What seems silly about this to me is that if you want to get into the actual science of attraction, and use physiological measures to find suitable partners, that might be interesting. However, despite the name "chemistry.com" it seems according to TFA that they do not actually measure any chemistry in their clients. They ask you a series of questions, each one supposedly telling about your "brain chemistry". Why not just take a blood sample and measure a few things?
Jobs also addressed questions on features that some of Apple's competitors are offering in their MP3 players, like having a radio tuner built-in. While many see adding a radio to an iPod as a useful extra feature, Apple's feedback is less vociferous than the noise generated by the company's critics, Jobs confirmed.
"We don't get a lot of customers asking for it," he said.
Apple's senior vice president of worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller pointed out that iPods now offer radio on demand. "Thanks to podcasting you can listen to radio shows whenever you want to," he said.
Jobs also warned of the challenge of offering extra features just for the sake of it, saying. "We are very careful about what features we add because we can't take them away."
Perhaps a linguist could weigh in on this, but it seems to me that this kind of research is quite contrary to the Chomskian view of linguistics.
Instead of a language module with specialized abilities tuned to learn rule-based grammar, we have an an unsupervised learning system has surmised the grammar of the language merely from the patterns inherent in the data it is given. That a system can do this is evidence against the notion that an innate grammar module in the brain is necessary for language.
I hear you, but on the other hand do we expect these facilities to stay the same forever? I wouldn't really make sense for the technology of information storage and distribution to just end with the building-full-of-books library.
These libraries are part of an evolution - think back to card catalogues, shelves full of scrolls perhaps before that - written language itself is not so old in the scope of human history... is the paper book or journal really the ultimate solution in this evolution?
For scientific research I find the online resources to be a tremendous improvement. If I read a paper and want to find referenced article I can click a link and have it immediately - rather than climbing three floors in the stacks. I can go through a lot more information, sorting and sifting through the relevant items much more effectively online compared with doing it on foot in the library... I still do love the smell of all those books though...
Well, we didn't like Kosmo because they made money, we liked it because they delivered stuff to us, and because they basically sold everything at what it cost them and didn't charge shipping!
When one image is input into each eye, you get a condition known as binocular rivalry. What happens perceptually is that you see one image for a few seconds, and then your perception "flips" to the other image. Kind of like how you can see a necker cube in two ways - the perception flips back and forth between one interpretation and another.
So while the researchers know beforehand that they are giving the subject two images, they don't know at any given moment which one the subject is perceiveing. That's what they have been able to determine using fMRI, and that's why it is called "mind reading."
the studies looked at primary auditory and primary visual cortex, the two cortical areas least likely to be involved in conscious thought. The mind reading, neuroprosthetic spin is just that, spin
Except the point of this study is that during binocular rivalry, both images are input to the brain, but only one is consciously perceived at any given moment. So, using fMRI, they were able to tell which one was currently perceieved (or at least, which one was perceived a few seconds ago).
Also, I don't see how these studies speak to the relationship between the BOLD signal and electrical activity. One study is an fMRI study, the other study is a single cell recording, both with different paradigms. Unless I missed something, the issue you raised isn't really addressed by these studies. Surely there is much to be learned about the source of the fMRI signal, but what a study like this shows is that there is clearly enough information in the signal to at least determine the current perceptual state of the subject.
It's not the first study to do this kind of "mind-reading" of visual cortex either. What's interesting about this is that rather than just determining which stimulus the person is looking at, you can determine which stimulus they are perceiving.
But just to make the point stronger, if you took out their V1 they would certainly lose visual consciousness. If anything, the case of blindsight underscores the importance of V1 in consciousness - visual information reaching higher visual areas through other paths does not have the same conscious feel to it. Not that consciousness is "located" there or anything, but it is still an important part of the whole system...
Well, it's an empirical question whether these things make students more or less shy. it needs to be studied.
It's silly to fear something for a _possible_ negative when it's completely new.
Really? It seems to me that if you are trying to decide whether to introduce a new, untested tool into the classroom you should consider the potential negatives as well as the potential positives.
Actually what I would like to see dramatized in a movie related to science is probably not what they are thinking of. One thing that will probably end up in there is the mystery, the process of discovery, etc..and all that can be compelling. But I think perhaps what is more important in the life of a scientist nowadays is the stuggle between the values of pure discovery and curiosity with the practical pressures of career, money, etc. That's the value axis I would like to see in a movie. The pressures of publication and of obtaining money for grants often press on one's sense of ethics, and most scientists are faced at some point with making the choice of personal sacrifice for the sake of science on one hand, or personal gain on the other. My scientist protagonist would struggle with that choice...
I see. I think you have misunderstood the argument though.
"Much basic science was done because people simply wanted to know." The point here is not really that people have done it in the past and that inherently gives it some value, but rather that it was done in the past and was fruitful. That part was implied. So it's really cited as evidence that this course of action works, not an appeal to do something because it has been done before. In essence I was assuming the common ground of an understanding that basic science has been useful (and that most people think we should continue doing it even if the benefits are not clear), and drawing a parallel between that and a mission to mars.
