Comments on: Cycles of science http://reesabrown.com/2010/02/12/cycles-of-science/ the life and writerly times of Reesa Brown Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:47:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Lynn http://reesabrown.com/2010/02/12/cycles-of-science/#comment-667 Lynn Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:37:48 +0000 http://reesabrown.com/?p=465#comment-667 Rereading my comment, what I meant to add is that it seems as though it all boils down to a capitalist society only wanting to hack the brain if it can get us more money (power) and not for the sake of elevating humanity. Rereading my comment, what I meant to add is that it seems as though it all boils down to a capitalist society only wanting to hack the brain if it can get us more money (power) and not for the sake of elevating humanity.

]]> By: Reesa http://reesabrown.com/2010/02/12/cycles-of-science/#comment-662 Reesa Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:14:50 +0000 http://reesabrown.com/?p=465#comment-662 @Lynn - I agree, one of the problems I see ongoing in any attempt to create a more sound scientific base for social sciences is that a large number of people, even otherwise intelligent ones, have a lot invested in the realms of the mind/emotions/soul/interpersonal interactions remaining a "black box" beyond true understanding. Hacking the brain for interesting tech purposes doesn't automatically require you to question the foundations of the society and culture and the <i>self</i> in which you live. Hack your brain far enough in understanding social dynamics and you cannot help but question. Which is threatening to those invested in the status quo. And so on. It's a mess! But one, I think, worth tackling. @Lynn - I agree, one of the problems I see ongoing in any attempt to create a more sound scientific base for social sciences is that a large number of people, even otherwise intelligent ones, have a lot invested in the realms of the mind/emotions/soul/interpersonal interactions remaining a “black box” beyond true understanding. Hacking the brain for interesting tech purposes doesn’t automatically require you to question the foundations of the society and culture and the self in which you live. Hack your brain far enough in understanding social dynamics and you cannot help but question. Which is threatening to those invested in the status quo. And so on. It’s a mess! But one, I think, worth tackling.

]]> By: Lynn http://reesabrown.com/2010/02/12/cycles-of-science/#comment-660 Lynn Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:20:27 +0000 http://reesabrown.com/?p=465#comment-660 Having done a lot less reading on the subject of social science and biointegration (read: almost none except the occasional odd documentary or New Scientific article link that crosses my path) I would say that one stumbling block I see are when 'newage-y' types talk about collective consciousness in terms of quantum mechanics (see the movie 'What the bleep do we know?'). The universe repeating itself down to the quantum level so if we can scale up and down in ways we haven't realized. Way off-base from the technologies you're talking about but I think it drives some people back into the more conservative (relatively speaking) sectors of biotech. It's like they want to hack the brain but only for useful, mechanical stuff (recreating the 6 million dollar man, or the perfect soldier) but nothing farther. Hope that makes sense. Having done a lot less reading on the subject of social science and biointegration (read: almost none except the occasional odd documentary or New Scientific article link that crosses my path) I would say that one stumbling block I see are when ‘newage-y’ types talk about collective consciousness in terms of quantum mechanics (see the movie ‘What the bleep do we know?’). The universe repeating itself down to the quantum level so if we can scale up and down in ways we haven’t realized. Way off-base from the technologies you’re talking about but I think it drives some people back into the more conservative (relatively speaking) sectors of biotech. It’s like they want to hack the brain but only for useful, mechanical stuff (recreating the 6 million dollar man, or the perfect soldier) but nothing farther. Hope that makes sense.

]]> By: Derek http://reesabrown.com/2010/02/12/cycles-of-science/#comment-644 Derek Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:16:25 +0000 http://reesabrown.com/?p=465#comment-644 Well, perhaps one wouldn't be more "difficult" than the other. I'm not sure what I was trying to say there so scratch that. =) Well, perhaps one wouldn’t be more “difficult” than the other. I’m not sure what I was trying to say there so scratch that. =)

]]> By: Reesa http://reesabrown.com/2010/02/12/cycles-of-science/#comment-643 Reesa Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:00:51 +0000 http://reesabrown.com/?p=465#comment-643 @Derek - I don't know if I mean precisely either of those two options, but something in-between, though I suppose that defines the ends of the spectrum well enough. Instead of a simple open inter-sharing of information, or some mega-discipline amalgam (though we'll likely see examples of each), more often I expect the norm of the bell curve to be some combo of trained specialists from different disciplines working side-by-side on research projects, aspects of which are likely only possible to succeed when multiple spheres of ideas are brought to the solutions. Sometimes it'll be sharing of data, sometimes it'll end up creating a new discipline. Most of the time I expect it will provide jumps in understanding within most or all of the various fields of the people collaborating as well as synergistic results that might points out new angles of research. Ways to actively encourage this would be studies and grants that specifically focus on intersections of knowledge requiring interdisciplinary cooperation to achieve, among other ideas. Hmm, I'd agree nanotech is good in concert with biotech as well as several other fields, but I had more in mind at the time of writing trends in things like combining neurology, endocrinology, and psychology that I've seen hints of recently. Two areas I'd like to see work more closely together in coming years are plastic surgery specialists and body modification experts. I think there could be some really interesting, provocative, and artistic things to result from that, though perhaps not everyone would call that an advancement. :) Oh there's all sorts of cool hints, too many to fit here. Have you read articles about bacterial computing, with possible bio-integration options? or Tree computers? Or the possibility that advances in quantum physics understanding will lead to better battery tech (among other things)? Whee! Not to mention my pet rant lately: the development of the first true social science will need to result from the synergistic blending of information from several disciplines if it's to have any chance of successfully modeling what it attempts to study. And yeah, I do love me some alliterative phrasing. @Derek - I don’t know if I mean precisely either of those two options, but something in-between, though I suppose that defines the ends of the spectrum well enough. Instead of a simple open inter-sharing of information, or some mega-discipline amalgam (though we’ll likely see examples of each), more often I expect the norm of the bell curve to be some combo of trained specialists from different disciplines working side-by-side on research projects, aspects of which are likely only possible to succeed when multiple spheres of ideas are brought to the solutions.

Sometimes it’ll be sharing of data, sometimes it’ll end up creating a new discipline. Most of the time I expect it will provide jumps in understanding within most or all of the various fields of the people collaborating as well as synergistic results that might points out new angles of research. Ways to actively encourage this would be studies and grants that specifically focus on intersections of knowledge requiring interdisciplinary cooperation to achieve, among other ideas.

Hmm, I’d agree nanotech is good in concert with biotech as well as several other fields, but I had more in mind at the time of writing trends in things like combining neurology, endocrinology, and psychology that I’ve seen hints of recently.

Two areas I’d like to see work more closely together in coming years are plastic surgery specialists and body modification experts. I think there could be some really interesting, provocative, and artistic things to result from that, though perhaps not everyone would call that an advancement. :)

Oh there’s all sorts of cool hints, too many to fit here. Have you read articles about bacterial computing, with possible bio-integration options? or Tree computers? Or the possibility that advances in quantum physics understanding will lead to better battery tech (among other things)? Whee!

Not to mention my pet rant lately: the development of the first true social science will need to result from the synergistic blending of information from several disciplines if it’s to have any chance of successfully modeling what it attempts to study.

And yeah, I do love me some alliterative phrasing.

]]>