There is a difference between selection and breeding. Selection involves choosing a mate, breeding involves having kids. Smart people are selecting each other, but breeding less. Less intelligent people are having a lot of kids. Also, I would imagine that as more and more women become career women (and not just "have a job") that trophy wives and marrying your cute college sweetheart will be less common, further skewing the bell curve as intelligent women will have an easier time meeting intelligent men.
Because Androgen has a lot to do with other elements of masculinity as well. Abnormal testosterone levels with aspergers syndrome are usually in utero. The timing has more to do with it than just the levels.
One of the main complaints about AI and Comp Neuro is that the brain is a massively parallel system....this sort of thing could open up all sorts of possibilities for more realistic brain simulation. As someone going into these fields, this got my attention real quick. I actually could use a beowulf cluster of these...
Since the Japanese are a more ethnically homogeneous group than many western countries, there is probably much less variance in height. This probably explains why everyone is like "what, only an inch taller on average? That can't be right?" when it is.
Just because something is "on the way" doesn't mean its anywhere near being solved. This is a journey of a thousand miles, and we've taken a few steps, nothing too significant yet. We know that the brain looks different when we are unconscious, we have some coordinates, but we are still no where near actually cracking it. We aren't even 100% sure how walking is controlled in the brain, which is a way more useful area of research than consciousness. From neuroscientists I have spoken to and what I have read, the consensus is that it will be a while. There are even some that think that consciousness isn't even real. The issue is further complicated since there is no neuron or set of neurons that is "you."
Also, the review in the link you gave me says that consciousness comes from a "that our sense of self arises from our need to map relations between self and others" sounds like an explanation for why we are conscious, but not how. I might give this a read.
In conclusion, my post is not ridiculous, and as someone entering this field I know a thing or two about it more than the average slashdotter.
Machine consciousness is not something that will likely happen in our lifetime. We don't even know exactly what it is in humans, much less a machine. Neuroscience is further ahead on consciousness issues than computer science, and even they haven't turned up a great deal yet. Computer scientists and physicists haven't got a clue about this, and sometimes their drivel about consciousness and human cognition is just embarrassing to them.
Don't worry too much about that one. Consciousness is far more complex than being able to emulate human cognition. Currently Beta waves in the brain are a hot topic and a computer emulating the human brain wouldn't necessarily have "computer waves" since it would be a digital system pretending to be analog.
During WW2, BF Skinner tried to train pigeons that could pilot bombs towards Japanese flagships. The training part worked and they performed the task in the lab. But since they aren't strong enough to pull actual controls and fly by wire had not been invented they could not pilot the actual bombs.
TFA doesn't explain how this thing is going to get the data back. Doesn't the radiation of the Sun interfere with that? I only ask because there is no mention of the probe coming back to Earth.
Freud was a neurologist, not a psychologist. What he did was called psychoanalysis, which believe it or not today is mostly practiced by psychiatrists (with MDs) and NOT psychologists (with PhDs or PsyDs). As a psychology major it drives me nuts that Freud is associated with psych, because psych is a science* (counseling is more of an art though, which is why psych never gets the respect it deserves) and his legacy of bullshit holds back the stature of modern research in behavioral and cognitive sciences.
*If you say psych is a social science, you are utterly wrong, as most of psych never deals with group action, and much of biology would have to be dumped in the "social science" category under most definitions of social science.
Right, but what I am saying is that you can be well trained enough so that your nervous system can cause behavior (such as hitting the tennis racket) without the frontal lobes having any input.
If you think of the brain as a machine with inputs and outputs (but not a von Neumann computer, that analogy needs to die so computer geeks will stop thinking they understand the brain more than neuroscientists) free will falls out of the equation pretty quick. The point of this study was to show that the brain made a decision, and not the "mind." The mind isn't quite a real thing. There is no neuron or group of neurons that is "you."
And with regard to the 60% part...there are statistics that are run to check for chance. 60% out of dozens or hundreds of trials can be damn good. They don't just say "sweet, we were more than half right! We're getting published!"
Most great athletes say that they rarely, if ever, "think" about what they are doing. They just do it. Ever play an FPS (or paintball, or whatever) and get off a really good shot because it seemed like your finger had a mind of its own? That is basically what happens. The nervous system in your body can do (and learn to do) a lot without any input from the brain whatsoever.
....Psychologists have known about this problem for a while.
Way to go Slashdot by making them all look like idiots with a sweeping general statement that doesn't exclude psychologists working in fields that have nothing whatsoever to do with Cognitive dissonance.
Psych will never get the respect it deserves as long as shit talk like this persists.
Keep in mind that Computer Science is *not* coding. It's a subfield of mathematics that deals with the theory of computation. The lecturer might have been a theorist.
You guys do realize that advertising is what keeps using the web free, right? Without ads, many of your favorite sites (to include/. ) wouldn't be able to function. If anything, google ads are pretty non-invasive and lead to a situation where those who make money make it and we get to use things for no cost. Read this:
People can bitch all they want, but if they have the choice between getting a free lunch with coke ads splattered on everything or had to pay $1, they will still pick the free lunch.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference between selection and breeding. Selection involves choosing a mate, breeding involves having kids. Smart people are selecting each other, but breeding less. Less intelligent people are having a lot of kids. Also, I would imagine that as more and more women become career women (and not just "have a job") that trophy wives and marrying your cute college sweetheart will be less common, further skewing the bell curve as intelligent women will have an easier time meeting intelligent men.
