Bored?

Here is something to listen to.

Is this the guy that thinks I/O latency in the brain is determinism?

(08-25-2014 11:16 PM)Claw Wrote:  Is this the guy that thinks I/O latency in the brain is determinism?

No one does.

I/O latency is not a physiological concept.

I believe he actually cites an experiment that exposes phenomenon similar (I guess) to I/O latency in the brain in this very video. (I haven't listened to this lecture in a long time.)

Are you thinking of THIS?

The guy I'm talking about says he can watch chemical reactions in the brain and predict what someone is going to do. He cites that as evidence of determinism.

I say that is bull. The reaction in the brain happens first and the physiological delay is just that - the time it takes the body to implement the reaction. Biological I/O latency is far from proof of determinism.

If you can figure out a way to read the initial signals, all you have done is changed the I/O mechanism. It's no different than reading a network sniffer instead of a browser window. The signal is the same. The only thing different is the point of observation on the signal path.

To think that somehow demonstrates the cause of the contents of the message is a big jump without much to back it up.

Balderdash. Poppycock. B.S. But I had to say that I suppose. :)

(08-26-2014 01:25 AM)Claw Wrote:  The guy I'm talking about says he can watch chemical reactions in the brain and predict what someone is going to do. He cites that as evidence of determinism.

I say that is bull. The reaction in the brain happens first and the physiological delay is just that - the time it takes the body to implement the reaction. Biological I/O latency is far from proof of determinism.

If you can figure out a way to read the initial signals, all you have done is changed the I/O mechanism. It's no different than reading a network sniffer instead of a browser window. The signal is the same. The only thing different is the point of observation on the signal path.

To think that somehow demonstrates the cause of the contents of the message is a big jump without much to back it up.

Balderdash. Poppycock. B.S. But I had to say that I suppose. :)

There is someone in the spin room who believes this.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk