Maybe it was a smart kid, maybe it was a dumb chimp.
You really think they only did these tests with 1 kid and 1 chimp?
Maybe being a teacher requires a special bond, and the chimp just didn't care.
The candy is rewarding to both chimp and child so they presumably both had motivation to do this.
Maybe that kind of learning is done best with subjects before they hit puberty.
....What? That "kind of learning" (modeling) is something that humans do all throughout life. This is nonsense. You're reaching.
There are many things that can be extrapolated from an experiment like that, so I wouldn't really treat it as some sort of scientific proof that animals are dumb, and there is something special/magical about the human brain.
This is hardly a claim that the human brain is magical. You've been really reaching with this one. I know critical thinking is good and all but scientists aren't always dumber than slashdot armchair scientists.
Disorders are certain ways of acting, it's certain ways of acting or thinking that is problematic to the individual. If, as an example, exhibiting schizoid behavior works for you and you lead a happy, functional life that way, then it's not truly considered a "disorder." A diagnosis is only rendered (or at the very least, treated) if it's problematic to the individual. Precisely because there is no "right" way for humans to think and act. You are paying too much attention to popular media and Scientologists' portray of psychiatry/clinical psychology.
The terms aren't used diagnostically, at least not where I am. In my neck of the woods, it's "narcisistic personality disorder" for those who have no criminal activity and "antisocial personality disorder" for those who do.
Incorrect. They are related disorders, but the criteria is not the same. From wikipedia, which lists the DSM-IVTR:
APD - 3 or more of the following
1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
NPD - A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love (megalomania)
3. Believes they are "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, people (or institutions) who are also "special" or of high status
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Is interpersonally exploitative
7. Lacks empathy
8. Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Note that the DSM-IVTR, more appropriately, is not the be-all end-all of diagnosing but is more of a guidebook and a way to standardize diagnoses. Notice that criminal activity is not necessarily a factor in rendering either diagnosis. Next time, inform yourself before spreading misinformation. NPD is characterized more by a self-centeredness, APD is characterized more by a willingness to hurt or use others for personal gain. These are not the same things.
Fuck yeah, man, America! Fuck libraries, fuck GameSpot, fuck buying used things, let's all do the patriotic thing and buy new, new, new! CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME!
"Fiscally conservative" is basically "colluding with big car companies to make more profits?" Guess what? When you buy old cars, you're also putting money back in another American's hands, and you're keeping a useful resource (a working vehicle) from just rotting away.
Yes, you are missing something--both Randi and the participant come to an agreement on the conditions necessary to win the prize. Randi has stated that even if it becomes established science (and why wouldn't it, if proven?) it doesn't matter because they would have discovered something of scientific interest anyway.
No, actually, I'm pretty sure they would, because human beings detecting and reacting to wi-fi signals in that manner is almost certainly not something understood as mainstream science and apparently would qualify within their definition of paranormal.
Ask yourself, what is "paranormal?" If it is not possible based on human biology and he claims he can do it without the biological ability to do so, then he most certainly is making a paranormal claim.
Leading to the question of whether if you simulate something well enough you get the properties of that thing. If you simulate a laser on a computer down to the quantum level you still couldn't burst a balloon with it.
Because the behavior does not take place in the world outside the simulation. A simulation of the brain could do anything the brain could do, including pop balloons, if given the means to do so.
On the other hand, there isn't any evidence that consciousness is substrate-neutral. The only examples of things we have that are (or at least appear to be) conscious are human brains (and arguably the brains of a few closely-related species). If you can produce a simulation that acts conscious I would probably be convinced, but we've failed spectacularly at that so far.
Why not dolphins, or dogs? You give absolutely no basis for where you draw the line on consciousness. Hell, actually, you haven't even given me reason to think that other human beings are conscious. Why should I think that, given your view of consciousness, that is is apparently separatable from computational, material workings? We already use behavior, and only behavior, as a determinant for whether we think other people are conscious; why have different (and magical) criteria for anything else...?
The fact that consciousness is substrate-neutral is a fact that the matter doesn't matter, only the operation of that matter. Whether you run a program on a PPC machine or a x86 machine, or even more wildly different architectures, doesn't matter for the program. To speak of consciousness in any other way is to assign almost magical properties to it. Dualism is not an option unless one has a fondness for magic.
I don't think the two choices are "substrate-neutral" or "souls". I think we're missing something. Possibly some physical aspect, or maybe something else.
But for what a brain is made out of to matter, it seems to me, would require some sort of dualism as you're making a distinction between operation of matter and consciousness. If consciousness is a computable (and we have every reason to think so, despite some silly misgivings by some philosophers) affair then what a brain is made out of need not matter at all.
Consciousness is arguably the least-understood phenomenon in the universe. We've made practically no progress on it since Descartes.
Well, then, maybe you ought to stop approaching it like Descarts did:)
You're talking about the whole "qualia" problem, which is a non-problem. You're assuming from the get go that the phenomenal pain and the material correlates (neuron firings, etc) are separate, but there's no firm basis for doing so. It appeals to our intuition, but intuition often makes for a terrible argument.
You are implying dualism, which is really pretty silly. That "interpretation" you are talking about, is nothing more than the actual physical processes. There's no magical "me world" in your head.
Whoa there, "emergent properties" has two connotations--weakly emergent, which no one disagrees with, and "strongly emergent," which is something akin to magic happening if you mix the right things together. I hope you're not talking about the latter...?
You are assuming that a computer program of that nature would be, for some reason, not conscious or thinking like a person. Yet why should you differentiate between a computer program and a physical neurons 'n glial cells, etc? I see no basis for doing so, as the matter itself, inert, is nothing. We only get a "person" when that matter if functioning. Why shouldn't consciousness, personhood, simply be the computational states and not the matter itself? It's true there are physical differences between a computer program and brain (for example, the synaptic gaps) but these could be simulated as well.
I have no reason to believe that consciousness/personhood is anything but substrate neutral. Man, machine, machine-man, or computer program, any of these can potentially be conscious. Unless you want to postulate silly metaphysical things such as souls, which are vague and poorly defined--and unnecessary, for a soul does not apparently hold that which makes us what we are, that is, our memories or inclinations.
Why shouldn't we blame the people that take those jobs in the first place, instead of taking other jobs?
Perhaps those jobs are better than other alternatives for them? Perhaps, though shit jobs to us, they are actually opportunity compared to what other alternatives they have in their region? I am assuming, of course, that nothing like coercion or misleading the employees is going on, where it very well may be... but that is overall a different problem.
If the jobs are so bad, one may want to analyze the reasons workers in those countries actually take those jobs as opposed to other jobs in their region instead of wagging the finger at the consumer who allows them to have those jobs in the first place.
The teachers and school administration are actually bullies themselves, and are run by bullies. That's why they never seriously stop bullying (their own progeny!) and always crack down HARD on the bullied.
Slashdot Mirror
You really think they only did these tests with 1 kid and 1 chimp?
The candy is rewarding to both chimp and child so they presumably both had motivation to do this.
This is hardly a claim that the human brain is magical. You've been really reaching with this one. I know critical thinking is good and all but scientists aren't always dumber than slashdot armchair scientists.
Or, perhaps, she was just better trained. All you need to do is condition (and shape the behavior) properly.
AC is right, emergent behavior has little, if anything, to do with this.
Yes, that is also a criterion.
Disorders are certain ways of acting, it's certain ways of acting or thinking that is problematic to the individual. If, as an example, exhibiting schizoid behavior works for you and you lead a happy, functional life that way, then it's not truly considered a "disorder." A diagnosis is only rendered (or at the very least, treated) if it's problematic to the individual. Precisely because there is no "right" way for humans to think and act. You are paying too much attention to popular media and Scientologists' portray of psychiatry/clinical psychology.
Incorrect. They are related disorders, but the criteria is not the same. From wikipedia, which lists the DSM-IVTR:
APD - 3 or more of the following
NPD - A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
Note that the DSM-IVTR, more appropriately, is not the be-all end-all of diagnosing but is more of a guidebook and a way to standardize diagnoses. Notice that criminal activity is not necessarily a factor in rendering either diagnosis. Next time, inform yourself before spreading misinformation. NPD is characterized more by a self-centeredness, APD is characterized more by a willingness to hurt or use others for personal gain. These are not the same things.
The military isn't going to let hackers play with their big "guns" willy-nilly like it was a spare box at home to test out software and shit on.
ARE YOU UNPATRIOTIC, SIR?
to be fair, neither is a news article, or at least should be
Fuck yeah, man, America! Fuck libraries, fuck GameSpot, fuck buying used things, let's all do the patriotic thing and buy new, new, new! CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME!
