Thoughts

[Mills 0]

I think we're getting pretty far away from my main point, which was a logical one about the nature of mental concepts. As a result of your questioning, I provided speculations about the mechanism by which certain activities could lead to different mental states. Those are clearly testable, falsifiable hypotheses. But they are peripheral to the thread. There is nothing I have argued for that I did not provide reasoned arguments for. I'm not asking you to "have faith", I'm not appealing to a self-proclaimed authority... what's the issue here?

I'm just wondering how you would go about falsifing them... there is no issue man. I'm genuinely curious about what you're doing..

[Spademan 94]

basically i'm wondering if this hypothesis is falsifiable... And, as it is still a hypothesis with a long way to go, I am curious, why you are advocating it so strongly.

I'll give an answer for him by addressing him:

That's exactly the point I was trying to make by defending the poetic tactic. There's really no successful way to point outside of language from inside of it. (maybe if you count pairs of opposing chinese pictograms to be language you can get close? )I definitely understand your beef with the quoted part, but its hard for me to read that sentence outside the context of knowing the speaker and how he functions with his words. I am pretty sure you guys are pointing to the same thing with different fingers. Also, fuck you, you're getting soft. This is like the 3rd non-confrontational post I've read from you this week.

I'm pointing with my middle finger, clearly.He is sort of gesturing with his hands in multiple directions. While he's right, he clearly hasn't seen what he his gesturing about, he just knows it is out there.When the "bottom falls out of the bucket" there is a certain thread to all responses, regardless of the function that follows this glimpse. Whether it is one guy's smack to the face, another guy's raising of a finger, another guy's "I don't know either", another guy's "The great way is not difficult, just avoid picking and choosing", another guy's "just this" or another guy's "after I take a shit, I wipe my ass." All of these things flawless follow what proceeded them, all of them are: like coming home, a kick in the face, laugh inducing, perfectly phrased, embarrassing for the speaker and run of the mill all at once. Your friends words, following one another, are like eyes that do not see yet blink at the light. Tell him I told him to shut. the. fuck. up. and go to sleep when he gets tired.

[vbnautilus 48]

When the "bottom falls out of the bucket" there is a certain thread to all responses, regardless of the function that follows this glimpse. Whether it is one guys smack to the face, another guys raising of a finger, another guys "I don't know either", another guys "The great way is not difficult, just avoid picking and choosing", another guys "just this" or another guys "after I take a shit, I wipe my ass." All of these things flawless follow what proceeded them: all of them are like coming home, a kick in the face, laugh inducing, perfectly phrased, embarrassing for the speaker and run of the mill all at once. Your friends words, following one another, are like eyes that do not see yet blink at the light. Tell him I told him to shut. the. fuck. up. and go to sleep when he gets tired.

well that's a little better. but listen, sensei, you can regurgitate all the zen parables you want, but you're not going to hit anyone over the head with a stick over the internet.

[Spademan 94]

well that's a little better. but listen, sensei, you can regurgitate all the zen parables you want, but you're not going to hit anyone over the head with a stick over the internet.

I have noted your bow and withdraw, and smile kindly on you for it.

[vbnautilus 48]

I'm just wondering how you would go about falsifing them... there is no issue man. I'm genuinely curious about what you're doing..

I thought from your line of questioning that you were implying there was some kind of religious-like logic violation hiding underneath what I was saying. Seems like the specifics of the science are kind of beyond the scope of this thread, but if you are really interested I'm happy to talk about some of it. Although its a bit of a fine line of disclosure I'd have to walk for various reasons.

[Mills 0]

I thought from your line of questioning that you were implying there was some kind of religious-like logic violation hiding underneath what I was saying. Seems like the specifics of the science are kind of beyond the scope of this thread, but if you are really interested I'm happy to talk about some of it. Although its a bit of a fine line of disclosure I'd have to walk for various reasons.

Understood, absolutely. I did think there was some sort of faith based stuff here initally, but after learning that you are in fact following the scientific method i'm more intrigued than anything else.Anything you can share would be greatly appriciated.

