5 ms·

umm... Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this? We'll mess with your brain's ability to function and then give you some kind of test to see if ind

umm... Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this? We'll mess with your brain's ability to function and then give you some kind of test to see if indeed your brain is malfunctioning in some way. This is just retarded. I'd go as far as to say the region of the brain that the magnet is pointed at has nothing to do with morality. All they are doing is hindering the brain to do what it usually does.

_delirium 17y ago
Yeah, these kinds of things are usually massively oversold as if we have the ability to precisely control things about the mind by poking at the brain, despite understanding the relationships pretty poorly. Usually it's more like trying to change how your web-browser operates by soldering on your motherboard: sometimes you'll get lucky and actually do something, but usually you'll either break it or cause generalized weirdness.
- cj 17y ago
  Breaking some normal function by applying a specific set of conditions to the brain is where a large portion of our medical discoveries stem. Even if findings from this research do not give us any new practical knowledge in everyday life, coupled with other similar, seemingly trivial findings, could facilitate major breakthroughs in the future.
a-priori 17y ago
But the key is that the brain is impaired in very specific ways. If you asked the person to do any task that was not a moral judgement and did not use theory of mind, they would be unaffected. This is how the brain works: manipulating certain parts (e.g. by injury or, as in this case, stimulation) of the brain impairs certain capabilities while leaving the remainder intact. If you put this in another part of the brain the person might not be able to move their right arm, or might hallucinate faces, or their personality might change. The incredible thing is how specific the changes are.
- greenlblue 17y ago
  I get what you're saying about specific parts acting in specific ways. Neuroscientists have been working of the modular theory of the mind for a very long time now. I'm not saying it's the wrong approach but morality is a really high level construct and to say it is localized to a very specific region just seems absurd.
  - a-priori 17y ago
    The modular theory of brain function has given way to a more nuanced understanding. Some functions are very localized, while others are quite variable between individuals. Functional localization depends on many factors, such as the wiring of afferent and efferent neural tracts, gene expression, and plasticity. For some functions, this strictly constrains the location, for others it doesn't. But, the point is that it doesn't matter if it seems absurd to you that something "high-level" like morality is localized. The evidence says it is.
    - greenlblue 17y ago
      I disagree. All they have shown is that some higher level reasoning which factors in moral decisions is hampered when some part of the brain is not allowed to function properly. If you see evidence of localized morality from this then you need to take a closer look at the paper because the evidence does not say that.
- _delirium 17y ago
  It might be worth noting that those are still hypotheses at this point, and a whole range of things don't appear to be localized. In particular, showing that disabling a certain part of the brain changes an outcome doesn't show that anything was localized in that part of the brain, only that it was necessary to the outcome (but not necessarily sufficient). In addition, there's often a sleight-of-hand, where the neuroscientist takes some term for a high-level concept (like "morality" or "intelligence") and uses a specific operational definition of it that seems rather suspiciously tailored to make their experiment work, as opposed to choosing a formalization that's already in the philosophy literature. Sometimes the operationalization is even chosen after the experiment, i.e. the researchers find some interesting feature in their data, and try to find a way to map it onto concepts like "intelligence" or "morality" or "motivation" after the fact. (To be fair, that doesn't seem to be the case here; and sometimes when it is the case, it's the fault of the university's PR office.)
cj 17y ago
Are you completely against medical research? The researchers are deactivating a specific area of a person's brain (temporarily, and without surgery) to observe its effects on behavior and judgment. This research, in turn, might contribute to eventually alleviating the devastating behavioral changes some stroke victims may experience. I don't see anything wrong with this research.
- greenlblue 17y ago
  You know I'm getting really tired of people misrepresenting what I said by interjecting a question that had nothing to do with what I was saying. My point was the brain is more interconnected than people admit and of course if you mess with some parts of it you are going to get impaired functioning. How is this research? Take a really complicated biological system and deactivate some part and observe the cascade. I expect more from people with a Ph.D. getting millions of dollars in funding. You don't need a theory to do this kind of research. All you need are some fancy toys.
  - cj 17y ago
    By your philosophy, we should abandon research on the brain because its complexity is overwhelming. The PhD's that you are undermining are not intimidated by its complexity, and are trying to better understand functioning within the brain. Bottom line. In my opinion, that is respectable and worth the effort. The better question is: In your opinion, how could research on the brain be improved? How should it be performed? Do you believe research on the brain should be encouraged?
    - greenlblue 17y ago
      What philosophy? You read 3 of my sentences and extrapolate a philosophy? Intimidated Ph.D's? You still haven't addressed the fact that a powerful magnet is being pointed at an extremely complicated, interconnected, biological system in order to hamper its functions. Ya, I understand that on some tests people are going to perform worse because a powerful magnet is messing with their brain. Is that surprising? No. I would even expect it. Any layman would. I believe in clearly delineated research objectives backed by solid scientific theory and not some toy project that messes with electrical currents in the brain jazzed up by moral and ethical philosophy.

