Pat and Azamat, (01)
AA> Recently, it was widely published that the technique of neural
> information processing affords reading your thoughts and intentions
> by means of scanners:
>
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/60minutes/main4694713_page2.shtml
>
> Such a poor alchemy comes from two main reasons: bad ontology and
> defective semantics. (02)
PH> I take it that your point here is to hold this work up to ridicule
> (as "poor alchemy"), and blame the error on bad ontology. But you
> should check your sources more carefully. First, this is a CBS news
> item, not a scientific report. (03)
I agree with Pat. I'd also like to mention that the two scientists
quoted in the report have done respectable work. Following is a
summary from the NSF, which supported some of their work: (04)
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111641 (05)
A quotation from that article summarizes what they did: (06)
Carnegie Mellon researchers predicted the fMRI activation pattern
for several concrete nouns. (07)
But the title of the article suggests something much more grandiose: (08)
A Computer That Can 'Read' Your Mind (09)
There is a very big difference between picking one out of ten options,
and discovering the details of what anybody happens to be thinking. (010)
John Sowa (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)
|