Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We have all likely displayed wonderment on how human communications have evolved from a rather primitive, and likely effective for the time period, cave drawings, to a myriad of languages, and then to our present day highly sophisticated internet modalities. One might even say that YouTube is a greatly enhanced and accelerated cave drawing with sound. Our command of electronic communication and interactive devices has thus far gone from finger control to voice command. In the article, “Knock Once For YES, Twice For No”, Professor Bernard Perbal has enticed our neural centers with the possibility of conscious brain-to-brain communication, in wireless mode. If able to be accomplished in the future he writes that the ‘wide use of such applications might seem a long way off, they raise quite a number of ethical, legal and societal issues’. Professor Perbal, a long time proponent of the individual’s rights to their own genetic information, the essentiality of freedom of speech, and the importance of communication, has laid out some very thoughtful arguments, and provided some fascinating experimental evidence for why brain-to-brain communication should be seriously entertained. After all, if brain is the last frontier in our research endeavors, then communications between brains, in all its variations, should be one area of research that is highly warranted. As indicated large scale international consortia are busy mapping out the brain circuitry in the hope, like genomics, that once we have all the coordinates and molecular details we will be able to understand our incredible ‘brainy’ supercomputer and treat illnesses with precision. However, in the same way genetics has now been confounded by epigenetics, non-coding DNA, and RNA bits and bytes, we might expect that the basic brain map may be confounded by yet, undefined circuits and unexplained phenomena, like telepathy. As another example of how original conceptions have been thrown out the window comes from the field of sensory perception. One could now say that our bodies are one incredible taste and odorant sensor (Foster et al. 2014). So can brain-to-brain communications stand on their own or, as many of you know from everyday experiences, the visual (even using past memories) is an essential element for total comfort with your communicator (Perrodin et al. 2015). And, while you are busy reading this online please note the following (Kuhn and Gallinat 2015). The journey into the future new world of brain-to-brain communication will be with some trepidation. In comparison to information transmission through the ether, we can all appreciate current practical applications such as controlling prosthetic limbs by integration of the nervous system, a truly fantastic advance. There is no doubt, as Professor Perbal states that mind over matter, machines, and other brains, would have enormous implications for us and the world. Communication with animals could bring a whole new meaning to ‘man’s best friend’. Once we really open up this Pandora’s Box then we have to be prepared to use our collective wisdom to avoid possible abuse and misuse.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».