There are a variety of really great lectures called TED Talks. Go to http://www.ted.com/talks and look around for a lecture that relates to a topic discussed so far in our text - preferably related to the representation of knowledge. This might take some doing, if you can't find one that directly relates - find one that is close.
After you watch the video discuss how your text discusses the material covered in the Ted Talk?
Next, briefly discuss including 1) Why you picked that video, 2) What you expected to see, 3) What you actually saw and if you liked it or not, 4) What interested you the most?, and 5) What will you remember from the video.
Make a list of key terms and concepts you used in your post.
Let me know if you have any questions,
--Dr. M
Web Divergence Week #12
Ted Talks: “Jonathan Drori on what we think we know”
1.) I chose this video because after reading the summary about what the video was about, it seemed like it went along well with our topic of Knowledge. The summary talked about four basic questions and why we are surprised that we don’t know the answers to. Jonathon Drori spent this video looking at the gaps in our knowledge and what we don’t know about science that we may have always thought that we knew. This summary captivated me and actually made me interested in what he had to say. Plus some of the comments on the video seemed pretty interesting.
2.) In this video I expected to see why it is that we don’t understand as much as we think we do. I was also expecting his to answer the questions as to the gaps in our knowledge and why we may not always realize what we’re missing.
3.) One thing that Drori stated almost at the beginning of his lecture was that he goes around to different age groups and asks these people the same four questions. He found that 7 year olds usually answer the questions best. This was surprising. He said that children answer these questions the best because they gain their knowledge from their experiences and from the world around them. Not necessarily from their teachers. The point of us gaining knowledge is vast, but to state a few; we pay lots and lots of money for education. We also count on knowledge and education from a societal expectation. We want to understand things going on in the world and therefore we base a lot of importance in our educational systems.
4.) One thing that Drori mentioned in this video that was very fascinating to me was the idea that we may gain knowledge throughout out education, but only to a certain point. One example that he used was one of the questions presented in the beginning of the video. He asked if you could light up a bulb with a battery and a wire. When he first asked this, I wasn’t sure so I just figured that no you couldn’t. Someone majoring in science or engineering or something more complex could probably look at a chart in their book and wouldn’t be able to answer it or do it. But then he mentioned that if a person had ever played around with a bulb and battery that they would be able to do this. As soon as he showed the audience how to light the bulb up with the battery and wire, I instantly remembered doing this when I was in elementary. I was shocked. It was quite cool to remember this. It made me realize that yes, education is good and yes we do learn from it. But instead of looking at a physics diagram or the table of elements or a circuit diagram or whatever you should go out there and play around with these things. This is something that we have talked about a lot in this class. We have talked about putting these terms in reality. Applying what we know to real life things. So instead of looking at the chart of engineering of how to light the bulb with the battery and wire, we should try it out and understand the basic proponents of certain things.
5.) One thing that I will remember from this video is some of what I talked about before, but also another good point that I found interesting that Drori talked about was the idea that we as humans hold a model in our mind about how things happen and that is it, there is no other way. This model is for how things are done and how things are not done. We use this model to describe the right way of how to do something and the wrong way of how something works. We have a conception of how something works and that is it, there are no other alternatives. One crazy thing that he showed was the view of the solar system in orbit. He showed a picture that NASA has of the solar system and then compared that to what science books show of what the solar system looks like. It was crazy to see the difference. He said that people do this because it’s boring to look at the actual picture of the solar system, so textbooks like to look at the solar system from different angles, so it’s nicer to look at. He explains several ways we like to understand this misinterpretation. We look for evidence that reinforces the model of how we perceive things to be. Another theory is that some people are just too able to provide evidence to provide evidence, or create other barriers to understanding. He went back to a previous point about children being better at understanding how things work. He provides points to describe this by stating that children are not empty vessels. Children come to a task with their own ideas of how it works. Older people struggle with this because we already have our preconceptions of how things work and therefore struggle with changing that conception.
