Noyau (1)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

2,559 thoughts on “Noyau (1)”

  1. As I’ve mentioned before, I think I might have this.
    http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_467790_en.html

    Can’t count sheep? You could have aphantasia

    If counting sheep is an abstract concept, or you are unable to visualise the faces of loved ones, you could have aphantasia – a newly defined condition to describe people who are born without a “mind’s eye”.

    Some people report a significant impact on their lives from being unable to visualise memories of their partners, or departed relatives. Others say that descriptive writing is meaningless to them, and careers such as architecture or design are closed to them, as they would not be able to visualise an end product.

    Cognitive neurologist Professor Adam Zeman, at the University of Exeter Medical School, has revisited the concept of people who cannot visualise, which was first identified by Sir Francis Galton in 1880 A 20th century survey suggested that this may be true of 2.5% of the population – yet until now, this phenomenon has remained largely unexplored.

    Visualisation is the result of activity in a network of of regions widely distributed across the brain, working together to enable us to generate images on the basis of our memory of how things look. These regions include areas in the frontal and parietal lobes, which ‘organise’ the process of visualisation, together with areas in the temporal and occipital lobes, which represent the items we wish to call to the mind’s eye, and give visualisation its ‘visual’ feel. An inability to visualise could result from an alteration of function at several points in this network. This problem has been described previously following major brain damage and in the context of mood disorder. Now, Professor Zeman and his team are conducting further studies to find out more about why some people are born with poor or diminished visual imagery ability.

    The recent research came about by serendipity. The American science journalist, Carl Zimmer, wrote an article in Discover magazine about a previous paper by Professor Zeman reporting a man who lost his mind’s eye in his sixties following a cardiac procedure. Professor Zeman was then contacted by 21 individuals who recognised their own experience in the Discover article, but had never been able to imagine. Professor Zeman and colleagues describe these patients’ experience in a paper just published in the journal Cortex.

    Dame Gill Morgan, from Devon in South West England, made contact with Professor Zeman as a result of this coverage. The Chair of NHS Providers first realised that her ability to conjure a mental picture differed from her peers during management training in her 20s. She said: “We were told to ‘visualise a sunrise’, and I thought ‘what on Earth does that look like’ – I couldn’t picture it at all. I could describe it – I could tell you that the sun comes up over the horizon and the sky changes colour as it gets lighter, but I can’t actually see that image in my mind.”

    Dame Gill has a successful career and does not feel hindered by her lack of a “mind’s eye”. But she said: “I became more aware of it when my mum died, as I can’t remember her face. I now realise that others can conjure up a picture of someone they love, and that did make me feel sad, although of course I remember her in other ways. I can describe the way she stood on the stairs for a photo for example, I just can’t see it.”

    Dame Gill believes her excellent memory may have developed in part to compensate for her lack of visual imagination. “If I have to recount something that’s absent, I have to reconstruct it from the facts I know about it, rather than view it in my mind.”

    Niel Kenmuir, 39, from Lancaster in the UK, first realised he could not visualise images at primary school. “I can remember not understanding what ‘counting sheep’ entailed when I couldn’t sleep. I assumed they meant it in a figurative sense. When I tried it myself, I found myself turning my head to watch invisible sheep fly by. I’ve spent years looking online for information about my condition, and finding nothing. I’m very happy that it is now being researched and defined.”

    Niel works in a bookshop and is an avid reader, but avoids books with vivid landscape descriptions as they bring nothing to mind for him. “I just find myself going through the motion of reading the words without any image coming to mind,” he said. “I usually have to go back and read a passage about a visual description several times – it’s almost meaningless.”

    Niel studied philosophy, which is rich in visual imagery, but this aspect was lost on him. The way he explains it, though, he does understand the mechanics behind it. He said: “The mind’s eye is a canvas, and the neurones work together to project onto it. The neurones are all working fine, but I don’t have the canvas”.

    Asked if it had impacted on his life, he said: “I have never been ambitious, and wondered if an inability to ‘imagine myself in a place ten years from now’ as a concrete image has affected this. I also find it difficult to jump from abstract thought to concrete examples, although I think a positive consequence is that I am perhaps better at thinking abstractly than many other people.”

    Professor Zeman said: “This intriguing variation in human experience has received little attention. Our participants mostly have some first-hand knowledge of imagery through their dreams: our study revealed an interesting dissociation between voluntary imagery, which is absent or much reduced in these individuals, and involuntary imagery, for example in dreams, which is usually preserved.”

    Professor Zeman is pursuing the study of aphantasia through an interdisciplinary project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), The Eye’s Mind – a study of the neural basis of visual imagination and its role in culture. The AHRC project involves, among others, the artist Susan Aldworth, art historian John Onians and philosopher, Fiona Macpherson.

    Read Professor Zeman’s post on aphantasia on The Exeter Blog.

    In my own case, I note that I can’t describe the layout of the house I’ve lived in for 20 years. Can’t visualize which rooms connect with or are above or below which other rooms. I can drive someplace every day for several years, but if I don’t go there for a few weeks, I can’t find my way there again without assistance. GPS devices changed my life!

  2. walto,

    In my own case, I note that I can’t describe the layout of the house I’ve lived in for 20 years. Can’t visualize which rooms connect with or are above or below which other rooms.

    This is interesting.

    The examples you’ve given here and in the past have been mostly spatial, but the article talks about a more general inability to visualize.

    If I ask you to visualize Mitt Romney’s face, can you do it?

    What about Mitt Romney with a mustache and horn-rimmed glasses?

    What about Mitt Romney in a sequined dress, with a green parrot on his left shoulder, dancing on stage to “Louie, Louie” as the parrot sways in time to the music?

    And if those are difficult to visualize, is it that you don’t “see” anything, or is it just that what you “see” is indistinct?

  3. Alan,

    Another question to ask yourself: why you were so irritated at what you described as my “chutzpah” in challenging Joe Felsenstein? So irritated that you fabricated a charge of quotemining against me, which you later retracted?

    As I wrote:

    Alan:

    Well, not exactly that. Joe is an established and universally respected professional geneticist discussing matters within his field of expertise. You are an engineer, I believe.

    Come on, Alan. You know better than that.

    Joe is human and capable of making mistakes — even on his home turf — just like the rest of us. He already made this mistake…

  4. I had a college roommate who was very bright, got a Phd at Chicago and later became a department chairman at Rutgers. But he could not tell the shape of things by feeling them.

    When I knew him he had acquired a car with a novel feature. the control knobs had shapes — triangular, square, circular — so that you could tell one from another without taking your eye off the road.

    Except he couldn’t.

  5. petrushka,

    When I knew him he had acquired a car with a novel feature. the control knobs had shapes — triangular, square, circular — so that you could tell one from another without taking your eye off the road.

    The throttle, mixture and prop controls on piston airplanes are like that. You definitely don’t want to confuse them.

  6. Anyone who thinks that significant features of perception are not hard wired just isn’t paying attention.

    Teasing out what’s what is not easy, but it should be worthwhile. The Society of Mind metaphor doesn’t speak to me, except when it comes to perception. At some very low levels we seem to be an assembly of gauges that are pre-wired.

  7. keiths:
    walto,

    This is interesting.

    The examples you’ve given here and in the past have been mostly spatial, but the article talks about a more general inability to visualize.

    If I ask you to visualize Mitt Romney’s face, can you do it?

    I think I sort of could for a fleeting second. Probably an image from some old newspaper article. But I can’t call it up again now.

    What about Mitt Romney with a mustache and horn-rimmed glasses?

    No, I can’t seem to do those.

    What about Mitt Romney in a sequined dress, with a green parrot on his left shoulder, dancing on stage to “Louie, Louie” as the parrot sways in time to the music?

    I don’t think so. I can think about those–you know, what it would be like for him to do that stuff, but I can’t make anything like what I’d call a “mental picture” of them.
    Honestly, though, I’m not sure what it would mean to do so. When you make a mental picture of that stuff is it like a painting or photograph? Is it like seeing that stuff in a dream? If so, I can’t do anything like tjat. I can just, sort of, understand what it would be like for Romney to have a parrot on his shoulder or have a mustache. I can’t see (or “see”) it, though.

    And if those are difficult to visualize, is it that you don’t “see” anything, or is it just that what you “see” is indistinct?

    I guess I don’t really “see” anything at all–if that would be analogous to seeing a picture or having a dream. I don’t even really know how to try to do that stuff. Do you have to close your eyes to form a mental picture or can you do it even if you’re looking at something else?

  8. walto,

    When you make a mental picture of that stuff is it like a painting or photograph?

    Sort of, but less vivid and detailed. It takes a conscious effort to maintain the image, and if my effort falters the image dissolves and I have to deliberately summon it again.

    The more detailed and/or dynamic the image, the harder it is for me to maintain. The first two Romney images are fairly easy, but the third is tougher. I tend to either focus on the swaying parrot, in which case Romney’s legs go fuzzy and I can’t really tell what they’re doing, or else I focus on Romney as a whole, and the parrot, while still there, goes rigid and stops swaying.

    Do you have to close your eyes to form a mental picture or can you do it even if you’re looking at something else?

    Closing my eyes helps a little, but it’s definitely not necessary. The conjured image is sort of transparent, in that I can see both it and the real objects “behind” it in my visual field. It’s really more of an attentional shift. If I focus on the conjured image, the real objects in the visual background go fuzzy and indistinct, as if they were in my peripheral vision. If I focus on the background, the conjured image disappears.

  10. walto: Saying stuff twice is always better than saying them once.

    OMG!!! I so agree with that. And saying it three times is even better!
    OMG!!! I so agree with that. And saying it three times is even better!
    OMG!!! I so agree with that. And saying it three times is even better!

  11. keiths: You are — to put it mildly — highly motivated to miss the obvious, and you are already editing the facts to fit your distorted interpretation.

    I think this should be set forth in the site rules, I really do. Don’t park your priors by the door, use them to beat the freaking door down.

  13. keiths:
    walto,

    What about mental rotation tasks like this one?

    I think it’s A, but I have very little confidence. I used to waste a lot of time playing tetris, so that might have helped. We have a board game in the house called Blokus that I’m not very good at–but not significantly worse than anybody else in the house, so I don’t think my imaging deficiency makes a huge difference there.

  14. keiths:
    walto,

    Sort of, but less vivid and detailed.It takes a conscious effort to maintain the image, and if my effort falters the image dissolves and I have to deliberately summon it again.

    The more detailed and/or dynamic the image, the harder it is for me to maintain. The first two Romney images are fairly easy, but the third is tougher.I tend to either focus on the swaying parrot, in which case Romney’s legs go fuzzy and I can’t really tell what they’re doing, or else I focus on Romney as a whole, and the parrot, while still there, goes rigid and stops swaying.

    Closing my eyes helps a little, but it’s definitely not necessary. The conjured image is sort of transparent, in that I can see both it and the real objects “behind” it in my visual field. It’s really more of an attentional shift. If I focus on the conjured image, the real objects in the visual background go fuzzy and indistinct, as if they were in my peripheral vision.If I focus on the background, the conjured image disappears.

    I wonder if your abilities are typical here or if it’s more of a continuum. I can’t do any of that stuff at all. When I said I could fleetingly picture Romney I basically had a half-second memory of what he looked like: it was more of a consideration of the question of whether I might be able to pick him out of a line-up. I basically can’t make a mental picture.

    I might be better with musical things. I think I can kind of “hear” excerpts from songs or other works as well as other people can.

  15. keiths: Alan, you are brazenly lying to every person who is reading your comments right now.

    Lying right now? About ants?

    Not that I expect it to make much impression on you but, just for the record, let me just say I have never knowingly uttered a false statement about ants.

  16. Alan,

    You look dishonest, childish and foolish enough as is. Are you now going to try lawyering your way out of this?

    I’ve made it clear exactly where you’ve been lying: Link, Link, Link

    By dragging this out, you are keeping your dishonesty in the spotlight. Is that in your best interests?

  17. Well, no. Sterile worker and soldier castes are not the carriers of the genome. The queen is. So loss of sterile caste members is of no consequence, genetically.

    So the above statement is a lie? I don’t see what is wrong with it. It’s a summary and could be elaborated on, but I don’t see it as inaccurate. What is wrong with it? It is certainly a fair summary of my understanding of where the heritable copies of the genome reside in an ant colony.

    But a lie? I’m sure I believed what I wrote was true and still think it is a reasonably accurate statement. Certainly not a lie! The distinction I was making was between the death of a worker and the death of the queen. The colony germ-line survives the death of a worker but not the queen. Of course we can consider that every element of the colony (apart from a worker that becomes fertile) contribute phenotypically to the survival of the colony, hence the queen and the germ-line.

  18. Alan,

    So the above statement is a lie?

    Stop trying to put words in my mouth. It’s dishonest.

    I’ve made myself clear:

    I’ve made it clear exactly where you’ve been lying: Link, Link, Link

    By dragging this out, you are keeping your dishonesty in the spotlight. Is that in your best interests?

  19. Just to forestall any more evasions, here are three examples:

    1. “I can assure Keiths that (and I readily concede that it may have been a failure of communication on my part) that until reading what I quote below, I was still unclear what the nature of this mistake was. Thanks for the clarification.”

    The words you quoted appeared eleven times in that thread as you childishly kept asking, “but what was my mistake?” (They also appeared four times in another thread.)

    You’ve had your “clarification” since the very beginning, and it was repeated again and again. “I was still unclear what the nature of this mistake was” is a lie.

    2. “I did indeed keep requesting you for your explanation of what this mistake actually was, in your opinion. I’m still waiting.”

    Your mistake had been pointed out to you more than 20 times, at your repeated request, when you wrote that. You were lying.

    3. “To me ‘requires a genetic explanation’ is not a meaningful phrase.”

    As I explained to walto earlier:

    You aren’t doing Alan any favors, you know. You’re implying that he is stupid enough to say, in effect, “I have no idea what you mean, but you’re wrong, and here’s why.”

    I don’t think Alan is that stupid.

    He knew perfectly well what I meant, as you can see by reading the exchange:

    keiths, paraphrasing Scruton:

    The ants aren’t reasoning about their sacrifice, so their behavior requires a genetic explanation.

    Alan:

    Well, no. Sterile worker and soldier castes are not the carriers of the genome. The queen is. So loss of sterile caste members is of no consequence, genetically.

    Only later, after realizing his mistake, did he claim that “genetic explanation” wasn’t meaningful. He’s lying about that.

  20. Alan,

    A couple of days ago, you wrote this:

    The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb.

    It’s good that you recognize there’s a problem, but I think you’re still in denial about its scope.

    It wasn’t a momentary indiscretion. It’s an ongoing pattern of poor judgment, immaturity, and dishonesty. Please take this seriously.

  21. If you think of ant types as cell types, part of a body rather than reproducing individuals, the mystery disappears. Brain cells do not pass on their genes, but they have the same genes as their progenitor cell.

  22. petrushka,

    If you think of ant types as cell types, part of a body rather than reproducing individuals, the mystery disappears. Brain cells do not pass on their genes, but they have the same genes as their progenitor cell.

    Yes, and I think Alan understands his error now. He just won’t admit that he was ever wrong about it.

  23. keiths:
    Alan,

    A couple of days ago, you wrote this:

    It’s good that you recognize there’s a problem, but I think you’re still in denial about its scope.

    It wasn’t a momentary indiscretion.It’s an ongoing pattern of poor judgment, immaturity, and dishonesty.Please take this seriously.

    keiths:
    petrushka,

    Yes, and I think Alan understands his error now. He just won’t admit that he was ever wrong about it.

    For someone who claims to believe that what is right or wrong is entirely subjective, you’re a hell of moralistic sermonizer.

  24. walto,

    Like Alan, you’ve had an uneasy relationship with the truth here at TSZ. I can see why you might become uncomfortable when lies are being pointed out.

  25. Yeah by your holiest of lights, Alan, Joe, Lizzie, Glen, Neil, Dave, mung, me, and who knows who all else– we’re all big fat liars. Especially me. Thank God you’re around to expose all of us! Each day you do His work when you do that–even with your subjective values.

    After all, this is The Skeptical Zone! I think everybody else but you may be forgetting that!

  26. walto,

    Yeah by your holiest of lights, Alan, Joe, Lizzie, Glen, Neil, Dave, mung, me, and who knows who all else– we’re all big fat liars. Especially me.

    I think everyone lies, and research seems to back that up. For most people it isn’t a serious problem.

    Also, you seem to have forgotten that this entire discussion happened, and is happening, at Alan’s insistence. He is the one who made the false accusations; he is the one who insisted, after weeks, that I respond to the remaining false accusations; and he is the one who keeps prolonging this discussion, to his detriment.

  27. petrushka:
    If you think of ant types as cell types, part of a body rather than reproducing individuals,the mystery disappears.Brain cells do not pass on their genes,but they have the same genes as their progenitor cell.

    Indeed. Exactly the distinction between germ-line and soma that I have been making.

  28. keiths: petrushka,

    If you think of ant types as cell types, part of a body rather than reproducing individuals, the mystery disappears. Brain cells do not pass on their genes, but they have the same genes as their progenitor cell.

    Yes…

    Halleluiah! Keith agrees with Petrushka! But wait. Petrushka is paraphrasing Alan. Alan has been saying the same thing since the discussion about ant biology came up. That the gene copies in sterile workers do not pass into future generations. The contribution the workers make to the survival of the colony (and hence the opportunity of the colony mated queen’s germ-line to pass on to daughter colonies) is phenotypic.

