Robert Gore

Gainsborough, United Kingdom

Someone is shy

Robert hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Robert Gore
Posted over 3 years ago
Choosing the scientifically best language for international use?
You seem to have forgotten Esperanto which was designed to be an easy to pronounce and use European SECOND language. It has simple standard plurals, regular verbs, regular numbers, takes the dominant forms or commonest word roots for its words and does not use letter combinations that are hard or confusing for those of particular mother tongues. It uses a trick to make learning the vocabulary simply, by using suffixes and affixes added to a root word to express related concepts. For example in English we have, kintergarten, primary school, college, university, teacher, pupil, master, student, undergraduate, lecturer, etc etc etc. In Esperanto the method would be like this, take a root like 'learn', then there would be, learnerplace, biglearnerplace, learner, advancedlearner, qualifiedlearner, learnerinstructor, littlelearner. Looks ugly transposed to English, but in Esperanto, where the affixes are short and apply to all other root words it looks and sounds fine. A few core root words and the standard set of add ons, gives a huge vocabulary for a small amount of memorising, When children learn Esperanto at school, it builds confidence in reading, learning other languages, and boosts intelligence, because all the randomness, speculation and uncertainty is removed because all vowel sounds are regular, all pronounciations and spellings are certain, and no plurals or tenses endings can be wrong. The fear of being wrong is removed. No more of the, 'one mouse two mice', 'one sheep two sheep', 'one cow two cows', nonsenses, or 'I am, you are, he is', 'you will be', complexities. Never was introduced for political reasons, but there is a dedicated band of about 6,000,000 speakers worldwide who carry on in hope.
Noface
Robert Gore
Posted almost 4 years ago
Alison Gopnik: What do babies think?
If I may tell a personal story? I was born premature because my mum fell out of train, and consequently spent my early days in what was called an oxygen tent 60 plus years ago. I believe that was a part factor in helping me retain early thoughts; anyway as a young child, 5 to 7, I would dream about my birth, and remember all sorts of details and describe strange sensations and sights and thoughts that I did not understand at the time, like moving pink walls, for example, or strange philosophies. Later, as a youngish adult doing Rebirthing sessions I recovered much more visual detail, realised that the moving pink walls were my mother's thighs as my head came out, and that as I was being born was puzzling how I could be myself and my mother at the same time, that is 2 and 1 at the same time.This was the origin of my belief that in some sense I needed to faciltate her survival to ensure my own, not just as a common sense survival strategy, but as a basic confusion about independent self identity. More significantly was the fact that I was pursuing rational thought during birth, on a level below language but sufficiently rational, logical, investigative and speculative to relate to my formal spokenlanguage of thought I learned later. This gives me an insight into how we aquire language so readily, our thinking skills are already there in a simplified form, and that later at a higher level we learn normal grammatic spoken language and map it down onto the birth ready system we already have. Well its all anecdote, but apart from pretending to love brocalli etc, what else do we have? Perhaps we should do some research into the regained memeories of those who have undergone multiple Rebirthing sessions as taught by Leonard Orr. We might have all just gone nuts of course!
Noface
Robert Gore
Posted almost 4 years ago
Iain McGilchrist: The divided brain
Lawrence T, "These matters CAN be readily understood." If only! The Buddha has a teaching called the Law of Emptiness, or Dependent Origination. He states that for anything to exist, three factors must be present. 1/ a sane cognising human consciousness. 2/ Something out there in the 'real world', described as the 'basis of designation', and 3/ A channel of perception to link 1 to 2. Quite subtle stuff for 2.5k years ago. In other words, perception involves filtering input through the organ of perception and adding meaning/significance from a sane mind to get reality. The 'basis of designation' is only perceived to be 'as it is' by us, in other words, even if we expand our perceptions with machines and devices, or deeper understandings, or from the attempt at scientific objectivity, we can do no better than create a good fit model of what is actually out there. We cannot remove completely the 'bias' of the observer. I didn't mean to get into this really, but it helps us look at what happens when we see/hear/perceive/visualise/imagine a thought object. 'Objects that perceive' was never my terminology, so leaving that aside, who is having the thought? In Buddhist meditation a lot of time is spent searching for that 'who', and the tradition isthat the self will never be found as it is a convenient fiction, but never the less, when we have thoughts there seems to be a talker and a listener, if we consider a bit of trivial inner dialogue in language as an example of a thought. Mostly we identify with the 'talker', in fact we use that function to consider simple decisions, like, 'its a nice day, shall I walk to the railway station, or 'just save time anyway and take the bus'. However clever, or educated we all have snippets of thought like this that run along in inner spoken language at a normal talking rate. Why not start here with the simple, than with bits of diagrams and maths, flashing along independent of speech. I am not promoting Buddhism, just reaching for tools.
Noface
Robert Gore
Posted almost 4 years ago
Iain McGilchrist: The divided brain
I cannot agree, I find them a distraction, I wish they could an option like subtitles. Some of the graphics and cartoons are delightful and can add support and clarity; but all the time? And why include the writing hand, it would be less of an attention splitter if completed drawings were shown in sequence. Some lectures are available, on youtube for example, without the cartoons, and one gets a different lecture, as there is more time to hear persoanl tone and emphasis without the frantic scribbling; they can be fun for a few minutes, but let's return to having the choice TED, to switch them on and off at will.
Noface
Robert Gore
Posted almost 4 years ago
Iain McGilchrist: The divided brain
I have also experienced the effects of cortical damage, but won't go into the story now. I wonder if in explaining your experiences it would be helful to distinguish between consciousness and the contents of consciousness; or if I am stretching the meaning of consciousness too far away from the conventional, to suggest other terms. One difficulty we all have is that the definitions and understandings of such terms tend to be both elastic and personal. The maps you mention, like geographical maps, are 2D representations of a 3D reality, but we need to be thinking of the events and 'areas' as having 3 dimenstions and in some instances they are simplified models of the real world. Even to move one's arm from 'a' to 'b', it is necessary to have a 3d model of the external environment at the time, a model of the body and balance, all referenced to remembered sets of muscle movements and feedbacks, both from internal receptors and all coordinated with real time feed back from the eyes, and any perceptors on the skin; just reaching out and picking up a coffee mug whilst sitting is immensely complicated, even subtle movements of the trunk and other limbs must be made to counterbalance the estimated increasing moment, (weight), of the extended arm and hand, plus expected weight of the mug and contents to prevent any imbalace around the centre of gravity which would cause lean to the other side or jerks and trembling which would occur while careless unsmooth corrections were made too late. We note what is lighting up, but do not concentrate on what those areas must be doing, they are refering to libraries of remembered models of movements and circumstances, and adjusting them and comparing them to the real time events of the now; there are heirachies of complexities of models.......
Noface
Robert Gore
Posted almost 4 years ago
Iain McGilchrist: The divided brain
Lots of functions can be explained without reference to consciousness, and like the ether of historic physics it can be dropped as speculative condition that cannot be demonstrated; but, and this is the problem with the standard scientific method, personal experiences give insights that still require explanation, whether they can be dismissed as only anecdotal or not. If one experiences a very quiet state of mind, external perception free, body and place forgotten, where only attention and reasoning exist against a black background, there is still an aroma of self, a sense of a listener and of flowing logic, with a visual component, and this 'space' seems to have dimension and direction and meaning. We do not really understand the relationship between 'real' objects and space in the manifest world of atoms and forces, and we do not understand the relationship between a thought, the thinker, the observer and the inner space in which it is experienced. At certain levels in science and experimental psychology in the lab, maybe everything can be dealt with without any reference to 'inner space', (which is what I am taking consciousness to mean here), but on a personal level there is still an experienced to be explained. What is going on at that level is an underlying component of the verbal linear sequential coded language that we use everyday. These deeper levels of mental experience give some insights.The same open 'arena' in which everyday consciousness is operating with all its clutter and confusions and perceptions and emotions and thoughts and fleeting notions is still there as a basis for mind content, but it is in the quieter states without that chaos, where functions are so reduced it is possible to look at the residual elements. I think we will make more progress towards understanding what inner and out space is, if we admit we do not understand either, rather than shelving the problem by saying that they do not exist and hence do not need any explanation.
Noface
Robert Gore
Posted almost 4 years ago
Iain McGilchrist: The divided brain
How can you say that human thinking is impossible without emotion, how about a geometric proof, or a set of mathematical transformations, or even refined professional language?
Noface
Robert Gore
Posted almost 4 years ago
Money doesn't exist, not really.
This video link you gave is a wonderfully short and truthful explanation of what has happened in the last 30 years. I think we should stop debating with Mr Pinter, he seems not to have realised that when private central banks finance government spend, it is the public who pay for that debt short and long term. Nothing similar happens in the flour and bread baking analogy, so his core argument that money is MERELY another commodity like flour, is simplistic, silly and misleading. They key to understanding is by whom and how money is created and released into the system, and whether or not public debt is created.
Noface
Robert Gore
Posted almost 4 years ago
Iain McGilchrist: The divided brain
In just under 25 words you have re-put the question that has been baffling scientists and meditators, philosophers and alchemists, religionists and madmen, biologists and psychologists for 60,000 years, if you believe the latest dating methods of Vedic scholars for their oral traditions. I suggest two initial models for consideration. 1/ Consciousness and content is like a broadcast radio signal and our individual brains are receivers, that can flip between, and edit programs in real time. 2/ Our brains are more like radio transmitters, or computers, when they break, the data that was confined to circuits is destroyed completely, and any illusions of self, however convenient the erstewhile fiction, is also gone, but the broadcasting and its field, consciouness, remains. That would mean that consciousness was a universal quality, (a bit like the dismissed 'ether'); the arena in which thought exists...... In the first model, we can die, but the field of consciousness, something uinversal and ongoing continues, and when ever any matter, be it biological or inorganic is given a sufficiently complex arrangement, then that pre-existent signal is retuned. All analogies are bad fits, but if we list arrangements of matter in ascending orders of complexity, from basic atoms, through crystals, complex proteins, primitive life, higher mammals and so on, we can draw a line between the conscious and non-conscious arrangements, if we hold the model that consciousness is a function of a particular degree of complexity and above...... Maybe every atom has a smide of consciouness that only is revaeled in bulk arrangements of particular types. This is the great hole in our knowledge, what is consciousness? Some meditators hold that consciousness is a universal quality that we merge into and use......But we are not going to solve it here today. However, I can render your question down, 'where is thought?' Just another demonstration that this lecture was widely stimulating.
Noface
Robert Gore
Posted almost 4 years ago
Iain McGilchrist: The divided brain
Does it really matter whether we ascribe a particular mode of thought/experiencing to a particular brain area? As I use my laptop, do I need to know whether a bit of data is buzzing through the cpu or suspended in memory or being read from the hard drive? We have a societal consensus which sets limits to our behaviour and actions, quite constrained limits, and we have infant training customs and educational practice which tunes and focuses our perceptions giving the result that we are all rather alike; we mostly understand each other, we mostly behave within in the rules, and we mostly have achieved societies and economic systems that serve us fairly well, but fall short of what many think might be possible, if only we changed our mentality. Historically we lived in little groups in a vast world where carelessly grabbing the most we could had little impact on the eco-system or others, now we are bouncing off the boundaries and have the opportunity to change our behaviour as an elective option or wait for Nature to settle the balance, without any prior bias in human's favour. My main point is would we be better served by finding out how to experience AT WILL a greater range of ways of seeing the world and behaving in it, than by the distraction of refining understanding of the underlying mechanisms? The research is great, but we are in a crisis that is moving towards inevitable mostly non-reversible mass species extinction, environmental despoilation and human suffering driven by overpopulation on a mass scale, so does knowing that violence and insensitivity and lack of foresight is on side 'a' in position x, or that foresight and empathy for all living things is on side 'b' at position y, really help us at this juncture? Perhaps a bit more attention to pharmacology and meditation on a practical basis to create 'better' overall human behaviour is a quick fix, rather than exploding simplistic myths from the 1960s to new insight for 2011 of the l v. r brain?