OT: Brain research breakthroughs
slothrop
http://www.slate.com/id/2164996>1=9330
I know many people who would say we can't know anything about what
this article is talking about, that the whole effort is a waste of
time, because they know God has told them so...
slothrop
r norman
wrote:
>http://www.slate.com/id/2164996>1=9330
>
The article is titled "The five biggest neuroscience developments of
the year." However I happen to be a neuroscientists and I would
retitle it to be "The five biggest and most hyperinflated
pseudoscientific extrapolations about what lay people ignorant of
neuroscience might imagine to be the most sensational developments of
the year based entirely on press releases and not the real
neuroscience literature."
Luminoso
wrote:
Well, next time you're in a vegetative state you'll
be happy that someone understands that you may still
be "in there" somewhere and hold off on the organ
harvesting. :-)
Aside from that, yea, those "breakthroughs" seemed
pretty lame. It's going to be quite awhile before
all these 'factoids' from the molecular scale on
up can be assembled into a big picture.
Of course, shortly thereafter, we WILL come to
love Big Brother. After all, who do you think
will be the first entity to make use of the data ?
What entity benifits most from knowing how to
push every "button" in your head and has the
money and power to DO it ?
Jim Willemin
@news.east.earthlink.net:
Coca-Cola? R.J. Reynolds? Pfizer? It seems to me that Big Brother
already has control of a good chunk of the US population - recall that
both 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were essentially split
decisions, and even at the lowest point in his approval ratings, GWB
still had the support of maybe a third of the adult populace. Why
invest in unproven new technology when old-fashioned propaganda works
just fine?
Baron Bodissey
wrote:
> lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote in news:463111bd.38604406
> @news.east.earthlink.net:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:04:20 -0400, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
I agree. I think the evidence is in and so far it's not so much Big
Government we to have be concerned about, but Big Business.
Baron Bodissey
They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
nothing but sea.
- Francis Bacon
r norman
wrote:
When Big Government's main perceived role is to protect Big Business
and aid and abet it in every way possible, you get real trouble.
Fortunately, the situation I just suggested is so ridiculous, I
couldn't imagine it eve happening. Certainly not in the good ol' US
of A!
r norman
wrote:
>On 26 Apr 2007 12:33:38 -0700, slothrop <slothr...@hotmail.com>
If anybody is interested in a scientifically valid review of important
developments in brain research, written specifically for the lay
person, then I heartily recommend "The 2007 Progress Report on Brain
Research" published by the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives.
Full text is available at
http://www.dana.org/news/publications/publication.aspx?id=6712
slothrop
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:04:20 -0400, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >wrote:
>
> >>http://www.slate.com/id/2164996>1=9330
>
> >>I know many people who would say we can't know anything about what
> >>this article is talking about, that the whole effort is a waste of
> >>time, because they know God has told them so...
>
> >The article is titled "The five biggest neuroscience developments of
> >the year." However I happen to be a neuroscientists and I would
> >retitle it to be "The five biggest and most hyperinflated
> >pseudoscientific extrapolations about what lay people ignorant of
> >neuroscience might imagine to be the most sensational developments of
> >the year based entirely on press releases and not the real
> >neuroscience literature."
>
> If anybody is interested in a scientifically valid review of important
> developments in brain research, written specifically for the lay
> person, then I heartily recommend "The 2007 Progress Report on Brain
> Research" published by the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives.
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is awesome, thank you r norman. I would just like to add that I
wasn't trying to say the Slate article was in any way cutting-edge
scientific reporting, my point was that things like the first of the 5
"breakthroughs", which would actually correspond to the technique of
"pattern classification" listed in the "Neuroethics" section of the
Dana link, are in actuality not even possible in principle according
to a lot of people I've discussed this with. Their faiths tell them
the "mind" (as opposed to the brain) is forever off-limits to
scientific enquiry, and as open-minded as they are they tell me we
can't ever know what a person is thinking about.
The funny thing is, a couple of my friends were quick to tell me that
such "reductionism" is complete nonsense, and yet not long afterwards
they were decrying the evil that the government would do with such
technology. Which is it? Is government omnipotently evil or humanly,
ignorantly frail?
anyway, thanks again, this is a great resource.
slothrop
r norman
wrote:
I have no problem with articles discussing all sorts of weird and far
out ideas. I do have a problem with articles claiming that these are
valid advances in science so I wanted to post what real science is
about.
The issue here is "mind reading" based on the fact that a brain
imaging technique (fMRI) was able to predict which of two alternatives
a person intended before any overt action was taken. This is a very
important technique intended, for example, to enable people who are
paralyzed to control machinery through brain activity alone. The
outrageous claim is that it will be used to monitor or control
thoughts. There are many obstacles to such wild extrapolation, some
valid and some invalid. The invalid ones are that the brain (or,
better, the "mind") is unknowable or somehow "off limits" to
exploration. The valid ones are that there is an enormous gap
between detecting a very limited set of alternatives which are well
known in advance and which are well rehearsed so that the detection
machinery is adapted ("trained") to detect that particular set and the
open ended set of alternatives called "thought". There is also an
enormous practical limitation between detecting mental states with
electrodes implanted in specific locations in your brain or on your
scalp or with your head stuck inside an MRI machine and scanning
peoples thoughts as they pass by on the street.
The notion that government is omnipotently evil is a very separate
question quite independent of whether they can actually do the things
that people fear they might do.
Cemtech
r_s_norman@_comcast.net says...
All I know is, they better not develope anything like this for a
keyboard replacement. I fix computers for living and if they use a mind
control device to take place of keyboards of mice, I'm going to have my
hands full trying to clear out all that spyware/malware from the porn
sites. =b
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Dick
You might have a different take on mental manipulation if your fingers
shake when trying to move a mouse or select keys. I had to change
from a mouse to a trackball. Sometimes I need to use two hands to
steady the ball and press a button at the same time.