“Seus programas técnicos levaram a levaram a avanços interessantes dentro da teoria da probabilidade, mas nenhum novo insight foi acrescentado sobre a natureza da ciência. Seu programa degenerou.”[1]

Resposta – Cética.

“Podemos aceitar que a ciência se baseia na indução e aceitar também a demonstração de Hume de que a indução não pode ser justificada por apelo à lógica ou à experiência, e concluir que a ciência não pode ser justificada racionalmente. O próprio Hume adotou uma posição desse tipo. Ele sustentava que crenças em leis e teorias nada mais são que hábitos psicológicos que adquirimos como resultado de repetições das observações relevantes.”[2]

Reposta – Racionalidade do princípio.

“Uma segunda resposta é enfraquecer a exigência indutivista de que todo o conhecimento não-lógico deve ser derivado da experiência e argumentar pela racionalidade do princípio da indução sobre alguma outra base. Entretanto, ver o princípio de indução, ou algo semelhante, como “óbvio” não é aceitável.”[3] Pois, o “óbvio” depende de nossa educação e é particular.

Resposta – Negação de que a ciência se baseie em indução.

“O problema da indução será evitado se pudermos estabelecer que a ciência não envolve indução. Os falsificacionistas, notadamente Karl Popper, tentam fazer isso.”[4]

[2] CHALMERS, A. F. O que é a ciência afinal? 2009. Editora Brasiliense. P. 42

[3] CHALMERS, A. F. O que é a ciência afinal? 2009. Editora Brasiliense. P. 43

[4] CHALMERS, A. F. O que é a ciência afinal? 2009. Editora Brasiliense. P. 43

Love that fire, CB

Raptors basketball just wouldn’t be Raptors basketball without the nightly heart attacks, would it? Tonight’s came in the form of a 23-point third quarter lead dwindling to one late in the fourth, but Chris Bosh and Jarrett Jack led a late push en route to a 120-113 win over the Heat in Toronto’s return to the ACC.

Bosh was magnificent tonight, going 10-of-14 and finishing with 29 points and 12 rebounds and Jack made a pair of clutch threes from the corner in the final three minutes, finishing with a season-best 17 in 31 minutes off the bench. Andrea Bargnani had 24 and 10 and Hedo Turkoglu had arguably his best game as a Raptor, scoring 19 points to go with five boards and eight assists.

Of course, this one came with it’s share of second half head-to-wall banging, as the Heat went about 27 possessions in a row late in the third with a bucket. Bargnani was eaten alive by Joel Anthony and Mario Chalmers had a riot at the hands of Jose Calderon, scoring a career-high 30. Even when it looked like the Raps were putting Miami away midway through the fourth, Calderon managed to lose Chalmers on back-to-back possessions for threes to pull the Heat right back in. On the bright side, a handful of Toronto defenders did a commendable job on Dwyane Wade, holding him to 10-of-24.

I know the NBA is a game of runs, but it doesn’t always have to be. With that said, it would be nice to see the boys put it to bed next time they jump to a double digit lead in the second half.

So, a win in the first game back after four straight out west leaves the Raps at 6-7. Superman and the Magic, who beat Toronto at the ACC Nov. 1, are in town Sunday.

Bosh and the Raps stare down Miami tonight

Ah yes, home sweet home. After seven of eight out west, the Raptors are back at the ACC tonight to face Dwyane Wade and the Heat. The boys escaped the trip at 2-5 (wins in New Orleans and LA) and sit at 5-7 on the year — to be honest, a mark I’m pretty, pretty pleased with at this point. As always, a full preview for tonight’s game is available at Raptors Republic, including my world-famous simulation.

Miami enters tonight’s game at 7-4, but don’t be deceived: The Heat’s schedule has been the opposite of Toronto’s — not to hate on the Knicks and Nets, but it’s been a walk in the park, highlighted by eight of 11 at home. With apologies to first-class citizen Jermaine O’Neal, the Heat really have nothing going for them aside from Wade. Case in point: The Band-Aid Man was 6-of-18 for 15 points in Atlanta Wednesday and Miami was pasted 105-90. If the Raptors can keep Wade from going out of his mind, this should be a comfortable win.

With “defensive stopper” Antoine Wright expected out for Toronto, the Raptors will be forced into throwing a host of defenders at Wade, none of which, I’m sure, will be Jose Calderon. With Udonis Haslem unlikely to dress for the Heat, Chris Bosh and Andrea Bargnani should be set for field days against O’Neal and big softy Michael “Supercool” Beasley. No excuses for Andrea — time to get back to work after a couple nightmarish games.

The Raptors and Heat get it popping at seven.

Idag har Akademiska senaten vid Uppsala universitet sammanträtt för andra gången den här terminen. Förra gången var det ett två dagarsinternat på Gimo herrgård. Den här gången var det ett lite mindre möte på Gustavianum. Det stora ämnet för dagen var Censur av forskning – hot och motmedel, eller som någon annan skulle kunnat kalla det lögndetektorer och förbannad dikt.

Bakgrunden är en händelse som inträffade i november 2008 då en artikel av forskare från KTH och Chalmers som publicerats ett år tidigare fick lite oönskad uppmärksamhet. Artikeln hade titeln Charlantry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously och publicerades i International Journal of Speech Language and the Law. Den handlade om lögndetektorer som baseras på ljudupptagningar av röster. Genom att analysera små svängningar i rösten påstår tillverkarna att de kan avgöra det mentala tillståndet hos den som pratar. Alltså om denne ljuger eller inte.

Författarna till artikeln visade att detta var felaktigt och att det inte alls gick att avgöra. Lögndetektorerna som det aktuella företaget hade tillverkat hade ingen effekt alls. Tydligen ska det till och med vara textbokskunskap inom psykologin att lögndetektorer bara är bluff och båg. Den enda effekt som man har lyckats påvisa är den så kallade bogus pipeline-effekten, att en person som är kopplad till en lögndetektor oftare berättar sanningen. Och det är ju inte så konstigt att man säger sanningen om man tror att man kommer att bli avslöjad om man ljuger. Klassisk placeboeffekt. Tyvärr nöjde sig inte författarna med att enbart angripa lögndetektorerna utan även personerna bakom lögndetektorerna. I artikeln hade man en sektion med titeln “Who is Mr. Liberman” där man bland annat angrep honom för att han inte skulle ha en akademisk examen. Artikeln vara alltså ganska provokativt formulerad, vilket båda granskarna av artikeln påpekade innan publiceringen, och hade den inte varit det hade kanske historien tagit en annan gång.

