The real problem (of consciousness)

Anil K Seth

Aeon.com

Originally posted November 2, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

So what underlies being conscious specifically, as opposed to just being awake? We know it’s not just the number of neurons involved. The cerebellum (the so-called ‘little brain’ hanging off the back of the cortex) has about four times as many neurons as the rest of the brain, but seems barely involved in maintaining conscious level. It’s not even the overall level of neural activity – your brain is almost as active during dreamless sleep as it is during conscious wakefulness. Rather, consciousness seems to depend on how different parts of the brain speak to each other, in specific ways.

A series of studies by the neuroscientist Marcello Massimini at the University of Milan provides powerful evidence for this view. In these studies, the brain is stimulated by brief pulses of energy – using a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) – and its electrical ‘echoes’ are recorded using EEG. In dreamless sleep and general anaesthesia, these echoes are very simple, like the waves generated by throwing a stone into still water. But during conscious states, a typical echo ranges widely over the cortical surface, disappearing and reappearing in complex patterns. Excitingly, we can now quantify the complexity of these echoes by working out how compressible they are, similar to how simple algorithms compress digital photos into JPEG files. The ability to do this represents a first step towards a ‘consciousness-meter’ that is both practically useful and theoretically motivated.

The article is here.

When Disagreement Gets Ugly: Perceptions of Bias and the Escalation of Conflict

Kathleen A. Kennedy and Emily Pronin
Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2008 34: 833

Abstract

It is almost a truism that disagreement produces conflict. This article suggests that perceptions of bias can drive this relationship. First, these studies show that people perceive those who disagree with them as biased. Second, they show that the conflict-escalating approaches that people take toward those who disagree with them are mediated by people's tendency to perceive those who disagree with them as biased. Third, these studies manipulate the mediator and show that experimental manipulations that prompt people to perceive adversaries as biased lead them to respond more conflictually—and that such responding causes those who engage in it to be viewed as more biased and less worthy of cooperative gestures. In summary, this article provides evidence for a “bias-perception conflict spiral,” whereby people who disagree perceive each other as biased, and those perceptions in turn lead them to take conflict-escalating actions against each other (which in turn engender further perceptions of bias, continuing the spiral).

The article is here.

For those who do marital counseling or work in any adversarial system.

From porkies to whoppers: over time lies may desensitise brain to dishonesty

Hannah Devlin
The Guardian
Originally posted October 24, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

Now scientists have uncovered an explanation for why telling a few porkies has the tendency to spiral out of control. The study suggests that telling small, insignificant lies desensitises the brain to dishonesty, meaning that lying gradually feels more comfortable over time.

Tali Sharot, a neuroscientist at University College London and senior author, said: “Whether it’s evading tax, infidelity, doping in sports, making up data in science or financial fraud, deceivers often recall how small acts of dishonesty snowballed over time and they suddenly found themselves committing quite large crimes.”

Sharot and colleagues suspected that this phenomenon was due to changes in the brain’s response to lying, rather than simply being a case of one lie necessitating another to maintain a story.

The article is here.

A Theory of Hypocrisy

Eric Schwitzgebel
The Splintered Mind blog
Originally posted on October

Here is an excerpt:

Furthermore, if they are especially interested in the issue, violations of those norms might be more salient and visible to them than for the average person. The person who works in the IRS office sees how frequent and easy it is to cheat on one's taxes. The anti-homosexual preacher sees himself in a world full of gays. The environmentalist grumpily notices all the giant SUVs rolling down the road. Due to an increased salience of violations of the norms they most care about, people might tend to overestimate the frequency of the violations of those norms -- and then when they calibrate toward mediocrity, their scale might be skewed toward estimating high rates of violation. This combination of increased salience of unpunished violations plus calibration toward mediocrity might partly explain why hypocritical norm violations are more common than a purely strategic account might suggest.

But I don't think that's enough by itself to explain the phenomenon, since one might still expect people to tend to avoid conspicuous moral advocacy on issues where they know they are average-to-weak; and even if their calibration scale is skewed a bit high, they might hope to pitch their own behavior especially toward the good side on that particular issue -- maybe compensating by allowing themselves more laxity on other issues.

The blog post is here.

Vignette 35: Initial Telepsychology Session for Free?

Dr. Larry Ellison, a psychologist colleague, contacts you about a marketing plan for his telepsychology services.  He has over 1,000 followers on Twitter and a strong social media presence on Facebook.  His plan is this: He wants to offer one free psychotherapy session to potential patients. He explains he is trying to promote his telepsychology practice and show that psychologists are open, friendly, and willing to help, potentially for free to get treatment started.  The overarching goal is to develop a robust telepsychology practice.

Knowing the rules of his state, Dr. Ellison will make it clear that services are only available in the states that he is licensed.  Dr. Ellison will use a HIPAA-compliant videoconferencing service.  He is looking for general feedback, such as thoughts on a good marketing plan or any ethical concerns.

Upon hearing his plan, do you have any ethical concerns about this marketing plan?

What are some of the practical or potential pitfalls of this plan?

What are some of the overarching ethical principles involved in this decision?

What state laws would you consider to help make this decision?

Risk Management and You: 9 Most Frequent Violations for Psychologists

Ken Pope and Melba Vasquez
Ethics in Psychotherapy and Counseling: Practical Guide (5th edition)
(2016)

For U.S. and Canadian psychologists, the 9 most frequent causes among the 5,582 disciplinary actions over the years were (in descending order of frequency):

1. unprofessional conduct, 
2. sexual misconduct, 
3. negligence, 
4. nonsexual dual relationships, 
5. conviction of a crime, 
6. failure to maintain adequate or accurate records, 
7. failure to comply with continuing education or competency requirements, 
8. inadequate or improper supervision or delegation, and 
9. substandard or inadequate care. 

The book can be purchased here.

The shame of public shaming

Russell Blackford
The Conversation
Originally published May 6, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

Shaming is on the rise. We’ve shifted – much of the time – to a mode of scrutinising each other for purity. Very often, we punish decent people for small transgressions or for no real transgressions at all. Online shaming, conducted via the blogosphere and our burgeoning array of social networking services, creates an environment of surveillance, fear and conformity.

The making of a call-out culture

I noticed the trend – and began to talk about it – around five years ago. I’d become increasingly aware of cases where people with access to large social media platforms used them to “call out” and publicly vilify individuals who’d done little or nothing wrong. Few onlookers were prepared to support the victims. Instead, many piled on with glee (perhaps to signal their own moral purity; perhaps, in part, for the sheer thrill of the hunt).

Since then, the trend to an online call-out culture has continued and even intensified, but something changed during 2015. Mainstream journalists and public intellectuals finally began to express their unease.

The article is here.

Bayesian Brains without Probabilities

Adam N. Sanborn & Nick Chater
Trends in Cognitive Science
Published Online: October 26, 2016

Bayesian explanations have swept through cognitive science over the past two decades, from intuitive physics and causal learning, to perception, motor control and language. Yet people flounder with even the simplest probability questions. What explains this apparent paradox? How can a supposedly Bayesian brain reason so poorly with probabilities? In this paper, we propose a direct and perhaps unexpected answer: that Bayesian brains need not represent or calculate probabilities at all and are, indeed, poorly adapted to do so. Instead, the brain is a Bayesian sampler. Only with infinite samples does a Bayesian sampler conform to the laws of probability; with finite samples it systematically generates classic probabilistic reasoning errors, including the unpacking effect, base-rate neglect, and the conjunction fallacy.

The article is here.

Can Psychedelics Make Us More Moral?

Derek Beres
Big Think
Originally published August 22, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

Could a moral drug enhancement instill empathy in such a person? If so, should it be used? Earp is not ignorant of the ethics of such a drug. Looked at from a broader social perspective instead of an individualist mindset is one important factor. If there’s a possibility that a psychopath could harm members of a society, would such a drug be beneficial, especially if the person desires it? What if they don’t?

Psychopathy is a small but very real instance. What about extending this idea of moral neuroenhancement to people with depression? Anger management issues? Excessive anxiety? This does not imply that a person needs a daily dose. Research has shown that psilocybin has an effect even after one episode...

The article is here.