[vbnautilus 48]

Well, I'll tell you one thing that I am very excited about right now, which is a recently developed way of looking at neuroimaging data. Here's how it works. We use functional MRI to measure brain activity while people look at a series of objects. That gives us a pattern of brain activity across the brain each time they see an object of a given type. Then we use machine learning algorithms to train a computer to tell the difference between the different patterns. For example, the computer will learn that every time I look at a spoon, the brain activity looks a certain way. I don't need to know before hand what that pattern looks like, the algorithm just learns based on the examples I give it. Then, I can give the computer algorithm a pattern of brain activity it hasn't seen before and ask it to guess which object caused it. In a way, its a form of mind-reading.This is cool on its own -- that I can tell what someone was experiencing just from looking at their brain activity -- but if you think about it further, you will see that this really can serve as a test of information content. In other words, lets say I take a small piece of the brain and train the computer on just that piece. If it can successfully learn to distinguish among the objects I saw, using only brain activity within that piece of brain, then I can conclude that that piece of brain contains information about the objects. If that piece of brain contains no reliable information about what I saw, the computer will just be guessing at chance. Having a test of information content is the perfect tool for investigating questions related to conceptual knowledge representation. You can probably imagine how you might use this sort of thing to test where and how the brain stores knowledge.

[Randy Reed 0]

Well, I'll tell you one thing that I am very excited about right now, which is a recently developed way of looking at neuroimaging data. Here's how it works. We use functional MRI to measure brain activity while people look at a series of objects. That gives us a pattern of brain activity across the brain each time they see an object of a given type. Then we use machine learning algorithms to train a computer to tell the difference between the different patterns. For example, the computer will learn that every time I look at a spoon, the brain activity looks a certain way. I don't need to know before hand what that pattern looks like, the algorithm just learns based on the examples I give it. Then, I can give the computer algorithm a pattern of brain activity it hasn't seen before and ask it to guess which object caused it. In a way, its a form of mind-reading.This is cool on its own -- that I can tell what someone was experiencing just from looking at their brain activity -- but if you think about it further, you will see that this really can serve as a test of information content. In other words, lets say I take a small piece of the brain and train the computer on just that piece. If it can successfully learn to distinguish among the objects I saw, using only brain activity within that piece of brain, then I can conclude that that piece of brain contains information about the objects. If that piece of brain contains no reliable information about what I saw, the computer will just be guessing at chance. Having a test of information content is the perfect tool for investigating questions related to conceptual knowledge representation. You can probably imagine how you might use this sort of thing to test where and how the brain stores knowledge.

It is pretty weird stuff. I can hear it now, Mrs. Palumbo you obviously didn't work with Kevin enough on his mesencephelon exercises like we discussed. His vbnauts brain patterns have not modified in the slightest! If you ever want him to memorize the all 16 versions of the bible and complete this summer course he's just going to have to work a little harder!

[Balloon guy 158]

Well, I'll tell you one thing that I am very excited about right now, which is a recently developed way of looking at neuroimaging data. Here's how it works. We use functional MRI to measure brain activity while people look at a series of objects. That gives us a pattern of brain activity across the brain each time they see an object of a given type. Then we use machine learning algorithms to train a computer to tell the difference between the different patterns. For example, the computer will learn that every time I look at a spoon, the brain activity looks a certain way. I don't need to know before hand what that pattern looks like, the algorithm just learns based on the examples I give it. Then, I can give the computer algorithm a pattern of brain activity it hasn't seen before and ask it to guess which object caused it. In a way, its a form of mind-reading.This is cool on its own -- that I can tell what someone was experiencing just from looking at their brain activity -- but if you think about it further, you will see that this really can serve as a test of information content. In other words, lets say I take a small piece of the brain and train the computer on just that piece. If it can successfully learn to distinguish among the objects I saw, using only brain activity within that piece of brain, then I can conclude that that piece of brain contains information about the objects. If that piece of brain contains no reliable information about what I saw, the computer will just be guessing at chance. Having a test of information content is the perfect tool for investigating questions related to conceptual knowledge representation. You can probably imagine how you might use this sort of thing to test where and how the brain stores knowledge.

So you are going to be able to know if a brain under an MRI is looking at a spoon and you are excited?We need to up your expectation level for life...

[Batman 0]

You lost me here, when you couldn't spell tales correctly, and believe in the million years of evolution.

Importantly, we can't simply discard religion because it's filled with 'fairy-tails'. Humans need help facing the powerful forces embedded in us through millions of years of evolution. These forces are like an arsenal of loaded guns hidden in our genes and without a great deal of concerted effort these loaded guns go-off hurting others and/or ourselves (see Tiger's Wood).

[vbnautilus 48]

You lost me here, when you couldn't spell tales correctly, and believe in the million years of evolution.

He lost you because he believes in evolution?

[Spademan 94]

You lost me here, when you couldn't spell tales correctly, and believe in the million years of evolution.

Holy shit.In like, 5 years, you've posted 14 times.Since they were so few I read them all.You are the most staggeringly inane, boring, introverted internet persona of all time.I think I slipped into a mild sleep-like coma for a few minutes around post 6.Jesus.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I'm not sure where this should go, but here for starters.