On Sat, 5 Oct 2013, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> All experiments so far with controlling cognition and synapse patterns
> are so trivial that we shouldn't read too much into it.
Maybe as far as machines go, but as for humans, education and
brain-washing are far from trivial. :)
> ... the brain is ... affected in big ways by things we think
> insignificant.
Without mentioning names, media outlets, artistic endeavors, or
particular legislative bodies, you'd probably agree that the consequences
of such effects can be far from insignificant AND we should pay far more
attention to this particular process (i.e. much more than to the people
involved and the affective expressions alone).
> The problem is *so* much more complex than we first thought ... I *used*
> to think ... that we somehow could [quickly] replicate brain behaviour
> with software ... when making software systems, there has been little to
> no understanding of human models of understanding going into their
> designs
At least fifth generation computers are not likely to be controlled by
the "overstimulation" complex that distracts humans from cognitive
competence (intentionally and unintentionally).
> now the data models are becoming more ... flexible. Not perfect, not right,
> nor correct, nor necessarily good enough ...
Next step: how are you going to sell these to humans more reliant on
myth, religion, self-interest and predation? Maybe we need to think about
that while AI knowledge is developing before we lose more bodies along the
way.
> And that's a good thing; it's a revolution.
I see an oxyoron embedded in there [albeit unintentional] ... :)
> I think the AI they've got for parsing queries are getting better all
> the time...
Yes, but humans are getting poorer at designing their particular queries.
Prejudice on the part of searching humans is incerasingly distorting
results. What do we do about that? Seriously-- we need to address the
issue of how the data itself and the forms of its presentation affect the
searchers.
> We humans are selfish creatures
1. That's not a simple fact-- it's the main problem that needs to be
solved. All animals are "selfish"-- we're the only ones (so far) that can
overcome what can be absolutely self-destructive. Maybe that's why folks
write stories about computers taking over civilization-- a desire for
purely constructive decision-making.
> we get cranky very fast.
2. The "overstimulation" problem again. Conscious familiarity with it can
relieve the problem.
>> I know that the military has done a lot of research into the "heads-up"
>> displays of fighter pilots: how much information they can process and
>> how quickly they can do it; what information is vital and what can
>> safely be ignored, and so on.
Overriding concern-- how secure can the circuits that provide the
information be made relative to cost? One little micrometeorite and
**poof**?
> If you've got more data, conceptualize it to bring the numbers down;
> it seems to fit the way the brain deals with complexity (and is one of
> those fandangled "human models of understanding" things most researchers
> would agree with)
How about the model that says some human brains are "overstimulated" by
complexity so they try to avoid *and even prevent* it? Then what do we do
with the models that say we should communicate on the level of "lowest
common denominator" of cognitive ability (thus discouraging cognitive
development)?
>> At some point, it just gets too much
> Information overload
Yep. the "overstimulation" complex. It's a brain-structure problem (just
as it would be an architecture or software problem in computers). But
"neuroplasticity" (as the corrrelatve of computer re-engineering) can fix
that.
> It's a delicate balance between too much and too little.
Not really. The delicate balance is actually between levels of cognitive
competence, which can be altered.
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
californiastop_at_hushmail.com
** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just
consider what goes on in between. **
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Mon Oct 07 2013 - 15:17:43 EDT