"Fiscally conservative" is basically "colluding with big car companies to make more profits?" Guess what? When you buy old cars, you're also putting money back in another American's hands, and you're keeping a useful resource (a working vehicle) from just rotting away.
Also note that these wireless bars, not drawing power from the wii, are also great to use with using the wiimote with your PC.
Stealing using a large display of force? Yeah, maybe you're right.
Yes, you are missing something--both Randi and the participant come to an agreement on the conditions necessary to win the prize. Randi has stated that even if it becomes established science (and why wouldn't it, if proven?) it doesn't matter because they would have discovered something of scientific interest anyway.
No, actually, I'm pretty sure they would, because human beings detecting and reacting to wi-fi signals in that manner is almost certainly not something understood as mainstream science and apparently would qualify within their definition of paranormal.
Ask yourself, what is "paranormal?" If it is not possible based on human biology and he claims he can do it without the biological ability to do so, then he most certainly is making a paranormal claim.
Because the behavior does not take place in the world outside the simulation. A simulation of the brain could do anything the brain could do, including pop balloons, if given the means to do so.
Why not dolphins, or dogs? You give absolutely no basis for where you draw the line on consciousness. Hell, actually, you haven't even given me reason to think that other human beings are conscious. Why should I think that, given your view of consciousness, that is is apparently separatable from computational, material workings? We already use behavior, and only behavior, as a determinant for whether we think other people are conscious; why have different (and magical) criteria for anything else...?
The fact that consciousness is substrate-neutral is a fact that the matter doesn't matter, only the operation of that matter. Whether you run a program on a PPC machine or a x86 machine, or even more wildly different architectures, doesn't matter for the program. To speak of consciousness in any other way is to assign almost magical properties to it. Dualism is not an option unless one has a fondness for magic.
But for what a brain is made out of to matter, it seems to me, would require some sort of dualism as you're making a distinction between operation of matter and consciousness. If consciousness is a computable (and we have every reason to think so, despite some silly misgivings by some philosophers) affair then what a brain is made out of need not matter at all.
Well, then, maybe you ought to stop approaching it like Descarts did :)
You're talking about the whole "qualia" problem, which is a non-problem. You're assuming from the get go that the phenomenal pain and the material correlates (neuron firings, etc) are separate, but there's no firm basis for doing so. It appeals to our intuition, but intuition often makes for a terrible argument.
You are implying dualism, which is really pretty silly. That "interpretation" you are talking about, is nothing more than the actual physical processes. There's no magical "me world" in your head.
You should be happier, then... because it is.
Whoa there, "emergent properties" has two connotations--weakly emergent, which no one disagrees with, and "strongly emergent," which is something akin to magic happening if you mix the right things together. I hope you're not talking about the latter...?
You are assuming that a computer program of that nature would be, for some reason, not conscious or thinking like a person. Yet why should you differentiate between a computer program and a physical neurons 'n glial cells, etc? I see no basis for doing so, as the matter itself, inert, is nothing. We only get a "person" when that matter if functioning. Why shouldn't consciousness, personhood, simply be the computational states and not the matter itself? It's true there are physical differences between a computer program and brain (for example, the synaptic gaps) but these could be simulated as well.
I have no reason to believe that consciousness/personhood is anything but substrate neutral. Man, machine, machine-man, or computer program, any of these can potentially be conscious. Unless you want to postulate silly metaphysical things such as souls, which are vague and poorly defined--and unnecessary, for a soul does not apparently hold that which makes us what we are, that is, our memories or inclinations.
Who sold them that land?
Why shouldn't we blame the people that take those jobs in the first place, instead of taking other jobs?
Perhaps those jobs are better than other alternatives for them? Perhaps, though shit jobs to us, they are actually opportunity compared to what other alternatives they have in their region? I am assuming, of course, that nothing like coercion or misleading the employees is going on, where it very well may be... but that is overall a different problem.
If the jobs are so bad, one may want to analyze the reasons workers in those countries actually take those jobs as opposed to other jobs in their region instead of wagging the finger at the consumer who allows them to have those jobs in the first place.
What bullshit armchair psychology.
The teachers and school administration are actually bullies themselves, and are run by bullies. That's why they never seriously stop bullying (their own progeny!) and always crack down HARD on the bullied.