@Kiwi-9381 Not too bad. I got my PhD in cognitive neuroscience in 2018, worked as a UX Researcher for 5 years, and now I'm a contractor in the AI field at the moment.
It's a great lecture but if you're pressed for time you can comfortably start at the 40 minute mark and then miss the Q and A at the end. Also Iain Mcgilchrist has progressed some of these ideas further recently - "The Master and his Emissary" 2009.
There's a striking similarity between our brains and computers here. Nowadays computers have a tremendous ability to hold and process 'knowledge' data, but those super powerful systems still have trouble with BASIC human skills like processing sensory data and motor control. Just like our brains, where the part handling the basic motor skills etc (cerebellum) has 3-4 times as many neurons as the part that makes us "intelligent". It eplains why building something as 'simple' as a self driving car is still such an issue. Let alone creating a bipedalling robot that needs to move freely through our streets and buildings...
Human brains can make number of connections & more complex connectios. Is that a difference in DEGREE or KIND? I don't know. The glass can be half full or half empty depending on one's perspective!
1:01:20 The question itself is flawed, because it's not a SINGLE brain trying to understand how a brain works. There's parallellism and accumulation involved.
I don't buy it ! think about what he is saying ,, pick it apart ,, he will take any perfectly healthy kids in his perfect world without any outside influence and mold them into professionals ,, well there is no world like that ,, and im sure there are lot of people who had the same perfect circumstances could do the same thing !!! not so impressive ,, try doing it in the real world and if you succeed I will be impressed .
That's not what Watson was saying exactly. He meant, in a rather archaic phrasing as I heard it that if he was able to control the experiment properly to his requirements, he could raise any individual as he wished. I don't agree but he wasn't really requiring absolute perfection. It's the OLD Elisa Doolittle theme of course and few still put much stock in it as a theory (especially GBS).
anyone here from joe scott?
I know I am
Joining the gang!
Yes. Altho I only saw a bit of the Joe Scott video. Anyone familiar with Robert Sapolsky of Stanford? He says no free will too.
HELL YES. Just finished watching the Joe video and clicked on the link!!😅
Anyone interested in the book he mentioned: Who’s In Charge? - Dr. Michael Gazzaniga
Awesome. I intend to study cognitive neuroscience in graduate school. Michael Gazzaniga is certainly a researcher who I look up to.
How's it going? :)
@Kiwi-9381 Not too bad. I got my PhD in cognitive neuroscience in 2018, worked as a UX Researcher for 5 years, and now I'm a contractor in the AI field at the moment.
@@ArcadianGenesis That's absolutely amazing, well done. You should be extremely proud.
@Kiwi-9381 Oh thanks! Hope you're doing alright yourself.
@@ArcadianGenesis Awesome!
THIS is the kind f lecture I've been waiting for.
Dingle dangle berries with the big brain
It's a great lecture but if you're pressed for time you can comfortably start at the 40 minute mark and then miss the Q and A at the end.
Also Iain Mcgilchrist has progressed some of these ideas further recently - "The Master and his Emissary" 2009.
Thank you !
Another one of my heros!
The whole point is not to have "heros". You missed the point entirely.
Great lecture
There's a striking similarity between our brains and computers here. Nowadays computers have a tremendous ability to hold and process 'knowledge' data, but those super powerful systems still have trouble with BASIC human skills like processing sensory data and motor control. Just like our brains, where the part handling the basic motor skills etc (cerebellum) has 3-4 times as many neurons as the part that makes us "intelligent". It eplains why building something as 'simple' as a self driving car is still such an issue. Let alone creating a bipedalling robot that needs to move freely through our streets and buildings...
Do we really have thousands of abilities like he says..I can't think of that many...like what?
Human brains can make number of connections & more complex connectios. Is that a difference in DEGREE or KIND? I don't know. The glass can be half full or half empty depending on one's perspective!
Subhash Pillai or by organization?
referring to the john B Watson quote , not Mr Gazzaniga ,,
open to the openess...which lead us to a compeling hope.
@frother Ah yes, it should say "...to whom I look up." My bad.
Get interested and start being interesting.
1:01:20 The question itself is flawed, because it's not a SINGLE brain trying to understand how a brain works. There's parallellism and accumulation involved.
It is a single brain?
The brain is a single sistem !!!!!
@@bobymocanu5256 Is there only one person, one brain in the world working to understand the brain?
@@bobymocanu5256 No.
@@ArumesYT the brain is a single sistem ?
the more learned the more the frame expand...would we be able to get to point zero.
@ArcadianGenesis
whom
I don't buy it ! think about what he is saying ,, pick it apart ,, he will take any perfectly healthy kids in his perfect world without any outside influence and mold them into professionals ,, well there is no world like that ,, and im sure there are lot of people who had the same perfect circumstances could do the same thing !!! not so impressive ,, try doing it in the real world and if you succeed I will be impressed .
That's not what Watson was saying exactly. He meant, in a rather archaic phrasing as I heard it that if he was able to control the experiment properly to his requirements, he could raise any individual as he wished. I don't agree but he wasn't really requiring absolute perfection. It's the OLD Elisa Doolittle theme of course and few still put much stock in it as a theory (especially GBS).
boring lecture
After reading and listening to S. V. Savelyev I cannot listen to this mambo jumbo of speech for grant money. Absolute BS.