May 29, 2009
Can a machine change your mind?
Jane O'Grady in OpenDemocracy:
Can a machine read your mind?’ – the title of a recent (February 2009) article in the Times -- is meant to be sensational but is similar to hundreds of other articles appearing with increasing frequency, and merely repeating a story that has been familiar for the last 50 years. ‘It’s just a matter of time’ is the assumption behind such articles – just a matter of time before the gap between physical brain-stuff and consciousness is bridged. The Times article plays up the social interest angle of its story by describing experiments in which people’s brain activity is taken as proof of their guilt or innocence of crimes, or in which a computer ‘could tell with 78 per cent accuracy’ which of a number of drawings shown to volunteers was the one they were concentrating on ...
There are in fact even more extreme examples than those in the Times article of how neuro-science and social science increasingly overlap. Alan Sanfey, of the Neural Decision Science Laboratory at the University of Arizona, for example, describes a neuro-economic analysis of an Ultimatum Game in which one person is given the power over another to make an offer to split £100. If the other rejects the offer, no one gets anything. So far so familiar -- to other behavioural economics experiments that study the norms of fairness. One neuro-twist to the story, though, is that experimenters can make subjects more or less willing to accept unfair offers by subjecting their brains to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), non-invasive and painless stimulation of the brain.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 11:55 PM | Permalink






















Comments
But! But! That's an obvious no! Machines can't yet even "read" a page from a book!
Posted by: David | May 30, 2009 8:57:19 AM
machines cant read brain,as our brain is as good as infinity,so its not possible
Posted by: Jigar Doshi | May 31, 2009 9:31:13 AM
At least O'Grady is honest about her motivations - she finds it "irritating" that philosophers and scientists "attempt[] to reduce the mental to the neural" and "make every aspect of our lives and selves comprehensible *merely* as subjects of scientific explanation." (The author's emphasis.)
Well, okay. But if the reality underlying our experience of the world is more parsimonious than we thought, how is that "mere"? It certainly isn't because reductive naturalism "cuts out" experience from the world, much less that extinguishes "morality and self-creation." Would that O'Grady had been irritated by such obvious non sequiturs.
Posted by: Michael Drake | May 31, 2009 11:47:45 AM
Post a comment