Indeed, a recent paper question the notion of biological plausibility. It's a fuzzy concept that too many researchers have a bias that it is well defined. royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
"Claims of biological plausibility are shown to be incoherent from a level of mechanism view and more generally are vacuous."
I love it when people create academic papers out of my tweetstorms. ;-)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Carlos E. Perez

Carlos E. Perez Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @IntuitMachine

27 Mar
The reductionist methods of neuroscience have created psychiatric practices that treats mental disorders exclusively using chemical solutions.
There is of course no doubt that a person cannot think his way out of chemical imbalances. However, the brain's function is also to develop for itself the methods to find equilibrium.
Therefore, if we never give the opportunity for brains to learn how to do this, then we will always have people dependent of artificial crutches.
Read 9 tweets
25 Mar
"Real business value" is a cognitive bias of what is deemed important and not what actually is. The correlation between what a business pays for and what it needs is rarely a strong one.
A lot of public companies buy their own stock. Does that create 'real business value' or are they just gaming perceptions?
This reminds me of Wittgenstein's language game. Wittgenstein argued that to understand the meaning of words, one has to know what language game is being played. This is the same for 'value'.
Read 4 tweets
22 Mar
Wolfram explains why his theory of physics emphasizes causation (computational irreducibility) and causality (observer reference frame of computational reducibility). It's a fascinating model of reality that I also subscribe to.
Wolfram writes "Consciousness is not about the general computation that brains—or, for that matter, many other things—can do. It’s about the particular feature of our brains that causes us to have a coherent thread of experience."
Wolfram is unique in that he identifies the possibility of a different kind of consciousness that is alien from human consciousness. There is not just one kind of consciousness, but many kinds that create an empathy with reality in distinct ways.
Read 4 tweets
21 Mar
The notion of differences between individuals and differences across classes of individuals isn't precisely quantifiable for brains. I think neuroscience is doing civilization a disservice by insisting on reductionist theories to quantify people.
A natural human tendency is to think like people think in the same way. Some people are surprised that other people might not vocalize their thoughts. Other people are surprised to find that some people can't visualize their thoughts.
But the brain is constructed by the accumulation of a multitude of mental habits. We grow by favoring one kind of habit over another. Many habits are not necessary, but we favor them because that is what we are used to.
Read 14 tweets
20 Mar
Yes, this is an inconvenience that I (for different reasons) experience. That said, it is an inconvenience because of the rich uniqueness of our origins. Let's not demand that everyone understand our unique circumstances. That said, I can relate.
I've got a personal dislike for my name, but there's too much inertia for me to make any changes. My name is the 'John Smith' equivalent in Spanish. Completely generic without identity. What's even worse, it exposes a false identity. I don't even speak Spanish!
Anyway, minor rant. It's the inconveniences and misunderstandings that make life human and interesting. A life without inconvenience is a life devoid of meaning.
Read 6 tweets
16 Mar
There's is a massive asymmetric information gap between knowing a theory is wrong and discovering the correct theory. Becoming aware of flaws is just the first step in a very long journey. But if you never see the flaws, you never take the journey and thus never get anywhere.
This is a double-edged sword. So we see flaws that are simply not there and take a journey, towards discovery, that is along a deceptive path. The path where one sticks to because it's the one without forks. The one that continually confirms one's own biases.
Persistence requires a level of naivety, this is what keeps us motivated. This is because if we knew how long the journey was before we began, then we might have never started it at all.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!