I guess beyond the level of Broadmann Areas, the deeper you go the more uncertain you are about the function. Reminds you of Uncertainity principle of Quantum mechanics.
Perhaps I’m misguided in thinking this, but isn’t there some level of contradiction in critiquing functional inferences based on BOLD signals in a single region, but basing your empirical argument on functional connectivity data (i.e., the correlation of BOLD signals between regions)?
*☼ i mean fn obviously, right? some gr8 work. =). i cant believe we had to wait this long.* All the brain map data was - what is the polite way to say patently bs? - questionable on its face, pretty much from the get go. it was never going anywhere. unless there was a public that knew nothing about brains or computers or inferential calculus - & luckily! individual, maybe. but it wont be easily useful. by state - probably grossly. even at the individual level. As always: the end result is the same things we knew 500+ years ago, give or take, by shoving sticks in peoples' heads or watching them eat/behave. But we still arent as bad as genetics.
This is a quiet intelligence only cater to niche researching field. =) I feel this comparative to quiet luxury Goop provides me with
I guess beyond the level of Broadmann Areas, the deeper you go the more uncertain you are about the function. Reminds you of Uncertainity principle of Quantum mechanics.
Perhaps I’m misguided in thinking this, but isn’t there some level of contradiction in critiquing functional inferences based on BOLD signals in a single region, but basing your empirical argument on functional connectivity data (i.e., the correlation of BOLD signals between regions)?
Is there the possability that someone could lead me to the two reviews that he mentions at 16:55 ?
*☼ i mean fn obviously, right? some gr8 work. =). i cant believe we had to wait this long.* All the brain map data was - what is the polite way to say patently bs? - questionable on its face, pretty much from the get go. it was never going anywhere. unless there was a public that knew nothing about brains or computers or inferential calculus - & luckily! individual, maybe. but it wont be easily useful. by state - probably grossly. even at the individual level. As always: the end result is the same things we knew 500+ years ago, give or take, by shoving sticks in peoples' heads or watching them eat/behave. But we still arent as bad as genetics.