    …and I think Alan understands his error now. He just won’t admit that he was ever wrong about it.

    Alan is in difficulty admitting an error he never made. Alan is even now prepared to accept Keith may have genuinely misinterpreted his comments. Alan is less well disposed to the barrage of bizarre insults culminating in the bizarre charge of lying. Alan is consoling himself that he is not unique.

  29. walto:
    Yeah by your holiest oflights, Alan, Joe, Lizzie, Glen, Neil, Dave, mung, me, and who knows who all else– we’re all big fat liars. Especially me.Thank God you’re around to expose all of us! Each day you do His work when you do that–even with your subjective values.

    After all, this is The Skeptical Zone! I think everybody else but you may be forgetting that!

    I’m pretty gob-smacked at Keiths venom over this exchange. I’m happy now, thanks to Petrushka’s comment, that Keiths agrees with my position and that all his ire stems from his misunderstanding. I’m sorry that it happened but I do feel vindicated, at least.

  30. keiths: I think everyone lies, and research seems to back that up. For most people it isn’t a serious problem.

    What I’d like to know is when and how lying becomes a serious problem if all preferences are nothing but a matter of personal taste.

  31. Alan,

    A couple of days ago you recognized the problem:

    The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb.

    Now you’re back to brazen lies, plus denial:

    Alan is less well disposed to the barrage of bizarre insults culminating in the bizarre charge of lying.

    And:

    I’m happy now, thanks to Petrushka’s comment, that Keiths agrees with my position and that all his ire stems from his misunderstanding.

    You have a serious problem, Alan. To appreciate its magnitude, why not review our entire discussion, starting with your false accusation of quotemining? It will be painful reading, but perhaps it will jolt you out of your denial.

    Remember what you wrote:
    The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb.

    Denial won’t help you do that.

  32. walto,

    What I’d like to know is when and how lying becomes a serious problem if all preferences are nothing but a matter of personal taste.

    You sound like WJM. “If morality isn’t objective, then it’s nothing more than personal preference! Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla? Do you prefer your infants nurtured or tortured?”

  33. keiths,

    keiths: Remember what you wrote:
    The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb.

    Denial won’t help you do that.

    You missed the irony in that remark that was addressed to Walto.

  34. keiths: You have a serious problem, Alan.

    Specifically, it’s that I can’t seem to convince you that I made no error regarding ant biology. You even confirmed to Petrushka that you agreed with his summary of my position.

  36. Alan,

    You missed the irony in that remark that was addressed to Walto.

    No. You wrote:

    @ walto

    Please don’t get involved on my behalf. It’s my problem. Keiths brings out the worst in me. The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb.

    At least no one else affects me in this way.

    The irony is that you are now lying about your admission of lying, pretending that it was ironic.

  37. keiths: The irony is that you are now lying about your admission of lying, pretending that it was ironic.

    It looked to be probable irony to me, though I wasn’t certain of that.

  38. It doesn’t make sense if you read it ironically, but it makes perfect sense if you take it at face value.

    Alan was admitting a problem but trying to minimize it by claiming that it was only me who “brought out the worst” in him.

    @ walto

    Please don’t get involved on my behalf. It’s my problem. Keiths brings out the worst in me. The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb.

    At least no one else affects me in this way.

  39. keiths:
    walto,

    You sound like WJM.“If morality isn’t objective, then it’s nothing more than personal preference!Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla?Do you prefer your infants nurtured or tortured?”

    Well, what do you tell WJM when he asks you to explain the difference?

  40. keiths: It doesn’t make sense if you read it ironically, but it makes perfect sense if you take it at face value.

    To the contrary, it is not consistent with human nature unless taken as irony.

  42. Uh-oh. Does lying about lying about something turn the first lie into a truth?

    I hope keiths gets to the bottom of this! X>{

  46. BTW, I’m still waiting for an answer to this:

    walto: Well, what do you tell WJM when he asks you to explain the difference?

    You’re not singing “La la la–I can’t hear you!” with your hands over your ears, are you? And when you said you would comment on Thommasson (in addition to your awesome “Arnie” remark) or promised a part II to your (again, most awesome) Moderation thread, were those lies?

    And if they were indeed lies–why is that bad, do you think? And why should we care if you think that?

  50. Happy Labor Day, everyone! 🙂

    And my sincere condolences to everyone who has to go back to school tomorrow. 🙁

Comments are closed.