Ted Talks: VS Ramachandran on your mind
At the end of this lecture, the speaker discusses what synesthesia is and how we can study it. My text doesn't discuss synesthesia however according to the notes from class, this concept is discribed as sensations from on modality that are experienced in another modality. An example of synesthesia could be when a person touches a certain object they also visualize a color or sound that relates to the object. In our notes, words have taste such as, a couch tastes like moss. Synesthesia is a cross among cortical neurons. In the lecture it is said that the areas responsible for numbering and colors are located right next to each other. There is a possibility that people who experience synesthesia more often have overlapping coloring/numbering areas of the brain. Also, research shows that synesthesia runs throughout families so it is possible that this cross wiring of pathways is a gene mutation that is hereditary.
I picked this video because I found synesthesia to be an interesting topic from the notes. Also, since I was unable to find information in my text regarding this topic, I wanted to listen to a lecture that would give me a better understanding of synesthesia. The topics of the lecture were very interesting and the speaker did a good job at communicating with the audience. Overall, I picked this video because the lecture provided a more in depth look at synesthesia.
Prior to watching the video, I read the comments of viewers. Judging by their opinions I expected to listen to an enthusiastic speaker and very informative lecture. Also, many of the viewers discussed their own opinions and experiences of synesthesia so I expected this topic of the lecture to be interesting and detailed enough to question my own synesthesia experiences.
I really enjoyed this video. Though the beginning topics didn't relate much to our class discussions, the synesthesia topic really helped me gain a better understanding of this concept. The speaker provided power points to help point out which areas of the brain were involved with synesthesia and this was also very helpful.
The most interesting aspect from the video was when the speaker allowed the audience to demonstrate their synesthesia. He provided two pictures of different random shapes in which he asked the audience to label them as "buba or kiki." Next he asked for a raise of hands for who labeled which shape kiki. Majority of the audience agreed on the same shape as kiki. The speaker explained that "kiki" is a sharper word much like the shape that had pointer and shaper edges compared to the "buba" shape. This was interesting because it allowed me to view my own synesthesia process.
Overall, I'll remember that synesthesia is a combination of hearing, vision, and touch. Some people experience synesthesia on a daily basis whereas others hardly experience synesthesia. Also, I'll remember that synesthesia is 8 xs more common among artists and other types of entertainers. Synesthesia can be explored through brain imaging and asking patients of brain injuries questions that would require their synesthesia to work.
URL:http://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html
“I am my connectome”.
I chose this video as it tells some interesting ideas and research in neuroscience. It is not exactly related to the representation of knowledge, but rather lays somewhere in between it and the issues connected to the physiology of brain.
Sebastian Seung is one of the leading researches in a brand new area of neuroscience: connectomics. He claims that particular approach to brain mapping in cooperation of new technology would finally let us understand, describe and probably even recreate the brain wiring.
We are our connectome – the synapses in the brain that developed under the influence of our life experience. We can say that it is knowledge in general, or memory, that makes us unique. This connectome is not identical even in twins, unlike genome structure. By the way, the word “connectome” combines two others: “genome” and “connection”.
Billions of neurons in our brain and ten times bigger number of connections between them store all the information about our personality, life experience, memory, knowledge, etc. Till recent times we had no opportunity to see the wiring of such a complex system. But Sebastian Seung, his lab at MIT, Winfried Denk at the Max Planck Institute and Jeff Lichtman at Harvard University are inventing technologies for identifying and describing the connectome. Their project would allow them to create the wiring diagram of the brain. The procedure being used let them make thin slices of the brain, combine them, color certain parts of it and thus trace from slice to slice each neural pathway. Using advanced imagining and AI technique they basically create a powerful new way to visualize the work of mind.
So far the experiments are held on the mice brain but with the development of the technology Sebastian Seung hopes to finally manage the creation of the human’s brain connectome. This is more than a challenging task. Making an analogy with genome, that we posses since birth for all our life, our connectome is an extremely complex self-transforming system. It changes through our life; and sometimes changes tremendously. The amount of data in these experiments is enormous. But at the same time this is not an excuse for not trying. As Sebastian Seung said: “I feel curiosity” – one of the key feature of scientist’s connectome, I would add.
I picked this video because the idea of uncovering the mechanisms of the working brain seems the most fascinating in neuroscience to me. It is more than tempting. I was also amazed by the challenge that Sebastian Seung and his team face. Although similar research has been done before (one of them on a worm which only has 300 something nerve cells), nobody has dared to try anything like this with a human brain.
My text has no specific information on the topic, except the part about the physiology of the nervous system, which I have discussed already. But if one asks me about the importance of the research – I would say it is extremely interesting. I believe the results of this work would let us understand the processing of the brain better. It would help us understand how our knowledge is actually stored in the brain.
I really enjoyed the video, as it tells about one of the “hot spot” in neuroscience and psychology.
Web link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/sebastian_seung.html
The speaker spoke of questions about science that people think they know and are surprised to find out that they really do not. The four questions were as follows: 1) A little seed weighs next to nothing and a tree weighs a lot. From where does the tree get the stuff that makes up a wooden desk? 2) Can you light a little torch-bulb with a battery, a bulb and one piece of wire? 3) Why is it hotter in summer than in winter? 4) Could you scribble a plan diagram of the solar system showing the shapes of the planets’ orbits? He then continued through each question, stating the answer and why most people, even those who are supposedly experts in the area, get them wrong.
I thought that this particular Ted Talk related to some of the notes on the verbal representation of knowledge, specifically question number four. He stated that most individuals probably draw an ellipsis of the orbits. However, this would be incorrect. We learn from textbook versions of the diagram that this, what should be a three dimensional model, is drawn in two-D, thus portraying the orbits as ellipsis. This relates to the notes on cognitive maps that we hold in our heads. Cognitive maps are used to give insight on the representation of our knowledge and they vary in detail depending on how much knowledge we have on the subject. This two-dimensional diagram of the planets’ orbits only solidifies our belief that the planets orbit in an elliptical path.
The second question also relates to what we have talked about in class. Most individuals, including those who have graduated with degrees in science will answer “no” to this question, when in fact it is possible. This relates to the lecture on memory theories and long-term memory. I believe the specific subject was the capacity of long-term memory, in which we talked about the study done by Shephard and individuals being shown a large amount of images and then pairs of images in which they had to choose which one they had seen before. We talked about how what is really needed in this task is a sense of familiarity or a sense of “knowing not”. This basically means that all we need to know is that we do not know the answer. I think this can be applied to this second question. These former graduate students assumed that a bulb could not be lit using a battery and a wire. After deciding that it was not possible, their cognitive processes for trying to solve the problem just shut off. They assumed they could not complete the task and therefore, did not know how.
I chose this video because the summary of its contents seemed very interesting. Who wouldn’t want to read an article that challenges what you think you know? I expected this video to contain a little more information on memory and maybe why/how our brain assumes that we know the answers to things that we don’t. I already briefly described what was talked about in the video. I thought it was very interesting that he said most younger children do better with these questions than older adults. He indicated that children learn a lot more from common sense and their experience than teachers realize. Maybe they do better with these types of questions because the networks and models of concepts in an adult’s brain are more ingrained and less subject to persuasion. A quote that he used in the presentation implies something similar to this: “Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out.” –Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jonathan_drori_on_what_we_think_we_know.html
Terms: verbal representation of knowledge, cognitive maps, memory theories, long-term memory, Shephard (experiment)
Sorry, mistake after proofreading: I meant *visual representation of knowledge--not verbal.
- Jonathan Drori on what we think we know –
I chose this video because it was one of the very few I found that focused on knowledge and how it is represented to us, which may not always be accurate. This video started off by asking very questions that seemed very simple and easy to answer. By the video starting to ask this it immediately draws you in because you’re curious if your “simple” answer could possibly be wrong. As the video continued on it related to previous blogs I have posted, which talk about our “certainty” about something can often be wrong. These simple questions about planet’s orbits and about the “stuff” that makes up desk, can show us that our “certainty” is often wrong.
