Daredevil was based on the idea of how lacking a sense can lead to the increase in other senses. Taken to a super-hero degree! I think it was Stan Lee's favorite origin, and is certainly one of mine!
When it comes to plasticity thats something i have thought more about, its perfectly reasonable that the brain os much more programmable through use than we think of normally, but it still might be very hard to program from the outside with just stimulus, for stuff we are not already very good at teaching everyone, like walking, or talking, which is mucle control and comorehension, but we have absolutely no idea how we would teach a course on walking muscle by muscle, there is this whole layer of abstraction between what we do and just sort of trying, that is facilitated by how the brain works. When ww try that with higher functions like reasoning we dont go "okey so now try to fire X set of neurons, then X2 set and so on" we teach in a way that relies on the intuitive function of the brain to pick up on it as a general idea. Its easy to explain how ti add 1+1 and get two in words, well you can imagine two objects that you put into the same basket, or you group them together and count them, but do you know anyone who understands how they do any of that with their brain any more than any athletes know what muscle constructions to use to complete a technique? Me neither.
But some very insightful coach could notice that you tighten your back too much or lean to one side without noticing, and its the same for thinking, sometimes a student is trying to get ti a bottom that isn't there in an obvious way or has misunderstood the basic logic we are supposed to have an intuition for, its more like learning ti use the user interface on a computer vs actually knowing how any of it works. Education cannot really do the second, at least for now, so with education we are kind of trying to program by manipulation of a user interface which is okey, and not agood analogy really, but if it was somewhat adaptable in its code by manipulation of the ui, the analogy would be better. Its hard for us to know the limits of that kind of learning by experience not by manipulation of hardware and base code, it might very well be that we are closer to cavemen than what is possible in the limit, but without a full understanding of the brain as this sort of machine that can manipulate its code through its interfaces we cannot really know in any other ways than trying. And i'm not sure out pedagogy has improved that much since the stone age, we have mire sophisticated language, but was a really good teacher at hunting or shaping stone tools really worse than a craftsman or maths teacher today? Or is the difference mainly about the subject matter. I'm not so sure about that. I think we learn to teach in a similar way by becoming good at something and becoming good at reading and interacting with people, i think the formal pedagogy is just a kind of mix of gimmiks and accumulated knowledge form great teachers, nit sure whether we have become any better at teaching arbitrary subjects or crafts. I think also that rigid cultures of authority and arrogant pride in a craft could have developed that are actually detrimental to good teaching, that might have been negated more or less completely by a teacher who really gets it and inspires and cultivate curiosity and harnesses it well, in pretty much any eara. I'm very skeptical that a time traveler or alien with technological assistance could not absolutely trounce us at teaching, resulting in perhaps 50 iq points added around the mean. But thats pure speculation, the point of the comment is that it is not so clear that just because we know of no good ways to increase iq test scores by much without increasing familiarity a lot on certain types of questions, means that it is not possible or is evidence of some absolute genetic dependence, i think the principle that its always all environmental and all genetic is a good maxim, how it shakes out is still open, this sort of 50/50 assignment always smeløs extremely funny to me, it just can't be true that if you lock a person in a room until they are twenty they come out in a shape where they can even be given a test, and removing the dna of a person and replacing it with nothing results in no person at all, so idk, i think that is kind of silly, its always both, just like with nature and nurture in other contexts.
That is kind of the problem i have with some iq research, we know so little about how intelligence actually works so we are kind of correlating stuff with no knowledge of the mechanisms even thouuwe know they exist. And when you go to determine genetic dependence, we also have so many genes that if you try ti correlate them all with certain markers of success or iq test results, in small sample sizes the number of genes to look at is far larger than the sample sizes, and addnin some sloppy statistics to that proceedure and you are basically garuanteed to produce a lot of studies that correlate some genes with higher iq or the markers of success the G factor is justified by comparison to. And the lack of reproducibility is sort of a natural consequence of having so many gene complexes to potentially study. I think there must be genetic predispositions obviously, i just think the way it really works cant possibly be as simple as some iq researchers tend to give of the impression of.
But of its too severe andnwe Don't know amy other way then that might be the only option i guess, but maybe there is some way to be had to probe into the brain and reduce the number of synapses/connections locally to make sure its not a supercritical mess.
Compatibilism is delusional. I agree with Schwartz on the probabilistic nature of reality and the brain, but it's not an argument for "degrees of freedom."
