3 ms·
Well, Hawkins isn't one of them. neuronexmachina's flippant comment misrepresents Hawkins and On Intelligence, which lays out in popular form a scientific theo
by etiam 9y ago
Well, Hawkins isn't one of them.
neuronexmachina's flippant comment misrepresents Hawkins and On Intelligence, which lays out in popular form a scientific theory of neocortical function, with perfectly sane perspective on what that means in the context of the whole brain, due references to neuroscience, suggestions for experimental tests and obvious awareness that the theory may prove wrong or incomplete.
I'm disturbed to see that two of the early comments here contribute nothing of value and amount to little more that personal attacks by way of misinformation.
- KingMob 9y agoLet me clarify. I'm not just a former neuroscientist; my field was consciousness and perception. Rightly or wrongly (as you may believe), nobody in the field is reading Hawkins. What we do see a lot of, are people getting enamored of consciousness and dipping their toes in. For all I know Hawkins is an unheard-of genius, but his stuff reads like many of the dilettantes I've already seen.