I expected this video to go more in depth about why we think we know certain concepts that are not entirely right. However, the video instead just touched on the basics. I also thought he would discuss ways on how to catch or fix things we thought we knew. I did not expect to learn that younger children tended to answer these questions better than adults did. I was surprised to find that out.
The video asked four questions:
#1 – A little seed weights next to nothing but a tree weights a lot. From where does the tree get the stuff that makes up a wooden desk?
#2 – Can you light a little torch-bulb with a battery, bulb, & piece of wire?
#3 – Why is it hotter in summer than in winter?
#4 – Could you scribble a plan diagram of the solar system showing the shape of the planets orbits?
Jonathan explained that in the first question 99% of the mass of a wooden desk comes from the air – and that typically over 80% of people answered that the majority of the wooden desk comes from the ground. In the second question Jonathan noted that many engineers stated that this simply could not be done. They did not think it was possible to light a bulb with wire and a battery. In the third question he answers that when we are children we learn that if we get too close to something hot we burn; hence, we tend to think the sun is closer in the summer, but in reality this is not true. The rays from the sun are actually spread out more. In the final question Jonathan explains that textbooks tend to show a more 3D model which causes people to consider them more like ellipsis.
What interested me the most about this video was when Jonathan was talking about how many engineers did not think it was possible to light a bulb with a wire and a battery. He went on to discuss later that this may be because many of them are use to looking at circuit boards instead of having ever done this experiment. For those of us who have physically been given a battery, wire, and a light bulb to do a “hands-on” exercise we know that it is quite easy to light the bulb. However, for those who have never been exposed to this, it may be hard to imagine this. This lead him to talk about how good interpretations of information and knowledge are often done by hands-on demonstrations or done with everyday objects that kids can relate to and understand. I think this is something valuable that teachers and professors can often forget. Learning from textbooks, charts, and notes is useful sometimes, but when we learn from hands-on experiences we tend to remember the effects and lesson a lot longer.
Finally the last thing I will remember from this video is the fact that Jonathan talked about how children often have their own ideas and theories about things, and they will often come up with their own ideas and theories about things. To work with children to educate them further we need to work with the ideas they already have and shift them a little. What this really means is relating material to their lives already. This is something we still do in cognitive psychology class and many other classes today. We take different ideas that we learn in class and apply them to the real world. Lastly, Jonathan ended with questions that will make you wonder…
*Why is the sky blue? – Why on cloudy days?
*How do you put a plane in flight? – How do planes fly upside down?
The talk ends on the fact that we ultimately need to fiddle with ideas and concepts mentally and physically so we fully understand them.
Ted Talks: I am my Connectome:
http://www.ted.com/talks/sebastian_seung.html
This video is a lecture given by Sebastian Seung who describes the complexity of the connections that occur within the brain. He goes on to talk about the magnificence of neurons and the connections they form. Seung brings up the theory that scientists believe it’s possible that each human’s memory and possibly their personality are stored within the connections between neurons. Next he shares his personal hypothesis that each individual is “their connectome.” Seung makes the audience aware that technology is not advanced enough to test his hypothesis, but scientists are working towards a more technically advanced future. In order to physically see a connectome at work scientists have color coded neurons so that synapses become visible. Seung is hopeful that one day technology will allow every neuron and every synapse to be discovered by microscopes. He is also hopeful that man will not be dependent on one another, but that artificially intelligent computers will be able to diverge and explain the brain’s connectome. Finding the entire connectome demands years of investigation, but scientists are working on exploring bits of animal and human connectomes. The hypothesis of the connectome is questionable. Is it worth researching? Since neuron connections and synapses change over time so does one’s connectome. Throughout human development the connectome is subject to dramatic change. Neural activity alone can transform the connectome over time. In order to test his connectome theory, Seung believes that interpreting memory from connectomes would be a step in the right direction. Computers can help to unscramble the patters created by the connectome. On another note, the population of people who feel that technology will aspire humans to cheat death must understand that if they are looking to freeze themselves cryogenically they risk damaging their connectome in which they have failed miserably at cheating death altogether.
As you can see this video does not relate to the verbal or visual representation of knowledge whole heartedly. Yet, I do agree with Seung by believing that understanding the representations of knowledge may lead scientists to discover that area of the working connectome. I chose to watch this specific video because I felt that it could be easily applied to the movie we watched in class on Thursday about singularity. Along with this video, the singularity film also made comments about artificial intelligence and how scientists are on their way towards advancing technology is such a way that it will change the world in some perspective. Like Seung stated, once this technology is created people will view intelligence and the brain much differently. The beginning of this video made me think I would be learning about a person’s genes, but instead I learned that gene’s may be responsible for part of the formation of the connectome. What interested me the most about this video was actually being able to see the magnifications of neurons and synapses. Those pictures made it clear to see how complex the connectome is and how difficult it is to discover the correct wiring of the human brain. I enjoyed this video because even though this topic may be very complex and confusing Seung was concise and to the point which made it much easier to comprehend. What I will remember most about the video is that the connectome is a very probable hypothesis, and it makes sense to research the theory such as this for years to come.
There were many connections that I could make between the Ted Talk and the information in my textbook. However none of it was a direct match. For example the definition of representation of knowledge was that information was either written or spoken that is how one can convey that they have knowledge. In order to take in information I focused on the written aspects. For example I will be discussing learning and writing comprehension. The Ted Talks I watched was called “A Second Opinion on Learning Disorders”. I expected this video to talk about affective teaching methods in the every day classroom. Or what environmental issues may cause learning disorders. In fact this video was about using an EEG, a brain scanning/mapping process that used probes on the scalp, to look at the brain’s function with mentally disabled kids.
I initially chose this video because I am interested in learning disorders, in particular with children. But I found that they are using an important item from the ‘neurologist’s toolbox’ to look at knowledge in a concrete way. We can see the images on a screen and evaluate the brain’s function or lack there of. Children that were diagnosed to have autism, mental retardation and other such disorders were discussed in this video.
There are many interesting aspects of autism (I am bias because I work with children with autism). First of all there is a wide spectrum that people with autism could fall in. There are savants that, I believe, are still technically diagnosed with autism. At the other end of the spectrum there are people that have very little social awareness - almost to the extent of ‘ignoring’ all people. Less functional people of autism may not have any verbal skills - some only make gestures or vocal noises, some may only say a few words, words that do not have any contextual meaning. So on one end of the spectrum a person with autism may function in society with out giving the slightest hint that they have been diagnosed with the disorder. On the end other end we have people that can not care for themselves. They seemed to be locked in their own brain. Scary to think about but, with this new technology a new light can be brought to the table.
There are several ways to show knowledge I will focus on reading comprehension and issues that people with learning disabilities may have with reading comprehension. They may have the knowledge but not a way to communicate it - or they may communicate it in a way different from the rest of society. There are many things that may go wrong when we are trying to comprehend what we are reading. Common errors that our brains make include; different types of dyslexia - not just word scrambling issues but also word comprehension issues too.
Can you imagine how many errors we may make if our brain communicates with us in a different way? People with learning disorders have different processes going on in their brain. They take in information differently and communicate differently as well so their common errors may be very different from a ‘non-disordered’ persons’ errors. We also have some tools that help us comprehend our language and writing. But if people with learning disorders have different ways of functioning - would these helpful tools still work for them? Tools such as the word frequency effect where the words that occur frequently in the language are recognized more rapidly than are words that occur infrequently. Would people with learning disorders have this list of words stored in their brains? Do they have a list of other items - such as gestures that they recognize as meaning certain things? Or the concepts of direct and indirect thinking. As far as direct thinking goes it is goal-directed thinking used in solving problems. Would people with learning disorders go through these steps or would they have other processes for solving problems. Maybe people with learning disorders use forms of indirect thinking which is wondering thought (daydreams) that may prompt a creative solution to a problem.
