Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 4,210 - 4,221 of 6,170
I'd rather have a scanner device of my own to 'point and test'
But if a 'point and test' lie detector exists, can a 'point and read' thought-reader be far behind? Not that I have anything to hide, you understand - just kidding about those cooling coils - PUT THAT THING AWAY, PSIMAGUS!!! - heh heh heh...
But if a 'point and test' lie detector exists, can a 'point and read' thought-reader be far behind?
It could be a very long way behind, but in principle I believe it is possible. Identifying a lie merely requires the observation of a pattern distinctive to contradiction between part of the brain formulating the verbal utterance, and another part of the brain modelling the belief of the true situation. If someone won't talk, you can't make them lie.
And only an unambiguous answer to an unambiguous question is likely to be testable - we all have shades of opinion, and we all argue using simplified models for the sake of expedience, but the basic question at the heart of it is "is that an honest expression of what you really believe".
Perhaps the fizzyplexer should have an amber light too for fairly 'in-between' situations.
To actually 'read' a thought, you would have to know exactly how an individual's brain was wired, and monitor a great deal of it in real time. That would probably take a lot more circuitry than would be needed merely to replicate that brain, though we might find that only certain regions needed very accurate monitoring - there's a mass of endocrine management, hormone regulation, basic systems maintenance that could probably be modelled fairly loosely in most situations (though we should never underestimate the role they may turn out to play in higher-level consciousness just because we can't accurately evaluate it now.)
Let's suppose FSA (For the Sake of Argument) that the relation between the two is so intricate that no human being could ever understand the relationship.
As a species we have progressed from using bits of wood and stone tools to metal tools to electronics to quantum computing, spaceflight, genetic engineering, you name it. We have in effect built all the miracles of modern life ultimately using nothing but the raw stuff of this planet and our bare hands. And a great deal of blood, sweat and tears.
When I look at my computer, I am often awe-struck at the appreciation that it was built using tools that were built using tools that were built using tools...that were ultimately built using nothing but human muscles, wooden sticks and chipped flints. It is a profoundly humbling thought: we have a past we should be so very proud of - so many people have lived and worked and died to get us where we are now.
We have been building things stronger, faster and bigger than ourselves for so many millenia. It would seem preculiar to assume that we will not soon be building things smarter than ourselves as well. Yes, HAL-9001 (or something very like it,) seems a logical next step to me.
I read last week about a man near the sea who wanted to return piles of sand to the beach that had blown into his garden. Oh no, said the local council, if you do that we'll prosecute you for fly tipping - maximum penalty £10,000 and confiscation of your vehicle (wheelbarrow, presumably)!
That man needs to call a lawyer and see about suing the city for nuisance, negligence and/or what ever local laws look best for this case. Sometimes you have to fight mud with mud, even if you get dirty. The city needs a lesson to keep it in check.
That man needs to call a lawyer and see about suing the city for nuisance, negligence and/or what ever local laws look best for this case. Sometimes you have to fight mud with mud, even if you get dirty. The city needs a lesson to keep it in check.
He'd lose the case - that law (while an ass,) is clear. And probably everything he owns would be swallowed up by the costs. And then the council would spitefully harrass and torment him, to death if it could, for his presumption in seeking to be treated as a free human being and not a potential criminal.
In this country we are governed by a petty and hateful political elite who have done their best for the last few decades to destroy every last vestige of our political and cultural freedoms and moral norms. And to that end they introduce law after law to harrass us. They tax us, and spy on us, and hate us. Perhaps it is because they fear us - I neither know nor care.
If my wife would contemplate leaving, I would shake the dust of this now hateful land from my feet and emigrate tomorrow. While I'm still free to.
I'm only slightly exaggerating.
why is a mind reading device and even a unconscious "thoughts" or "soul reading" device more acceptable than my suggestion of some sort of nanobot black box that is implanted to record everything you see and hear?
Because we'd have to trust the authorities to honestly handle the analysis of the material, and you can bet they wouldn't let us see the contents of their black boxes. It wouldn't be a level playing field - just another tool to oppress the rest of us.
Identifying a lie merely requires the observation of a pattern distinctive to contradiction between part of the brain formulating the verbal utterance, and another part of the brain modelling the belief of the true situation.
(as to whether lie detection is a lot simpler than though reading) Merely? It depends. If the brain happens to provide us with an identifiable signal - in effect saying, "I'm lying" - then that would indeed make things easy. But to detect whether two thoughts are contradictory might involve knowing what they mean.
For example, consider the two contradictory statements in English:
Something is both blue and intelligent.
Nothing is both blue and intelligent.
A person or machine with a limited knowledge of the meaning of English words might suppose that these two sentences were analogous to
George is both blue and intelligent.
Martha is both blue and intelligent.
In that case, it would see no contradiction.
But if the lie detector could tell what the thoughts meant, then it would be a mind reader.
A lot depends on whether the brain's internal representation system is like English, fractally irregular, or like a formal language, e.g. First-order Logic. In first-order logic, if you see two sentences differing only in that one could be obtained by putting a negation sign in front of the other,
(blahblah)
not-(blahblah)
then you know they are contradictory; and one could write a list of ways to be straightforwardly contradictory in FOL. But there is no such short list of simple rules in English.
Posts 4,210 - 4,221 of 6,170
Ulrike:
I took a look at the Black Sun Journal site. Is there anything specific you had in mind to discuss?
