I'll be honest with you, I thought the whole thing was a lie, so I wanted to make you at least come up with something.
I'd say its fair that I don't know a whole lot of scientists outside of my area of research, as it is fair that I could hit you with a bunch of names of prominent attention/vision scientists that you would have never heard of. The celebrity power of science is lacking.
lol, you aren't stupid. You have to realize when you open your mouth around a group of people who agree with each other, they will probably be more interested in making you look the fool than themselves.
I agree, in general, with what Bardock and Adam_PoE say, so clearly I'm going to be less motivated to fact check everything that comes out of their mouth. And again, I wouldn't normally do that, aside for the fact that I didn't think you actually had spoken to any scientists.
Having interviewed people for documentaries or having had conversations with them is an incredibly valid source, do not worry, I don't think anyone is against that. Actually, I am generally interested in your documentaries now, lol
I like talking to scientists. I wish they could be more interdisciplinary though, but it takes too much time to get good at a particular field (and find money to do it properly). I thini scientist would be much more able an creative if they see how other people in other fields work and discover. In general they just refer to people in other fields, people they like, without properly looking into their work. And yet, they use that work as reference and evidence. Most of the time, it doesn't pose a problem, but sometimes it does. So I see it as my vocation to bring scientists from different fields together. hehehehe...
you'd be a fan of cognitive neuroscience then. As a field, it is trying to do just that, maybe with a little less ambition. Its trying to bring the psych, neuro, bio, statistical, AI, and all that jazz together to understand the brain, with awesome results
There is an entire trend in science to do this, as far as I can tell. Except with quantum physics, they still think they can explain everything
I did a few programmes about that actually.
One about addiction and its causes/results in the brain.
One about curing chronic pain in the brain, and treatment of phantom pain by brain stimulation.
I'd like to work on one about autism and its relation to the distubed functions of mirror neurons... Sounds damn interesting.
And then AI... yes, particular interest tehre. Esecially the exploits in finding if we can somehow upload memory to something digital.
No, not the Ramachandran one. But we dealt with the same approach, applying it to post traumatic dystrophia or CRPS type 1.
Well autism is interesting, because the mirror neuron approach, and this is my multidisciplinary approach, could even mean we could be moving away from behavirourial treatments. Just like Ramachandran it opens up a possibility of stimulating the inactive mirror neutrons and approach autism on a hardware level, instead of behavioural/software approach.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 25th, 2008 08:34 PM
.
