Friday, April 13, 2007

New Brain Mapping


Brain imaging and mapping technologies are becoming more mainstream and many researchers are trying to figure out why we do some of the things we do.

By using these technologies, Duke University researchers discovered that activity in a certain region of the brain can predict altruistic or selfish behaviors as described at the following site: Biological Psychology Links

These researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging and found the scans revealed that a part of the brain called the posterior superior temporal sulcus was activated to a greater degree when people perceived an action, rather than when they acted themselves. In other words, brain activity was greater when subjects watched the computer play the game rather than playing it themselves.

Researchers believe that this altruistic behavior may originate from how people view the world rather than from how they act in it.

Although we strive to find answers to why some individuals are intrinsically more altruistic, kind, loving, or generous, we still cannot answer this with just knowing what area of the brain is activated.

Scientists can hypothesize, but the question still remains;
Is this area of the brain activated because the individual is more altruistic or is the individual more altruistic because this area of the brain is more active?

It is back to the chicken and egg hypothesis. Depending on your worldview, this can be a difficult question to answer. For others, it is very simple and straightforward.

Labels: ,

37 Comments:

Blogger Apolo-ener-getic said...

As your piece nicely points out, the scientist can examine brain properties through monitoring the increase and decrease in the brain activity, but they can't examine brain "states" or mental properties. They can only get that information from the subject they are testing.



In defense of the soul. some scholars have given up on the existence of the soul, because they believe the soul is something that the brain does. The soul is explained by some scholars as a physical process--because they deny a supernatural realm of reality--everything that is really-real has to be explained purely from natural causes.



If physicalism/materialism is true, then our moral actions are determined by our brains, genes, or environment. But free will, free choice, immaterial egos, intentionality or "being about our world", and our having "feelings" about our feelings invalidates the idea that our personality is a property of our brain matter.



This is important for those who would hold Christian ideas of reality, because for Christian discipleship/growth it depends on one having the capacity to develop other capacities in order to overcome various sinful habits and strongholds.

4/13/2007 06:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What?

4/13/2007 06:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How nice! A visit from the charming and always incomprehensible Mrs. HB.

4/14/2007 09:47:00 AM  
Blogger Apolo-ener-getic said...

Choosing to respond to my comments is evidence of your free-will. It is an example that you are intentionally acting on the world. The person(s) called "anonymous" are being "about" their world.

Thanks for the demonstration--it helps make the comments more--comprehensible, so-to-say,. I will continue to work on my capacity to be comprehensible.

4/14/2007 12:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not sure that free-will is involved when there is such a tempting target. Seems more like an instinctive reaction hard coded into the evolved human brain.

4/14/2007 04:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I consider myself an educated person, as well as a Christian.

But what in the world is going on in this post? "apolo-ener-getic" is trying way too hard to sound smart.

I feel dumber after reading these postings.

4/14/2007 08:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In regards to "apolo-ener-getic's" little...well...whatever that was, it seems that both Mr. and Mrs. HB have trouble sticking to the point. So far, Mrs. HB has brought up about 6 different topics.(these topics being, brain properties, the soul, scholars who deny the existence of the soul/supernatural realm, Whether or not physicalism/materialism is true, free will, and a christian's decipleship/growth). They appear to be jumbled up into some sentences in hopes that it will all make sense in the end.

I have to say though, I like your tactic. Next time I'm trying to explain myself, I'll just bring up a million different points and when the other person tries to prove I'm wrong, odds are I have already talked about something that I can bring back up and act like it was my point all along.

(kind of like how you brought "free will back up in your second comment," and then acted like that was your whole point in the first place!!)

I agree with anonymous 8:42 pm, you are trying to hard to sound smart. But that's ok, because I'm sure Mr. HB will agree with you. He is after all your husband.

4/15/2007 12:00:00 AM  
Blogger The New Albanian said...

... having the capacity to develop other capacities in order to overcome various sinful habits and strongholds.

"Sin" -- now there's a concept ...

4/15/2007 03:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What?

4/15/2007 04:23:00 PM  
Blogger Apolo-ener-getic said...

Point A: (a new point)
Whether one is a believer in a supernatural realm or a non-believer, being thoughtful and accountable for one's ideas of reality are important.

Point B:
Christian discipleship/growth is important and threatened when some scholars explain the mind as a property of the brain or something the brain "does", because it contradicts the idea of free-will.

