It is this that is called virtue; this is what we mean by "honourable";[7] it is man's unique good.

Therefore in the case of man also, it is not pertinent to the question to know how many acres he ploughs, how much money he has out at interest, how many callers attend his receptions, how costly is the couch on which he lies, how transparent are the cups from which he drinks, but how good he is. He is good, however, if his reason is well-ordered and right and adapted to that which his nature has willed.

Each thing is praised in regard to that attribute which is taken as its standard, in regard to that which is its peculiar quality.

I do not say that man is surpassed in all these qualities. I am not seeking to find that which is greatest in him, but that which is peculiarly his own.

In each thing that quality should be best for which the thing is brought into being and by which it is judged.

MMR vaccination rates of autistic children were similar to those of the entire study population.

Although a trend toward increasing autism diagnoses by year of birth was confirmed, no change in the rates of autism diagnoses after the 1987 introduction of MMR vaccine was observed

the relatively recent introduction of MMR vaccine in some countries, which allowed for before and after comparisons.

multinational use of similar vaccine constituents and schedules

ortunately, several features of large-scale vaccination programs allowed for excellent descriptive and observational studies—specifically, large numbers of subjects, which generated substantial statistical power

putative encephalopathic peptides traveling from the intestine to the brain have never been identified.

measles, mumps, or rubella vaccine viruses have not been found to cause chronic intestinal inflammation or loss of intestinal barrier function. Indeed, a recent study by Hornig et al. [3] found that the measles vaccine virus genome was not detected more commonly in children with or without autism

gastrointestinal symptoms did not predate autism in several children, which is inconsistent with the notion that intestinal inflammation facilitated bloodstream invasion of encephalopathic peptides.

endoscopic or neuropsychological assessments were not blind, and data were not collected systematically or completely

Because ∼50,000 British children per month received MMR vaccine between ages 1 and 2 years—at a time when autism typically presents—coincidental associations were inevitable.

First, the self-referred cohort did not include control subjects,

@jarrodcarter1466 1 year ago I agree with everything you said Chris: Additionally, the recipe to build baritone range for me has been: 1) stretch and strengthen your falsetto as high as you can every day 2) stretch your falsetto down to well under the passagio with descending scales over your chest voice to help your transition to mixed voice become smooth and eliminate ascending blockages 3) do the Messa di Voce exercise as often as you can. It teaches you placement and to thread the power of your chest voice through your falsetto 4) understand that your voice should get weaker over the course of a session as the muscles fatigue. It should never get sore 5) sing lots of high songs exclusively in falsetto to strengthen the often neglected head voice muscles 6) avoid singing songs that reinforce bad technique. You should never reach a high note that you can't strain up from. Your voice should get thinner and weaker as it ascends and not hit blockages. Songs that give you a strained high-note ceiling should be avoided.

Your Evening Routine Is Broken Your day’s fate is sealed long before the alarm sounds. To ensure a productive, positive tomorrow, get started tonight by following these 10 nighttime schedule rules. By Kathleen Nadeau, Ph.D. Verified Updated on January 25, 2021

Mind Like a Sky

Mindfulness Prescription for Adult ADHD - Exercises

opinionMost of us have an inner voice, but if you're part of the minority who doesn't, this could be whyBy Bradley N JackPosted Thu 6 Feb 2020 at 12:00pm

Difference Between Journal and Ledger Last updated on July 26, 2018 by Surbhi S

What does the science say?In scientific studies, it seems people experience more of a mix than the self-selected responders to a viral post that implied it was either/or.A small study in 2011 tried to get a better picture of how people think. They gave beepers to a random sample of students. When the beeper went off, they had to note down what was going on inside their heads moments before it went off. This went on for several weeks, to get them used to it and then to get an accurate picture of what was happening inside their minds."Subjects experienced themselves as inwardly talking to themselves in 26 percent of all samples," the team wrote in Psychology Today. "But there were large individual differences: some subjects never experienced inner speech; other subjects experienced inner speech in as many as 75 percent of their samples. The median percentage across subjects was 20 percent.Advertisement"Some people talk to themselves a lot, some never, some occasionally."

Popper was aware that he would be accused of hypostatising abstractions in asserting the reality and objectivity of world 3 objects. In response, he indicates strongly that he has no interest in what he regards as pointless terminological disputes over the meaning of the term “world” or “real”. He is therefore content, if required, to express his account of objective knowledge in more familiar and perhaps more mundane terms: world 3 objects are abstract objects while their physical embodiments are concrete objects. But that should not be allowed to disguise the fact that he saw the relationships between the three categories of his ontology as of enormous importance in understanding the role of science as an element of culture: my thesis is that our world 3 theories and our world 3 plans causally influence the physical objects of world 1; that they have a causal action upon world 1. (1980: 164) In the final analysis it is the causal interaction between the worlds that ultimately matters in Popper’s objectivist epistemology: it allows him to represent the growth of human knowledge as an evolutionary process of exosomatic adaptations, which is ultimately a function of the interplay of relations between the physical and mental worlds and the world of objective knowledge or thought content.

hypostatising abstractions

memory engrams in the brain

Since I think this is such an important issue for science, I have been working to create a system to do this which launched in the summer of 2022, called Octopus.ac with the backing of Research England. In a way, it’s pulling together the attempts to avoid publication bias and incentives for questionable research practices of initiatives such as the Journal for Negative Results, Registered Reports, or F1000, the faster sharing offered by preprint servers, and the breaking up of narrative formats championed by similar platforms such as ResearchEquals. A holistic approach, though, I think is important. Researchers need to know where the version of record is and how their work will be judged in order to know where to write for and how to write.

In the case of ResearchEquals the author must pay if they want to have their work published using a more restrictive Creative Commons license. Octopus also employs Creative Commons licenses, but requires one which allows derivative works. The publication types in Octopus are based on the eight stages of scientific research: Research Problem Rationale/Hypothesis Method Results Analysis Interpretation Real World Application Peer Review For ResearchEquals there are many more publication types and they are called modules. Thus, enabling the publication of text, data, code and media. With both platforms, each publication is assigned its own DOI. __ATA.cmd.push(function() { __ATA.initDynamicSlot({ id: 'atatags-26942-64c40660082d9', location: 120, formFactor: '001', label: { text: 'Advertisements', }, creative: { reportAd: { text: 'Report this ad', }, privacySettings: { text: 'Privacy', } } }); });

A similar strategy: branches are useful when collaborating with co-authors who don't/won't use HG/GIT/etc.. In that case, it is useful to branch of a copy of the paper as it existed at the time when you sent the draft to co-author X; then when you later get comments/diffs/changes, you can apply them and then merge. – D.W. Nov 20, 2012 at 5:53

See also: Got 15 minutes and want to learn Git? git + LaTeX workflow at StackOverflow Writing the PhD thesis: the tools Part I Collaborating with LaTeX and git at ShareLaTeX blog - a great and comprehensive tutorial What are the advantages of using version control (git, CVS etc) in LaTeX documents - TeX.SE https://tex.stackexchange.com/search?q=version+control

People absolutely try. I can't name the journals that try these off the top of my head, but as you can see from that Wikipedia section, there are journals that: Do double-blind peer review (authors don't know who the reviewers are, and vice versa) Do triple-blind peer review (authors & editors & reviewers don't know who each other are) Do open peer review (everyone knows who everyone else is) Do open peer reports (reviews are published together with the paper) Do open participation (reviewers self-select to review the paper) Do post-publication peer review (every paper is published, reviews are done after publication) Do results-blind peer review (reviewers receive a manuscript where the results & conclusions are omitted) Do two-stage results-blind peer review (review done in two stages; in the first stage reviewers don't know the results/conclusions, in the second stage they do) Do novelty-blind peer review (reviewers are specifically instructed not to comment on whether the paper is novel, only if it is correct) The fact that the traditional model has endured is a sign of how robust it is. Everyone knows it is flawed, but nobody has been able to come up with a better model. ShareShare a link to this answer (Includes your user id)Copy linkCC BY-SA 4.0 Edit Follow Follow this answer to receive notifications answered Jan 5 at 7:58 Allure

How to protect scientific open research from being patented?

How is ResearchEquals different from Octopus? Isn't it the same? We get that question a lot! Octopus is indeed similar. The main differences are: ResearchEquals allows you to link any steps together, Octopus has a specific order of events ResearchEquals allows for a wide variety of steps (focus on provenance), Octopus has 8 specific ones (focused on empirical cycles mostly) It's a flavor difference mostly. Like onion rings and calamari.

weakly informative approach to Bayesian analysis

Finding the engramSheena A. Josselyn1–4, Stefan Köhler5,6 and Paul W. Frankland1–4Abstract | Many attempts have been made to localize the physical trace of a memory, orengram, in the brain. However, until recently, engrams have remained largely elusive. In thisReview, we develop four defining criteria that enable us to critically assess the recentprogress that has been made towards finding the engram. Recent ‘capture’ studies use novelapproaches to tag populations of neurons that are active during memory encoding, therebyallowing these engram-associated neurons to be manipulated at later times. We proposethat findings from these capture studies represent considerable progress in allowing us toobserve, erase and express the engram

Science is not described by thefalsification standard, as Popper recognized and argued.4 In fact, deductive falsification isimpossible in nearly every scientific context. In this section, I review two reasons for thisimpossibility.(1) Hypotheses are not models. The relations among hypotheses and different kinds ofmodels are complex. Many models correspond to the same hypothesis, and manyhypotheses correspond to a single model. This makes strict falsification impossible.(2) Measurement matters. Even when we think the data falsify a model, another ob-server will debate our methods and measures. They don’t trust the data. Sometimesthey are right.For both of these reasons, deductive falsification never works. The scientific method cannotbe reduced to a statistical procedure, and so our statistical methods should not pretend.

Statistical RethinkingA Bayesian Coursewith Examplesin R and StanRichard McElreath

Statisticians, for theirpart, can derive pleasure from scolding scientists, which just makes the psychological battleworse.

So where do priors come from? They are engineering assumptions, chosen to help themachine learn. The flat prior in Figure 2.5 is very common, but it is hardly ever the best prior.You’ll see later in the book that priors that gently nudge the machine usually improve infer-ence. Such priors are sometimes called regularizing or weakly informative priors.They are so useful that non-Bayesian statistical procedures have adopted a mathematicallyequivalent approach, penalized likelihood. These priors are conservative, in that theytend to guard against inferring strong associations between variables.

The other imagines instead that population size fluctuates through time, which can be trueeven when there is no selective difference among alleles.

one assumes the population size andstructure have been constant long enough for the distribution of alleles to reach a steady state

Andrew Gelman’s

Popper 1983, Introduction 1982: "We must distinguish two meanings of the expressions falsifiable and falsifiability:"1) Falsifiable as a logical-technical term, in the sense of the demarcation criterion of falsifiability. This purely logical concept — falsifiable in principle, one might say — rests on a logical relation between the theory in question and the class of basic statements (or the potential falsifiers described by them)."2) Falsifiable in the sense that the theory in question can definitively or conclusively or demonstrably be falsified ("demonstrably falsifiable")."I have always stressed that even a theory which is obviously falsifiable in the first sense is never falsifiable in this second sense. (For this reason I have used the expression falsifiable as a rule only in the first, technical sense. In the second sense, I have as a rule spoken not of falsifiability but rather of falsification and of its problems)."