Här hade allt i så fall kunnat vara frid och fröjd om inte företaget som byggde lögndetektorerna, Nemesysco, hade hört av sig till tidskriften och bett dem dra tillbaka artikeln genom att hota med stämmning för ärekränkning. Inte nog med det så skulle tidskriften på en väl synlig plats be officiellt om ursäkt och dessutom ge en mindre donation till Nemesysco för besväret. Tidskriften böjde sig tyvärr för detta och drog sig tillbaka, vilket resulterade i en del upprörda känslor bland forskare runt om i världen och på DN. Här hade forskare som kritiserade pseudovetenskap blivit censurerade!

En av författarna skriver själv om artikeln på Newsmill.

Så vad har det då för betydelse idag? Hur bör forskarsamhället agera i sådana här frågor? En viss risk finns att detta kommer att bli vanligare och vanligare i framtiden om, som vissa på mötet påpekade, företag och andra uppdragsgivare vill ha en mer deltagande del i forskningen.

En annan intressant aspekt är den censur som är inbyggd i själva det vetenskapliga systemet, självcensuren. Ska man som forskare tillåtas ifrågasätta IPCC och koldioxidåtgärderna? Får man lägga fram en doktorsavhandling om att mobilstrålning är skadligt för hjärnan? Får man kritisera SKBs metod att använda kopparkapslar för slutförvar av använt kärnbränsle, en diskussion som gått varm i kommentarerna till mitt inlägg Kopparkonspirationer och kärnavfall? Eller ska man som forskare våga skriva en artikel som kan verka provokativ mot ett företag som tillverkar lögndetektorer? Jag håller nog med den sida som under mötet hävdade att forskare bör ta en större plats i samhällsdebatten samt att vi ömt bör vårda våra fritänkande men obekväma forskare.

Slutligen vill jag avsluta med att citera en av deltagarna på mötet: “Nationell yttrandefrihet är aldrig starkare än den globala yttrandefrihetens svagaste länk”

Godmorgon!

Mitt humör är verkligen som en bergochdalbana, upp och ner och upp och ner. Det flippar hela tiden och jag påverkas så förbannat och irriterande lätt. Just nu är allt ok. Men efter mässan igår var jag förvirrad och arg för att jag inte kan bestämma mig…

Gårdagens besök på Svenska Mässan i Göteborg var i alla fall givande. Jag pratade med en tjej som går andra året på Industriell Ekonomi i Linköping och hon verkade i alla fall vara väldigt ärlig. Hon sa att det var lite tufft i början och att man måste våga utmana sig själv. Det kanske är just det jag måste göra. Jag är orolig för att jag inte ska klara av det och rädd för att misslyckas och funderar lite på att välja något som jag vet att jag klarar av. Men risken finns nog då att jag blir uttråkad och vill göra något utmanande. Men jag är som sagt osäker på om jag klarar av teknik-/fysikbiten av Industriell Ekonomi och vill inte misslyckas… Och som alla andra vill jag komma rätt från början, inte byta efter ett år!

Sen måste jag komma fram till vilken stad/skola som är “min”, den jag passar på. Jag är lite inne på Chalmers men den skolan känns lite nördig liksom… Sen är jag lite intresserad av Linköping, men jag vet inte om det bara är för att Ellen antagligen ska plugga där. Det är så svårt att välja…

Dagen;

- Gudstro är den vetenskapliga världsbilden. Annat är till stor del fria fantasier.
Det säger Allan Emrén, filosofie doktor i fysikalisk kemi och anställd vid Göteborgs universitet och Chalmers under 35 år.

Man blir rädd. Inte undra på att svensk utbildning halkar efter. Undrar vad hans kollegor säger på Chalmers.

“-Numera kan jag inte ens tvivla på Gud. Det finns alltför mycket som är oförklarligt utan en skapare säger han.
En forskare som inte begriper att ur det oförklarliga kommer så småningom svaren. En forskare som väljer den lätta förutbestämda vägen och söker svar i en religiös urkund. En forskare som vill ha facit. Men det finns alltid en Quisling även bland vetenskapen.
Finns det inte mycket som är oförklarligt i gudstron? Oh!

Jetzt hab ich schon eine ganze Weile nichts mir von mir hören lassen, was natürlich einen Grund hat: a) Meinen Thesis beansprucht sehr viel Zeit. b) wir sind auf den anderen Campus Umgezogen. In Göteborg gibt es nämlich 2! Der eine (leider auch der, den wir verlassen haben) liegt ca 5 min Fussweg von meiner Bude weg, sprich der Campus am Johanneberg…

The good old Chalmers, Göteborg centrum, i miss you

Der andere Campus, Lindholmen, liegt auf der linken (und sozial durchaus problematischeren Seite) des Kanals, der Göteborg teilt. Ich schätze (werde mich noch genauer informieren) dass dies hier alte Werftgelände sind die zur Hochschule bzw. zum Gymnasium umgebaut wurden.

Chalmers, in der Mitte entspringt ein Fluss.

Hier ist auch schon das Wort gefallen, Gymnasium. Hier hat es nämlich n haufen pubertierender Jungspunde die morgends den Bus verstopfen. Zum Glück steig ich alter Sack vor den eleven ein und hab noch schön nen Sitzplatz. Das tolle am Campus ist aber die durchaus nette Aussicht auf die Innenstadt Göteborgs. Die man natürlich von meinem Büro aus nicht sehen kann. Ich werde morgen nochmal versuchen Bilder von der Innenstadt zu bekommen aber das Wetter heute war einfach zu bescheiden.

Im Moment noch "etwas" chaotisch

Dafür beweisen die Innenarchitekten im SVEA Gebäude, in dem ich mich aufhalte, durchaus Mut zu Farben und Ausweis gesicherten Türen. Cirka alle fem Meter darf man dann auch seine Karte durch irgendeinen Schlitz ziehen und fragt sich dann nach der siebte Türe die man auf dem Weg zum Klo geöffnet hat ob das normal sei, dass man sich im wie Verrückten Labyrinth fühlt.

Das verrückte Labyrinth

Na dann bis zum nächste Post,

Med vänliga Hälsningar,…

This post acts as a sequel to last week’s note on rational choice. As part of my Data Analysis class, we were required to read Milton Friedman’s seminal piece, The Methodology of Positive Economics; it is illuminating in certain regards. Specifically, it highlights some issues with the rational choice, positivist approach largely entrenched in economics today.

