Dilbert has always amused me and this strip hangs on a bulletin board outside my office!
Here is what I am readng today:
“Research led by Dwayne Jackson of the Departments of Medical biophysics and Biomedical Engineering has identified a particular neurotransmitter released in response to stress, that stimulates both cancer cell growth and migration in breast cancer.
Working with Ph.D candidate Philip Medeiros, Jackson looked at a branch of the nervous system called the sympathetic nervous system, and how it “talks” to cells in various organs throughout the body. When the sympathetic nervous system is activated, like it is during stress, it communicates with receptors on cells through the release of neurotransmitters called norepinephrine and neuropeptide Y or NPY. This is a normal response that prepares the body for “fight or flight”.”
“The study, co-authored by University of Texas at Austin psychologist Todd Maddox, found older adults, at least 60 years old, are better at strategizing their decisions than those in their late teens and early 20s, who tend to focus on instant gratification.
Findings from the study, led by Darrell Worthy, professor of psychology at Texas A&M University, will be published in Psychological Science. Collaborators on the study include University of Texas psychologists David Schnyer, Jennifer Pacheco and Marissa Gorlick.
Contradicting negative stereotypes of age and reasoning ability, the results show that the wisdom that comes with age can allow people to make better decisions under some conditions. Maddox says the study gives insight into the decision-making process, which will help researchers learn more about the effects of aging in the brain.”
“Over the past couple of decades, many people in and out of the science community have watched the steady progress being made in robotics. It’s an exceptionally interesting field due to the anthropomorphic nature of the results. Each new step brings such machines closer to emulating us even as we look forward to the next step. One interesting thing about robotics is that certain areas seem to be advancing faster than others. Robot arms for example are old news, new research is focused more on hand movements. And has advances in hand movements have been made, more research has come to focus on finger movements and finally tactile sensations. Now new work by a trio of researches from the National University of Singapore describe in their paper published on the preprint server arXiv, how affixing artificial fingerprints to robot fingers can increase tactile “sensation” allowing such a robot to discern the differences in curvature of objects.”
3 Comments
Susan Carnohan · September 24, 2011 at 7:02 pm
The article on “Too Old Too Fast, Too Smart Too Late” interested me because I am now 60 years old. What I wonder is whether this issue of 20 year olds basing decisions on instant gratification actually has to do with brain utilization or is just reflecting a change in our instant-gratification culture. It would be interesting to study this generation of 20-year-olds in 40 more years to see if they, indeed, continue to base decisions on instant gratification or if they have grown wiser, and make decisions based on long-term gain.
David Hunter · September 25, 2011 at 1:07 pm
The article “robots and artificial fingerprints” is very fascinating; however, it makes me ponder the economic consequences of advanced technology. For example, if a robot can grab things, move things, and mix things with ease, what will happen to all the jobs that require those tasks? Will all bars higher robots instead of people? Will waiters also be replaced?
Technology has changed the types of jobs available to people. As the advancement continues, many more labor intensive jobs will be replaced. Since these scientists are improving the dexterity of robots, it would suggest that (in the future) jobs that require dexterity might be fair game.
Anyway, the article makes me wonder about an interesting psychological questions: Are scientists fascinated with creating a human, and if so, what will happen when they do mimic a human? The drive to create an “Artificial Human” has a romantic appeal.
With the industrial revolution, we saw people creating machines to mimic what other humans did (e.g. transport people, make food, and build structures). Then, with artificial intelligence, computers could process information like humans. Now, with robotics we are seeing a merger of movement and artificial intelligence.
It will be interesting to see if scientists actually achieve “the goal” of creating a human. More importantly, what would scientists do afterwards? What’s next?
robert_foster · September 25, 2011 at 2:59 pm
25 September 2011
Robotics and artificial fingerprints:
Technological innovation is characteristically human. It is redundant to state that humans have made advancements in technology across time. However, it is this redundancy that reinforces the truth behind such realizations. With that in mind, the allure toward emulating man’s behavior both at a neurological level and at a metaphysical level is inevitable. Robotics research represents the metaphysical facet of human behavioral replication and is startling because of its perceived accuracy. In general, we find that recreating a human in a bionic entity is dangerous because we recognize the inherent danger that is within mankind. This is reflected in the artistic concepts that are represented in films: the super-human robot that becomes smarter than man and questions the master-slave dialect ultimately overcoming his master and destroying the world. Although, no matter how advanced a robot may become, it cannot learn that one element of mankind that allowed for the initial conception of robotics: creativity.
As scientists and researchers stretch the physical limitations of materials, mechanics, and electronic integration, they are using that one element of mankind (creativity) that separates us from all other species. In recognizing this, humans can use the benefits of robotic accuracy and precision to assist in their creative pursuits. It is only when man suppresses and tames his innate ability to create and conceptualize abstraction that he allows the robot to transcend his self-control. A robot can discuss an event, a person, a theory that is mathematically based, or a function. It cannot create an idea, or become a visionary, dream an abstract principle, or compose an original work of art unfounded in physical limitations. Man can fabricate based on emotion, whereas artificial intelligence creates based on function.
Comments are closed.