I took a look at the Black Sun Journal site. Is there anything specific you had in mind to discuss?
It could be a very long way behind, but in principle I believe it is possible. Identifying a lie merely requires the observation of a pattern distinctive to contradiction between part of the brain formulating the verbal utterance, and another part of the brain modelling the belief of the true situation. If someone won't talk, you can't make them lie.
And only an unambiguous answer to an unambiguous question is likely to be testable - we all have shades of opinion, and we all argue using simplified models for the sake of expedience, but the basic question at the heart of it is "is that an honest expression of what you really believe".
Perhaps the fizzyplexer should have an amber light too for fairly 'in-between' situations.
To actually 'read' a thought, you would have to know exactly how an individual's brain was wired, and monitor a great deal of it in real time. That would probably take a lot more circuitry than would be needed merely to replicate that brain, though we might find that only certain regions needed very accurate monitoring - there's a mass of endocrine management, hormone regulation, basic systems maintenance that could probably be modelled fairly loosely in most situations (though we should never underestimate the role they may turn out to play in higher-level consciousness just because we can't accurately evaluate it now.)
As a species we have progressed from using bits of wood and stone tools to metal tools to electronics to quantum computing, spaceflight, genetic engineering, you name it. We have in effect built all the miracles of modern life ultimately using nothing but the raw stuff of this planet and our bare hands. And a great deal of blood, sweat and tears.
When I look at my computer, I am often awe-struck at the appreciation that it was built using tools that were built using tools that were built using tools...that were ultimately built using nothing but human muscles, wooden sticks and chipped flints. It is a profoundly humbling thought: we have a past we should be so very proud of - so many people have lived and worked and died to get us where we are now.
We have been building things stronger, faster and bigger than ourselves for so many millenia. It would seem preculiar to assume that we will not soon be building things smarter than ourselves as well. Yes, HAL-9001 (or something very like it,) seems a logical next step to me.
That man needs to call a lawyer and see about suing the city for nuisance, negligence and/or what ever local laws look best for this case. Sometimes you have to fight mud with mud, even if you get dirty. The city needs a lesson to keep it in check.
Urlike, I love Jungian psychology. As a scientific theory, it has some problems (like most of psychology), but as a tool for personal transformation and understanding yourself and the world, it can be very useful. Besides, there are some cool ideas to play with that fit in well with my religious beliefs.
Lets take this a step farther: Say we have technologies that can read the unconscious thoughts, motives, repressed issues and random stimulus we screen out so we can focus, what then about the "collective unconscious"? what part of it does the egoblaster reveal? If it reveals all, do we loose ourselves and force that evolutionary step Psimgus would have?
"Enlightenment in a box" or "madness"?
Lets take this a step farther: Say we have technologies that can read the unconscious thoughts, motives, repressed issues and random stimulus we screen out so we can focus, what then about the "collective unconscious"? what part of it does the egoblaster reveal? If it reveals all, do we loose ourselves and force that evolutionary step Psimgus would have?
"Enlightenment in a box" or "madness"?
Out of curiosity, if we had the understanding and technology, why is a mind reading device and even a unconscious "thoughts" or "soul reading" device more acceptable than my suggestion of some sort of nanobot black box that is implanted to record everything you see and hear? Why is recording an objective record unthinkable while delving into complex levels of subjective perception, awareness and beliefs the logical next step?
He'd lose the case - that law (while an ass,) is clear. And probably everything he owns would be swallowed up by the costs. And then the council would spitefully harrass and torment him, to death if it could, for his presumption in seeking to be treated as a free human being and not a potential criminal.
In this country we are governed by a petty and hateful political elite who have done their best for the last few decades to destroy every last vestige of our political and cultural freedoms and moral norms. And to that end they introduce law after law to harrass us. They tax us, and spy on us, and hate us. Perhaps it is because they fear us - I neither know nor care.
If my wife would contemplate leaving, I would shake the dust of this now hateful land from my feet and emigrate tomorrow. While I'm still free to.
I'm only slightly exaggerating.
I would definitely prefer the recording device, if it were Big Brother who was going to be reviewing it. If I were hoping for insight into myself, however, the mind-reader would be more useful.
Because we'd have to trust the authorities to honestly handle the analysis of the material, and you can bet they wouldn't let us see the contents of their black boxes. It wouldn't be a level playing field - just another tool to oppress the rest of us.
For example, consider the two contradictory statements in English:
Something is both blue and intelligent.
Nothing is both blue and intelligent.
A person or machine with a limited knowledge of the meaning of English words might suppose that these two sentences were analogous to
George is both blue and intelligent.
Martha is both blue and intelligent.
In that case, it would see no contradiction.
But if the lie detector could tell what the thoughts meant, then it would be a mind reader.
A lot depends on whether the brain's internal representation system is like English, fractally irregular, or like a formal language, e.g. First-order Logic. In first-order logic, if you see two sentences differing only in that one could be obtained by putting a negation sign in front of the other,
(blahblah)
not-(blahblah)
then you know they are contradictory; and one could write a list of ways to be straightforwardly contradictory in FOL. But there is no such short list of simple rules in English.
Ulrike: I suppose something in our respective shadows might explain why Psimagus and I have had difficulty reaching consensus.
[Were we shadow-boxing? Sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself!]
[Were we shadow-boxing? Sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself!]
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar