31–40 of 98 posts
I don't want to be mean but this honestly reads like an AI-fueled delusion.
And the paper is clearly the ancestor to the article itself, based on the date (5dec -> 11dec)
I feel like the title should read: "If an Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why couldn't the brain?" "Wouldn't" suggests that the brain is choosing not to. I'm not sure this is the case here.
It's literally “What's the reason that the machinery of the brain doesn't use this mechanism, given this proof that the effect could in principle be used?”. A similar question can be made for quantum mechanical interference in the brain (which to be clear I feel is adequately answered by “the brain is a wildly inappropriate vehicle for harnessing interference effects).
Reminds me of a study I read once on binaural beats[0], that found the effect disappeared when they used pneumatic (non-magnetic) headphones. [0]the theory that playing a different tone in each ear, that when superpositioned by the brain to produce a low frequency, would entrain the brainwave frequency to the modulated frequency.
I feel like the title should read: "If an Meta AI model can read a brain-wide signal, why couldn't the brain?" "Wouldn't" suggests that the brain is choosing not to. I'm not sure this is the case here.
“Wouldn't” is being used in the logical-conditional sense, not in the sense of willingness, requesting, nor opinion. It's literally “What's the reason that the machinery of the brain doesn't use this mechanism, given this proof that the effect could in principle be used?”. A similar question can be made for quantum mechanical interference in the brain (which to be clear I feel is adequately answered by “the brain is…
If some mammalian species were able to survive this extinction event and subsequently flourish, why wouldn't dinosaur species?
Not sure that works for me. I'd put "couldn't".
If a camera can see your eyes, why can't you?