On Jan 25, 2015, Bill Cushman wrote:

Quote:

On Jan 25, 2015, Dr Spektor wrote:
Being in the sim field and watching tech developed that uses facial recognition to detect demographic / context affects and working in institutions for advanced brain health techniques to connect with people suffering from neurological conditions - and sending the trend of social media identification etc - it's not very pseudofied at all. Tech is running away faster then our response to thinking of ethical and public health and human right concepts - and if you think this is all pure speculation - well, perhaps you are becoming borgs without knowing it

I love tech but I worry about the reptilian brains and psychopathy of the human condition

I certainly share your concerns (PKD is one of my heroes), good doctor, but with all due respect that doesn't diminish the need for awareness and caution about pseudo-science in the field of neuroscience. If anything, I'd suggest it makes it all the more important so time and money aren't diverted away from the real works potential (whilst keeping an eye out for PKDickish abuses of course).

On Jan 25, 2015, Andini wrote:

Quote:

On Jan 25, 2015, Dr Spektor wrote:
Being in the sim field and watching tech developed that uses facial recognition to detect demographic / context affects and working in institutions for advanced brain health techniques to connect with people suffering from neurological conditions - and sending the trend of social media identification etc - it's not very pseudofied at all. Tech is running away faster then our response to thinking of ethical and public health and human right concepts - and if you think this is all pure speculation - well, perhaps you are becoming borgs without knowing it

That's a good point. I didn't mean to suggest that neuroscience and its associated advances is pseudoscience, just that there's often difficulty in communicating it to the public in a way that (a) makes it sound super mind-blowingly amazing and (b) maintains a realistic perspective on what we can actually conclude from the data. It's just good to keep in mind some of the limitations. A couple years ago I saw Matt Lieberman, a prominent social neuroscientist at UCLA, give a talk at a social psychology conference, and he joked that businesses would pay lots of money for him to scan participants to see which areas of the brain "light up" when they looked at particular products--as if that actually offers any usable information that couldn't be attained with far less expensive means.

On Jan 25, 2015, jstreiff wrote:
Unfortunately Kaku made a mistake at the conclusion when he erroneously labeled neuroscan technology as 'telepathy'. What is being discussed is technology having nothing to do with mind reading.

On Jan 24, 2015, Casper TFG wrote:
The following is a rather somber thought, - what if technology advanced to the point where personal, handheld scanners were readily available? People in the audience could simply point the gadget at a mentalist to determine if he/she were being truthful?