibilities. Sleep well my friends.

Evolution from the theistic point of view I.

Similar to intelligent design, and more academically deemed "biologos" by Francis Collins, author of "The Language of God", theistic evolution is a scientific approach which allows for both God and the process of evolution to find complement over contradiction. Biologos refring to DNA as the alphabet of God's design. Biologos, when considered from its root forms is Bio: meaning life and Logos: meaning word; thus, DNA is the code from which God's alphabet makes the words of life possible. Thus, Biologos literally means "life-words". Thomas aquinas (Catholic preist 1225 - 1274), not the bibl...e, gave us the "biblical calander" which conflicts with everything we know through observation and reason. It is entireably reasonable that God created throughout time and in ways beyond our imagination; God could still be creating as a continual process of growth rather than a static unmoving state; hence, creation is a happening which continually grows into a greater state. This is kind of like the transformation of our previous (secular) selves, and the movement toward and transformation into our new selves through the spirit of Christ. There is no need for the conflict of interests between science and faith. This world, this universe is amazing in all of its complexity: from the quantum; to the cell; to the body and spirit; to the trillions of stars; and things unknown... I have a mind created for observation and wonder, I will utilize it, and I will give credit to God for this wonderful creation in every aspect. Science does not compete with theology, it reflects a deeper consideration of it. With that said, there is some rather interesting news on the fossil front these days: ScienceDaily (Apr. 8, 2010):Australopithecus sediba:New Hominid Shares Traits With Homo Species: Fossil Find Sheds Light on the Transition to Homo Genus from Earlier Hominids. The fossils are between 1.95 and 1.78 million years old. Australopithecus sediba, was an upright walker that shared many physical traits with the earliest known Homo speciesThe emerging picture is one of a hominid with a bone structure similar to the earliest Homo species however, represent a hominid that appeared approximately one million years later than Lucy, implying a slow transition.

From the news clip:
New Hominid Shares Traits With Homo Species: Fossil Find Sheds Light on the Transition to Homo Genus from Earlier HominidsScienceDaily (Apr. 8, 2010) — Two partial skeletons unearthed from a cave in South Africa belong to a previously unclassified species of hominid that is now shedding new light on the evolution of ou...r own species, Homo sapiens, researchers say. The newly documented species, called Australopithecus sediba, was an upright walker that shared many physical traits with the earliest known Homo species -- and its introduction into the fossil record might answer some key questions about what it means to be human. The fossils are between 1.95 and 1.78 million years old, and in this week's issue of Science, the peer-reviewed journal published by AAAS, the nonprofit science society, two reports describe both the physical characteristics of this new Australopithecus species as well as the ancient environment in which it lived and died. The emerging picture is one of a hominid with a bone structure similar to the earliest Homo species, but who employed it more as an Australopithecus, like the famed "Lucy," would have.These new fossils, however, represent a hominid that appeared approximately one million years later than Lucy, and their features imply that the transition from earlier hominids to the Homo genus occurred in very slow stages, with various Homo-like species emerging first.Go to sciencedaily .com to find out more.

"Always be amazed, understand reasonably; Always give the glory to God". This is the complementary balance between the scientific nature of our perception and our faith in creation.

Complement between Science and Faith I.

The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the universe to do. ~ Galileo.

This speaks volumes to me about the intricate relationship between God and the beauty and wonder of his creation. Something as "seemingly simple" as the ripening of a grape (or a mustard seed for that matter) can encapsulate the amazing beauty of Gods creation. Just look around you, it is everywhere, it is even inside of you. Within a "functional" relationship between science and faith, we must understand that each has a wonderful set of tools used to discover principles for each. Faith tools guide our souls into a ripening relationship with our creator, and Scientific tools allow us to wonder, observe, reason, deduce about our shared physical world. Our minds in all of their capacity of reason were created in the image of our creator; it is why we are creative in the first place, and why we can love. Our minds are not mistakes; science and faith (or better yet academic reasoning and theology) have no quam: they do not need to be so heavily guarded, and they certianly do not contradict eachother as so many maintain. Contradiction is 90% contention from such the mind. Look for compliment between science and faith, and you will discover that it is like having a microscope or teliscope into the mind of God as you are able to observe his wonderful and beautiful creation from the most amazing vistas.