Because Androgen has a lot to do with other elements of masculinity as well. Abnormal testosterone levels with aspergers syndrome are usually in utero. The timing has more to do with it than just the levels.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those. No, seriously.
Everyone has about 3 or 4 odd socks. Ergo, 3.5 * 300 Million = 1.05 Billion odd socks in the US.
Where do they all go?
One of the main complaints about AI and Comp Neuro is that the brain is a massively parallel system....this sort of thing could open up all sorts of possibilities for more realistic brain simulation. As someone going into these fields, this got my attention real quick. I actually could use a beowulf cluster of these...
Depends on the school district, some only give meager weights of .025 like my district...
If you actually read my post you'd have seen that I am 6'2" and don't have "horribly skewed" perceptions.
Or have short legs. I wear a 34/34 and am pushing going up in waistline size, but I am nowhere near fat or even overweight. (I'm 6' 2")
Since the Japanese are a more ethnically homogeneous group than many western countries, there is probably much less variance in height. This probably explains why everyone is like "what, only an inch taller on average? That can't be right?" when it is.
Just because something is "on the way" doesn't mean its anywhere near being solved. This is a journey of a thousand miles, and we've taken a few steps, nothing too significant yet. We know that the brain looks different when we are unconscious, we have some coordinates, but we are still no where near actually cracking it. We aren't even 100% sure how walking is controlled in the brain, which is a way more useful area of research than consciousness. From neuroscientists I have spoken to and what I have read, the consensus is that it will be a while. There are even some that think that consciousness isn't even real. The issue is further complicated since there is no neuron or set of neurons that is "you."
Also, the review in the link you gave me says that consciousness comes from a "that our sense of self arises from our need to map relations between self and others" sounds like an explanation for why we are conscious, but not how. I might give this a read.
In conclusion, my post is not ridiculous, and as someone entering this field I know a thing or two about it more than the average slashdotter.
I meant gamma waves, sorry
Machine consciousness is not something that will likely happen in our lifetime. We don't even know exactly what it is in humans, much less a machine. Neuroscience is further ahead on consciousness issues than computer science, and even they haven't turned up a great deal yet. Computer scientists and physicists haven't got a clue about this, and sometimes their drivel about consciousness and human cognition is just embarrassing to them.
Don't worry too much about that one. Consciousness is far more complex than being able to emulate human cognition. Currently Beta waves in the brain are a hot topic and a computer emulating the human brain wouldn't necessarily have "computer waves" since it would be a digital system pretending to be analog.
During WW2, BF Skinner tried to train pigeons that could pilot bombs towards Japanese flagships. The training part worked and they performed the task in the lab. But since they aren't strong enough to pull actual controls and fly by wire had not been invented they could not pilot the actual bombs.
TFA doesn't explain how this thing is going to get the data back. Doesn't the radiation of the Sun interfere with that? I only ask because there is no mention of the probe coming back to Earth.
Freud was a neurologist, not a psychologist. What he did was called psychoanalysis, which believe it or not today is mostly practiced by psychiatrists (with MDs) and NOT psychologists (with PhDs or PsyDs). As a psychology major it drives me nuts that Freud is associated with psych, because psych is a science* (counseling is more of an art though, which is why psych never gets the respect it deserves) and his legacy of bullshit holds back the stature of modern research in behavioral and cognitive sciences.
*If you say psych is a social science, you are utterly wrong, as most of psych never deals with group action, and much of biology would have to be dumped in the "social science" category under most definitions of social science.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Cell wasn't designed originally for the PS3, even though that is the primary role it has found itself in.
Last time I checked it was the verbal section that minorities had problems with
Yes they do, the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force all exist with their respective secretaries under the DoD.
Right, but what I am saying is that you can be well trained enough so that your nervous system can cause behavior (such as hitting the tennis racket) without the frontal lobes having any input.
If you think of the brain as a machine with inputs and outputs (but not a von Neumann computer, that analogy needs to die so computer geeks will stop thinking they understand the brain more than neuroscientists) free will falls out of the equation pretty quick. The point of this study was to show that the brain made a decision, and not the "mind." The mind isn't quite a real thing. There is no neuron or group of neurons that is "you."
And with regard to the 60% part...there are statistics that are run to check for chance. 60% out of dozens or hundreds of trials can be damn good. They don't just say "sweet, we were more than half right! We're getting published!"
Most great athletes say that they rarely, if ever, "think" about what they are doing. They just do it. Ever play an FPS (or paintball, or whatever) and get off a really good shot because it seemed like your finger had a mind of its own? That is basically what happens. The nervous system in your body can do (and learn to do) a lot without any input from the brain whatsoever.
....Psychologists have known about this problem for a while.
Way to go Slashdot by making them all look like idiots with a sweeping general statement that doesn't exclude psychologists working in fields that have nothing whatsoever to do with Cognitive dissonance.
Psych will never get the respect it deserves as long as shit talk like this persists.
-5 Spreading ignorance, Zonk
Keep in mind that Computer Science is *not* coding. It's a subfield of mathematics that deals with the theory of computation. The lecturer might have been a theorist.
You guys do realize that advertising is what keeps using the web free, right? Without ads, many of your favorite sites (to include /. ) wouldn't be able to function. If anything, google ads are pretty non-invasive and lead to a situation where those who make money make it and we get to use things for no cost. Read this:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free
People can bitch all they want, but if they have the choice between getting a free lunch with coke ads splattered on everything or had to pay $1, they will still pick the free lunch.