Flow triggers can be categorized into four distinct types: external, internal, group flow, and creative flow triggers.External Triggers: Factors or techniques that deliberately induce a state of flow during a specific task or activity, such as listening to music to help you focusInternal Triggers: Psychological and cognitive factors that spontaneously lead to a state of flow during activities, like completing a challenging task Creative Triggers: Factors that can help you immerse yourself fully in the creative processGroup Flow Triggers: Factors that promote a collective state of flow within a group or team setting

In Protestant countries, such as in Britain, coffee was thought to have antierotic as well as mentally stimulating properties.[6] The idea that coffee would spur people into work and improve the quality of such work was highly compatible with the Protestant work ethic ideology. Free of sexual distractions and instilling asceticism, people could presumably live free from sin. It was seen as a positive alternative to alcohol, and Protestant visitors to the Ottoman Empire saw it as consistent was the Christian (Protestant) values of temperance and the Protestant work ethic.[6]

the Bodhisattva cognitive system is no longer constrained by the perception that one single self—i.e., its own self—requires special and sustained attention. Instead, Bodhisattva cognitive processes are now said to engage with spontaneous care for all apparent individuals. Thus, an immediate takeaway from non-dual insight is said to be the perception that oneself and all others are ultimately of the same identity.

According to the Bodhisattva model of intelligence, such deconstruction of the apparent foundations of cognition elicits a transformation of both the scope and acuity of the cognitive system that performs it.

The field of basal cognition [14,15,16,17,18] emphasizes a continuum of intelligence, which originated in the control loops of microbes but was scaled up throughout multicellular forms to the obvious kinds of intelligent behavior observed in advanced animals.

You can tell people just like I have you to focus their attention, choose a target. Imagine there's a spotlight shining just on it. Don't pay much attention to what's in your periphery almost as if you have like blinders on, right? So don't pay attention to those distractors. People can do that. We have them talk to us about like, well, what is it that you're focused on? What's catching your attention right now? Those are easy instructions to understand and it's easy to make your eyes do it. What's important though is that that's not what their eyes do naturally. When they're walking or when they're running, people do take a sort of wider perspective. They broaden their scope of attention relative to what these instructions are having them do. And when we taught people that narrowed style of attention, what we found is that they moved 23% faster in this course that we had set up. From the start line to the finish line, it was always exactly the same distance. And we were using our stop watches to see how fast did they move. They moved 23% faster and they said it hurt 17% less. Right? So exactly the same actual experience, but subjectively it was easier and they performed better. They increase the efficiency of this particular exercise.

Those distances literally look farther to people that for whom it might be harder to make it to that finish line, to navigate that space. We also found that that's the case with motivation, that when people are more motivated to exercise or to make it to that finish line, that motivation can in a sense compensate for that effect of their body on their perception of distance. So that even highly motivated people, people who are highly motivated, even if they have a higher waist to hip ratio might see the distance in a way that suggests it's just as short as people who have a lower waist to hip ratio. So motivation can change our visual experience and align people to experience a world that looks more like a person who'd have an easier time navigating it. So those were two initial findings, sets of findings, that suggested our visual experiences are not just reflective of the world that's out there. But instead it has to do with what is our body capable of doing and what is our brain capable of supplementing, our own motivational states and physical states of our body are working together to shift what it is that we're seeing in the world out there.

We prioritize what we see versus what we hear, why is that? Now, what comes to mind when I say that is when, somebody is saying no, but shaking their head yes. And so we have this disconnect, but we tend to prioritize what the action and not what we're hearing. So something that we visually see instead of what we hear.Speaker 1There isn't a definitive answer on that, but one source of insight on why do we do that, it could be related to the neurological real estate that's taken up by our visual experience. There's far more of our cortex, the outer layer of our brain that responds to visual information than any other form of information

indicate that distributed cognition considers a collaborative activity taking place across individuals, artefacts and internal or external representations, as one cognitive system.

cognition cannot be tamed within the boundaries of an individual, but researchers should expand the unit of analysis to include the surrounding environment.

On devient « utilisateur » de sa propre mémoire par l’extériorisation d’une fonction cognitive dans la machine. L’artificialité des indexations rigides des anciens classements va être dépassée par le recours à la capacité associative du cerveau humain

“Consider a future device …  in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory.”

I tried to come up with three snappy principles for building products with language models. I expect these to evolve over time, but this is my first passFirst, protect human agency. Second, treat models as reasoning engines, not sources of truth And third, augment cognitive abilities rather than replace them.

One way to weed those out is to begin with the most basic question we can formulate. Conceptual artist Jonathon Keats calls these “naive questions.” Geochemist Hope Jahren calls them “curiosity questions.” Whatever the label, they are, in essence, the kind of question a child could come up with.Progressing from such questions requires us to dig deeper and slow down our thinking — which, in turn, may reveal to us unknown unknowns or information we may have missed last time we explored the topic.

Many people, myself included, can find asking questions to be daunting. It fills us with worry and self-doubt, as though the act of being inquisitive is an all-too-public admission of our ignorance. Unfortunately, this can also lead us to find solace in answers — no matter how shaky our understanding of the facts may be — rather than risk looking stupid in front of others or even to ourselves.

8 Overtuigingen funest voor leren leren #1 Leren leren verloopt impliciet De eerste overtuiging die leraren kunnen hebben, is dat leren leren impliciet wordt aangeleerd en dus de informatieoverdracht niet expliciet hoeft te zijn. Leren leren wordt vanzelf aangeleerd als gevolg van ervaringen, dus expliciete instructie is niet nodig, is dan de gedachte. Deze gedachte gaat geheel voorbij aan wat we inmiddels uit onderwijsonderzoek weten over het cruciale belang van expliciete strategie-instructie. #2 Anders van aard De tweede overtuiging is dat kennis van leerstrategieën anders van aard is dan kennis van de leerstof. Voor leraren met deze overtuiging is kennis van leren leren eenduidig en niet problematisch, waardoor ze het onnodig vinden om er relatief veel aandacht aan te besteden. Terwijl we weten dat leren leren best een complexe aangelegenheid is. Zo identificeerden Pressley en Afflerbach maar liefst meer dan 150 verschillende leerstrategieën die mensen gebruiken tijdens het lezen. Als we verwachten dat leerlingen gedegen kennis hebben van vakken als geschiedenis of natuurkunde, waarom dan niet kennis van hoe ze moeten leren? #3 Komt niet vaak van pas Kennis over leren leren wordt toch niet zo vaak gebruikt dus hoef je er ook niet veel aandacht aan te besteden tijdens de les, is de derde overtuiging volgens Lawson cum suis. De gedachte is dat je als leraar je daarom maar beter kan richten op het onderwijzen van de leerstof. Maar als je leerlingen eens vraagt om hardop na te denken terwijl ze bijvoorbeeld de hoek van een driehoek proberen te berekenen, dan zal je horen dat ze voortdurend verschillende soorten strategieën inzetten; met de antwoorden krijg je bovendien meer inzicht in welke strategieën je leerlingen gebruiken. Zo leer je hoe je leerlingen leren. #4 Gewoon ervaren in de praktijk De vierde overtuiging is dat de kennis die leerlingen nodig hebben om leren leren aan te leren, vooral praktisch moet zijn en niet theoretisch. De gedachte is dat leerlingen leren leren aanleren door gewoon aan de slag te gaan, door te ervaren in de praktijk. Deze gedachte komt voort uit wat leraren in het verleden hebben ervaren, toen ze zelf op school zaten. #5 Onzeker over de materie De vijfde overtuiging is een belangrijke, namelijk dat leraren niet zeker weten of ze kunnen lesgeven over leren leren. Twee zaken zijn hier van belang: het oordeel van leraren over hun eigen kennis van leren leren en het vertrouwen dat ze nodig hebben om de instructie te kunnen geven. Dat laatste gaat over de self-efficacy van leraren. Self-efficacy van leraren gaat over de mate waarin zij zichzelf in staat achten om complexe taken uit te voeren, zoals het geven van strategie-instructie. Self-efficacy is een sterke motivator voor het instructiegedrag van leraren. #6 Is aan de leerlingen zelf Leren leren moet aan leerlingen worden overgelaten, is de zesde overtuiging. Leraren gaan ervan uit dat de verantwoordelijkheid en het initiatief voor leren leren bij de leerling liggen, terwijl kennis van de verschillende strategieën de leerling juist in staat stelt om verantwoordelijkheid en initiatief te nemen. Het middel wordt hier verward met het doel van leren leren. #7 Lage verwachtingen De zevende overtuiging is dat leren leren slechts is weggelegd voor enkele leerlingen, meestal de goed presterende leerlingen. De leraar kan de leerlingen die moeilijk meekomen in de klas, maar beter niet lastigvallen met instructie in leren leren, is de overtuiging. Er zijn bizar veel studies beschikbaar die laten zien dat expliciete instructie juist ook voor deze groep leerlingen de voorkeur geniet. Daarnaast laat onderzoek van Jeltsen Peeters cum suis onder 127 basisschoolleerkrachten in Vlaanderen zien dat de leraar met deze overtuiging laag presterende leerlingen zelfs opzadelt met een dubbel nadeel. Niet alleen hebben deze leerlingen al te maken met de nodige uitdagingen door de beperkte mate waarin ze in staat zijn om te leren, bovendien krijgen ze vanuit deze overtuiging minder mogelijkheden om leerstrategieën aan te leren. Extra inzet is dus geboden op het terrein van strategie-instructie. #8 Leren leren is niet aan te leren De achtste overtuiging is dat leren leren waarschijnlijk niet is aan te leren. Sommige leraren en onderzoekers denken dat leren leren niet te onderwijzen valt en dus geen onderdeel kan en hoeft te zijn van een expliciete instructie. John Sweller en Fred Paas verwoorden dit heel helder: “Self-regulated learning is likely to be a biologically primary skill and so unteachable.” Deze onderzoekers baseren zich op het werk van de Amerikaanse hoogleraar David Geary. In het artikel ‘An evolutionarily informed education science’ bekijkt Geary het leren van kinderen door een evolutionaire bril. Sommige dingen leren zij vanzelf. Ze leren bijvoorbeeld lopen met vallen en opstaan, ze leren luisteren en spreken in een moedertaal en ze leren hoe ze met anderen omgaan. Volgens Geary zijn dit vormen van leren die evolutionair zijn ingebakken, omdat deze noodzakelijk zijn gebleken om te overleven. Deze automatische processen noemt Geary ‘primair leren’. Daarnaast bestaat er ‘secundair leren’. Daarbij gaat het om het verwerven van kennis (en vaardigheden) die evolutionair gezien veel jonger is en die van generatie op generatie wordt overgedragen. Denk aan leren lezen en schrijven. Secundaire kennis is van belang om goed te functioneren in de huidige maatschappij. Jammer genoeg gaat secundair leren niet vanzelf, maar kost dat moeite, en volgens Geary is daar expliciete instructie door de leraar bij nodig. Of zoals Kirschner, Claessens en Raaijmakers (2018, p. 21) het stellen: “Het verwerven van kennis op school gaat dus niet vanzelf.” En dat geldt ook voor het aanleren van leren leren; dat hebben de vele meta-analyses en interventiestudies ons inmiddels wel geleerd.

“Hij kwam tot de conclusie dat leerlingen drie keer op een andere manier met de leerstof in aanraking moesten komen om de materie te begrijpen”

one of the things I value about writing, is the act of writing itself. It is an embodied process that connects me to my own humanity, by putting me in touch with my mind, the same way a vigorous hike through the woods can put me in touch with my body.

The state of current technology greatly impacts our ability to manipulate information, which in turn exerts influence on our ability to develop new ideas and technologies. Tools designed to enable networked thinking are a step in the direction of Douglas Engelbart’s vision of augmenting the human intellect, resulting in “more-rapid comprehension, better comprehension, the possibility of gaining a useful degree of comprehension in a situation that previously was too complex, speedier solutions, better solutions, and the possibility of finding solutions to problems that before seemed insolvable.”

Beyond cognitive biases and preconceived opinions, common sense is based on linear thinking. “I experience A, therefore I can directly explain it by B.”

Common sense is actually a pretty bad indicator of truth. Because of cognitive biases and preconceived opinions, ideas that sound right are often wrong. “Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind prior to the age of eighteen,” Einstein presumably said.

Networked thinking is an explorative approach to problem-solving, whose aim is to consider the complex interactions between nodes and connections in a given problem space. Instead of considering a particular problem in isolation to discover a pre-existing solution, networked thinking encourages non-linear, second-order reflection in order to let a new idea emerge.

Smart Notes (Sönke Ahrens’ delineation of Luhmann’s method

We figured that judgments must be built on comparisons: to say that something is bad is really to say that it’s worse than something else. The thing you compare it to is just whatever pops into your head, even if it doesn’t exist, or can’t exist. Basically, if you can easily imagine something being better, then it must not be very good.

useful in that it will catch readers up with the current state of the literature in extended cognition, looking at discussions of extended perception, belief and memory

And there’s beginning to be more and more of an understanding on the scientific side and more and more interest on the side of people who are interested in developing tools for thought for understanding. How does the workflow of thinking happen when you have these tools that magnify your capabilities? There really hasn’t been a fraction of the amount of research on that as there has been on the development of the tangible tools themselves.

Iwill show that cognition can be understood as a fundamental concept that extendsevolution and can be applied to general systems, both natural and artificial, at di-verse domains and scales

Human beings are different from what they seem to be thinking, perceiving, or saying asmediated by social symbolic systems [29 ]. They are different from how they are represented intheir own narratives, they are different from language itself. Interestingly, learning to consciouslybecome aware to that difference—the bare human spirit, the preindividual, or being as becoming asSimondon [30 ] puts it—appears to be the state of mind towards which many spiritual traditionsare guiding. David R. Weinbaum (Weaver) refers to this state as thought sans image [ 13], offering itscontemporary conceptualisation via the metaphysical theories of Henri Bergson, Gilbert Simondon andGilles Deleuze, in combination with the enactive theory of cognition [14 ] and inputs from complexityscience

If this notion of human existence as a unity of participation in both perishing and non-perishing reality sounds odd to modern ears, it is mainly because philosophical and scientific–and consequently popular–thought during the last few centuries has been busy constructing a very different image of the human person. The image of participation has been changed and simplified into an image of two entities: a body, and a mind inside the body that has intelligence and ideas. This is the image that eventually came out of Descartes and Hobbes and other early modem thinkers, and wound up as a portrayal of human beings as mental entities encased in physical entities: a mind-thing imprisoned in a body–thing. Now a mind-thing imprisoned in a body-thing cannot experience participation in the ground of reality. Why not? Because it is imprisoned, isolated in the head. It can only have ideas about it and “project” them out onto reality. What becomes, then of the non-perishing dimension of meaning? Accepting the modem image, we could have faith that we have a relation to non-perishing reality only through first conceiving of a non-perishing reality–let us call it “God”–in the isolation of our bodily-encased minds, and then projecting that conception onto a “beyond” of things, and finally engaging in the desperate procedure of believing that it is real and that we have a connection with it in spite of not knowing anything of the kind. In other words, as long as self-understanding is dominated by this modem image, human consciousness cannot make sense of its own experience of immediate participation in a non-perishing ground of reality. And therefore, it cannot really make sense of its moral striving–since what is the point of the struggle for goodness if goodness is nothing more than temporary private opinion? Thus the modem image of human nature short-circuits the Socratic and Kierkegaardian understanding of existence, and leaves us with the familiar contemporary mess of radical moral relativism. This modern image of human existence is tenacious, though–partly because it is so closely connected to the modem view of what real knowing is, a view that enjoys an almost unassailable status. It might be summarized with extreme brevity as follows. If the mind is a thing encased in the physical body that only knows reality through the mediation, through the channeling, of the physical senses, any valid knowing has to validate itself through the presence of the relevant sense data. And this means that all true knowing is the type of knowing involved in the natural sciences, where empirical verification must take place through quantifiable data. Data that cannot be mathematically measured, such as the data consciousness discovers in its own activity and awareness–for example moral insight–can never be a matter of knowing, merely of opinion. How could the Socratic experience of discovering that the moral autonomy of the soul involves a non-perishing dimension of meaning ever be verified, if the data of sense, quantifiable data, are the only relevant data for affirming truth? The life of Socrates–an exemplary model for over two millennia of the moral liberation of the soul through the catharsis of practicing death–is, in this view, a life based on nothing more substantial than a private irrational belief. So to sum up: what has happened is that the enthronement by modem philosophy and science of an image of human nature as a thingly mind entrapped in a thingly body, has made all symbolizations of a non-perishing dimension of reality non-credible to many people–particularly to the intelligentsia, who emphasize their modem credentials by presenting themselves as the cultured despisers of religion. And, of course, one of the reasons why this modem image is so popular and so resistant to critique is what it appears to promise. If we go back to the founding texts of modernity, to the writings of Descartes, of Bacon, of Hobbes, we find a great optimism. If there is no participation in a mysterious origin of non-perishing meaning, there is no mystery essential to human existence. If there is no such participation, then all knowledge originates only in human consciousness itself. And if there is no primal mystery, and if all meaning is of human creation, we can hope one day to bring nature, human society, and history fully under human control. In his last book, Escape from Evil, Becker wrote: “Hubris means forgetting where the real source of power lies and imagining that it is in oneself (37).” I would suggest that imagining that notions of a non-perishing dimension of meaning are the pure creations of an isolated human consciousness, entails a forgetting of where the real source of consciousness lies: in the experienced mysterious ground of consciousness, which grants us the quite rational opportunity of a free and loving commitment to an enduring dimension of meaning. Of course, in some sense, human awareness of the non-perishing mystery in which it participates remains alive and well, because people keep striving to be moral, and they keep asking questions about that experience. Human questioning will always keep uncovering the eternal dimension of meaning, keep introducing people to the Socratic catharsis, and keep leading people to what Becker called a life of courageous self-realization. But they can be helped to do so by promoting insights like those of Becker on the choice between denying death or facing up to mortality. Like Becker in his chapter on Kierkegaard in The Denial Of Death, what I’ve tried to show is that the problem does not lie in the notion of human participation in imperishable reality. Rather, where the problem lies is in the self-comforting delusion that one possesses eternal meaning, and especially in the measures people take to defend their feeling of righteous invulnerability, especially through aggression. Authentic faith, by contrast, affirms enduring meaning in the context of an open if anxious acceptance of mortality. And so one must conclude that there are two opposites to authentic faith. One is the dogmatic clinging to an immortality project; and the other is the equally dogmatic insistence that enduring meaning is an illusion. Both of these are denials of our real human situation, making up two sides of the same counterfeit coin.

he distinguishes three dimensions of dependent origination and this is in his commentary on the guardian of malama jamaica carica called clear words he talks about causal dependence that is every phenomenon depends upon causes and 00:16:19 conditions and gives rise to further causes and conditions um myriological dependence that is every phenomenon every composite phenomenon depends upon the parts that uh that it 00:16:31 comprises and every phenomenon is also dependent upon the holes or the systems in which it figures parts depend on holes holes depend on parts and that reciprocal meteorological dependence 00:16:44 characterizes all of reality and third often overlooked but most important is dependence on conceptual imputation that is things depend in order to be represented as the kinds of 00:16:57 things they are on our conceptual resources our affective resources and as john dunn emphasized our purposes in life this third one really means this um 00:17:09 everything that shows up for us in the world the way we carve the world up the way we um the way we experience the world is dependent not just on how the world is but on the conceptual resources 00:17:22 as well as the perceptual resources through which we understand the world and it's worth recognizing that um when we think about this there are a bunch of um contemporary majamakers majamikas we 00:17:34 might point to as well and so paul fireauben who's up there on on the left well really an austrian but he spent much of his life in america um willard van norman kwine um up on the right wilford sellers and paul churchland

ind outside Brain:a radically non-dualist foundation for distributed cognition

We approach the problem of the extended mind from a radically non-dualistperspective. The separation between mind and matter is an artefact of the outdatedmechanistic worldview, which leaves no room for mental phenomena such as agency,intentionality, or feeling. We propose to replace it by an action ontology, which conceivesmind and matter as aspects of the same network of processes. By adopting the intentionalstance, we interpret the catalysts of elementary reactions as agents exhibiting desires,intentions, and sensations. Autopoietic networks of reactions constitute more complex super-agents, which moreover exhibit memory, deliberation and sense-making. In the specific caseof social networks, individual agents coordinate their actions via the propagation ofchallenges. The distributed cognition that emerges from this interaction cannot be situated inany individual brain. This non-dualist, holistic view extends and operationalizes processmetaphysics and Eastern philosophies. It is supported by both mindfulness experiences andmathematical models of action, self-organization, and cognition.

so that's me trying to do a synoptic integration of all of the four e-cognitive science and trying to get it 00:00:12 into a form that i think would help make make sense to people of the of cognition and also in a form that's helpful to get them to see what's what we're talking about when i'm talking about the meaning 00:00:25 that's at stake in the meaning crisis because it's not sort of just semantic meaning

in you know the main theme of this first paper is i've tried to lay out a world view that is cognizant of that reflects some of the latest developments 01:03:14 in in science and in a variety of fields and sciences in those fields would be like complex system science cognitive science evolutionary biology 01:03:28 uh in a you know a few fields like that information theory and a few things like that i i've tried to to outline a a a world view that makes sense 01:03:42 from that leading edge of science and i would say too that that science has gone through really kind of a revolution you know there was like it's kind of like there's the pre-1950s 60s science and then there's 01:03:56 what we have today and there's enormous jumps enormous leaps in understanding that have happened just in the last say 50 years or so and and and some of those leaps the 01:04:09 ramifications are only now being you know the they're now being felt right the the the the some of the concepts are a a distinct shift 01:04:20 from where we were in the you know the pre-1960s or pre-1970s or so and um obviously we there's also you know we we see the changes in our 01:04:34 lifetime you know like we i was watching an old show on tv the other day and somebody put money in a pay phone you know like they put a quarter and a pay phone to make telephone call and it's like okay well that's that's that's that's history you know so 01:04:48 there's all these technologies that have that are that are that i grew up with that are not they don't even exist anymore they've been replaced by entirely new frameworks and that's the speed of those of the speed of that 01:05:00 evolution is is exponential so it's tremendous changes happening very quickly and the task of the program oh yeah which one put on that would be 01:05:12 um potentially because you're taking such a broad perspective with complex system science and evolutionary bio you might say that society has always been a cognitive architecture but if you had asked in 01:05:25 1500 is society a cognitive architecture be like well no i mean you have agriculture you have this you have this you have that whereas now if you tell people hey telecoms are they run through everything and the internet of 01:05:38 things the internet people you know like all this sort of stuff you tell people actually it's a multi-scale cognitive architecture humans are in the loop and our algorithms are never independent from us they're in feedback with us it's like 01:05:50 yeah that was what the mainstream was telling me so actually it's a total alignment point because it reflects how rapidly things are changing that it's just undeniably obvious that the 01:06:02 communication infrastructure is the system that we're engineering right right absolutely yeah yeah communications have mind-blowing changes and communications and and that brings mind-blowing changes and 01:06:14 outlook but but i want to emphasize a few points to this worldview that that you know it's not it's not just that everything is connected like you know you go like i know what a complex system is it just means everything is connected and we're 01:06:27 all kind of whole and blah blah okay fine but but even for people who are in that ilk you know who understand the the basic concept there there's ideas 01:06:40 that are that have come out in the last decade or so that that are there that are even pushing that boundary you know right and and i just want to highlight a few concepts here and i think active inference really is 01:06:52 playing a you know is is like a in a sense a culmination of some of some of these ideas or an embodiment of some of these ideas the main thing i want to say is that life is intelligent 01:07:06 and whole so it's not just that everything's connected it's that everything is intelligent everything is a lot you know life is an intelligent information processing 01:07:20 thing everything is is is adapting learning deciding whether we're talking about everything is cognitive 01:07:33 you know and cognition really implies information and information processing so whether we're talking about a slime mold or a human you know there's there's in in everything in plants in 01:07:46 bacteria in mold and anything that has any life at all that can be considered alive is intelligent and is learning and reacting not just reacting but learning 01:07:58 reacting and also deciding and acting and remembering and all those things and you might ask well you know that's impossible bacteria doesn't have a brain you know it can't be it can't be cognitive but it is 01:08:14 cognitive but we just have to relax what we how we define cognition you know and when on the slide i have a little thing there that every organism 01:08:25 is cognitive in the sense that it displays capacities typically associated with human cognition such as sensing learning problem solving memory storage and recall

