We are already doing this test. Haven't you noticed that the older people get and the closer to death, the more likely they are to turn to God?
Several years ago I was deathly ill and the doctors had no idea what was wrong with me. For several weeks no one knew whether I was going to live or die.
God never crossed my mind. I can't begin to imagine how you think I would find it comforting to suddenly pin my hopes on your god, Marduk, the FSM, an IPU, Russell's Teapot, or anything else I don't actually believe in.
I find that weird. People seem to be often fond of adrenaline sports, and many adrenaline sports are more risky than flying in a turbulence. Why not simply lay back and enjoy it?
When it's really mild, you can close your eyes and imagine that you're on a train. Or think back to when you were a kid and slept on the back seat while Dad drove down that not-quite-perfect highway on the family vacation.
She lived longer than all his other patients, double over the next highest person.
Ummm. The fact that she lived longer than other patients just means that she lived longer than other patients. I am sure that some patients lived a lot less than other patients. It had nothing to do with god. It had to do with the fact that people react to diseases and treatments differently. Some people live longer than some people who live longer than some people.
IMO the common conceit that "God healed/rescued me/Granny", while letting all the others suffer and die, is the very pinnacle of arrogance.
AI has languished for about 60 years now, mostly because it is not a science. There is no formal definition of intelligence, and no roadmap for what to study. As a result, the field studies everything-and-the-kitchen-sink and says: "this is AI!".
You're assuming that AI is supposed to mean something like HAL 9000. The overwhelming majority of AI researchers are just trying to figure out good ways to solve much smaller problems. A tiny minority are trying to model some behavioral or cognitive phenomenon. Only cranks and con artists are trying to make something like HAL 9000.
Some things AI researchers have been doing are being adopted for commerce and industry. And that appears to be accelerating.
If I insisted that there were three invisible planets orbiting the sun between Jupiter and Saturn, most people would think I was a crackpot.
If I insisted that there was an invisible being that spoke the whole universe into being, plus a lot of other invisible stuff like Heaven and souls, most people would think I knew what I was talking about.
To believe in science (and to disbelieve in religion), one needs to believe that the elements needed to create the big bang came into existence of their own accord and that the laws of physics decided to invent themselves.
Science is great up to a point; it can tell us what happened and how it happened. But when you go back far enough, it does requires the belief that everything which set off the chain of events somehow came into being without an intelligent creator.
Why should I have any more trouble believing in an uncaused universe than in an uncaused divinity?
Actually, the atheist assumes less, because s/he merely assumes the universe. The theist has to assume a god that can speak the universe into being. (Plus heaven, hell, souls, etc.)
There are no atheists in foxholes,' the saying goes.
And it's a fucking stupid thing to say: The mere fact that they're in a foxhole shows that they're putting their faith in boring old non-supernatural dirt to save them, not in their god(s).
... is new again. I've been centralized and decentralized multiple times.
This.
I once worked for a big company where all the bottom-rung departments were buying PCs and writing software to automate their work, while top-rung management was building a palace to house the new super-sized mainframe that was going to do everything for everyone. (And everyone was going to like it, whether they like it or not.)
I swear, some people make a good living pushing the beans back and forth across the table and declaring victory.
Ah, I always wondered what the B in MBA stood for.
BTW, the mention of learning in the article & summary isn't pure spin. The region they found that produces new cells is the hippocampus, which plays some kind of role in memory consolidation.
You'll have to ask an expert whether this is going to make us rethink anything about the mechanism for learning.
(Hope this isn't a dupe... I posted it earlier, but must have forgotten to click the Submit button.)
Actually I posted too fast. I went back and looked at what I read (just a few nights ago, by chance), and the book does not include the new result. It just said that the isotope ratios observed in the brain confirm the conventional view that neurons aren't being created. TFA reports that a small region of the brain has been found that does not conform to the conventional view.
It doesn't sound to me like nuclear weapon research had anything to do with this. If the link between nuclear research and this has anything to do with carbon-14 vs. carbon-12 then you can link this "brain discovery" to nearly any branch of research using carbon-14 dating...
It has nothing to do with carbon dating. As the A/C partially explains in another reply, the nuclear testing during the middle of last century increased the relative amount of C-14 in the environment, but it has been falling off since the test ban treaty went into effect in 1963.
Cells consist of lots of carbon, so *new* cells will be built out of whatever is available in the environment. Thus cells created before 1945 will have the "standard" ratio of C-12 and C-14, those created in the 1950s will have an increased proportion of C-14, and those created since 1963 will also have an increased proportion, though that increase has gotten smaller every year as the excess C-14 disappears from the environment.
So for cells created in the past ~100 years you can distinguish the pre-nuclear-testing ones from the later ones, and for cells created since 1963 you can give an approximate date based on the isotope ratio, since that ratio has been decreasing on a well-known curve.
People born before 1945 have the "standard" ratio of isotopes in most of the neurons in the brain, ergo those cells were created before 1945. People born more recently have an elevated ratio in most of the neurons in their brain, depending on what year they were born.
If new neurons were regularly created throughout life, people born before 1945 would also have an elevated ratio of the isotopes.
The news in TFA is that someone found a brain region with an elevated C-14 ratio in people born before nuclear testing started, and thus conclude that that region of the brain creates new cells later in life.
Arguing that it doesn't apply would require one to have an alternate explanation for why and how memory and learning occur after the brain supposedly doesn't create new neurons.
I was under the impression that the standard explanation was that learning and memory were based on connections, not generation of new cells.
Your impression is correct. You are born with (almost) all the neurons you will ever have. The density of synapses in your brain increases until you are ~18-20, then decreases somewhat and stabilizes. But the strength of the signal transmitted at any given synapse is subject to change at any time in your life, and is thought to be the mechanism for learning.
Slashdot Mirror
We are already doing this test. Haven't you noticed that the older people get and the closer to death, the more likely they are to turn to God?
Several years ago I was deathly ill and the doctors had no idea what was wrong with me. For several weeks no one knew whether I was going to live or die.
God never crossed my mind. I can't begin to imagine how you think I would find it comforting to suddenly pin my hopes on your god, Marduk, the FSM, an IPU, Russell's Teapot, or anything else I don't actually believe in.
I find that weird. People seem to be often fond of adrenaline sports, and many adrenaline sports are more risky than flying in a turbulence. Why not simply lay back and enjoy it?
When it's really mild, you can close your eyes and imagine that you're on a train. Or think back to when you were a kid and slept on the back seat while Dad drove down that not-quite-perfect highway on the family vacation.
Also, if his Mom had died we'd be reading about it being God's inscrutable will rather than that God healed her.
She lived longer than all his other patients, double over the next highest person.
Ummm. The fact that she lived longer than other patients just means that she lived longer than other patients. I am sure that some patients lived a lot less than other patients. It had nothing to do with god. It had to do with the fact that people react to diseases and treatments differently. Some people live longer than some people who live longer than some people.
IMO the common conceit that "God healed/rescued me/Granny", while letting all the others suffer and die, is the very pinnacle of arrogance.
When god was talking to her why didn't he let her know about those woman how were prisoner for years?
He was too busy answering other people's prayers for a win in the big game, or for fine weather for the picnic, or to get laid.
Which is why the belief that the universe started with a big bang, for example, is faith-based.
People who aren't trying to bring science down to the level of their own superstitions would call it evidence-based.
Or when you look in the oven and see that your biscuits are brown, do you consider your conclusion that they're done to be a faith-based belief?
Or any of thousands of other evidence-based conclusions that you readily accept because they don't conflict with your religious beliefs.
But curiously, those same people reject like testimony from the followers of competing religions out of hand.
I think you haven't stumbled upon the explanation.
AI has languished for about 60 years now, mostly because it is not a science. There is no formal definition of intelligence, and no roadmap for what to study. As a result, the field studies everything-and-the-kitchen-sink and says: "this is AI!".
You're assuming that AI is supposed to mean something like HAL 9000. The overwhelming majority of AI researchers are just trying to figure out good ways to solve much smaller problems. A tiny minority are trying to model some behavioral or cognitive phenomenon. Only cranks and con artists are trying to make something like HAL 9000.
Some things AI researchers have been doing are being adopted for commerce and industry. And that appears to be accelerating.
There is little proof that the dinosaurs died 65 (66?) million years ago
No proof, but piles of evidence.
Let us know if you find a more reliable path to reality than evidence.
If I insisted that there were three invisible planets orbiting the sun between Jupiter and Saturn, most people would think I was a crackpot.
If I insisted that there was an invisible being that spoke the whole universe into being, plus a lot of other invisible stuff like Heaven and souls, most people would think I knew what I was talking about.
Go figure...
and everything will suddenly make sense
That sounds like the experience of a recently inflicted paranoid schizophrenic.
Huh? I thought it was just a bog-standard troll.
If I said it, I would mean "a world view based on evidence", as opposed to tradition, arbitrary assumptions, etc.
I hate turbulence too. But I remind myself of how many flights leave my airport every day and reach their destination safely.
I don't think that's strictly true.
To believe in science (and to disbelieve in religion), one needs to believe that the elements needed to create the big bang came into existence of their own accord and that the laws of physics decided to invent themselves.
Science is great up to a point; it can tell us what happened and how it happened. But when you go back far enough, it does requires the belief that everything which set off the chain of events somehow came into being without an intelligent creator.
Why should I have any more trouble believing in an uncaused universe than in an uncaused divinity?
Actually, the atheist assumes less, because s/he merely assumes the universe. The theist has to assume a god that can speak the universe into being. (Plus heaven, hell, souls, etc.)
Ockham says, cut out the middle man.
There are no atheists in foxholes,' the saying goes.
And it's a fucking stupid thing to say: The mere fact that they're in a foxhole shows that they're putting their faith in boring old non-supernatural dirt to save them, not in their god(s).
'Head office' will continue to try an control how people get their work done
I suspect that that extends far beyond the use of computing devices.
Thanks. I thought of Move, but couldn't think of anything for the 'A'.
Also, it's a very good definition!
... is new again. I've been centralized and decentralized multiple times.
This.
I once worked for a big company where all the bottom-rung departments were buying PCs and writing software to automate their work, while top-rung management was building a palace to house the new super-sized mainframe that was going to do everything for everyone. (And everyone was going to like it, whether they like it or not.)
I swear, some people make a good living pushing the beans back and forth across the table and declaring victory.
Ah, I always wondered what the B in MBA stood for.
BTW, the mention of learning in the article & summary isn't pure spin. The region they found that produces new cells is the hippocampus, which plays some kind of role in memory consolidation.
You'll have to ask an expert whether this is going to make us rethink anything about the mechanism for learning.
(Hope this isn't a dupe... I posted it earlier, but must have forgotten to click the Submit button.)
Right. If the fracking did something like destroy their land so it couldn't be used for farming, they would likely be able to sue to get justice.
They would certainly be able to sue; getting justice is a different matter.
Somewhat. There are Amish who will 'not use electricity', but will use a diesel generator at the barn to run the dairy equipment.
Is that a loophole or a nuanced interpretation?
There is also supposedly a "Black Bumper" flavor, who will use automobiles, so long as they don't have decorative chromed components.
Actually I posted too fast. I went back and looked at what I read (just a few nights ago, by chance), and the book does not include the new result. It just said that the isotope ratios observed in the brain confirm the conventional view that neurons aren't being created. TFA reports that a small region of the brain has been found that does not conform to the conventional view.
One more textbook becomes outdated...
It doesn't sound to me like nuclear weapon research had anything to do with this. If the link between nuclear research and this has anything to do with carbon-14 vs. carbon-12 then you can link this "brain discovery" to nearly any branch of research using carbon-14 dating...
It has nothing to do with carbon dating. As the A/C partially explains in another reply, the nuclear testing during the middle of last century increased the relative amount of C-14 in the environment, but it has been falling off since the test ban treaty went into effect in 1963.
Cells consist of lots of carbon, so *new* cells will be built out of whatever is available in the environment. Thus cells created before 1945 will have the "standard" ratio of C-12 and C-14, those created in the 1950s will have an increased proportion of C-14, and those created since 1963 will also have an increased proportion, though that increase has gotten smaller every year as the excess C-14 disappears from the environment.
So for cells created in the past ~100 years you can distinguish the pre-nuclear-testing ones from the later ones, and for cells created since 1963 you can give an approximate date based on the isotope ratio, since that ratio has been decreasing on a well-known curve.
People born before 1945 have the "standard" ratio of isotopes in most of the neurons in the brain, ergo those cells were created before 1945. People born more recently have an elevated ratio in most of the neurons in their brain, depending on what year they were born.
If new neurons were regularly created throughout life, people born before 1945 would also have an elevated ratio of the isotopes.
The news in TFA is that someone found a brain region with an elevated C-14 ratio in people born before nuclear testing started, and thus conclude that that region of the brain creates new cells later in life.
Arguing that it doesn't apply would require one to have an alternate explanation for why and how memory and learning occur after the brain supposedly doesn't create new neurons.
I was under the impression that the standard explanation was that learning and memory were based on connections, not generation of new cells.
Your impression is correct. You are born with (almost) all the neurons you will ever have. The density of synapses in your brain increases until you are ~18-20, then decreases somewhat and stabilizes. But the strength of the signal transmitted at any given synapse is subject to change at any time in your life, and is thought to be the mechanism for learning.
I just read this in a neuroscience textbook published last year.