Neuroscience: Uncovering the "secrets of consciousness"?

By -
An actual neuroscientist (at least one in training) is honest about where things stand. The findings:
We have no f*%king clue how to simulate a brain.

We have no f*%king clue how to wire up a brain.

We have no f*%king clue what makes human brains work so well.

We have no f*%king clue what the parameters are.

We have no f*%king clue what the important thing to simulate is.
So, we are just about there, hey?

And note that this person is still a materialist, and still thinks we are dealing with a "machine" that thinks. S/he is just honest enough to admit that we have no clue how that "machine" operates.


Comments

  1. Silas Barta1:02 PM

    That's either a non-standard usage of "no f---ing clue", or wrong. You're saying we're no better today than Aristotle's "brain as blood refrigerator"? No progress on neural nets? On knowing under what conditions the brain will perform better or worse (what makes human brains work so well, parameters)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:29 PM

      Silas, did you actually read the original piece? By an actual neuroscientist, and a materialist one at that?

      No one is saying "We don't know more about the brain than we did 2400 years ago"!

      Delete
  2. Silas Barta3:19 PM

    Yes, I got that part. "No ****ing clue" is still ridiculous hyperbole that would encompass "we never learned anything relative to some historic baseline". So you are, it seems, saying that, or don't appreciate what complete ignorance would actually look like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:10 AM

      What he is saying is that we have not learned anything *on these topics* relative to any baseline. Of course we know much more about the brain than did Aristotle. I think the writer is very clear on just what we have "no effing clue" about.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more