This is a great lecture. I love the no-bullshit approach. Thanks, Nancy, for being such a badass in your field as well as a great teacher. If I could be sure I had teachers like her, I'd want to risk the financial burden and be the first in my family to attend college.
What happens when you're thinking about what other people think about you is an interesting one since it's a big part of many disorders. People with disordered thinking in this regard can give perfectly normal answers a lot of the time if you ask them "What would x think if y did what you did" so that suggests to me that there is something special going on when thinking about how other people judge you. On the same note it would be interesting to see results for when "accidental harm" happens to participants, things such as spilling a drink on them, losing their belongings etc Tricky ethically and tricky to measure but I bet there would be some very distinct differences in moral reasoning compared with reasoning about scenarios happening to other people depending on disorders and life experiences of the participants.
Her difficulty on the theory of mind portion of the course I think sort of accurately portrays her own spectrumy thinking. Its hard for her to think through the different elements and express them herself
I think resting functional connectivity, "cahoots', could be originated in the thalamus. And that would make not surprising to find this mysterious correlations from so different and distant cortical patches. Beautiful lecture
I was wondering if it could be due to error introduced by measurement equipment (sampling rate, quanitization error). I only have a passing interest though so no idea how the machines work
practical problem that arises is whether the connectivity from/to thalamus is specific or generic? and whether the connectivity patterns would surpass denoising ratio, as signal/noise ratio in many analysis is a real struggle because you don't want to have NxN connectivity matrix with N approaching thousands, you need to funnel it down to reasonable, predictive and interpretable patterns. Signal analysis pose other problem with intersubject variability -- every other person has somewhat different patterns and if you want to have some useful data, you need to find more general findings -- thus again, problem of signal/noise ratio hits us again. Thalamus is pretty small compared to hemispheres, it's reasonably dense with different areas connected to many different places in whole encephalon, so the problem will be -- too -- to discern accidental coactivation with correlation patterns. Just from top of my head -- and I strongly recommend "Connectome Analysis" for further read! Really robust guide on the topic.
@tsunamimae1965 True, thalamus is importantly small compared to cortex. The generical function rather than specific gives more sense, I guess. Two hypothetical considerations: First, the thalamus recycles only semi processed information from cortical columns. So, the cortex needs more processing mass than the thalamus. Second, the thalamus prioritizes conscious information. Anyway, I keep sustaining or betting on a continuous need for cycling processing between the thalamus and the cortex, which seems to be essential for almost all cortical functions.
@@macotobar I don’t know well about it, because thalami stroke disfunction varies greatly depending on area affected. I am more curious about formatio reticularis connectivity patterns, because I think we may downplay its importance because of how tricky to analyse it is. But it’s at the core of „evolution-made mess that then random chance found a walkaround to find new function”.
@tsunamimae1965 anyway, my point was that correlation between many diferent cortical areas, even without time delay, mean that maybe none of this areas is the leader. Instead I think all them are connected to the same point in the thalamus. It has almost the same distance to every point of the cortex. So there must be almost no delay between any cortical region.
Theory of mind and language, subjectively Interpreted by my understanding and my framework would essentially converge into one… quadratic-polynomials or something like that …. I got it though just need ironically a defentiona to better communicate my understanding …
Consider the following: a. Put a simple small magnet on a table. It of course would have it's associated magnetic field around it. b. Now bring a second magnet with it's associated magnetic field closer and closer to the first magnet on the table. c. The magnetic energy fields interact, even though the physical magnets don't physically touch. Depending upon the interaction, the second magnet could even get the first magnet to physically move, without actually physically touching the first magnet. d. Now consider that modern science claims that all matter is made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy. Quarks and electrons of course being considered charged particles, each having their associated magnetic fields with them. e. So, as far as how the brain actually works and to have memories and thoughts, don't forget the interacting magnetic fields associated with quarks and electrons, especially in a tightly spaced physical brain. (And then possibly any electromagnetic energy frequency interactions as well). Is even our 'consciousness' some sort of state of existence of an inherent magnetic energy field within our physical brain?
It seems to be that our bodies are tuners or the physical vessel, like a radio. The signal is more who we are that powers the body. If the radio breaks the signal doesnt tune anymore.
@@PaleHorseRid3r Per the above reference, 'consciousness' currently appears to be associated with the brain stem and limbic system. It would still seem then though, that when the brain stops correctly functioning for it's final time, it's gone for all of future eternity.
Just imagining how something might work doesn't make it real. You need to: a Find evidence for your hypothesis b Identify alternative explanations for your evidence c Make a credible rational argument that your hypothesis is a better explanation for the evidence than each alternative explanation.
I want to win with you and am concerned it would be devastating not to dedicate the rest of our lives to be our best version of ourselves and am open to study night and day. Let's correct problems not neglect anyone of them. Please make an effort to reach out for more perfect information to share with everyone!
Wow 🤩 Head motion = autism in diffusion imaging 🤦🏽♀️😬, too many highlights in these lectures (love them, wish there’s more? Is there a graduate level of this course by Dr. Kansisher?) THIS garbage is definitely a mega-highlight , thank you for your awesome work Dr. Kanwisher👌😘
It shouldn't be too hard to take the imaging information as input to a 3D printer (likely a resin rather than melter) to get a physical model of each of the separate paths (and their combination). (Might need a team of experts in each field to do it in a reasonable time.) The lesson from the autistic vs normal issue (actually fidgets vs dociles) seems to be "If you're going to do MRI on children, sedate them first".
...but then you get info about how a sedated brain works, not one in normal conditions, and it may affect everything! And if the imaging information we got is wrong/imprecise how would 3D-printing it make it any better?
Decussation or crossing fiber tracts is actually kind of the rule vs not , at least the big ones , most significant eg. CST /motor tracts , sensory tracts to name a few.. how do we know the small fibers/connections don’t cross 🤷🏻♀️
Hi Ma'm, why is it that our nervous system is trnasferring soo many electric signals and we don't feel any electrical shocking sensation during lets say vision , hearing or taste? Can you explain it?
We tend to feel things that are different than the norm. If it's normal room temperature, we don't really notice, but if it's very far from normal, then we notice that it's too hot or too cold. The tiny electrical signals in our body, are normal, and so we don't notice them. If we change the environment to create electric fields are much larger than normal, enough to create a larger than normal electrical current, only then do we notice a shock.
@@lawliet2263 One needs 2 conditions to find a question stupid: 1) be an *******, 2) believe to be able to easily answer it. We already know how perfectly you meet the 1st condition, as for the 2nd could you please provide an answer?
less exoneration seen in the population of autism could be because in thier day to day life they didnt have to learn much about exoneration. Assumably they accidentally do stuff all the time that other people give a pass for due to their condition. So for their situations were exonerism would exist. It probably just is what it is . they didn't learn to fit that exoneration when faced with this situation, pathway. Like fitting the square shape in the square hole.
I've been watching the various episodes of this class and got to this one before realizing I'd seen your TED talk. As soon as you said "Moral Reasoning" I remembered your cadence and the popsicle looking props/puppets used to test the children. I'm recalling now cheese Sandwiches stolen from a table by a bird when somebody wasn't looking and the various responses of younger versus older children as they develop this brain region. I had no recollection of this until just now.
well it depends with your definition of attractive in this context, you might be talking about her mental abilities which is okay I suppose, but its weak of you to some extend to be fair.
@@colonelbond4056 What he meant is that she's very attractive. If you saw her and then read mental abilities, perhaps you should consider hormonal therapy.
Interesting lecture but the information must be analyzed carefully. The lecturer is highly subjective and says a lot of opiniated statements without relativizing them but for a "I am bit cranky" or talking about alternative points of view (often more common than hers) . She seems to run away from complexity to the point that everything which is not clear or easy to her must be wrong. For instance, she discredits entire fields of research using as a reason the fact that she wasn't able to reproduce the experiments, stating that thus the whole literature must be somehow false. Experimental science is not perfect: it usually gives information on tendencies more than strong facts, which doesn't make it unvaluable. Finally and more importantly, by trying to simplify everything or to look for big discoveries where there are only weak statistical tendencies, you will probably only end up with false conclusions.
@@odditoriumleviathan8725 Neuroscience is the worst field for that, of all of the hard sciences anyway. First of all, experimentalists and theorists rarely read each other's work. The highly cited papers get across from one group to the other, but a lot of the context is lost. There is also a diverse background among both groups, with some labs only studying individual neurons, others only studying layers, others studying only regions. And the crossover with computer science now with AI developments... there are so many different backgrounds and different opinions in neuroscience that it is literally impossible to avoid politics. In short, #NeverTrustaNeuroscientist
@@dankbene Haha, I cannot wait. What’s science without some drama eh? It’ll make it more fun, and conflict and competition fueled by spite may well push the field in the direction of progress. Or not. Who is to say.
She's lecturing to a class. It would be impossible and frankly useless to try to explain every little thing she says down to the last detail. That's what articles and books are for.
Structural-connectivity, check. Wow I got a solution for this that satisfy(s)connections.. 😮 and is periodic and topological and quantities are quantified….
I think I understand this for sure.. 1a=*=*=*=ll 2b=*=*=*=ll 3c=*=*=*=||==twin00 4d=*=*=*=|| 5e=*=*=*=ll Where twin = 1 set of identical to start .. where 1a-2b-3c-4c-5c all go to one twin- . Where =*=*=*= are the structural network that are share twin input value; that when changes between connections keeps a part of the original twin, and finally reaching different regions 1a,2a ext, are all connected with connections .. something like that ….