Point C: Evidence of the "mind" being a separate "substance" from the brain matter is robust.

Point D: Free-will makes good/evil possible. The choices one makes using free-will can create or prevent evil/good.

I don't "intend to be incomprehensible which may be perceived as a sort of "sin" as the Newalbanian pointed out.

Yet, in all fairness, some intend to resist being "thoughtful" on these topics.

4/15/2007 07:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was that Yiddish?

strike three.

4/15/2007 10:27:00 PM  
Blogger Apolo-ener-getic said...

Communicating a mental state of confusion (Yiddish) is not dialogue, let alone a "winning" argument.(strike)

Communicating by "smack" is commonly driven by disrespect and laziness. It does give some a chuckle which I admit has some value to those with competitive spirits and who don't really care about the topic. The topic's key words are brain + worldview which are appropriate to the points I have made.

"Smack" types of communication recently resulted in a ?popular radio talk show host being held accountable AND responsible for disrespect towards those who wanted to be taken seriously. He was shamed and fired from his show.

Smack is a "less" evolved form of communication. This would be important for those who hold an idea that mankind's hope is in man's ability to reason and "evolve". It weakens our culture through weakening relationships (even if only a fellow blogger conversation) with disrespect and laziness.

Serious and functional responses typically involve agreeing, disagreeing and/or expressing your own alternate explanation, or additional comments to clarify.

Real questions are helpful.

I can accept that some think my comments are stupid, but I won't get pulled into "verbal sparring" for the sake of "a kill". There's a better way.

FYI: I do not feel "victorious" when I confuse people, but I respect those who read this blog enough to know their confusion is a lie. They just disagree with my points. If the event that the actual conversation doesn't progress, I will sign off with 1-for free-will and the problem of sin and evil existing and the rest against the idea.

4/16/2007 07:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought you were making a lot of sense in you last posting until you said: "but I respect those who read this blog enough to know their confusion is a lie. They just disagree with my points."

You and HB sure do like to jump to your own conclusions about other people and their motives. I can tell you in all honesty that I find most of your writings on spirituality to be totally confusing. I suspect that most folks outside your belief system have no idea what you are talking about.

4/16/2007 07:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 7:30,

As a Christian, I suppose Mrs HB's belief system would be similar to mine. But like you, I'm not really sure because her rants don't make any sense.

What's the use of intellectual ideas if you can't explain them? Everyone can have ideas; fewer can intelligently discuss them.

4/16/2007 08:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

apolo-ener-getic is discussing what is broadly termed the philosophy of the mind. I'm not a trained philosopher, so it is difficult for me to tell how much ability (understanding) she has in this area, however, this statement is interesting:

"Christian discipleship/growth is important and threatened when some scholars explain the mind as a property of the brain or something the brain "does", because it contradicts the idea of free-will."

4/16/2007 09:58:00 AM  
Blogger Apolo-ener-getic said...

An anonymous blooger increasingly frustrated, writes,

"You and HB sure do like to jump to your own conclusions about other people and their motives. I can tell you in all honesty that I find most of your writings on spirituality to be totally confusing. I suspect that most folks outside your belief system have no idea what you are talking about."

I've tried to use words that are "less" churchy or Christian to aid the discussion, yet, I get accused of trying to confuse.

So, what words are useable/comfortable words for you to discuss the soul and how one's ideas of the material-brain-matter and the mind/intellect/soul's relationship affects one's worldview?

I believe that one's ideas of reality about brain matter and soul's relationship greatly affect whether or not they believe it is even possible to "choose/change" their mental states and physical responses to the world and their natural desires.

The existence of free-will, evil, sin and God create a huge amount of confusion.

The confusion creates a need to work through the ideas for the sake of clarity.

Yet, church/spiritual/Christian words and ideas are seemingly intellectual turn-offs to many.

Many believe spirituality isn't tied to anything possibly knowable or intellectual. Essentially, that God left us here to stay in a state of confusion.

I disagree.

I come to the blog to look for "thinkers" to discuss specific ideas that compete with mine--not for the sake of competition.

I will try to be more helpful, but
the conversation cannot progress if the only conclusion is that I am confusing and fellow bloggers are confused.

I am not trying to be confusing, yet, I am getting no counters to my ideas, just statements that I am confusing and the bloggers are confused.

If you don't agree with my take on human "nature". If you don't agree that "free-will, sin, evil, the capacity to learn other capacities" are related to views and findings in the current brain science HB posted, then, give an optional view, like give a response regarding...
1. Your ideas about the "mind/personality/ego"?
2. Where the substance/essence/spirit of you comes from?
3. What the characteristics of the mind/soul/spirit are...?
4. Seemingly common desires of the human soul?
5. Is the mind/spirit/soul all/some/no good or evil? Examples?

Or you could ask a specific question about a word I am using or a weakness in my chain of thought or statement to help clarify.

The fact that some don't agree with me doesn't necessarily prove a weakness in the strength/validity of my ideas.

4/16/2007 11:06:00 AM  
Blogger Apolo-ener-getic said...

Anonymous makes a good point. If there was proof that the mind/soul is a product or property of the brain, then...we are aren't responsible for when we are confusing. One would think this would draw me towards this idea. Yet, I feel like I have a capacity to learn how to communicate better, so I haven't changed my mind that the soul is a separate substance--even though there is a motive to do so.

When I am using the word property it is like red in "red hair". I could change the property of hair by dying it another color, but it would still be hair. Hair is the substance, red is a property of the hair.

Is the soul a property of the material-brain-matter? What do you think? Is it a property or a separate "substance" from brain matter?

4/16/2007 11:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you are nuts and have way too much time on your hands.

4/16/2007 12:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

apolo-ener-getic,
I get what you are saying; bloggers are not stating what they don't understand or asking you to explain your thoughts. What they are is threatened because you are obviously intelligent. They do not want to put the time and energy in to understanding so they just attack. They are also afraid they will be attacked back for appearance of less intelligence in their writing. It is a big smoke screen. I will just say up front my thoughts, grammar, spelling will not measure up to yours. Not because I can’t I am just too lazy, so I will apologize in advance.

My personal thoughts are I do agree with your ideas. I do have a hard time understanding what you are saying without taking time to break it apart. Thank you for challenging me to think, we all NEED that! As a Christian I would say it is better to present your information lighter, so others aren't threatened by Christianity. We have to be available at every level. It is more important to get the love of God across than to confuse people with deep thinking. It is not that they can't understand they don't want to and will use it as an excuse. Please don't be offended by what I am saying. I am not judging you it is just a thought.

You are very intelligent and people including myself (which I am sure you can tell from my thoughts) need to be challenged to improve our intelligence. You know how the saying goes use it or lose it.

I also realize you are going to be attacked no matter what. It is just easier to win people over in time through a relationship.

4/16/2007 12:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does "robust" mean something different in Crazyland than it does here?

4/16/2007 01:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The bullshit detector is going off

4/16/2007 02:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

apolo-ener-getic, you wrote:

"I will try to be more helpful, but the conversation cannot progress if the only conclusion is that I am confusing and fellow bloggers are confused. "

The burden is on you to write more clearly and concisely. You use twice as many words as you need to in an effort to sound intelligent. Honing your writing skills is where you should begin in your attempts to correct the cloud of confusion you have created. The problem at this point is yours and yours alone.

As a Christian, few things are more frustrating than seeing people turned off to what God has to offer because of people who, despite thrusting themselves into the middle of it, are unable to clearly communicate the message.

When you are able to intelligently discuss your ideas, I'm sure more people will be willing to debate you. It is ridiculous for you to accuse others of stonewalling when you are unable to provide a clear statement of your beliefs.

4/16/2007 05:10:00 PM  
Blogger Apolo-ener-getic said...

Anonymous responded,

"As a Christian I would say it is better to present your information lighter, so others aren't threatened by Christianity. We have to be available at every level. It is more important to get the love of God across than to confuse people with deep thinking. It is not that they can't understand they don't want to and will use it as an excuse. Please don't be offended by what I am saying. I am not judging you it is just a thought."

I don't disagree with what you are saying and I appreciate your support and the point you are making. I don't communicate at this level most of the time, but I really believe HB's blog draws a crowd that could discuss topics like this on this level.

If I put some of my ideas in writing, then I need to be open to questions about those ideas. But there were no questions, mostly criticism about me.

I don't think what I wrote is as confusing as some have claimed. I am not saying it is "light" discussion, but it isn't beyond this crowd.

I couldn't contribute very much to a conversation about local politics, government and finances. There are many topics on this blog site that teach me things I never thought about.

This is an area of special interest to me. It is a topic that I know is related to the weakening of our culture--which is Christian and non-Christian.

