![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I had to re-post
Feb. 28th, 2013 10:13 pmFrom siliconshaman
This reminds me of Searle's Chinese Box.
PS - I'm not sure that the word "collaborate" would be the word I would have used. It seems like it's a bit too much personification in my book. I mean, what if I were to say, "It's like the people collaborated with the terrorists by acting terrorized." Our brains are wired to increase positive responses and decrease negative ones based on the input and output patterns, but 'to collaborate' insinuates a conscious choice, a decision, to work with someone else for a specific reason, rather than simply accepting certain inputs more readily and responding to them subconsciously. The terrorized aren't collaborating with the terrorists any more than the shopper is collaborating with the marketing specialist.
Also, let's talk briefly about this line: "...that’s not set by instructions or an algorithm."
Yes, yes it is set by algorithmic instructions - namely, the instructions neurons follow when processing input and output data streams. I'm not saying that animals can't use brain-to-brain communication to [better] solve a problem, but that the level of simplicity inherent in this article and the study results quite annoys me.
I do agree 100% with the final analysis that brain-to-brain communication would be unnecessary so long as there is neuronal stimulation with predefined patterns. After all, that's how we learn how to interact with our world in the first place - we see it, hear it, and are stimulated by the patterns in it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is called socialization.
It's like putting two humans together in a room with one of them teaching the other.
Hm....
This reminds me of Searle's Chinese Box.
PS - I'm not sure that the word "collaborate" would be the word I would have used. It seems like it's a bit too much personification in my book. I mean, what if I were to say, "It's like the people collaborated with the terrorists by acting terrorized." Our brains are wired to increase positive responses and decrease negative ones based on the input and output patterns, but 'to collaborate' insinuates a conscious choice, a decision, to work with someone else for a specific reason, rather than simply accepting certain inputs more readily and responding to them subconsciously. The terrorized aren't collaborating with the terrorists any more than the shopper is collaborating with the marketing specialist.
Also, let's talk briefly about this line: "...that’s not set by instructions or an algorithm."
Yes, yes it is set by algorithmic instructions - namely, the instructions neurons follow when processing input and output data streams. I'm not saying that animals can't use brain-to-brain communication to [better] solve a problem, but that the level of simplicity inherent in this article and the study results quite annoys me.
I do agree 100% with the final analysis that brain-to-brain communication would be unnecessary so long as there is neuronal stimulation with predefined patterns. After all, that's how we learn how to interact with our world in the first place - we see it, hear it, and are stimulated by the patterns in it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is called socialization.
It's like putting two humans together in a room with one of them teaching the other.
Hm....
