Apart from the really positive public response (which I'm surprised of, honestly) I got some hate mail / dms. For them I'll leave this here:
"Consider this example: In 2009, a neuroscientist showed photos of people to a dead fish and measured the fish’s brain activity. Interestingly, the fish responded accurately to the emotions of people in the pictures.
This experiment was, of course, a gag. The scientist’s real aim was to show how easily research findings can come about by chance.
Neuroscientists perform brain scans by dividing the scans into thousands of small pieces called voxels, which correspond to regions in the brain. When a brain is scanned (even a dead fish’s brain), there's always some random “noise” in each voxel. As there are thousands of voxels, the odds of one producing data that corresponds to the stimulus given are actually quite high."
Apart from the really positive public response (which I'm surprised of, honestly) I got some hate mail / dms. For them I'll leave this here:
"Consider this example: In 2009, a neuroscientist showed photos of people to a dead fish and measured the fish’s brain activity. Interestingly, the fish responded accurately to the emotions of people in the pictures.
This experiment was, of course, a gag. The scientist’s real aim was to show how easily research findings can come about by chance.
Neuroscientists perform brain scans by dividing the scans into thousands of small pieces called voxels, which correspond to regions in the brain. When a brain is scanned (even a dead fish’s brain), there's always some random “noise” in each voxel. As there are thousands of voxels, the odds of one producing data that corresponds to the stimulus given are actually quite high."
The study can be found here: blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicu...