Either the guy is a liar, or he has some mental problems.
Or he's just human like everyone else and is falling prey to the same psychological and cognitive shortcomings inherent in everybody which have fostered superstition and self delusion since the dawn of mankind. Cut him a break - he's confused and in pain. Pointing fingers and calling him names does nothing to rectify the situation, and misrepresents what the problem actually is.
Neuroscience is the field that is considered as the more scientifically rigorous counterpart to psychology. This is the science being used to duplicate the brain. The limitations of our current understandings that you are talking about are not limitations of science itself, just a limitation of our current level of understanding. There is no inherent limitation to the scientific process that bars it from being used to further our understanding in these areas. The recent creation of a new fundamental circuit component the "memristor" has opened up new possibilities in synthetic brain-like circuitry, which bodes well for more brain-like computer technology.
Simply because something is vastly complex does not mean it will never be possible to understand it in any useful way. Unless there is some specific reason that the brain is permanently impossible to understand, asserting that claim is an "argument from personal incredulity".
I watched Clue on TV again the other day for the first time since I was kid, expecting it not to live up to my memory. I'm delighted to says it was a genuinely worthy piece of comedy. Superb performances from a brilliantly selected cast, reminiscent of the Marx Brothers and other "classic" comedy. I don't think it deserves to be described as bad in any way. A lot of the comic conceits were potentially corny or cliched but the execution rendered them genuinely funny.
I think your displeasure should be directed at the media source, not "scientists". The fact that it says "Some scientists", without any indication whatsoever of who these scientists are is a massive red flag about whether or not any scientists actually did claim this, and if they did, whether it was 2 scientists vs 1000 scientists.
He was denigrating a notion, not a group of people. The fact that there exist some people who take criticism of their worldview as a personal attack is a matter for those particular people to come to terms with.
we should at least acknowledge and attempt to understand the risks, not just implement untested technology for the sake of "doing something, anything".
That's why you're arguing against a straw man. The GP never suggested we should just put a machine together and assume it works safely with no testing whatsoever, as if we can't think of anything better to do. The suggestion that anyone is arguing for such a plan is self evidently absurd.
Also, Testing and implementation are an iterative process. You can't test something without attempting to implement it first. You can't demand exhaustive testing and at the same time forbid implementation. Presumably by implementation you mean the final deployment. Do you really believe that anyone would advocate deploying something this critical without first investigating all serious apparent risks?
It's a bit of a stretch to get to that from a simple rebuttal of a specific claim that is well-established to be a myth.
"What could possibly go wrong?" is not a valid argument, in my view.
That wasn't the argument he was making. He was merely refuting one specific misconception.
Ah, because we all know that an untested new technology that appears safe in theory must be safe in practice
Another straw man. A untested technology that appears safe in theory, is worth implementing so that it can be tested in practice. The opposite knee-jerk straw man to yours is that humanity should never attempt anything in case there is some unforeseen downside.
Listening to all those podcasts and recommending them to all my friends has brought an interest in science out from purely occuring inside my own head into being a regular dialogue with people I know. It also makes you feel like the human race is actually going somewhere, instead of the general impression you get from the mainstream media that we are perpetually circling a gory hate-filled drain.
And, of course my original inspiration that started me listening to all these podcasts, Micheal Shermer, whose book "Why People Believe Weird Things" should be given to every 13 year old as part of their school education.
If I had 500 quid to get to Las Vegas I would love to have gone to this. Defniately doing it next year.
I wasn't trying to sell anything as the indisputable truth, since the scientific method deals solely in the disputable. The scientific consensus, no matter how well supported is always open to dispute and scrutiny.
What if I don't think either of those statements are true? How does that undermine my claim?
scientists may be bought. science cannot. if you falsify results for money, anyone reproducing the experiment will demonstrate your flawed conclusions.
i don't think they snagged it from me, but i've never noticed that before - i seem to remember getting the idea from a forum thread where someone was trying to figure out the unit conversions manually to see what the result was so i just went on google and typed it in.
Slashdot Mirror
i don't know what the newtons are applied to - it's just what you get if you type that into google. it gets people scratching their heads though :)
You're ignoring the tone and context of the GP's post in order to rail against what you've perceived as a pretentious tone in my post.
I'm sure both approaches have valid benefits, and both approaches will be tried, even if not by this particular research group.
no time for the old in-out, love... i'm just here to read the meter
wow, a troll replying to himself. how cheap.
Either the guy is a liar, or he has some mental problems.
