Thursday, July 7, 2016
40,000 fMRI Studies: Trashed
Due to a bad assumption used in the statistical analysis of fMRI data, it has been determined that there is a 70% false positive rate for the automatic determination of the value of a "voxel" (smallest unit of granularity). This apparently is because of the assumption of a Gaussian distribution for all the clusters of data, which is not the case in real life. This fully invalidates a huge swath of fMRI studies:
The Future of fMRI.
It is not feasible to redo 40,000 fMRI studies, and lamentable archiving and data-sharing practices mean most could not be reanalyzed either. Considering that it is now possible to evaluate common statistical methods using real fMRI data, the fMRI community should, in our opinion, focus on validation of existing methods. The main drawback of a permutation test is the increase in computational complexity, as the group analysis needs to be repeated 1,000–10,000 times. However, this increased processing time is not a problem in practice, as for typical sample sizes a desktop computer can run a permutation test for neuroimaging data in less than a minute (27, 43). Although we note that metaanalysis can play an important role in teasing apart false-positive findings from consistent results, that does not mitigate the need for accurate inferential tools that give valid results for each and every study.
Finally, we point out the key role that data sharing played in this work and its impact in the future. Although our massive empirical study depended on shared data, it is disappointing that almost none of the published studies have shared their data, neither the original data nor even the 3D statistical maps. As no analysis method is perfect, and new problems and limitations will be certainly found in the future, we commend all authors to at least share their statistical results [e.g., via NeuroVault.org (44)] and ideally the full data [e.g., via OpenfMRI.org (7)]. Such shared data provide enormous opportunities for methodologists, but also the ability to revisit results when methods improve years later.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Correcting Drudge
Today's Drudge headline should read:
LAWS ARE FOR LITTLE PEOPLE - except for certain minorities and illegal aliens and Muslims and any DemocratHere's the money quote from Comey:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.Translation: any prosecutor who messes with the leftist Candidate with a vagina will be killed, figuratively and possibly literally - and they all know it. And its a moot point anyway because the DOJ only employs leftist Hillary donors as prosecutors, and they prosecute only small fry:
" In 2011, Army Private Chelsea Manning was charged with multiple felonies and faced decades in prison for leaking documents that she firmly believed the public had the right to see; unlike the documents Clinton recklessly mishandled, none of those was Top Secret. Nonetheless, this is what then-Secretary Clinton said in justifying her prosecution:I now predict that Hillary will, in fact, win. The nation no longer cares about much of anything beyond new phones and selfies for facebook. Oh and abortion - I almost forgot.
'I think that in an age where so much information is flying through cyberspace, we all have to be aware of the fact that some information which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships, deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so.'"
But You Already Knew This
Clinton is invulnerable to prosecution, even for obvious high crimes and treason. Total lawlessness at the highest levels is now fully established as the modus operandi for Leftist government parasites.
Software as Mind; Today's Response.
WF's current thoughts are HERE.
I don't think that I have made my position clear, so I will attempt to elaborate in order to clarify it. You (WF) say this:
Here I will argue that if the human mind is to be shown reducible to software, thereby demonstrating that the human mind is likely to be merely physical in nature, then the software must demonstrate the ability to produce all (sum total) of the processes which are available to the human mind. This seems hardly arguable, but the current demonstration is limited to the presumptively simple processes, and does not argue for the ability to replicate the most complex or sum total of the human mind's intellectual and emotional capacities. In fact, by agreeing that humans are not automatons, you seem to agree to the opposite, that human agency shows non-determinism in the human mind.
In order to make the case that the mind is purely a physical entity, more than mere analogies would be required (especially analogies to purely physical items which are dependent, not independent agents). In fact, without any actual data now or possibly ever, no empirical statements can be made on the subject. So the case being made is purely inferential in nature, and other than being based in organic analogy, it is based on a presumptive ability to replicate the complete function of human minds in deterministic computer software, comprehensive programming which runs freely, and which creates agency and all the functions of human minds.
The question becomes what then, exactly, are the range, limits and full categorical capacities of the human mind which are to be produced in the combination of software and hardware? This is absolutely necessary if human mind is to be completely reproduced in computer technology. And if the whole mind cannot be fully reproduced in software, then the claim of total physical existence for the complete mind is not supported by the software analogy.
So far in this discussion, the first step is made by limiting the range and limits of human mind to “rational thought”, a small subset of human mind and hardly used by some minds. By starting with the presumptively deterministic nature of rational thought, it is said to be replicable in software. I’ll argue against this detail in a bit. First, a comparison of software and hardware state machine decisions to rational deduction.
The nature of analytical rational thought is different from the design of IF/THEN (note 1)decision points in software; here’s why: basic rational deductive analysis starts with a proposed “truth statement” which is to be analyzed. It will be declared undeniably valid and true IFF a series of syllogisms exist which are grounded in First Principles, have premises which are previously shown to be deductively true and valid, and which are necessary and sufficient to cause the "truth statement” to be known to be immutably true. These premises are originally not known to exist, and therefore must be created, crafted carefully using the principles of Aristotelian grounded deduction for guaranteeing the truth of each premise in the chain of premises.
While this looks similar to the design of IF/THEN decisions, it is not the same. The software design starts with the conclusion being defined as the desired outcome of known inputs; the task of the designer is to accumulate or fabricate the correct inputs which cause the output to occur (be true) when the time is appropriate, or conversely, to produce the desired output when the previously existing inputs are properly asserted. This is designation (design), not analysis. There is no need to analyze the premises/inputs, because they are obviously required by the design in order to produce the necessary output, so they must already exist and be valid by definition by the time the output is required. The process is deterministic. Both process and outcome are known in advance, by design.
It is vastly more work and complexity to have to discover a chain of grounded true and valid premises which will support the truth of a proposed “truth statement” which actually might not be true at all, and thus not have premises which even exist. So the IF/THEN when used in code is not the same as the IF/THEN of Aristotelian deductive analysis. Further, I don’t believe it can be shown with any conviction that the sequitur nature (logically follows of demonstrable necessity and sufficiency) of an analytical argument can be deduced by software, especially when it is not known in advance. Given that, then it would not be even remotely possible to design a deterministic analysis of a stand-alone proposition of a “truth statement”. This presents as a lock-out, a falsification of the concept of software as mind, even at the rational level.
Another obstacle is the determination of self-evident, axiomatic First Principles for grounding (note 2) the argument; can software be designed which would discover or at least agree that X, but not Y, is intuitively and obviously a universal truth due solely to its “self-evidence”, both ontologically and epistemologically? I doubt this to the extent that it strongly appears to be a lock-out, a falsifier for the concept of software as mind.
And how would experimental programs be designed by software, based only on inductive observations but requiring the elimination of non-essential variables, noise and external influences, bad instrumentation, non-linear processes, etc., in pursuit of isolating the cause for an effect? Could software be motivated to design new electronic/optical/quantum machinery and test equipment specific to an experimental application? Would a failed experiment suggest to software either a better experiment, or a better hypothesis? This is another point of doubtful ability of software, running freely and replicating human minds, to the point of the appearance of lock-out, another falsifier for the concept of software as mind.
Again, the task of demonstrating conclusively that the entirety of the human mind reduces to material existence is far and away more complex than attempting to fulfill with software the very limited (yet very daunting) task of deductive analysis under the discipline of Aristotelian principles… as simple as those principles are for a mind to understand and use. Analysis by this method is creative, because it requires fabricating new premises that not only are individually true and valid, but also as a chain of premises are necessary and sufficient to support the conclusion. I doubt that computer software can produce any creativity beyond the algorithmic level and here I’m thinking Chaos Theory and repetitive calculation with previous results as input data (frequently vaunted as “creative”, but actually not).
Even more creative is the stacking of premises which are true and valid in the pursuit of a previously unknown conclusion. Even humans have trouble with this, as the Darwinian “sciences” demonstrate. In Darwinian inferential logic, premises are created and stacked without concern for their absolute truth, being concerned only with appearance and inference. However the process produces the new conclusions of evolution and common descent, as its product. While the evidence does not immutably support the conclusion, the process is a valid abductive approach using Peirce’s logic of inference. So subjective inference is used rather than empirical contingent facts.
Inference to conclusion never produces immutable, incorrigible truth, and its use for truth claims is bogus. Another example of this is the use of Baye’s probability inference, which is wide open to misuse due to injection of personal bias. Bayesian calculations work well when used with previously observed empirical probabilities, but not with non-empirical, subjectively inferred probabilities. Selecting appropriate premises for Bayesian use is a very difficult procedure, and it is doubtful that such selection could be reduced to software.
Returning to the point made at the beginning: what are the full capacities of the human mind? What range and limits exist to human intellect, emotion, creativity, analytic capacity, etc.? Can specifications even be developed which fully define the complete human mind? What about genius level thought? Software must work at genius level (or beyond) if it is to cover all human minds.
Further, what about qualia? What about full comprehension of the implications of an accumulation of disparate facts? What about skepticism, solipsism, pyrrhonianism? What about the obsessive search for purpose? Self-focused, even narcissistic purpose? The list is enormous.
Finally, to address the issue of desire as a force, I think that terminology is confusing. If desire is, in fact, a unique physical, deterministic force, then it exists outside and beyond the four known physical forces (note 3), which would make it non-physical, non-material and a disproof of the concept of physical-only mind. It seems to me to be more appropriately termed a motivation, rather than a physical force. While a desire might be causal for certain effects, the "desire to conquer Europe" is difficult to pin to any physical entity in the brain, and it seems even less likely to arise automatically from general purpose software which is replicating human minds. In fact, desire - being irrational and even antirational - shows the necessity of the software's ability to generate irrational adherence to fallacious pursuits, ideologies, and subjective opinion over fact, because that is part of the human mind, too.
To conclude, the full range of the complete human mind must be shown to be replicable in software if the computer analogy to mind is to be supported. I doubt that this is possible, and the falsifiers given above seem much more likely than the ability of software to accomplish the replication of the whole, complete human mind in all its array of complexity. This skeptical conclusion, based in probable falsifiers, serves only as an argument against the software theory of mind, and not against any other theory of the purely physical existence of mind; other theories would require other analyses.
NOTES:
1. There are other uses of IF/THEN statements, too. (a) "Fit of pique": IF she goes, THEN I'm staying here. (b) "Pragmatism": IF my keys aren't found, THEN we can't get in the house. (c) "Forecast": IF it rains hard tonight, THEN the ground will be too muddy to play pick-up baseball tomorrow (therefore, we'll go to the matinee instead).
2. Grounding in self-evident axioms (e.g., First Principles) is necessary to avoid either the infinite regression of premises, or the circular, self-referencing premises (Appeal to Self-Authority Fallacy).
3. The four forces known to physics are gravity, electromagnetism, weak subatomic, and strong subatomic.
I don't think that I have made my position clear, so I will attempt to elaborate in order to clarify it. You (WF) say this:
"Let's start with a few basic assumptions, even if only for the sake of argument. If we suppose that our minds have:But it is not the limited areas of what minds have that produces any knowledge of the total physical existence of the whole, complete human mind. If the human mind is to be shown to be completely physical, then the entire mind in all its aspects must be demonstrated to be physical. In the software analogy then, that means that the most complex and most disparate aspects must be shown to be replicable in deterministic software. (Perhaps that is where you are headed here, but I'm not sure).
1. The desire to understand the worldThen (to my thinking) that covers the areas of the human condition that we've discussed."
2. The concept of good / better
3. The desire to exercise our own agency
Here I will argue that if the human mind is to be shown reducible to software, thereby demonstrating that the human mind is likely to be merely physical in nature, then the software must demonstrate the ability to produce all (sum total) of the processes which are available to the human mind. This seems hardly arguable, but the current demonstration is limited to the presumptively simple processes, and does not argue for the ability to replicate the most complex or sum total of the human mind's intellectual and emotional capacities. In fact, by agreeing that humans are not automatons, you seem to agree to the opposite, that human agency shows non-determinism in the human mind.
In order to make the case that the mind is purely a physical entity, more than mere analogies would be required (especially analogies to purely physical items which are dependent, not independent agents). In fact, without any actual data now or possibly ever, no empirical statements can be made on the subject. So the case being made is purely inferential in nature, and other than being based in organic analogy, it is based on a presumptive ability to replicate the complete function of human minds in deterministic computer software, comprehensive programming which runs freely, and which creates agency and all the functions of human minds.
The question becomes what then, exactly, are the range, limits and full categorical capacities of the human mind which are to be produced in the combination of software and hardware? This is absolutely necessary if human mind is to be completely reproduced in computer technology. And if the whole mind cannot be fully reproduced in software, then the claim of total physical existence for the complete mind is not supported by the software analogy.
So far in this discussion, the first step is made by limiting the range and limits of human mind to “rational thought”, a small subset of human mind and hardly used by some minds. By starting with the presumptively deterministic nature of rational thought, it is said to be replicable in software. I’ll argue against this detail in a bit. First, a comparison of software and hardware state machine decisions to rational deduction.
The nature of analytical rational thought is different from the design of IF/THEN (note 1)decision points in software; here’s why: basic rational deductive analysis starts with a proposed “truth statement” which is to be analyzed. It will be declared undeniably valid and true IFF a series of syllogisms exist which are grounded in First Principles, have premises which are previously shown to be deductively true and valid, and which are necessary and sufficient to cause the "truth statement” to be known to be immutably true. These premises are originally not known to exist, and therefore must be created, crafted carefully using the principles of Aristotelian grounded deduction for guaranteeing the truth of each premise in the chain of premises.
While this looks similar to the design of IF/THEN decisions, it is not the same. The software design starts with the conclusion being defined as the desired outcome of known inputs; the task of the designer is to accumulate or fabricate the correct inputs which cause the output to occur (be true) when the time is appropriate, or conversely, to produce the desired output when the previously existing inputs are properly asserted. This is designation (design), not analysis. There is no need to analyze the premises/inputs, because they are obviously required by the design in order to produce the necessary output, so they must already exist and be valid by definition by the time the output is required. The process is deterministic. Both process and outcome are known in advance, by design.
It is vastly more work and complexity to have to discover a chain of grounded true and valid premises which will support the truth of a proposed “truth statement” which actually might not be true at all, and thus not have premises which even exist. So the IF/THEN when used in code is not the same as the IF/THEN of Aristotelian deductive analysis. Further, I don’t believe it can be shown with any conviction that the sequitur nature (logically follows of demonstrable necessity and sufficiency) of an analytical argument can be deduced by software, especially when it is not known in advance. Given that, then it would not be even remotely possible to design a deterministic analysis of a stand-alone proposition of a “truth statement”. This presents as a lock-out, a falsification of the concept of software as mind, even at the rational level.
Another obstacle is the determination of self-evident, axiomatic First Principles for grounding (note 2) the argument; can software be designed which would discover or at least agree that X, but not Y, is intuitively and obviously a universal truth due solely to its “self-evidence”, both ontologically and epistemologically? I doubt this to the extent that it strongly appears to be a lock-out, a falsifier for the concept of software as mind.
And how would experimental programs be designed by software, based only on inductive observations but requiring the elimination of non-essential variables, noise and external influences, bad instrumentation, non-linear processes, etc., in pursuit of isolating the cause for an effect? Could software be motivated to design new electronic/optical/quantum machinery and test equipment specific to an experimental application? Would a failed experiment suggest to software either a better experiment, or a better hypothesis? This is another point of doubtful ability of software, running freely and replicating human minds, to the point of the appearance of lock-out, another falsifier for the concept of software as mind.
Again, the task of demonstrating conclusively that the entirety of the human mind reduces to material existence is far and away more complex than attempting to fulfill with software the very limited (yet very daunting) task of deductive analysis under the discipline of Aristotelian principles… as simple as those principles are for a mind to understand and use. Analysis by this method is creative, because it requires fabricating new premises that not only are individually true and valid, but also as a chain of premises are necessary and sufficient to support the conclusion. I doubt that computer software can produce any creativity beyond the algorithmic level and here I’m thinking Chaos Theory and repetitive calculation with previous results as input data (frequently vaunted as “creative”, but actually not).
Even more creative is the stacking of premises which are true and valid in the pursuit of a previously unknown conclusion. Even humans have trouble with this, as the Darwinian “sciences” demonstrate. In Darwinian inferential logic, premises are created and stacked without concern for their absolute truth, being concerned only with appearance and inference. However the process produces the new conclusions of evolution and common descent, as its product. While the evidence does not immutably support the conclusion, the process is a valid abductive approach using Peirce’s logic of inference. So subjective inference is used rather than empirical contingent facts.
Inference to conclusion never produces immutable, incorrigible truth, and its use for truth claims is bogus. Another example of this is the use of Baye’s probability inference, which is wide open to misuse due to injection of personal bias. Bayesian calculations work well when used with previously observed empirical probabilities, but not with non-empirical, subjectively inferred probabilities. Selecting appropriate premises for Bayesian use is a very difficult procedure, and it is doubtful that such selection could be reduced to software.
Returning to the point made at the beginning: what are the full capacities of the human mind? What range and limits exist to human intellect, emotion, creativity, analytic capacity, etc.? Can specifications even be developed which fully define the complete human mind? What about genius level thought? Software must work at genius level (or beyond) if it is to cover all human minds.
Further, what about qualia? What about full comprehension of the implications of an accumulation of disparate facts? What about skepticism, solipsism, pyrrhonianism? What about the obsessive search for purpose? Self-focused, even narcissistic purpose? The list is enormous.
Finally, to address the issue of desire as a force, I think that terminology is confusing. If desire is, in fact, a unique physical, deterministic force, then it exists outside and beyond the four known physical forces (note 3), which would make it non-physical, non-material and a disproof of the concept of physical-only mind. It seems to me to be more appropriately termed a motivation, rather than a physical force. While a desire might be causal for certain effects, the "desire to conquer Europe" is difficult to pin to any physical entity in the brain, and it seems even less likely to arise automatically from general purpose software which is replicating human minds. In fact, desire - being irrational and even antirational - shows the necessity of the software's ability to generate irrational adherence to fallacious pursuits, ideologies, and subjective opinion over fact, because that is part of the human mind, too.
To conclude, the full range of the complete human mind must be shown to be replicable in software if the computer analogy to mind is to be supported. I doubt that this is possible, and the falsifiers given above seem much more likely than the ability of software to accomplish the replication of the whole, complete human mind in all its array of complexity. This skeptical conclusion, based in probable falsifiers, serves only as an argument against the software theory of mind, and not against any other theory of the purely physical existence of mind; other theories would require other analyses.
NOTES:
1. There are other uses of IF/THEN statements, too. (a) "Fit of pique": IF she goes, THEN I'm staying here. (b) "Pragmatism": IF my keys aren't found, THEN we can't get in the house. (c) "Forecast": IF it rains hard tonight, THEN the ground will be too muddy to play pick-up baseball tomorrow (therefore, we'll go to the matinee instead).
2. Grounding in self-evident axioms (e.g., First Principles) is necessary to avoid either the infinite regression of premises, or the circular, self-referencing premises (Appeal to Self-Authority Fallacy).
3. The four forces known to physics are gravity, electromagnetism, weak subatomic, and strong subatomic.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Quote of the Day
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.From Ed Driscoll, at Instapundit
—Calvin Coolidge, Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia on July 5, 1926.
Monday, July 4, 2016
Clinton Skates?
The corruption continues
As if we needed more confirmation that there is no rule of law in the USA:
According to sources that are familiar with the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton‘s use of a private email server, the former Secretary of State is not expected to face charges in the probe. This, according to CNN’s Senior Producer Edward Mejia Davis, who took to Twitter shortly ago to indicate the likely announcement of “no charges”:The world of the 1980s appears to have gone full circle. The Americans are evil totalitarians bent on global conquest through their third-world proxies, the Russians are good guys defending Christianity, and Italy's politicians are less criminal and corrupt than their US counterparts.
Edward Mejia Davis @TeddyDavisCNN
Sources tell CNN's Evan Perez: expectation is that there will be announcement of no charges in Clinton email probe w/in next two weeks or so
[Emphasis Added.]
Sunday, July 3, 2016
Reason Rally: Once "Firebrand in the Belly", Now, More Like Post-Party Intellectual Indigestion..
VOX writer Emmett Rensin goes to the Reason Rally; returns without "reasons":
American atheists are on the rise. They have radically different visions of the future.The comparison to a convention of Non-stamp collectors is interesting. Read the entire article HERE. It's interesting.
Reason Rally 2016 believes science can cure the social ills of religion. But it isn't sure what a "healthy" society will look like.
What that voting bloc looks like is less certain. Decker is not proposing the formation of a new political party, and from the long list of Reason Rally's sponsors his movement suffers no dearth of extant advocacy organizations. Among the stated goals of this year's Reason Rally are comprehensive sex education, acceptance of climate science, and an end to discrimination against the gay community.
Is this only the Democratic Party, in secularly inflected tones? Several speakers in a row refer to what is being built as a "progressive" movement, but do speakers like Penn Jillette know? Do the attendees?
The first Reason Rally was more strident. It was militant — a celebration of defiance animated by a clear purpose, a style more typical of New Atheism as it has developed in the United States over the past 20 years, fleshed out by leaders like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and lately as much dedicated to a disdain of the excesses of identitarian liberalism as to any particular account of empirical triumph.
Four years ago, Dawkins encouraged attendees to "ridicule" the faithful. As the Atlantic's Green reported then, "a band fired up the crowd with a rousing sound that lampooned the belief in ‘Jesus coming again', mixing it with sexual innuendo … Attendees sported t-shirts and signs with slogans like 'I prefer facts' and 'religious is like a penis' (involving a rather extended metaphor)."
This year, it is difficult to imagine that the organizers haven't asked the speakers to limit their politics, to remain "on-message" and positive. There is no denouncement of religion, only its consequences. There are no attendees holding signs that say "BAN GOD." There is nothing quite so pointed this time, but without this animating antagonism, what is left?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)