GralINt-Found in Translation

The following information is used for educational purposes only.

July 28, 2013


Found in Translation


By HAMID DABASHI


Though it is common to lament the shortcomings of reading an important work in any language other than the original and of the “impossibility” of translation, I am convinced that works of philosophy (or literature for that matter — are they different?) in fact gain far more than they lose in translation.

Consider Heidegger. Had it not been for his French translators and commentators, German philosophy of his time would have remained an obscure metaphysical thicket. And it was not until Derrida’s own take on Heidegger found an English readership in the United States and Britain that the whole Heidegger-Derridian undermining of metaphysics began to shake the foundations of the Greek philosophical heritage. One can in fact argue that much of contemporary Continental philosophy originates in German with significant French and Italian glosses before it is globalized in the dominant American English and assumes a whole new global readership and reality. This has nothing to do with the philosophical wherewithal of German, French or English. It is entirely a function of the imperial power and reach of one language as opposed to others.

I. The Mother Tongue


At various points in history, one language or another — Latin, Persian, Arabic — was the lingua franca of philosophical thinking. Now it is English. And for all we know it might again turn around and become Chinese.

In 11th century Iran, the influential philosopher Avicenna wrote most of his work in Arabic. One day his patron prince, who did not read Arabic, asked whether Avicenna would mind writing his works in Persian instead, so that he could understand them. Avicenna obliged and wrote an entire encyclopedia on philosophy for the prince and named it after him, “Danesh-nameh Ala’i.”

Avicenna was of course not the only who had opted to write his philosophical work in Arabic. So did al-Ghazali (circa 1058-1111) and Shihab al-Din Yahya al-Suhrawardi (circa 1155-1208) — who were both perfectly capable of writing in their mother tongue of Persian and had in fact occasionally done so, notably al-Ghazali in his “Kimiya-ye Sa’adat” (a book on moral philosophy) and As-Suhrawardi in his magnificent short allegorical treatises. But in Avicenna’s time, Arabic was so solidly established in its rich and triumphant philosophical vocabulary that no serious philosopher would opt to write his major works in any other language. Persian philosophical prose had to wait for a couple of generations after Avicenna. With the magnificent work of Afdal al-din Kashani (died circa 1214) and that of Avicenna’s follower Khwajah Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Tusi (1201-1274) — particularly “Asas al-Iqtibas” — Persian philosophical prose achieved its zenith.

Today the term “Persian philosophy” is not so easy to separate from “Islamic philosophy,” much of which is indeed in Arabic. This was the case even in the 16th century, when Mulla Sadra wrote nearly his entire major opus in Arabic. Although some major philosophers in the 19th and 20th centuries did write occasionally in Persian, it was not until Allameh Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938) opted to write his major philosophical works in Persian that Persian philosophical prose resumed a serious significance in the larger Muslim context. (Iqbal also wrote major treaties on Persian philosophy in English.)

It is Amir Hossein Aryanpour’s magnificent Persian translation of Muhammad Iqbal’s “The Development of Metaphysics in Persia” (1908), which he rendered as “Seyr-e Falsafeh dar Iran (“The Course of Philosophy in Iran,” 1968), that stands now in my mind as the paramount example of excellence in Persian philosophical prose and a testimony to how philosophical translation is a key component of our contemporary intellectual history. If there were a world for philosophy, or if philosophy were to be worldly, these two men, philosopher and translator, having graced two adjacent philosophical worlds, would be among its most honored citizens.

II. Two Teachers

It is impossible to exaggerate the enduring debt of gratitude that my generation of Iranians have to Aryanpour (1925-2001), one of the most influential social theorists, literary critics, philosophers and translators of his time and for us a wide and inviting window to the rich and emancipatory world of critical thinking in my homeland. He is today remembered for generations of students he taught at Tehran University and beyond and for a rich array of his path-breaking books he wrote or translated and that enabled and paved the way for us to wider philosophical imagination.

Having been exposed to both scholastic and modern educational systems, and widely and deeply educated in Iran (Tehran University), Lebanon (American University in Beirut), England (Cambridge) and the United States (Princeton), Aryanpour was a cosmopolitan thinker and a pioneering figure who promoted a dialectical (jadali) disposition between the material world and the world of ideas. Today, more than 40 years after I arrived in Tehran from my hometown of Ahvaz in late summer 1970 to attend college, I still feel under my skin the excitement and joy of finding out how much there was to learn from a man whose name was synonymous with critical thinking, theorizing social movements and above all with the discipline of sociology.

Aryanpour was the product of many factors: Reza Shah’s heavy-handed, state-sponsored “modernization”; the brief post-World War II intellectual flowering; travels and higher education in Iran, the Arab world, Europe and the United States; the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s; and finally the C.I.A.-sponsored coup of 1953, after which university campuses in his homeland became the primary site of his intellectual leadership of a whole new generation. He was a pain in the neck of both the Pahlavi monarchy and of the Islamic Republic that succeeded it, making him at times dogmatic in his own positions, but always path-breaking in a mode of dialectical thinking that became the staple of his students, both those who were fortunate enough to have known and worked with him directly and of millions of others (like me) who benefited from his work from a distance.

Aryanpour was sacked from his teaching position at the theology faculty in 1976, retired in 1980, and just before his death on July 30, 2001, one of his last public acts was to sign a letter denouncing censorship in the Islamic republic.

His legendary translation of and expanded critical commentary on Iqbal’s “Development of Metaphysics in Persia” became the first and foremost text of my generation’s encounter not only with a learned history of philosophy in our homeland, but also with a far wider and more expansive awareness of the world of philosophy. It is impossible to exaggerate the beautiful, overwhelming, exciting and liberating first reading of that magnificent text by a wide-eyed provincial boy having come to the capital of his moral and intellectual imagination.

Born and raised in Punjab, British India (Pakistan today), to a devout Muslim family, educated by both Muslim teachers and at the Scotch Mission College in Sialkot, Iqbal grew up multilingual and polycultural. After an unhappy marriage and subsequent divorce, Iqbal studied philosophy, English, Arabic and Persian literatures at the Government College in Lahore, where he was deeply influenced by Sir Thomas Arnold, who became a conduit for his exposure to European thought, an exposure that ultimately resulted in his traveling to Europe for further studies.

While in England, Allameh Iqbal received a bachelor’s degree from Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1907, around when his first Persian poems began to surface. As he became increasingly attracted to politics, he also managed to write his doctoral dissertation on “The Development of Metaphysics in Persia,” with Friedrich Hommel. Reading “Seyr-e Falsafeh dar Iran,” Aryanpour’s Persian translation of Iqbal’s seminal work, became a rite of passage for my generation of college students attracted to discovering our philosophical heritage.

We grew up and matured into a much wider circle of learning about Islamic philosophy and the place of Iranians in that tradition. There were greener pastures, more learned philosophers who beckoned to our minds and souls. We learned of the majestic writings of Seyyed Jalal Ashtiani, chief among many other philosophical sages of our time, who began to guide our ways into the thicket of Persian and Arabic philosophical thinking. But the decidedly different disposition of Allameh Iqbal in Aryanpour’s translation was summoned precisely in the fact that it had not reached us through conventional scholastic routes and was deeply informed by the worldly disposition of our own defiant time. In this text we were reading a superlative Persian prose from a Pakistani philosopher who had come to fruition in both colonial subcontinent and the postcolonial cosmopolis. There was a palpable worldliness in that philosophical prose that became definitive to my generation.

III. Beyond East and West


When today I read a vacuous phrase like “the Western mind” — or “the Iranian mind,” “the Arab Mind” or “the Muslim Mind,” for that matter — I cringe. I wonder what “the Western mind” can mean when reading the Persian version of a Pakistani philosopher’s English prose composed in Germany on an aspect of Islamic philosophy that was particular to Iran? Look at the itinerary of a philosopher like Allameh Iqbal; think about a vastly learned and deeply caring intellect like Amir Hossein Aryanpour. Where is “the Western mind” in those variegated geographies of learning, and where “the Eastern mind”? What could they possibly mean?

The case of “Seyr-e Falsafeh dar Iran” was prototypical of my generation’s philosophical education — we read left, right and center, then north and south from the Indian subcontinent to Western Europe and North America, Latin America and postcolonial Africa with a voracious worldliness that had no patience for the East or West of any colonial geography. We were philosophically “in the world,” and our world was made philosophical by an imaginative geography that knew neither East nor West.

Works of philosophy — and their readers — gain in translation not just because their authors begin to breathe in a new language but because the text signals a world alien to its initial composition. Above all they gain because these authors and their texts have to face a new audience. Plato and Aristotle have had a life in Arabic and Persian entirely alien to the colonial codification of “Western philosophy” — and the only effective way to make the foreign echoes of that idea familiar is to make the familiar tropes of “Western philosophy” foreign.


Hamid Dabashi is the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York, where he lives with his family. He is the author of numerous books on the social and intellectual history of Iran and Islam, including “The World of Persian Literary Humanism.”




Source: www.nytimes.com

GralInt/HEALTH-Status and Stress

The following information is used for educational purposes only.

July 27, 2013


Status and Stress


By MOISES VELASQUEZ-MANOFF


Although professionals may bemoan their long work hours and high-pressure careers, really, there’s stress, and then there’s Stress with a capital “S.” The former can be considered a manageable if unpleasant part of life; in the right amount, it may even strengthen one’s mettle. The latter kills.

What’s the difference? Scientists have settled on an oddly subjective explanation: the more helpless one feels when facing a given stressor, they argue, the more toxic that stressor’s effects.

That sense of control tends to decline as one descends the socioeconomic ladder, with potentially grave consequences. Those on the bottom are more than three times as likely to die prematurely as those at the top. They’re also more likely to suffer from depression, heart disease and diabetes. Perhaps most devastating, the stress of poverty early in life can have consequences that last into adulthood.

Even those who later ascend economically may show persistent effects of early-life hardship. Scientists find them more prone to illness than those who were never poor. Becoming more affluent may lower the risk of disease by lessening the sense of helplessness and allowing greater access to healthful resources like exercise, more nutritious foods and greater social support; people are not absolutely condemned by their upbringing. But the effects of early-life stress also seem to linger, unfavorably molding our nervous systems and possibly even accelerating the rate at which we age.

The British epidemiologist Michael Marmot calls the phenomenon “status syndrome.” He’s studied British civil servants who work in a rigid hierarchy for decades, and found that accounting for the usual suspects — smoking, diet and access to health care — won’t completely abolish the effect. There’s a direct relationship among health, well-being and one’s place in the greater scheme. “The higher you are in the social hierarchy,” he says, “the better your health.”

Dr. Marmot blames a particular type of stress. It’s not necessarily the strain of a chief executive facing a lengthy to-do list, or a well-to-do parent’s agonizing over a child’s prospects of acceptance to an elite school. Unlike those of lower rank, both the C.E.O. and the anxious parent have resources with which to address the problem. By definition, the poor have far fewer.

So the stress that kills, Dr. Marmot and others argue, is characterized by a lack of a sense of control over one’s fate. Psychologists who study animals call one result of this type of strain “learned helplessness.”

How they induce it is instructive. Indiscriminate electric shocks will send an animal into a kind of depression, blunting its ability to learn and remember. But if the animal has some control over how long the shocks last, it remains resilient. Pain and unpleasantness matter less than having some control over their duration.

Biologists explain the particulars as a fight-or-flight response — adrenaline pumping, heart rate elevated, blood pressure increased — that continues indefinitely. This reaction is necessary for escaping from lions, bears and muggers, but when activated chronically it wears the body ragged. And it’s especially unhealthy for children, whose nervous systems are, by evolutionary design, malleable.

Scientists can, in fact, see the imprint of early-life stress decades later: there are more markers of inflammation in those who have experienced such hardship. Chronic inflammation increases the risk of degenerative diseases like heart disease and diabetes. Indeed, telomeres — the tips of our chromosomes — appear to be shorter among those who have experienced early-life adversity, which might be an indicator of accelerated aging. And scientists have found links, independent of current income, between early-life poverty and a higher risk of heart disease, high blood pressure and arthritis in adulthood.

“Early-life stress and the scar tissue that it leaves, with every passing bit of aging, gets harder and harder to reverse,” says Robert Sapolsky, a neurobiologist at Stanford. “You’re never out of luck in terms of interventions, but the longer you wait, the more work you’ve got on your hands.”

This research has cast new light on racial differences in longevity. In the United States, whites live longer on average by about five years than African-Americans. But a 2012 study by a Princeton researcher calculated that socioeconomic and demographic factors, not genetics, accounted for 70 to 80 percent of that difference. The single greatest contributor was income, which explained more than half the disparity. Other studies, meanwhile, suggest that the subjective experience of racism by African-Americans — a major stressor — appears to have effects on health. Reports of discrimination correlate with visceral fat accumulation in women, which increases the risk of metabolic syndrome (and thus the risk of heart disease and diabetes). In men, they correlate with high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease.

Race aside, Bruce McEwen, a neuroscientist at Rockefeller University in New York, describes these relationships as one way that “poverty gets under the skin.” He and others talk about the “biological embedding” of social status. Your parents’ social standing and your stress level during early life change how your brain and body work, affecting your vulnerability to degenerative disease decades later. They may even alter your vulnerability to infection. In one study, scientists at Carnegie Mellon exposed volunteers to a common cold virus. Those who’d grown up poorer (measured by parental homeownership) not only resisted the virus less effectively, but also suffered more severe cold symptoms.

Peter Gianaros, a neuroscientist at the University of Pittsburgh, is interested in heart disease. He found that college students who viewed their parents as having low social status reacted more strongly to images of angry faces, as measured by the reactivity of the amygdala — an almond-shaped area of the brain that coordinates the fear response. Over a lifetime, he suspects, a harder, faster response to threats may contribute to the formation of arterial plaques. Dr. Gianaros also found that, among a group of 48 women followed for about 20 years, higher reports of stress correlated with a reduction in the volume of the hippocampus, a brain region important for learning and memory. In animals, chronic stress shrinks this area, and also hinders the ability to learn.

These associations raise profound questions about stress’s role in hindering life achievement. Educational attainment and school performance have long been linked to socioeconomic class, and a divergence in skills is evident quite early in life. One oft-cited study suggests that 3-year-olds from professional families have more than twice the vocabulary of children from families on welfare. The disparity may stem in part from different intensities of parental stimulation; poorer parents may simply speak less with their children.

But Martha Farah, a neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania, has also noted differences not just in the words absorbed but in the abilities that may help youngsters learn. Among children, she’s found, socioeconomic status correlates with the ability to pay attention and ignore distractions. Others have observed differences in the function of the prefrontal cortex, a region associated with planning and self-control, in poorer children.

“You don’t need a neuroscientist to tell you that less stress, more education, more support of all types for young families are needed,” Dr. Farah told me in an e-mail. “But seeing an image of the brain with specific regions highlighted where financial disadvantage results in less growth reframes the problems of childhood poverty as a public health issue, not just an equal opportunity issue.”

Animal studies help dispel doubts that we’re really seeing sickly and anxiety-prone individuals filter to the bottom of the socioeconomic heap. In primate experiments females of low standing are more likely to develop heart disease compared with their counterparts of higher standing. When eating junk food, they more rapidly progress toward heart disease. The lower a macaque is in her troop, the higher her genes involved in inflammation are cranked. High-ranking males even heal faster than their lower-ranking counterparts. Behavioral tendencies change as well. Low-ranking males are more likely to choose cocaine over food than higher-ranking individuals.

