Deep History - Deep Model I

[Barrett Dorko]

For the next few Sundays I will be referring to two books that have recently possessed me:

Deep History – The Architecture of Past and Present

And,

On Deep History And The Brain

The term “deep model” has intrigued me ever since I read an essay about the problems inherent to empiricism alone referenced here.

Briefly, reality is not accurately revealed by our observations and consequent reasoning alone. The brain is a kludge, and because of that, the scientific method is neither inherent to our culture nor is it natural.

To me, there are two categories of people who proceed with thoughtless methods related to health care:

1) Those who do not recognize the importance of the scientific method and propose that things are done “on faith” and/or out of the goodness of their hearts. They justify their method with empiricism alone and ignore the literature.

2) Those who know or, at least, strongly suspect, that what they’re saying isn’t true and what they’re doing isn’t all that effective. They continue silently, out of habit and personal financial need.

Both groups are often licensed as therapists, but neither are scientists.

Deep history refers to the description of activity for which there is no documentation of the usual sort. It is speculation, but that speculation is based upon an intimate knowledge of the reality we’ve discovered using extensions of our senses and carefully stated scientific logic.

Lack of attention to deep history leads to what Dawkins calls “the discontinuous mind”:

The discontinuous mind represents a gap in our perception and therefore our reasoning. It leads to our presumption that things begin at a given time and in a measurable way. These things lead to the presence of other things that we may be able to sense with sufficient ease, measure again and alter predictably. In short, it encourages ignorance of the deep model of existence and functioning. The discontinuous mind finds it easy to dismiss evidence that does not conform to its current model and to only emphasize that which does. It is the antithesis of scientific thought.

Me, in this thread

Much more in the Sundays to come.

[Vakbrown]

Barrett, isn't it part of the 2020 vision of the APTA...to have dPTs, autonomy and evidence-based practice? Like you I see many "unscientific" actions of therapists and am wondering what is happening with this "vision".

[amacs]

Those who know or, at least, strongly suspect, that what they’re saying isn’t true and what they’re doing isn’t all that effective. They continue silently, out of habit and personal financial need.

I know that a large part of what I say isn't objectively true and at best needs qualified with a number of caveats. I am also aware that I often practice silently not out of habit but out of financial need.

I am guilty as charged

I don't like it one little bit although I don't see it changing much in any dynamic or meaningful way - all I see is the ongoing rotting of a dead man. That bothers me.

While I agree with much of what you say Barrett I am not prepared to find myself in your shoes or shoes like yours in a decade or so. Life is far to valuable.

ANdy

[Diane]

ANdy, no matter where you go, there you'll be. And whatever path you take through life, it will be necessary to take your own Occam's Chainsaw, because the world is full of people and all are deceitful, according to Robert Trivers. Just for being human.
And here is Kory's post on the Looking for Direction thread about the three kinds of motivation.

It seems to me (now that I'm dead), that life is for sissies. Death, on the other hand, is something to work hard for and relish.

[amacs]

Originally Posted by Diane

ANdy, no matter where you go, there you'll be. And whatever path you take through life, it will be necessary to take your own Occam's Chainsaw, because the world is full of people and all are deceitful, according to Robert Trivers. Just for being human.
And here is Kory's post on the Looking for Direction thread about the three kinds of motivation.

It seems to me (now that I'm dead), that life is for sissies. Death, on the other hand, is something to work hard for and relish.

Aye but one should address what is and what isn't worth dying for and there lies the rub (for me).

ANdy

[Diane]

Originally Posted by amacs

Aye but one should address what is and what isn't worth dying for and there lies the rub (for me).

ANdy

Absolutely. Something has to be able to start the motor on your Occam's Chainsaw.

[amacs]

Originally Posted by Diane

Absolutely. Something has to be able to start the motor on your Occam's Chainsaw.

starting it isn't the problem - it's fuel to keep it running!


ANdy

[Diane]

Originally Posted by amacs

starting it isn't the problem - it's fuel to keep it running!


ANdy

Probably little hoses siphoning off information from adjacent (i.e., non-tooth-fairy) science might suffice.

Look no further: The Edge Question 2012: WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE DEEP, ELEGANT, OR BEAUTIFUL EXPLANATION?

[Diane]

Here's a good essay about model creation: Eduardo Salcedo-albaran, his deep explanation for Edge.org's 2012 question re: deep explanations: "We Are Dreaming Machines That Construct Virtual Models Of The Real World" (quoting Rodolfo Llinás).

Excerpt:

The most beautiful and elegant explanation should be as strong and overwhelming as a brick smashing your head; it should break your life in two. For instance, as a result of that explanation, you should realize that even if you are dreaming your brain is active doing what he does best: creating models of reality or, in fact, creating the reality where you live in...

Dreaming and waking are similar cognitive states, as Rodolfo Llinás says in his masterpiece "I of the vortex". The only difference is that while dreaming, your brain is not perceiving or representing the external reality, it is emulating it and providing self-generated inputs.

The explanation is also shocking in its consequence. While waking we are also dreaming, concludes Llinás: "The waking state is a dreamlike state (…) guided and shaped by the senses, whereas regular dreaming does not involve the senses at all".

In both cases our brain generates models of reality.

With this explanation very few entities—the brain and the matter of reality—are enough to remind us how we create what is usually defined as "reality": "The only reality that exists for us is already a virtual one (…). We are basically dreaming machines that construct virtual models of the real world", says Llinás.

This is not only a beautiful explanation because of the poetic fact that reality is self-generated while dreaming, and partially generated while waking. Is there anything more beautiful than understanding how to create reality?

This is not only an elegant explanation because it shows our minuscule and entirely representative place in the ontological and physical reality, in the huge amount of matter defined as universe.

This explanation is overwhelming in practical terms because as a philosopher and social scientist, I cannot explain the physical or the social reality without considering that we live and move in a model of reality. Including the representational, creative and even ontological role of the brain, is a naturalization project usually omitted as a result of hyper-positivism and scientific fragmentation...

My bold.

The essay reminded me of Australian Aborigine deep explanation/world view.

[Barrett Dorko]

Thanks for finding that Diane. I like it a lot.

I'm pretty sure you'll like these books.

Got room for them?

[Diane]

I'll look and see if I can squeeze them in somewhere.