<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Neuroscience is hard (for some people)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.neurdon.com/2009/05/02/neuroscience-is-hard-for-some-people/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.neurdon.com/2009/05/02/neuroscience-is-hard-for-some-people/</link>
	<description>We put the sci in sci-fi</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:46:10 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: castor</title>
		<link>http://www.neurdon.com/2009/05/02/neuroscience-is-hard-for-some-people/comment-page-1/#comment-1493</link>
		<dc:creator>castor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:06:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neurdon.com/?p=653#comment-1493</guid>
		<description>*typo: underestimating the power of models*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*typo: underestimating the power of models*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: castor</title>
		<link>http://www.neurdon.com/2009/05/02/neuroscience-is-hard-for-some-people/comment-page-1/#comment-1492</link>
		<dc:creator>castor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:05:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neurdon.com/?p=653#comment-1492</guid>
		<description>- Growth may not be exponentional, but still there are improvements like calcium sensitive agents to MRI that can provide higher accuracy. 
- We don&#039;t really need to record a whole brain to be able to simulate it. If our models get better, we have a chance of creating a simulation that is meaningful without replicating the whole brain.
- We already have full-scale simulations of millions of neurons, although it&#039;s not clear what (if anything) is happening in there

I think you are underestimating the need of experiments here. Some of the greatest theoretical discoveries in physics took decades to be experimentally verified.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>- Growth may not be exponentional, but still there are improvements like calcium sensitive agents to MRI that can provide higher accuracy.<br />
- We don&#8217;t really need to record a whole brain to be able to simulate it. If our models get better, we have a chance of creating a simulation that is meaningful without replicating the whole brain.<br />
- We already have full-scale simulations of millions of neurons, although it&#8217;s not clear what (if anything) is happening in there</p>
<p>I think you are underestimating the need of experiments here. Some of the greatest theoretical discoveries in physics took decades to be experimentally verified.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Melissa Karnaze</title>
		<link>http://www.neurdon.com/2009/05/02/neuroscience-is-hard-for-some-people/comment-page-1/#comment-1479</link>
		<dc:creator>Melissa Karnaze</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:23:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neurdon.com/?p=653#comment-1479</guid>
		<description>That was damn poetic.

Thank you for writing about this angle on the issue. The skepticism seems to be silent on the transhumanist front, at least what I&#039;ve encountered. I do agree that cracking the cosmic nut is far beyond what we can imagine. And it seems that most people get ahead of themselves and believe the science reporters when they run around sensationalizing reality-shattering revelations into the human brain, all while waving their hands in the air.

Though, I tend to think that neuroscience will have its time of exponential growth. Things right now seem slow, but this is right now. (And I&#039;m entitled to speak from *outside* of the lab, because that&#039;s where I stand. :p) Just look at all the new research being done and all of the cogsci departments opening up around the world. People are getting curious, and as you know, the government&#039;s well-invested.

I personally think there will always be human constructs that will mostly elude us, such as &quot;mind reading,&quot; but I also think that the growing scientific community may very well someday establish its own Silicon Valley, even if it be more distributed geographically.

This is a way cool solid blog and I look forward to reading more.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That was damn poetic.</p>
<p>Thank you for writing about this angle on the issue. The skepticism seems to be silent on the transhumanist front, at least what I&#8217;ve encountered. I do agree that cracking the cosmic nut is far beyond what we can imagine. And it seems that most people get ahead of themselves and believe the science reporters when they run around sensationalizing reality-shattering revelations into the human brain, all while waving their hands in the air.</p>
<p>Though, I tend to think that neuroscience will have its time of exponential growth. Things right now seem slow, but this is right now. (And I&#8217;m entitled to speak from *outside* of the lab, because that&#8217;s where I stand. :p) Just look at all the new research being done and all of the cogsci departments opening up around the world. People are getting curious, and as you know, the government&#8217;s well-invested.</p>
<p>I personally think there will always be human constructs that will mostly elude us, such as &#8220;mind reading,&#8221; but I also think that the growing scientific community may very well someday establish its own Silicon Valley, even if it be more distributed geographically.</p>
<p>This is a way cool solid blog and I look forward to reading more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
