petrossa Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 According to to Jack Gallant he's well on the way to be able to tell what was the last sequence of images someone has seen by scanning the brain. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2042...ml?full=true#at I hope this will not be available to the general public any time soon, divorce will be inevitable?;)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Wow.....kinda scary, this could be abused in so many ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewind. Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 And I thought Fringe was complete BS. :p But seriously, science is only scary when it is used for evil purposes. The goal of science is and should be to advance our understanding and better humankind. Cliche I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aludanyi Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Two things: Danger Potential (of the new) vs. Response Capability (of our society). Nothing is good or bad (there is no such thing) :) the only question is: Can we response to the dangerous application of available resources (and science and technology are resources too). The answer is: sometimes and/or someplace we can, sometimes and/or someplace (at least for a temporary period of time) we can't. But that isn't a reason to stop it is actually a very good reason to move forward even faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrossa Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share Posted November 1, 2009 Going by past record of application of scientific discoveries we're in for a whole lot of uninvited governmental thought intrusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabron Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 What we need is to develop a time machine, so we can travel to the past! That could be a hit as a machine for sale!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewind. Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Two things:Danger Potential (of the new) vs. Response Capability (of our society). Nothing is good or bad (there is no such thing) :) the only question is: Can we response to the dangerous application of available resources (and science and technology are resources too). The answer is: sometimes and/or someplace we can, sometimes and/or someplace (at least for a temporary period of time) we can't. But that isn't a reason to stop it is actually a very good reason to move forward even faster. Why would we avoid something dangerous if it's not analogous to something bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrossa Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share Posted November 1, 2009 What we need is to develop a time machine, so we can travel to the past! That could be a hit as a machine for sale!!! Brrrr. Who'd want that? Revisit the time you were stood up, or traveling back right into the mouth of a wandering Tyrannosaurus Rex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrossa Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share Posted November 1, 2009 First customer found: 1,600 are suggested daily for FBI's list Number of names on terrorist watch list at 400,000, agency says SOURCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splur Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 And I thought Fringe was complete BS. :p But seriously, science is only scary when it is used for evil purposes. The goal of science is and should be to advance our understanding and better humankind. Cliche I know. More like, get funding for research. That's pretty cool though, they've already developed fMRI lie detection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aludanyi Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Why would we avoid something dangerous if it's not analogous to something bad? Good and bad are just human concepts, and not very stable ones and most of the times very relative... there is no such thing as bad and good in nature. We can't avoid something dangerous, we deal with it or it will deal with us... many times, we send someone else to deal with dangerous things so that we can "avoid" it... in reality society can't avoid anything, just some parts of it can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrossa Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share Posted November 1, 2009 Good and bad are just human concepts, and not very stable ones and most of the times very relative... there is no such thing as bad and good in nature. We can't avoid something dangerous, we deal with it or it will deal with us... many times, we send someone else to deal with dangerous things so that we can "avoid" it... in reality society can't avoid anything, just some parts of it can. (Y) ?Especially the last part i subscribe too, never could understand why anyone would want to be a police officer or soldier but sure glad it's them and not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewind. Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Good and bad are just human concepts, and not very stable ones and most of the times very relative... there is no such thing as bad and good in nature. We can't avoid something dangerous, we deal with it or it will deal with us... many times, we send someone else to deal with dangerous things so that we can "avoid" it... in reality society can't avoid anything, just some parts of it can. While I see where you're coming from, just saying they are human concepts does not negate their existence. Many things are human concepts but we still accept them as 'real' (because what is real to us is our reality). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeta_immersion Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Awesome ... i have been waiting for this for soooooo long and finally they are making progress .... i wish one day this could be in our bedrooms so we can record our dreams ... this is fantastic .