If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tumblr)   Science may have taken another step to figuring out the neurology of self-awareness   (neurosciencestuff.tumblr.com) divider line 18
    More: Interesting, neurologists, sciences, self-awareness, dendrites, .fi, anterior cingulate cortex, social relations, macaques  
•       •       •

2357 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Jul 2012 at 9:33 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



18 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-25 02:29:09 AM
in the same two small areas that evolved to process smells and flavours

I stink therefore I am.
 
2012-07-25 03:06:57 AM

Sgygus: in the same two small areas that evolved to process smells and flavours

I stink therefore I am.


I lol'd. kudos.
 
2012-07-25 09:51:43 AM
Kent, the pyramidial tracts are a complex of multisynaptic lower motor neurons which interconnect the basal ganglia with the reticular formation.
 
2012-07-25 10:01:55 AM

biyaaatci: Kent, the pyramidial tracts are a complex of multisynaptic lower motor neurons which interconnect the basal ganglia with the reticular formation.


I'm sorry, you said lower motor neurons. The answer, of course, is upper motor neurons.
 
2012-07-25 10:18:41 AM
What the hell? That was an interesting and well-written article with very little sensationalism. What's it doing on Fark?

Oh, wait, the Geek Tab sometimes gets those. I forgot I was avoiding the Politics Tab this morning.
 
2012-07-25 10:29:08 AM

theorellior: What the hell? That was an interesting and well-written article with very little sensationalism. What's it doing on Fark?

Oh, wait, the Geek Tab sometimes gets those. I forgot I was avoiding the Politics Tab this morning.


I would argue that the title is quite sensationalist, but I'm okay with it because the information in there is pretty cool. I love that the author linked to multiple research studies to add strength to her article, and if it gets more people genuinely interested in either neuroscience as a whole or in questions that neuroscience can help answer then all the better. Sometimes being a little exaggerated is a good thing.
 
2012-07-25 10:32:59 AM

Kome: theorellior: What the hell? That was an interesting and well-written article with very little sensationalism. What's it doing on Fark?

Oh, wait, the Geek Tab sometimes gets those. I forgot I was avoiding the Politics Tab this morning.

I would argue that the title is quite sensationalist, but I'm okay with it because the information in there is pretty cool. I love that the author linked to multiple research studies to add strength to her article, and if it gets more people genuinely interested in either neuroscience as a whole or in questions that neuroscience can help answer then all the better. Sometimes being a little exaggerated is a good thing.


I dunno, there were a lot of words. I looked at the pictures a lot, though. They were pretty, and showed me what a brain does. Also neurons that look like Christmas holiday trees.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, this seems like an interesting field of study, and I look forward to reading more on this topic in the future.
 
2012-07-25 10:33:19 AM

Kome: theorellior: What the hell? That was an interesting and well-written article with very little sensationalism. What's it doing on Fark?

Oh, wait, the Geek Tab sometimes gets those. I forgot I was avoiding the Politics Tab this morning.

I would argue that the title is quite sensationalist, but I'm okay with it because the information in there is pretty cool. I love that the author linked to multiple research studies to add strength to her article, and if it gets more people genuinely interested in either neuroscience as a whole or in questions that neuroscience can help answer then all the better. Sometimes being a little exaggerated is a good thing.


Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Intellectualism is not welcome on fark.
 
2012-07-25 10:57:23 AM

Dr Dreidel: I dunno, there were a lot of words. I looked at the pictures a lot, though. They were pretty, and showed me what a brain does.


Haha. Funny you mention that. There has been some recent studies that have come out finding that showing people pictures of brain scans, even if they are completely irrelevant to the material presented in text, can influence a person to find the information more trusting or more accurate than it really is. Now, there weren't any brain scan images in TFA, which is nice, but I wonder if the same holds true for just a picture of any picture of a brain. I might have to suggest this as a study idea to some colleagues. Thank you for reminding me of that.
 
2012-07-25 11:46:35 AM
I've always wondered if an objective understanding of the mind is simply outside of human comprehension. Wittgenstein once said that to fully understand linguistics one would need to communicate on a level that transcends language -- I wonder if the same is kinda true for understanding consciousness.

/plus the brain has a vested interest in keeping its secrets from you...err, it?
 
2012-07-25 12:07:09 PM

enik: I've always wondered if an objective understanding of the mind is simply outside of human comprehension. Wittgenstein once said that to fully understand linguistics one would need to communicate on a level that transcends language -- I wonder if the same is kinda true for understanding consciousness.

/plus the brain has a vested interest in keeping its secrets from you...err, it?


Your question nullifies itself.

If we simply can't have an understanding of the mind, then we'll never know that we can't.

If we can have an understanding of the mind, then we won't know that we can until we do.
 
2012-07-25 12:48:36 PM
Charlie Eppes finally made his break though.
 
2012-07-25 01:16:46 PM

torusXL: enik: I've always wondered if an objective understanding of the mind is simply outside of human comprehension. Wittgenstein once said that to fully understand linguistics one would need to communicate on a level that transcends language -- I wonder if the same is kinda true for understanding consciousness.

/plus the brain has a vested interest in keeping its secrets from you...err, it?

Your question nullifies itself.

If we simply can't have an understanding of the mind, then we'll never know that we can't.

If we can have an understanding of the mind, then we won't know that we can until we do.


Not necessarily. If we're clever enough it could be possible to pose the question of whether or not we can truly understand the mind and arrive at a definate "no" for the answer.
 
2012-07-25 03:46:33 PM
Seriously? This is the headline we got? I could think of about 20 better ones just reading this one.
 
2012-07-25 04:26:52 PM

BigLuca: biyaaatci: Kent, the pyramidial tracts are a complex of multisynaptic lower motor neurons which interconnect the basal ganglia with the reticular formation.

I'm sorry, you said lower motor neurons. The answer, of course, is upper motor neurons.


Upper! Upper!
 
2012-07-25 04:36:06 PM

StrangeQ: torusXL: enik: I've always wondered if an objective understanding of the mind is simply outside of human comprehension. Wittgenstein once said that to fully understand linguistics one would need to communicate on a level that transcends language -- I wonder if the same is kinda true for understanding consciousness.

/plus the brain has a vested interest in keeping its secrets from you...err, it?

Your question nullifies itself.

If we simply can't have an understanding of the mind, then we'll never know that we can't.

If we can have an understanding of the mind, then we won't know that we can until we do.

Not necessarily. If we're clever enough it could be possible to pose the question of whether or not we can truly understand the mind and arrive at a definate "no" for the answer.


So basically, after a while and enough of saying "what the farking christ is going on here in these brains", we just give up?

Nah, there's no way to prove that something is impossible. Proposed theories can only be falsified. Whenever science isn't getting a definite answer on the brain, it'll just keep trying because that's just how the mechanisms of science work.

What I can say with confidence is that there will never be a day when something as ethereal as "understanding" will be or even can be declared impossible.
 
2012-07-26 01:36:51 AM

A Leaf in Fall: Seriously? This is the headline we got? I could think of about 20 better ones just reading this one.


..says the guy who's had exactly one greenlight ever, for eight years now.
 
2012-07-26 01:38:00 AM

torusXL: Nah, there's no way to prove that something is impossible.


Do you see the inherent contradiction of this statement?
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report