Mark Changizi

@MarkChangizi

Cognitive scientist and entrepreneur. Author of VISION rEVOLUTION, HARNESSED, HUMAN 3.0, ON THE ORIGIN OF ART and WHAT EMOTIONS MEAN.

Columbus, OH
Vrijeme pridruživanja: lipanj 2009.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @MarkChangizi

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @MarkChangizi

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    17. sij

    My Science Moment video series has entered the second “season”. But beware! Although they’re still short, they‘re now allowed to spill beyond 60 seconds. Moment 47 just released, uh, moments ago.

    Poništi
  2. prije 8 sati

    If a parrot or crow were born with a (somehow sufficiently small) human brain inside it, would it have any idea it’s different than its flock? How easy would it be for experimenters to distinguish, if they somehow had the notion it wasn’t the usual bird?

    Poništi
  3. prije 10 sati

    Preview of Moment 48, on how we cognitively categorize shapes as 1D, 2D, etc, yet many (most?) natural things are 1D *and* 2D. See full video here...

    Ovo je potencijalno osjetljiv multimedijski sadržaj. Saznajte više
    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj

    One of the little know things about (many) parrots is that there is no sexual dimorphism. We have no idea whether Pistachio is male or female (unless we do a surgical or genetic test). Languages like Farsi can accommodate that well, because there’s no “he” or “she”.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj

    Many imagine our semantic network is a complex web with meanings determined by position within the network, and that there’s no foundation upon more primitive words. We can get at this by looking at dictionaries. And they’re not webs. They’re hierarchical. (And near optimal.)

    Poništi
  6. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 17 sati

    Children drawings. Are they examples of primitive inventions of writing? From my earlier VISION rEVOLUTION.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. prije 17 sati

    Plus, a bonus brand new drawing from my two year old extended niece, who says it’s Uncle Mark because he’s smiling.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. prije 17 sati

    ...and the remainder of the section.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. prije 17 sati

    Children drawings. Are they examples of primitive inventions of writing? From my earlier VISION rEVOLUTION.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. 1. velj

    But for English one constantly vacillates between “him” and “her”. More generally, it interestingly strains one’s cognitive categories, because our brain “wants” to know “which is it?”

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. 1. velj

    One of the little know things about (many) parrots is that there is no sexual dimorphism. We have no idea whether Pistachio is male or female (unless we do a surgical or genetic test). Languages like Farsi can accommodate that well, because there’s no “he” or “she”.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 1. velj

    I said, “Get me a lager. A LAGER!” Our wonderful little “Pistacchio.”

    Poništi
  13. 1. velj

    My interview on on my research, and on the most controversial idea that natural selection can....wait for it...design things.

    Poništi
  14. 1. velj

    For 40 years Iran has been held back by this crap.

    Poništi
  15. 1. velj

    Many imagine our semantic network is a complex web with meanings determined by position within the network, and that there’s no foundation upon more primitive words. We can get at this by looking at dictionaries. And they’re not webs. They’re hierarchical. (And near optimal.)

    Poništi
  16. 31. sij

    And! .. It also answers another question folks ask: Is our lexicon a web with no bottom, or is it hierarchical and grounds out at some primitive words that have no definition per se? Data suggest it’s hierarchical. (And optimally so.) Link for paper:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 31. sij

    Real data from actual dictionaries suggest they are very close to optimal.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 31. sij

    That same idea can be applied to our entire corpus of word we know, and we can ask what is the optimal number of intermediate levels, so that the entire dictionary (the one in your head) is minimized.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 31. sij

    If instead you first define four intermediate words, & THEN use these to define the wanted 16, the total size of the dictionary is considerably smaller because each of the 16 definitions is smaller, outweighing the extra space from the four intermediate words & their definition.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 31. sij

    If you define all 16 words in one go, so to speak, the total size of the dictionary is big, because each of the 16 words has a long definition.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  21. 31. sij

    One thing about such systems is, there are more and less efficient ways of defining a bunch of words. The figure here shows two different ways to define 16 words based on two fundamental words that have no definition (the brain understands these primitively).

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·