>Watch link posted above again, and you will see that on few places he did
>mention God and making some jokes with it, as a nonsense...
So you estimate the value of a persons research based on a few seconds of video of him telling a joke.
>It is interesting..then how come some mammals who has more brain cells
>than we do, havent reach even 2% of our intelectual capabilities??
>Dolphines for example?
Because they evolved in a different direction.
>Really, and what is basics for such extraordinary well designed structure
>of DNA? Its just popping up from nowhere and compose itself in such well
>ordered structure in to extreme??
No, creationists believe in things just popping up fully formed. Evolution is based on improvement upon improvement upon improvement...
>there are many questions way deeper than pure understanding of brain
>mechanisms..
So you are saying that noone should look at this subject, because you think it's unimportant. I disagree... The small stuff is usually the most worthwhile.
>and if you watch carefully this guy keep telling that hes
>right and noone else had or has vision what to do...
He is right about the patternmatching aspects of the neo cortex. As for the approach to understanding the brain, I think he is also right, although he isn't the only one to look for a different way.
>microprocessor guy is someone with lack of vision..
Understanding the brain is lack of vision?
>he just 'invent' processor but its not that good..
He didn't invent a processor, he integrated various off the shelf parts into various products.
>he has no theory....what a crap..guy claiming that what he think is
>correct way without leaving door for possibilities that he is
>mistaken..
I don't know what your problem is. Science is about discovery and verification of discovery, not discovery and remembering to secondguess oneself, incase one is mistaken.
>that means hes in absolutism and such things doesnt exist on this
>world..
Are you saying that gravity isn't real?
>its all relative, and im very sure he and his 'theories' will end up
>nowhere,
So his research fits with the other research and all available science on the neo cortex, and yet his theories(now you suddenly decide he does have theories after all) will end up nowhere. I don't think you understand the scientific method.
>and he will still continue developing his mobile devices because
>he will not eat bread out of this 'theories' of his..thats for sure...
You really need to study the scientific method.
>mention God and making some jokes with it, as a nonsense...
So you estimate the value of a persons research based on a few seconds of video of him telling a joke.
>It is interesting..then how come some mammals who has more brain cells
>than we do, havent reach even 2% of our intelectual capabilities??
>Dolphines for example?
Because they evolved in a different direction.
>Really, and what is basics for such extraordinary well designed structure
>of DNA? Its just popping up from nowhere and compose itself in such well
>ordered structure in to extreme??
No, creationists believe in things just popping up fully formed. Evolution is based on improvement upon improvement upon improvement...
>there are many questions way deeper than pure understanding of brain
>mechanisms..
So you are saying that noone should look at this subject, because you think it's unimportant. I disagree... The small stuff is usually the most worthwhile.
>and if you watch carefully this guy keep telling that hes
>right and noone else had or has vision what to do...
He is right about the patternmatching aspects of the neo cortex. As for the approach to understanding the brain, I think he is also right, although he isn't the only one to look for a different way.
>microprocessor guy is someone with lack of vision..
Understanding the brain is lack of vision?
>he just 'invent' processor but its not that good..
He didn't invent a processor, he integrated various off the shelf parts into various products.
>he has no theory....what a crap..guy claiming that what he think is
>correct way without leaving door for possibilities that he is
>mistaken..
I don't know what your problem is. Science is about discovery and verification of discovery, not discovery and remembering to secondguess oneself, incase one is mistaken.
>that means hes in absolutism and such things doesnt exist on this
>world..
Are you saying that gravity isn't real?
>its all relative, and im very sure he and his 'theories' will end up
>nowhere,
So his research fits with the other research and all available science on the neo cortex, and yet his theories(now you suddenly decide he does have theories after all) will end up nowhere. I don't think you understand the scientific method.
>and he will still continue developing his mobile devices because
>he will not eat bread out of this 'theories' of his..thats for sure...
You really need to study the scientific method.