Comments for nerd alert http://nerd-alert.net switch your brain on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:56:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on desktop of the week 18-10-10: the total perspective vortex by astronio http://nerd-alert.net/wallpapers/2010/10/desktop-of-the-week-18-10-10-the-total-perspective-vortex/#comment-1001 astronio Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:56:45 +0000 http://nerd-alert.net/?p=662#comment-1001 Actually if you 're referring to time it should be "we 're looking 13 billion years back in time". However if you 're referring to the distance it's fine as it is. Actually if you ‘re referring to time it should be “we ‘re looking 13 billion years back in time”. However if you ‘re referring to the distance it’s fine as it is.

]]> Comment on wallpaper of the week 31-10-11: four antennas by Tom Baecker http://nerd-alert.net/wallpapers/2011/10/four-antennas/#comment-1000 Tom Baecker Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:22:18 +0000 http://nerd-alert.net/?p=2759#comment-1000 Thank you for your quick responding! Thank you for your quick responding!

]]> Comment on wallpaper of the week 31-10-11: four antennas by joseph http://nerd-alert.net/wallpapers/2011/10/four-antennas/#comment-999 joseph Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:06:24 +0000 http://nerd-alert.net/?p=2759#comment-999 Hi Tom, the photo is available on the Wikimedia commons here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Four_antennas_ALMA.jpg According to the creative commons license one just needs to attribute the original photographer (which I naughtily didn't do originally - now fixed!) Hi Tom, the photo is available on the Wikimedia commons here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Four_antennas_ALMA.jpg
According to the creative commons license one just needs to attribute the original photographer (which I naughtily didn’t do originally – now fixed!)

]]> Comment on wallpaper of the week 31-10-11: four antennas by Tom Baecker http://nerd-alert.net/wallpapers/2011/10/four-antennas/#comment-998 Tom Baecker Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:53:16 +0000 http://nerd-alert.net/?p=2759#comment-998 Hello Joseph, is it possible to use the picture "four atennas" in a slideshow for a clients Powerpoint Presentation? Who owns the Copyrights for this pic? Yours, Tom Hello Joseph,

is it possible to use the picture “four atennas” in a slideshow for a clients Powerpoint Presentation? Who owns the Copyrights for this pic?

Yours, Tom

]]> Comment on Bob the Blue Brain Builder by joseph http://nerd-alert.net/blog/weeklies/2010/10/bob-the-blue-brain-builder/#comment-979 joseph Fri, 02 Mar 2012 16:42:56 +0000 http://nerd-alert.net/?p=743#comment-979 Hey Kelt, Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure that Prof Markram is planning on doing away with animal experiments completely as the model is only as relevant as the data we put into it. But it could be used to point to gaps in our knowledge which would lead the way to experiments we would need to do next. And it could perhaps reveal new connections/effects from things about the brain we already know, which would be rad becuase as you suggest this could reduce the need for experiments. A scientist would test their idea on the model first and if that can explain it/ give a satisfactory answer, then no need to kill a poor rat. Otherwise here is the link to the 18 year claim http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1240410/The-real-Frankenstein-experiment-One-mans-mission-create-living-mind-inside-machine.html granted it is from the Daily Mail - which isn't the most reputable of news sources! But if Markram gets his grant for the Human Brain Project - which I hope he does - this would move the project on hugely - all very exciting. Hey Kelt,
Thanks for the comment. I’m not sure that Prof Markram is planning on doing away with animal experiments completely as the model is only as relevant as the data we put into it. But it could be used to point to gaps in our knowledge which would lead the way to experiments we would need to do next. And it could perhaps reveal new connections/effects from things about the brain we already know, which would be rad becuase as you suggest this could reduce the need for experiments. A scientist would test their idea on the model first and if that can explain it/ give a satisfactory answer, then no need to kill a poor rat.
Otherwise here is the link to the 18 year claim
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1240410/The-real-Frankenstein-experiment-One-mans-mission-create-living-mind-inside-machine.html
granted it is from the Daily Mail – which isn’t the most reputable of news sources!
But if Markram gets his grant for the Human Brain Project – which I hope he does – this would move the project on hugely – all very exciting.

]]> Comment on Bob the Blue Brain Builder by Kelt http://nerd-alert.net/blog/weeklies/2010/10/bob-the-blue-brain-builder/#comment-978 Kelt Fri, 02 Mar 2012 16:27:46 +0000 http://nerd-alert.net/?p=743#comment-978 The big picture is that we can model a brain in such detail. A scientist could spend hours poking away at a mouse's brain... or that same scientist could run an experiment on 1000's of models (e.g. 1000's of rats) while fixing a cup of coffee. Granted Henry has talked about connectivity maps and exporting these to an artificial neural network but that's for circuit designs and could lead to intelligent design patterns. Where is this claim about 2018, I've not seen it. URL? The big picture is that we can model a brain in such detail. A scientist could spend hours poking away at a mouse’s brain… or that same scientist could run an experiment on 1000′s of models (e.g. 1000′s of rats) while fixing a cup of coffee.

Granted Henry has talked about connectivity maps and exporting these to an artificial neural network but that’s for circuit designs and could lead to intelligent design patterns. Where is this claim about 2018, I’ve not seen it. URL?

]]> Comment on Too fussy for words? by keith http://nerd-alert.net/blog/weeklies/2012/02/too-fussy-for-words/#comment-963 keith Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:03:17 +0000 http://nerd-alert.net/?p=3076#comment-963 From what I hear about nonautistic people's inner monologue - that it's constant and describing everything the person is processing - isn't it quite likely that the words would stream through the auditory cortex? From what I hear about nonautistic people’s inner monologue – that it’s constant and describing everything the person is processing – isn’t it quite likely that the words would stream through the auditory cortex?

]]> Comment on Too fussy for words? by jonathan jb webb http://nerd-alert.net/blog/weeklies/2012/02/too-fussy-for-words/#comment-961 jonathan jb webb Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:13:56 +0000 http://nerd-alert.net/?p=3076#comment-961 Hi Max, I believe what's new is that Pasley's team has offered some computational detail about *how* the activity in STG is different when we hear different words. They were interested in how cortical activity represents the physical characteristics of speech sounds that are most important for understanding - and they found that those characteristics can be decoded from cortical recordings in a surprisingly reproducible manner. Does that make any sense?! Cheers, Jonathan Hi Max,

I believe what’s new is that Pasley’s team has offered some computational detail about *how* the activity in STG is different when we hear different words. They were interested in how cortical activity represents the physical characteristics of speech sounds that are most important for understanding – and they found that those characteristics can be decoded from cortical recordings in a surprisingly reproducible manner.

Does that make any sense?!

Cheers,
Jonathan

]]> Comment on Too fussy for words? by Max Coltheart http://nerd-alert.net/blog/weeklies/2012/02/too-fussy-for-words/#comment-960 Max Coltheart Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:43:20 +0000 http://nerd-alert.net/?p=3076#comment-960 Before this work was done, didn't we already know that the pattern of activation in STG must be different when the spoken input is heef compared to when it is thack? Since if that were not true, people would not be able to repeat these non-words correctly after hearing them. Given that, what does this work tell us that we didn't already know? Max C. Before this work was done, didn’t we already know that the pattern of activation in STG must be different when the spoken input is heef compared to when it is thack? Since if that were not true, people would not be able to repeat these non-words correctly after hearing them.

Given that, what does this work tell us that we didn’t already know?

Max C.

]]> Comment on Read my shorts: why brain reading is baloney by nerd alert « Too fussy for words? http://nerd-alert.net/blog/weeklies/2010/11/read-my-shorts/#comment-959 nerd alert « Too fussy for words? Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:17:52 +0000 http://nerd-alert.net/?p=1094#comment-959 [...] “oh no it isn’t” refrain is a familiar one to most neuroscientists who read the news. I’ve railed against these sorts of claims before; usually they stem from fMRI studies which offer reporters a tempting side-serving of [...] [...] “oh no it isn’t” refrain is a familiar one to most neuroscientists who read the news. I’ve railed against these sorts of claims before; usually they stem from fMRI studies which offer reporters a tempting side-serving of [...]

]]>