> Who's to say there isn't something out there we haven't discovered yet
Occam's razor? We should work with as few assumptions as possible to get a model with the largest scope. Otherwise we get stuck with a hard to falsify mess.
Occam's razor? We should work with as few assumptions as possible to get a model with the largest scope. Otherwise we get stuck with a hard to falsify mess.
My point was I don't think that's happening with neuroscience yet. We might not have a complete map yet, but we know where thoughts come from in the organ, we can watch them. Or can we? It's an open question, if people think there is more science to be done to sort out fundamentals, and we're not just in the stage of iterating on our base assumptions more, I'm OK with that, but it's not my understanding today.