Credibility Without Institutions - Mike Elias - Idea Market

"No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

The reason the world seems to surround the observer instead of havinga window-like boundary is primarily that the ambient optic array sur-rounds the individual and has no boundary. Note again that, since theretina moves relative to the image projected from the array, it is theretina that has a boundary, not the image. The eye successively samplesthe available array, and its retina successively samples a correspondingpotential image. This latter concept is a very strange one inded, and itwill be considered later.

The leaves of a tree face in all directions so as to pick up the energyin ambient light and use it for photosynthesis. But the tree cannot pickup the information in ambient light and use it for behavior. The animalcan. His receptors use energy, of course, for photochemical reactions andnervous excitation, but his eyes use differences of energy in differentdirections. The information lies in the structure of ambient light, that is,in its having an arrangement or being an array. The structure maychange in regular ways, as we have noted, but it has to be present forthe information to exist, and even for the change to occur

Only one eye is shown in the illustration. The two simultaneous over-lapping arrays admitted to the two eyes are quite another factor in theperceptual situation. Since they converge to station-points that are sepa-rated by about two and a half inches, they are not the same array.They are slightly different perspective mappings of the room; therefore,when they are treated as overlapping fields the pattern of one is not con-gruent with the pattern of the other, as noted in the last chapter

Figure 10.7 The flow velocltles in the optic array reflectedfrom the surface of the earth. This is the flow pattern obtainedwith locomotion parallel to the earth in the direction of the pole atthe top of the graph. The vectors are plotted in angular coordinates.This is a view from above, whereas Figure 9.3 was a view from theside.

Figure 10.6 The transformation of the optic array obtained by alocomotor movement (Stage 6). The solid lines represent the opticarray before the observer stands up, the dashed lines after he has moved.The path of locomotion of the head is forward and upward. The wholearray is transformed, including the invisible portion behind the head, butthe latter is not represented in the drawing.

Figure 10.5 The effective array at a stationary convergence point(Stage 5). The solid lines represent the sample of the total optic arraythat is admitted to a human eye in a given posture. The dashed linesrepresent the remainder of the array, which is available for stimulationbut not effective at this moment.

Figure 9.14 The disparity betweeu the optic array admittedto one eye and that admitted to the other. The observer is look-ing down to the horizon. F is the point of fixation. The left eyeis closer to the left-hand side of the road; the right eye to the right-hand side of the road. The array in one eye is skewed relative tothat in the other, and the disparity increases from the horizon downto the locus of the observer's own body, as shown. When the ob-server's eyes converge and fixate on the road 30° downward fromthe horizon, the disparity above this point changes in sign but theskew relations are not altered. Note that these diagrams are cross-sections of the light sampled by each eye, not retinal images. (AfterGibson, 1950.)

The total field of view of a typical fish. Eacheye embraces more than a hemisphere of the ambient array, so thatthere is a double registration of the field in front and nearly pano-ramic vision. (After G. L. Walls, The Vertebrate Eye, CranbrookInstitute of Science, Bulletin No. 19, 1942.)

Let us review the proposals made so far. Stimulus energy, unless ithas structure, conveys no information. The natural structure of stimula-tion from the near environment conveys information directly. The struc-ture of stimulation from representations conveys similar information, but

How can we accept the physical theory of light and believe at thesame time that information about an external object must be conveyedby light? The latter is implied whenever we say that the object stimulatesthe eye. The outline of an answer was suggested in Chapter 1 (pp. 12-13,14-15). We can escape the paradox by distinguishing between radiantlight and ambient light - that is, between light emitted from an energysource and light reflected by the environment as a source. The convey-ing of information about surfaces by light of the latter kind is conceiv-able. To justify such a theory, however, the known laws of physicaloptics need to be supplemented with quite unfamiliar laws of ecologicaloptics

In this chapter it is assumed that information means information about,or specification of. In the next chapter another and quite different mean-ing of the term will be recognized - information as structure. Ambientlight must have structure if it is to carry information about the environ-ment, but not all structure carries this sort of information.

The difference between energy and information has been emphasizedin all of these chapters but the difference has not yet been made explicit.I have suggested that while energy is relevant to receptor-cells, informa-tion is relevant to organs, and that the stimulus for an organ or a per-ceptual system is of higher order than the stimulus for a cell. The heartof the question, however, is to explain how stimulus energy may carryor contain information. It is not how information might be picked upthat needs to be decided first, but simply whether it exists

A clear distinc-tion has been made between things that are sources of stimulation, eitherin the environment or in a laboratory, and the stimuli themselves. Theformer are objects, events, surfaces, places, substances, pictures, and otheranimals. The latter are patterns and transformations of energy at re-ceptors. A stimulus may specify its source, but it is clearly not the samething as its source.

In speaking, painting, sculpting, and writing, the human animal learnedto make sources of stimulation for his fellows, and to stimulate himselfin doing so. These sources, admittedly, are of a special sort, unlike thesources in the "natural" environment. They are "artificial" sources. Theygenerate a new kind of perception in man, which might be called knowl-edge, or perception at second hand. The so-called accumulation of knowl-edge in a society of men, however, depends wholly on communication,

Again, the information can be given by chemical, optical, or acousticstimulation. A whiff of odor can mean precisely the lamb to the ewe.A gaping movement can denote the nestling to the mother bird, and aflash of color can denote the mother to the nestling (thereby producingthe gaping response). Sounds do the same; the cries of both young andold carry simple but definite information.