The additional confounding effects associated with the social sciences- as opposed to the natural sciences- are inadvertently illustrated in Friedman’s piece. Consider, for instance, the example of an entire batch of faulty telescopes, which could be corrected for measurement error (analogous to perception error in the case of human actors), thereby surmounting the problem entailed by the error. However, one could hardly abstract this into the social sciences and assume, analogously, that all human beings think in the same way and can thus be considered as a homogenous amalgam[1]. Yet, this is precisely the approach adopted by Friedman and numerous positive economists when they eschew an investigation of causal processes (Friedman, p. 21). Following the assumption of uniform perception/cognitive processes/errors, Friedman is able to make the logical leap from the individual to the firm: ‘it is only a short step to the economic hypothesis that under a wide range of circumstances individual firms behave as if they were seeking rationally to maximize their expected returns and had full knowledge of the data needed to succeed in this attempt as if, that is, they knew the relevant cost and demand functions’ (Friedman, p. 21). Friedman refutes objections to the tune that assumptions made in economic theory are too far removed from reality; however, he seems to be misapprehending the problem in doing so. The real issue seems to be the universal applicability of assumptions inherent to Friedman’s construct: thus, while the logical leap from a perfect market to a real, imperfect one is not erroneous, the assumption that all human beings would react to the perfect market in logically homogenous ways is[2].

An example might serve to make this point more clearly: consider a Disney cartoon of a princess. While no one would argue that Princess Jasmine accurately represents the average female form, she is a reasonably good approximation within the context of the cartoon. That is to say, when we view Princess Jasmine, we are put in mind of an abstract conception of what the female human being looks like. Friedman’s rebuttal is clearly operational here: while one would grant that Princess Jasmine is quite removed from realistic portrayals of women, she represents an acceptable approximation for the purposes of the cartoon Aladdin. My point is that the real issue is not how accurately the cartoon approximates real human beings, but rather, the acceptability of adopting this approximation as a basis upon which predictions can be made. Although the Arabian sun shines off of Jasmine’s hair, one cannot infer that the same would be true of a real human being under the real Arabian sun. Similarly, while Jasmine’s eyes approximate genuine human eyes, one would not recommend that an optometrist use the cartoon in an anatomical study.

One can abstract from the behavior of a single electron to that of every electron within a system fairly easily; the same cannot be said of perceptive, cognitive human beings, as I noted last week. While these are merely preliminary thoughts on the matter, further inquiry would seek to establish the degree to which theories on individuals could be abstracted into prescriptive theories about larger social entities. Such is the burden of the social scientist and in particular, one seeking to adopt a rational choice perspective.

Do skim through the Friedman piece; his lucid style makes for a quick read.

[2] It should be noted here that Friedman would certainly acknowledge that human actors have differing ends; the issue here is with the causal mechanisms by way of which human beings determine the means to attain those ends, the investigation of which Friedman consciously eschews.

By Cara Sulieman

THE OFFICER in charge of the investigation into the disappearance of missing Samantha Wright last night revealed police would not be carrying out any further searches at the scene – until they worked out exactly what they had found at Magdalene Drive.

Chief Inspector Paul Bullen said that experts were working on establishing the identity of the human remains and how they died.

“Experts examining remains”

He said: “At this moment we don’t know whether the remains are male or female or what the cause of death might be.

“We cannot say for sure that they belong to one person but at this stage I am working on the premise it is one body.

“We have experts including forensic archaeologists and entomologists examining the remains.

“Until we hear what they have found we will not be carrying out any more searches of the property.

“The experts will tell us how best to carry out further searches in order to preserve the evidence.”

Samantha’s family

He also revealed that the remains were found in a “receptacle” in the back garden – but would not say what.

The chief inspector also would not confirm what charges 57 year-old Robert Chalmers will face when he appears at Edinburgh Sheriff Court today (Wednesday).

But he said that Samantha Wright’s family were being kept up to date with the progress of the investigation.

He said: “Samantha Wright’s family have been told that we have found a body as part of the ongoing investigation into her disappearance.

“They have been kept up to date at every stage of our enquires so far.

“We remain hopeful that Samantha Wright is alive and well but until we receive the results of the tests we will be focussing our efforts on this address.

“Our priority at the moment is identifying the remains and establishing if any criminality was involved.

“We have erected a wood structure over the area where the remains were found in order to preserve any evidence there may be.”

“Increased visibility”

The Chief Inspector reassured residents that police would be in the area in the course of the next few days to answer any concerns.

He said: “Officers will be in the area with increased visibility and will be carrying out door to door enquiries.

“We will also be on hand to give any guidance and support they require.”

Officers from Lothian and Borders Police arrived at the property in the Duddingston area of Edinburgh on Monday morning and searched the ground floor flat before discovering the human remains.

They arrested Robert Chalmers on Monday evening.

See more of our pictures at our Flickr site and videos at our dedicated channel,  Deadline TV.

By Cara Sulieman

A MAN is expected to appear in court tomorrow (Weds) after police investigating the disappearance of missing Stevenage girl Samantha Wright found human remains at a house in Edinburgh.

Robert Chalmers, 57, will appear at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Wednesday following a police operation at a flat in the city’s Magdalene Drive in the early hours of Monday morning.

The remains – feared to be that of Samantha – come following an extensive search for the 25-year old who was last seen in the capital on June 12 last year as she made her way home from a Jobcentre in High Riggs.

Samantha, originally from Stevenage in Hertfordshire, had lived in Edinburgh for three and a half years.

“Only lead”

She was only reported missing in January this year after her family failed to receive their usual phone call from her on Christmas or her birthday on January 5.

In August Lothian and Borders Police appealed for a man who was captured on CCTV with Samantha in the city centre to come forward, describing it as their “only lead”.

Yesterday two blue and white police tents stood pitched in the back garden of the property where officers are believed to have found the remains on Monday.

The fire brigade had to be called out to cut through a metal railing that separates the garden from the one next to it.

A large wooden canopy and wall was also erected over the neighbouring garden, blocking the view of any investigation that takes place.

Sealed off

Neighbours described hearing drilling and digging in the early hours on this morning as officers dig further into the two gardens.

The ground floor flat is in the middle of a council estate in the city’s Duddingston area.

Attached to the side of Chalmers block is a smaller block of grey pebbled dashed council flats, where the second garden has been sealed off.

A woman who lives on the top floor said that she had been woken up in the middle of the night by drilling in the garden below.

Young families

She said: “We’ve not had much sleep. I was woken up at about two in the morning with drilling noises as they dig down into the garden.

“They had a police dog here yesterday as well, checking the whole back green.”

About 30 flats make up the multi-coloured block, with doors opening out onto the balcony that runs along the front.

The residents, mainly young families, were shocked by the discovery.

Avril Brown, 24, has lived on the top floor of the block for the five years with her three small children.

Gruesome

She said: “I’m very surprised that this has happened and really worried about the kids now. To think that something like that can happen around here is worrying.

“Everybody on the balcony knows each other and we all get on. It’s not the sort of place where you expect a body to be found.”

Other residents in the street were equally as shaken by the gruesome discovery.

Kelly Pierson and her partner John were out walking their dog on the busy council estate road.

“You never know what can happen”

Kelly said: “The kids from the flats around here play on the green at the back of the blocks. We can keep an eye on them easily and it’s fenced in so you know they’re safe.

“My wee girl was playing on the green behind that flat the day before the police came round. It’s horrible thinking about what she was playing near.

“We’re going to be a lot more careful with the children now. You never know what can happen.”

Police said they were still investigating the find.

Court

A spokesman for Lothian and Borders Police said: “A 57-year-old man has been arrested and charged in connection with the discovery of human remains at a domestic property in Magdalene Drive, Edinburgh.

“A full forensic examination to identify the remains is being undertaken.

“The man is due to appear at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Wednesday 14th October.”

See more of our pictures at our Flickr site and videos at our dedicated channel,  Deadline TV.

Ett stort grattis till Göteborgs universitet som nu kvalat in på The Times Higher Educations lista över världens 200 bästa universitet. Göteborg är den enda svenska staden som har två lärosäten på rankinglistan. Chalmers finns med på listan sedan tidigare.

The Nobel Prize in Economics should be announced in eight hours’ time; given the state of the field, this should be an interesting one (although the committee would be hard pressed to top Friday’s performance in terms of sheer shock value). Expect fulminations aplenty if odds-on favorite Eugene Fama takes home the prize- Mike Konczal’s “preview” is worth reading on this count. Of interest should be the fact that Markovitz/Sharpe/Miller won a couple of years prior to the Fama-French refutation of CAPM, while Black/Scholes won shortly before the LTCM disaster; a Fama win, in the context of recent debates over the EMH, would perhaps be apt. Other favorites include Paul Romer and William Nordhaus; the latter, in particular, makes for a potent symbolic choice in light of the Copenhagen Climate Council, which takes place in two months’ time.

While I would like to see Nordhaus win the prize, both for his work and the broader message it would carry, Fama should not be grudged the prize. Regardless of one’s views on efficient-markets and Fama’s financial work, there is no denying that he helped define the financial paradigm during Wall Street’s glory years. I just finished reading A. F. Chalmers’ What is this thing called Science? and it raised a number of issues concerning the scientific project as a whole and what it means to make “progressive” contributions towards a discipline (the book is eminently readable, despite its apathy towards the social sciences). What does it mean for a positive contribution to have been made towards finance- as dodgy as the EMH may now appear, it has prompted extensive alternative models and hypotheses. Intuitively, a contribution should not be judged on a purely utilitarian basis- for instance, does the refutation of Aristotelian/Ptolemaic astronomy by Copernicus and Galileo diminish the stature of the former by much? After all, the replacement of paradigms is a largely retrospective affair- it needs to be, chronologically speaking- and hindsight is always 20/20. Furthermore, Fama’s contributions should not be reduced to the efficient-markets hypothesis alone; apart from his work on CAPM with Kenneth French, Fama has provided much of the research that undermines his own hypotheses (see Mandelbrot’s book for details), albeit not to the extent that it sways him.

Awarding the prize to Fama would not be politically correct, but he should not be grudged the prize; by virtue of having driven the discipline, a man’s contributions are often worth more than the sum of their parts. I expect there will be numerous parties who disagree with me on this count, but then again, as positive economics has shown us: predictive hypotheses are often more normative than they appear, almost inevitably so! Coming up: thoughts on Milton Friedman’s The Methodology of Positive Economics.

Addendum (October 12th, 2009): The Nobel Committee announced its decision this morning- Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson take home the honors for their work on economic governance in a relatively uncontroversial pick (thus far). I like the Ostrom pick in particular, since her work is representative of the subtle adjustments to our prevailing economic paradigm. Williamson’s work is closely tied to that of Ronald Coase, a person whom I greatly admire. Given the nature of Ostrom’s research and my own interest in heuristics and adaptive cognitive mechanisms, expect a post on these matters shortly. I highly recommend skimming through this as well.

Arbeiten

Wie sich nach einer Woche arbeiten herausgestellt hat, arbeitet man mit 2 Computern nicht automatisch doppelt so schnell. Schreiben sie sich das auf Frau Maier, sie könnten es noch nach ihrem Praktikum als Weissheit an ihre Enkel verkaufen…

“De acordo com o indutivismo ingênuo, a ciência começa com a observação. O observador científico deve ter órgãos sensitivos normais e inalterados e deve registrar fielmente o que puder ver, ouvir etc.  Em relação ao que está observando, e deve fazê-lo sem preconceitos.”[1] Desta maneira, se pode se justificar como verdadeira  as afirmações a respeito do estado do mundo ou parte dele. Essas afirmações formam a base para as leis e teorias que devem derivar e constituir o conhecimento.

Ou seja, se trata aqui de, iniciando com a experiência singular, fazer afirmações singulares sobre a observação. Assim, satisfazendo as condições para generalizações, deste modo,

1. o número de proposições de observação que forma a base de uma generalização deve ser grande;
2. As observações devem ser repetidas sob uma ampla variedade de condições;
3. Nenhuma proposição de observação deve conflitar com a lei universal derivada.

Se pode fazer uma afirmação ou lei universal.

“Desde que certas condições sejam satisfeitas, é legítimo generalizar a partir de uma lista finita de proposições de observação singulares para uma lei universal.”[2]

[2] CHALMERS, A. F. O que é a ciência afinal? 2009. Editora Brasiliense. P. 25

Das ist mir heute morgen auf dem Campus entgegen gesprungen…

party

ich erwarte jetzt aber auch Prinz Harry artige ausarbeitungen des Themenabends.

Here I am,…

Hade möte med Karin Markides, Chalmers, Jan Hallberg, GR och arbetsgruppen i det gemensamma projektet att få fler utländska studenter att komma och stanna i Sverige. Slås av att man kanske skulle göra gemensam sak med besöksnäringen, näringslivet och akademin för att locka rätt studenter till regionen. Det är ju kampen om hjärnorna som kommer visa vilken region som lyckas. Vore intressant att fokusera på några länder, regioner, universitet för att göra en storsatsning för Västsverige.

Hade intressanta diskussioner om en högaktuell idé att öka samarbetet mellan Saab och Volvo PV. Är det logiskt att två biltillverkare i samma region utvecklar bilar i samma segment, under en strukturkris för hela branschen, med krav på alternativa drivmedel t ex el eller elhybrider UTAN att ha ett samarbete. Ännu märkligare ter sig tanken då många kvalificerade nyckelpersoner har arbetat i båda företagen. Rent näringspolitiskt skulle det vara intressant att stötta den svenska fordonsindustrin till en snabb omställning till alternativa drivmedel. Det skulle innebära intressanta möjligheter för underleverantörer, som tillverkar elmotorer, batterier, styrsystem mm. Frågan är vem som driver denna frågan? På Saab och Volvo lär fokus vara på ett helt annat håll av förklarliga skäl.

