So the real story here is that only 40% of the people playing are addicted
No, not really. That was just a speculation on the part of the clinical psychologist interviewed in the article. She
does not appear to have any data to support that figure. The headline of the slashdot story is, as usual, provocatice
but misleading. It should read 'clinical psychologist who makes a living treating gaming addiction believes 40% of WoW
players are addicted'.
Hmm thought I posted this but it doesnt seem to be here, so forgive me if this appears twice.
Regarding #2, it depends what you mean by "completely" destroyed itself, but several civilizations have destroyed themselves in the sense that they no longer exist as civilizations any more. According to Jared Diamond, the most common cause of this is self-destruction through ecological factors.
The only difference between then and now is that our toys are bigger and shinier.
Agreed, but this is a rather important difference in regards to Hawking's question. Our big shiny toys
put unprecedented powers of destruction in the hands of very few people. We are quite capable of destroying
ourselves now in a way that would not have been easy in the past.
Take that situation, and add in the gradual ending of cultural isolation (is there any culture in the world that
is isolated any more?) -- we may see conflict on a scale we have not seen before as regional ideologies which are incompatible
compete for precedence.
I think part of what needs to happen (and probably will happen) is a psychological evolution. It seems to me that our current
self concept is rather narrow - we tend to think of people in our country or religion as a priveliged ingroup. We think of ourselves
as separate from the environment. The self needs to expand to include more. Religious and cultural dogma
need to loosen their grip on the minds of so many individuals.
It doesn't seem fair pin "assuming the worst" on the viewers of this website. It
seems to me that the information that was provided was, given the current context, quite suggestive of something
negative. "Deployment"? Who uses that word? It is has a largely military connotation. A map with
locations targeted? I don't think people assumed the worst
as much as his website implied the worst. Yes, none of these things is direcctly indictivie of a negative act, but they are
all highly associated with negative acts in the collective consciousness at this point in history. If it were a countdown to
a "birth" of something people might have had a different reaction...
Not in the way that your're suggesting. You do not need FDA approval for an fMRI protocol, nor would they have anything to do with reviewing the results of research like this. You do not need FDA approval to use fMRI as a lie detector.
Well this is not a medial test that requires certification. MRI poses minimal risk and is not regulated by the FDA. The paper I cited takes into account both sources of variability. But I certianly agree more research is needed.
Well, you don't necessarily need to know much except how the overall pattern differs between lying and telling the truth. There have been several
studies to do it recently that have had some success. For example:
Kozel FA, Johnson KA, Mu Q, Grenesko EL, Laken SJ, George MS. (2005) Biol Psychiatry. Oct 15;58(8):605-13.
Detecting deception using functional magnetic resonance imaging.
BACKGROUND: The ability to accurately detect deception is presently very limited. Detecting deception might be more accurately achieved by measuring the brain correlates of lying in an individual. In addition, a method to investigate the neurocircuitry of deception might provide a unique opportunity to test the neurocircuitry of persons in whom deception is a prominent component (i.e., conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder, etc.). METHODS: In this study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to show that specific regions were reproducibly activated when subjects deceived. Subjects participated in a mock crime stealing either a ring or a watch. While undergoing an fMRI, the subjects denied taking either object, thus telling the truth with some responses, and lying with others. A Model-Building Group (MBG, n = 30) was used to develop the analysis methods, and the methods were subsequently applied to an independent Model-Testing Group (MTG, n = 31). RESULTS: We were able to correctly differentiate truthful from deceptive responses, correctly identifying the object stolen, for 93% of the subjects in the MBG and 90% of the subjects in the MTG. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to use fMRI to detect deception at the individual level. Further work is required to determine how well this technology will work in different settings and populations.
The most likely technology to be used for anti-terrorism purposes is Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), which can produce live, real-time images of people's brains as they answer questions, view images, listen to sounds, and respond to other stimuli.
fMRI does not produce live, real-time images of brain activity. At best, this is misleading. First, temporal resoultion of fMRI is very poor
when compared with the speed of firing of neurons. A typical fMRI experiment takes a picture of the whole brain every 1.5-4 seconds. Furthermore, the blood oxygenation changes measured with fMRI are slow and cause an effective temporal blurring of the data (blood peaks about 6 seconds after brain activity). To determine which changes relate to changes in psychological function, much offline processing is necessary. Yes, it is possible and has been acheived in some cases to have semi-real-time online analysis, but this is certainly not the norm. What you typically end up with at the end of an fMRI experiment is a static map showing the extent to which signal at each voxel correlates with your task of interest.
Now as for the issue at hand, it is certainly premature to use fMRI as a reliable lie detector or something like it. However, the article does not
really specify how it is being used. If data is being collected to advance the reliabilty of this tool as a lie detector then it could be effective sooner
rather than later.
Yeah but what's interesting about this is that what is "selfish" depends upon what you consider to be within your "self". Are individual
genes acting for their own interest (Dawkins), are we acting for ourselves as organisms, or as you imply for our family and culture? What seems to be happening is that as we become more obviously interconnected through technology we are expanding the sphere of our self-interest, at
this point including "humanity" or "the planet". There certainly is a lot of selfishness at the cultural level at this point in history, which seems to be in conflict with the more global view of selfishness.
I'm so with you 99% it makes it almost hard to post this comment in disagreement, but I think
you are discounting one perspective a little too quickly.
The universe doesn't "care," either literally or figuratively.
Well, literally it does care. "We" are the universe, or at least part of it. We are how the universe
has currently arranged itself here. In that sense, any caring we do is caring that the universe does, in part.
Even further than that, the universe had within it the preconditions, as you call it "cause and effect" that
biased it to arrange itself into choice-making entities which benefit from "caring", creating cultures
that develop meaning, etc. We have not simply adapted to conditions new or old, we have arisen and formed from
those very conditions.
Just because it's available by prescription doesn't mean it's safer than any illegal drug.
Of course not, but assuming you are referring to ritalin and the like, this is not just propaganda. There
are large populations of people taking the drug on a daily basis for years with little if any health consequence. It's
a very well-studied drug, so there is a scientific basis for this claim.
The few studies there are of long-term marijuana use have also found it to be a relatively healthy drug even
when used on a daily basis.
The same cannot be said for the opiates you've listed, nor for cocaine.
you mean that when they pay up the people actually let them get their files back? you would think any criminal would just delete them, say that they would give them back and then just take off with the money; they are already breaking the law, whats another one added to that
If you don't give the files back you remove the incentive for other infected users to pay up.
And to add on to FleaPlus's comment, I find this rather convincing as well:
Mukamel, R., Gelbard, H., Arieli, A., Hasson, U., Fried, I., Malach, R., (2005). Coupling between neuronal firing, field potentials, and FMRI in human auditory cortex. Science, 309(5736),951-4.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is an important tool for investigating human brain function, but the relationship between the hemodynamically based fMRI signals in the human brain and the underlying neuronal activity is unclear. We recorded single unit activity and local field potentials in auditory cortex of two neurosurgical patients and compared them with the fMRI signals of 11 healthy subjects during presentation of an identical movie segment. The predicted fMRI signals derived from single units and the measured fMRI signals from auditory cortex showed a highly significant correlation (r = 0.75, P 10(-47)). Thus, fMRI signals can provide a reliable measure of the firing rate of human cortical neurons.
Thanks for the reference. I think there are a handful of papers in which they have extracted information about what someone is seeing from visual cortex, I've just never seen one in the motor domain...but maybe you will produce a ref for that as well.:)
2) the "monkey" did not control robotic arms hundreds of miles away. The robotic arms hundreds of miles away were moved with signals made in the monkey's brain.
Does the user have to actually have to go through the hand motions or is it sufficient to just think about moving your hand?
That depends on where they are getting the relevant information from. Imagining a movement and performing it produce overlapping but not identical brain activations. If they can get enough info from just the overlapping areas then conceivably you could do that...
So, does the MRI interpreting algorithm need to be tailored to each user, or could an 'off-the-shelf' interpreter work for anyone? While I'm sure that bloodflow signatures for physical movements are similar between individuals, is there too much variability to prevent false recognition of a 'signal'?
At this point, it is surprising that they can even do it for an individual (discerning among these three quite similar hand movements). I am kind of skeptical myself. There is a lot of variability in fMRI signal even within an individual. I would guess the system is trained on a specific individual.
Between individuals you have additional sources of variability; for example, the foldings of the cortex are quite different from person to person. I personally have a very unusual precentral gyrus on the left side. Activity maps are typically aligned to anatomical maps so finding correspondences between individuals has to deal with the challenges of anatomical variability.