Or he's just human like everyone else and is falling prey to the same psychological and cognitive shortcomings inherent in everybody which have fostered superstition and self delusion since the dawn of mankind. Cut him a break - he's confused and in pain. Pointing fingers and calling him names does nothing to rectify the situation, and misrepresents what the problem actually is.
Neuroscience is the field that is considered as the more scientifically rigorous counterpart to psychology. This is the science being used to duplicate the brain. The limitations of our current understandings that you are talking about are not limitations of science itself, just a limitation of our current level of understanding. There is no inherent limitation to the scientific process that bars it from being used to further our understanding in these areas. The recent creation of a new fundamental circuit component the "memristor" has opened up new possibilities in synthetic brain-like circuitry, which bodes well for more brain-like computer technology.
Simply because something is vastly complex does not mean it will never be possible to understand it in any useful way. Unless there is some specific reason that the brain is permanently impossible to understand, asserting that claim is an "argument from personal incredulity".
I watched Clue on TV again the other day for the first time since I was kid, expecting it not to live up to my memory. I'm delighted to says it was a genuinely worthy piece of comedy. Superb performances from a brilliantly selected cast, reminiscent of the Marx Brothers and other "classic" comedy. I don't think it deserves to be described as bad in any way. A lot of the comic conceits were potentially corny or cliched but the execution rendered them genuinely funny.
I think your displeasure should be directed at the media source, not "scientists". The fact that it says "Some scientists", without any indication whatsoever of who these scientists are is a massive red flag about whether or not any scientists actually did claim this, and if they did, whether it was 2 scientists vs 1000 scientists.
He was denigrating a notion, not a group of people. The fact that there exist some people who take criticism of their worldview as a personal attack is a matter for those particular people to come to terms with.
hey! some of us actually are comic book store guys.
Being snippy for no reason is rather bad form
you must be really new here.
we should at least acknowledge and attempt to understand the risks, not just implement untested technology for the sake of "doing something, anything".
That's why you're arguing against a straw man. The GP never suggested we should just put a machine together and assume it works safely with no testing whatsoever, as if we can't think of anything better to do. The suggestion that anyone is arguing for such a plan is self evidently absurd.
Also, Testing and implementation are an iterative process. You can't test something without attempting to implement it first. You can't demand exhaustive testing and at the same time forbid implementation. Presumably by implementation you mean the final deployment. Do you really believe that anyone would advocate deploying something this critical without first investigating all serious apparent risks?
It's a bit of a stretch to get to that from a simple rebuttal of a specific claim that is well-established to be a myth.
yeah sorry - i mean a bug introduced by running the windows binary on wine.
"What could possibly go wrong?" is not a valid argument, in my view.
That wasn't the argument he was making. He was merely refuting one specific misconception.
Ah, because we all know that an untested new technology that appears safe in theory must be safe in practice
Another straw man. A untested technology that appears safe in theory, is worth implementing so that it can be tested in practice. The opposite knee-jerk straw man to yours is that humanity should never attempt anything in case there is some unforeseen downside.
mine stopped playing adverts too - i heard that it's a bug in the linux client
have you never met an intelligent idiot?
My current science heroes are all grass-roots enthusiasts like Brian Dunning, Phil Plait, Pamela Gay & Fraser Cain, The Skeptical Rogues, Derek & Swoopy and the like.
Listening to all those podcasts and recommending them to all my friends has brought an interest in science out from purely occuring inside my own head into being a regular dialogue with people I know. It also makes you feel like the human race is actually going somewhere, instead of the general impression you get from the mainstream media that we are perpetually circling a gory hate-filled drain.
And, of course my original inspiration that started me listening to all these podcasts, Micheal Shermer, whose book "Why People Believe Weird Things" should be given to every 13 year old as part of their school education.
If I had 500 quid to get to Las Vegas I would love to have gone to this. Defniately doing it next year.
Yeah, Transformers 2 definitely won't be nice.
I wasn't trying to sell anything as the indisputable truth, since the scientific method deals solely in the disputable. The scientific consensus, no matter how well supported is always open to dispute and scrutiny.
What if I don't think either of those statements are true? How does that undermine my claim?
scientists may be bought. science cannot. if you falsify results for money, anyone reproducing the experiment will demonstrate your flawed conclusions.
i think a 2 second latency feedback loop would be rather entertaining - jason and his amazing psychedelic flak jacket
i don't think they snagged it from me, but i've never noticed that before - i seem to remember getting the idea from a forum thread where someone was trying to figure out the unit conversions manually to see what the result was so i just went on google and typed it in.
Hail he who hath fallen from the sky, to deliver us from the terror of the FUDites!
it's where i got my sig