Just seeing this!
We should have you come give a talk in Marseille. How long will you be around ? Many people with interest in motor control, evo/devo, spinal/cord .....plus the 🌊 and the 🌞
I am not even sure that clocks count. As you said, clocks just generate a regular movement. We use clock to read and measure time. Or am I wrong?
I should try ....
This will never cease to astonish me. Not only the nonsense of the request, but also the time pressure.
Does this strategy work? Do people really send preprints to these journals?
Sensorimotor organoids....🤔 what a nice oxymoron. Do they form internal models ?
Cool basal ganglia preprints today!
2 on DA/ACh
1. @paulkramer.bsky.social
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
2. @arifahamid.bsky.social
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
Motor learning @juangallego.bsky.social and @clopathlab.bsky.social
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL OF YOU!🎄✨
Looks like a very exciting study! Congrats Guiseppe and all collaborators!
Yes to that!
Peer review is important and useful but we should focus our efforts on a small number of papers that matter (making big claims, using new approaches) and let the vast majority of work live on a preprint server to be judged by their utility over time to domain experts.
I am neuroscientist Nicole. I trained with Gyorgy Buzsaki. I learned with him than when two things change together this does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. We're not discussing nonmaterial souls. Things are just a bit more complicated than that 😉
And don't get me wrong: I am fascinating by the brain too. I am just skeptic of where this kind of approach is leading us. Let see where this ship goes (the captain is definitely amazing), without neglecting alternative routes .....
Neuroscience seems stuck with very old-fashioned reductionist/materialist ideas whose shortcomings have already been exposed. More electrodes, more AI… it all sounds like "une fuite en avant" to me.
To me, what is thrilling (and a bit scary too) is to be in an era in which we might be so wrong about our understanding of the relationship between brain and behavior/cognition.
I just don't see how the idea that the brain generates consciousness or perception can lead to falsifiable experiments.
Congrats Juan! So well-deserved !
😂 very generous of you 😂
I am hesitating to say this is also true of men who think critically. Thank God there are few of them.
Picture accompanying a post from Linked in by Charmaine Simpson https://www.linkedin.com/posts/blackhistorystudies_bell-hooks-understood-a-pattern-that-repeats-activity-7403886502771888128-CJiy?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAFk0BcBSukv5EZ8IStyE-ugz6Io2JLp0iQ "bell hooks understood a pattern that repeats across generations. When a woman thinks critically, people often label her difficult before they ever engage with her ideas. The label is a shortcut. A way to dismiss her without confronting what she is actually saying. Critical thinking is powerful because it interrupts comfort. It asks why things are the way they are. It exposes contradictions that many would rather leave unspoken. So instead of addressing her insight, the world questions her tone. It reframes her clarity as attitude. It turns her precision into a flaw. But women who think critically are not difficult. They are necessary. They hold up mirrors that others avoid. They name truths that would otherwise stay buried. To think for yourself is not an invitation for conflict. It is an act of presence. It is choosing awareness over silence. And every time a woman refuses to apologize for her mind, she shifts the world a little closer to honesty. From Her Archives "
“Women who think critically are always labeled difficult because it saves the world from admitting they’re right” — bell hooks
Repost of Charmaine Simpson, on LinkendIN: www.linkedin.com/posts/blackh...
Direct Fit to Nature: An Evolutionary Perspective on Biological and Artificial Neural Networks www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti... - thought-provoking (2019) paper from @urihasson.bsky.social and colleagues
One of my favorites, I should read it again ...
I am reading it and and find it HUGELY misguided philosophically speaking. Ideas such as the brain produces consciousness or perception lead only to experimental dead-ends. I don't know if an engineering approach is needed. I'd say we need the opposite. So yeah ...let's see where this goes...
I wonder whether thinking that animals tend to waste energy (most likely for good reasons) was compatible with this very cartesian rat. This was meant as a friendly joke 😜 . BTW, I entirely agree with your thread , thanks for sharing
time to change your profile picture Luke?
Plot showing metabolic rate and brain size vs. body mass. Warm-blooded animals expend an order of magnitude more energy and have brain sizes an order of magnitude larger
Soapbox time: the problem with metabolic efficiency arguments in neuroscience is that they often confuse energy efficiency with energy expenditure. Biological systems are optimized for energy efficiency, but that does NOT imply they are optimized for low energy expenditure 🧵 1/
And all of a sudden, it became personal. As long as the incentives to do science are wrong, whatever we call it (a job or a way of life) is going to be toxic.
Totally agree. But if this is just a job, shouldn’t we simply play by its rules: publish fashion-science with the latest trendy techniques and meet the productivity expectations of our employers (and the field)? But we don’t want to do that. Deep down we know it’s a dangerous game.
Getting as much as possible out of the internet is probably the best approach. But when needed, you can use Brave as a browser, since it blocks ads (and speeds up loading times).
PS: Any shows coming up in France/Europe?
I was just too slow....😀.
