Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Huh? (Score 1) 140

by Knuckles (#48336179) Attached to: Robot Makes People Feel Like a Ghost Is Nearby

It gets interesting later:

To verify the response, the researchers conducted another study in which four researchers stood in the room. Participants were told that while they were blindfolded and operating the machine, some experimenters might approach them without actually touching them. The researchers told participants to estimate the number of people close to them at regular intervals. In reality, no researcher ever approached the participants. Yet people who experienced a delayed touch on their back felt more strongly that other people were close to them, counting up to four people when none existed.

Maybe I am blindfolded, but what's interesting about this? Test subjects were blindfolded in a room with people and were told those people would come close to them but not touch them. Then something poked them, which due to desyncronization they could not relate to their actions. So they concluded that someone was poking them. And being in an uncomfortable situation (blindfolded with people in the room, operating a machine of unknown purpose - or did they know it was a poking machine?), being doubtful if the researchers had spoken the truth about coming close but not touching (because this is what you think about in the situation), and figuring that there must be some purpose to this experiment (because this is what you do), some people guessed more people were actually in the room. Big whoop?

Comment: Re:In spite of this and other similar phenomena... (Score 1) 140

by Knuckles (#48336005) Attached to: Robot Makes People Feel Like a Ghost Is Nearby

I can't speak for most people, but from my own perspective I don't see a conflict between "dualism" and objective empirical explanations for all human behavior. :)

From the outside, there is no verifiable reason to believe in anything beyond the (philosophical) atoms that make everything up, but Consciousness isn't about externally verifiable phenomenon. It is about subjective experience..., and while a sufficiently complex network of switches could in theory behave in an externally, verifiably, identical way to a person (i.e. essentially a biological robot), I personally have an "internal" perception of experiencing things consciously.

That seems to leave me with three options:
1) Due to unexplainable and unverifiable mystical-magical emergent properties of the organization of matter, I have a bone fide subjective experience from complex combinations of consciousness-free matter.
2) All matter has inherent consciousness properties and thus everything has a spirit (animism)
3) People are special and have a "soul"

Which of these options you choose to believe is your own business. I hope you can speak about it respectfully with others, not try to compel them to comply with your own opinion, and stand up for your beliefs in the presence of someone else trying to compel you of theirs. Cheers!

+1 for the AC
And since I already posted, 2 questions:

It has been well known for a very long time that unexpected temporal relationships between our actions and sensory impressions do weird things to our perception. Like if you turn off the light and by coincidence a sound goes off outside in the exact same moment. How is this new research so unexpected then?

How does the temporal action-result distortion in this experiment explain anything about "ghost" experiences as they are more commonly described, where the situation created in the experiment does not exist at all? Like the Reinhold Messner story in in another article about the experiment?. Other than there being other ways to induce a similar experience - but I don't believe in ghosts in the first place, so there was never a doubt that this experience can somehow be induced.


Why the iPhone 6 Has the Same Base Memory As the iPhone 5 264

Posted by timothy
from the enough-is-enough-for-anybody dept.
Lucas123 writes When the iPhone 5 was launched two years ago, the base $199 (with wireless plan) model came with 16GB of flash memory. Fast forward to this week when the iPhone 6 was launched with the same capacity. Now consider that the cost of 16GB of NAND flash has dropped by more than 13% over the past two years. So why would Apple increase capacity on its $299 model iPhone 6 to 64GB (eliminating the 32GB model), but but keep the 16GB in the $199 model? The answer may lie in the fact that the 16GB iPhone is, and has been, by far the best selling model. IHS analyst Fang Zhang believes Apple is using that to push users to its iCloud storage service. Others believe restricting storage capacity allows Apple to afford the new features, like NFC and biometrics.

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll