|
|
 Up |
  |
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Mar 6, 2008 12:05
Information from brain scans? Are we being philosophically misled? I
think we are. Here's the philosophical why of it:
Yes, indeed, the scientists are making inferences about experience from
their brain scans. These scans use such methods as MRI (magnetic
resonance imaging), tracer radiactive work, etc, it doesn't matter which
particularly. But let's be clear about where the information is coming
from, because it is not coming from the brain scan.
No information ever came from a brain scan, even if an 'inference' came
from a brain scan.
But 'inference' can be a highly misleading word here. The 'inference' we
make from brain scan 'data' about experience is in fact comprised of not
one judgement but two. This is simple, so bear with it: the brain scan
'inference' deals with only the first of these judgements. This, the
first judgement, tells us WHEN to apply the data given by other people,
but only the second judgement tells us the actual data. All the brain
scan does is tell us "when" to apply the experiential data given
verbally or conceptually by people.
|
| Show full article (1.67Kb) |
| 41 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Mar 6, 2008 13:23
On Mar 6, 12:05 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> Information from brain scans? Are we being philosophically misled? I
> think we are. Here's the philosophical why of it:
>
> Yes, indeed, the scientists are making inferences about experience from
> their brain scans. These scans use such methods as MRI (magnetic
> resonance imaging), tracer radiactive work, etc, it doesn't matter which
> particularly. But let's be clear about where the information is coming
> from, because it is not coming from the brain scan.
>
> No information ever came from a brain scan, even if an 'inference' came
> from a brain scan.
>
> But 'inference' can be a highly misleading word here. The 'inference' we
> make from brain scan 'data' about experience is in fact comprised of not
> one judgement but two. This is simple, so bear with it: the brain scan
> 'inference' deals with only the first of these judgements. This, the
> first judgement, tells us WHEN to apply the data given by other people,
> but only the second judgement tells us the actual data. All the brain
> scan does is tell us "when" to apply the experiential data given ...
|
| Show full article (2.35Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Mar 6, 2008 14:56
Immortalist wrote:
> On Mar 6, 12:05 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:>> Information from brain scans? Are we being philosophically misled? I
>> think we are. Here's the philosophical why of it:
>>
>> Yes, indeed, the scientists are making inferences about experience from
>> their brain scans. These scans use such methods as MRI (magnetic
>> resonance imaging), tracer radiactive work, etc, it doesn't matter which
>> particularly. But let's be clear about where the information is coming
>> from, because it is not coming from the brain scan.
>>
>> No information ever came from a brain scan, even if an 'inference' came
>> from a brain scan.
>>
>> But 'inference' can be a highly misleading word here. The 'inference' we
>> make from brain scan 'data' about experience is in fact comprised of not
>> one judgement but two. This is simple, so bear with it: the brain scan
>> 'inference' deals with only the first of these judgements. This, the
>> first judgement, tells us WHEN to apply the data given by other people,
>> but only the second judgement tells us the actual data. All the brain ...
|
| Show full article (3.07Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: thinkerthinker Date: Mar 6, 2008 16:05
"John Jones" aol.com> wrote in message
news:fqpiqb$l7h$1@aioe.org...> Information from brain scans? Are we being philosophically misled? I think
> we are. Here's the philosophical why of it:
>
> Yes, indeed, the scientists are making inferences about experience from
> their brain scans. These scans use such methods as MRI (magnetic resonance
> imaging), tracer radiactive work, etc, it doesn't matter which
> particularly. But let's be clear about where the information is coming
> from, because it is not coming from the brain scan.
>
> No information ever came from a brain scan, even if an 'inference' came
> from a brain scan.
>
> But 'inference' can be a highly misleading word here. The 'inference' we
> make from brain scan 'data' about experience is in fact comprised of not
> one judgement but two. This is simple, so bear with it: the brain scan
> 'inference' deals with only the first of these judgements. This, the first
> judgement, tells us WHEN to apply the data given by other people, but only
> the second judgement tells us the actual data. All the brain scan does is ...
|
| Show full article (1.93Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MilanMilan Date: Mar 6, 2008 16:59
"John Jones" aol.com> wrote in message
news:fqpiqb$l7h$1@aioe.org...> Information from brain scans? Are we being philosophically misled? I think
> we are. Here's the philosophical why of it:
>
> Yes, indeed, the scientists are making inferences about experience from
> their brain scans. These scans use such methods as MRI (magnetic resonance
> imaging), tracer radiactive work, etc, it doesn't matter which
> particularly. But let's be clear about where the information is coming
> from, because it is not coming from the brain scan.
>
> No information ever came from a brain scan, even if an 'inference' came
> from a brain scan.
>
|
| Show full article (1.44Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Don StockbauerDon Stockbauer Date: Mar 6, 2008 17:08
On Mar 6, 6:59 pm, "Milan" yahoo.com> wrote:> "John Jones" aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fqpiqb$l7h$1@aioe.org...
>>> Information from brain scans? Are we being philosophically misled? I think
>> we are. Here's the philosophical why of it:
>
>> Yes, indeed, the scientists are making inferences about experience from
>> their brain scans. These scans use such methods as MRI (magnetic resonance
>> imaging), tracer radiactive work, etc, it doesn't matter which
>> particularly. But let's be clear about where the information is coming
>> from, because it is not coming from the brain scan.
>
>> No information ever came from a brain scan, even if an 'inference' came
>> from a brain scan.
>
> Indeed, like no information can ever come from a photography. Some people
> think they can recognize people -listen to this- people, by looking at a
> photograph. Ha! isn't that hilarious? A photography is informationally ...
|
| Show full article (1.61Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: EdEd Date: Mar 6, 2008 21:07
On Mar 6, 3:05 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
1) whether the signal is as good as other signals, for there are other
signals,
2) to remind ourselves that a signal is contentless, and,
Do you mean this to apply to all signals, or just brain scan signals?
If you mean all signals why do you post here? Clearly the elctronic
activity that ensues when you click on "Send" is a signal. Since it
has no content, why bother to send it?
3) that a signal does not tell us how we should apply ourselves upon
receiving it.
So yes, in thinking otherwise, we are being misled by popular
science's
hype of 'brain scan data'.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Mar 7, 2008 09:53
>> Hope you get over that nasty cold, it appeas to going around...
>
>> zinc and C helps
>
> Brain imagery holds no information. What it does is provide a map of
> contentless alarm clock-like signals.
>
Thats like saying that a smile from another person in no way indicates
a reaction.
|
| Show full article (0.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Mar 7, 2008 11:18
Immortalist wrote:
>>> Hope you get over that nasty cold, it appeas to going around...
>>> zinc and C helps
>> Brain imagery holds no information. What it does is provide a map of
>> contentless alarm clock-like signals.
>>
>
> Thats like saying that a smile from another person in no way indicates
> a reaction.
A smile doesn't 'indicate' anything. We don't indicate our pleasure by
smiling. There's no middle-man.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Mar 7, 2008 11:21
thinker wrote:
> "John Jones" aol.com> wrote in message
> news:fqpiqb$l7h$1@aioe.org...>> Information from brain scans? Are we being philosophically misled? I think
>> we are. Here's the philosophical why of it:
>>
>> Yes, indeed, the scientists are making inferences about experience from
>> their brain scans. These scans use such methods as MRI (magnetic resonance
>> imaging), tracer radiactive work, etc, it doesn't matter which
>> particularly. But let's be clear about where the information is coming
>> from, because it is not coming from the brain scan.
>>
>> No information ever came from a brain scan, even if an 'inference' came
>> from a brain scan.
>>
>> But 'inference' can be a highly misleading word here. The 'inference' we
>> make from brain scan 'data' about experience is in fact comprised of not
>> one judgement but two. This is simple, so bear with it: the brain scan
>> 'inference' deals with only the first of these judgements. This, the first
>> judgement, tells us WHEN to apply the data given by other people, but only ...
|
| Show full article (2.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