Just thw point about aquired savant syndrome should be taken very seriously as an indication that we do not know nearly the best ways to improve cognitive function. The dirt seems to be a better teacher than anyone human trying to improve iq, maybe if ww knew how to change someone just right with a neural interface we could all habe perfect recall, and super fast mental calculations or the ability to visualise perfectly or creative abundance like Michaelangelo. There seems to be limited evidence something like that is possible. Having said that, there is no reason to dismiss genetic predisposition, it just might be that the potential most of us have is higher than the hights reached by oir genetic freaks. Hard to know before having a comprehensive theory of it.
Btw we can also echo locate, its just not something we are too cognisant of and we don't rely on it as much so our brains dont run the numbers on it as much. Try this test, grab a lighter and stand inside a room, close your eyes, stand maybe 1 meter away from a solid wall, listen carefully as you loght the lighter, then take a steo closer to the wall and do it again, if you try hard to notice you will notuce the destinction between the wall being close and the wall being further away. People who rely on it just get more adept and more used to reacting to much subtler destinctions in sound, our brains are perfectly capable of the same thing, its just more efficient to learn to do those things with sight for us. Its just like learning a skill, or something athletic, with practice the smaller details become second nature.
I think its the same with any mastery, whem you get good enough you start learning and planning in a bespoke way, where you have to sort of invent your own mental picture of it yourself, and i think thisnis sort of how we learn and understand anything, but before you get to a certain level, there is a lot of postit notes and remembered recipies in your head that you don't really know in detail in the same way.
Just by going in there with very small scale electrical shocks to kill cells in specific areas maybe or something like That. Hard to imagine how that would work in particular without knowing the cause of those seizures properly.
I'm skeptical that the function can become as good with half a brain. Maybe its worth doing, but maybe there is also a way to get rid of the seizures woth much less invasive steps, but ofc not really an expert at all, nekther have a read literature of those patients so there is that.
In 1987, I had a motorcycle wreck with no helmet near the hospital setup for immediate care, including Brain Surgery. The damage was a subdermal hematoma. I was treated probably within the first hour and fully recovered. In 2000 I developed epilepsy; however, with medications, the petite mauls still happen, but not enough to do anything other than not allow me to have a drivers license. In the end, I feel lucky the outcome could have been much worse. I ran into the neurosurgeon at the hospital in 1997 while making a delivery; he remembered me as I did him. He asked, Are you wearing a helmut now? I said yes, of course, and thanked him.
You never know, with AI and the advancement of self-driving cars, you may one day be able to obtain an "AI Assisted" Drivers license so you could be more autonomous and self-reliant?
@@merlepatterson Very good point; however, I live in a dense, large city and have two electric bikes, so I have easy travel. However, when I lost my license in 2000, I was self-employed, requiring I drive and making 8-10 thousand dollars a month cleaning carpets and windows. Since then I returned to college and obtained 3 bachelors and did a grad program, and I'm 60 years old, basically because of the epilepsy. I had rarely worked for others most of my life for the freedom and self-continuity. I've had a lucky life. I used to play jazz in the local community; one BS is music. I do miss playing, so I'm working on that as of late, not having kept up my chops. On returning to college, they asked since I had experienced a head injury, would I like to take testing to see if I needed more time for class tests, etc. In that testing was an IQ test; I registered in the mean on IQ; that was a relief after the injury; I graduated with straight A's in the end, which I hope is to anyone reading this helpful in the sense that university educations are quite helpful, and despite a severe head injury, I prevailed in that environment. I do appreciatte the time you took to think of the possibilties and leave a message.
I'd be curious if you could define your argument. I have a BS in Black Studies and Psychology, as well as grad studies in Intercultural Relations. I did not pick up on any racism; however, I've been known to miss things and follow confirmation bias roads at times. Additionally, I would say that we have to consider context. I once wrote a paper in a Black Studies class negatively addressing the founders of America. The professor pulled me aside and addressed the context of the times. Additionally, while having a conversation with another professor in the same department who signed my bachelors, he shared his feelings that the worst sufferers of western expansion of now America were the indiginous. I'm wondering if you're making these same mistakes of context analysis; we all do this as many other biases.
Okey done ranting :) appriciate the podcast Michael ^^ and ty to the guest, learned some new things and thats always fun.
"The Shwartz is with you" -Mel Brooks
How do I know the color red to you is the same color red to me. Check the crayon box. Haha
😭😭🤣
So Daredevil didn't actually have any superpowers? Badass.
