Your post raises a number of the usual crackpot red flags: It claims that you have found a single solution or a key to one for a variety of problems that the experts somehow missed, that they should drop everything and pay attention to you, yet you show no evidence for it, mainly handwaving and pretty pictures, no literature review, no talk about limitations and potential failures, just some promotion of your pet theory. I agree with quanticle there, at this stage there is nothing to get excited about. At this point I would give the odds 100:1 against that CSHW will prove as useful as the leading ideas in the field, and 1000000:1 against that it would live up to the potential you describe. That said, I really hope I am wrong here, if this worked out, it would be an amazing step forward.
You’re welcome to follow the academic literature trail I link to. CSHW is a new paradigm so it would definitely would benefit from a close critical review, if you’re able to provide that. (If you’d rather just critique something as pattern-matching to “crackpot red flags” and “pretty pictures” you can do that too, but I find this to be a content-free strategy of avoiding dealing with any of my object-level or methodological claims, and think that it needlessly lowers the level of discussion.)
I mention my personal intuitions about “limitations and potential failures” near the end of my piece; . My expectation is that CSHW, along with the predictive coding framework, is the most plausible route for neuroscience to develop knowledge in the five spheres I identified. (“Most plausible” does not mean “sure thing” of course.) The hard work still needs to be done of course. If you know of more plausible ways to unify neuroscience I’d be happy to read about it.
CSHW is a new paradigm so it would definitely would benefit from a close critical review
A new paradigm that has not had a critical review (or, preferably, several, extensive critical reviews) does not seem like something which it makes much sense either to be so confident about, nor to hang so lofty a set of hopes on.
Your post raises a number of the usual crackpot red flags: It claims that you have found a single solution or a key to one for a variety of problems that the experts somehow missed, that they should drop everything and pay attention to you, yet you show no evidence for it, mainly handwaving and pretty pictures, no literature review, no talk about limitations and potential failures, just some promotion of your pet theory. I agree with quanticle there, at this stage there is nothing to get excited about. At this point I would give the odds 100:1 against that CSHW will prove as useful as the leading ideas in the field, and 1000000:1 against that it would live up to the potential you describe. That said, I really hope I am wrong here, if this worked out, it would be an amazing step forward.
Hi shminux,
You’re welcome to follow the academic literature trail I link to. CSHW is a new paradigm so it would definitely would benefit from a close critical review, if you’re able to provide that. (If you’d rather just critique something as pattern-matching to “crackpot red flags” and “pretty pictures” you can do that too, but I find this to be a content-free strategy of avoiding dealing with any of my object-level or methodological claims, and think that it needlessly lowers the level of discussion.)
I mention my personal intuitions about “limitations and potential failures” near the end of my piece; . My expectation is that CSHW, along with the predictive coding framework, is the most plausible route for neuroscience to develop knowledge in the five spheres I identified. (“Most plausible” does not mean “sure thing” of course.) The hard work still needs to be done of course. If you know of more plausible ways to unify neuroscience I’d be happy to read about it.
A new paradigm that has not had a critical review (or, preferably, several, extensive critical reviews) does not seem like something which it makes much sense either to be so confident about, nor to hang so lofty a set of hopes on.
2 years later and 3 years since the publication of the original results, is there anything new to report?