Open System for Geniuses - by Chronostalker

Psychopathy is another interesting subject:

“Psychopaths are notorious for not answering the questions asked them. They will answer something else, or in such a way that the direct question is never addressed. They also phrase things so that some parts of their narratives are difficult to understand. This is not careless speech, of which everyone is guilty at times, but an ongoing indication of the underlying condition in which the organization of mental activity suggests something is wrong. It’s not what they say, but how they say it that gives insight into their true nature.

But this raises, again, the question: if their speech is so odd, how come smart people get taken in by them? Why do we fail to pick up the inconsistencies?

Part of the answer is that the oddities are subtle so that our general listening mode will not normally pick them up. But my own experience is that some of the “skipped” or oddly arranged words, or misused words are automatically reinterpreted by OUR brains in the same way we automatically “fill in the blank” space on a neon sign when one of the letters has gone out. We canbe driving down the road at night, and ahead we see M_tel, and we mentally put the “o” in place and read “Motel.” Something like this happens between the psychopath and the victim. We fill in the “missing humanness” by filling in the blanks with our own assumptions, based on what WE think and feel and mean. And, in this way, because there are these “blank” spots, we fill them in with what is
inside us, and thus we are easily convinced that the psychopath is a great guy - because he is just like us! We have been conditioned to operate on trust, and we always try to give the “benefit of the doubt.” So, there are blanks, we “give the benefit of the doubt,” and we are thereby hoisted on our own petard.

Psychopaths view any social exchange as a “feeding opportunity,” a contest or a test of wills in which there can be only one winner. Their motives are to manipulate and take, ruthlessly and without remorse. [Hare]

http://www.hare.org/

At the present moment in history, the appeal of the psychopath has never been greater. Movies about psychopaths are all the rage. Hare asks “Why? What accounts for the terrific power that the personality without conscience has over our collective imagination?

One theorist proposes that people who admire, believe, or identify with psychopaths, are partly psychopathic themselves. By interacting with a psychopath, even peripherally, they are able to voyeuristically enjoy an
inner state not dominated by the constraints of morality. Such people are enabled to enjoy aggressive and sexual pleasures at no cost.

For normal people, such movies may serve to remind them of the danger and destructiveness of the psychopath. They will shiver with the sense of something cold and dark having breathed on their neck. For others, people
with poorly developed inner selves, such movies and glorification of psychopathic behavior only serves as a role model for serious acts of violence and predation against others.

The only difference that family background seems to make is how the psychopath expresses himself. A psychopath who grows up in a stable family and has access to positive social and educational resources might become a white-collar criminal, or perhaps a somewhat shady entrepreneur, politician, lawyer, judge, or other professional. Another individual with the same traits, and a deprived background might become a common con-artist, a drifter, mercenary, or violent criminal.

The point is, social factors and parenting practices only shape the expression of the disorder, but have no effect on the individual’s inability to feel empathy or to develop a conscience.

Robert Hare once submitted a paper to a scientific journal. The paper included EEGs of several groups of adult men performing a language task. The editor of the journal returned the paper saying “Those EEG’s couldn’t have come from real people.”

But they did. They were the EEG’s of psychopaths.

Some people have compared psychopathy to schizophrenia. However, there is a crucial distinction as we will see:

Schizophrenia and psychopathy are both characterized by impulsive, poorly planned behavior. This behavior may originate from a weak or poorly coordinated response inhibition system. We tested the hypothesis that
schizophrenia and psychopathy are associated with abnormal neural processing during the suppression of inappropriate responses.

The participants were schizophrenic patients, nonpsychotic psychopaths, and nonpsychotic, nonpsychopathic control subjects (defined by the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised), all incarcerated in a maximum security psychiatric facility. We recorded behavioral responses and event-related potentials (ERPs) during a
Go/No Go task.

Results: Schizophrenic patients made more errors of commission than did the nonpsychopathic offenders. As expected, the nonpsychopathic nonpsychotic participants showed greater frontal ERP negativity (N275) to the No Go stimuli than to the Go stimuli. This effect was small in the schizophrenic patients and absent in the psychopaths. For the nonpsychopaths, the P375 ERP component was larger on Go than on No Go trials, a difference that was absent in schizophrenicpatients and in the opposite direction in psychopaths.

Conclusions: These findings support the hypothesis that the neural processes involved in response inhibition are abnormal in both schizophrenia and psychopathy; however, the nature of these processes appears to be different in the two disorders.

“More and more data are leading to the conclusion that psychopathy has a biological basis, and has many features of a disease,” says Sabine Herpertz, a psychiatrist at the RWTH-Aachen University in Germany.

The brain imaging techniques of positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provide the opportunity to investigate psychopathy further. They might allow researchers to discover whether
psychopaths’ physiological and emotional deficits can be pinned down to specific differences in the anatomy or activation of the brain.

Among researchers who are starting to explore this area, there are two main theories of psychopathy. One, championed by Adrian Raine of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and supported by the work of Antonio Damasio of the University of Iowa, gives a starring role to a brain region called the orbitofrontal cortex (see diagram, below). This is part of an area of the brain, known as the prefrontal cortex, involved in conscious decision-making.

The other theory, promoted by James Blair of University College London, holds that the fundamental dysfunction lies within the amygdala, a small almond-shaped structure that plays a critical role in processing emotion and mediating fear. Recently, using PET scanning, Blair has shown that activation of
the amygdala in normal volunteers is involved in responding to the sadness and anger of others, and he hypothesizes that amygdala dysfunction could explain the lack of fear and empathy in psychopaths.

The two theories may not be mutually exclusive, Blair points out, as the orbitofrontal cortex, which does the ‘thinking’, and the amygdala, which does the ‘feeling’, are highly interconnected.

Following widespread concern that the criminal justice and mental health systems are failing to deal effectively with dangerous psychopaths, there is a movement in several countries to instigate fundamental legal reform. The most controversial suggestion is to make it possible for individual who have severe personality disorders to be detained in secure mental institutions even if they have been accused of no crime. Although these particular provisions have alarmed civil liberties campaigners, the raft of measures also includes a major initiative within the prison service to improve the handling of those with APD–including psychopaths.

According to one individual who suffered at the hands of a psychopath:

“The World has only one problem, Psychopaths. There are two basic types of Psychopaths, Social and Anti-Social. The essential feature of Psychopaths is a Pervasive, Obssesive- Compulsive desire to force their delusions on others. Psychopaths completely disregard and violate the Rights of others, particularly the Freedom of Association which includes the right not to associate and the Right to Love.”

And we have come full circle. Over and over again we come up against that little problem: religion and belief systems that have to be defended against objective evidence or the beliefs of others. We have to ask ourselves “where did these belief systems come from that so evidentially are catastrophic?” And then, we have to think about the fact that now, in the present day, when many of these systems are breaking down and being replaced by others that similarly divert our attention away from what IS, it becomes necessary to “enforce” a certain mode of thinking. And that is what Psychopaths do best.

Psychopaths dominate and set the standard for behavior in our society. We live in a world based on a psychopathic, energy stealing food chain, because that’s just the way things are. Most people are so damaged they no longer have the capacity to even imagine a different system based on a symbiotic network.

They are not only damaged by others, but also by the thousand little evils they have done to others to survive. For them to see the system for what it is, would require them to see the part they have played in perpetuating it. That is a lot to ask of a fragile ego. Also, those who are not psychopaths, still want to make human connections but are afraid to, for fear of being taken advantage of and stolen from energeticaly speaking.

With the brief historical review we have examined, we are acutely aware that this is NOT a phenomenon confined to our present “time.” It is a trans-millennial evolutionary strategy that, step by step, has brought us to our present position. What emerges in the present day is just Machiavellian diversion that focuses the attention of those who are easily deceived. This is reinforced by the “clappers” in the audience, and there seems to be an entire army of psychopaths among us whose job it is act as vectors of attention and direction. We hope that the readers of these pages will give themselves permission to imagine, research and implement a different way of being. And to stand up for themselves while doing it.

A particurarly interested piece on Mental Deviance.

I don’t buy it when scientists say that the brain creates consciousness or awareness.

I don’t buy it either. Quantum theory is telling us that observer is an important element in the participatory universe.

It all boils down to this: the brain is a system of particles and energy. The brain can only do what other hunks of particles and energy do — obey the laws of physics.

And if so, where do the laws of physics are coming from? Are laws of physics part of the material brain? Popper and Eccles understood that the world of knowledge and information is different from the world of matter.

When a photon of light hits your eye and triggers an electric impulse down a neuron which then sends electrons bouncing around in your brain, that’s just a series of physical reactions. It’s the same as kicking a rock and seeing it bounce off a tree. If the system of someone kicking a rock into a tree isn’t a conscious entity, then why am I? Why isn’t a computer?

First of all what is a kick? Does Nature, the material one, understands the concept of a kick? When, exactly a kick starts, and when it does it ends? It seems that consciousness is necessary to introduce the very concept of a kick. And kicks are particular cases of events. Quantum theory, the orthodox one, knows nothing about events. John Bell understood it well.

Which brings me to my next issue. The Observer. Why are we aware? Why is there an internal observer that suffers and feels pain and feels pleasure? We certainly aren’t necessary to our bodies’ survival.

But, as Wheeler points it out - we may be necessary for the Universe to become . See for instance: Towards the theory of matter, geometry and information.

The brain is simply a computer that our “soul” or awareness uses to process input into meaningful patterns and store them. Saying that our brain creates our awareness is like saying that computers created us so we could surf the internet for porn.

It seem to me that while consciousness as such is timeless, matter involves the concept of time. How precisely it happens, I do not know. This brings us back to the question: what is time? Can we read and interpret Signs of the Times?