Daredevil was based on the idea of how lacking a sense can lead to the increase in other senses. Taken to a super-hero degree! I think it was Stan Lee's favorite origin, and is certainly one of mine!
When it comes to plasticity thats something i have thought more about, its perfectly reasonable that the brain os much more programmable through use than we think of normally, but it still might be very hard to program from the outside with just stimulus, for stuff we are not already very good at teaching everyone, like walking, or talking, which is mucle control and comorehension, but we have absolutely no idea how we would teach a course on walking muscle by muscle, there is this whole layer of abstraction between what we do and just sort of trying, that is facilitated by how the brain works. When ww try that with higher functions like reasoning we dont go "okey so now try to fire X set of neurons, then X2 set and so on" we teach in a way that relies on the intuitive function of the brain to pick up on it as a general idea. Its easy to explain how ti add 1+1 and get two in words, well you can imagine two objects that you put into the same basket, or you group them together and count them, but do you know anyone who understands how they do any of that with their brain any more than any athletes know what muscle constructions to use to complete a technique? Me neither.
But some very insightful coach could notice that you tighten your back too much or lean to one side without noticing, and its the same for thinking, sometimes a student is trying to get ti a bottom that isn't there in an obvious way or has misunderstood the basic logic we are supposed to have an intuition for, its more like learning ti use the user interface on a computer vs actually knowing how any of it works. Education cannot really do the second, at least for now, so with education we are kind of trying to program by manipulation of a user interface which is okey, and not agood analogy really, but if it was somewhat adaptable in its code by manipulation of the ui, the analogy would be better. Its hard for us to know the limits of that kind of learning by experience not by manipulation of hardware and base code, it might very well be that we are closer to cavemen than what is possible in the limit, but without a full understanding of the brain as this sort of machine that can manipulate its code through its interfaces we cannot really know in any other ways than trying. And i'm not sure out pedagogy has improved that much since the stone age, we have mire sophisticated language, but was a really good teacher at hunting or shaping stone tools really worse than a craftsman or maths teacher today? Or is the difference mainly about the subject matter. I'm not so sure about that. I think we learn to teach in a similar way by becoming good at something and becoming good at reading and interacting with people, i think the formal pedagogy is just a kind of mix of gimmiks and accumulated knowledge form great teachers, nit sure whether we have become any better at teaching arbitrary subjects or crafts. I think also that rigid cultures of authority and arrogant pride in a craft could have developed that are actually detrimental to good teaching, that might have been negated more or less completely by a teacher who really gets it and inspires and cultivate curiosity and harnesses it well, in pretty much any eara. I'm very skeptical that a time traveler or alien with technological assistance could not absolutely trounce us at teaching, resulting in perhaps 50 iq points added around the mean. But thats pure speculation, the point of the comment is that it is not so clear that just because we know of no good ways to increase iq test scores by much without increasing familiarity a lot on certain types of questions, means that it is not possible or is evidence of some absolute genetic dependence, i think the principle that its always all environmental and all genetic is a good maxim, how it shakes out is still open, this sort of 50/50 assignment always smeløs extremely funny to me, it just can't be true that if you lock a person in a room until they are twenty they come out in a shape where they can even be given a test, and removing the dna of a person and replacing it with nothing results in no person at all, so idk, i think that is kind of silly, its always both, just like with nature and nurture in other contexts.
That is kind of the problem i have with some iq research, we know so little about how intelligence actually works so we are kind of correlating stuff with no knowledge of the mechanisms even thouuwe know they exist. And when you go to determine genetic dependence, we also have so many genes that if you try ti correlate them all with certain markers of success or iq test results, in small sample sizes the number of genes to look at is far larger than the sample sizes, and addnin some sloppy statistics to that proceedure and you are basically garuanteed to produce a lot of studies that correlate some genes with higher iq or the markers of success the G factor is justified by comparison to. And the lack of reproducibility is sort of a natural consequence of having so many gene complexes to potentially study. I think there must be genetic predispositions obviously, i just think the way it really works cant possibly be as simple as some iq researchers tend to give of the impression of.
But of its too severe andnwe Don't know amy other way then that might be the only option i guess, but maybe there is some way to be had to probe into the brain and reduce the number of synapses/connections locally to make sure its not a supercritical mess.
The neurologist take on bias
😂
🤣🤣😭😭
Compatibilism is delusional. I agree with Schwartz on the probabilistic nature of reality and the brain, but it's not an argument for "degrees of freedom."
Just thw point about aquired savant syndrome should be taken very seriously as an indication that we do not know nearly the best ways to improve cognitive function. The dirt seems to be a better teacher than anyone human trying to improve iq, maybe if ww knew how to change someone just right with a neural interface we could all habe perfect recall, and super fast mental calculations or the ability to visualise perfectly or creative abundance like Michaelangelo. There seems to be limited evidence something like that is possible. Having said that, there is no reason to dismiss genetic predisposition, it just might be that the potential most of us have is higher than the hights reached by oir genetic freaks. Hard to know before having a comprehensive theory of it.
Btw we can also echo locate, its just not something we are too cognisant of and we don't rely on it as much so our brains dont run the numbers on it as much. Try this test, grab a lighter and stand inside a room, close your eyes, stand maybe 1 meter away from a solid wall, listen carefully as you loght the lighter, then take a steo closer to the wall and do it again, if you try hard to notice you will notuce the destinction between the wall being close and the wall being further away. People who rely on it just get more adept and more used to reacting to much subtler destinctions in sound, our brains are perfectly capable of the same thing, its just more efficient to learn to do those things with sight for us. Its just like learning a skill, or something athletic, with practice the smaller details become second nature.
I think its the same with any mastery, whem you get good enough you start learning and planning in a bespoke way, where you have to sort of invent your own mental picture of it yourself, and i think thisnis sort of how we learn and understand anything, but before you get to a certain level, there is a lot of postit notes and remembered recipies in your head that you don't really know in detail in the same way.
Just by going in there with very small scale electrical shocks to kill cells in specific areas maybe or something like That. Hard to imagine how that would work in particular without knowing the cause of those seizures properly.
I'm skeptical that the function can become as good with half a brain. Maybe its worth doing, but maybe there is also a way to get rid of the seizures woth much less invasive steps, but ofc not really an expert at all, nekther have a read literature of those patients so there is that.
In 1987, I had a motorcycle wreck with no helmet near the hospital setup for immediate care, including Brain Surgery. The damage was a subdermal hematoma. I was treated probably within the first hour and fully recovered. In 2000 I developed epilepsy; however, with medications, the petite mauls still happen, but not enough to do anything other than not allow me to have a drivers license. In the end, I feel lucky the outcome could have been much worse. I ran into the neurosurgeon at the hospital in 1997 while making a delivery; he remembered me as I did him. He asked, Are you wearing a helmut now? I said yes, of course, and thanked him.
You never know, with AI and the advancement of self-driving cars, you may one day be able to obtain an "AI Assisted" Drivers license so you could be more autonomous and self-reliant?
@@merlepatterson
Very good point; however, I live in a dense, large city and have two electric bikes, so I have easy travel. However, when I lost my license in 2000, I was self-employed, requiring I drive and making 8-10 thousand dollars a month cleaning carpets and windows. Since then I returned to college and obtained 3 bachelors and did a grad program, and I'm 60 years old, basically because of the epilepsy. I had rarely worked for others most of my life for the freedom and self-continuity.
I've had a lucky life. I used to play jazz in the local community; one BS is music. I do miss playing, so I'm working on that as of late, not having kept up my chops.
On returning to college, they asked since I had experienced a head injury, would I like to take testing to see if I needed more time for class tests, etc. In that testing was an IQ test; I registered in the mean on IQ; that was a relief after the injury; I graduated with straight A's in the end, which I hope is to anyone reading this helpful in the sense that university educations are quite helpful, and despite a severe head injury, I prevailed in that environment.
I do appreciatte the time you took to think of the possibilties and leave a message.
@@MarcRumery You're most welcome.
Interesting and educational!
Fantastic discussion
Great episode 👍👍
Class episode.
Seinfeld's "Do the Opposite" episode sums up my thoughts about determinism, compatibilism, free will.
i wonder what the equivalent of trephining is today
Buzzfeed?
The Trump cult.
This is racist
I'd be curious if you could define your argument. I have a BS in Black Studies and Psychology, as well as grad studies in Intercultural Relations. I did not pick up on any racism; however, I've been known to miss things and follow confirmation bias roads at times. Additionally, I would say that we have to consider context. I once wrote a paper in a Black Studies class negatively addressing the founders of America. The professor pulled me aside and addressed the context of the times. Additionally, while having a conversation with another professor in the same department who signed my bachelors, he shared his feelings that the worst sufferers of western expansion of now America were the indiginous. I'm wondering if you're making these same mistakes of context analysis; we all do this as many other biases.