Creativity is an interesting concept in itself. While looking through different Ted Talks videos I watched on that addressed the idea of creativity. This video discussed the humans’ seemingly innate ability to recognize patterns. We make connections between concepts and when these patterns or connections are true then it is considered association learning.
Going back to the tools that help us we also have cognitive processes include learning edge strategy and situation models. These are two processes that we use and again may be approached differently in people with learning disabilities. The learning edge strategy is when we keep an updated ideas of current proposition in order to establish referential coherence among the sentences of a text. Learning disabled people may not be able to keep this updated or they may update on different information and not the current proposition of sentences in a text. A situation model is a complete mental representation of a text made up of knowledge from long-term memory in addition to the propositions of the text base. For someone with a learning disability they may not have the ability to store this sort of information or they may not be able to recall in the same way we do. They may process the information in other ways. When they can not recall the information we assume that they do not know it. It would help if there were some priming or a variety of ways to get at certain information to make sure that someone does not have this information.
Back to the video there was an example of a child that received the EEG scanning who was diagnosed to have autism with very little function. With the EEG they found that he was not autistic but was having seizures. After this child was given seizure medicine he was ‘unlocked’ from his cognitive state and became an active member of society. He was able to recognize and comprehend information that people assumed he couldn’t. When his seizures were controlled he was able to use these cognitive processes that were depressed or retarded due to the seizures. The importance of this technology is that we can look at the function of the brain to diagnose disorders instead of simply looking at behavior. There is a lot to remember and much more to research based on this new information.
Terms: EEG, word frequency effect, direct thinking, indirect thinking, association learning, learning edge strategy, situation model, dyslexia.
There were many connections that I could make between the Ted Talk and the information in my textbook. However none of it was a direct match. For example the definition of representation of knowledge was that information was either written or spoken that is how one can convey that they have knowledge. In order to take in information I focused on the written aspects. For example I will be discussing learning and writing comprehension. The Ted Talks I watched was called “A Second Opinion on Learning Disorders”. I expected this video to talk about affective teaching methods in the every day classroom. Or what environmental issues may cause learning disorders. In fact this video was about using an EEG, a brain scanning/mapping process that used probes on the scalp, to look at the brain’s function with mentally disabled kids.
I initially chose this video because I am interested in learning disorders, in particular with children. But I found that they are using an important item from the ‘neurologist’s toolbox’ to look at knowledge in a concrete way. We can see the images on a screen and evaluate the brain’s function or lack there of. Children that were diagnosed to have autism, mental retardation and other such disorders were discussed in this video.
There are many interesting aspects of autism (I am bias because I work with children with autism). First of all there is a wide spectrum that people with autism could fall in. There are savants that, I believe, are still technically diagnosed with autism. At the other end of the spectrum there are people that have very little social awareness - almost to the extent of ‘ignoring’ all people. Less functional people of autism may not have any verbal skills - some only make gestures or vocal noises, some may only say a few words, words that do not have any contextual meaning. So on one end of the spectrum a person with autism may function in society with out giving the slightest hint that they have been diagnosed with the disorder. On the end other end we have people that can not care for themselves. They seemed to be locked in their own brain. Scary to think about but, with this new technology a new light can be brought to the table.
There are several ways to show knowledge I will focus on reading comprehension and issues that people with learning disabilities may have with reading comprehension. They may have the knowledge but not a way to communicate it - or they may communicate it in a way different from the rest of society. There are many things that may go wrong when we are trying to comprehend what we are reading. Common errors that our brains make include; different types of dyslexia - not just word scrambling issues but also word comprehension issues too.