The Christian faith has intellectual aspects. It always takes faith, but there are a lot of robust arguments and evidences that would support its claims and teachings as being valid and worthy of serious consideration.

Humans through history have shown an awareness of and have in general valued the soul as a substance distinct but sort of woven with the physical body. This idea of reality is important and deserves thoughtful consideration, whether one is Christian or non-Christian.

Bottomline:
Science has not proven that the soul is a property of physical brain matter. The soul is not something the brain matter "does". The soul is a distinct substance.

4/16/2007 06:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should science have to prove anything about a "soul"? That is a concept of your (and your co-believers) making.

It is quite a leap from a discussion of "free-will" to an assumption that a "soul" exists. I can prove that you have a physical brain and that you can think. I do not believe you can prove that you have a soul--you can only believe that you do.

4/16/2007 06:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, HB, did either you or the Mrs. read this study before commenting on it? You took the entire thing completely out of context.

(a) You neglected to mention the key element of the study: What happens when the game is over? What does it mean to win/lose? You didn't explain THE THING that connects the brain activity to the attribute. This is what makes the data meaningful, yes?
(b) You completely missed the implications of the data because... (c) It wasn’t about altruism, and it wasn’t about behavior. It was about perception of meaningful interactions. The findings would be useful because, as the article states, “…studying the brain systems that allow people to see the world as a series of meaningful interactions may ultimately help further understanding of disorders, such as autism…” It didn’t have anything to do with the soul, free will, or what makes us good or bad people.

Perhaps I should say the findings WOULD have been useful if the study weren’t flawed, but it was. I’d be happy explain all five reasons if anyone would like to know.

Your post was entirely off topic from the article, and Alpo’s comments were even further off topic from your post...

Alpo, I am a college-educated Christian with an IQ well above average, and I can't tell whether I'm challenged by what you're saying or not because I can't make any sense of it. I had to cut and paste your comments into Word, which helped a little, but I couldn't help coming back to the place where you said, "I will continue to work on my capacity to be comprehensible." Doesn't that very sentence demonstrate how "being understood" is NOT one of your utmost priorities? It's almost as if you're trying to sound even more like a robot (with a faulty chip--your grammar and verbiage is just a big ol' mess).

The "challenge" of this discussion should be derived from the nature of the topic rather than from our needing to diagram each sentence in order to figure out what you're saying. I think it has something to do with life, death, and the science of the soul. That’s an easy one. See: Laws of Thermodynamics.

I'm always fascinated by the human-imposed disconnect between science and God. I have yet to encounter any area of science that doesn't offer itself as proof of the existence of our Creator.

$

4/16/2007 07:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

apolo-ener-getic:

I share you Christian faith. But I do not share your arrogance that you have so vividly displayed in your postings.

As Christians, we are not to separate the world into the intelligent and the stupid. We are to always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks us for the reason for the hope that we have. That means we are ready to explain it regardless of the intellectual abilities of the person asking.

Your view is apparently that you are smarter than everyone else, and that somehow gives you a right to ridicule those who are not "on your level." That is disgusting.

Of course science cannot prove the existence, or non-existence, of the soul. But let's debate that without disparaging those who are unable to make heads or tails of your senseless ramblings.

Despite my post-graduate education, your writing is beyond comprehension. That is not because you are discussing something I can't understand. It's because you are incapable of explaining it in a coherent way.

As one commenter noted, the burden is on you to explain yourself, since you are the one who thrust yourself into this situation. But instead of taking the 'high road' and explaining yourself in English, you chose to become mired in the attacks and mud-slinging that was directed at you.

Whatever your motives, the result is clear. You have successfully torpedoed this discussion and rendered it useless.

4/16/2007 07:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4/17/2007 12:06:00 AM  
Blogger Apolo-ener-getic said...

I will agreeably--disagree that my points have no relationship to the article. I don't want to spend more energy on defending my motive and style. My motive and style have not been painted fairly in the responses.

I would be interested in hearing why the study was flawed. I am not a brain scientist. I hadn't thought that the study was bad "science".

I unsuccessfully tried to point out the dangers of interpreting brain-science studies. "Welding-together" the brain cells/physical-matter with the non-physical as though they were one substance. This weakens important ideas of reality that are supported in Scripture claims.

Your telling us how the study is flawed may help put the train back on the track. It might help minimize the emotions that I have unintentionally created.

BTW: anger is an emotion.

Yes, I am responsible for being confusing. But one or many anonymous bloggers have misread my emotions and intentions. I haven't intended to be arrogant or rude, I regret this outcome. I don't regret it enough that I won't continue to TRY to sharpen my skills.


I have suggested to my children when they are in conflict with one another, don't be aggravating or easily aggravated. This advice is appropriate to myself in the midst of this discussion. Because, fellow brothers and sisters "in Christ" are up-in-arms protecting those who don't share the same ideas.

In fairness to my critics, their protection may be in God's Will more than the time/energy I have put in this activity. I pray that something "good" comes from this discussion.

The effectiveness of evangelism by name calling (?Alpo--woof? woof?, yum? yum?) and reading evil into my "style" could be better debated another day, or email me.

In defense of dog food (Alpo) Apologetics isn't evangelism. Apologetics is addressing barriers to faith. It can be effective to some. It is not for everybody, but again, I may be wrong, but I think this blog is an intellectual crowd. I like thinkers. I like feelers, too. But, feelers are easier to find.

?Should Christians ignore the intellectual element to their ideas of reality in a culture that identifies with being reasonable, civilized, intellectual, smart, and self-improvement seeking?
Do you really think there is no place in our culture for the Christian intellect? Is the Christian faith truthfully only spiritual? an ooey-gooey feeling? an opinion?

I think it has many "touching points" with reality and currently accepted cultural truths.

I will give critics/?supporters of apologetics/religion/Christianity/my style/my intentions the last word in this discussion.

4/17/2007 08:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Inappropriate comment unrelated to the topic was deleted.

It is sad that we continue to have people unwilling to discuss topics.

It is far easier to critisize. It takes far less energy than to actually use the brain God gave us.

To wrap up this discussion;

Science has limits. It cannot prove anything outside the natural realm. That is contradictory to its own definition. Science cannot prove historical events, science cannot prove Love, hate, motive, or thought. These can only be inferred from outward actions.

Science cannot prove the "soul".

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence!"

4/17/2007 09:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your statement: "This weakens important ideas of reality that are supported in Scripture claims" demonstrates why people who do not share your beliefs have so much trouble with your attempts to intellectualize faith. "IDEAS" "supported in Scripture claims" is a closed loop. You use the foundation of your belief system as the proof of what you believe. It is no different than believing in Scientology just because L. Ron Hubbard's writings say it is so. The bottom line is that you either "believe" or you don't, and if you do, you build an argument on top of that belief, not an argument independent of the belief.

Since all the various "faiths" are pretty much built the same way, they each have their own internal language to distinguish themselves from others and to reinforce the group (Transubstantiation, Nirvana, Dianetics, for example). The language is mostly meaningless to outsiders who don't share the same beliefs. I think that is way you are often so confusing to the rest of us. Your specific group of believers has developed their own catch-words to explain to themselves what they believe and, over time, those words have been taken for granted by the users. However, when you use them outside your own group, they have no meaning and you just come off as incoherent, if not weird.

4/17/2007 09:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

apolo-ener-getic,
Your last two blogs were great. I thought they were intelligent and easier to understand. I absolutely agree the Christian faith has intellectual aspects. My point earlier(anony 4/16/07 12:40) was if you are talking to a crowd who may not be Christians or maybe new Christians they can be turned off by the intellectual side because it is overwhelming and they may feel they aren't good enough. As Christians we need to grow and learn and become intelligent in the word it takes time like everything we learn in life. I agree the bloggers here can discuss at your level.

I am sorry for the critism you have received and I hope I didn't come across that way.

Unfortunately some people on this blog just like to attack and not openly discuss. For what it is worth I don't believe you are just trying to sound smart or show off. I also don't know how you can explain yourself when they aren't asking questions about what they don't understand instead they are just attacking. For what it is worth it can't be all that bad being criticized for intelligence.

4/17/2007 03:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There always has to be an enemy to fight against doesn't there--Satan or anyone who views things differently. Crusaders never get to rest, huh? The business of correcting and saving everyone must be very taxing.

4/17/2007 03:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:34, stuff it up your butt.

4/17/2007 04:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alpo, that last post was much more readable.

Why this study was flawed: natural science v/s social science

(1) A direct correlation cannot be drawn between the increased brain activity and the specific personal attribute of altruism. The article summary and abstract come right out and that that, almost verbatim. All it can show is that increased activity occurs when social awareness is aroused. Duh—we already knew that. That’s why they call this the area “the social brain.”

A similar study was published in Neuron Magazine in 2005 (available online through Science Direct), which identified the correlation between activity in this area of the brain and the perception of animacy (intentionality of movement; intelligent response) between two objects observed during interaction. Translation: Two groups of observers watched a “game” between two objects. For one group, the objects appeared to follow along separate, fixed paths—one not having any awareness or reaction to the other. For the other group, the objects appeared to interact, engaging in a chase/response line of movement. Because of this, the observers from group #2 perceived the game as a social interaction, and attributed intelligent/social characteristics to the moving objects whereas roup #1 did not. Not surprisingly, the fMRI results for group #2 showed increased activity in the “social brain.”

The Duke data doesn’t prove anything new…it just re-demonstrates increased brain activity secondary to the arousal social awareness. The difference between the two studies is that the characteristics attributed to the game pieces in the 2005 study were focused outwardly, rather than inwardly…but the result was still the same.

(2) Self-reporting. The Duke study categorized participants as more or less altruistic based on information the participant about themselves. Research that relies on self-reporting is intrinsically flawed. Given the opportunity, there is a greater likelihood that participants may have chosen to answer questions in ways that would make them appear more altruistic than they really are in order to avoid negative judgment from others. Even a tiny fib would skew the data.

(3) Data conversion. The Duke researchers gave a quantitative answer to a qualitative question…but there was no way to convert the data because fMRI can’t give a printout of a subject’s exact thought process.

(4) Use of subjective variables. Subjective variable #1: The participants may have had varying degrees of personal connectedness to their respective charities (i.e. the parent of a diabetic child whose charity was diabetic research v/s a frat boy whose charity was the Feed Nicole Richey fund—not literal examples; I don’t know who/what was actually used). Subjective variable #2: Self-reporting strikes again. Even if participants weren’t at all concerned with others’ perceptions of them, and answered all questions perfectly honestly, their perceptions of themselves may have been askew. I might think of myself as being highly altruistic, but next to Mother Theresa, I’m just a big Grinch.

Subjective scale = no true zero = no definitive conclusion.

(5) Incomplete data collection tool. The questionnaire didn’t include questions about other personal/social attributes such as tendencies for social anxiety, shyness, etc. Without these, it’s even less appropriate to attempt to draw a definitive conclusion. Maybe the observers with increased brain activity were control freaks, and the data just reflects their anxiety from lack of control over the outcome of their games. Maybe they had to use the bathroom and were afraid to interrupt the session. The researchers didn’t rule out other interpretations of the data.

(6) World view? Where the heck did this come from? There was no accounting for each participant’s average tendency to be either passive or active in affecting change in their own lives and the world around them, so there’s no basis for the incorporation of “world view” into data interpretation and conclusion.

***

DR. WEGER, I HOPE YOU’RE READING THIS! Just because I skipped class for most of the capstone doesn’t mean I didn’t learn anything.

$

4/17/2007 04:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.s. The title of the article discussion for the 2005 study is, "Activation in Posterior Superior Temporal Sulcus Parallels Parameter Inducing the Percept of Animacy." To read it, cut and paste the following to your browser and click on ScienceDirect:

linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0896627305000656

Alpo, for a more philosophical discussion on the association between animacy and free will, see http://www.scribd.com/doc/341/Journey-11-ANIMACY-AND-FREE-WILL.

$

4/17/2007 09:31:00 PM  
Blogger Apolo-ener-getic said...

Awesome contribution to the discussion. Great points. I agree with your top-bottom-line, saying,
"Why this study was flawed: natural science v/s social science "

From all that you point out about the weaknesses of the study related to connecting matter to non-matter, I think good questions are...

Why did social study change it's name to social science? Does social science describe that field of study--better? Is human culture and society a "science" or an "art"? What could have been the benefits of changing its' name?

"...the unexamined life is not worth living"--the Athenian gadfly--Socrates

4/18/2007 08:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Social "study" suggests mere observation. At most, it offers us an opportunity to see trends, but trying to define and explain those trends calls for a more scientific approach. Social Study gives us the “What.” Social Science helps us understand the “Why.” There IS middle ground between social and natural sciences where they compliment each other quite nicely. Unfortunately, researchers often overlook the differences between methodologies...which is the perfect recipe for cooking up a 21st century wives' tale.

4/18/2007 08:59:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home