|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Neuro stuff! - pro'ly too vague to actually generate an answer. heh||5||17:59, 23 May 2012|
|gaydar||4||22:23, 17 May 2012|
|amusing revisionist academics||1||22:24, 16 May 2012|
|Memetic mutation||1||17:30, 16 May 2012|
|Attachment Parenting||4||11:57, 13 May 2012|
|Pareidolia and mental illness||4||17:25, 8 May 2012|
|Joshua Rosenau||1||07:19, 7 May 2012|
|Sex with swampman||1||23:12, 27 April 2012|
|Is it just me...||2||09:32, 18 April 2012|
|CONGRATULATIONS||2||16:24, 16 April 2012|
|another repubs are stupid study||10||04:53, 16 April 2012|
|Memes part 7 trillion and Pi||2||08:53, 11 April 2012|
|"RationalWiki is a Front for Socialist Indoctrination"||2||20:16, 8 April 2012|
|Quote mine||1||15:36, 4 April 2012|
|Freud in France||2||14:53, 3 April 2012|
|Theory of mind - on the computer. a bit funny (or not)||24||04:57, 3 April 2012|
|Fishery management||4||03:18, 29 March 2012|
|A true free market?||15||21:06, 26 March 2012|
|This project||2||05:33, 26 March 2012|
|''The Rational Optimist''||2||10:43, 24 March 2012|
My husband gave me a link to an article on the Amazon language (Pirahã) that supposedly disproves all of Chomsky, but only one person has ever learned it, and he's the one who's making the claims and being famous... It amuses me that the ONLY LANGUAGE EVER FOUND IN ALL THE EARTH THAT DOES NOT HAVE RECURRIONS!!!! is a language there is only one expert in, and anyone else who has tried to learn it, has been rebuked by the elders as not being "serious enough" students. heh. anyhow...... That led me to read more about recursion and there was a wiki article that suggests that "neurobiology is proving recursion". What things in "neurobiology" would be able to prove or disprove something like how we form sentances? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion#Recursion_in_language is what I'm looking at, near the bottom of the paragraph. "Indirect proof that Everett's ideas are wrong comes from works in neurolinguistics where it appears that all human beings are endowed with the very same neurobiological structures to manage with all and only recursive languages. For a review, see Kaan et al. (2002)"
I just don't know enough about neurolinguistics and neurobiology to know what could be proving a theory like this, one way or the other.
That doesn't sound right. I don't see how you could locate recursion "in" the brain. Michael Corvallis claims that recursion is made possible by an expansion of working memory capacity. That makes sense to me. (BTW, why do we always have to have these "silver bullet" theories of "what makes us human"?) The massive human frontal lobe also helps us to engage in metacognition, thinking about thinking. So a whole range of regions in the brain would be involved in recursive thinking.
Cause we need badly, to be different (read:better) than every other animal out there. God mad us special, in his image. Oh, no god? Well fuck, what makes us special then?
Recursion is something about UG that I can't quite get my head around. In some contexts, it seems to imply simply the layering of sentences "The boy is blue", "The chair is green". "the boy sat on a chair". "the chair was sold wednesday" into THe blue boy sat in the green chair which was sold on wednesday". that some language does NOT possess this level of recursion is stupid. It would imply that the humans are limited to only one set of words in one very particular word order, and unable to expand on those ideas. I'm so damned dubious of that claim...
The other way I see recursion presented is a logical set of words or letters that form patterns into sentences. Well, if that is true, then all languages are recursive by the very idea that language is a set of words. Ironically, UG was just something we had started to really really look at, so it's still newish to me.
It obviously wouldn't imply that they're limited -- it would imply that by some strange historical accident, they never made use of this recursive capacity.
Yes, cept that recursive language is what let's us say something, differently, interestingly, and about some specific thing and not some other thing.
Bah, I dont' know. maybe I am just getting too cynical for my age, but damn these things leave me saying "yeah, right" far more often than not.
Would you read this and give me your gut reaction? huffpo on gaydar Here's mine 1) you know they only had straight/gay (you just KNOW they did), which is a 50/50 choice. so woudln't "correct guesses" be about 50% even if they were flipping a coin? 2) I suspect, (though again, don't know from the article) that these gay and straights are "out" that way. The act of being out, likely means you participate in some level of the social world that is "The Gay". affectations are learned. 3) If this is true, then we can just go ahead and "out" Wolverine and Tom cruise and be done with it!
Another one of these silly gaydar studies? I've seen a couple of them before and they usually report something like 4-10% above chance. This one isn't much better. (#1 is right, they usually just give you two buttons for gay and straight.) File this next to all those parapsychology/ESP studies. The cult of the p-value lives on!
They claim it's 7% higher than "guessing". Of course, there were roughly 1/2 gays and 1/2 straights in the pile of photos. I asked "where is the rigged deck, with 10 gays and 90 straights" or the other way around. I suspect that then, you'd see very different error rates. ;-)
So I'm watching this "documentary" on Gobekli Tepe, and the scientists interviewed are all somewhat rational, respected folk. Its' how the stuff is put together to sell the idea that Abraham comes from Ab Ra Him, and Brahma all the same roots, don't you know... ANNNYYYHOOOO, one scene, they are "interviewing" Prof Mehmet Ozdogan, from Turkey, i guess, and they leave him speaking - UNTRANSLATED. then say "well said, Profesor, but might we add...." ummmmmmm what the fuck?? :-) I'll do this article soon. :-)
Oh.My.God. on my list of things I'd never really looked into, but "guessed" they were bunk, i had AP. Now that i've read about it, frome their own damn website, for that matter... WHAT FUCKING BUNK. No wonder feminists talk about it being an impossible measure of motherhood and women doomed to failure. It's an entire world where nothing but baby and child come first, and you and anything else you could want or need come well down the line. "do not let baby cry if at all possible. be mindful of him, so you notice his distress at is begins, before it culminates into actual distress". "do not let the child have prolonged crying, for it alters the chemistry of the brain and can cause future mental issues". "let the child decide to stop breast feeding (they mean age, not in the moment), removing food is removing love and is confusing for the child." "let the child decide when he or she wants their own room". and on and on.
Parenting "advice" is one of those genres of bullshit that's self-perpetuating because it's the kind of thing most people have to do but is in practice extremely difficult to study scientifically. Typically, you just run a shitload of tests on a shitload of data until you get a spurious correlation, which you are guaranteed to get doing this sort of thing, then you've got your p<0.05 and you're ready to publish!
Surely, if you've survived long enough to have children and care about their upbringing enough to look for advice on how to do it properly, you've turned out fine. So therefore just copy what your own parents did and let natural selection figure out the best method.
Is there a mental illness/disorder associated with heightened tendency towards pareidolia or strange interpretations of pareidolia? I'm asking because of cases like Andrew Basiago, this guy and his "sick people on Phobos" and videos like this one. Compared to these, believing that the Face on Mars is artificial looks sane. (Basiago was able to see "two hooded figures abducting a human female" in this. He may need to get laid.)
Usually schizophrenia, but people can find anything they want if they look (and squint) hard enough.
“”It sounds to me as if you want someone to explain things to you.
I'm sorry to say, I'm not in the business of spoon-feeding.
I love this guy, where can I get one?
Question: What does, "formerly a doctoral candidate" mean? Does that mean, "flunked out"? Thanks.
Let's face it, what good is answering "who you are" if you can't fuck it afterwards?
This absolutely arbitrary milestone that has no special meaning beyond being an unusually large and round number must make you very proud! You must be happy! Be oh so happy because you made the millionth edit! It is a very good thing and it will be with you forever. You are so lucky and must cherish it. CHERISH IT FOREVER AND KEEP IT CLOSE TO YOU AND IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT WHEN THERE IS NO NOISE AND YOU WONDER IF YOU WILL EVER BREATHE AGAIN THEN YOU CAN RELAX AS YOUR HEART FAILS BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU MADE THE MILLIONTH EDIT OH MY GOD I SEE THE DARK I SEE IT I SEE IT
A second one. they are not just stupid, but apparently lazy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/07/conservative-politics-low-effort-thinking_n_1410448.html?ref=mostpopular
It does say that "Our research shows that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism, not that political conservatives use low-effort thinking." Which makes a little more sense.
Peter has it right. This was also a series of multiple studies. Those things make me more inclined to take this seriously than yet another "Look, we found a minute correlation between IQ scores and political ideology!" study. If correct, this would also go a long way in explaining the number of liberal melt-down cases re: 9/11.
Since the chaos has died down, I can now send you this crit if you haven't yet seen it. Mentions your scientific mysticism essay as "awful" if you're interested. It might help either clarify it or improve it. Although I don't hold up much hope of that.
Must be citing an older revision of the meme article. Apparently, he missed the "This is an essay" header at the top of my essay page. He is right that memetics doesn't ignore gene-culture co-evolution, though, I worded that poorly. It ignores the fact that research in gene-culture co-evolution has gotten on perfectly fine by itself with no need from memetics, which has desperately tried to ride its coattails in hopes of gaining some legitimacy. The favorable reference to Kurzweil is icing on the cake.
Which article do you claim was quote mined and in which way?
So we've talked before about "uploading your brain", as if the brain itself is "where" you reside.
I own a laptop that i use for work and pleasure. when I'm working, i'm down here (as now) on a 19 inch screen. when i'm having fun, i'm on the laptop itself. But in my mind, without thinking about it, they are *different* computers, cause i think of the monitor as the computer some how.
So I was looking at some, um... well... "risque" stuff and said to myself. "oh, it's ok, that was upstairs on the other computer". All because we are as accustomed to thinking about the monitor as "the" computer as we are to thinking about the brain as "the" self.
I just find it funny that my first instinct is always that i'm using different puters.
"All because we are as accustomed to thinking about the monitor as "the" computer as we are to thinking about the brain as "the" self." Speak for yourself -- can't say I was ever accustomed to thinking that way. All right, now off to create a computerized facsimile of my mind before the Singularity!
My other/better half did work in an office where IT would come into the main floor and say "sorry everyone, we've had a server crash so you'll all have to restart your computers" and half the office just pressed the button on the monitor.
But I think we seem to think of "us" as being a minute speck inside the brain. Not a homunculous, exactly, but not distributed. Hence why it's easy to talk of "my visual cortex is telling me" and "my pre-frontal lobe is saying..." and so on. When really, these are you, and if you really want to push a more distributed idea of you, then your nervous system is, your senses are. I mean, you stab yourself in the arm, you feel pain in your arm right? Even thought that's juts an illusion and it's all your brain telling you (see how easy it is to do this?) that it's in your arm. Or is it? As nerves do actually connect there and it's all physically wired up...
This way, madness lies.
Though... this has bugged me recently about mind uploading. How, exactly, do the expect to scan the brain thoroughly enough to do this? In Caprica they get around it by reconstructing people's personalities and memories basically from their presence on the internet and download that into a conscious entity, but do people expect magic to do this? We're talking about a highly detailed and highly dynamic system here - which is why I doubt cryonics will ever work, you can keep some of the information, but you completely lose that dynamic aspect by freezing people. Now, I don't doubt that we'll have the computational power to simulate enough neurons to theoretically make the piece of digital meat needed, but uploading someone else into it? Do people honestly think CT and MRI are going to be able to do that? I suppose that's the magic step, and I'm not talking Clarke's Third Law magic, either.
This type of stuff fucks up my mind when I try to think about it for too long. I guess that we just won't know until we advance far enough to know.
That's what Dennett called the Cartesian theater. And mind uploading (whatever that means) is definitely not going to be done with fMRI or CT -- what we need is a form of single neuron imaging (SNI) that doesn't damage the brain in the process of scanning it.
I was goign to say what Nebby said - but without the knowledge base. You would have to understand each and every neuron AND each chemical process in place to "upload" a brain. WE don't know what memories are, where they are, how they are made, how they are retrieved, why they get lost, if they are "really lost" or just "touch point access lost". The amount of information we would have to "decode" to actually make ADK feel anything like ADK when we "turned him on" is unbelievably complex.
And, i'm still dubious that you could upload your brain onto a robot and think "i am still me", cause it would FEEL wrong. On the other hand, I bump my fat butt into things, cause i "fell" like i did 50 lbs ago.
perception is a strange critter...
In a lecture right now and oh is it depressing. The Prof has taken time out to debunk the "Cornucopian view".
Prof's not a hard green, are they? The Cornucopian view is fairly easy to debunk because it usually involves denialism or severe minimization of some sort.
Nah, a few people in the class are though. But he apparently had been accosted by someone who claimed we could feed the world through fishing and thus overpopulation isn't a problem.
Whether such a thing is desirable or not because of many reasons, is it even possible to dispense with government and just have everything bartered privately? Obviously, the fact is that we'd still need the same things; water, power, transport infrastructure and so on. The difference is that we just wouldn't pay for it in tax (the money would churn through the economy one way or another, it's not like the government takes your cash and burns it). And of course, competition would drive down costs - although in practice this would mean choosing a water supplier that gave best value for money but with the lowest level of AIDS floating around in the product.
All you need to do is drill your own well and have your own power generator. I know some people (cough immediate family cough) who have done/are doing it.
Sounds like a nice operation they got there. Would be terrible if something should, you know, happen to it. Fortunately, I offer a free market "security" service.
Somalia is an example of warlordism, not anarchy. A powerful warlord coerces others and declares the territory under his influence as a quasi-state with the warlord himself being a quasi-king. Anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, is based on the non-aggression axiom.
(Sorry to butt in, Neb)
Is there an example of anarchy that is not specially disqualified from being evidence against that particular system?
Depends on how you define "government." Somalia is stateless, but not "true" anarchy. However, there is similarly a big problem with describing anarcho-capitalism as anarchy. If you want, you can go back to pre-historic hunter-gatherer groups, but they weren't very capitalistic, plus they lived in (obviously) massively different cultural circumstances and a significantly different biosphere with much lower population levels.
Watching this documentary by Jeremy Paxman on the British Empire makes me think that the Empire was almost founded on this. If you look at how powerful the East India Company was, and then how most of Africa was just a bunch of people acting like lunatics and then letting others sort out the mess they left behind them. And all in the name of Victorian ideals of free and open trade.
I thought that collaboration is one of features of this and many more wiki project. But You undo my contributions only because spelling!? Isn't easier for to correct spelling and grammar?
I should have said "Make this into a coherent thought," because as it stood, it was also factually incorrect as I pointed out with the bit about the Protocols.