The environment consists of opportunities for perception, of availableinformation, of potential stimuli. Not all opportunities are grasped,not all information is registered, not all stimuli excite receptors. Butwhat the environment affords an individual in the way of discriminationis enormous, and this should be our first consideration. The animateenvironment affords even more than the physical environment does sinceanimals have more characteristics than things and are more changeable.

The atmosphere, then, is a medium. A medium permits more or lessunhindered movements of animals and displacements of objects. Funda-mentally, I suggest, this is what is meant by "space." But a medium hasother equally important properties. It also permits the flou; of informa-tion. It permits the flux of light, it transmits vibration, and it mediatesthe diffusion of volatile substances. Only by illumination do animals"see" things, only by vibration do they "hear" things, and only by diffu-sion do they "smell" things. I shall argue that in these three ways variousproperties of a thing are broadcast, as it were, when it is illuminated, orvibrating, or chemically volatile.

These five perceptual systems overlap one another; they are not mutuallyexclusive. They often focus on the same information - that is, the sameinformation can be picked up by a combination of perceptual systemsworking together as well as by one perceptual system working alone.

Besides the changes in stimuli from place to place and from time totime, it can also be shown that certain higher-order variables of stimulusenergy - ratios and proportions, for example - do not change. Theyremain invariant with movements of the observer and with changes inthe intensity of stimulation. The description of such stimulus invariantsis a main concern of the chapters to follow. And it will be shown thatthese invariants of the energy flux at the receptors of an organism corre-spond to the permanent properties of the environment. They constitute,therefore, information about the permanent environment.

The reader should make allowance for the double meaning of the verbto sense. The detecting of stimulus information without any awarenessof what sense organ has been excited, or of the quality of "the receptor,can be described as "sensationless perception." But this does not meanthat perception can occur without stimulation of receptors; it only meansthat organs of perception are sometimes stimulated in such a way thatthey are not specified in consciousness. Perception cannot be "extra-sensory," if that means without any input; it can only be so if that meanswithout awareness of the visual, auditory, or other quality of the input.·An example of this is the "obstacle sense" of the blind, which is felt as"facial vision" but is actually auditory echo detection. The blind man"senses" the wall in front of him without realizing what sense has beenstimulated. In short, there can be sensationless perception, but notinformationless perception.

The active observer gets invariant perceptions despite varying sensa-tions. He perceives a constant object by vision despite changing sensa-tions of light; he perceives a constant object by feel despite changingsensations of pressure; he perceives the same source of sound despitechanging sensations of loudness in his ears. The hypothesis is that con-stant perception depends on the ability of the individual to detect theinvariants, and that he ordinarily pays no attention whatever to the fluxof changing sensations.The ways in which animals and men pick up information by looking,listening, sniffing, tasting, and touching are the subject of this book

But the fact is that there are two different meaningsof the verb to sense, first, to detect something, and second, to have a sensa-tion. When the senses are considered as perceptual systems the firstmeaning of the term is being used.

It will here be suggested that the senses can obtain informa-tion about objects in the world without the intervention of an intellectualprocess - or at least that they can do so when they operate as perceptualsystems.

It will be evident in Chap-ter 2 that the so-called sense organs are of at least two different sorts: thepassive receptors that respond each to its appropriate form of energy,and the active perceptual organs, better called systems, that can searchout the information in stimulus energy. The receptors have measurablethresholds below which they are not excited; the organs and systems donot have fixed thresholds except as they depend on receptors.

When we stub-bornly continue to mean by taste a mode of attention that cuts acrossthe classification of receptors we are only recognizing the fact that re-ceptors may be functionally united when anatomically separated. Infact, the word palate, although used in anatomy to mean the back of themouth, is used in gastronomy to mean the whole complex of receptorscontributing to palatability, that is, an organ of perception.

The organs of sensitivity, like other organs of the body, exist in a hier-archy of organization. Lower organs are subordinated to higher. Smallerstructures serve larger structures, and they overlap. The eyeball is "all ofa piece," but it is an unusual sense organ. The ear, the functional auditoryorgan, is not a single piece of tissue, and the organ of touch is dispersedover the whole body. The receptive and the adjustive parts of an organneed not be in the same place. The olfactory organ that we call the nose,that is, the functional nose, has its receptive part deep in the facial bonesbut its motor part in the chest muscles for breathing and sniffing. Thereceptive and the adjustive part can only be understood in relation to oneanother.

• ORGANS. An organ of sensitivity is a structure containing many energyreceptors and many receptive units that can adjust so as to modify theinput from cells and units. An organ must therefore have muscles, andthey must be supplied with efferent fibers from the central nervous system.:rhe afferent and efferent fibers, incoming and outgoing, may be gatheredin a single bundle, a nerve, like the nerve from each eye, or they may bedistributed in many bundles, like the fibers from the skin. The so-calledsensorynerves are anatomical expedients; there is not a specific nerve foreach sense despite a popular idea to the contrary.

Penrose is a framework for specifying how mathematical statements should be interpreted as visual diagrams. A clean separation between abstractmathematical objects and their visual representation provides new capabilities beyond existing code- or GUI-based tools. Here, for instance, the same set ofstatements (left) is given three different visual interpretations (right), via Euclidean, spherical, and hyperbolic geometry. (Further samples are shown in Fig. 29.)

Fig. 2. An optimization-based approachhas myriad benefits. Here a logically in-consistent program fails gracefully, pro-viding visual intuition for why the givenstatements cannot hold.

The resulting system effec-tively models diagram genera-tion as a compilation process,where the compilation targetis a constrained optimizationproblem rather than (say) a bi-nary executable or a static im-age.

In contrast to visuospatial attention, language function is widely accepted to lateralize to the (dominant) left hemisphere (Friederici, 2017). Tissue damage to the left temporo-parietal cortex has been reported, for decades, to cause impairments of semantic processing – key to reading and other elaborate forms of language comprehension (Binder et al., 2009; Hartwigsen et al., 2016; Seghier, 2013).

superior parietal lobule

To disentangle the various measures used in different studies, we distinguish three main measures: network activation, network intra-connectivity, and network interconnectivity.

precuneus

PCC

Here, the primary regions that are focused are the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), precuneus (PCu), and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) for the DMN; dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) for the CEN; and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and insula for the SN.

RS

PCC

In a recent meta-analysis, Fox et al. (2016) narrowed meditation into four general categories: focused attention meditation (FAM), mantra recitation meditation (MRM), open monitoring meditation (OMM), and loving-kindness and compassion meditation (LKM). In addition, Josipovic et al. (2012) illustrated that a unique form of meditation that has a very precise orientation toward experiencing nondual awareness (nondual awareness meditation) shows a distinct neural signature when compared to FAM and OMM, that is why it has been added here as a distinct form of meditation.

Coinciding with CEN activity is the connectivity between the DMN and CEN networks of the brain: effort is needed to suppress DMN hyperactivity and activate the CEN (negative connectivity/anticorrelation), which evolves to a coactivation (positive connectivity) of the two networks. This coactivation is affiliated with experience of explicit nondual awareness.

A visual depiction of the transition from effortful to effortless meditation.

Proficient meditation unravels a deeper social and ecological intero-exteroceptive layer of self where it is intimately connected with the environment in a nondual manner. This hints upon a more basic and fundamental notion of self where it is determined by and through its relationship to the other/environment. Reaching beyond the duality of self-other/environment, this deeper relational layer of self is intrinsically neuro-ecological and neuro-social. That connects this deeper layer of self intimately with both other and world in a positive way, that is, integrated and rather than segregated. Proficient meditation can thus provide us with a deeper level in our experience of the own self, a nondual experience where our self is integrated with the other and part of the wider world, as discussed in previous neurophenomenological models of explicit nondual awareness (Josipovic 2019, 2021). This allows to lay bare a deeper ecological and social nondual layer not only of ourself but, correspondingly, also of our brain featured by its deeper most basic and fundamental nondual spatial topography serving as its default or baseline.

It should be noted that the explicit experience of nondual awareness may be increasingly likely during a more open form of attention like OMM, LKM, or NDA, as opposed to FAM.

FAM

SN

MHM

MHM

CEN

CEN

PCu

ACC

CEN

LKM

NDA

OMM

FAM

vmPFC

RS

The DAN consists of the intraparietal sulcus/superior parietal lobule, frontal eye fields, and extrastriate visual areas. Further discussion of CEN in this paper includes DAN in line with the work of Sridharan et al. (27) and Menon and Uddin (28).

Depending on the researcher, CEN is often referred to as the executive-control network (ECN), or the frontoparietal network (FPN), and is sometimes divided to CEN and the dorsal attention network (DAN) [i.e., Ref. (29)].

It has been demonstrated that areas most commonly activated following top-down cues to attend to particular locations, features, or objects are located along the dorsal parts of the parietal cortex. Such areas include inferior parietal lobule (IPL), dorsomedial regions referred to as superior parietal lobule (SPL), as well as more medial regions along the precuneus gyrus (Yantis et al., 2002; Giesbrecht et al., 2003; Liu et al., 2003; Yantis and Serences, 2003; Figure 1). Several top-down tasks have been shows to successfully engage dorsal regions of the parietal cortex, namely those involving spatial (Kastner et al., 1999; Corbetta et al., 2000; Hopfinger et al., 2000; Shomstein and Behrmann, 2006; Chiu and Yantis, 2009; Greenberg et al., 2010) as well as non-spatial shifts of attention (Giesbrecht et al., 2003; Yantis and Serences, 2003; Shomstein and Yantis, 2004b, 2006; Tamber-Rosenau et al., 2011).

In summary, our review of current models of the visual system, suggest that the human IPL poses a real challenge to existing dichotomies. We argue that different aspects of IPL function are not adequately captured by these schemes. Our appraisal of imaging, electrophysiological and lesion findings regarding the IPL suggest that it plays a crucial role in flexibly reconfiguring behaviour between two states: maintaining attention on current task goals and responding to salient information and new events in the world around us.

Many authors might agree broadly with their contention that the temporal lobe is specialized for perception while the superior parietal lobe (SPL) has a crucial role in the visual guidance of action.

cytoarchitechtonic observations

In addition, methods such as structural equation modeling (Gonçalves and Hall 2003) and Granger causality (Goebel et al. 2003) may shed light on the direction of causality as well as whether the observed correlations are direct or indirect.

motion-sensitive middle temporal area (MT+)

The frontoparietal control system includes many regions identified as supporting cognitive control and decision-making processes including lateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and inferior parietal lobule.

Both the anterior inferior parietal lobule and the superior parietal lobule, which are correlated with the aPFC and MT+, respectively, commonly increase activity concurrently during task performance. For example, Crone and colleagues (2006) reported activity increases in both superior and inferior parietal lobule when participants switched from univalent rules to bivalent rules during a stimulus-response association task. Further, Sapir et al. (2005) demonstrated that while regions within the dorsal attention system were modulated during the processing of behaviorally relevant visual cues, a region in the aIPL of the frontoparietal control system was highly predictive of participants' accuracy and potentially the degree of utilization of the cued information in the control of spatial attention. These data suggest that the parietal region of both dorsal attention and frontoparietal control systems may transfer behaviorally relevant information during tasks requiring attention and discrimination.

MT+

Each region in the brain has a unique spatial distribution of functional connectivity. Some regions have functional connectivity that is highly similar. We have referred to those regions as a “system” or “network.” A system in the presently used sense means a set of widely distributed brain regions that exhibit consistently correlated spontaneous activity fluctuations and characteristically respond in concert during conventional, task-related fMRI experiments.

Superior parietal lobule

In brief, each of the networks comprised peak regions that were isolated in a multivariate spatio-temporal PLS (Krishnan et al., 2011) analysis of three tasks: autobiographical planning, visuospatial planning, and counting. The autobiographical planning task involved primarily internally directed cognition, with participants making personal plans in response to cued goals (e.g. freedom from debt). The visuospatial planning task was the Tower of London, which involves primarily externally directed cognition, as participants determine the minimum number of moves to solve a visual puzzle. The counting task involved the sequential counting of vowels in random letter sequences, a low-demand externally directed task.

The PCu may be more flexibly engaged in executive control and is observed here to act as a cross-network connector. Among default network nodes, the PCu also demonstrated a relatively high degree of betweenness-centrality, further supporting its role as a network connector (Figure 3).

Here we report a patient with a lesion of the superior parietal lobe who shows both sensory and motor deficits consistent with an inability to maintain such an internal representation between updates. Our findings suggest that the superior parietal lobe is critical for sensorimotor integration, by maintaining an internal representation of the body's state. <div class="c-nature-box c-nature-box--side " data-component="entitlement-box"> <div class="js-access-button"> <a href="https://wayf.springernature.com?redirect_uri&#x3D;https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fnn1098_529" class="c-article__button" data-test="ra21" data-track="click" data-track-action="institution access" data-track-label="button"> <svg class="u-icon" width="18" height="18" aria-hidden="true" focusable="false"><use href="#icon-institution"></use></svg> <span class="c-article__button-text">Access through your institution</span> </a> </div> <div class="js-buy-button"> <a href="#access-options" class="c-article__button c-article__button--inverted" data-test="ra21" data-track="click" data-track-action="buy or subscribe" data-track-label="button"> <span>Buy or subscribe</span> </a> </div> </div>

Superior parietal damage was reliably associated with deficits on tests involving the manipulation and rearrangement of information in working memory, but not on working memory tests requiring only rehearsal and retrieval processes, nor on tests of long-term memory. These results indicate that superior parietal cortex is critically important for the manipulation of information in working memory.

Thus, while our findings suggest FPCN nodes show a relative bias in connectivity toward the DN or DAN, it is important to note that we are not arguing for a precise anatomical demarcation of two FPCN subsystems. A second issue is that our range of tasks was not exhaustive, making it possible that different network interactions could be observed in some contexts (e.g., positive coupling between the FPCNA and DAN). One instance may be perceptual metacognition, which is known to rely on parts of the FPCNA, including the rostrolateral prefrontal cortex (70). Additionally, it is possible that the FPCN may not fractionate, but rather, serve as a domain general resource during demanding tasks that require considerable effort (4). However, our findings do suggest that a FPCN fractionation can be observed in many diverse contexts. Finally, our analysis is limited by the reliance on predefined network boundaries and the assumption of discrete brain clusters/networks. Any brain parcellation is a dimensionality reduction on a complex space and should be viewed as a general guiding principle rather than a set of fixed and precise brain network demarcations. Moreover, the network affiliation of a given brain region can shift across time and context (60, 96). That being said, our results provide evidence that spatially distinct parts of the FPCN—as defined using three different parcellations—are differentially coupled with the DN and DAN across a range of contexts.

Here, we use graph theory and meta-analytic functional profiling to demonstrate that the FPCN is composed of two separate subsystems: FPCNA is connected to the default network and is involved in the regulation of introspective processes, whereas FPCNB is connected to the dorsal attention network and is involved in the regulation of perceptual attention. These findings offer a distinct perspective on the systems-level circuitry underlying cognitive control.

Position your mouse pointer at the top-left corner of the text that you want to OCR. Press the OCR hotkey (Windows Key + Q) to begin an OCR capture. Move your mouse to resize the blue capture box over the text that you want to OCR. You may hold down the right mouse button and drag to move the entire capture box. Press the OCR hotkey again (or left-click or press ENTER) to complete the OCR capture. The OCR'd text will be placed in the clipboard and a popup showing the captured text will appear (the popup may be disabled in the settings).

parietal lobule one of two divisions, inferior and superior, of the parietal lobe of the brain.

mass action

the same platform

social imaginary

The question is, will CG4 breach the metaphorical dam in our metaphorical beaver pond?

and there is no cap on the production of “new knowledge.” Whether this knowledge is actually new is in doubt,

energetic signature

Note that this theory of action protocols offers an alternative framework to predictive processing.

Gibson’s perceptual array

In other words, the eye of the fish is not its organ of perception. Rather its organ of perception extends into the sea itself.

It can be argued that language is the primary environment in which the human animal swims.

potential state

we can say that the potential state of the society as a whole “ingresses” into the individual as their subjectivity. This is how the individual is internally related to society. On the other hand, the actions that individual take (including speech acts and other communicative technologies) shape the potential state of the society, constituting the individual’s external relations to it.

ingresses

Before going further, we have to understand another key feature about the theory of action protocols. Action protocols generate both internal and external relations, simultaneously.

we can think of finance capitalism as the action protocol that governs most of the procedures that are associated with the movement of natural resources in and out of various input-throughput systems around the world.

Democracy can be viewed as an action protocol in a similar way.

finance capitalism

individual agents as well as compound agents

compound agent navigates its own intentional space through protocols and passes those down to trigger procedures at the lower (individual member) level

A compound agent is sometimes referred to as a hypersubject in the frame of hyperbojects, or, as Whitehead proposed, a supersubject.

collective agency is an emergent outcome of the self-organized actions of many individuals

individual agency

Zooming in this way, at a certain threshold I find myself reticent to assign individual agency.

This shows that the term “action protocol” can integrate across different epistemological domains.

integrate

different epistemological domains.

This shows that the term “action protocol” is useful at any scale and across categories of reality.

First, an action protocol is part “code” — the protocol piece, and part “procedure” — the action piece. The protocol-code that I write into the software triggers a sequence of procedures in the electronic device. When I knit a wool sweater with a cable design, or use a loom to make a carpet, I am employing both protocols and actions.

Notably, it is also likely that additional levels of complexity and network interactions exist at faster time-scales. While fMRI functional connectivity is not ideally suited to measuring cognitively-relevant interactions at fast time-scales (see (Laumann, et al., 2016; Liegeois, Laumann, Snyder, Zhou, & Yeo, 2017) on issues with measuring faster dynamics in resting-state FC), exciting future work using other techniques such as ERP, EEG, and fast optical imaging may shed light on faster dynamics within these networks. In this domain, we refer the reader to other works in this special issue on “Cognitive Control” ((Gratton, 2018; Gratton, Cooper, Fabiani, Carter, & Karayanidis, 2018), see also (Baniqued, Low, Fletcher, Gratton, & Fabiani, 2017; Barcelo & Cooper, 2017; Boudewyn & Carter, 2017; Coleman, Watson, & Strayer, 2017; Wessel, 2017).

Control Networks and HubsC. Gratton,1 H. Sun,2 and S. E. Petersen1,3,4,5,6,7

In the meantime, however, we suggest that it is safest to assume that “cinguloopercular” or “salience” definitions are somewhat ambiguous in the literature unless a special effort has been made to distinguish the two.

evidence from resting state functional connectivity (rs-FC) studies suggest that these control regions are decomposable into (at least) two relatively separate networks: the cinguloopercular (CO) and frontoparietal (FP) networks ((Dosenbach, et al., 2007); although we do no focus on them here, in addition to the CO and FP networks, the salience (Seeley, et al., 2007), and dorsal and ventral attention networks (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002) may be considered additional members of this group of control networks; see Box 1 for a description of network nomenclature).

However, data-driven approaches to whole-brain network definitions do sometimes identify two separate networks: e.g., a more dorsal “CO” network and a more ventral/rostral “salience” network in the anterior insula and medial frontal cortex ((Power, et al., 2011); see Figure 2A). Indeed, a detailed examination of the functional connectivity of the anterior insula reveals that the region may be a convergence zone for multiple different networks with different patterns of functional connectivity and task activations (Nelson, et al., 2010). Furthermore, histology of different anatomical divisions of the insula may also support a division between the CO and salience networks, as more ventral regions of the anterior insula and medial frontal cortex contain von Economo neurons, neurons with large, fast conducting axons that are enriched in hominids and have been linked to self-awareness and affective functions (Seeley, et al., 2012).

histology

note that the ‘cinguloopercular’ network is also sometimes referred to as the ‘cingulo-insular’ network (Sadaghiani, et al., 2010)

CO

Interactivity Fosters Bayesian Reasoning Without Instruction

Regions in this study showing differences between groups and correlations with hours of practice overlapped with regions showing abnormal structural and functional variation in persons with attention deficit disorders. For example, compared with normal controls, individuals with attention deficit disorders have shown activation differences in the sustained attention network (40), regions involved in response inhibition (22, 40–42), and reduction in size of prefrontal cortex and cerebellum (43). In addition, it is plausible from our results that meditation may strengthen the ability to inhibit cognitive and emotional mental processes such as rumination that can lead to or exacerbate stress, anxiety, or depression (44).

The default mode network (DMN) is part of the brain structure that shows higher neural activity and energy consumption when one is at rest (Raichle et al., 2001). The DMN comprises the posterior cingulate cortex/precuneus (PCC), medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), bilateral inferior parietal lobule (IPL), and other regions including inferior temporal gyrus. These key regions of the DMN are highly interconnected as conveyed by both white matter fiber tracing (van den Heuvel et al., 2008, 2009; Greicius et al., 2009) and functional synchrony of resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) signals (Greicius et al., 2003; Biswal et al., 2010).

Another recent study using analysis of intrinsic func-tional correlations showed that the default network cor-relations were weaker in ASD (Cherkassky et al. 2006).Of note, the individuals with ASD showed differencesin a fronto-parietal network that has been recently hy-pothesized to control interactions between the defaultnetwork and brain systems linked to external atten-tion (Vincent et al. 2007b). These data in ASD suggestan interesting possibility: the default network may belargely intact in ASD but under utilized perhaps be-cause of a dysfunction in control systems that regulateits use.

An intriguing possibil-ity suggested by the authors of the study and extendedby Iacoboni (2006) is that the failure to modulate thedefault network in ASD is driven by differential cog-nitive mentation during rest, specifically a lack of self-referential processing.

A further consistent ob-servation has been that the amygdala is increased involume in children with ASD (e.g., Abell et al. 1999,Schumann et al. 2004), perhaps as a reflection of ab-normal regulation of brain growth (Courchesne et al.2001). While not discussed earlier because of our focuson cortical regions, the amygdala is known to con-tribute to social cognition (Brothers 1990, Adolphs2001, Phelps 2006) and interacts with regions withinthe default network. The amygdala has extensive pro-jections to orbital frontal cortex (OFC) and vMPFC(Carmichael & Price 1995).

Developmental disruption of the default network,in particular disruption linked to the MPFC, mightresult in a mind that is environmentally focused andabsent a conception of other people’s thoughts. Theinability to interact with others in social contextswould be an expected behavioral consequence. Itis important to also note that such disruptions, ifidentified, may not be linked to the originating de-velopmental events that cause ASD but rather re-flect a developmental endpoint. That is, dysfunc-tion of the default network and associated symp-toms may emerge as an indirect consequence ofearly developmental events that begin outside thenetwork.

