| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« The Latest AfPak War | Main | The Case for Working With Your Hands »

May 29, 2009

Can a machine change your mind?

Jane O'Grady in OpenDemocracy:

Scrnshotsdesktop-1243243050png_large 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






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Josef Stern on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Colette on POETRY IN TRANSLATION: CORDOBA

Dana on A young Houston couple is planning to give away $4 billion—but only to projects that prove they are worth it. Can they redefine the world of philanthropy?

omar on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Dredd on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

omar on Race Is Not Biology

prasad on Race Is Not Biology

JF on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Sundar on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

omar on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

musafir on Loneliness, isolation and desperate yearning

carlos on The Gut-Wrenching Science Behind the World’s Hottest Peppers

Dredd on A young Houston couple is planning to give away $4 billion—but only to projects that prove they are worth it. Can they redefine the world of philanthropy?

Dredd on Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

JonJ on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

JonJ on Race Is Not Biology

omar on Race Is Not Biology

omar on Race Is Not Biology

Dredd on Race Is Not Biology

Dredd on Race Is Not Biology

allsmiles on A Mother, a Son and a Wife

sverson on Race Is Not Biology

carlos on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

araldo on Race Is Not Biology

jo smith on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed