You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Could a Neuroscientist understand a Microprocessor?
"explain consciousness on account of simplified behavioral measures conducted on mice or rats." :D
I honestly loved your article and the detail in which it was written and made me remember where we are with technology and science in general. We have more ahead of us, but I would like to read more.
I saw something on the theme of machine learning a few days ago from CGP Grey:
It is not about microprocessors, but rather about the learning patterns of the machines. I am also working with the idea to develop voice recognition for the software I develop, but hit this learning problem.
Keep up the good work, you have gained a devoted follower, and I have resteemed your article! :P
Hey,
CGP Grey has good stuff. Machine learning is pretty cool and I would like to explore some of it's applications in neuroscience. It is definetley a game changer, but the problem of supervised learning is still a huge issue. As grey points out, it can only learn what we tell it to, so if we were apply it to understand ourselves seems like we'd be creating a logical circularity.
Also it may result in algorithms that can predict our behavior better than us, but we will have created a complex system, which we still don't understand. It is freightening in a way to see that we can create complexity without understanding it. An exciting topic for sure!
Yes! If you didn't see his "you are two", you should!
I think we are already living the future, but more research needs to be done and we need more researchers. So keep up the good work!
Actually I don't quite agree with that video. While it is amazing that there can be two seperate entities within the same brain after a callosotomy, I wouldn't deduce that this constitues the normal state-of-affairs. Split brain patients undergo forced changes, so I'd take greys conclusions with a pinch of salt on this topic.
Well, I am sure you know more about this than me but It felt too strange to believe, it's one of those things that makes you go hmm. So i researched and I read a study ( restricted,true) that was confirming that. I will have to read more :D I must agree that the way he puts it has its charm
Yes so this used to be a kind of fad in neuroscience and psychology. Academics would say that you are a left brain person or a right brain person, as if you had a dominant hemisphere. While it is true that the hemispheres are lateralized (that means certain functions are specialized to one of the hemispheres) it shouldn't be assumed that these regions are operating independent of one another. When the connection gets severed, the hemispheres can no longer communicate directly. There are even cases where the hemisphere don't agree with each other, e.g. one hand throws out the item the other puts in a shopping basket.
It is an interesting question what it means to have a self and how this is constructed by our brains. There is also a case of conjoined twins who share a thalamic connection to each others brain. Apparently they can share thoughts, feelings and what the other person sees. This goes to show that the brain can integrate various sources of information, so when the two hemispheres are joined, they two probably form one entity. But who knows...
Those twins, wow, amazing. If you read something like that from a fictional story, you'd think it sounds far fetched, but this is real.
They could be in an unique position to prove or disprove the many philosophical statements made about qualia, which is thought to be definitively subjective to the person and inaccessible. Not anymore, it seems.
Not sure if that solves the qualia debate, but it definetley opens new considerations for self-hood.