Charlie Rose

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/13/2011 06:29 PM Report

Charlie, here is a guy with a new book along these lines. Perhaps integrate in the Brain Series?

Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain.

If the conscious mind—the part you consider you—is just the tip of the iceberg, what is the rest doing? In this sparkling and provocative new book, renowned neuroscientist David Eagleman navigates the depths of the subconscious brain to illuminate surprising mysteries: Why can your foot move halfway to the brake pedal before you become consciously aware of danger ahead? Why do you notice when your name is mentioned in a conversation that you didn’t think you were listening to? What do Ulysses and the credit crunch have in common? Why is it so difficult to keep a secret? How is it possible to get angry at yourself? Who, exactly, is mad at whom? Taking in brain damage, plane spotting, dating, drugs, beauty, infidelity, synesthesia, criminal law, artificial intelligence and visual illusions, Incognito is a thrilling subsurface exploration of the mind and all its contradictions.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

David Eagleman is a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine, where he directs the Laboratory for Perception and Action as well as the Initiative on Neuroscience and Law. His scientific research is published in journals from Science to Nature, and his neuroscience books include Wednesday Is Indigo Blue: Discovering the Brain of Synesthesia and the forthcoming Live-Wired. He is also the author if an internationally bestselling book of fiction, Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives.

tabs  06/13/2011 04:40 PM Report

Since the show was a repeat, one will repeat ones comments that was sent to Mr Rose in an e-mail upon the shows airing.

Dear Mr Rose:

It seems that Mr Brooks remains an observer rather than a participant. Mr Brooks quotes many scientific and leading thinkers on the existential nature of the human condition Yet the question arises of, what has Mr Brooks figured out on his own? Mr Brooks apparently can not even described the factors as he himself said that makes him have difficulty in expressing his own emotions. Until that time comes one may think that Mr Brooks is an interesting but superficial observer,

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/13/2011 03:54 PM Report

Great interview to show again!

I watched it and then attended TEDx on Saturday. My mind is now blown but neuron repair is underway.

My secret Omega-3, stem cell shake both tastes great and is less filling.

JohnGelles  06/12/2011 10:27 PM Report

[Ah Ha Money Moment continued]

So if money is backed by what it buys (and not with debt or taxes) we will have to know where to inject it when people are out of work. One food place will be defense -- because tyranny is always looking for war and trouble. Another good place is to prevent homelessness and the worst poverty. Build a roof over the head of those who need one most. Feed and clothe them too. Let the money trickle up. There can never be too much as long as people will work for MORE. Let workers save, in inflation protected accounts, all they can. When all are out of debt their parents will be happier.

So we need an intelligence system to follow all supply chains and all pools of money able to create demand. Where to find the accountants for the economic intelligence agency? Close the IRS. We'll have plenty of talent for the work. Which computers will do most of us -- anyway.

Enough ah ha. CR is getting ready for tomorrow.

JohnGelles  06/12/2011 10:15 PM Report

[Ah Ha Money Moment continued -- with unintended errors to be decoded]

We all accept gross inequality in wealth and income as no more than a poor reflection of variable luck and talent. But it can be much more (all bad) if we do not deliberately pay for full employment all the time.

We accept that market price should include a monster size system that keeps employment at the right ratio to joblessness to make democracy successful. It does not do this. So we suffer from inadequate human economic rights and the potential growth of tyranny, poverty, inefficiency, and ignorance -- all of which will happen when people are out of work and into trouble.

Would it actually cost anything if everyone had the advantages of money enough to meet their obligations as are most comfortable friends and neighbors do? OF COURSE NOT!

Money never makes them worse than they already are. But poverty does make some of us worse and many of us much worse. And, when money is nothing more than what it can buy, and supply (when we have mastered mass production) is without limit, IF we go GREEN wherever possible, then money can be added to our economy without fear of weakening the work ethic so fast and furiously that all good things end in an instant.

True, the rate at which people move from work they do that they would quit to work they do because they love it, would have to be watched to be sure to transfer tasks to robots that free people just won't do. But such a goal is far more rational than expecting prices to control all systems with the blunt power of the fear of poverty. This blunt power has been a loser from the beginning of time after money became a norm.