Can you imagine how many errors we may make if our brain communicates with us in a different way? People with learning disorders have different processes going on in their brain. They take in information differently and communicate differently as well so their common errors may be very different from a ‘non-disordered’ persons’ errors. We also have some tools that help us comprehend our language and writing. But if people with learning disorders have different ways of functioning - would these helpful tools still work for them? Tools such as the word frequency effect where the words that occur frequently in the language are recognized more rapidly than are words that occur infrequently. Would people with learning disorders have this list of words stored in their brains? Do they have a list of other items - such as gestures that they recognize as meaning certain things? Or the concepts of direct and indirect thinking. As far as direct thinking goes it is goal-directed thinking used in solving problems. Would people with learning disorders go through these steps or would they have other processes for solving problems. Maybe people with learning disorders use forms of indirect thinking which is wondering thought (daydreams) that may prompt a creative solution to a problem.
Creativity is an interesting concept in itself. While looking through different Ted Talks videos I watched on that addressed the idea of creativity. This video discussed the humans’ seemingly innate ability to recognize patterns. We make connections between concepts and when these patterns or connections are true then it is considered association learning.
Going back to the tools that help us we also have cognitive processes include learning edge strategy and situation models. These are two processes that we use and again may be approached differently in people with learning disabilities. The learning edge strategy is when we keep an updated ideas of current proposition in order to establish referential coherence among the sentences of a text. Learning disabled people may not be able to keep this updated or they may update on different information and not the current proposition of sentences in a text. A situation model is a complete mental representation of a text made up of knowledge from long-term memory in addition to the propositions of the text base. For someone with a learning disability they may not have the ability to store this sort of information or they may not be able to recall in the same way we do. They may process the information in other ways. When they can not recall the information we assume that they do not know it. It would help if there were some priming or a variety of ways to get at certain information to make sure that someone does not have this information.
Back to the video there was an example of a child that received the EEG scanning who was diagnosed to have autism with very little function. With the EEG they found that he was not autistic but was having seizures. After this child was given seizure medicine he was ‘unlocked’ from his cognitive state and became an active member of society. He was able to recognize and comprehend information that people assumed he couldn’t. When his seizures were controlled he was able to use these cognitive processes that were depressed or retarded due to the seizures. The importance of this technology is that we can look at the function of the brain to diagnose disorders instead of simply looking at behavior. There is a lot to remember and much more to research based on this new information.
Terms: EEG, word frequency effect, direct thinking, indirect thinking, association learning, learning edge strategy, situation model, dyslexia.
Ramachandran is an extremely interesting man. His presentation is the only one that I watched that went over time. I was really excited to see his actual presentation because he’s really popular in the neurology field. He has shown with his research on phantom limbs that the brain can have a profound effect on what is experienced simply because it expects something.
But I have to explain how his presentation fits the area the representation of knowledge. He is demonstrating the visual representation of knowledge in the brain and how that effects the existence of phantom limbs.
Phantom limbs are the perception that a limb exists even when it is cut off. Often they are painful. Ramachandran explains that phantom limbs are painful if the limb was cut off after a period of paralysis. What happens is that the brain sends signals to the limb and realizes through visual input that the limb does not move and learns that the body part is paralyzed. This is learned paralysis.
So what Ramachandran does with a mirror box is create an artificial way to produce the visual experience of actually moving the phantom. Eventually, the brain realizes that the limb is missing and eliminates that from the person’s body image.
All that is awesome, but the actual connection with the visual representation of knowledge happens earlier in his talk. He talks about Kapgrass syndrome. This is a disease of the face area of the cortex. You are able to identify things but are thoroughly convinced that the object of interest is a hoax. For example, you see your mother and you recognize that the person looks like your mother but are thoroughly convinced that she is not.
Ramachandran also points out that there is a disconnect between the fussiform gyrus (the face area of the cortex) and the amygdala (emotion center of the brain). This results in a lack of emotional reactions to seeing your mother and thus you recognize your mother but get the feeling that she is not your mother because you don’t get the correct emotions associated with her. And this happens with a bunch of other objects and people. It is not specific to your mother.
Therefore, the knowledge that someone is your mother does not just consist of seeing her but also having the correct emotional reaction to her.
Terms: Phantom limb, fussiform gyrus, cortex, amygdale, Kapgrass syndrome, mirror box, learned paralysis