The study described in my
previous post is better described (marginally) in this article:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-03-science-brain.html#nRlv
From that article, it is clear
that they were only distinguishing among four concepts as measured in 16 human
brains during fMRI stimuli of the concepts:
Just
and his CMU colleague Robert Mason, the lead author of the study, scanned the
brains of 16 healthy adults as they learned for the first time how four common
mechanical systems work. While inside the brain scanner, the participants were
shown a series of pictures, diagrams and text that described the internal
workings of a bathroom scale, fire extinguisher, automobile braking system and
trumpet.
The paucity of experimental
conditions would seem to explain how they all got the "same"
concept - there simply weren't enough samples of concepts to do a fair job of
distinguishing among them. With many more concepts and many more
subjects, I would bet that the "signature" of each
concept differs substantially among populations larger than 16, and with more
than 4 concepts to distinguish.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 10:22 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Claim: "All people use the same brain
signatures when addressing concepts"
This particular article, also in
MedicalExpress.com, claims that assertion in the subject line. I don't
believe they have the right comparands though, because on this list, we have argued
over the meaning of nearly everything under the sun. So we can't have
exactly the same "signature"; it must just be similar within
undescribed hedges that surround the concept's representation in the
brain. Here is the URL of that article:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-scientists-gain-glimpse-concepts-brain.html#nRlv
The fact that they identify
signatures is very interesting in itself. It would have been useful if
they were more specific about how they cluster signatures so that all objects
"seem" to have the "same"
signature, and neither word " seem" nor "
same" is defined well in this article. It would be useful to
know just how variable the "signature"s are.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 9:49 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: [ontolog-forum] People "know" things that don't exist
Here is a very interesting article in MedicalExpress.com
that documents how "educated" people claim knowledge and expertise
that doesn't even exist:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-people-easily-facts-impossible.html
I wonder why this behavior appears so widely among the
general population? I also wonder if that seeps over into the ontology
world. Does such a thing as a "river" exist in all cases where
rivers are postulated? Clearly not - a long time ago, JFS mentioned
rivers with no head waters, and rivers with no delta. Is the very idea of
a "concept" being overgeneralized by this mistaken confidence this
article suggests we have.
Sincerely,
Rich
Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com