But surely the function of the neocortex has been established by observation and experiment: MRI scans, the results of injury to specific areas of the brain, applied electrical stimuli and so forth?
As the brain is basically an organ facilitating the epiphenomena of thought and systemic control, the exact form of various elements may be less important than organs which have an engineering function like, say, the organs of waste elimination, or *wings*. The function of the latter is heavily dependent on macroscopic form, and even so, bat wings and bird wings have obvious visual differences, even though they may have similar aerodynamic qualities. Both cases are obviously a form of wing because in this case form follows the mechanical function. The neocortex functionality is much more abstract, so why should two highly divergent species need a *similar looking* neocortex?
Why might neocortex functionality have to exist as an obviously separate brain area?
I'm not debating the requirement for the function. I'm questioning the obsession with the form it takes.
I'll read the book when I have enough cash, but I'm curious as to the reasoning.
IANA neurologist, but a neocortex on the neurological scale is a gross physical structure, telling you, in and of itself, little about function. Why is it a surprise that similar functionality can develop in the brains of creatures (lacking that *particular* gross structure)? Particularly where they diverged from our line a very long time ago?
That kind of thinking is comparable with phrenology.
> We have big brains, so what? We almost became extinct 70,000 years ago [telegraph.co.uk] despite our big brains.
And there are 6-7 billion of us, perhaps the largest population of large, energy-intensive, land animals to ever litter the face of the globe. This may not be quite so smart, but it is an indicator that there *may* be a correlation between high intelligence and the ability to survive and prosper. Your modesty is most fetching, however.
That's true, and a 'practical' bussard ramjet would probably have to be long and thin to stretch out the square to cube transition. There would be a time dilatioon effect in raising the apparent hydrogen density at higher velocities, though.
> Sure in theory we could steer the earth if we all jumped up and down at the right time.
Actually we couldn't. That *is* a limitation based on the law of physics, unless you can train people via corporate motivational techniques to exceed escape velocity with each jump.
> People want the future in Wall-E. We want the government (or some company) to do everything for us.
Actually, this seems to be what the MSM (with exceptions), is telling us that people want. And people like yourself appear to be reinforcing the myth. I certainly don't want the government to do everything for me, or arbitrarily limit my freedoms, or monitor my every action to save us all from paedophile terrorist drug-abusers.
The sheeple element will echo what it reads in the tabloids, but it's the abysmally low standard of journalism and the vested interests in maintaining this situation that constitute the real problem.
Well, please try to put that point across to people who *do* believe in the inerrancy. They give the rest of you a very bad name, as I'm sure you're all too aware. You have my sympathy in that regard.
I managed to get my closest friend's kid into computing because I started when he was 3 years old by introducing him to games, and teaching him to type his name. Subsequently, I supplied him with new computers as he grew, bought him a Logo package and book, and showed him how to draw simple geometrical shapes and/or pretty patterns. He's now a geek, and he wants to do Computing with Physics at Uni. He's better at maths than I am.
I interested my nephew and nieces in computing by showing them how to world build for Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament in 3D editing packages, and wound some programming into the mix via UnrealScript, a Java-like language included with all of the Unreal engines. This was cool for them because they could build the world, and then *play* it. Obviously I pWned them most cruelly (they are teh suX0rs - they can get their revenge when my teeth are in a jar). My nephew's the only one who showed any ongoing interest, but they all enjoyed the activities.
I think the key thing is to find something that they can *play* with. This is how I got into programming.
I can see the point of didactic learning under some circumstances, but IMHO (speaking as a consumer) too many teachers (particularly maths teachers) heavily overuse this style of teaching. IANAT, btw.
Ah, human interaction often cheapens and erodes human interaction. For supporting evidence, check replies on Youtube et al. Occasional gems of clarity mired in the cess of 'Ur ghey!!!', 'Amerika pwns all you towelheads', 'Nuke the west!', and the rest of the incomprehension, pointless noise and misdirected rage. It's pretty depressing, particularly when someone's trying to put an interesting point across.
While I'd be the first to protest religiously motivated argument couched as morality as applied to this debate, you're on shaky ground if you choose 'actual coherent and competent thought' as your criteria for drawing the line. I've (briefly) dated people who would fail in this respect.
>I also wonder if there might be a relation between this and how some dogs can "smell" cancer.
I wonder if, maybe, just *maybe*, it's linked to the dog's sense of *smell*.
It must be wonderful to live in such a high-minded society. Unfortunately, what *some* people in the States fear is the rise of religious totalitarianism. Collect together a sufficiently large number of people with a particular set of opinions, and the will to impose those opinions on others, then you have the recipe for massive abuse on the scale of Nazism.
Yep, Britain. I have a close friend who was beaten up by two drunk Chelsea supporters on a train full of commuters, in business hours, on the London to Oxford run. The police were basically as useless as a collection of nuns at an orgy. The guy who took the call was sullen, unhelpful, and clearly resented having to deal with a member of the public. I have other friends who've been beaten up. No comeback for the wankers who did it, and no right to effective protection on the part of the victim. I have yet other friends who illegally carry knives, and if any of you suggest that they should follow the dictate of the ass that is our legal system, then I cheerfully curse you to the very floor of hell.
Meanwhile, the brave lads in blue are there like a shot for minor traffic offences, for example, having a foglight switched on on a clear night.
The law in Britain is all about political control, and our tabloids (owned by a small number of fat, immensely rich, amoral bastards) tell us that the answer is to Get Tough on Crime, and lock more people up. We already have more people in prison per head of population than most other European countries, and a *big* chunk of them are basically there because they've been criminalised by the idiotic drug laws, yet the violent crimes in my *personal* experience have largely gone unpunished because of issues with finding witnesses.
I *envy* my US friends with respect to gun ownership.
Most tail-gaters are just *oblivious* rather than aggreesive. You can tell the aggressive ones because they're the ones who flash their headlights and mock-charge you at 110mph. Those, you avoid.
I was hit at about 10mph once. I was a lot luckier than you because I was driving a hired Pontiac Bonneville in San Fran at the time. Not a lard-bucket by American standards, but big enough to tilt the momentuam equation in our favour. I was hit by some guy in a classic Mercedes who was driving too fast, too close, and without the ABS and the fat tyres that the Pontiac sported. My *passenger* had just had recently had some fairly serious facial surgery and was swated in bandages. The guy from the Merc got out, came over, looked into the cabin, and *freaked*. No-one was hurt, I was civil, *he* was civil (and *so* keen to get out of there it was funny). Scuff mark on the back bumper of the Pontiac, the driver's mirror fell out of its holder, the Mercedes front bumper fell off. Other damage? Premature ageing due to stress and fright, damaged egos...
Basically, his wheels locked on braking, and he slid about fifteen feet into the back of our car. No real moral beyond, drive carefully, but I wish I'd been able to photograph the guy's expression when he saw my friend....
Slashdot Mirror
I had come to that conclusion - cue Finbarr Saunders - but nicely put.
But surely the function of the neocortex has been established by observation and experiment: MRI scans, the results of injury to specific areas of the brain, applied electrical stimuli and so forth?
As the brain is basically an organ facilitating the epiphenomena of thought and systemic control, the exact form of various elements may be less important than organs which have an engineering function like, say, the organs of waste elimination, or *wings*. The function of the latter is heavily dependent on macroscopic form, and even so, bat wings and bird wings have obvious visual differences, even though they may have similar aerodynamic qualities. Both cases are obviously a form of wing because in this case form follows the mechanical function. The neocortex functionality is much more abstract, so why should two highly divergent species need a *similar looking* neocortex?
Why might neocortex functionality have to exist as an obviously separate brain area?
I'm not debating the requirement for the function. I'm questioning the obsession with the form it takes.
I'll read the book when I have enough cash, but I'm curious as to the reasoning.
Getting a decent shag out of a man is hard enough without having to share him with other women.
IANA neurologist, but a neocortex on the neurological scale is a gross physical structure, telling you, in and of itself, little about function. Why is it a surprise that similar functionality can develop in the brains of creatures (lacking that *particular* gross structure)? Particularly where they diverged from our line a very long time ago?
That kind of thinking is comparable with phrenology.
> We have big brains, so what? We almost became extinct 70,000 years ago [telegraph.co.uk] despite our big brains.
And there are 6-7 billion of us, perhaps the largest population of large, energy-intensive, land animals to ever litter the face of the globe. This may not be quite so smart, but it is an indicator that there *may* be a correlation between high intelligence and the ability to survive and prosper. Your modesty is most fetching, however.
I'm a C++ coder. I've written OO code in Perl. Maybe I'm missing something about its elegance. Would you care to explain, with brief examples?
Scientists r peepul, too.
Or had you forgotten?
That's true, and a 'practical' bussard ramjet would probably have to be long and thin to stretch out the square to cube transition. There would be a time dilatioon effect in raising the apparent hydrogen density at higher velocities, though.
> Sure in theory we could steer the earth if we all jumped up and down at the right time.
Actually we couldn't. That *is* a limitation based on the law of physics, unless you can train people via corporate motivational techniques to exceed escape velocity with each jump.
Isn't it inverse cube? YOu'd need a monopole to get inverse square, or a very long, thin, dipole.
Just a thought:
Why must they be alien?
What about a smarter hominid offshoot which never employed mass production techniques, and *left*?
We know this planet is a risky proposition, longer term, so why stay, if you can leave?
> People want the future in Wall-E. We want the government (or some company) to do everything for us.
Actually, this seems to be what the MSM (with exceptions), is telling us that people want. And people like yourself appear to be reinforcing the myth. I certainly don't want the government to do everything for me, or arbitrarily limit my freedoms, or monitor my every action to save us all from paedophile terrorist drug-abusers.
The sheeple element will echo what it reads in the tabloids, but it's the abysmally low standard of journalism and the vested interests in maintaining this situation that constitute the real problem.
