zergylord

914 reputation

415

bio	website
	location	Redwood City, CA
	age	24
visits	member for	1 year, 5 months
	seen	2 days ago
stats	profile views	33

1st first PhD student in Psychology at Stanford under Professor Jay McClelland. All neural network modeling, all of the time.

	914 reputation	bio	website		visits	member for	1 year, 5 months
415 badges		location	Redwood City, CA		seen	2 days ago

summary answers questions tags badges favorites bounties reputation activity

111 Actions

suggestions reviews revisions comments badges posts accepts all

Mar 15	comment	Any attempts at testing or modeling the 'cognitive conception' of language? I agree that there are conflicting intuitions on this conception of language, but this is why I posed the question in the first place: what evidence is there supporting one side over the other
Mar 15	revised	Any attempts at testing or modeling the 'cognitive conception' of language? edited body
Mar 15	comment	Any attempts at testing or modeling the 'cognitive conception' of language? @hippietrail yup; fixed
Feb 11	awarded	Nice Question
Jan 31	awarded	Nice Question
Jan 18	awarded	Yearling
Dec 23	awarded	Nice Answer
Oct 28	awarded	Taxonomist
Oct 2	comment	'Model-free' learning in humans Thanks Chuck! I agree that the question in the current form is answered via CHCH's article. Possible next steps: 1.Delete question and wait to post the inevitable follow up question. 2. I could Community Wiki it and then answer with a blurb from the article (unless CHCH wants to for the credit) 3. I could (as soon as properly formulated) modify the question to something more in depth since the terminology question was so easily answered. I'd prefer option 2, but I thought I'd ask as maybe the community has some procedure that people have agreed upon.
Oct 2	comment	'Model-free' learning in humans Sorry about the google miss -- this was question I rediscovered from a few years ago. I should've regoogled before posting, but I didn't realize that something would have changed in a couple years. Sorry for the mishap. However, I don't understand how this isn't a question. What part could use rewording?
Oct 1	asked	'Model-free' learning in humans
Oct 1	awarded	Nice Question
Jun 20	comment	What form might Jungian archetypes take in the brain? Interesting answer; sounds very well informed on Jung. However, I think the term "sparse representation" is being misused here. "Grandmother cells" are synonymous with local representations. Sparse representations are still distributed; they just tend have most of their units inactive at any given instant.
Jun 14	comment	What form might Jungian archetypes take in the brain? Perhaps I'm missing something, but it strikes me as very odd to presuppose that archetypes have a direct sensory representation. Jung's archetypes were very abstract, high level concepts, so I'd venture to guess that they'd be stored in brain regions associated with semantic cognition. Just a guess though, as I haven't heard anything in the recent literature on any Jungian constructs.
Apr 27	comment	How to get rid of subvocalization? I agree, and vaguely remember speed reading tricks of this sort as being debunked. I'll try and look up some citations if I get a chance.
Mar 27	comment	Biological plausibility of bayesian models of cognition I think one problem with this question is that bayesian models work on a completely different level of abstraction than neuroscience data. Any data can be interpreted as being optimal for something
Mar 7	comment	What is the effect of merely expecting an interruption on performance? Could you give an example task where interruption comes into play? I'm asking because 'interruption' could mean different things to different subfields of cognitive science. Anything from perceptual masking all the way up to having a confederate verbally cutoff the subject could be considered interruption.
Mar 7	comment	Combinatorial woes Welcome to the site Vlad! This is a great question, but it'd be even better if you could link to some of your sources. Also, you might want to change the name of your question to something more descriptive such as a combination of some of your closing remarks (e.g. How does chunk formation avoid a combinatorial explosion?).
Mar 1	revised	Why is it common for people to default to a single causal source to explain new phenomena? formatted out some unscientific flavor text.
Mar 1	comment	Why is it common for people to default to a single causal source to explain new phenomena? I made a few edits, though some more might still be necessary. Its shaping up to be a good question so don't give up hope :-)