Consciously Safe, Unconsciously Unsafe or Head in the Sand Safety
Some of the silly language that exists in the safety industry that surfaces all of the time in the MiProfile survey is about ‘being careful’ and ‘being aware’ or ‘being mindful’ of safety.
It is astounding just how much this language is used in the safety industry as if it has meaning. It is clear, Safety believes there is a function in the brain one can turn on or off that creates consciousness. Of course, this is complete nonsense.
It is this belief that enables Safety to blame people so easily and casually for mistakes and error. This belief is then sealed with silly symbolic slogans like ‘safety is a choice you make’ thereby making unsafety a conscious choice. Of course, all of this is nonsense.
One thing you can be sure of, Safety has no interest at all in exploring the wicked problem of consciousness. Why should Safety learn, when it already knows everything?
Just search anywhere on the globe in safety for a discussion on consciousness. And don’t try the AIHS Body of non-knowledge, consciousness is the last thing Safety wants to study.
A recent paper by Dan Falk demonstrates the problem.
How fascinating that Safety knows better than the best scientists about consciousness. The last thing safety wants is for consciousness to be a mystery! Oh yes, be aware, be safe, be mindful, safety is a choice you make (https://safetyrisk.net/why-safety-isnt-a-choice-you-make/ ).
The best neuroscientists on the planet have no explanation for consciousness.
Even though areas of the brain can be pinpointed for neural correlates of consciousness none of this explains why we experience consciousness. Which of course is why machines will never ‘learn’ and cannot ‘learn’ because consciousness and embodied knowing is foundational to learning. Self-consciousness of learning is foundational for learning. A machine cannot know that it has learned and when its power (electricity) is turned off it has no consciousness of its unconsciousness. The repetition of data is not learning (https://safetyrisk.net/free-download-tackling-risk-a-field-guide-to-risk-and-learning/ ).
Until Safety gets rid of its silly mythology of consciousness, it will always seek blaming to explain error.
Even then, Safety still doesn’t know what error is. When you’ve been fed the nonsense of James Reason (https://safetyrisk.net/a-critique-of-pure-reason/ ) that error is about lapses (in what) and violations (of what), Safety will assume it knows what consciousness is and so will have no interest in the nature of the human and collective unconscious.
What we do have in Safety is lots of delusional stuff about brain-centrism, that the brain is a computer and safety is equivalent to right programming. Training then is simply about re-programming. Of course, Safety never speaks about memory either, as if memory is computer-like and that a lapse in memory is like a loss of a program. All of this is nonsense and torn to shreds by Neuroscience.
As long as Safety maintains the delusions of the binary body-mind problem, there will never be much hope that things will change regardless of any brand of ‘differently’.
If you read any of the safety discourse about neuroscience you will quickly understand that it is a mask for behaviourism (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-and-non-neuroscience/; https://safetyrisk.net/behaviourist-neuroscience-as-safety/; https://safetyrisk.net/turning-neuroscience-into-behaviourism/ ). You can nearly guarantee if Safety latches on to something it’s something masked for behaviourism. How convenient, humans are the sum of inputs and outputs.
What you can be sure of, Safety hasn’t done any Transdisciplinary research, doesn’t consult expertise in the area and it finds a paradigm that confirms its assumption about consciousness and the brain and makes it fit its box. It’s just more safety fraudulence (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-fraudulence/ ).
One of the best examples of this recently was the Complacency Delusion (https://safetyrisk.net/the-complacency-delusion/ ). How astounding to write a text on complacency with no mention of heuristics and no discussion of consciousness! Just interrogate that text with a simple question: what is complacency?
If you want to make a start on understanding consciousness here are a few beginner texts:
- Chalmers – The Conscious Mind
- Chalmers – The Character of Consciousness
- Claxton – Intelligence in the Flesh
- Damasio – Descartes Error
- Damasio – The Feeling of What Happens
- Durt – Embodiment, Enaction and Culture
- Fuchs – ecology of the brain
- Ginot – The Neuropsychology of the Unconscious
- Noe – Out of our Heads
- Panksepp – Affective Neuroscience
- Raaven – The Self Beyond Itself
- Robinson – Out of Our Mind
- Tversky – Mind in Motion
- Van der Kolk – The Body Keeps the Score
- Varela – The Embodied Mind
Hey, but let’s not let a bit of research get in the way of a Safety myth.
How amazing this industry that DOESN’T want to know about awareness, human judgment and decision making, complacency, heuristics, alertness, carefulness, Mindfulness, conscious choice, habituation, unconscious decisions and error. … And yet all of this should be its core focus.