Dimana

Ако имаше такива хора, бих се опитала да разбера какви са всъщност и защо са така. За мен няма значение дали имат специални сили и дали са "мутанти" или не, има значение за какво използват силите си. Ако нямат нарочното намерение да нараняват другите, то няма да имам проблем с тях.

---

По-скоро активно бих търсила начин за разрешение на проблема, начин за край на войната. Бих била адвокат за правата на мутантите, за установяването на закони и социални правила, които имат предвид и потенциалните проблеми и отговорности, идващи от силите на мутантите, така и общите им права като хора.

---

А ако аз бях от мутантите и обществото не ме разбираше, бих се старала най-вече да не преча на никого и да не предизвиквам още повече проблеми, но и да се сближа с хората малко по малко и да им покажа, че мутантите не сме задължително лоши. И тогава отново ще съм активист за правата ни.

View more

Понякога се крие просто "добре". В по-редки случаи се крият други неща - лаконичност, защото знаеш, че слушателя всъщност изобщо не се интересува от подробностите, нежелание да споделяш детайли точно с определен човек, чиито добри намерения знаеш, че са неискрени.

---

Но най-често зад "добре" се "крие" простата истина на много различни неща, които са трудни за описване с едно изречение. Как кратко да обясниш "Ами, добре съм, имах продуктивен ден, но пък изпуснах автобуса, така че малко се забавих, но пък нямаше проблем, така че бях облекчена, а после отидох на обяд и беше много вкусно, но десерта не ми хареса и само изхабих пари за него, но пък имах много весел разговор с колежката и сега съм уморена, но скоро ще съм вкъщи и това ще ми оправи вечерта"? Зад "добре" най-често се крият десетки и стотици нещица, никое от което не е страшно добро и никое - страшно лошо. Просто нормално. Как иначе да опишеш нормалното състояние?

View more

No, absolutely not. I'm not even sure what kind of homeopathic treatments could possibly exist for conditions like autism. Homeopathic treatments may potentially help health in ways such as increasing general immunity or in alleviating some symptoms of colds, the flu, chronic conditions.

---

In terms of autism, the only potential thing I can think of is homeopathic treatments that might, possibly, help with alleviating stress, anxiety and the like. For example, peppermint and Valerian have been used to reduce anxiety and high blood pressure.

---

Since emotional distress has been identified in autism and similar conditions, perhaps homeopathic treatments can be used to help with some of those symptoms. Still, that does not mean they could ever be effective treatments for the condition itself. Especially since it is not yet well understood what causes the condition in the first place.

View more

No, I don't think so. I don't think restricting *further* access to healthcare, especially from the children, will help anyone. What use is there to punish the same people - the children - for whose mistreatment you are supposedly inflicting the punishment?

---

No. It makes sense to have consequences to the decision not to vaccinate, but with more reasonable measures. First, if possible, it would be good to make vaccination for the most serious diseases (like tuberculosis) mandatory either through health providers or school requirements, despite the parents' wishes.

---

Second, it should be made clear that some normal, completely ubiquitous privileges would not be possible. For example, you can only travel to certain countries after the appropriate vaccinations have taken place. However, it's really difficult for me to think of suitable active "reprimand" that doesn't also border on the unethical.

View more

Well, the logic is not necessarily that teachers are not "smarter", but that they are meant to impart their knowledge and wisdom. Essentially, at the end of teaching the student should know (almost) everything the teacher knows, and then have the freedom to even advance from there.

---

As for the question on AI specifically, that is a subject that has been under debate for a long time, and will continue to be even after the eventual creation of AI-s. There is no simple answer.

---

Yes, it is widely hypothesised that AI would surpass some human abilities. For example, AI has immense computational abilities which allow it to do millions of calculations in a second. AI is also not limited by biology and physical restrictions.

---

On the other hand, AI would also lack the benefits of biology. It will understand math and engineering and technology, it will even understand the mechanics of bodily movement, but will it understand all of the finer details about how it feels to move, will it be able to learn from its physical experiences the way we do since birth?

---

In addition, the principles that the AI will use for its decisions - logical and ethical alike - will need to be reprogrammed into it. On top of those principles, it would need to learn how to apply rigid rules to adaptable situations. Once we have managed to develop successful machine learning, we may be closer to making AI that can surpass us.

---

For the time being, decision making and comprehension require a lot more than just mathematical calculation or simple information processing. You have to know what to DO with that information, and there the human still has the advantage.

View more

Whyever would the parrot do that? Parrots have their own forms of communication that involve gestures and sounds. They can communicate with other parrots and animals quite well. Why should they have to learn *human* language?

---

I think humanity should try to be less egocentric in understanding things, including communication. Animals have their own "language", through which they share information. Some such languages are pretty complex and evolved. For example, the whale song, the elephant and dolphin sounds are very elegant, rich and meaningful ways of communication that we do not yet understand, except to know they are both complex and precise.

---

Those are the things that identify language from simple sound - intent, meaning, *distinct* meaning, and complexity. So what is to say that animals don't have "language" that is perfectly suitable for their own uses? And so why on Earth would they need to learn human language in order to "prove" their capacity for intelligence?

View more

Brief history required here. :) In cognitive psychology, there have been a few prominent theories.

---

Before the 50s, psychologists were mostly Behaviourists - they believed that the way we think and our behaviour are shaped by learning through experience in a "trial and error" fashion. This suggests that intelligence is changed and shaped by experience (what works and what doesn't, what is allowed and made habitual and what is not). It is usually said that behaviourism thought of the brain as a "black box" that cannot be understood, its processes more-or-less beyond us.

---

Next, the cognitive approach emerged. I'm not sure whether that was the very beginning (it was actually informed by the older Gestalt psychology), but early on cognitive theorists used precisely the Computer metaphor to explain how the mind works. They believed that thought was formed in a very computational way, almost like the ones and zeroes of computer code. Essentially, the brain received input which it then sent somewhere else, and then either stored (memory) or responded to (action). But the processes in the middle, the way of categorising this input (this is a chair, or a cat, or a windmill, or a letter, or even "this is happiness"), was understood as very mathematical. It was an abstract process, where biology was only the tool through which the brain accomplishes things, and does not affect thought.

---

In a way, the computer metaphor is sometimes associated with the Platonian "Myth of the Cave" (although I think that is a bit exaggerated). Essentially, the *idea* of something, the precise abstract *stuff* that something is made of, exists, and the brain only recognises that and moves it from input to output or from perception to action and so on.

---

After this, the next prominent and very influential theory was actually based on the computer metaphor and those early attempts. That was the Modular theory. It postulated that different systems of the brain were responsible for different psychological processes (accomplished in the computational way), and further that different areas of the brain were thus dedicated to distinct systems. One such "module" processed language, another - math, a third one - perception, movement, etc. These systems were not meant to intersect; instead, they were all controlled from a central part that separates out input and sends it, as appropriate, to a single system.

---

My preferred theory is the most recent - Embodied cognition. It tends to argue against Modular theory on almost all counts. Embodiment considers thought as a process *between* systems, with interactions and not separate streams of input. Further, it expects that physical experience influences even abstract processes, which are not computational and not removed from all else. There are a few prominent points of disagreements before the new and the old theories, one of which is language (where I work). This is why I said I'm from the "opposite side of the fence". :)

View more

I am working, or more precisely studying, in a career in academia. My precise field is research in psychology, and I am currently finishing my PhD.

---

I don't think technology and AI will affect my career as much as other fields. It will certainly not make it redundant. Actually, the development of AI will be very useful for psychology.

---

One way would be through the "computer metaphor" of the human brain - understanding how intelligence, decision making and the mind in general works through the way artificial intelligence accomplishes the same.

---

Although psychology has mostly moved away from the "computer metaphor", it is still useful to understand where computational ways of thought work, and where their limits are - essentially, in what ways computers and AIs think like us, and in what ways they differ, as well as whether the biological brain of humans may have some advantages despite the immense computational power of technology.

View more

In general, the attitude which acknowledges the possibility of error, the possibility of things-not-yet-known and possibility of difference of opinion is the one that is more humble.

---

This attitude does not (or should by definition not) assume it's own correctness above all else, and should not assume correctness a priori, or otherwise said from the get go, before any confirmation.

---

This is what would make it humble - the willingness to admit that there could be knowledge beyond what you know, and that this not-yet-known knowledge might even be more important than what is already available for you. As a general approach to "the truth of the universe", that is probably the more humble approach. And yes, it *should*, at least by definition, correspond more often with the scientific approach.

---

Still, I think it's important to acknowledge something. Religious people respect religion precisely because they believe it to be humble. They believe in a different type of humility - considering that the greatest scope of the university is not yours to be had, but created and known only by a superior being.

---

Religion is meant to be humble at the face of that which is greater than the humans perceiving it - be it God or other. What religion is not humble about, without ever realising it, is the presumption that 1) what people think of God is actually what God is, and they somehow know his/her/its mind, and 2) that God is always correct and always knows everything.

---

So, religious people humbly believe in a non-humble God. And, sometimes, some religious individuals "borrow" the all-knowingness and arrogance of their God and believe that they, themselves, always know better and are always correct. It is easy to forget that the initial goal of religion is to defer to and respect the expertise and higher knowledge of something other than oneself - and that requires humility, too, whatever the end result.

View more

An interesting question! Thank you for it. :) It's a complicated subject. Still, I am more included to think HIV-positive individuals should probably disclose their status to any partners that they are sexually active with.

---

Although it could be said that using protection means they are already considering their partner's health, protection doesn't always work - an accidental tear in a condom could result in potentially dangerous consequences. Thus, everyone involved should be aware of the full risks *before*.

---

Importantly, if the partner is aware of the HIV status, they would know to immediately seek medical attention after accidental exposure. There are treatments which significantly reduce the risk of actually becoming ill after exposure.

---

A partner who knows this will increase their chances of having a relationship without personal risk. A partner who doesn't know this would have been prevented by this secrecy from a) making an informed decision, and b) having medical precautions.

---

Given this, I think disclosing HIV status to partners is the right thing to do. I am not aware of the legality of the situation. "Held responsible" implies responsible for something. So, IF a partner contracts HIV without knowing about the other's status, that would probably be the responsibility of the one who didn't disclose. Something akin to "careless endangerment" as a legal term, I guess?

---

However, that would depend on the level of risk. I fully believe that someone who is aware of their own HIV status, does not share this with a partner, and has s*x without using protection with said partner should be legally responsible and this should be considered criminal.

---

I am not as sure about having s*x using protection, and in general following all possible precautions. I think my opinion would depend on what HIV positive individuals are told by their doctors. They should follow all precautions that they are advised at, including whom to tell and when. Beyond that, I think the question might be moral, but not legal.

View more