Lurker > COVxy

This whole conversation is hijacked by personal valuations. It's not like many getting a science degree are going into science or many getting a math degree are going into math. Comparisons across major with employment statistics is so fatally flawed that it's a useless argument.

Really, people want the degrees funded that they personally see use for. Which makes this conversation useless.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Silly study.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

So many posters seemingly deeply offended by this.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

It's actually important to note that the low sample size here means that the actual correlations are estimated at an extremely low level of precision, however, large range of GRE scores means that if the actual population correlation value did fall within the scope of reasonable estimates, it would still be an unreasonably poor predictor.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

YoshitoKikuchi posted...

COVxy posted...

All the latest science is first discussed and released on Twitter. We live in a strange world.

What?

Indeed, it's true, as strange as it sounds.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Russman posted...

COVxy posted...

E32005 posted...

Are there no practical application test?

What do you mean?

Hes saying you have to test the applicants some way. And testing them on material they were supposed to have learned is fair enough to get a decent overview.

I mean, I got the general idea of what he meant, but I wanted to know more specifically what he meant.

Cuz there are subject GREs, but they are stupid as well. The closest to an honest "practical" is the interview, where the PI gets to suss out how much of the student's CV is of their own making. But interviews are late stage, it is often the case that if you got the interview you are already essentially accepted.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

E32005 posted...

Are there no practical application test?

What do you mean?
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Yeah, I agree. I mostly think they exist as another place where relative privilege can assert it's little nose.

Unfortunately, we really like metrics for decisions like admittance and whatnot. Even if they are flawed. They give the process a feeling of fake certainty and objectitivity.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/07/20/373225

Not too surprising. I don't think many people would honestly predict an SAT 2.0 to predict success in PhD programs. Yet, we still cling to it like an irrational tradition.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

All the latest science is first discussed and released on Twitter. We live in a strange world.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Probably not. Most "hipster" coffee shops I've been to are cheaper than Starbucks lol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

If only lol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Make colleges free, professors no longer feel the need to make courses easier, so there's a large drop out rate to compensate.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Mr_Rian posted...

COVxy posted...

ProbablyaCat posted...

COVxy posted...

Put more time towards the class.

Didn't read the OP. Sad!

I read it lol.

So are you just shitposting?

No, just providing good advice.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ProbablyaCat posted...

COVxy posted...

Put more time towards the class.

Didn't read the OP. Sad!

I read it lol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Put more time towards the class.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

MedeaLysistrata posted...

If I had a machine that could alter my brain states, and then my actions as a result, I would be pretty happy I guess.

In terms of disbelieving free will, you mean?

We have done those types of experiments since the 60's. But I mean, I don't think it actually addresses the question.

I think, really, the important question to ask yourself is "what would the world need to look like for free will to be accepted?" I think this usually requires some nonmechanic mystical being, some form of dualism, to satisfy. Which means we can roughly assume that by the naive view of free will is incorrect. But that doesn't necessarily need to be the case.

There was an article recently in Trends in Neurosciences regarding this:
https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/fulltext/S0166-2236(18)30155-3
(I think this may be free access, if you are interested and can't access it, let me know)

Granted, I didn't read it, but it may provide insight for those interested.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I don't think anything regarding the concept of "free will" is able to be falsified.

Idk, the whole concept is wonky to me. Even if I could perfectly predict your actions based on your brain activity, and perfectly manipulate them by virtue of manipulating your brain, why would it matter? You are your brain. If your brain is controlling you, you are controlling you. I tend to stray away from these conversations because nothing is really meaningful. It seems like we just go around in circles playing word games as opposed to any real important reasoning.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

There are different type of criteria for what is called "causality". But, they are all trying to get at the same concept, so I would say no, kinda.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

The science jokes are much more common and the focus of the show is often centered around that anyway. This is just a poor place to talk about it because hobbyists will always get pissed when someone gets their hobby wrong.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

We're on a website called gamefaqs.gamespot.com
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Up.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

If you're culture must be to the exclusion of others, it probably wasn't a very good culture to begin with.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

This topic, uh, got away from me.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Presumably trying to reenact:

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

He's just a troll. It's someone's alt, but couldn't be arsed to even think about who.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ThyCorndog posted...

I think it's the terminology that's making it more complicated than it is.

Yes, that is definitely the case.

ThyCorndog posted...

I don't know shit about neuroscience
so is consciousness just a type of memory?

The point I was making was that the mind is just the result of mechanistic processes like working memory, and that really when you study things like working memory, you are studying consciousness/the mind/whatever. People just defer to the consciousness process because mechanistic explanations of the mind don't have that mystical quality that matches up with their subjective sense of experience. Which is essentially what you were saying below.

ThyCorndog posted...

I agree with you that people make it out to be mystical when it isn't because they want to feel special. I guess it's easier for people to live life thinking that way

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Romes187 posted...

COVxy posted...

Consciousness needs to be mystical because the process of your own existence is so cool that it being just a physical property of the matter in your skull is conflicting.

do you feel like there is any narcissism in this particular line of thought?

I don't see why. I don't think there's anything special about my existence or my percepts.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ThyCorndog posted...

COVxy posted...

attractor dynamics that are resilient to distraction

what's this mean?

Here's one of the original papers, if you are interested:
(apparently the link unpaywall gave me was temporary, you can go to this link and use unpaywall to get a free version)
https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/9/910/289091

Essentially, given a certain set of organized connections and a certain balance between inhibition and excitation, you can design a network of neurons that once activated by a particular stimulus, maintains activity that encodes the stimulus across time. In this case, each neuron is tuned to a spatial location, and neurons that encode similar locations are most connected to each other, with randomly interspersed inhibitory neurons.

When you provide this type of network with a spatial stimulus, it generates a "bump" of activity around the to be encoded stimulus, which is why they've been called "bump attractors".

These aren't necessarily the only type of attractor systems you can produce from simple neuron systems that encodes information and is also resistant to distraction, but they are the most biophysically plausible of the bunch.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

No, probably not. IMO it's a mystical position taken from a sense of narcicism, moreover. Consciousness needs to be mystical because the process of your own existence is so cool that it being just a physical property of the matter in your skull is conflicting.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Romes187 posted...

ah okay so you approach is with a strictly materialist viewpoint. do you find that there are more dualists in your field or more people that take your approach

There are pretty much no dualists in academic psychology or neuroscience.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Romes187 posted...

COVxy posted...

I don't think that's a question of science.

More or less, my viewpoint is that cognitive neuroscience does research on consciousness every day, it just isn't mystical so people don't call it consciousness.

IYO where does consciousness come from?

do you meditate? do you think consciousness research can benefit from more...spiritual investigations into a researchers subjective experience? Or is it a waste of time?

Again, when I was saying consciousness there, I wasn't referring to the traditional sense of consciousness, because I think the traditional sense requires mysticism.

I think working memory relies on prefrontal circuits that have particular cellular properties that allow for attractor dynamics that are resilient to distraction, for example. I think cognitive neuroscience studies consciousness in the only way consciousness exists. Which is, more or less, non existing.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I don't think that's a question of science.

More or less, my viewpoint is that cognitive neuroscience does research on consciousness every day, it just isn't mystical so people don't call it consciousness.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I don't think consciousness is a useful or necessary construct.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Who [deleted]?
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Foppe posted...

COVxy posted...

Foppe posted...

Dr. Joseph Bell ("You remind me of him"), who was the real-life physician Holmes' deductive ability was based on.

I thought Holmes was largely based off the Poe character.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bell#Inspiration_of_Sherlock_Holmes

Yeah, it's interesting. Both are documented inspirations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Inspiration_for_the_character

Idk, I feel like there's so much overlap between the holmes stories and murders of the rue morgue. Perhaps he took inspiration from Bell to start writing but then the writing was largely inspired by poe's work.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Foppe posted...

Dr. Joseph Bell ("You remind me of him"), who was the real-life physician Holmes' deductive ability was based on.

I thought Holmes was largely based off the Poe character.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Asherlee10 posted...

Are they trying to create 'brain states' and see what 'mental states' appear?

Well, so some background is necessary:
so a new technique (optogenetics) was developed so that you can genetically target certain cells and insert the expression of light sensitive proteins in the cell membrane. In response to a light stimulus, some let in ions that prevent neural activity, some let in ions that initiate neural activity.

So, they typical experiment of causality in neuroscience using optogentics is: train animal to do x -> dampen or drive certain subsets of neurons during x -> observe effect on behavior.

Now the point that the article is making is that the way we drive and dampen cell activity is outside the bounds of the normal functioning of the system, so exactly what this is telling us is unclear. However, I recommend reading the article, because he describes ideas in dynamics that are complex in really simple ways.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

It's funny because it's like completely missing the point of the book. Doubt most of them have actually read it.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Up.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

https://medium.com/the-spike/some-limits-on-interpreting-causality-in-neuroscience-experiments-f777a63650c7

Youre doing an experiment to test causality. You turn on a bunch of neurons in Brain Area X using light, and see what the animal does in response. What you want to know is this: when I turn on those neurons, what does that look like to the brain does it look natural?
You want to know this because, if you make the neurons do something they never do in the course of the whole of the animals life, then how can you make any sensible conclusions?

Really nice popsci article on interpretation issues with some fundamental techniques in neuroscience.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Kid A 100%
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I believe he misspoke twice in a row in the same way I believe Trump misspoke "would".
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Muffinz0rz posted...

Sounds sarcastic tbh

Lmao.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

You know, despite the fact that he called himself one. And then said "yeah, i was totally honest about my views."

How could anyone possibly jump to that crazy conclusion?!

Lol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

If we want to do our best to see what we want, we can justify anything as meaning anything else. This is what you are doing. It's like the anti-SJW version of Anita Sarkeesian.

No, i'm not gonna debate how "trouble with women" and "women are trouble" are totally different things. Also, "girls", just saying.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Even viewing women in a lab as troublesome because some presumed development of feelings is pretty fucked up. The whole thing is shitty, and the fact that he confirmed that he believes any part of it is the issue.

"I'm gonna preferentially recruit men because they will be less trouble, no chance of feelings popping up and interrupting the science", this is the clear conclusion you reach from just that statement.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

It's strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now, seriously, I'm impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women, and you should do science, despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.

I did mean the part about having trouble with girls. It is true that I have fallen in love with people in the lab, and that people in the lab have fallen in love with me, and its very disruptive to the science. Its terribly important that, in the lab, people are on a level playing field. And I found these emotional entanglements made life very difficult. I mean, Im really, really sorry that I caused any offence thats awful. I certainly didnt mean I just meant to be honest, actually.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Kazi1212 posted...

COVxy posted...

...

You're being deliberately obtuse. He's not saying this shit in a vacuum for no reason. He's saying it for a reason. Follow that reason back and it's clear what he means.

Wasnt he saying it as a clarification to a nonchalant comment he made about him having trouble with women?

He's saying it in relation to the response to his light-hearted rant about being a chauvinist (his words, mind you) and stating that women in the lab are trouble because they either fall in love with you, you fall in love with them, or they cry.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

...

You're being deliberately obtuse. He's not saying this shit in a vacuum for no reason. He's saying it for a reason. Follow that reason back and it's clear what he means.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]