Träffade idag Ingemar Pettersson, vd och koncernchef för Binar AB.  Vi är på deras huvudkontor i Trollhättan och Ingemar beskriver en företagsgrupp med inriktning på elektronik, automation och verkstad, som omsätter totalt ca 350 milj kr under 2009. Man har en spännande mix av företag, allt från ett av Sveriges mest klassiska företag, NOHAB till det nya högteknologiska Dynamics AB. Det senare tillverkar en 3D Scanner, kopplad till en robot som klarar sk bin-picking. Roboten kan plocka t ex maskindetaljer som ligger blandade i en pallkrage och sortera dem på ett perfekt sätt. Tack vare scannern och matematiska algoritmer klarar roboten att se detaljerna, hur de ligger och var roboten skall greppa detaljen för att kunna lägga den riktigt. Ett annat spännande företag är Standby, specialiserat på ljud och ljus för utryckningsfordon!

Började annars dagen med en tvåtimmars föreläsning för en internationell klass på Chalmers inom temat “Sustainable Transports”. Direkt efteråt körde jag Rv 45 till Trollhättan för att hålla ett föredrag på den internationella konferensen “Bioenergy Day”. Mycket engelska på en dag och nyttigt med lite uppfriskning emellanåt. Intressant att se den nya vägen och järnvägen växa fram i älvdalen. Det blir ett lyft för Trollhättan när dessa projekt är klara!

Ett privilegium med min tjänst är att jag träffar ständigt nya och spännande personer med många goda idéer mm. Idag var det inget undantag. Började morgonen med att träffa Niklas Wahlberg, vd för Lindholmen Science Park. Vi diskuterade hur ITS ska kunna komma ut och testas i verkligheten. Lindholmen har ett unikt nätverk, bra lokaler och intressanta utvecklingsidéer. Det ska bli spännande att samarbeta med Niklas framöver. Handelskammaren kan trycka på politiskt, använda vårt gedigna nätverk samt verka som facilitator för att koppla ihop, iddér, med de som har kunskap och eventuellt med finansiering.

Fortsatte med ett lunchmöte med John Holmberg m fl på Chalmers för att diskutera hur regionen genom akademin, politiken och näringslivet kan samarbeta kring en hållbar utveckling, främst för att gå från ord till handling.

Dagen avslutades i Uddevalla där jag och handelskammarens ordförande Finn Johnsson träffade vårt Bohusråd och ett 30-tal medlemmar och politiker från Fyrbodal. Främst var det för att få intryck på vad man anser att vi ska arbeta med. Jag passade även på att berätta om handelskammarens verksamhet och framtidesplaner. Turismsamordning, stöd för små och medelstora företag, EU stöd och nya arbetstillfällen var de största frågorna som diskuterades.

Consciousness is perhaps the most perplexing phenomena left unexplained in the natural world. There is research being done across multiple disciplines – philosophy, psychology, neuroscience etc.– and yet no one theory of consciousness has been agreed upon. While many theoreticians think we are very close to understanding this puzzle, others think it will take a revolutionary shift in the scientific paradigm if we are to ever understand consciousness. Still, others believe we are not sufficiently ‘equipped’ to understand the workings of consciousness in the first place. Whoever is right, one thing is for certain – consciousness is a great mystery that if solved, would inevitably help humans understand their place in nature.

            According to David Chalmers, if we are to come to solve this mystery of consciousness, either we must revise our conception of nature or we must revise our conception of consciousness. I propose it is our conceptual understanding of consciousness that needs revision. For the sake of this paper, I will be defending the eliminativist view of consciousness, namely that the phenomenon of consciousness (as it is commonly understood) is illusory and can be explained in terms of basic, physical, structural and functional processes. I will use Daniel Dennett’s functional analysis of qualia, from his paper “Quining Qualia”, to show that our understanding of the properties of consciousness are greatly misguided, resulting in a conception of consciousness that by its very nature, could never be understood.

            In his paper “Consciousness and its Place in Nature”, Chalmers proposes there are two types of problems one faces in trying to understand consciousness. The so-called ‘easy’ problems of consciousness are the objective issues of consciousness that can be worked out in terms of the underlying physical structure and functional activity. An example of an easy problem of consciousness would be how the human visual system functions perceptually. Importantly, the easy questions can be studied empirically by examining brain activity and other relevant objective data. Science has made great progress in coming to understand many of these structural aspects of consciousness. However, the supposed ‘hard’ problem of consciousness has been largely overlooked or ignored by scientists, while philosophers find it to be the most puzzling. This hard problem of consciousness is how it is that physical matter, when arranged into a particular structure (namely the human brain) can come to have subjective experience. Another way of phrasing this puzzle is that somehow complex arrangements of physical simples can come to have qualitative or phenomenal experiences. It seems that science fails to give an explanation of why subjective experience (the “what it is like to be” something) exists in the natural world. However, the eliminativist holds that the apparent hard problem of consciousness really does not exist, or shall cease to exist once all the soft problems have been settled. 

            Another way of understanding this ‘hard’ problem of consciousness is in terms of what is known by philosophers as the explanatory gap. The explanatory gap states that no matter how far we get in terms of explaining the ‘easy’ questions – the structural and functional issues – there will still be something lacking in our explanation of consciousness, namely the phenomenal character of experience. There is an unexplainable chasm or gap between the physical or biological brain events and the conscious or qualitative experience. This explanatory gap is often used to argue that consciousness is beyond mere physical description and is rather ineffable and mysterious. The explanatory argument goes something like the following:

(1)  Physical accounts explain only the structure and function of consciousness.

(2)  Structure and function alone don’t explain the subjective or qualitative feeling.

(3)  There is a gap between the physical accounts of consciousness and the subjective or qualitative properties of consciousness.

(4)  Thus, consciousness must not be wholly physical.

The conclusion (4) pushes the epistemological gap to an ontological gap – that is, the limit of our understanding of consciousness necessarily implies consciousness is beyond physical description and thus non-physical. In other words, the explanatory argument concludes that because subjective experience isn’t explainable in physical terms, it must then be irreducible and non-physical. Because knowing all the physical facts of the world apparently isn’t sufficient for knowing subjective experience, experience itself must be fundamentally different than the rest of the physical world.

            Reductive materialists or eliminativists, like Dennett, deny that there is an epistemic gap in the first place, however. Moreover, these materialists believe that the hard problem of consciousness is merely an illusion that will go away when all the soft problems are explained away. Someone like Dennett, who believes that all of the properties of consciousness can be explained physically or functionally, is going to have to deny premise (2) – that structure and function don’t explain qualitative experience. According to the reductionist, qualitative experience just is structure or function, so premise (2) is thus confused and invalid. According to eliminativism, there is nothing special about qualitative experience that moves it beyond the realm of the physical. Dennett thinks it is mistakes like this that lead to an speculative and unfounded view of consciousness as being some mysterious non-physical phenomenon. As a reductive materialist, he wants to show that our common-sense understanding of consciousness is actually an illusion and that the special features we attribute to consciousness can be either be reduced to fully physical terms or shown not to exist at all.

            In his paper “Quining Qualia”, Daniel Dennett sets out to deny our intuitions about specifically about qualia as being a sort of “special property” of consciousness. Qualia are defined as the features of consciousness that are subjective and have a qualitative feeling – namely a feeling of “what it’s like to be like” – for example, what it is like to see red. Dennett does not intend to fully deny conscious experience outright (in this paper; at least); and insofar as everything real has properties – he does not want to deny that consciousness has properties. However, he does want to say that the qualitative features of consciousness – qualia – do not have the special properties philosophers normally attribute to them namely, being ineffable, private, intrinsic, and directly apprehensible through consciousness. Dennett believes that philosophers are intuitively misguided in these assumptions. Commonly, qualia are described as ineffable insofar as we tend to think of our experience as defying expression or description in language. It is largely due to ineffability that qualia are thought to be private. Because we are not able to fully express our phenomenal experience, it becomes impossible for interpersonal comparison. Moreover, it seems that each of us has privileged access to our qualia – a first person perspective that no one else can experience quite like we do. Qualia are believed to be directly apprehensible through consciousness in that we seem to have the power to reflect on our experience, and in doing so – amplify the qualia. And finally, are phenomenal experiences are thought to be intrinsic insofar as they are somehow “atomic”, “simple” or “homogeneous” and therefore unable to get a hold of without direct experience. Dennett wants to show that it isn’t clear that consciousness really has any of these four previous characteristics commonly associated with qualia.

            He believes that many of the supposed mysteries of consciousness are created by dogmatically accepting these intuitions we have about qualia or the “ways things seem to us.” Dennett hopes to shift the burden of proof to those who so complacently appeal to private, subjective experiences as having these special properties. However, Dennett says that to try to eliminate these errors and extrapolate some “lowest common denominator” of qualia – eliminating its ‘special’ characteristics – would be to reify the concept into oblivion. What would be left is a meaningless notion that is “tactically obtuse” and far from what philosophers mean when they use the term qualia. Through a series of thought experiments, or ‘intuition pumps’ Dennett proposes to show that none of the four previously mentioned properties of qualia seem to hold up to scrutiny or analysis. Perhaps most importantly, Dennett wants to deny the existence of qualia because it is often seen as the biggest threat and last defense against functionalism, or more generally materialism, and as he says, any third person objective approach to the world. As a naturalist philosopher, Daniel Dennett wants to explain conscious entirely in terms of the physical and finds that talk of qualia inherently lends itself to unnecessary confusions. And if qualia do exist, then something will have been left out of the functionalist definition of consciousness, rendering it false.

            Through the use of his cleverly constructed intuition pumps, Dennett wants to show that the four properties commonly attributed to qualia are confusions – and in that no such feature of consciousness has all of these properties, there must then be no qualia at all. Dennett attempts to show that upon reflecting on our actual experience, there really is nothing phenomenally concrete as to which we can accurately label qualia. As a functionalist, he wants to say that there are no qualia but rather just the functional roles our experiences play. Of this, he says that we falsely assume that beyond this causal system, there are some qualia to be isolated and compared. For the sake of brevity, I will focus on what seem to me to be the two most compelling intuition pumps, which illustrate that our common ideas of qualia are misguided.

            The Sanborne-Chase thought experiment serves to illustrate just how little of a first-person understanding we actually have of qualia. Both Sanborne and Chase are coffee tasters who at one time loved the taste of a particular coffee, but now no longer enjoy the flavor of that same coffee.  Sanborne says that the flavor is the same, but his judgment of it has changed. Chase says the opposite, namely the flavor has changed, but his judgment has remained the same. Clearly only one of the tasters is right, if the coffee itself has remained consistent. There then must be a forced choice, as to whether the quale has changed or the judgment has changed. Neither man can be sure of which is the actual case and insofar as he is unsure, it appears that the theoretical assumption of privileged-access is false. Both of these men, upon reflecting on their experience, seem to be analyzing it objectively rather than introspectively and at best guessing which shift has occurred within him. Dennett believes that at best, when we introspect we are only theorizing about what is going on in experientially. He also points out that often other people seem to have as good access to our own experiences as we do. For example, we are often fooled by our experience while others can ‘see what’s on our mind” by means of our emotions and behavior. Thus it appears there must be no privileged access property of qualia.

            Dennett uses another intuition pump to show that the assumption that qualia are intrinsic is completely unfounded. People often talk about beer as if it were an acquired taste. However, Dennett points out that you don’t actually acquire a liking for the first sip of beer (for if every sip of beer tasted like the first sip, no one would drink beer), but rather the prolonged drinking of beer creates a later enjoyable experience. The very enjoyment of the experiment should guarantee the taste is no longer the same as the first sip, claims Dennett. So it seems that our very liking of the beer has changed its flavor from the first sip to the most recent sip. But insofar as our reaction or experience itself results in a change in quale of beer (namely the flavor), qualia must not be intrinsic, but rather relational. Therefore, there must be no qualia.

            It turns out that upon reflecting on the subjective experience of beer, it is really just the beer itself we are attending to. That is, it is not the experience (being a property of consciousness) of the beer that we have access too, but rather the flavor property of the beer itself. In attempting to reflect on subjective experience of the beer, we end up failing and focusing on the beer itself. Thus the experience of beer is not mysterious and can be explained in terms of its causal roles. Dennett wants to just explain qualia functionally, in terms of the experience’s causal role. The functionalist says that if you reproduced the entire functional structure of the beer drinker’s cognitive system (including memories, beliefs, desires, innate aversions etc.), you would have effectively reproduced all the mental properties as well, including the enjoyment and pleasure the beer produces. Thus we can conclude that there is nothing to consciousness beyond structure and function as so the hard problem of consciousness must be illusory.

            At this point, one (a qualia realist perhaps) might object that while Dennett might have proven that we don’t have the special understanding we may think privileged access provides us (as demonstrated by Chase and Sanborne); surely Dennett cannot deny that we still have some special or privileged access to our own experience that makes it our experience. We surely must have a special access to what it is like to be us. But Dennett points out that it at least does not seem clear that we have the access to our conscious states we commonly think we have. Dennett thinks that the knowledge of ‘what is like is’ in theory objectively accessible. That is, with the correct research and examination, we can understand what it is like to be anyone just as much as what its like to be ourselves. Dennett thinks we only circumstantially know what it is like to be ourselves because it happens we ‘spend the most time with our selves.’ However, people we are close to often know what it is like to be us (and correctly so) in ways we’ve never reflected upon.           

Dennett argues that a large cause of the confusions about qualitative feelings being mysterious is that every person thinks he or she is an expert on consciousness. Insofar as everyone has conscious experience, each person believes to have some profound understanding of the phenomenon and how it works. However, upon genuine introspection and critical examination, it seems that none of the mysterious properties of consciousness hold up. Thus we are not the experts we think we are – but are merely wrapped up in our own experience, fooled by our own minds. By showing that subjective experiences or qualia are not as mysterious as commonly believe, Dennett hopes to show just how we are fooled about our experience. Reductive materialism is extremely controversial and many philosophers brush Dennett’s theory of consciousness off too quickly for being overly simplistic and counter intuitive. However, as Chalmers pointed out – if we are to ever understand such a complex phenomenon, it is going to take radical change in our current philosophical and scientific paradigm. Perhaps Dennett’s theory isn’t fully correct, but it should still serve as a model on how philosophy of consciousness should be done. It seems correct to revise our conception of consciousness rather than revise our concept of the natural world. Instead of simply waiting for some scientific revolution, Dennett has attempted to deny traditional intuitions and set forth a positive account of consciousness that preserves materialism. 

(NYU year 2 Consciousness)

As you probably know this sign popped up outside the Chalmers building and was on the front page of the Recorder.  I stole this image of it from The Judge Report. Thanks Bob.

I don’t think it was written by an attorney, an attorney would know better. For the Isabel-For-Mayor crowd who have orchestrated this whole sorry campaign of destruction to win out they’ll have to win in court not once but twice (unless Kaufman decides to fold).

The first trip to court will involve the Councils authority to end a contract. It’s quite possible that a court won’t even agree to hear that case since the City already has someone who interprets the City Charter;  that’s the Corporation Counsel.  On the off chance they should win there the next test is in court to determine Kaufmans option is still valid. That will be based on weather the court believes Kaufman met all his obligations including the $50,000 payment to extend the option. Was it due after 12 months or is it only due after the environmental remediation is finished? The city was advised by the “outside counsel” that that is where to “hang your hat” in court.  Apparently the outside counsel thinks Kaufman met all his bench marks.

How would the city fair in court if it challenged based on the $50,000 payment being overdue?  Well, everyone who negotiated, wrote and signed the agreement agree it’s not due until the environmental remediation is done. That means the city would have to argue that the people who created the agreement don’t understand as well as someone who read it after the fact.  It’s a little like a fan telling band members what their lyrics REALLY mean.  I don’t see how you win that case.

Another possibility is Kaufman walking away but suing. I don’t see why he wouldn’t.  He bargained in good faith, met his obligations, spent considerable money on the project only to have the City fail to uphold its end of the bargain.  And his lawsuit might reach beyond the municipality to individuals who defamed him- remember that he’s a private citizen not a politician. You can’t sling mud at individuals like you can at politicians (who are considered public domain by the law). Going, Isabel, Chiara… they’ve all slandered him in my opinion.

The time has come (the Walrus said) to talk of many things – of shoes and ships and sealing wax, and cabbages, and kings.

Waiving the first several, consider the point that Andrew Melville made to King James in 1590: “There are two jurisdictions exercised in this realm: the one spiritual, the other civil; the one respects the conscience, the other external things; the one directly procuring the obedience of God’s Word and commandments, the other obedience unto civil laws; the one persuading by the spiritual word, the other compelling by the temporal sword …”

Consider too how deeply this must have sunk into the national consciousness by the nineteenth century when there is more than an element of plausibility in the anecdote recounted by Neil MacLeod in Hold Fast your Confession:

“[a story] about a serious mother asking her child as it supped its porridge, ‘What is the true relation between Church and State?’ The innocent promptly replied: ‘co-ordinate jurisdiction with mutual subordination’.”

Church/State relations were thrashed out in the thinking of Scottish theologians and preachers in the most practical of ways. The Covenanters in the 17th century were hounded and harrassed and summarily executed on the moors and in their own homes for maintaining that Christ, not James or Charles, was the sole Head of the Church on the earth. The Disruption Fathers struggled for years, in the mid-nineteenth century, in church courts and civil courts, to maintain that the State had no jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters such as the appointment of ministers – and when they could finally make no more headway, they walked away from all the financial, and social, benefits of an establishment whose terms they could no longer conscientiously concur with.

The Scottish churchmen utterly repudiated the idea that the Church was a creature of the State, or that it exercised its authority and functions by the permission of the State. Their views of the nature and worth and authority of the Church were rather more elevated than ours may be today – the Church was an honourable institution, divinely ordained, with divine authority – the power of the keys was real, the pronouncements of church courts were binding, church discipline was a serious matter, and so on.

They also, of course, respected and venerated civil authority, as an institution just as surely divinely ordained. The powers that be are ordained of God. They would obey any obscure or silly – or even oppressive – dictates of the civil magistrate, just as long as they weren’t expected to disobey divine dictates. They would rather, in all seriousness, risk their livelihoods and their lives, than obey Caesar instead of Christ. In the same way as they firmly believed that the Church had no business wielding the civil magistrate’s sword, they would never concede that the State had any right to administer the keys.

So far, so noble and enlightened: but they also believed that there were areas of life where the Church’s rightful sphere and the State’s rightful sphere overlapped. In these areas, as opportunity would arise, civil and ecclesiastical authorities were to be helpful and supportive to each other. These areas can sometimes seem to be firmly believed in in theory and not always clearly spelled out in practical terms, but they did include things like the State contributing to the temporal support of the Church (stipends, buildings, etc), the Church loyally and supportively praying for the civil authorities (a real spiritual benefit!); Church and State cooperating in the provision of education, and so on. As Neil Macleod put it,

“In civil matters the church is subordinate to the state, and in spiritual matters the state is subordinate to the church. The authority which constitutes and limits the power in each province, civil and ecclesiastical, is the will of Christ expressed in his own Word. The whole matter may be summed up in the time-honoured Latin tags; the state has no power in sacris but only circa sacra; the church has no jurisdiction in civilibus but only circa civilia.”

Contemporary controversies over the role of Church and State, such as are waged in the blogs of the Reformed online, tend, from what I can gather, to be fixated on extremes which take not much notice of these time-honoured advances made in the Scottish context. Either the Church is argued to have powers in civil matters and allowed to wield the sword (or, ahem, the stone), or else the area of overlap and opportunities for mutual helpfulness are eliminated from the scene. Both camps claim to stand in the Genevan tradition, but I’m not so sure but that if Hugh Miller or Thomas Chalmers or one of their colleagues was to survey the Reformed blogosphere, they would have little trouble identifying the former as some odd hybrid of Ultramontanism and Westminster, and the latter as the ever-objectionable Voluntaryism.

