CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

No, this is not a joke...I think

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=96&ncid=96&e=2&u=/space/20050427/sc_space/scientistssayeveryonecanreadminds

That's very interesting. Not truly mind reading (because, as I read it, mirror neurons only reflect what is perceived otherwise), but intriguing nonetheless.

It's a fascinating idea. I suppose further explorations will be directed at understanding the salient cues and how they are communicated to the rest of the brain (or from). I recall seeing a couple of books on mirror neurons in the science library; I should probably have a look at them.

This again?!? Oh wait, maybe it hasn't been on CAA yet. nvm. What really going to be weird is if they find a way to "force the issue" on this one. Just image the tech you could come up with that way....

Incidentally:

op wrote:If the mirror neuron system is defective or damaged, and our ability to empathize is lost, the observe-and-guess method of theory theory may be the only option left.

.....o.O

This is a rather intersting topic of discussion....
Though, I am not sure if it can be truly called mind reading....empathy.... because, in order to truly empathise with someone don't you have to be able to relate in some way to what the pther person is feeling? Don't you have to have some level of personal understanding?
On another note, if they truly discover that mirror neurons are deficient in children with autism, perhaps they can then find new ways of treating and eventually curing this illness....

Well of cou

I don't know... That's weird... Though, a lot of times me and my friend end up saying or think the same thing at the same time. But that may just be simular personalities... And the fact that we've known each other for 11 years.

The autism theory is very interesting, and I have pulled the same thing as Zelda27 so i think people can develop a connection of sorts (and before you say anything about eyes, we do it over the phone), though I think its more subconcious knowledge of the persons vocal/thought patterns and a similarity in personality that enable that.

OT a bit, but I thought the braingate article ath the bottom of the page was very interesting.

I think they're just trying to overcomplicate things. the autism thing seems to hold some water, but "mind reading"? please. if you spend enough time with people you'll learn to read them. some people are quite adept at it and some just aren't. I don't know if it has anything to do with mirror neurons or not, it is interesting to think about though.

Well, I think it was meant as more of a metaphore than a serious description by the authors. As an interesting aside to the topic of "mind-reading" it is also possible to see after a fashion what another person is seeing. Using infra-red brain imaging of the visual cortex it is possible to reconstruct a low-resolution image of what is seen through a subject's eyes (unfortunately, I can't give you any refrences for this since I only attended the talk on it, and have not pursued it further).

I can proove this, simply cover up the eyes with sunglasses or a bandana and I bet you that whole Idea about Reading people's Emotions will completely FAIL. Without being able to see the eyes we can't read anyone's feelings, even so Sub consiously we'd be paying attention to physical features like the gestures of hands or body movement.

The authors never claimed it was ESP, nor have you read the actual journal article- only some reporter's summary of the article. The "mind reading" was meant as an analogy, although it may have been a poor choice of words for a popular audience. I fully expect that many of the cues used by mirror cells would not be picked up on if the subject was blindfolded, although other cues such as speech may also have a role in how mirror cells function. It isn't always a concious process obviously, but it's well known that many important neural processes aren't either so that shouldn't pose any sort of problem.

I think the article is 100% innacurate, of course it is, because Next year another study will show something completely different.

You have of course based this on your intimate knowledge of the neuroscience literature. In reality, things don't change or reverse themselves any where near the way you think they do. I can for example, pick up a book written fifteen years ago and find many gaps in understanding- gaps that are usually pointed out by the authors as being currently unknown. A similar book written today will have filled in some of those gaps and possibly have added a few new questions. In any event, new theoretical models if they should arise, do not affect the observations (in this case the mirror cells-autism links).

[quote="Technoma

Real life Example: Milk studdies, pink packets of sugar causing cancer, both of those have been switching back and forth between healthy and unhealthy study after study. and only God knows how many of those Vitamin Studies are accurate. There's a few every year, stating.

Vitamin__ is good for you
(year later)Vitamin__ turns out to be not so good
(2 months later)Vitamin__ prevents cancer but causes head asplode-sions.

this is kinda offtopic but I've noticed the same thing. when we were kids, any and all cholesterol, ESPECIALLY EGGS, was baaaaad and to be avoided at all costs. now they say different. it's okay to eat eggs now! no, now the thing to avoid is carbohydrates...riiiight. sometimes I think they really don't know what they're talking about...

Volt wrote:Nope, It's based on my blind and stubborn idea that I know what I'm talking about when I might not, the same mental principle behind everyone's opinion. At least I'm honest

Funny, and here I thought an education actually meant something. But then since any idea is as good as any other, I've obviously been wasting a whole lot of time on that whole Ph.D thing.

Books are written for profit, articles are written for credit, pamplets are written for popularity, and if something isn't 100% accurate, would you really reveal this? nope, the Publishers wouldn't want that. Confidence = money.

Many books are written for profit, which isn't always a bad thing since it helps to pay the bills. However they're also written to teach others, to communicate ideas or for the sheer pleasure of doing so. Fortunately, when it comes to scientific books or publications, we're able to get some idea of how good they are. Reviews in the pertinent journals, or via word of mouth amongst professionals in the field are an excellent way of getting information. In addition, most university level textbooks are reviewed by other experts in the field who often provide helpful suggesstions to the author. For example, my copy of "Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation" has an extensive list of reviewers, many of them are highly regarded experts in the field, some of whom I've actually met.

More than that though, scientists aren't shy about criticizing other people's work, or investigating it if they feel it's fraudulent. Likewise, there are any number of books/articles that describe this or that shortcoming in another persons's work on the limitations of one theory or another. For that matter, good scientists will also discuss the shortcomings of their own work and accept the limitations of their own theories (ie. potential problem areas etc). Science only progresses when there is healthy and rigorous skepticism.

Real life Example: Milk studdies, pink packets of sugar causing cancer, both of those have been switching back and forth between healthy and unhealthy study after study. and only God knows how many of those Vitamin Studies are accurate. There's a few every year, stating.

Your point about health studies is well taken. However, these are generally based on statistical analyses where the interactions of the different variables can be quite complex. Sometimes the authors don't fully understand the mathematical methods involved, or have mistakenly discounted this or that influence (or even been unaware of it). The same goes of course for the popular press. There is of course, always the issue of correlation not necessarily being the same as causation. I will let those more familiar with these kinds of analyses comment further on the quality of such studies.

Not to mension even Big Time Scientists do it for attention
The Big Bang theory which started out like this

Do they know? Nope
Do they have evidence? Nope

This last statement is as patently false as it is off-topic. Look into why the big bang model was and still is accepted if you wish. I'm sure you can find many good books on the subject in your local library.

Why do they keep talking? $$$

Given the time and expense of getting the requisite scientific training: 4-5yrs for a bachelor's degree, 2 years for a master's, and 3-4 years for a Ph.D not to mention one's post-doc. In addition with the compartively lower scale of pay in comparison to what one can make industry, I'm forced to conclude that money is not a prime motivator. I say this also given the personal experience I've had in the sciences and in knowing scientists- experience you do not have, so I'm fully aware that most scientists are motivated by the love of knowledge and exploration even if there is some healthy competition between them.

Well yeah, Al

Volt wrote:Well yeah, All that money spend on education only to find out some guy who know less than you gets his own TV show. I don't blame em for BS'ing a few books here and there.

Often you can tell the good from the bad, all though that probably takes a while both as a reader and as a writer. I had good writing habits ingrained into me in my classes, as well as understanding of proper reseach techniques and logical thinking. It does take time to develop a good BS filter (and possibly a few bruises a long the way), and to recognize what constitutes a good source and why. Given the thousands of dollars I've invested in my books it's a pretty critical skill.

For those not in the know, a typical text that I might use either for classes or for research will generally cost over one hundred dollars.

Technomancer wrote:The "mind reading" was meant as an analogy, although it may have been a poor choice of words for a popular audience.

Or a wise choice, depending upon the objective. Presuming that the creator of the title intended it to attract the attention of the average person, they made an effective (if inaccurate) choice.

Technomancer wrote:Funny, and here I thought an education actually meant something. But then since any idea is as good as any other, I've obviously been wasting a whole lot of time on that whole Ph.D thing.

Silly you, trying to understand the way the world works and such rot.

Now that I have made that comment, I would ask that we largely leave this tangent unexplored. Discussion of science as it relates to the article is welcome, but let us please limit our discussion to said article.

Fair enough. Anyways, brain science really is one of the fascinating "new frontiers" in science that has really opened up in the last ten or fifteen years or so, largely because of the many new tools that have emerged in that time. For those who are curious, I can recommend a few books although obviously my own list is biased towards the computational modeling side.

"i of the vortex: from neurons to self" by R. Llinas
"Synaptic Self" J. LeDoux (I haven't read this one yet, but it's been recommendded to me)
"Up From Dragons" J. Skoyles and D. Sagan (superb!)
"Dragons of Eden" Carl Sagan (quite dated, but still worth reading)

"The Computational Brain" by Terrence Sejnowski and Patricia Churchland. Also a little out of data (it's about 10 years old), but nonetheless a very readable introduction. A little knowledge of calculus and linear algebra would help.

I'd also recommend Dayan and Abbott's "Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems". It's a very good intro to low-level modeling. Calculus, linear algebra and statisics will be needed to understand it as is some knowledge of differential equations.

Also, from an engineering perspective Simon Haykin's book "Neural Networks: A Comprehenisve Foundation" is about the best textbook you can find on artificial neural networks and their applications. It is mathematically quite advanced however.