Skip to content
The methodOpen data
Back to the collection

The split brain: A tale of two halves

David Wolman

2012 · Nature

Neuroscience
Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
4
Readers
4
Months
4
What’s in a score?

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

4 selected excerpts · 4 total mentions

famouswaffles
Neutral mention · rule
>Like you’re doing right now? Lol Okay >When people are put in situations where they will be shamed or suffer other social stigmas for admitting ignorance then we can expect them to be less than candid. Good thing I wasn't talking about that. There's a lot of evidence that human explanations are regularly post-hoc rationalizations they fully believe in. They're not lieing to anyone, they just fully believe the nonsense their brain has concocted. Experiments on choice and preferences https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3196841/ Split Brain Experiments https://www.nature.com/articles/483260a >As for your links to research showing that LLMs do possess the ability of…
Read the full comment
introspection, I have one question: why have we not seen this in consumer-facing tools? Are the LLMs afraid of social stigma? Maybe read any of them ? If you weren't interested in evidence to the contrary of your points then you could have just said so and I wouldn't have wasted my time. The 1st and 6th Links make it quite clear current post-training processes hurt calibration a lot.
Original comment Ask HN: Any insider takes on Yann LeCun's push against current architectures?
og_kalu
Neutral mention · rule
>Note: if the result is someone reporting having made a decision before brain activity is seen, my next question is going to be "How does that work?" This is not how we figure conscious explanations are often(always?) post-hoc rationalizations. See - Split brain experiments - https://www.nature.com/articles/483260a Experiments on Choice preferences -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3196841/
Original comment Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind
CallidusAsinus
Neutral mention · rule
In my experience, when reading about consciousness there are a couple types of claims you should be cautious of: 1) Claims that the causes of consciousness can be easily explained. As far as I can tell, they can't. Usually these explanations use the word "emergent" a lot, and tend to be linguistically impenetrable. Often more poetic than scientific when scrutinized closely. 2) Claims that consciousness doesn't exist. These arguments often feel like semantic nitpicking, and employ the word "illusion" as though it's somehow useful for explaining why you experience. My pet criteria for whether a statement about consciousness is useful is: "Can this possibly help explain how…
Read the full comment
I can merge consciousness with someone (or something) else?" To me, this feels like a tangible measurement for how materially useful a claim about consciousness might be. An example is literature on "Split-Brain" patients (such as https://www.nature.com/articles/483260a). edit: Another category to be wary of is: 3) Claims that we cannot understand consciousness. Usually these boil down to "how can consciousness understand itself?". Poetic and poignant, but not particularly useful or scientifically grounded.
Original comment What’s so hard about understanding consciousness?

Keep following the thread.

More in Neuroscience

More from the same topics.