 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Why it is important to define the term "free will" before arguing whether we
> have it:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM
> For the zinger, start five minutes in. :-) But it's worth watching the whole
> thing. Creepy.
It would have been nice if they had actually *demonstrated* that they
could predict the choices, rather than just *claim* they can. It would have
been much more impressive.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It would have been nice if they had actually *demonstrated* that they
> could predict the choices, rather than just *claim* they can. It would have
> been much more impressive.
True. It looked more like an entertainment/news show than anything
scientific. I bet if you watched the show, they'd tell you the web site,
where you could find enough stuff to look up the citation of the paper they
probably published. Just not on youtube. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > It would have been nice if they had actually *demonstrated* that they
> > could predict the choices, rather than just *claim* they can. It would have
> > been much more impressive.
> True. It looked more like an entertainment/news show than anything
> scientific.
Well, it would have been a lot more impressive as entertainment if the
guy monitoring in the other room would have predicted the choices of the
test subject 5 seconds prior to him making him.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Well, it would have been a lot more impressive as entertainment
Agreed. I wonder if there was a technical or legal reason they couldn't take
the cameras there.
And again, it might have just been how whoever posted it on youtube editted it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Well, it would have been a lot more impressive as entertainment
>
> Agreed. I wonder if there was a technical or legal reason they couldn't
> take the cameras there.
>
> And again, it might have just been how whoever posted it on youtube
> editted it.
>
Technical reason that the camera could not get closer. The Magnetom Trio
(name on the machine) is a 3 Tesla MRI. A digital camera, or anything
ferrous, would not stand a chance near that.
What I am suspicious about, now, is how fast an MRI can process the data
it gets and display it. With how the slices are built into a 3D image, I
am not sure that it could process and display the choice before the test
subject finishes pushing the button. Gah, now I may have to quiz some
radiologists.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Technical reason that the camera could not get closer. The Magnetom Trio
> (name on the machine) is a 3 Tesla MRI. A digital camera, or anything
> ferrous, would not stand a chance near that.
Well, the dude on the outside is looking at *something*. I'm assuming
there's some electronics-based display in the control room or something.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Technical reason that the camera could not get closer. The Magnetom Trio
>> (name on the machine) is a 3 Tesla MRI. A digital camera, or anything
>> ferrous, would not stand a chance near that.
>
> Well, the dude on the outside is looking at *something*. I'm assuming
> there's some electronics-based display in the control room or something.
>
Having never been in one of those specific machines, I can't say for
sure. Most of the displays, however, don't do all of the fancy graphics
and colors as the machine is running. Secondly, to show all of the scan,
they would have to introduce a radiologist or rad-technician, as most
hospitals would not let a doctor of mathematics operate an MRI (he could
be trained as a tech, I suppose). Less snappy for TV. Also, those
multiple displays in the control area are not usually for showing the
MRI data. One or two would display the rather ancient UI, with large
numbers displaying how far the bed is from it's rest position and other
diagnostic data from the machine itself.
I don't have any MRI technicians I can email about how fast the displays
in the control room are updated. I know that for sonograms, the display
is generally just for sighting, even the false color is just a quick
render to aid the technician in getting the image they want. The print,
film, file, whatever, version is what is used for diagnosis.
Next time I get near an fMRI, I will pester the techs about how fast
they can shift what is on the control display, and whether it can keep
up with the scanner in real-time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-2-2010 18:56, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Technical reason that the camera could not get closer. The Magnetom Trio
>>> (name on the machine) is a 3 Tesla MRI. A digital camera, or anything
>>> ferrous, would not stand a chance near that.
>> Well, the dude on the outside is looking at *something*. I'm assuming
>> there's some electronics-based display in the control room or something.
>>
>
> Having never been in one of those specific machines, I can't say for
> sure. Most of the displays, however, don't do all of the fancy graphics
> and colors as the machine is running. Secondly, to show all of the scan,
> they would have to introduce a radiologist or rad-technician, as most
> hospitals would not let a doctor of mathematics operate an MRI (he could
> be trained as a tech, I suppose). Less snappy for TV. Also, those
> multiple displays in the control area are not usually for showing the
> MRI data. One or two would display the rather ancient UI, with large
> numbers displaying how far the bed is from it's rest position and other
> diagnostic data from the machine itself.
>
> I don't have any MRI technicians I can email about how fast the displays
> in the control room are updated. I know that for sonograms, the display
> is generally just for sighting, even the false color is just a quick
> render to aid the technician in getting the image they want. The print,
> film, file, whatever, version is what is used for diagnosis.
>
> Next time I get near an fMRI, I will pester the techs about how fast
> they can shift what is on the control display, and whether it can keep
> up with the scanner in real-time.
The image is generally shown in the screen before the next image is
taken. Unless a sequence is taken at once. It can be analyzed in full
detail 'immediately' in 2D on-line. 'Immediately' is generally a
significant number of seconds. 3D reconstruction is off-line but faster
than it would take POV to render.
However, that is not the point here. They take good resolution slices of
the whole brain for research purposes. If they really wanted to a
predictor they would use a much faster protocol to get only the data in
the area that they now know is relevant. A dedicated prediction machine
would take less than a second to analyse that small part of the brain.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> 3D reconstruction is off-line but faster
> than it would take POV to render.
Oh, snap!
> However, that is not the point here. They take good resolution slices of
> the whole brain for research purposes. If they really wanted to a
> predictor they would use a much faster protocol to get only the data in
> the area that they now know is relevant. A dedicated prediction machine
> would take less than a second to analyse that small part of the brain.
Plus, you can record when you took the image and see the prediction happened
before the button push, so at that point it's not a matter of how the brain
works but a matter of how the machine works. Whether you can say "I can
predict" vs "I could predict if I spent another million on this machine"
doesn't change the fact that there's sufficient information there to make a
prediction.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 04:25:51 -0500, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> What I am suspicious about, now, is how fast an MRI can process the data
> it gets and display it. With how the slices are built into a 3D image, I
> am not sure that it could process and display the choice before the test
> subject finishes pushing the button
I was thinking something similar - that the "6 seconds" measured was more
a recording of the brain chemistry changes and that was compared to the
timing of the button presses. The presenter, it seems, might have
exaggerated the claim about the guy watching the machine knowing 6
seconds earlier what was being pressed. It's more likely that it was an
absolute time comparison that was analyzed after the experiment.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