“Though we quit the Establishment, we go out on the Establishment principle; we quit a vitiated Establishment but would rejoice in returning to a pure one. We are advocates for a national recognition of religion — and we are not Voluntaries.“

[See also Neil Macleod's bibliography on the Church/State problem.]

Tja, att summera denna helg är inte så lätt. Typ som att skriva ett större epos än Odysséen eller nåt … Tungt. Grejen var att jag följde med brorsan och mamma som skulle installera den förstnämnde i sin nya lägenhet inför skolstarten. Jag la ihop två och två, och hänkade på så kunde jag träffa Emil och Gustaf en troligtvis sista gång innan jag far iväg.

Bilresan ner var chill i alla fall. Jag körde en bit, men man blir grymt trött på bara motorvägar. Hoppade av i Stenungsund och tog en buss in till Göteborg. Här hände en trist sak. Brorsan hade sagt: “kliv inte av vid första bästa stora byggnad, vänta tills du ser en asstor byggnad – den är Centralstationen!”. Jag satt lugnt kvar när vissa klev av vid en hyfsat stor terminal och bussen fortsatte. Åkte genom hela staden, och när bussen rullade upp på motorvägen och ut från stan började jag undra. Min beloved iPhone hade stor del i denna tragedi, för när jag sökte i Google Maps i luren så sa den att centralen låg mer i södra delen av staden. Fuck heller … Å ena sidan fick jag se Landvetter by evening, å andra sidan sumpade jag en timme hos the boys.

Jag älskade denna korridor. Typ som från Half-Life 2, i fängelset Nova Prospekt, där man ska skydda sig mot .. oh, ni slutade lyssna.

Väl inne i stan igen sumpade jag en till buss med typ en minut, men till sista anlände jag i det tämligen lugna studentområdet lite nordöst om stan. “Chill” är ordet som beskrev området bäst. Gick husesyn i lägenheten, med Emil hemma. Gd var på sittning.

Vi förberedde oss för natten och drog ner mot Chalmers område för att “hämta Emils paraply”. Dock skulle vi bli kvar i lokalerna natten ut. Gick igenom campus medans Emils berättade (skröt) om studentkårens olika egendomar och utrustning. Vid “de har fjorton pubar – i skolan” slutade jag lyssna och bara njöt istället. In mot hans lokaler drog vi, och sen neråt. Ja’ ba’ “whoa, har de festlokaler här nere? Fatta va’ lodigt”. Fel av mig. Partyt som pågick där nere är lite svårt att beskriva. Men det var öl och människor. Och musik. Jag han som snabbast titta in i en pub där det var fullsmockat med folk. Och öl. Sen drogs jag in i ett annat rum som var ett disco (av alla saker). Sen börjar saker bli suddiga. Jag spelade ett ölspel som gick hyfsat, och pratade med ett stort antal sköna människor. Fick förklara för alla att jag inte egentligen gick på Chalmers utan var på besök. För att citera Gustaf: “Jag satt. Dansade. Satt. Låg”. Jag snackade om gamla kungar med en historieintresserad snubbe. Jag snackade om Kalifornien och livsmål med en tjej i åk 2. Jag snackade skit med promillechefen (!) Roger. Jag hittade fans av The Doors och Jim Morrison som jag borde ha snackat mer med (ångrar mig än idag). Jag dansade skallen av mig till remixer jag endast knappt kände igen. Jag, Emil och Gustaf var Jim Morrison, Gene Simmons och Robert Fripp (i den ordningen). Man sugs upp av den yra som fanns inne i lokalerna, och ännu mer av den energi som finns i de mestadels göteborgsdialekt-snackande personerna i kårerna. En sak kan jag säga: natten var på tok för kort. Man vill bara packa ner alla personer och sen plocka upp dem vid väl valda tillfällen. Men det är omöjligt sägs det, därför bör man ta vara på alla glada tillfällen till 100%. Såklart.

"Blast!"

Emil skrubbar sin vän Håkan. En av de skummaste synerna jag sett när jag gått in i ett badrum.

Vi avslutade dygnet med att gå för lång bit hem till lägenheten, där jag somnade snabbare än vad jag spöar brorsan med handen bakbunden. Var tydligen svårvaknad, för det ryktades att de andra två tomtarna ritade mig i ansiktet, men jag såg inga som helst spår av det dagen efter. Weird. Nästa dag (söndag) var solig och fin. Frukosten var sänd från Gud och efter lite häng i lägenheten och allmänna roligheter (se bild höger, sorry Emil – var tvungen!). Solen sken fortfarande, och kläder behövde tvättas, så det utförde vi. Till sist drog tiden mot sitt slut, och jag tog bussen in till stan där mor och bror väntade. Så slutade ännu en era.

Tror jag tar resten av söndagen/måndagen senare nångång. Är trött som ett djur nu och har gjort mycket idag.

Buenas noches.

Började morgonen med en projektiv intervju. Jag skulle med hjälp av bilder associera svar angående Göteborgs Universitet, i jämförelse med Chalmers och Lund. Intressant då det var ansikten av män och djur som skulle leda mig fram till rätt associationer. Lund blev en elefant, Chalmers en mås och GU en hund…..

Hade sedan ett intressenat möte med personer från Preera och DNV angående framtiden. Många intressanta vinklingar och bra idéer på processer mm. För handelskammaren så gäller det att ligga på framkant. Jag hade ingen aning om att de 10 mest efterfrågade yrkena idag, fanns inte för fem år sedan! Att fler talar engelska i Kina än antalet invånare i USA…..hör man dessutom talas om Google Wave, så inser man att utvecklingen går blixtsnabbt. Google Wave gör det möjligt att vem som helst kan tala med alla i hela världen som har en egen dator, på sitt eget språk. Det jag skriver på svenska kommer upp som kinesiska (mandarin) i Kina eller polska eller engelska, momentan som jag skriver. Det innebär att jag kan kommunicera och få betydligt större förståelse för människor i andra länder. Då inser jag att det näringsliv som Västsverige ska utveckla bör använda morgondagens teknik! Fler entrepenörer som tar till sig nya tekniker och influenser. Handelskammaren skall stödja den utvecklingen.

Grattis till  Lena Apler, vd för Göteborgsbaserade finansbolaget Collector, som utsetts till Årets entreprenör i Västsverige. Hon beskrivs som “en stark kvinnlig förebild i en mansdominerad värld”. Grattis till Venture Cup i Västsverige som har “all time high” vad avser bidrag till årets tävling. Det finns hopp för framtiden!