[to be continued ASAP -- treat mistakes as text to be decoded]

JohnGelles  06/12/2011 09:47 PM Report

..... ..... ..... ..... An AH HA Money Moment

David Brooks' description of a researcher's "Ah Ha" moment brings to mind my own realization of the fact that the money in people's accounts compared to the needs on sale at a price they can afford is intelligence we seek when faced with market under-performance.

Many Americans believe free nations need free markets -- where suppliers and consumers "come together" to optimize production and consumption OUTCOMES in favor of peace and plenty.

Other American declare there never was a market free of corruption, manipulation, lies and fraud at every turn. They seek government rules and systems to protect consumers from unscrupulous suppliers and workers from crooked owners of stolen commercial property.

People on right support the free market myth. People on the left support government -- which, when tested, is often worse than what it may have attempted to fix.

People in the middle dream of Utopian systems with fair outcomes. Everyone works at what they can really do. Everyone has enough of the final pie to enjoy a good night's sleep and make things better every day.

Money is a part of some systems on the right and left and some in the middle. But the skinny on money was offered by a Bernard Schoenbaum drawing in the New Yorker more than a decade ago: "Everybody loves money. Too bad there isn't enough to go around."

..... TOO BAD HE NEVER HAD THE AH HA MOMENT TO TELL HIM THAT THERE IS MOTETGO! -- more than enough to go around (with lot's left over to be saved).

[to be continued ASAP -- treat mistakes as text to be decoded]

robdverity  06/12/2011 05:32 PM Report

David (and JohnGelles even) try to be good people, which is at least a proportionate size of the battle. (Despite his Republicanism.)

JohnGelles  06/11/2011 03:10 PM Report

David Brooks has just, with CR, told me about LOVE, CHARACTER and ACHIEVEMENT -- and what we (as researchers) may KNOW about them.

They, (love, character and achievement) are what we want for ourselves and from our intimate friends. They are prizes we often never earn.

..... ..... LOVE can come when we least expect it. We meet a person and fall in love with them -- with their bodies; their manner; their offer of reciprocal love (rarely); their promise or potential to complete our lives. Of all the things we want to experience and to give away, it is probably the dearest. Count yourself lucky if it has ever touched you.

..... ..... CHARACTER -- what we want our friends to have in abundance and what we may be short of ourselves. We judge your character by its proof of unselfishness, honesty, industry, and reliability, etc. We normally accept our own with little or no judgement of it by any reasonable procedure.

..... ..... ACHIEVEMENT -- now you're talking measurable language. What is your wealth, power, influence? How many close friends do you have? How many can really count on you? Do your KNOW everything? Have you DONE IT ALL? Do you admire it in others?

.

Oh well. The two of them went on and on about it. The book, that is, the social nature of human beings: they need someone to share with. I appreciate and believe the fact that the subject matter of their thoughts and the book itself is about as hard to make attractive as anything I know: who are we? how much of it is intelligible by recognition of the unconscious mind? Who has made it as attractive as possible -- whose writings I can remember?

When younger, I greatly admired George Steiner, CP Snow, Nikos Kazantzakis (spelling--my checker does much not help??), Sinclair Lewis, Harold Lasswell, Isaac Singer, and may others whose names will not be recalled. Novelists, biographers, historians . No journalists. Lasswell wrote pf power and personalty, perhaps as psychiatrist or historian.

In all events, the attempt by David McCullough (part journalist,) this week, to generalize about character and education was, in my view, a TRIUMPH. While David Brooks tried but did not reach my emotional depths. Of course, he was trying to reach my conscious understanding or emotions -- and may be forgiven on that account.

I do hope, that the CR show's offers to me and you in the audience, in information technology -- that promise to put artificial intelligence in a bottle that we drink from at will, from a tablet in our palm, will some day allow our conscious minds to prompt our thoughts and give us endless ah ha moments as we come to know the origin of all our pleasures and our pain. Keeping in mind that our pain must be kept in check so that it never does more that add seasoning to pleasure. We do not want to actually eat pepper--or smell it burning in a pan (it can de-brain you in high doses).