_delirium 17y ago

Yeah, these kinds of things are usually massively oversold as if we have the ability to precisely control things about the mind by poking at the brain, despite understanding the relationships pretty poorly. Usually it's more like trying to change how your web-browser operates by soldering on your motherboard: sometimes you'll get lucky and actually do something, but usually you'll either break it or cause generalized weirdness.

cj 17y ago
Breaking some normal function by applying a specific set of conditions to the brain is where a large portion of our medical discoveries stem. Even if findings from this research do not give us any new practical knowledge in everyday life, coupled with other similar, seemingly trivial findings, could facilitate major breakthroughs in the future.

a-priori 17y ago

But the key is that the brain is impaired in very specific ways. If you asked the person to do any task that was not a moral judgement and did not use theory of mind, they would be unaffected. This is how the brain works: manipulating certain parts (e.g. by injury or, as in this case, stimulation) of the brain impairs certain capabilities while leaving the remainder intact. If you put this in another part of the brain the person might not be able to move their right arm, or might hallucinate faces, or their personality might change. The incredible thing is how specific the changes are.

greenlblue 17y ago
I get what you're saying about specific parts acting in specific ways. Neuroscientists have been working of the modular theory of the mind for a very long time now. I'm not saying it's the wrong approach but morality is a really high level construct and to say it is localized to a very specific region just seems absurd.
- a-priori 17y ago
  The modular theory of brain function has given way to a more nuanced understanding. Some functions are very localized, while others are quite variable between individuals. Functional localization depends on many factors, such as the wiring of afferent and efferent neural tracts, gene expression, and plasticity. For some functions, this strictly constrains the location, for others it doesn't. But, the point is that it doesn't matter if it seems absurd to you that something "high-level" like morality is localized. The evidence says it is.
  - greenlblue 17y ago
    I disagree. All they have shown is that some higher level reasoning which factors in moral decisions is hampered when some part of the brain is not allowed to function properly. If you see evidence of localized morality from this then you need to take a closer look at the paper because the evidence does not say that.
_delirium 17y ago
It might be worth noting that those are still hypotheses at this point, and a whole range of things don't appear to be localized. In particular, showing that disabling a certain part of the brain changes an outcome doesn't show that anything was localized in that part of the brain, only that it was necessary to the outcome (but not necessarily sufficient). In addition, there's often a sleight-of-hand, where the neuroscientist takes some term for a high-level concept (like "morality" or "intelligence") and uses a specific operational definition of it that seems rather suspiciously tailored to make their experiment work, as opposed to choosing a formalization that's already in the philosophy literature. Sometimes the operationalization is even chosen after the experiment, i.e. the researchers find some interesting feature in their data, and try to find a way to map it onto concepts like "intelligence" or "morality" or "motivation" after the fact. (To be fair, that doesn't seem to be the case here; and sometimes when it is the case, it's the fault of the university's PR office.)

cj 17y ago

Are you completely against medical research? The researchers are deactivating a specific area of a person's brain (temporarily, and without surgery) to observe its effects on behavior and judgment. This research, in turn, might contribute to eventually alleviating the devastating behavioral changes some stroke victims may experience. I don't see anything wrong with this research.

greenlblue 17y ago
You know I'm getting really tired of people misrepresenting what I said by interjecting a question that had nothing to do with what I was saying. My point was the brain is more interconnected than people admit and of course if you mess with some parts of it you are going to get impaired functioning. How is this research? Take a really complicated biological system and deactivate some part and observe the cascade. I expect more from people with a Ph.D. getting millions of dollars in funding. You don't need a theory to do this kind of research. All you need are some fancy toys.
- cj 17y ago
  By your philosophy, we should abandon research on the brain because its complexity is overwhelming. The PhD's that you are undermining are not intimidated by its complexity, and are trying to better understand functioning within the brain. Bottom line. In my opinion, that is respectable and worth the effort. The better question is: In your opinion, how could research on the brain be improved? How should it be performed? Do you believe research on the brain should be encouraged?
  - greenlblue 17y ago
    What philosophy? You read 3 of my sentences and extrapolate a philosophy? Intimidated Ph.D's? You still haven't addressed the fact that a powerful magnet is being pointed at an extremely complicated, interconnected, biological system in order to hamper its functions. Ya, I understand that on some tests people are going to perform worse because a powerful magnet is messing with their brain. Is that surprising? No. I would even expect it. Any layman would. I believe in clearly delineated research objectives backed by solid scientific theory and not some toy project that messes with electrical currents in the brain jazzed up by moral and ethical philosophy.