The parts of Dennett where he collects evidence and documents history is very good. I especially like how he talk about the “evolution of evolution” – putting evolution itself to its own test. But then, when he gets into Words, Memes, “cultural evolution”, and using illusions to prove things, well, he loses me. He leaves the world of hard physicalism where he does a fine job and moves into the area of “say anything just sound believable” and it’s all paper-thin in that zone.

The parts of Dennett
[read full article]
 

_Agency, Ownership and the Potential Space_ I searched for “what type of error correction is used by the brain?” and what an unexpected find! A psychologist I never knew existed that came up with ideas that I’ve believed for my whole life but never knew where they came from. Donald Winnicott focused on the centrality of PLAY in development, which was considered contrary to the psychologist obsession with SEX at the time, came up with the ideas of subjective omnipotence, the idea of – and importance of – the “good enough parent” (flaws being enough for the child to realize ‘they’re only human too’), true self and false self, and other ideas. He was influential to other psychologists that I’d not heard of: Thomas Ogden (vaguely familiar name), Giuseppe Civitarese and Antonino Ferro, and another thing I’d not heard of: “Along with Jacques Derrida, Winnicott is a fundamental resource for philosopher Bernard Stiegler’s What Makes Life Worth Living: On Pharmacology (2010)” – all trails I may consider following. The errors of the egocentric and allocentric with ownership (that is, agency) is really interesting – which I got from: _Agency, Ownership and the Potential Space_ https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/11/4/460/htm David Winnicot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Winnicot

_Agency, Ownership and the
[read full article]
 

oh hi there; noisy default mode network / adhd connection. Everything’s leading hard that way “Spontaneous attentional fluctuations in impaired states and pathological conditions: A neurobiological hypothesis” abstract In traditional accounts, fluctuations in sustained and focused attention and associated attentional lapses during task performance are regarded as the result of failures of top-down and effortful higher order processes. The current paper reviews an alternative hypothesis: that spontaneous patterns of very low frequency coherence within a specific brain network (‘default-mode network’) thought to support a pattern of generalized task-non-specific cognition during rest, can persist or intrude into periods of active task-specific processing, producing periodic fluctuations in attention that compete with goal-directed activity. We review recent studies supporting the existence of the resting state default network, examine the mechanism underpinning it, describe the consequent temporally distinctive effects on cognition and behaviour of default-mode interference into active processing periods, and suggest some factors that might predispose to it. Finally, we explore the putative role of default-mode interference as a cause of performance variability in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014976340700022X

oh hi there; noisy
[read full article]
 

Well, Eric scores as INFJ, I score as INFP, Guy as INTP but there’s a lot of overlap there. I think of INFJ as ruminating a bit more and finds the disconnect between self and the world to be a greater burden than INFP or INTP; slightly more but enough to mean probably more pain in areas I never had to see in myself. I think of INTP as being able to be a little more objective in the sense of being able to disconnect the subjective just a bit more than INFP or INFJ when needed; I don’t know if these things are true or not; lots of people take these with a grain of salt and many discount them all together. But like other personality sorting tools, I think it has its place in helping put together a little shorthand for at least a few commonalities

Well, Eric scores as
[read full article]
 

concretizing mindset: IPS, left precentral gyrus, pre-SMA magnitude processing (space/time): bilateral insula, the pre-SMA, the right frontal operculum and the IPS HOW (vs why) OH! HELLO MAGNITUDE. Walsh: 2003: “A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity” and |”According to the ATOM, formulated by Walsh more than fifteen years ago, there is a common system of magnitude in the brain that comprises regions – such as parietal cortex – shared by space, time and other magnitudes (Beudel, Renken, Leenders, & de Jong, 2009; Bueti & Walsh, 2009; Walsh, 2003). The present meta-analysis clearly identified the presence of a set of brain regions that are commonly recruited in both space and time. This system includes bilateral insula, the pre-SMA, the right frontal operculum and the intraparietal sulci. Our study supports and updates the ATOM theory, as it showed not only overlapping activations between space and time but also revealed that spatial and temporal processing is arranged and organized along well-defined spatial gradients in the brain (see Figure 5). For this reason, we now refer to Walsh’s theory as ‘GradiATOM’ (Gradient Theory of Magnitude). ‘GradiATOM’: Functional gradients underlying space and time We found that pre-SMA, right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), left precentral gyrus and intraparietal sulci represent the areas of activation overlap with spatial gradients, along which space and time are mapped and organized in the brain. More specifically, the SMA showed an anteriorposterior gradient, with space activating more anterior regions (i.e., pre-SMA) and time activating more posterior regions (thus, SMA-proper to greater extent). Frontal and parietal regions showed a dorsal-ventral gradient. Space processing is supported by dorsal frontal and parietal regions, whereas time is more likely to recruit ventral frontal and parietal regions. and from a neural correlates of concrete vs abstract “Neural activity associated with concretization {(How > Why) \ (Exemplars > Categories)} In order to find the neural correlates associated with a concretizing mindset, we searched for the conjunction of neural activity associated with the How > Why and the Exemplars > Categories contrasts. The results showed that a concretizing mindset recruits parts of the fronto-parietal action network: the IPL, the left precentral gyrus and the pre-SMA (Figure 1 and Table 2).” concretizing mindset: IPS, left precentral gyrus, pre-SMA magnitude processing (space/time): bilateral insula, the pre-SMA, the right frontal operculum and the IPS also: “the midinsula and the frontal operculum make up the taste cortex (TC), which encodes the features of pure taste stimuli such as quality and intensity “

concretizing mindset: IPS, left
[read full article]
 

America has a “need for things to be cheap” problem. It is why we have an undocumented worker issue to begin with. They tried hiring suburban high schoolers to do this in the 1960s. It failed miserably. This is hard work that is decades away from any real automation and if we want to grow food on our own soil, we either have a pay high prices at the supermarket or expect undocumented workers to do the hard stuff and at least give them basic human rights.

America has a “need
[read full article]