In the Introduction the authors, Alain Connes and Carlo Rovelli, write:

Our approach is based on a key structural property of von Neumann algebras. The links between some of the problems mentioned and central aspects of von Neumann algebras theory have already been noticed. A prime example is the relation between the KMS theory and the Tomita-Takesaki theorem [7]}. Rudolf Haag describes this connection as “a beautiful example of `prestabilized harmony’ between physics and mathematics" ([7], pg. 216). Here, we push this relation between a deep mathematical theory and one of the most profound and unexplored areas of fundamental physics much further.

It is clear from the above that the authors will be seeking the solution in the formal mathematical concepts, not in expanding our conceptual framework. That should be not a surprise as Alain Connes is a mathematician and Carlo Rovelli did not show a deep understanding of philosophical and conceptual problems either. Consider for instance the following sentence from page 2:

The problem we consider is the following. The physical description of systems that are not generally covariant is based on three elementary physical notions: observables, states, and time flow.

Let us analyze this: systems that are not generally covariant. This expression is meaningless. To say that a "system is generally covariant" is to convey no information at all and is meaningless. For instance, our solar system is a physical system. But is it generally covariant? Simply the concept of general covariance does not apply here. Our solar system system is neither generally covariant nor "not generally covariant". The concept of "general covariance" applies only to certain descriptions of certain mathematical models. But even then the concept is rather tricky. Every model, even one that at first may look as being not generally covariant, can be, if we wish so and if we are smart enough, to be reinterpreted as "generally covariant." I am sure that Connes and Rovelli know about it, as they must have read discussions of general covariance published in the literature and talked about at length at conferences, and yet here they take an easy path and forget about the necessity of being clear an precise. They go on to say:

Observables and states determine the kinematics of the system, and the time flow (or the 1-parameter subgroups of the Poincare’ group) describes its dynamics.

Here we have another wrong statement. For a physical system described through a classical mechanical model it is not so much observables and states that describe kinematics, but the symplectic manifold and its symplectic structure. We may have the same set of observables and states - and yet completely different kinematics, if we choose a different symplectic structure. Moreover, for a time dependent systems the time flow is not described by a 1-parameter subgroups of the Poincare’ group. What more one has to distinguish between passive and active "time flow". For instance for a dissipative system we can have a 1-parameter group of "passive time translations" and "1-parameter semi-group" of active time translations. These subtleties are important and it is not a good start when the authors make errors and oversimplifications already at the very start of their paper.

Next laputan statement:

In a general covariant theory there is no preferred time flow, and the dynamics of the theory cannot be formulated in terms of an evolution in a single external time parameter.

A general covariant theory may have a preferred time flow as one of its variables. It may have, for instance, a vector field - as a kinematical or a dynamical variable. This vector field will define a "preferred time flow" and yet the theory will be "general covariant". Moreover, as mentioned above, the question of whether a given theory is generally covariant or not is a tricky question. If I declare that my vector field is "fixed" - I will be told that my theory is not generally covariant. But if, for exactly the same theory, I will declare that my vector field is "arbitrary" and that my "configuration space" includes "all possible vector fields" - then my theory (the same as before) may be even admitted into the "generally covariant zoo." Some will still argue and ask me whether my vector filed is "dynamical" or "only kinematical", but even so they will not be able to define precisely what they mean by "dynamical" as opposite to "purely kinematical". They will try all kind of little tricks - but they will not succeed. Connes and Rovelli, I am sure, know about it, yet they repeatedly fall into a trap of following the popular slang that really deep thinkers have to "unlearn" if they want to really understand what is this theoretical physics all about.

What is time - I don’t know. But it’s time to start to know.

Until one is committed, there is always hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and endless plans: That the moment one commits oneself, then providence moves, too.

All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one?s favor all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would come his way.

Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it! Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it and the work will be completed.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I’ll begin this blog with an analysis of the paper by Alain Connes and Carlo Rovelli: Von Neumann Algebra Automorphisms and Time-Thermodynamics Relation in General Covariant Quantum Theories, published in Class.Quant.Grav. 11 (1994) 2899-2918. The paper is available on the web in PDF form from arxiv.org. The title may suggest that the paper is rather technical and incomprehensible for a general public. Yet I am going to make my comments on the paper as comprehensible as possible. Here is the claim made by the authors:

[…]a basic open problem is to understand how the physical time flow that characterizes the world in which we live may emerge from the fundamental “timeless” general covariant quantum field theory [9]. In this paper, we consider a radical solution to this problem. […]

I will analyse the paper in some details pointing out its weaknesses, those that I see and that I consider important. The reason for my criticism is twofold. First of all the subject is important - therefore to get to the truth of the subject is important. Second, the authors are famous (especially Alain Connes) and there is a double standard in the community of professional scientists: those who just begin their adventure with science are criticised for every mistake they make, while those who are “famous” are being forgiven for any nonsens or even stupidity they can write or say. A typical example is Albert Einstein. You can find statements by serious physicists that his years devoted to his Unified Field Theory consisted either of plagiarizing other physicists’ work, or making errors after errors, neglecting achievements of quantum theory, and trying to stop the progess of physics. And yet this information and these opinions are not as easily available to the general public as apologetic and uncritical stories are. [Note: For a good and deep overview see On the History of Unified Field Theories by Hubert Goenner ]