Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Mission statement
wan
post Mar 03, 2010, 08:25 PM
Post #1


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 03, 2010
Member No.: 32643



For an introduction I'd like to make a mission statement.

Hopefully I can contribute here without getting entangled in pseudoscience. It's not what I came here for. Though I expect to push theoretical concepts to the edge, that doesn't warrant inclusions beyond empirical justification. I am an intellectual skeptic and I hope to find members as willing to honestly pick apart my notions as I am theirs. I am more familiar with physics than neuroscience and have some skills with genetic algorithms. Neuroscience offers a lot of empirical data, growing every day, from which to draw on and determine cogency with theoretical models. I will be outlining a mechanistic toy model of my own in a few days to articulate my starting point. Though there's nothing fundamentally new in this model, basically Hebbian, it ties neuroscience to the mechanics of a self organized system in a clear cut intuitive way, lacking electronics like an abacus, and provides cogency with a broad range of detailed empirical data from neuroscience to psychology. This will include the purpose and role of qualia, creativity, failures of reasoning, etc. But be aware it is a 'toy model' to outline principles of operation, not a workable prototype in itself.

Of particular interest to me is self organization. Given evolution it's simply not tenable to throw miracles of complexity in without meaningful steps. I personally don't think that mapping the detailed complexities of biological brains is going to be that useful until we outline the organizational principles that are independent of the medium they are expressed in. Ultimately the goal is technological. Any theoretical construct, no matter how cogent, that lacks technological applicability is not much better than god did it. Thus self organized general all purpose configurable technologies that operate on the fundamental principles, rather than hard models attempting to mimic details of the brain, are of interest to me. So far this has mostly been attempted through serial software. Hopefully that will change soon in a big way.

I'm not going to shy away from the so called hard problem of consciousness. There is no fundamental reason why the internet itself can't itself be an intelligent entity, the so called singularity idea. I'm not so interested in philosophy, etc., though some bleed over is unavoidable when searching for good questions. I'm more interested in empirical data to feed the cogency of the models. Likewise nootropics are of limited interest except for the clear empirical content some might provide.

That's where I stand. Give me a few days to outline my model, as I would like to at least provide general references to the empirical data I'm claiming cogency with. That likely means I must also get a 5 post minimum. I promise no commercial or spam BS.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wan
post Mar 03, 2010, 08:26 PM
Post #2


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 03, 2010
Member No.: 32643



Oops, I thought I was posting in "Introduce Yourself", but with several tabs open I posted here instead.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Mar 03, 2010, 08:43 PM
Post #3


Supreme God
*******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 7767
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(wan @ Mar 04, 2010, 01:25 AM) *
I am an intellectual skeptic and I hope to find members as willing to honestly pick apart my notions as I am theirs.
Hi, and welcome. smile.gif

As an intellectual moderator I have moved your personal mission statement to the 'Introduce Yourself' Board. wink.gif

I look forward to your contributions in various appropriate Boards on the Forum. As you will see, we intersperse serious topics with fun and humour as it used to make the world go round; at least it used to. unsure.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wan
post Mar 03, 2010, 09:24 PM
Post #4


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 03, 2010
Member No.: 32643



Yes Hey Hey, I've read some of your disillusionment with the post quality. I sympathize greatly, as I have spent a fair amount of time on skeptic boards. It can truly boggle the mind sometimes. Don't despair though, as history has always progressed on the backs of a minority.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Mar 03, 2010, 11:37 PM
Post #5


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2453
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



Mission Statement! I like that shy side of you, already! LOL! Welcome, bro! Looking forward to your contributions here!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wan
post Mar 05, 2010, 12:27 AM
Post #6


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 03, 2010
Member No.: 32643



6 post. I should be able to post links now. I'm having trouble find one of the references I thought I had saved. It's similar to this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1620...s-reliable.html
QUOTE
Describing an event straight after it occurs makes witnesses more susceptible to providing false information in subsequent retellings, a new study finds.

The difference was in the other study it made it clear that memories will degrade when recalled even in the absents of any false information being imparted. It basically took half the study group and asked them to recall a film (I believe) shortly after viewing. Then waiting a month and asking both groups to recall the film. The group that previously recalled the film recalled less than the group that made no previous attempt at recollection. Thus this memory loss effect is independent false memories, but apparently plays a role in the process that produces false memories.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th August 2019 - 11:54 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

BrainMeta is supported by:

The Neurological Foundation & CerebralHealth.com

BrainMeta is enhanced by:

UVISI: Universal Virtual Intelligence Singularity Infinity
info@uvisi.com