“The mind is dulled, not fed, by inordinate reading, it is made gradually incapable of reflection and concentration, and therefore of production…. Never read when you can reflect; read only, except in moments of recreation, what concerns the purpose you are pursuing; and read little, so as not to eat up your interior silence.”

Reading encourages us to put outside reality on hold, to construct a parallel world in our minds, and retreat into it.

animal intelligence or simply in learning more about dogs as our companions--or both

You may find this book in the “self-improvement” category, but in adeeper sense it is the opposite of self-improvement. It is aboutoptimizing a system outside yourself, a system not subject to you

Jean Clarke, a professor of entrepreneurship and organization at EmlyonBusiness School in France, has spent years watching entrepreneurs like GabrielHercule make their case at demo days, incubators, and investment forums acrossEurope. In a study published in 2019, she and her colleagues reported thatcompany founders who deployed “the skilled use of gesture” in their pitcheswere 12 percent more likely to attract funding for their new ventures.

gesture isimpressionistic and holistic, conveying an immediate sense of how things lookand feel and move.

Researchers who study embodiedcognition are drawing new attention to the fact that people formulate and conveytheir thoughts not only with words but also with the motions of the hands and therest of the body. Gestures don’t merely echo or amplify spoken language; theycarry out cognitive and communicative functions that language can’t touch.

Trouble understanding, but your hearing checks out fine. What’s at play?

How We Process Information

The term autopoiesis (from Greek αὐτo- (auto-) 'self', and ποίησις (poiesis) 'creation, production') refers to a system capable of producing and maintaining itself by creating its own parts.[1] The term was introduced in the 1972 publication Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela to define the self-maintaining chemistry of living cells.[2] Since then the concept has been also applied to the fields of cognition, systems theory, architecture and sociology.

Before the use of computers, scientific knowledge was mainly recorded on paper, using three forms of notation: written language, images, and tables. Written text combines plain language, domain-specific vocabulary, and shorthand notation such as mathematical formulas. Images include both drawings and observations captured in photographs, radiographs, etc. Tables represent datasets, which are most often numerical.

Those who are attuned to such cues can use them to make more-informed decisions. A study led by a team of economists and neuroscientists in Britain, for instance, reported that financial traders who were better at detecting their heartbeats — a standard test of what is known as interoception, or the ability to perceive internal signals — made more profitable investments and lasted longer in that notoriously volatile profession.

The burgeoning field of embodied cognition has demonstrated that the body — its sensations, gestures and movements — plays an integral role in the thought processes that we usually locate above the neck.

t hadn’t learned sort of the concept of a paddle or the concept of a ball. It only learned about patterns of pixels.

the original goal at least, was to have a machine that could be like a human, in that the machine could do many tasks and could learn something in one domain, like if I learned how to play checkers maybe that would help me learn better how to play chess or other similar games, or even that I could use things that I’d learned in chess in other areas of life, that we sort of have this ability to generalize the things that we know or the things that we’ve learned and apply it to many different kinds of situations. But this is something that’s eluded AI systems for its entire history.