For gross things, it can be quite obvious what the person is doing. I can tell by looking at the activations in your brain if you are looking at something versus hearing something. But looking at a duck versus looking at a cow? Much harder. Making a V-sign versus making a fist? I've never seen a paper where someone reported being able to do this. It is theoretically possible, but difficult with a blurry MRI signal that aggregates over populations of neurons. You can certainly do it if you implant electrodes into the brain. Recordings from monkey premotor cortex, for example, find neurons that fire when specific movements are made.
I've done some fMRI of motor movements... All these movements, the fist, the V-sign, would
activate the hand area, premotor cortex, and some parietal areas... I am very skeptical that
you could tell the difference between them. But if they can that is very impressive, especially
to do it in real time...
By the way, MRI does not measure "brain waves". It measures blood oxygenation changes,
which are related to the firing of neurons.
The major risk is that it would move inside your body since it will be attracted to the magnet. Incidentally, you don't throw someone who has been in a car accident in an MRI precisely because you do not know what is in their body. You do a CT scan if you cannot verify the absence of metal. If the person has a pacemaker for example, they are screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
Autogynephilia
Hmm thought I posted this but it doesnt seem to be here, so forgive me if this appears twice.
Regarding #2, it depends what you mean by "completely" destroyed itself, but several civilizations have destroyed themselves in the sense that they no longer exist as civilizations any more. According to Jared Diamond, the most common cause of this is self-destruction through ecological factors.
The only difference between then and now is that our toys are bigger and shinier.
Agreed, but this is a rather important difference in regards to Hawking's question. Our big shiny toys put unprecedented powers of destruction in the hands of very few people. We are quite capable of destroying ourselves now in a way that would not have been easy in the past.
Take that situation, and add in the gradual ending of cultural isolation (is there any culture in the world that is isolated any more?) -- we may see conflict on a scale we have not seen before as regional ideologies which are incompatible compete for precedence.
I think part of what needs to happen (and probably will happen) is a psychological evolution. It seems to me that our current self concept is rather narrow - we tend to think of people in our country or religion as a priveliged ingroup. We think of ourselves as separate from the environment. The self needs to expand to include more. Religious and cultural dogma need to loosen their grip on the minds of so many individuals.
It doesn't seem fair pin "assuming the worst" on the viewers of this website. It seems to me that the information that was provided was, given the current context, quite suggestive of something negative. "Deployment"? Who uses that word? It is has a largely military connotation. A map with locations targeted? I don't think people assumed the worst as much as his website implied the worst. Yes, none of these things is direcctly indictivie of a negative act, but they are all highly associated with negative acts in the collective consciousness at this point in history. If it were a countdown to a "birth" of something people might have had a different reaction...
I guess what I am confused about is why it would be used in "clinical" practice? It's not a treatment for anything..
Not in the way that your're suggesting. You do not need FDA approval for an fMRI protocol, nor would they have anything to do with reviewing the results of research like this. You do not need FDA approval to use fMRI as a lie detector.
Well this is not a medial test that requires certification. MRI poses minimal risk and is not regulated by the FDA. The paper I cited takes into account both sources of variability. But I certianly agree more research is needed.
Now as for the issue at hand, it is certainly premature to use fMRI as a reliable lie detector or something like it. However, the article does not really specify how it is being used. If data is being collected to advance the reliabilty of this tool as a lie detector then it could be effective sooner rather than later.
Does anyone actually use Darwin as an OS? If so, why? Does the 'closing' of the Intel version of the kernel really affect anyone?
Spot on. Yes, you couldn't have said that any better.
Yeah but what's interesting about this is that what is "selfish" depends upon what you consider to be within your "self". Are individual genes acting for their own interest (Dawkins), are we acting for ourselves as organisms, or as you imply for our family and culture? What seems to be happening is that as we become more obviously interconnected through technology we are expanding the sphere of our self-interest, at this point including "humanity" or "the planet". There certainly is a lot of selfishness at the cultural level at this point in history, which seems to be in conflict with the more global view of selfishness.
Well, literally it does care. "We" are the universe, or at least part of it. We are how the universe has currently arranged itself here. In that sense, any caring we do is caring that the universe does, in part.