Minimal phenomenal experience: Meditation, tonic alertness, and the phenomenology of “pure” consciousness Articles https://doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.2020.I.46 Published 2020-03-24 Thomas Metzinger

Willoughby Britton

Chesterton's fence (uncountable) (public policy) The principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood.

TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic HumanFalsehoods

LEARN GENERATIVE AIShort Courses

DeepLearning.AI Short Courses

Mirroring earlier evidence that functionally and anatomically dissociable dorsal attention and frontoparietal control networks interact as a functional network under specific task conditions (i.e., externally directed cognition), these more recent reports provide strong evidence for interactivity among default and frontoparietal control regions during internally directed cognition4. This emerging picture of dynamic interactivity among these three networks calls into question the orthodoxy of labeling functional brain networks as either TPN or TNN. These labels are more likely the byproduct of the desire for rigorously controlled experimental designs (i.e., externally directed stimuli) than meaningful descriptors of functional brain networks. However, research delineating and characterizing a taxonomy of neurocognitive networks is ongoing (e.g., Laird et al., 2011; Yeo et al., 2011). Indeed, the frontoparietal control network may be further fractionated into dissociable “salience” and “executive-control” networks (Seeley et al., 2007). Growing evidence for a complex and dynamically interacting network architecture highlight the importance of developing a stable nomenclature for functional brain networks. This will be an important consideration for future research.

The value of the “TPN vs. TNN” nomenclature has been further eroded by observations that these two putatively opposed networks can be simultaneously engaged. Specifically, the default network may be co-active, and functionally coupled, with the frontoparietal control network under certain task conditions. This evidence emerges from studies of autobiographical planning, simulated problem-solving, evaluating one's creative work, mind-wandering, social working memory, and scene construction (Spreng et al., 2010; Summerfield et al., 2010; Gerlach et al., 2011; Ellamil et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2012). I recently investigated interactions between purported “task-positive” and “task-negative” brain regions using two planning paradigms: visuospatial planning, as assessed by the well-established Tower of London task, and autobiographical planning, as assessed by a novel task that required participants to devise personal plans in order to meet specific goals (Spreng et al., 2010). For example, “freedom from debt” constituted one of the goals in the autobiographical planning task. Participants viewed the goal and then saw two steps they could take toward achieving that goal (“good job” and “save money”) as well as an obstacle they needed to overcome in order to achieve the goal (“have fun”). They were instructed to integrate the steps and obstacles into a cohesive personal plan that would allow them to achieve the goal. Autobiographical planning, similar to imagining personal future events (e.g., Addis et al., 2007), engaged the default network (Figure ​(Figure1B).1B). Visuospatial planning engaged the dorsal attention network (Figure ​(Figure1C).1C). Critically, both planning tasks engaged the frontoparietal control network (Figure ​(Figure1D).1D). Task-related functional connectivity analyses indicated that the frontoparietal control network dynamically coupled with the default network during autobiographical planning and with the dorsal attention network during visuospatial planning (Figure ​(Figure1E).1E). By demonstrating that the frontoparietal control network is actively engaged by two tasks that differentially rely upon either the default or dorsal attention network, we provided novel evidence that the frontoparietal control network may flexibly gain access to information processed in either domain (for a replication and additional data with older adults, see Spreng and Schacter, in press).

Moreover, default network activity is associated with many active cognitive processes that are internally focused, such as stimulus-independent thoughts or “mind-wandering” (McGuire et al., 1996; Mason et al., 2007; Christoff et al., 2009), self-reference (Gusnard et al., 2001; D'Argembeau et al., 2005) recollecting one's past or imagining one's personal future (Andreasen et al., 1995; Schacter et al., 2007; Spreng et al., 2009), scene construction (Hassabis and Maguire, 2007; Hassabis et al., 2007), social cognition (Iacoboni et al., 2004; Spreng et al., 2009; Spreng and Grady, 2010; Mar, 2011; Andrews-Hanna, in press), narrative comprehension (Mar, 2011), forming associations (Bar et al., 2007), and semantic memory (Binder et al., 2009). While many of these cognitive processes are stimulus-independent, spontaneous, and unconstrained, it is inaccurate to characterize them as “task-negative.”

The Fallacy of a “Task-Negative” NetworkR. Nathan Spreng1,*R. Nathan Spreng1Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, Department of Human Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USAFind articles by R. Nathan Spreng

John Vervaeke describes relevance realisation

Causal Emergence in Discrete & Continuous DynamicalSystemsThomas F. Varley 1,2March 31, 2020

Vector field syntax

Model safety issues do not fit well within a bug bounty program, as they are not individual, discrete bugs that can be directly fixed. Addressing these issues often involves substantial research and a broader approach. To ensure that these concerns are properly addressed, please report them using the appropriate form, rather than submitting them through the bug bounty program. Reporting them in the right place allows our researchers to use these reports to improve the model. Issues related to the content of model prompts and responses are strictly out of scope, and will not be rewarded unless they have an additional directly verifiable security impact on an in-scope service (described below). Examples of safety issues which are out of scope: Jailbreaks/Safety Bypasses (e.g. DAN and related prompts) Getting the model to say bad things to you Getting the model to tell you how to do bad things Getting the model to write malicious code for you Model Hallucinations are also out of scope: Getting the model to pretend to do bad things Getting the model to pretend to give you answers to secrets Getting the model to pretend to be a computer and execute code None of these issues may be reported through bugcrowd. None of these issues will receive a monetary reward. For model related issues, please report them here: https://openai.com/form/model-behavior-feedback