3 ms·
I haven't read the article, but isn't such a statement tautologically true? Because neurons exist in all abstraction levels of the thought process, if you compa
by air7 5y ago
I haven't read the article, but isn't such a statement tautologically true? Because neurons exist in all abstraction levels of the thought process, if you compare any two distinct processes, you're bound to find (by the fact that they are distinct) some neurons that fire during one and not the other.
- delusional 5y agoI don't think we know what the abstraction level of neurons are. It seems reasonable to assume that it's at the level os individual thought processes, but trying to prove that assumption might lead to interesting results.
- epgui 5y agoPeople cling very hard to the idea that humans (or human "consciousness") are somehow special, and not at all like a computer. It will take a very long time to break this idea.
- kfarr 5y agoThis just in, complex systems with multiple parts use subsets of these parts for specific actions!
- sva_ 5y ago> if you compare any two distinct processes, you're bound to find (by the fact that they are distinct) some neurons that fire during one and not the other. I would doubt that. It depends on what neurons fired before it. The neurons firing before it might drastically change context. It doesn't seem like a single neuron is responsible for a single piece of information, it is rather an emergent phenomenon of combinations of neurons firing. But I'm speculating.