I cannot tell you how amazing this is - this video, the fact that you're keeping up running commentaries on super cool papers, how apparently easily you're translating scientific journal speak into something that keen but probably a little less intelligent people (coughcough) can understand ...do you mind if I ask you about your background? You mentioned studying at Yale - for your undergrad? What are you doing now in psyc? (I'm a psyc undergrad, taking a while to finish my degree ...!)
Keep up the good work. It's great to watch videos on working memory training from an individual that is likely to provide up to date information. Hope you are accepted into your desired school, good luck!
Being that our mind functions in a variation of an analogous process, and yet our entire existence is summed up to physiological events and chemical processes, one could almost say that our mind functions much like a computer processor in that the most complex processes are composed of mere switches being flipped on or off. As far as memory is concerned however, it is as if we had copied down the physiological patterns that were triggered when we first experienced an event to be replayed later
...which leads into of many things, deja vu, in that should a new event trigger the "recording" of the sequence of physiological switches being flipped that appear to mimic a pattern seen previously (prior physiological recording) then we become aware of the similar pattern and nearly believe that we have experienced the exact event..
Perhaps this may also lead into metaskills, or whatever you may call it, where we apply previous experiences into new situations. How else can we explain why the more we know about various diverse skills, the easier new skills are able to be picked up? This is where we apply analogies to new skills, saying "oh doing 'this' is just like doing this 'other' thing that I know how to do".
@fabricatorx definitely, and we also have to consider that the flickering of switches in the brain create cognition and meaning out of what many people see as chaos.
complex cognition and consciousness then being interpreted an emergent property of the chaotic rumblings of our brains.
so its like a computer in a way, and not in others. the switches in computers are more reliable than neurons, thats why you see so much repetition in neuronal microcircuitry.
Hi Aki, nice sets of videos. I'm slowly trying to get familiar with functional localization issues in cognitive neuroscience and in this video you introduce one things that I still can't really get my head around.
@Ignare You previously stated in your sexphil video response that we don't really talk of anatomical region specialize for particular function, but more of distributed neural network. Correspondingly, you mention that working memory is a whole-cortex process.
@Ignare So I guess my question is : since working memory is itself cluster of sub-processes or components, can't we reach the point were we pin-point exactly the anatomical regions specialized for each sub-process ? In short, is it simply a matter of decomposiong further the level of processing until we find an anatomically distinct specialize for each sub-sub-sub-process ?
up to this point cognitive scientists have used ideas of how computers operate to describe how the brain functions. Combining this with behavioralism, and evolutionary biology we get a certain outlook on how the brain receives inputs and responds accordingly. if we follow a computer through its sub processes we eventually end up with what you said: one area one process. (area being code rather than physical location).
@Ignare so basically this depends on whether you think that the brain operates like a computer. in some ways it does and there are plenty of algorithms out there that accurately predict brain activity. but there might be some fundamental differences between how the two systems receive information that would preclude us from ever concluding something like: this is the "sex pursuit" part of the brain. or that any part of the brain is "made for" doing one thing.
I cannot tell you how amazing this is - this video, the fact that you're keeping up running commentaries on super cool papers, how apparently easily you're translating scientific journal speak into something that keen but probably a little less intelligent people (coughcough) can understand ...do you mind if I ask you about your background? You mentioned studying at Yale - for your undergrad? What are you doing now in psyc? (I'm a psyc undergrad, taking a while to finish my degree ...!)
sunliner777 5 months ago
Keep up the good work. It's great to watch videos on working memory training from an individual that is likely to provide up to date information. Hope you are accepted into your desired school, good luck!
likeprestige 1 year ago
Being that our mind functions in a variation of an analogous process, and yet our entire existence is summed up to physiological events and chemical processes, one could almost say that our mind functions much like a computer processor in that the most complex processes are composed of mere switches being flipped on or off. As far as memory is concerned however, it is as if we had copied down the physiological patterns that were triggered when we first experienced an event to be replayed later
fabricatorx 1 year ago
...which leads into of many things, deja vu, in that should a new event trigger the "recording" of the sequence of physiological switches being flipped that appear to mimic a pattern seen previously (prior physiological recording) then we become aware of the similar pattern and nearly believe that we have experienced the exact event..
fabricatorx 1 year ago
Perhaps this may also lead into metaskills, or whatever you may call it, where we apply previous experiences into new situations. How else can we explain why the more we know about various diverse skills, the easier new skills are able to be picked up? This is where we apply analogies to new skills, saying "oh doing 'this' is just like doing this 'other' thing that I know how to do".
fabricatorx 1 year ago
@fabricatorx definitely, and we also have to consider that the flickering of switches in the brain create cognition and meaning out of what many people see as chaos.
complex cognition and consciousness then being interpreted an emergent property of the chaotic rumblings of our brains.
so its like a computer in a way, and not in others. the switches in computers are more reliable than neurons, thats why you see so much repetition in neuronal microcircuitry.
SuperAkihabara 1 year ago
Hi Aki, nice sets of videos. I'm slowly trying to get familiar with functional localization issues in cognitive neuroscience and in this video you introduce one things that I still can't really get my head around.
Ignare 1 year ago
@Ignare You previously stated in your sexphil video response that we don't really talk of anatomical region specialize for particular function, but more of distributed neural network. Correspondingly, you mention that working memory is a whole-cortex process.
Ignare 1 year ago
@Ignare So I guess my question is : since working memory is itself cluster of sub-processes or components, can't we reach the point were we pin-point exactly the anatomical regions specialized for each sub-process ? In short, is it simply a matter of decomposiong further the level of processing until we find an anatomically distinct specialize for each sub-sub-sub-process ?
Ignare 1 year ago
@Ignare
we don't know.
up to this point cognitive scientists have used ideas of how computers operate to describe how the brain functions. Combining this with behavioralism, and evolutionary biology we get a certain outlook on how the brain receives inputs and responds accordingly. if we follow a computer through its sub processes we eventually end up with what you said: one area one process. (area being code rather than physical location).
SuperAkihabara 1 year ago 2
@Ignare so basically this depends on whether you think that the brain operates like a computer. in some ways it does and there are plenty of algorithms out there that accurately predict brain activity. but there might be some fundamental differences between how the two systems receive information that would preclude us from ever concluding something like: this is the "sex pursuit" part of the brain. or that any part of the brain is "made for" doing one thing.
SuperAkihabara 1 year ago