All hope is not lost, however. Gene expression profiles can normalize when low-ranking adult individuals ascend in the troop. “There are likely contextual influences that are not necessarily immutable,” says Daniel Hackman, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of Pittsburgh. And yet, as with humans, the mark of early-life hardship persists in nervous systems wired slightly differently. A nurturing bond with a caregiver in a stimulating environment appears essential for proper brain development and healthy maturation of the stress response. That sounds easy enough, except that such bonds, and the broader social networks that support them, are precisely what poverty disrupts. If you’re an underpaid, overworked parent — worried, behind on rent, living in a crime-ridden neighborhood — your parental skills are more likely to be compromised. That’s worrisome given the trends in the United States. About one in five children now lives below the poverty line, a 35 percent increase in a decade. Unicef recently ranked the United States No. 26 in childhood well-being, out of 29 developed countries. When considering just childhood poverty, only Romania fares worse.

“We’re going in the wrong direction in terms of greater inequality creating more of these pressures,” says Nancy Adler, the director of the Center for Health and Community at the University of California, San Francisco. As income disparities have increased, class mobility has declined. By some measures, you now have a better chance of living the American dream in Canada or Western Europe than in the United States. And while Americans generally gained longevity during the late 20th century, those gains have gone disproportionately to the better-off. Those without a high school education haven’t experienced much improvement in life span since the middle of the 20th century. Poorly educated whites have lost a few years of longevity in recent decades.

A National Research Council report, meanwhile, found that Americans were generally sicker and had shorter life spans than people in 16 other wealthy nations. We rank No. 1 for diabetes in adults over age 20, and No. 2 for deaths from coronary artery disease and lung disease. The Japanese smoke more than Americans, but outlive us — as do the French and Germans, who drink more. The dismal ranking is surprising given that America spends nearly twice as much per capita on health care as the next biggest spender.

But an analysis by Elizabeth H. Bradley, an economist at the Yale School of Public Health, suggests that how you spend money matters. The higher the spending on social services relative to health care, she’s found, the greater the longevity dividends.

Some now argue that addressing health disparities and their causes is not just a moral imperative, but an economic one. It will save money in the long run. The University of Chicago economist James Heckman estimates that investing in poor children yields a yearly return of 7 to 10 percent thereafter to society.

Early-life stress and poverty aren’t a problem of only the poor. They cost everyone.

Moises Velasquez-Manoff is a science writer and the author of “An Epidemic of Absence: A New Way of Understanding Allergies and Autoimmune Diseases.”





Source: www.nytimes.com

GralInt/BR-How Exercise Could Lead to a Better Brain

The following information is used for educational purposes only.



April 18, 2012


How Exercise Could Lead to a Better Brain


By GRETCHEN REYNOLDS


The value of mental-training games may be speculative, as Dan Hurley writes in his article on the quest to make ourselves smarter, but there is another, easy-to-achieve, scientifically proven way to make yourself smarter. Go for a walk or a swim. For more than a decade, neuroscientists and physiologists have been gathering evidence of the beneficial relationship between exercise and brainpower. But the newest findings make it clear that this isn’t just a relationship; it is the relationship. Using sophisticated technologies to examine the workings of individual neurons — and the makeup of brain matter itself — scientists in just the past few months have discovered that exercise appears to build a brain that resists physical shrinkage and enhance cognitive flexibility. Exercise, the latest neuroscience suggests, does more to bolster thinking than thinking does.

The most persuasive evidence comes from several new studies of lab animals living in busy, exciting cages. It has long been known that so-called “enriched” environments — homes filled with toys and engaging, novel tasks — lead to improvements in the brainpower of lab animals. In most instances, such environmental enrichment also includes a running wheel, because mice and rats generally enjoy running. Until recently, there was little research done to tease out the particular effects of running versus those of playing with new toys or engaging the mind in other ways that don’t increase the heart rate.

So, last year a team of researchers led by Justin S. Rhodes, a psychology professor at the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology at the University of Illinois, gathered four groups of mice and set them into four distinct living arrangements. One group lived in a world of sensual and gustatory plenty, dining on nuts, fruits and cheeses, their food occasionally dusted with cinnamon, all of it washed down with variously flavored waters. Their “beds” were colorful plastic igloos occupying one corner of the cage. Neon-hued balls, plastic tunnels, nibble-able blocks, mirrors and seesaws filled other parts of the cage. Group 2 had access to all of these pleasures, plus they had small disc-shaped running wheels in their cages. A third group’s cages held no embellishments, and they received standard, dull kibble. And the fourth group’s homes contained the running wheels but no other toys or treats.

All the animals completed a series of cognitive tests at the start of the study and were injected with a substance that allows scientists to track changes in their brain structures. Then they ran, played or, if their environment was unenriched, lolled about in their cages for several months.

Afterward, Rhodes’s team put the mice through the same cognitive tests and examined brain tissues. It turned out that the toys and tastes, no matter how stimulating, had not improved the animals’ brains.

“Only one thing had mattered,” Rhodes says, “and that’s whether they had a running wheel.” Animals that exercised, whether or not they had any other enrichments in their cages, had healthier brains and performed significantly better on cognitive tests than the other mice. Animals that didn’t run, no matter how enriched their world was otherwise, did not improve their brainpower in the complex, lasting ways that Rhodes’s team was studying. “They loved the toys,” Rhodes says, and the mice rarely ventured into the empty, quieter portions of their cages. But unless they also exercised, they did not become smarter.

Why would exercise build brainpower in ways that thinking might not? The brain, like all muscles and organs, is a tissue, and its function declines with underuse and age. Beginning in our late 20s, most of us will lose about 1 percent annually of the volume of the hippocampus, a key portion of the brain related to memory and certain types of learning.

Exercise though seems to slow or reverse the brain’s physical decay, much as it does with muscles. Although scientists thought until recently that humans were born with a certain number of brain cells and would never generate more, they now know better. In the 1990s, using a technique that marks newborn cells, researchers determined during autopsies that adult human brains contained quite a few new neurons. Fresh cells were especially prevalent in the hippocampus, indicating that neurogenesis — or the creation of new brain cells — was primarily occurring there. Even more heartening, scientists found that exercise jump-starts neurogenesis. Mice and rats that ran for a few weeks generally had about twice as many new neurons in their hippocampi as sedentary animals. Their brains, like other muscles, were bulking up.

But it was the ineffable effect that exercise had on the functioning of the newly formed neurons that was most startling. Brain cells can improve intellect only if they join the existing neural network, and many do not, instead rattling aimlessly around in the brain for a while before dying.

One way to pull neurons into the network, however, is to learn something. In a 2007 study, new brain cells in mice became looped into the animals’ neural networks if the mice learned to navigate a water maze, a task that is cognitively but not physically taxing. But these brain cells were very limited in what they could do. When the researchers studied brain activity afterward, they found that the newly wired cells fired only when the animals navigated the maze again, not when they practiced other cognitive tasks. The learning encoded in those cells did not transfer to other types of rodent thinking.

Exercise, on the other hand, seems to make neurons nimble. When researchers in a separate study had mice run, the animals’ brains readily wired many new neurons into the neural network. But those neurons didn’t fire later only during running. They also lighted up when the animals practiced cognitive skills, like exploring unfamiliar environments. In the mice, running, unlike learning, had created brain cells that could multitask.

Just how exercise remakes minds on a molecular level is not yet fully understood, but research suggests that exercise prompts increases in something called brain-derived neurotropic factor, or B.D.N.F., a substance that strengthens cells and axons, fortifies the connections among neurons and sparks neurogenesis. Scientists can’t directly study similar effects in human brains, but they have found that after workouts, most people display higher B.D.N.F. levels in their bloodstreams.

Few if any researchers think that more B.D.N.F. explains all of the brain changes associated with exercise. The full process almost certainly involves multiple complex biochemical and genetic cascades. A recent study of the brains of elderly mice, for instance, found 117 genes that were expressed differently in the brains of animals that began a program of running, compared with those that remained sedentary, and the scientists were looking at only a small portion of the many genes that might be expressed differently in the brain by exercise.

Whether any type of exercise will produce these desirable effects is another unanswered and intriguing issue. “It’s not clear if the activity has to be endurance exercise,” says the psychologist and neuroscientist Arthur F. Kramer, director of the Beckman Institute at the University of Illinois and a pre-eminent expert on exercise and the brain. A limited number of studies in the past several years have found cognitive benefits among older people who lifted weights for a year and did not otherwise exercise. But most studies to date, and all animal experiments, have involved running or other aerobic activities.

Whatever the activity, though, an emerging message from the most recent science is that exercise needn’t be exhausting to be effective for the brain. When a group of 120 older men and women were assigned to walking or stretching programs for a major 2011 study, the walkers wound up with larger hippocampi after a year. Meanwhile, the stretchers lost volume to normal atrophy. The walkers also displayed higher levels of B.D.N.F. in their bloodstreams than the stretching group and performed better on cognitive tests.

In effect, the researchers concluded, the walkers had regained two years or more of hippocampal youth. Sixty-five-year-olds had achieved the brains of 63-year-olds simply by walking, which is encouraging news for anyone worried that what we’re all facing as we move into our later years is a life of slow (or not so slow) mental decline.


Gretchen Reynolds writes the Phys Ed column for The Times’s Well blog. Her book, ‘‘The First 20 Minutes,’’ about the science of exercise, will be published this month.

Editor: Ilena Silverman





Source: www.nytimes.com/www.sfuhs.org

GralInt-TED Talks-Roberto DÁngelo + Francesca Fedeli: In our baby´s illness, a life lesson

The following information is used for educational purposes only.














Transcript:




Francesca Fedeli: Ciao.

So he's Mario. He's our son. He was born two and a half years ago, and I had a pretty tough pregnancy because I had to stay still in a bed for, like, eight months. But in the end everything seemed to be under control. So he got the right weight at birth. He got the right Apgar index. So we were pretty reassured by this. But at the end, 10 days later after he was born, we discovered that he had a stroke.

As you might know, a stroke is a brain injury. A perinatal stroke could be something that can happen during the nine months of pregnancy or just suddenly after the birth, and in his case, as you can see, the right part of his brain has gone.

So the effect that this stroke could have on Mario's body could be the fact that he couldn't be able to control the left side of his body. Just imagine, if you have a computer and a printer and you want to transmit, to input to print out a document, but the printer doesn't have the right drives, so the same is for Mario. It's just like, he would like to move his left side of his body, but he's not able to transmit the right input to move his left arm and left leg.

So life had to change. We needed to change our schedule. We needed to change the impact that this birth had on our life.

Roberto D'Angelo: As you may imagine, unfortunately, we were not ready. Nobody taught us how to deal with such kinds of disabilities, and as many questions as possible started to come to our minds. And that has been really a tough time. Questions, some basics, like, you know, why did this happen to us? And what went wrong? Some more tough, like, really, what will be the impact on Mario's life? I mean, at the end, will he be able to work? Will he be able to be normal? And, you know, as a parent, especially for the first time, why is he not going to be better than us? And this, indeed, really is tough to say, but a few months later, we realized that we were really feeling like a failure. I mean, the only real product of our life, at the end, was a failure. And you know, it was not a failure for ourselves in itself, but it was a failure that will impact his full life.

Honestly, we went down. I mean we went really down, but at the end, we started to look at him, and we said, we have to react.

So immediately, as Francesca said, we changed our life. We started physiotherapy, we started the rehabilitation, and one of the paths that we were following in terms of rehabilitation is the mirror neurons pilot. Basically, we spent months doing this with Mario. You have an object, and we showed him how to grab the object. Now, the theory of mirror neurons simply says that in your brains, exactly now, as you watch me doing this, you are activating exactly the same neurons as if you do the actions. It looks like this is the leading edge in terms of rehabilitation.

But one day we found that Mario was not looking at our hand. He was looking at us. We were his mirror. And the problem, as you might feel, is that we were down, we were depressed, we were looking at him as a problem, not as a son, not from a positive perspective. And that day really changed our perspective. We realized that we had to become a better mirror for Mario.

We restarted from our strengths, and at the same time we restarted from his strengths. We stopped looking at him as a problem, and we started to look at him as an opportunity to improve. And really, this was the change, and from our side, we said, "What are our strengths that we really can bring to Mario?" And we started from our passions. I mean, at the end, my wife and myself are quite different, but we have many things in common. We love to travel, we love music, we love to be in places like this, and we started to bring Mario with us just to show to him the best things that we can show to him.

This short video is from last week.

I am not saying --

(Applause) —

I am not saying it's a miracle. That's not the message, because we are just at the beginning of the path. But we want to share what was the key learning, the key learning that Mario drove to us, and it is to consider what you have as a gift and not only what you miss, and to consider what you miss just as an opportunity. And this is the message that we want to share with you. This is why we are here.

Mario!

And this is why --

(Applause) —

And this is why we decided to share the best mirror in the world with him. And we thank you so much, all of you.

FF: Thank you.RD: Thank you. Bye.

(Applause)

FF: Thank you. (Applause)

GralInt-TED Talks-Paul Kemp-Robertson: Bitcoin.Sweat.Tide.Meet the future of branded currency

The following information is used for educational purposes only.











Transcript:


So if I was to ask you what the connection between a bottle of Tide detergent and sweat was, you'd probably think that's the easiest question that you're going to be asked in Edinburgh all week. But if I was to say that they're both examples of alternative or new forms of currency in a hyperconnected, data-driven global economy, you'd probably think I was a little bit bonkers. But trust me, I work in advertising.

(Laughter)

And I am going to tell you the answer, but obviously after this short break.

So a more challenging question is one that I was asked, actually, by one of our writers a couple of weeks ago, and I didn't know the answer: What's the world's best performing currency? It's actually Bitcoin. Now, for those of you who may not be familiar, Bitcoin is a crypto-currency, a virtual currency, synthetic currency. It was founded in 2008 by this anonymous programmer using a pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. No one knows who or what he is. He's almost like the Banksy of the Internet. And I'm probably not going to do it proper service here, but my interpretation of how it works is that Bitcoins are released through this process of mining. So there's a network of computers that are challenged to solve a very complex mathematical problem and the person that manages to solve it first gets the Bitcoins. And the Bitcoins are released, they're put into a public ledger called the Blockchain, and then they float, so they become a currency, and completely decentralized, that's the sort of scary thing about this, which is why it's so popular. So it's not run by the authorities or the state. It's actually managed by the network. And the reason that it's proved very successful is it's private, it's anonymous, it's fast, and it's cheap.

And you do get to the point where there's some wild fluctuations with Bitcoin. So in one level it went from something like 13 dollars to 266, literally in the space of four months, and then crashed and lost half of its value in six hours. And it's currently around that kind of 110 dollar mark in value. But what it does show is that it's sort of gaining ground, it's gaining respectability. You get services, like Reddit and Wordpress are actually accepting Bitcoin as a payment currency now. And that's showing you that people are actually placing trust in technology, and it's started to trump and disrupt and interrogate traditional institutions and how we think about currencies and money.

And that's not surprising, if you think about the basket case that is the E.U. I think there was a Gallup survey out recently that said something like, in America, trust in banks is at an all-time low, it's something like 21 percent. And you can see here some photographs from London where Barclays sponsored the city bike scheme, and some activists have done some nice piece of guerrilla marketing here and doctored the slogans. "Sub-prime pedaling." "Barclays takes you for a ride." These are the more polite ones I could share with you today. But you get the gist, so people have really started to sort of lose faith in institutions. There's a P.R. company called Edelman, they do this very interesting survey every year precisely around trust and what people are thinking. And this is a global survey, so these numbers are global. And what's interesting is that you can see that hierarchy is having a bit of a wobble, and it's all about heterarchical now, so people trust people like themselves more than they trust corporations and governments. And if you look at these figures for the more developed markets like U.K., Germany, and so on, they're actually much lower. And I find that sort of scary. People are actually trusting businesspeople more than they're trusting governments and leaders. So what's starting to happen, if you think about money, if you sort of boil money down to an essence, it is literally just an expression of value, an agreed value. So what's happening now, in the digital age, is that we can quantify value in lots of different ways and do it more easily, and sometimes the way that we quantify those values, it makes it much easier to create new forms and valid forms of currency. In that context, you can see that networks like Bitcoin suddenly start to make a bit more sense.

So if you think we're starting to question and disrupt and interrogate what money means, what our relationship with it is, what defines money, then the ultimate extension of that is, is there a reason for the government to be in charge of money anymore?

So obviously I'm looking at this through a marketing prism, so from a brand perspective, brands literally stand or fall on their reputations. And if you think about it, reputation has now become a currency. You know, reputations are built on trust, consistency, transparency. So if you've actually decided that you trust a brand, you want a relationship, you want to engage with the brand, you're already kind of participating in lots of new forms of currency.

So you think about loyalty. Loyalty essentially is a micro-economy. You think about rewards schemes, air miles. The Economist said a few years ago that there are actually more unredeemed air miles in the world than there are dollar bills in circulation. You know, when you are standing in line in Starbucks, 30 percent of transactions in Starbucks on any one day are actually being made with Starbucks Star points. So that's a sort of Starbucks currency staying within its ecosystem. And what I find interesting is that Amazon has recently launched Amazon coins. So admittedly it's a currency at the moment that's purely for the Kindle. So you can buy apps and make purchases within those apps, but you think about Amazon, you look at the trust barometer that I showed you where people are starting to trust businesses, especially businesses that they believe in and trust more than governments. So suddenly, you start thinking, well Amazon potentially could push this. It could become a natural extension, that as well as buying stuff -- take it out of the Kindle -- you could buy books, music, real-life products, appliances and goods and so on. And suddenly you're getting Amazon, as a brand, is going head to head with the Federal Reserve in terms of how you want to spend your money, what money is, what constitutes money.

And I'll get you back to Tide, the detergent now, as I promised. This is a fantastic article I came across in New York Magazine, where it was saying that drug users across America are actually purchasing drugs with bottles of Tide detergent. So they're going into convenience stores, stealing Tide, and a $20 bottle of Tide is equal to 10 dollars of crack cocaine or weed. And what they're saying, so some criminologists have looked at this and they're saying, well, okay, Tide as a product sells at a premium. It's 50 percent above the category average. It's infused with a very complex cocktail of chemicals, so it smells very luxurious and very distinctive, and, being a Procter and Gamble brand, it's been supported by a lot of mass media advertising. So what they're saying is that drug users are consumers too, so they have this in their neural pathways. When they spot Tide, there's a shortcut. They say, that is trust. I trust that. That's quality. So it becomes this unit of currency, which the New York Magazine described as a very oddly loyal crime wave, brand-loyal crime wave, and criminals are actually calling Tide "liquid gold."

Now, what I thought was funny was the reaction from the P&G spokesperson. They said, obviously tried to dissociate themselves from drugs, but said, "It reminds me of one thing and that's the value of the brand has stayed consistent." (Laughter) Which backs up my point and shows he didn't even break a sweat when he said that.

So that brings me back to the connection with sweat. In Mexico, Nike has run a campaign recently called, literally, Bid Your Sweat. So you think about, these Nike shoes have got sensors in them, or you're using a Nike FuelBand that basically tracks your movement, your energy, your calorie consumption. And what's happening here, this is where you've actually elected to join that Nike community. You've bought into it. They're not advertising loud messages at you, and that's where advertising has started to shift now is into things like services, tools and applications. So Nike is literally acting as a well-being partner, a health and fitness partner and service provider. So what happens with this is they're saying, "Right, you have a data dashboard. We know how far you've run, how far you've moved, what your calorie intake, all that sort of stuff. What you can do is, the more you run, the more points you get, and we have an auction where you can buy Nike stuff but only by proving that you've actually used the product to do stuff." And you can't come into this. This is purely for the community that are sweating using Nike products. You can't buy stuff with pesos. This is literally a closed environment, a closed auction space.

In Africa, you know, airtime has become literally a currency in its own right. People are used to, because mobile is king, they're very, very used to transferring money, making payments via mobile. And one of my favorite examples from a brand perspective going on is Vodafone, where, in Egypt, lots of people make purchases in markets and very small independent stores. Loose change, small change is a real problem, and what tends to happen is you buy a bunch of stuff, you're due, say, 10 cents, 20 cents in change. The shopkeepers tend to give you things like an onion or an aspirin, or a piece of gum, because they don't have small change. So when Vodafone came in and saw this problem, this consumer pain point, they created some small change which they call Fakka, which literally sits and is given by the shopkeepers to people, and it's credit that goes straight onto their mobile phone. So this currency becomes credit, which again, is really, really interesting.

And we did a survey that backs up the fact that, you know, 45 percent of people in this very crucial demographic in the U.S. were saying that they're comfortable using an independent or branded currency. So that's getting really interesting here, a really interesting dynamic going on. And you think, corporations should start taking their assets and thinking of them in a different way and trading them. And you think, is it much of a leap? It seems farfetched, but when you think about it, in America in 1860, there were 1,600 corporations issuing banknotes. There were 8,000 kinds of notes in America. And the only thing that stopped that, the government controlled four percent of the supply, and the only thing that stopped it was the Civil War breaking out, and the government suddenly wanted to take control of the money. So government, money, war, nothing changes there, then.

So what I'm going to ask is, basically, is history repeating itself? Is technology making paper money feel outmoded? Are we decoupling money from the government? You know, you think about, brands are starting to fill the gaps. Corporations are filling gaps that governments can't afford to fill. So I think, you know, will we be standing on stage buying a coffee -- organic, fair trade coffee -- next year using TED florins or TED shillings?

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

Thank you. (Applause)

GralInt/PSYCH-TED Talks-John Searle: Our shared condition...consciousness

The following information is used for educational purposes only.













Transcript:




I'm going to talk about consciousness. Why consciousness? Well, it's a curiously neglected subject, both in our scientific and our philosophical culture.

Now why is that curious? Well, it is the most important aspect of our lives for a very simple, logical reason, namely, it's a necessary condition on anything being important in our lives that we're conscious. You care about science, philosophy, music, art, whatever -- it's no good if you're a zombie or in a coma, right? So consciousness is number one. The second reason is that when people do get interested in it, as I think they should, they tend to say the most appalling things. And then, even when they're not saying appalling things and they're really trying to do serious research, well, it's been slow. Progress has been slow.

When I first got interested in this, I thought, well, it's a straightforward problem in biology. Let's get these brain stabbers to get busy and figure out how it works in the brain. So I went over to UCSF and I talked to all the heavy-duty neurobiologists there, and they showed some impatience, as scientists often do when you ask them embarrassing questions. But the thing that struck me is, one guy said in exasperation, a very famous neurobiologist, he said, "Look, in my discipline it's okay to be interested in consciousness, but get tenure first. Get tenure first."

Now I've been working on this for a long time. I think now you might actually get tenure by working on consciousness. If so, that's a real step forward.

Okay, now why then is this curious reluctance and curious hostility to consciousness? Well, I think it's a combination of two features of our intellectual culture that like to think they're opposing each other but in fact they share a common set of assumptions. One feature is the tradition of religious dualism: Consciousness is not a part of the physical world. It's a part of the spiritual world. It belongs to the soul, and the soul is not a part of the physical world. That's the tradition of God, the soul and immortality. There's another tradition that thinks it's opposed to this but accepts the worst assumption. That tradition thinks that we are heavy-duty scientific materialists: Consciousness is not a part of the physical world. Either it doesn't exist at all, or it's something else, a computer program or some damn fool thing, but in any case it's not part of science. And I used to get in an argument that really gave me a stomachache. Here's how it went. Science is objective, consciousness is subjective, therefore there cannot be a science of consciousness.

Okay, so these twin traditions are paralyzing us. It's very hard to get out of these twin traditions. And I have only one real message in this lecture, and that is, consciousness is a biological phenomenon like photosynthesis, digestion, mitosis -- you know all the biological phenomena -- and once you accept that, most, though not all, of the hard problems about consciousness simply evaporate. And I'm going to go through some of them.

Okay, now I promised you to tell you some of the outrageous things said about consciousness. One: Consciousness does not exist. It's an illusion, like sunsets. Science has shown sunsets and rainbows are illusions. So consciousness is an illusion. Two: Well, maybe it exists, but it's really something else. It's a computer program running in the brain. Three: No, the only thing that exists is really behavior. It's embarrassing how influential behaviorism was, but I'll get back to that. And four: Maybe consciousness exists, but it can't make any difference to the world. How could spirituality move anything? Now, whenever somebody tells me that, I think, you want to see spirituality move something? Watch. I decide consciously to raise my arm, and the damn thing goes up. (Laughter)

Furthermore, notice this: We do not say, "Well, it's a bit like the weather in Geneva. Some days it goes up and some days it doesn't go up." No. It goes up whenever I damn well want it to.

Okay. I'm going to tell you how that's possible. Now, I haven't yet given you a definition. You can't do this if you don't give a definition. People always say consciousness is very hard to define. I think it's rather easy to define if you're not trying to give a scientific definition. We're not ready for a scientific definition, but here's a common-sense definition. Consciousness consists of all those states of feeling or sentience or awareness. It begins in the morning when you wake up from a dreamless sleep, and it goes on all day until you fall asleep or die or otherwise become unconscious. Dreams are a form of consciousness on this definition.

Now, that's the common-sense definition. That's our target. If you're not talking about that, you're not talking about consciousness.

But they think, "Well, if that's it, that's an awful problem. How can such a thing exist as part of the real world?"

And this, if you've ever had a philosophy course, this is known as the famous mind-body problem. I think that has a simple solution too. I'm going to give it to you. And here it is: All of our conscious states, without exception, are caused by lower-level neurobiological processes in the brain, and they are realized in the brain as higher-level or system features. It's about as mysterious as the liquidity of water. Right? The liquidity is not an extra juice squirted out by the H2O molecules. It's a condition that the system is in. And just as the jar full of water can go from liquid to solid depending on the behavior of the molecules, so your brain can go from a state of being conscious to a state of being unconscious, depending on the behavior of the molecules. The famous mind-body problem is that simple.

All right? But now we get into some harder questions. Let's specify the exact features of consciousness, so that we can then answer those four objections that I made to it.

Well, the first feature is, it's real and irreducible. You can't get rid of it. You see, the distinction between reality and illusion is the distinction between how things consciously seem to us and how they really are. It consciously seems like there's -- I like the French "arc-en-ciel" — it seems like there's an arch in the sky, or it seems like the sun is setting over the mountains. It consciously seems to us, but that's not really happening. But for that distinction between how things consciously seem and how they really are, you can't make that distinction for the very existence of consciousness, because where the very existence of consciousness is concerned, if it consciously seems to you that you are conscious, you are conscious. I mean, if a bunch of experts come to me and say, "We are heavy-duty neurobiologists and we've done a study of you, Searle, and we're convinced you are not conscious, you are a very cleverly constructed robot," I don't think, "Well, maybe these guys are right, you know?" I don't think that for a moment, because, I mean, Descartes may have made a lot of mistakes, but he was right about this. You cannot doubt the existence of your own consciousness. Okay, that's the first feature of consciousness. It's real and irreducible. You cannot get rid of it by showing that it's an illusion in a way that you can with other standard illusions.

Okay, the second feature is this one that has been such a source of trouble to us, and that is, all of our conscious states have this qualitative character to them. There's something that it feels like to drink beer which is not what it feels like to do your income tax or listen to music, and this qualitative feel automatically generates a third feature, namely, conscious states are by definition subjective in the sense that they only exist as experienced by some human or animal subject, some self that experiences them. Maybe we'll be able to build a conscious machine. Since we don't know how our brains do it, we're not in a position, so far, to build a conscious machine.

Okay. Another feature of consciousness is that it comes in unified conscious fields. So I don't just have the sight of the people in front of me and the sound of my voice and the weight of my shoes against the floor, but they occur to me as part of one single great conscious field that stretches forward and backward. That is the key to understanding the enormous power of consciousness. And we have not been able to do that in a robot. The disappointment of robotics derives from the fact that we don't know how to make a conscious robot, so we don't have a machine that can do this kind of thing.

Okay, the next feature of consciousness, after this marvelous unified conscious field, is that it functions causally in our behavior. I gave you a scientific demonstration by raising my hand, but how is that possible? How can it be that this thought in my brain can move material objects? Well, I'll tell you the answer. I mean, we don't know the detailed answer, but we know the basic part of the answer, and that is, there is a sequence of neuron firings, and they terminate where the acetylcholine is secreted at the axon end-plates of the motor neurons. Sorry to use philosophical terminology here, but when it's secreted at the axon end-plates of the motor neurons, a whole lot of wonderful things happen in the ion channels and the damned arm goes up. Now, think of what I told you. One and the same event, my conscious decision to raise my arm has a level of description where it has all of these touchy-feely spiritual qualities. It's a thought in my brain, but at the same time, it's busy secreting acetylcholine and doing all sorts of other things as it makes its way from the motor cortex down through the nerve fibers in the arm. Now, what that tells us is that our traditional vocabularies for discussing these issues are totally obsolete. One and the same event has a level of description where it's neurobiological, and another level of description where it's mental, and that's a single event, and that's how nature works. That's how it's possible for consciousness to function causally.

Okay, now with that in mind, with going through these various features of consciousness, let's go back and answer some of those early objections.

Well, the first one I said was, consciousness doesn't exist, it's an illusion. Well, I've already answered that. I don't think we need to worry about that. But the second one had an incredible influence, and may still be around, and that is, "Well, if consciousness exists, it's really something else. It's really a digital computer program running in your brain and that's what we need to do to create consciousness is get the right program. Yeah, forget about the hardware. Any hardware will do provided it's rich enough and stable enough to carry the program."

Now, we know that that's wrong. I mean, anybody who's thought about computers at all can see that that's wrong, because computation is defined as symbol manipulation, usually thought of as zeros as ones, but any symbols will do. You get an algorithm that you can program in a binary code, and that's the defining trait of the computer program. But we know that that's purely syntactical. That's symbolic. We know that actual human consciousness has something more than that. It's got a content in addition to the syntax. It's got a semantics.

Now that argument, I made that argument 30 -- oh my God, I don't want to think about it — more than 30 years ago, but there's a deeper argument implicit in what I've told you, and I want to tell you that argument briefly, and that is, consciousness creates an observer-independent reality. It creates a reality of money, property, government, marriage, CERN conferences, cocktail parties and summer vacations, and all of those are creations of consciousness. Their existence is observer-relative. It's only relative to conscious agents that a piece of paper is money or that a bunch of buildings is a university.

Now, ask yourself about computation. Is that absolute, like force and mass and gravitational attraction? Or is it observer-relative? Well, some computations are intrinsic. I add two plus two to get four. That's going on no matter what anybody thinks. But when I haul out my pocket calculator and do the calculation, the only intrinsic phenomenon is the electronic circuit and its behavior. That's the only absolute phenomenon. All the rest is interpreted by us. Computation only exists relative to consciousness. Either a conscious agent is carrying out the computation, or he's got a piece of machinery that admits of a computational interpretation. Now that doesn't mean computation is arbitrary. I spent a lot of money on this hardware. But we have this persistent confusion between objectivity and subjectivity as features of reality and objectivity and subjectivity as features of claims. And the bottom line of this part of my talk is this: You can have a completely objective science, a science where you make objectively true claims, about a domain whose existence is subjective, whose existence is in the human brain consisting of subjective states of sentience or feeling or awareness. So the objection that you can't have an objective science of consciousness because it's subjective and science is objective, that's a pun. That's a bad pun on objectivity and subjectivity. You can make objective claims about a domain that is subjective in its mode of existence, and indeed that's what neurologists do. I mean, you have patients that actually suffer pains, and you try to get an objective science of that.

Okay, I promised to refute all these guys, and I don't have an awful lot of time left, but let me refute a couple more of them. I said that behaviorism ought to be one of the great embarrassments of our intellectual culture, because it's refuted the moment you think about it. Your mental states are identical with your behavior? Well, think about the distinction between feeling a pain and engaging in pain behavior. I won't demonstrate pain behavior, but I can tell you I'm not having any pains right now. So it's an obvious mistake. Why did they make the mistake? The mistake was — and you can go back and read the literature on this, you can see this over and over — they think if you accept the irreducible existence of consciousness, you're giving up on science. You're giving up on 300 years of human progress and human hope and all the rest of it. And the message I want to leave you with is, consciousness has to become accepted as a genuine biological phenomenon, as much subject to scientific analysis as any other phenomenon in biology, or, for that matter, the rest of science.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

GralInt-TED Talks-Kate Stone: DJ decks made of...paper

The following information is used for educational purposes only.




















Transcript:


I love paper, and I love technology, and what I do is I make paper interactive. And that's what I say when people ask me what I do, but it really confuses most people, so really, the best way for me to convey it is to take the technology and be creative and create experiences.

So I tried to think what I could use for here, and a couple of weeks ago I had a crazy idea that I wanted to print two DJ decks and to try and mix some music. And I'm going to try and show that at the end, and the suspense will be as much mine if it works. And I'm not a DJ, and I'm not a musician, so I'm a little bit scared of that. So I think, I found the best way to describe my journey is just to mention a few little things that have happened to me throughout my life. There's three particular things that I've done, and I'll just describe those first, and then talk about some of my work.

So when I was a kid, I was obsessed with wires, and I used to thread them under my carpet and thread them behind the walls and have little switches and little speakers, and I wanted to make my bedroom be interactive but kind of all hidden away. And I was also really interested in wireless as well. So I bought one of those little kits that you could get to make a radio transmitter, and I got an old book and I carved out the inside and I hid it inside there, and then I placed it next to my dad and snuck back to my bedroom and tuned in on the radio so I could eavesdrop. I was not at all interested in what he was saying. It's more that I just liked the idea of an everyday object having something inside and doing something different.

Several year later, I managed to successfully fail all of my exams and didn't really leave school with much to show for at all, and my parents, maybe as a reward, bought me what turned out to be a one-way ticket to Australia, and I came back home about four years later.

I ended up on a farm in the middle of nowhere. It was in far western New South Wales. And this farm was 120,000 acres. There were 22,000 sheep, and it was about 40 degrees, or 100 or so Fahrenheit. And on this farm there was the farmer, his wife, and there was the four-year-old daughter. And they kind of took me into the farm and showed me what it was like to live and work. Obviously, one of the most important things was the sheep, and so my job was, well, pretty much to do everything, but it was about bringing the sheep back to the homestead. And we'd do that by building fences, using motorbikes and horses, and the sheep would make their way all the way back to the shearing shed for the different seasons. And what I learned was, although at the time, like everyone else, I thought sheep were pretty stupid because they didn't do what we wanted them to do, what I realize now, probably only just in the last few weeks looking back, is the sheep weren't stupid at all. We'd put them in an environment where they didn't want to be, and they didn't want to do what we wanted them to do. So the challenge was to try and get them to do what we wanted them to do by listening to the weather, the lay of the land, and creating things that would let the sheep flow and go where we wanted them to go.

Another bunch of years later, I ended up at Cambridge University at the Cavendish Laboratory in the U.K. doing a Ph.D. in physics. My Ph.D. was to move electrons around, one at a time. And I realize — again, it's kind of these realizations looking back as to what I did — I realize now that it was pretty much the same as moving sheep around. It really is. It's just you do it by changing an environment. And that's kind of been a big lesson to me, that you can't act on any object. You change its environment, and the object will flow. So we made it very small, so things were about 30 nanometers in size; making it very cold, so at liquid helium temperatures; and changing environment by changing the voltage, and the electrons could make flow around a loop one at a time, on and off, a little memory node.

And I wanted to go one step further, and I wanted to move one electron on and one electron off. And I was told that I wouldn't be able to do this, which, you know, as we've heard from other people, that's the thing that makes you do it. And I was determined, and I managed to show that I could do that. And a lot of that learning, I think, came from being on that farm, because when I was working on the farm, we'd have to use what was around us, we'd have to use the environment, and there was no such thing as something can't be done, because you're in an environment where, if you can't do what you need to do, you can die, and, you know, I had seen that sort of thing happen.

So now my obsession is printing, and I'm really fascinated by the idea of using conventional printing processes, so the types of print that are used to create many of the things around us to make paper and card interactive. When I spoke to some printers when I started doing this and told them what I wanted to do, which was to print conductive inks onto paper, they told me it couldn't be done, again, that kind of favorite thing. So I got about 10 credit cards and loans and got myself very close to bankruptcy, really, and bought myself this huge printing press, which I had no idea how to use at all. It was about five meters long, and I covered myself and the floor with ink and made a massive mess, but I learned to print. And then I took it back to the printers and showed them what I've done, and they were like, "Of course you can do that. Why didn't you come here in the first place?" That's always the case.

So what we do is we take conventional printing presses, we make conductive inks, and run those through a press, and basically just letting hundreds of thousands of electrons flow through pieces of paper so we can make that paper interactive. And it's pretty simple, really. It's just a collection of things that have been done before, but bringing them together in a different way. So we have a piece of paper with conductive ink on, and then add onto that a small circuit board with a couple of chips, one to run some capacitive touch software, so we know where we've touched it, and the other to run, quite often, some wireless software so the piece of paper can connect.

So I'll just describe a couple of things that we've created. There's lots of different things we've created. This is one of them, because I love cake. And this one, it's a large poster, and you touch it and it has a little speaker behind it, and the poster talks to you when you touch it and asks you a series of questions, and it works out your perfect cake. But it doesn't tell you the cake there and then. It uploads a picture, and the reason why it chose that cake for you, to our Facebook page and to Twitter. So we're trying to create that connection between the physical and the digital, but have it not looking on a screen, and just looking like a regular poster.

We've worked with a bunch of universities on a project looking at interactive newsprint. So for example, we've created a newspaper, a regular newspaper. You can wear a pair of headphones that are connected to it wirelessly, and when you touch it, you can hear the music that's described on the top, which is something you can't read. You can hear a press conference as well as reading what the editor has determined that press conference was about. And you can press a Facebook "like" button or you can vote on something as well.

Something else that we created, and this was an idea that I had a couple of years ago, and so we've done a project on this. It was for funding from the government for user-centered design for energy-efficient buildings, difficult to say, and something I had no idea what it was when I went into the workshop, but quickly learned. And we wanted to try and encourage people to use energy better. And I really liked the idea that, instead of looking at dials and reading things to say -- looking at your energy usage, I wanted to create a poster that was wirelessly connected and had color-changing inks on it, and so if your energy usage was trending better, than the leaves would appear and the rabbits would appear and all would be good. And if it wasn't, then there'd be graffiti and the leaves would fall off the trees. So it was trying to make you look after something in your immediate environment, which you don't want to see not looking so good, rather than expecting people to do things in the local environment because of the effect that it has a long way off. And I think, kind of like going back to the farm, it's about how to let people do what you want them to do rather than making people do what you want them to do.