Even further than that, the universe had within it the preconditions, as you call it "cause and effect" that biased it to arrange itself into choice-making entities which benefit from "caring", creating cultures that develop meaning, etc. We have not simply adapted to conditions new or old, we have arisen and formed from those very conditions.
Just because it's available by prescription doesn't mean it's safer than any illegal drug.
Of course not, but assuming you are referring to ritalin and the like, this is not just propaganda. There are large populations of people taking the drug on a daily basis for years with little if any health consequence. It's a very well-studied drug, so there is a scientific basis for this claim.
The few studies there are of long-term marijuana use have also found it to be a relatively healthy drug even when used on a daily basis.
The same cannot be said for the opiates you've listed, nor for cocaine.
Strangely, there are not many academical papers about cream cheese.
Yeah. Truly bizarre.
you mean that when they pay up the people actually let them get their files back? you would think any criminal would just delete them, say that they would give them back and then just take off with the money; they are already breaking the law, whats another one added to that
If you don't give the files back you remove the incentive for other infected users to pay up.
And to add on to FleaPlus's comment, I find this rather convincing as well:
Mukamel, R., Gelbard, H., Arieli, A., Hasson, U., Fried, I., Malach, R., (2005). Coupling between neuronal firing, field potentials, and FMRI in human auditory cortex. Science, 309(5736),951-4.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is an important tool for investigating human brain function, but the relationship between the hemodynamically based fMRI signals in the human brain and the underlying neuronal activity is unclear. We recorded single unit activity and local field potentials in auditory cortex of two neurosurgical patients and compared them with the fMRI signals of 11 healthy subjects during presentation of an identical movie segment. The predicted fMRI signals derived from single units and the measured fMRI signals from auditory cortex showed a highly significant correlation (r = 0.75, P 10(-47)). Thus, fMRI signals can provide a reliable measure of the firing rate of human cortical neurons.
Thanks for the reference. I think there are a handful of papers in which they have extracted information about what someone is seeing from visual cortex, I've just never seen one in the motor domain...but maybe you will produce a ref for that as well. :)
2) the "monkey" did not control robotic arms hundreds of miles away. The robotic arms hundreds of miles away were moved with signals made in the monkey's brain.
Sorry, what's the difference?
Does the user have to actually have to go through the hand motions or is it sufficient to just think about moving your hand?
That depends on where they are getting the relevant information from. Imagining a movement and performing it produce overlapping but not identical brain activations. If they can get enough info from just the overlapping areas then conceivably you could do that...
So, does the MRI interpreting algorithm need to be tailored to each user, or could an 'off-the-shelf' interpreter work for anyone? While I'm sure that bloodflow signatures for physical movements are similar between individuals, is there too much variability to prevent false recognition of a 'signal'?
At this point, it is surprising that they can even do it for an individual (discerning among these three quite similar hand movements). I am kind of skeptical myself. There is a lot of variability in fMRI signal even within an individual. I would guess the system is trained on a specific individual.
Between individuals you have additional sources of variability; for example, the foldings of the cortex are quite different from person to person. I personally have a very unusual precentral gyrus on the left side. Activity maps are typically aligned to anatomical maps so finding correspondences between individuals has to deal with the challenges of anatomical variability.
For gross things, it can be quite obvious what the person is doing. I can tell by looking at the activations in your brain if you are looking at something versus hearing something. But looking at a duck versus looking at a cow? Much harder. Making a V-sign versus making a fist? I've never seen a paper where someone reported being able to do this. It is theoretically possible, but difficult with a blurry MRI signal that aggregates over populations of neurons. You can certainly do it if you implant electrodes into the brain. Recordings from monkey premotor cortex, for example, find neurons that fire when specific movements are made.
I've done some fMRI of motor movements... All these movements, the fist, the V-sign, would activate the hand area, premotor cortex, and some parietal areas... I am very skeptical that you could tell the difference between them. But if they can that is very impressive, especially to do it in real time...
By the way, MRI does not measure "brain waves". It measures blood oxygenation changes, which are related to the firing of neurons.
The major risk is that it would move inside your body since it will be attracted to the magnet. Incidentally, you don't throw someone who has been in a car accident in an MRI precisely because you do not know what is in their body. You do a CT scan if you cannot verify the absence of metal. If the person has a pacemaker for example, they are screwed.