3 ms·

Can you be more specific, what particular parts of my comment are you finding to be idiotic? I do have formal background in machine learning, computer science

Can you be more specific, what particular parts of my comment are you finding to be idiotic? I do have formal background in machine learning, computer science and had taken classes in neuroscience. I am a PhD dropout and I did original research in computer vision. I have every right to comment on articles written by specialists on 'false memories'.

mikeash 13y ago
I don't really understand why you bring up machine learning and computer science, since this is a completely different field. Classes in neuroscience would apply, but that's not all that impressive. What I find to be idiotic is how trivial you make your contradiction, without any facts to back it up, adding computerish language to pander to the HN crowd ("metadata", really?), when it's extremely well established that people, with disturbing frequency, remember things that simply did not happen. It's fine to disagree, but this sort of straightforward contradiction adds little to the conversation. It's the internet equivalent of Monty Python's argument clinic.
- dchichkov 13y ago
  Just check some real, no bullshit, modern research like this: https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto-et-al-2011 https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nis... Who do you think are these researchers? More ML or more neuroscience? ///These disciplines are very relevant to understanding how memories are stored. More relevant than neuroscience in fact. Say, if you'd study modern computer vision, you will have some understanding about mechanisms in the works of human visual subsystem; about how humans memorize, recognize and associate images and image sequences. You will not have that understanding, if you'd study modern (basic) neuroscience.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    You might have some ideas about how the brain might work from studying machine learning. But for the most part, it's going to be like learning about how fish swim by building a submarine.
    - dchichkov 13y ago
      Nope :) You might have some ideas about how the brain might work from bullshitters, like that 'false memory specialist' who gave interview to slate. And you actually might learn some real stuff from people like these guys from UC Berkeley, who can recover video sequences by identifying an ML model with the visual cortex an then proceeding further and recovering unseen video sequences from fMRI of V4 area of neocortex. ... Now I only wish I could find a forum where a link to a research publication like this: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698 [Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies] Would not have an order of magnitude less interest than a link to a slate article like this: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349590 [ How Can You Tell a False Memory From a True One?]
      - mikeash 13y ago
        I don't understand what reconstructing visual experiences from the brain using scanning equipment has to do with the mechanisms of memory or the possibility of remembering things that didn't occur. They're completely different things. The mechanisms of memory are not, as far as I know, well understood. However, it's well established that people can and routinely do remember things that did not occur. The why and how may be speculative, but the fact that it happens is not.
        dchichkov 13y ago
        If you want to understand why this example is so relevant, try to understand what exactly step-by-step they did to recover these images. Here is the link again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698 [Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies] Hint: how can you explain that sometimes, the recovered image contains an object completely different from that seen by a subject of the experiment? [say, tree instead of a man] Hint: can similar experiment be done with the part of the pre-frontal cortex responsible for associating visual memories with the condition in which these memories were formed? [imagined, dreamed, seen]

mikeash 13y ago

I don't really understand why you bring up machine learning and computer science, since this is a completely different field. Classes in neuroscience would apply, but that's not all that impressive. What I find to be idiotic is how trivial you make your contradiction, without any facts to back it up, adding computerish language to pander to the HN crowd ("metadata", really?), when it's extremely well established that people, with disturbing frequency, remember things that simply did not happen. It's fine to disagree, but this sort of straightforward contradiction adds little to the conversation. It's the internet equivalent of Monty Python's argument clinic.

dchichkov 13y ago
Just check some real, no bullshit, modern research like this: https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto-et-al-2011 https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nis... Who do you think are these researchers? More ML or more neuroscience? ///These disciplines are very relevant to understanding how memories are stored. More relevant than neuroscience in fact. Say, if you'd study modern computer vision, you will have some understanding about mechanisms in the works of human visual subsystem; about how humans memorize, recognize and associate images and image sequences. You will not have that understanding, if you'd study modern (basic) neuroscience.
- mikeash 13y ago
  You might have some ideas about how the brain might work from studying machine learning. But for the most part, it's going to be like learning about how fish swim by building a submarine.
  - dchichkov 13y ago
    Nope :) You might have some ideas about how the brain might work from bullshitters, like that 'false memory specialist' who gave interview to slate. And you actually might learn some real stuff from people like these guys from UC Berkeley, who can recover video sequences by identifying an ML model with the visual cortex an then proceeding further and recovering unseen video sequences from fMRI of V4 area of neocortex. ... Now I only wish I could find a forum where a link to a research publication like this: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698 [Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies] Would not have an order of magnitude less interest than a link to a slate article like this: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349590 [ How Can You Tell a False Memory From a True One?]
    - mikeash 13y ago
      I don't understand what reconstructing visual experiences from the brain using scanning equipment has to do with the mechanisms of memory or the possibility of remembering things that didn't occur. They're completely different things. The mechanisms of memory are not, as far as I know, well understood. However, it's well established that people can and routinely do remember things that did not occur. The why and how may be speculative, but the fact that it happens is not.
      - dchichkov 13y ago
        If you want to understand why this example is so relevant, try to understand what exactly step-by-step they did to recover these images. Here is the link again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698 [Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies] Hint: how can you explain that sometimes, the recovered image contains an object completely different from that seen by a subject of the experiment? [say, tree instead of a man] Hint: can similar experiment be done with the part of the pre-frontal cortex responsible for associating visual memories with the condition in which these memories were formed? [imagined, dreamed, seen]