Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > DAVID: [i]Complexification is an internal process in our brain that in no way explains how brains got bigger during evolution.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Of course it doesn’t. But if a very small area of our brain has expanded because of additional requirements, it is not unreasonable to suppose that in the past, when complexification could not cope with new requirements, the same process would have applied. You still like to skate over the fact that you believe the complexification mechanism works as and when required, independently of your God’s intervention, so once more: why do you think it was necessary for him to keep operating on all the hominins and homos when the same mechanism could have been used to produce new cells as and when required?
> 
> Same mistake. Our brain has very limited ability to produce new neurons. I think God made all prior hominin/homo brains in the same form.
> >   
> > dhw: [i]I’m inclined to agree that our brains and skulls are unlikely to expand any further, since I suggest that they stopped expanding in the first place because further expansion would have required major changes in our anatomy.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Your final idea that 200 cc of more brain would cause major anatomic alterations is a constant very strange theory. Seven ounces is not a very heavy addition to handle.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: One moment you talk of our uniquely huge brain, and the next moment the addition is minimized. Neanderthal brains were bigger than ours, and their anatomy was different from ours. But I’m only theorizing. What is your explanation for the end of expansion in favour of complexification. Do you think your God might have been trying out different designs? (See "More miscellany")
> 
> Seven ounce change objection of mine not answered.
> > 
> > [b]Neurons may make future plans[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] I view this as an attempt to understand complexification.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I’ve had trouble understanding the article. Please could you explain to me what exactly neurons are believed to predict.
> 
> Obviously handling future uses:
> 
> "The recent study carried out by this team of researchers could have many interesting implications, both for the field of neuroscience and machine learning. Overall, their findings suggest that a predictive mechanism underpinning the functioning of individual neurons could play a crucial role in learning.
> 
> "In the future, this idea may also help to create more powerful artificial neural networks to solve challenging real-life problems," Luczak said. "I believe that the predictive learning rule we unveiled is an important step towards finding a unifying theory of the brain. However, more steps are needed to achieve this, and we are excited to continue this journey."
> 
> It is in large part a theoretical prediction.