I'm not sure where you got "we should do things because we have done them in the past" from "we should go because we are compelled by our curiosity." Please explain. I do not think we should do things because we have done them in the past, that is perhaps one of the worst reasons for doing something.
And while some related with Intelligent Design may have decidedly anti-science agendas, "Intelligent Design" is nothing more than a name slapped on a group of ideas some of us have long held: namely, that there must be more than meets the eye in the wonderful complexity and elegance of our universe and life. Will that ever be provable, or ever be science? No.
Then the discussion ends there. That's precisely why it's fit for neither a science class nor a philosophy class. The very basis of both science and philosophy is that the truth can be ascertained by evidence, reasoning, argument, etc. Philosophy is not just the statement of non-provable ideologies, it is the science of argumentation - every premise needs to be supported and properly argued - it needs to survive opposing arguments. Here, Intelligent Design does not get off the ground, for exactly the reason you've stated here, it's a justification for a conviction.
I'm not sure I see the point of even going to Mars in the first place; like Kennedy's moon trip, going to Mars will get us nothing.
We should go because we are compelled to go by our curiosity. We should not limit our ventures to those with easily forseeable rewards; it is much more important to listen to our instincts and follow our hearts. Much basic science was done because people simply wanted to know; the rewards of this often come much later and could not have been predicted originally.
Sure. That's kind of what I was getting at - there are some standard or predictable reactions to this kind of story, and then there are some logical responses to those reactions - thus every time there is a story like this it spawns both of these poles. Over time they seem to be getting more entrenched - as if the valleys of the attractors are getting deeper...They also repel each other but are also symbiotic... getting kind of offtopic now though.
Just wanted to make meta-comment on this kind of thing. It's interesting the cycles these discussions go in. For a while, it's popular to bash microsoft for everything they do (because, well, that needs no explanation), then it becomes popular to defend them (b/c you're being fair and open-minded) and then it swings back....
It's like there are these two attractors in the dynamics of this discussion..
But any specific recipe may be owned. Take cola, for example; I could probably produce a fine tasting cola, but if I want to make Coca-cola, I'm going to have to have access to their super secret formula which describes the precise proportions of ingredients.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder why this is an issue. If someone wants to port its own software on a new platform, who should argue against it?
The company who develops that platform intends to destroy one of the other platforms you sell your sotfware for. That's why it's an issue.
You can get indirect information about neurotransmitter levels by measuring metabolites in the blood and urine.
What seems silly about this to me is that if you want to get into the actual science of attraction, and use physiological measures to find suitable partners, that might be interesting. However, despite the name "chemistry.com" it seems according to TFA that they do not actually measure any chemistry in their clients. They ask you a series of questions, each one supposedly telling about your "brain chemistry". Why not just take a blood sample and measure a few things?
and who chose that venue?
Science is an art...
and art is a science.
Steve Jobs recently addressed this issue:
Jobs also addressed questions on features that some of Apple's competitors are offering in their MP3 players, like having a radio tuner built-in. While many see adding a radio to an iPod as a useful extra feature, Apple's feedback is less vociferous than the noise generated by the company's critics, Jobs confirmed.
"We don't get a lot of customers asking for it," he said.
Apple's senior vice president of worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller pointed out that iPods now offer radio on demand. "Thanks to podcasting you can listen to radio shows whenever you want to," he said.
Jobs also warned of the challenge of offering extra features just for the sake of it, saying. "We are very careful about what features we add because we can't take them away."
What a pompous ass.
I agree his letter was way over the top.
I also think this says quite a lot.
Perhaps a linguist could weigh in on this, but it seems to me that this kind of research is quite contrary to the Chomskian view of linguistics.
Instead of a language module with specialized abilities tuned to learn rule-based grammar, we have an an unsupervised learning system has surmised the grammar of the language merely from the patterns inherent in the data it is given. That a system can do this is evidence against the notion that an innate grammar module in the brain is necessary for language.
Perhaps they are afraid of a mad rush of people clamboring to their wi-fi spots - which are businesses that may or may not be able to handle it.
I hear you, but on the other hand do we expect these facilities to stay the same forever? I wouldn't really make sense for the technology of information storage and distribution to just end with the building-full-of-books library.
.. is the paper book or journal really the ultimate solution in this evolution?
These libraries are part of an evolution - think back to card catalogues, shelves full of scrolls perhaps before that - written language itself is not so old in the scope of human history.
For scientific research I find the online resources to be a tremendous improvement. If I read a paper and want to find referenced article I can click a link and have it immediately - rather than climbing three floors in the stacks. I can go through a lot more information, sorting and sifting through the relevant items much more effectively online compared with doing it on foot in the library... I still do love the smell of all those books though...
I'm sure they are working on a patent that covers the process of applying for a patent.
Well, we didn't like Kosmo because they made money, we liked it because they delivered stuff to us, and because they basically sold everything at what it cost them and didn't charge shipping!
I think you misunderstood how the study works.
When one image is input into each eye, you get a condition known as binocular rivalry. What happens perceptually is that you see one image for a few seconds, and then your perception "flips" to the other image. Kind of like how you can see a necker cube in two ways - the perception flips back and forth between one interpretation and another.
