Point taken. But perhaps too sweeping. If for example, with mirror neurons,
the same neurons that light up when handling an object, also light up when
watching s.o. else handling that object - that does tell us something. To
know that certain areas are implicated in a process, even if we don't
understand the full brain process, is valuable - especially if, when those
areas are knocked out, the process becomes impossible.
Ditto, it was important to know that Damasio's patients' emotional systems
were neuronally damaged, and not just psychologically.
There must be plenty more experimental principles which make neuroscientific
research still v. valuable - even if the writer's point is good. Anyone
think of more? Obviously brain-machine interfaces by which humans control
machines, have also got to move us towards understanding the brain's
engrams.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike Archbold" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:45 AM
To: "AGI" <[email protected]>
Subject: [agi] Problem with Neuroscience (link to article)
I like the occasional "sober up about neuroscience" article. This one
is nice and short.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/06/18/the-problem-with-neuroscience-narratives/
-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
