Edward Gibson

And they behave totally normally and no one knows anything was wrong. And we find out later, because they happen to be accidentally scanned for some reason, it's like, what happened to your left hemisphere? It's missing. There's not many people who've missed their whole left hemisphere, but they'll be missing some other section of their left or their right.

And they behave absolutely normally, we'd never know. So that's like a very interesting, you know, current research hypothesis. This is another project that this person, F. Fedorenko, is working on. She's got all these people contacting her because she's scanned some people who have been missing sections. One person missed a section of her brain and was scanned in her lab.

And they behave absolutely normally, we'd never know. So that's like a very interesting, you know, current research hypothesis. This is another project that this person, F. Fedorenko, is working on. She's got all these people contacting her because she's scanned some people who have been missing sections. One person missed a section of her brain and was scanned in her lab.

And they behave absolutely normally, we'd never know. So that's like a very interesting, you know, current research hypothesis. This is another project that this person, F. Fedorenko, is working on. She's got all these people contacting her because she's scanned some people who have been missing sections. One person missed a section of her brain and was scanned in her lab.

And she happened to be a writer for the New York Times. And there was an article in the New York Times just about the scanning procedure and what about what might be learned by sort of the general process of MRI and language. And because she's writing for the New York Times, all these people started writing to her who also have similar kinds of deficits because they've been accidentally

And she happened to be a writer for the New York Times. And there was an article in the New York Times just about the scanning procedure and what about what might be learned by sort of the general process of MRI and language. And because she's writing for the New York Times, all these people started writing to her who also have similar kinds of deficits because they've been accidentally

And she happened to be a writer for the New York Times. And there was an article in the New York Times just about the scanning procedure and what about what might be learned by sort of the general process of MRI and language. And because she's writing for the New York Times, all these people started writing to her who also have similar kinds of deficits because they've been accidentally

to scan for some reason and found out they're missing some section. They volunteer to be scanned.

to scan for some reason and found out they're missing some section. They volunteer to be scanned.

to scan for some reason and found out they're missing some section. They volunteer to be scanned.

Natural experiments. They're kind of messy, but natural experiments. It's kind of cool. She calls them interesting brains.

Natural experiments. They're kind of messy, but natural experiments. It's kind of cool. She calls them interesting brains.

Natural experiments. They're kind of messy, but natural experiments. It's kind of cool. She calls them interesting brains.

That's right. Absolutely.

That's right. Absolutely.

That's right. Absolutely.

That's right. So, you know, he's basically a philosopher, philosopher of language in a way, thinking about these things. It's a fine thought. You can't test it in his methods. You can't do a thought experiment to figure that out. You need a scanner. You need brain damage people. You need something, you need ways to measure that.

That's right. So, you know, he's basically a philosopher, philosopher of language in a way, thinking about these things. It's a fine thought. You can't test it in his methods. You can't do a thought experiment to figure that out. You need a scanner. You need brain damage people. You need something, you need ways to measure that.

That's right. So, you know, he's basically a philosopher, philosopher of language in a way, thinking about these things. It's a fine thought. You can't test it in his methods. You can't do a thought experiment to figure that out. You need a scanner. You need brain damage people. You need something, you need ways to measure that.

And that's what, you know, fMRI offers as a, and, you know, patients are a little messier. fMRI is pretty unambiguous, I'd say. It's like very unambiguous. There's no way to say that the language network is doing any of these tasks. There's like, you should look at those data. It's like, there's no chance that you can say that those networks are overlapping. They're not overlapping.