Okay. So this is the bit I'm really scared of. So a couple of things I've created are, there's a poster over here that you can play drums on. And I am not a musician. It seemed like a good idea at the time. If anyone wants to try and play drums, then they can. I'll just describe how this works. This poster is wirelessly connected to my cell phone, and when you touch it, it connects to the app.

(Drums)

And it has really good response time. It's using Bluetooth 4, so it's pretty instantaneous. Okay. Thanks. (Applause)

And there's a couple of other things. So this one is like a sound board, so you can touch it, and I just love these horrible noises.

(Sirens, explosions, breaking glass)

Okay, and this is a D.J. turntable. So it's wirelessly linked to my iPad, and this is a software that's running on the iPad. Oh, yes. I just love doing that. I'm not a D.J., though, but I just always wanted to do that. (Scratching) So I have a crossfader, and I have the two decks. So I've made some new technology, and I love things being creative, and I love working with creative people. So my 15-year-old niece, she's amazing, and she's called Charlotte, and I asked her to record something, and I worked with a friend called Elliot to put some beats together. So this is my niece, Charlotte.

(Music)

Yay!

(Applause)

So that's pretty much what I do. I just love bringing technology together, having a lot of fun, being creative. But it's not about the technology. It's just about, I want to create some great experiences.

So thank you very much.

(Applause)

GralInt-ACTION IS THE ANSWER-EVERYBODY´S AN ACTOR

The following information is used for educational purposes only.

Ideas, thoughts, words, actions, to be put into practice, to make actual changes...from now ON!!!

Let´s start today!!!

Go ahead!!!



C.M.



Source:www.google.com (Images)

TEACH/LEARN-10 Online Tools to Master Language Teaching

The following information is used for educational purposes only.





10 Online Tools to Master Language Teaching


You can’t have fun teaching online without getting your hands dirty!!

As an online teacher, a great part of my work involves utilizing the best educational tools for my content creation, content delivery, or to encourage active learning with students. I will describe them based on the needs of online teachers and/or classroom teachers who wish to integrate what they do with online technologies.

1) Virtual Classroom


I chose the WizIQ virtual classroom after much initial research for a number of reasons. First, I found it easier to use than other virtual classrooms back in the days when I was new to teaching online.

I was also attracted by the e-teaching community on WizIQ and the fact that there is a very responsive support team for trouble shooting. The You Tube and mp3 feature, screen sharing, polling, and whiteboard make teaching attractive and interactive for learners. You can also start your 30-day trial for FREE.

2) Creative Technologies

For content creation I like to use Prezi and Edu-Glogster for colorful, brain-friendly presentations. These tools can be exploited for all kinds of interesting lessons that bring course books to life and transform dry curricula. Prezi can be used collaboratively with students for massive projects online. Here are some examples of global projects I created collaboratively with teachers and learners on Facebook.

3) Video-making


I like Animoto for simple video-making. Although the free version only allows making of two minute videos, I use that to my advantage by creating two-minute grammar bites, for example. However, it’s also very useful to learn how to use Windows Movie Maker, especially as your students can have fun using it too. Photopeach was also featured by my colleague Theresa in a previous article.

4) Podcasting and Voice Recording


Being able to record your voice for your students is very powerful. You are no longer dependent on traditional audio CDs from big publishers. This can become infinitely creative as a teaching tool. You can record sound effects, moods, situations or embark on wonderful story-telling adventures. Students would have multiple benefits from recording their own voices too, and apart from podcasting, I get my online students to record themselves while giving presentations or doing speaking interviews using tools such as mailVU. They send their recordings to me and then I can correct and comment via a return video email. We have Audacity for professional podcasting purposes. You can record your voice and create mp3s. The possibilities here are endless and it is quite a simple, yet sophisticated tool. Instructions on how to use Audacity can be found on the Teacher Training Video website. Apart from Audacity, we have simpler tools for lessons and /or for students to have fun with. Fotobabble and Audioboo are two such popular choices.

5) Image editing

When creating content or managing student multimedia projects, you will need to be able to manipulate images. This also adds a fun and quirky angle to your work. Photoshop is the most common tool for this job and is, therefore, an essential part of your toolbox. Here is a short demo for beginners.


6) Desktop recording and video-making for archiving lessons or creating self-paced courses.


This is another one of the magical tools that make you feel like a film director instead of a teacher. There are many reasons why a teacher may want to record their computer screens. Creating ‘How-To’ videos being the most obvious one. I learnt about this, as with most other tools, from Russell Stannard’s Teacher Training Video website. All these ‘How-To’ videos are created using Camtasia. If you want to create asynchronous courses, you can use Camtasia with PowerPoint for voice-over audio. You can add captions to your slides, or you can use Camtasia instead of Windows Movie Maker for creating YouTube videos. If you want to record your live online lessons, you can use Camtasia and upload your lessons to YouTube. Camtasia is not free, but worth investing in, if online teaching or content creation is your life-long career and purpose in life. For online teachers, it is as valuable as having a smart phone. There is, however, a free alternative called Camstudio. For simple screencasting, there is also a tool called Screencast-o-Matic, which I recently learned about from Dr. Nellie Deutsch, and Jing, which is also from Techsmith, the creators of Camtasia.



7) Google docs, Apps and MindMapping


Google docs is a simple, flexible and indispensable tool for collaborative work and editing of essays, etc. Like all tools, what you do with it, will depend on your imagination and teaching needs. The best part of Google docs is the collaborative nature of the tool as your whole class can share and work together on creative, academic or integrated project work. Business English students can use Google docs as a tool to mirror real-life business situations, for international business communication. MindMapping is an advanced method of brain-storming . It’s possible applications in education are mind boggling, to say the least. I use iMind and have a basic, affordable license to use it. Another free tool is MindMaple.

8 ) Moodle

If you are already feeling empowered with your Edtech tools, and are ready for some more elbow grease, you can tackle the mother of all engines.

Apart from live online classes, we need a learning space where our students can interact, share, create, and get feedback throughout our courses. Moodle can be a creative learning space if you take time to play with the interface and block features. I’m still learning all about the teaching possibilities in Moodle, with the help of Dr. Nellie Deutsch on her Facebook page called Moodle Mania. If classroom teachers want a learning management system to manage their students, they can take advantage of the free teacher training currently provided by Dr. Nellie’s Moodle MOOC.


9) Club EFL



I also want to create quizzes and games quick and easy for my students, so I add the ClubEFL sandbox to my main Moodle learning arena. Here is an example for a quiz I made from Bono’s speech on TED called ‘Action For Africa’. I want my students to create their own quizzes too. Imagine a student preparing for exams, who could try to recreate testing situations in a fun way by transforming practice test questions into multimedia projects?



10) Organization


Evernote is the ultimate tool for organizing all of your online projects. You can stick to using simple features or get super sophisticated and operate completely from Evernote. A great feature is the web clipping service that allows you to easily keep everything you find online in organized folders. Are you ready to get insanely organized?





Sylvia Guinan

I am an Irish woman living on a beautiful Greek island with my Greek husband and four children, including twins, aged between nine and four. I have been teaching ESL/English for fifteen years, with experience in primary , secondary schools, language, and literacy institutes in Ireland, though the majority of my experience has been in Greece. I studied English literature and History in University before going on to take the Higher Diploma in Education, which is the teaching qualification in Ireland. After moving abroad, circumstances led me into the ESL field, which has entailed continuous professional development and opened up new interests and opportunities. My other main interests are art, writing, poetry, and psychology, which which help me to create fun quality time with my children and add colour to my language lessons. When I’m not teaching online, I’m writing course books, blogging or running my English language facebook groups.




Website - More Posts





active learning Education Technology eteaching Language teaching virtual classroom





Source: Talking English ENewsletter/British Council (info@britishcouncil.org.ar)



http://blog.wiziq.com/master-language-teaching/