So while the researchers know beforehand that they are giving the subject two images, they don't know at any given moment which one the subject is perceiveing. That's what they have been able to determine using fMRI, and that's why it is called "mind reading."
the studies looked at primary auditory and primary visual cortex, the two cortical areas least likely to be involved in conscious thought. The mind reading, neuroprosthetic spin is just that, spin
Except the point of this study is that during binocular rivalry, both images are input to the brain, but only one is consciously perceived at any given moment. So, using fMRI, they were able to tell which one was currently perceieved (or at least, which one was perceived a few seconds ago).
Also, I don't see how these studies speak to the relationship between the BOLD signal and electrical activity. One study is an fMRI study, the other study is a single cell recording, both with different paradigms. Unless I missed something, the issue you raised isn't really addressed by these studies. Surely there is much to be learned about the source of the fMRI signal, but what a study like this shows is that there is clearly enough information in the signal to at least determine the current perceptual state of the subject.
It's not the first study to do this kind of "mind-reading" of visual cortex either. What's interesting about this is that rather than just determining which stimulus the person is looking at, you can determine which stimulus they are perceiving.
I totally agree with this.
But just to make the point stronger, if you took out their V1 they would certainly lose visual consciousness. If anything, the case of blindsight underscores the importance of V1 in consciousness - visual information reaching higher visual areas through other paths does not have the same conscious feel to it. Not that consciousness is "located" there or anything, but it is still an important part of the whole system...
Well, it's an empirical question whether these things make students more or less shy. it needs to be studied.
It's silly to fear something for a _possible_ negative when it's completely new.
Really? It seems to me that if you are trying to decide whether to introduce a new, untested tool into the classroom you should consider the potential negatives as well as the potential positives.
Actually what I would like to see dramatized in a movie related to science is probably not what they are thinking of. One thing that will probably end up in there is the mystery, the process of discovery, etc..and all that can be compelling. But I think perhaps what is more important in the life of a scientist nowadays is the stuggle between the values of pure discovery and curiosity with the practical pressures of career, money, etc. That's the value axis I would like to see in a movie. The pressures of publication and of obtaining money for grants often press on one's sense of ethics, and most scientists are faced at some point with making the choice of personal sacrifice for the sake of science on one hand, or personal gain on the other. My scientist protagonist would struggle with that choice...
I see. I think you have misunderstood the argument though.
"Much basic science was done because people simply wanted to know." The point here is not really that people have done it in the past and that inherently gives it some value, but rather that it was done in the past and was fruitful. That part was implied. So it's really cited as evidence that this course of action works, not an appeal to do something because it has been done before. In essence I was assuming the common ground of an understanding that basic science has been useful (and that most people think we should continue doing it even if the benefits are not clear), and drawing a parallel between that and a mission to mars.
I'm not sure where you got "we should do things because we have done them in the past" from "we should go because we are compelled by our curiosity." Please explain. I do not think we should do things because we have done them in the past, that is perhaps one of the worst reasons for doing something.
And while some related with Intelligent Design may have decidedly anti-science agendas, "Intelligent Design" is nothing more than a name slapped on a group of ideas some of us have long held: namely, that there must be more than meets the eye in the wonderful complexity and elegance of our universe and life. Will that ever be provable, or ever be science? No.
Then the discussion ends there. That's precisely why it's fit for neither a science class nor a philosophy class. The very basis of both science and philosophy is that the truth can be ascertained by evidence, reasoning, argument, etc. Philosophy is not just the statement of non-provable ideologies, it is the science of argumentation - every premise needs to be supported and properly argued - it needs to survive opposing arguments. Here, Intelligent Design does not get off the ground, for exactly the reason you've stated here, it's a justification for a conviction.
I'm not sure I see the point of even going to Mars in the first place; like Kennedy's moon trip, going to Mars will get us nothing.
We should go because we are compelled to go by our curiosity. We should not limit our ventures to those with easily forseeable rewards; it is much more important to listen to our instincts and follow our hearts. Much basic science was done because people simply wanted to know; the rewards of this often come much later and could not have been predicted originally.
Sure. That's kind of what I was getting at - there are some standard or predictable reactions to this kind of story, and then there are some logical responses to those reactions - thus every time there is a story like this it spawns both of these poles. Over time they seem to be getting more entrenched - as if the valleys of the attractors are getting deeper...They also repel each other but are also symbiotic... getting kind of offtopic now though.
Just wanted to make meta-comment on this kind of thing. It's interesting the cycles these discussions go in. For a while, it's popular to bash microsoft for everything they do (because, well, that needs no explanation), then it becomes popular to defend them (b/c you're being fair and open-minded) and then it swings back....
It's like there are these two attractors in the dynamics of this discussion..
But any specific recipe may be owned. Take cola, for example; I could probably produce a fine tasting cola, but if I want to make Coca-cola, I'm going to have to have access to their super secret formula which describes the precise proportions of ingredients.
I'm a cognitive neuroscientist. I do research on how brain function relates to psychology. :)