Apr 8 2012: I am reminded of the concept of evanescent waves which carry information even though they do not transport any energy and their direction of propagation includes one or more imaginary components. Like others have said, words like “real” tend to refer to things we can only touch or see and makes our view narrow. When considering what effects reality, intangible concepts should be kept in mind as they do influence the real world.
Apr 2 2012: I agree that the reason for a person’s career choice varies based on the individual and their history of reinforcement and punishment. It could be one big event, or the sum of many events that leads to a career choice.
An example could be that Ken Jeong’s, a doctor who turned comedian, life changing influence was during a high school performance where he received positive reinforcement for being funny. His interest in performing comedy never seemed to leave him even when he received his MD, as he continued to perform in comedy clubs on the side which later led to his big break in acting. The repeated exposure he received in comedy clubs was positive, which certainly encouraged him to continue with his interest. Perhaps this is a case of the life altering influence being a combination of both big events and summing small events.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/movies/ken-jeong-from-doctor-to-comedic-actor-with-a-hangover-in-between/2011/05/17/AFbRvt7G_story.html
Apr 2 2012: I see the sense in having specialists, focused on theoretical knowledge in their respective field, save time on the implementation of ideas by a team of interdisciplinary oriented people. Attempting to draw an example from real life, I would see the building of a submarine requiring an interdisciplinary team at the head along with those who specialize in design, engineering, and manufacturing fields. The people in charge should have some knowledge of all the specialist fields and be able to provide a “big picture” perspective, whereas if specialists in only one field were in charge the view would be more narrow.
Also, somewhat related to the topic, the Cooper Union School of Art has an interdisciplinary seminar. http://cuids.org/
Mar 25 2012: Haha I like this idea.
According to this article, http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~knutson/ans/kosfeld05.pdf , the stimulus of touch can increase trust and relieve stress between people because of the release of oxytocin.
An experiment, http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~knutson/ans/kosfeld05.pdf, serves to point out that oxytocin does increase trust, but it is context dependent. As in, randomly touching people will not necessarily increase trust.
Mar 25 2012: Interesting experiment. It uses an EGG to monitor signals from the stomach to try and find a relation to one’s “gut feelings” to a concealed person’s emotions in a different room. Though, I do find it odd that a person may be able to have “gut feelings” without any sensory interactions like visual cues. How can a person have a feeling about something he is not even aware about? This still leaves the source of “gut feelings” as a mystery.
Here is a somewhat related article about the relation between emotions and bacteria in the stomach: http://www.sciencedebate.com/science-blog/science-gut-feeling-gut-bacteria-influence-brain-chemistry-and-behavior
Mar 14 2012: Interesting, technology that feels might not necessarily be helpful. I think the hardest part to replicating human intelligence exactly is finding a way to copy the emotions and seemingly irrational thoughts of humans. Sometimes I decide to sleep in on a day instead of doing work that I know I have. I can see AI making logical decisions and being more efficient than humans at some tasks, but find it hard to imagine them having emotional responses. I am unaware on how exactly our feelings are activated by our brain, so modeling this might be easier than I know.
Also, did you know there was a TED conversation similar to this: http://www.ted.com/conversations/1528/artificial_intelligence_will_s.html
Mar 14 2012: I like this idea. I think true death should be defined as the cessation of brain activity and all bodily functions. I am convinced by stories of people returning to life from brain death that being brain dead is not a sufficient enough condition to think a person can never make it back.
As for thinking about whether the law should take on this definition, I see the new definition greatly hindering the harvest of good quality organs. I assume organ donors have to sign something before it is ok to take their organs out if they are in the situation of brain death. They should be aware of the fact that brain death does not necessarily mean the end and that this is what they are agreeing to. Perhaps they should also consider if they still want to live after an extended period of time of being brain dead. As long as the donor is aware and fine with all this, I don’t see a problem with organ donation during brain death.
There seems to be a lot of discussion on this topic. A Google search returns a podcast such as this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=exactly-when-is-a-person-dead-10-09-23
Mar 6 2012: I agree that trying to explain our identity as humans is difficult and also turn to thinking about how I was brought into the world. Being born from humans and growing up to look like a human seems like it would make me a human. I remember one of my professors talking about facial recognition and how most human faces can be approximated using a combination of standard faces called eigenfaces.
Looking at what humans have done through history, I observe that we create technology, explore the world and our universe, and consider a vast range of topics within our brain. Perhaps animals engage in these activities also on a smaller scale, so does effecting the world on a larger scale makes us human? Are we human because of our physical composition or because of the actions we take? Maybe a mix of both? I don't know.
Mar 6 2012: I agree that we will never be able to model nature 100% accurately because of all the nuances and variables in whatever it is that is being investigated. However, we can come close and in that process we do learn many valuable things about nature. In this publication about modeling, http://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/2007/N3027.pdf, the author says that modeling is an essential, instinctive part of being human. The truth in this can be seen in today’s world in which advanced computer simulations and AI are now used to make the complexities of reality more understandable. The author suggested that modeling was important for the future so that humans can make intelligent decisions, and I think as long as this is kept in mind, we will not have to worry so much about copying nature exactly and coming close is just fine.
Feb 27 2012: I agree that the quality of “loudness”, or being immediately impactful is key. When something unexpected happens, like a car crash on the street, people tend to stop and stare since it is not something they are used to seeing in real life. It must be something interesting to the observer. A new scientific discovery may be hard to grasp for most, and the effort might not be made to consume it and propagate it to others. In Ramachandrian’s related talk, he speaks about mirror neurons allowing early civilization to advance their skills quickly. Making fire and learning language was probably interesting enough to most then so that those ideas spread very quickly. Loud, interesting news is not always quality though. We need to discern that for ourselves.
TEDCred score: +51.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: How does virtuality translate into reality?
A reply on Conversation: Can we "engineer" our own interests through repeated exposure?
An example could be that Ken Jeong’s, a doctor who turned comedian, life changing influence was during a high school performance where he received positive reinforcement for being funny. His interest in performing comedy never seemed to leave him even when he received his MD, as he continued to perform in comedy clubs on the side which later led to his big break in acting. The repeated exposure he received in comedy clubs was positive, which certainly encouraged him to continue with his interest. Perhaps this is a case of the life altering influence being a combination of both big events and summing small events.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/movies/ken-jeong-from-doctor-to-comedic-actor-with-a-hangover-in-between/2011/05/17/AFbRvt7G_story.html
A reply on Conversation: Does society need more interdisciplinary work? Or more well-rounded individuals working together?
Also, somewhat related to the topic, the Cooper Union School of Art has an interdisciplinary seminar. http://cuids.org/
A reply on Conversation: What is the power behind a shared experience?
According to this article, http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~knutson/ans/kosfeld05.pdf , the stimulus of touch can increase trust and relieve stress between people because of the release of oxytocin.
An experiment, http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~knutson/ans/kosfeld05.pdf, serves to point out that oxytocin does increase trust, but it is context dependent. As in, randomly touching people will not necessarily increase trust.
A reply on Conversation: How are different body parts connected to the emotions we traditionally associate with them?
Here is a somewhat related article about the relation between emotions and bacteria in the stomach: http://www.sciencedebate.com/science-blog/science-gut-feeling-gut-bacteria-influence-brain-chemistry-and-behavior
A reply on Conversation: Can technology replace human intelligence?
Also, did you know there was a TED conversation similar to this: http://www.ted.com/conversations/1528/artificial_intelligence_will_s.html
A reply on Conversation: How does life/death manifest itself in the human brain? Is brain death the ultimate end stage of life?
As for thinking about whether the law should take on this definition, I see the new definition greatly hindering the harvest of good quality organs. I assume organ donors have to sign something before it is ok to take their organs out if they are in the situation of brain death. They should be aware of the fact that brain death does not necessarily mean the end and that this is what they are agreeing to. Perhaps they should also consider if they still want to live after an extended period of time of being brain dead. As long as the donor is aware and fine with all this, I don’t see a problem with organ donation during brain death.
There seems to be a lot of discussion on this topic. A Google search returns a podcast such as this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=exactly-when-is-a-person-dead-10-09-23
A reply on Conversation: Where does our identity as being "human" come from?
Looking at what humans have done through history, I observe that we create technology, explore the world and our universe, and consider a vast range of topics within our brain. Perhaps animals engage in these activities also on a smaller scale, so does effecting the world on a larger scale makes us human? Are we human because of our physical composition or because of the actions we take? Maybe a mix of both? I don't know.
A reply on Conversation: Will we ever truly be able to model nature?
A reply on Conversation: What makes an idea spread? Duration? Quality? Loudness?