|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Anandaji
Germany
2 Posts |
 Posted - Jan 31 2011 : 11:00:16 AM
|
Hello,
Please tell me what you think about that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5l0b2-0o
(first part is a summary of new developments in neuroscience. The second part is a new attempt for physics which might also be wrong)
It is incredible fast and dense presented so I needed at least 2 viewings to get everything, and a third view to have the time to think about the implications.
I find it very interesting to see in which direction science is heading.
|
|
|
Jo-self
USA
225 Posts |
Posted - Feb 05 2011 : 10:08:02 PM
|
I didn't like it and was too pop-science.
My prior reply was removed. I guess it was too critical and impolite. Fair enough. Is this ok?
|
 |
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Feb 05 2011 : 11:49:09 PM
|
I agree; too pop science. I'm not done watching it yet, but I have a growing list of errors and false assumptions made in the video. It IS very well done and well researched, but there are many gaping holes.
For instance, the left and right half of the brain are not so evenly divided and separate. They are, in terms of controlling muscles, but when it comes to cognitive function, it is different in different people, and types of thought are not so perfectly assigned to certain areas. The brain is much more complex than that, and capable of moving and bypassing and changing functions.
Another discrepancy IMHO is trying to assign consciousness to neural processes. This is something that scientists have been trying to do for some time to justify their anti-creationism that says consciousness emerges from primordial soup as a chemical accident. So this guy describes thought processes that seem to simulate consciousness. True, they can follow much of maya's illusions AS IF the individual exists. But this doesn't explain the silent point of perception that remains when all the illusions are stripped away, such as in meditation.
His knowledge could be used to create a robot who acts AS IF it has consciousness, and says "Who am I? Where did I come from?" etc. But the robot won't be really feeling those questions because there is no "I" within to do the wondering. We may discover that there is no "I" in meditation, but there is still a point of perception that experiences that, and knows that we are not our thought processes.
Perhaps he resolves those discrepancies in the second half, and then I'll come back and eat crow, but I seriously doubt it as scientists have struggled with it for ages.
It's the old argument "God doesn't exist because he doesn't follow my logical construct of who god is".
If you understand logic at all, you will see the weakness in that argument. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
New developments in Neuroscience?
