Post #2412712
2025-07-17 07:14 UTC
@evgandr@mas.to @jadedtwin@corteximplant.com @WhiteCatTamer@mastodon.online @Eatsbluecrayon@rollenspiel.social
Regarding the brain not being a computer…
I get the articles point: but there’s some (willful?) blind spots in those arguments. Short form comments aren’t a way to have that discussion. I’ll get my thoughts together on that.
Of course I mean to say I don’t think humans can literally see or process that much info to that accuracy, if that wasn’t implicit. Laws of physics still apply.
Replies (1)
-
@dnavinci@genomic.social 2025-07-18 03:04
@altruios@mastodon.social Reply guy here! Neurogenomics! There's absolutely no evidence that cognition can be ascribed to numbers, or any measurable chemical process. Down to brass racks, if you pull that magical thinking in a neurobiology paper reviewers 1, 2, and 3 will kick you to the curb. There just isn't any measurement to support any of that. It might be useful as a model to thinking about cognition in machine terms. It's just not neurobiology. @evgandr@mas.to @jadedtwin@corteximplant.com @WhiteCatTamer@mastodon.online @Eatsbluecrayon@rollenspiel.social