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aludanyi Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 While I see where you're coming from, just saying they are human concepts does not negate their existence. Many things are human concepts but we still accept them as 'real' (because what is real to us is our reality). Sure, Mickey Mouse is real too :) - and I really mean it - but that wasn't the point... the point is that people tend to believe that bad and good are absolute fixed points out there, that just like the laws of physics is something we must accept... the truth is that life in society is impossible without accepting something as good and bad that it is impossible to live in society if we don't accept concepts as "real" things; rules, laws, rights and many others are perfect examples of that. Still, that doesn't mean that we should or shouldn't do something because it can be dangerous. We must always try to measure what potential gain (we can call that "good") can we achieve by pursuing something dangerous and what potential loss we can suffer (call that "bad") before we decide for a go or no go. For example many things are dangerous, fire are dangerous but we deal with it and use it for different purposes (to our benefit) throughout history, using fossil fuel is dangerous... but we gained so much from it in the first place that we actually have so much affluence around that we starting to fear we can lose all that because the danger of using fossil fuel in the future (global warming, etc.). Nuclear energy is also dangerous but... our "response capability" was so far good enough to minimize the negative effects. The whole digital revolution and information age is also dangerous (the financial collapse we suffered is mostly the result of the inadequacy of the "industrial age" (1950 or so) financial system for the current global ultra fast extremely responsive wire enabled information age economy. This time the response capability wasn't enough to stop the realisation of that danger potential and this is why we suffer great pain in the economy. But that still doesn't mean we must stop because something is dangerous because something may be bad for us... we must find a way to minimize that danger, find a way to move forward, find a way to take responsibility for our actions while we do what we believe and what we know (based on scientific facts) that will be positive for us. Anyway I didn't negate their existence I just negate their existence in the domain of nature, but telling you that "are just human concepts" I actually confirmed their existence in the domain of human reasoning and the domain of human social life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Natan Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Can't wait to get my hands on one of these! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewind. Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Sure, Mickey Mouse is real too :) - and I really mean it - but that wasn't the point... the point is that people tend to believe that bad and good are absolute fixed points out there, that just like the laws of physics is something we must accept... the truth is that life in society is impossible without accepting something as good and bad that it is impossible to live in society if we don't accept concepts as "real" things; rules, laws, rights and many others are perfect examples of that. Still, that doesn't mean that we should or shouldn't do something because it can be dangerous. We must always try to measure what potential gain (we can call that "good") can we achieve by pursuing something dangerous and what potential loss we can suffer (call that "bad") before we decide for a go or no go. For example many things are dangerous, fire are dangerous but we deal with it and use it for different purposes (to our benefit) throughout history, using fossil fuel is dangerous... but we gained so much from it in the first place that we actually have so much affluence around that we starting to fear we can lose all that because the danger of using fossil fuel in the future (global warming, etc.). Nuclear energy is also dangerous but... our "response capability" was so far good enough to minimize the negative effects. The whole digital revolution and information age is also dangerous (the financial collapse we suffered is mostly the result of the inadequacy of the "industrial age" (1950 or so) financial system for the current global ultra fast extremely responsive wire enabled information age economy. This time the response capability wasn't enough to stop the realisation of that danger potential and this is why we suffer great pain in the economy. But that still doesn't mean we must stop because something is dangerous because something may be bad for us... we must find a way to minimize that danger, find a way to move forward, find a way to take responsibility for our actions while we do what we believe and what we know (based on scientific facts) that will be positive for us. Anyway I didn't negate their existence I just negate their existence in the domain of nature, but telling you that "are just human concepts" I actually confirmed their existence in the domain of human reasoning and the domain of human social life. Thanks, that was a good read and I think you've convinced me (at least for now :p ). I would be interested in hearing what you think about philosophers such as Berkeley, who concluded that since everything is in our minds, there are no material objects (outside our mind), and thus laws of physics (as you say we must accept) while perhaps useful to us are not in a sense 'real' at all. Way off topic I know and since Berkeley is mostly laughed at I wouldn't be surprised if you have no comment on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrossa Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share Posted November 1, 