But the lack of respect for science can't be reduced to the uncertainty with which the findings are communicated. I would argue that one of the causes is the opposite - people too often see clickbait titles "Scientists discovered X!!!", dig deeper, get disillusioned, and figure that it's all a con
November 19, 2025 at 2:08 PM
But the lack of respect for science can't be reduced to the uncertainty with which the findings are communicated. I would argue that one of the causes is the opposite - people too often see clickbait titles "Scientists discovered X!!!", dig deeper, get disillusioned, and figure that it's all a con
A lot of answers here about the complexity of the brain. I think, the problem is not the complexity itself but our desire to answer complex Qs while the foundation is not there yet. Theory doesn't start with explaining the human brain, it "ends" there (of course, it never really ends)
June 8, 2025 at 4:17 PM
A lot of answers here about the complexity of the brain. I think, the problem is not the complexity itself but our desire to answer complex Qs while the foundation is not there yet. Theory doesn't start with explaining the human brain, it "ends" there (of course, it never really ends)
If we change neural activity, there's nothing more in the physical world, that this activity represents. But we can still call it representation, just of something from the platonic world I guess 😅
June 6, 2025 at 2:19 PM
If we change neural activity, there's nothing more in the physical world, that this activity represents. But we can still call it representation, just of something from the platonic world I guess 😅
A particular cell with altered transcriptome, though, probably makes a transition from being a muscle cell to being a skin cell (not sure if altered transcriptome would be enough here, but feels like it)
June 6, 2025 at 2:17 PM
A particular cell with altered transcriptome, though, probably makes a transition from being a muscle cell to being a skin cell (not sure if altered transcriptome would be enough here, but feels like it)
I still think it's relative. This calculation doesn't substantiate info. It just sets an upper boundary on the possibly measured info about the observable universe.
May 15, 2025 at 4:11 PM
I still think it's relative. This calculation doesn't substantiate info. It just sets an upper boundary on the possibly measured info about the observable universe.
Isn't the phrase like "generation/creation of info" meaningless from IT perspective? I thought, info can only be measured, and it is a relative term, not a substance
May 15, 2025 at 2:15 PM
Isn't the phrase like "generation/creation of info" meaningless from IT perspective? I thought, info can only be measured, and it is a relative term, not a substance
I think many would agree that information theory can be useful in neuro studies, but a lot less would agree that it is THE lens through which we should always regard neural systems. Probably some people think that putting that lens away to take another one is what we lack to make a breakthrough 2/2
May 14, 2025 at 5:50 PM
I think many would agree that information theory can be useful in neuro studies, but a lot less would agree that it is THE lens through which we should always regard neural systems. Probably some people think that putting that lens away to take another one is what we lack to make a breakthrough 2/2
The way I read this debate is not around the lines of information theoretic approach to the brain being true or not, but of it being useful or not. I think there was an analogy of a stone thrown into the water, which could be described through information theory, but that'd not be very useful. 1/2
May 14, 2025 at 5:49 PM
The way I read this debate is not around the lines of information theoretic approach to the brain being true or not, but of it being useful or not. I think there was an analogy of a stone thrown into the water, which could be described through information theory, but that'd not be very useful. 1/2