Well, please try to put that point across to people who *do* believe in the inerrancy. They give the rest of you a very bad name, as I'm sure you're all too aware. You have my sympathy in that regard.
I managed to get my closest friend's kid into computing because I started when he was 3 years old by introducing him to games, and teaching him to type his name. Subsequently, I supplied him with new computers as he grew, bought him a Logo package and book, and showed him how to draw simple geometrical shapes and/or pretty patterns. He's now a geek, and he wants to do Computing with Physics at Uni. He's better at maths than I am.
I interested my nephew and nieces in computing by showing them how to world build for Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament in 3D editing packages, and wound some programming into the mix via UnrealScript, a Java-like language included with all of the Unreal engines. This was cool for them because they could build the world, and then *play* it. Obviously I pWned them most cruelly (they are teh suX0rs - they can get their revenge when my teeth are in a jar). My nephew's the only one who showed any ongoing interest, but they all enjoyed the activities.
I think the key thing is to find something that they can *play* with. This is how I got into programming.
I can see the point of didactic learning under some circumstances, but IMHO (speaking as a consumer) too many teachers (particularly maths teachers) heavily overuse this style of teaching. IANAT, btw.
Ah, human interaction often cheapens and erodes human interaction. For supporting evidence, check replies on Youtube et al. Occasional gems of clarity mired in the cess of 'Ur ghey!!!', 'Amerika pwns all you towelheads', 'Nuke the west!', and the rest of the incomprehension, pointless noise and misdirected rage. It's pretty depressing, particularly when someone's trying to put an interesting point across.
Let's hope you don't fart too much in your sleep.
That's the funniest thing I've read here in a while. Are you Belgian?
Um...
While I'd be the first to protest religiously motivated argument couched as morality as applied to this debate, you're on shaky ground if you choose 'actual coherent and competent thought' as your criteria for drawing the line. I've (briefly) dated people who would fail in this respect.
> but so does my sperm, and nobody ever gets upset when I kill hundreds of millions of those.
You heartless beast!
Everyone knows that the Pope cries and God kills a kitten, each and every time you commit the Sin of Onan.
>I also wonder if there might be a relation between this and how some dogs can "smell" cancer. I wonder if, maybe, just *maybe*, it's linked to the dog's sense of *smell*.
Attitude control gyros...
It must be wonderful to live in such a high-minded society. Unfortunately, what *some* people in the States fear is the rise of religious totalitarianism. Collect together a sufficiently large number of people with a particular set of opinions, and the will to impose those opinions on others, then you have the recipe for massive abuse on the scale of Nazism.
This is not an unrealistic scenario.
Yep, Britain. I have a close friend who was beaten up by two drunk Chelsea supporters on a train full of commuters, in business hours, on the London to Oxford run. The police were basically as useless as a collection of nuns at an orgy. The guy who took the call was sullen, unhelpful, and clearly resented having to deal with a member of the public. I have other friends who've been beaten up. No comeback for the wankers who did it, and no right to effective protection on the part of the victim. I have yet other friends who illegally carry knives, and if any of you suggest that they should follow the dictate of the ass that is our legal system, then I cheerfully curse you to the very floor of hell.
Meanwhile, the brave lads in blue are there like a shot for minor traffic offences, for example, having a foglight switched on on a clear night.
The law in Britain is all about political control, and our tabloids (owned by a small number of fat, immensely rich, amoral bastards) tell us that the answer is to Get Tough on Crime, and lock more people up. We already have more people in prison per head of population than most other European countries, and a *big* chunk of them are basically there because they've been criminalised by the idiotic drug laws, yet the violent crimes in my *personal* experience have largely gone unpunished because of issues with finding witnesses.
I *envy* my US friends with respect to gun ownership.
Bastard A makes loud noise to detect camera, or triggers a ghetto blaster and walks away from it.
Bastard B walks up behind person to be fucked up, duct tapes person B, and does whatever it takes.
Fuck this idiotic shit.
Most tail-gaters are just *oblivious* rather than aggreesive. You can tell the aggressive ones because they're the ones who flash their headlights and mock-charge you at 110mph. Those, you avoid. I was hit at about 10mph once. I was a lot luckier than you because I was driving a hired Pontiac Bonneville in San Fran at the time. Not a lard-bucket by American standards, but big enough to tilt the momentuam equation in our favour. I was hit by some guy in a classic Mercedes who was driving too fast, too close, and without the ABS and the fat tyres that the Pontiac sported. My *passenger* had just had recently had some fairly serious facial surgery and was swated in bandages. The guy from the Merc got out, came over, looked into the cabin, and *freaked*. No-one was hurt, I was civil, *he* was civil (and *so* keen to get out of there it was funny). Scuff mark on the back bumper of the Pontiac, the driver's mirror fell out of its holder, the Mercedes front bumper fell off. Other damage? Premature ageing due to stress and fright, damaged egos... Basically, his wheels locked on braking, and he slid about fifteen feet into the back of our car. No real moral beyond, drive carefully, but I wish I'd been able to photograph the guy's expression when he saw my friend....