2009 Thanks, that was a good read and I think you've convinced me (at least for now :p ). I would be interested in hearing what you think about philosophers such as Berkeley, who concluded that since everything is in our minds, there are no material objects (outside our mind), and thus laws of physics (as you say we must accept) while perhaps useful to us are not in a sense 'real' at all. Way off topic I know and since Berkeley is mostly laughed at I wouldn't be surprised if you have no comment on that. You didn't ask but still: There was once a mammal. It needed a lot of little bits of operating systems in order to let all components of its body function properly. Over time they became so numerous that it needed a system to coordinate the other bits . That system became so complex that it was capable to reprogram itself in order to be able to assimilate the ever increasing flow of information. It called itself: conscience.? Objectively impossible to determine if it exists, since conscience itself determines what are the criteria defining conscience.? That conscience, in an attempt to preprogram future acts of the body, starts tell a tale to itself. A continuous flowchart enabling it by correlating previous events and by means of extrapolation to arrive at a predefined future action. The conscience calls that tale: reality. Again objectively impossible to determine if it exists, the conscience stipulates what is reality.? SOURCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aludanyi Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Thanks, that was a good read and I think you've convinced me (at least for now :p ). I would be interested in hearing what you think about philosophers such as Berkeley, who concluded that since everything is in our minds, there are no material objects (outside our mind), and thus laws of physics (as you say we must accept) while perhaps useful to us are not in a sense 'real' at all. Way off topic I know and since Berkeley is mostly laughed at I wouldn't be surprised if you have no comment on that. Tricky terrain :) I don't agree with Berkeley, I don't think that there are no material objects outside our mind, but I do think that we as human beings are capable to observe, experience and understand the Universe only from a point of view of a human being. So I reject that for example planet Earth has any value without the existence of humans, at least as value is also just a human concept we simply can't say that the planet Earth will heal that it will "live" and thrive after we humans become extinct. First without at least one living human being the whole concept is dead, and the planet Earth without a human being is so valuable (to a non-existing human being) as the probable millions of other planets far away. We don't care is a planet XYZ at some 100 million light years suffering global warming and mass extinction event, and we don't care if that same place has the greatest paradise nature with thriving life on it. We simply don't care because it isn't in our domain. Now if we put something in our domain then we start (at least some of us) to care... the thing became real for us, real in our domain. Of course it was real even before we put it in our domain even before we started to care about it, but from our human point of view it wasn't. So in general we observe, experience and understand things as abstractions, so does these objects exist as we see them or not is outside of humans cognitive capability, I would say we can't know and never will. Of course there are things we experience the same way regardless to our knowledge and experience... like when a bear attacks us for example or when an earthquake hits us (and there are "real" stuff) and there are things we experience differently (or some of us not at all) regarding to our previous believes, knowledge and experience... like for example, thinking about the rights in the constitution, like understanding the difference between positive and negative rights, like going to the church, etc. On the other hand, we live in the domain of nature but in the sub-domain of human reasoning (on which society is based), so we are not a part of nature anymore (at least not in a same way as other living beings or material objects) but we are dependable on nature (and we will probably stay dependable forever). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aludanyi Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 http://hplusmagazine.com/digitaledition/2009-summer/ page 58-59 (It's a Big Mistake to Overlook Mid-Range DANGERS) is an interesting short article about the Danger Potential/Response Capacity, I am talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹ Posted November 1, 2009 Subscriber¹ Share Posted November 1, 2009 Going by past record of application of scientific discoveries we're in for a whole lot of uninvited governmental thought intrusion. because fMRI machines are SO discrete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrossa Posted November 2, 2009 Author Share Posted November 2, 2009 because fMRI machines are SO discrete. Hey, i had the first 'mobile telephone'. It weighed 15 pounds, and was the size of a desktop computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted November 2, 2009 Veteran Share Posted November 2, 2009 MRI machines are a bit bigger and a bit heavier. But if somebody could hide a device that big, and get the person to climb into the machine, then good for them. Edit: And get everybody around them to move all the bits of metal away from the machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrossa Posted November 2, 2009 Author Share Posted November 2, 2009 Give it time. My first mobile was in the mid 70's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted November 2, 2009 Veteran Share Posted November 2, 2009 The first MRI machines were also created in the 70's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts