> On 12/20/14 6:14 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: >> Suppose you had a device that could read brain waves and determine whether >> someone believed in [a]theism. Since this wouldn't be a diagnosis based on >> behavior would it get at what you want?
Yes, that would be very nice. I'd first use it on myself to see if my friends are right. I've often found that others have insight into my personality that I simply don't have. Next, I'd use it on them to see if they were right about themselves. Then I'd probably use it on my mom ... but I probably wouldn't tell her the result... or I might have to lie. After going through all that, I'd probably try it out on my cats. I get the distinct feeling they're more rational than I'll ever be. On 12/20/2014 06:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > And how would this device be calibrated? It's measurements validated? I have in mind a device that comes with a decent body of mechanistic theory. If it didn't have such, and calibration and validation were mysterious... metaphysical... then it would not be solving any of the problems I have for it. So, the calibration of it would probably work much like that of an MRI or CT scanner. The diagnosis wouldn't be all that magical. However, having had 2 PETs and something like 6 CTs in the past 2 years, I can say that the radiologists are engaged in some mystical hermeneutics! I love the little details they deem fit to jot down or fit to ignore. p.s. What's with all the accusations of [SPAM]? -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Throw the switches, prime the charge, ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
