Nicole Rust

Professor (UPenn). Brain researcher. Author (nonfiction). Advocate for community based progress & collective intelligence. Wrapping up a book & sharing fact checking gems.

Public Key

npub1cud99prgj4etl597aaxthxenrcjmfxl92dgj8snf9a9p8ctupfyq80zuw2

NIP-05 Address

NicoleCRust_at_neuromatch.social@mostr.pub

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsvwxjjs35f2u4l6zlw7n9mnve3ufd5n0j4x5frcf5j7jsnu97q5jqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43qsjrwxl

Publishing to

relay.mostr.pub

Author Public Key

npub1cud99prgj4etl597aaxthxenrcjmfxl92dgj8snf9a9p8ctupfyq80zuw2

Show more details

Last Notes

2024-11-08 12:48:52

Personal announcement - (BIG!)
With the support of the Simons Foundation , I am redirecting my research program to study how our brains support one of the biggest & most mysterious feelings: Mood.
I have so much to say about the "Why?" and "How?" behind it! More on that here:
https://www.nicolerust.com/thepivot
I am so grateful to the Simons Foundation for their support. There aren't many opportunities to pivot an entire research program like this. And to my mentor — Yael Niv at Princeton — whose lab I get to embed in for a year to learn the ropes.
Pinch me!
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2024/11/05/simons-foundation-announces-third-class-of-pivot-fellows/

2024-10-08 11:55:22

How did John Hopfield decide to work on the topic that led to his Nobel Prize?
"I was now looking for A PROBLEM, not a problem ... How mind emerges from brain is to me the deepest question posed by our humanity. Definitely A PROBLEM."
More here:
https://pni.princeton.edu/people/john-j-hopfield/now-what
The solution:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.79.8.2554
"In the model network each "neuron" has elementary properties, and the network has little structure. Nonetheless, collective computational properties spontaneously arose."
https://media.neuromatch.social/media_attachments/files/113/271/669/265/037/272/original/c83d8a71dfe234b1.png

2024-09-06 15:05:18

So excited to change my profile from "Writing a book" (which has been up since I joined the Furry Elephant movement in Dec 2022) to include a link to that very book.
Wow - this feeling!

2024-09-04 14:31:52

They picked me! (Audiobook)
Yeah! It looks like I'll be the narrator for the audiobook of my own book. It's something I really wanted to do, but it's not guaranteed (you have to apply).
I'm working with a narration coach to help ensure it's good. I'm learning that good narration is an art! I'm excited to learn more about it.
The adventure continues ...
(If you're wondering, "What book?", it's this one: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691243054/elusive-cures)

2024-06-27 09:45:45

- reply

@npub1m7h…sn57
I agree. Empathy. And a hug.

2024-06-07 19:41:24

- reply

@npub17qe…rc53
Wow! If you happen to pass by, please report back (no rush but definitely curious).

2024-06-03 23:32:11

Those trixie admins his it under flavors. Fixed!!! Rest assured, sanity has been restored to the universe. Whew; close one.
Sleep well tonight, everyone.
https://neuromatch.social/@NicoleCRust/112555253950259224

2024-04-27 11:41:27

Summer reading recs?!
I’m looking to compile a big pile of IRL books for summer beach reading.
Big fan of scifi, specfic, murder mysteries. Strong female characters = bonus points. Can’t deal with darkness. Nothing high brow or tedious. Nonfiction lover but that list is already bursting at the seams.
I also love long series - 3 body problem, wheel of time, foundation … those waves all have good memories attached.
If that brings anything to mind, please send the rec!!

2024-03-25 23:37:14

Nope. Delete. Sticking to the policy. If Nicole can’t say something nice, Nicole just doesn’t …
(Of course, you do you!)

2024-03-16 13:53:14

Really enjoying this History & Philosophy of science podcast - many episodes are well done. I recommend the episode w/ Hasok Chang and Epistemic Iteration
https://thehpspodcast.buzzsprout.com/2180146/14139962

2024-03-13 01:17:46

- reply

@npub18e7…apr5
I want to read this as a novel. Same adventure. These two sets of eyes.

2024-03-12 23:47:28

- reply

@npub1zn5…rsnd
It sounds to me like you are well aligned and calibrated with a lot of possible futures, including a career in neuroscience!

2024-03-12 23:10:21

- reply

@npub1zn5…rsnd
Fascinating question.
I think value is to be found in many types: mile wide/inch deep; inch wide/mile deep; hedgehogs vs foxes; Michelangelo vs DaVinci.
Moreover, we can’t deny our natures. To some extent, we just have to add value via what we’re most drawn to.
But yes, you’ll ultimately have to pick something to work on (as you can’t work on ALL the interesting things). Sometimes it’s helpful to acknowledge when all the options before you are good. I like to call those champagne decisions. My favorite type!

2024-03-08 13:31:27

Brain and mind researchers of all types: I hope you'll join this conversation at Cognitive Computational Neuroscience (August 6-9, Boston).
There, I'll be zooming out to 40,000 feet to inspire discussion around the question: Why have we been learning so much about the brain and mind for so many decades, but our ability to treat its dysfunction has been so frustrated?
The answer to that question informs what I affectionally call the Grand Plan — a description, in broad strokes, of how brain and mind researchers of all types plan to move from where we are now to societal benefits (including treating brain dysfunction).
I'm envisioning a community-centered conversation unlike any I've seen before; because it's unusual, I unpack it here:
https://www.nicolerust.com/grandplan
I'm grateful to the CCN organizers for providing an opportunity for this. I hope you'll join in!
https://2024.ccneuro.org/

2024-03-01 13:24:47

On the ubiquity of power law behavior
The signature of power law behavior (short things are more probable than long ones in a predictable way) is often used as a benchmark (for instance, of a system poised at criticality).
In that pursuit, many remind us that we need to be mindful that all sorts of (not very remarkable). things can have that signature. One of the most colorful illustrations I've read is this one here:
Some Effects of Intermittent Silence
George A. Miller
1957
Imagine that a monkey hits the keys of a typewriter at random, subject only to these constraints: (1) he must hit the space bar with a probability of p() and all the other keys with a probability of p(L) = 1 - P() and (2) he must never hit the space bar twice.
Word length will fall off with power law behavior.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1419346

2024-02-24 21:57:00

- reply

@npub1ary…md4c
Here's a bit that will break your heart:
Over the last few
years, the number of psychological journals that prefer to publish short, hard-hitting
research reports instead of long, ponderous treatises has increased considerably. And
everyone wants to publish in those new journals. The aim is no longer to publish a grand
theoretical model that takes dozens of pages to explain, but to show an intriguing effect
that takes everyone by surprise. The shorter and more amazing, the better. ... wanted to emulate my heroes, for whom it seemed to be child’s play to sum up
humanity in clever one-liners such as “Altruism doesn’t exist,” “Human behavior is 94.6%
automatic,” ... I’d never found anything that even remotely resembled these amazing discoveries. .... Reality was fickle, and that was exhausting.
A few weeks ago I was in the newspaper—in fact, I was in all the newspapers. I had
published a study that showed that messy streets lead to greater intolerance. In a messy
environment, people are more likely to resort to stereotypes of others because trash makes
you want to clean it up, and the use of stereotypes lets you feel as though you’re cleaning
things up. .... The publication of this study in Science—the most prestigious journal of them all—
caused a sensation, and made headlines around the world. The coolest aspect of the study was the way in which it combined careful laboratory
research with field studies that people could relate to. ... It was a clever, simple, logical, and obvious idea, but the empirical
tests were completely imaginary. The lab research hadn’t been carried out. The field
studies never happened.

2024-02-24 21:43:55

Fascinating first person account by a psychologist who faked data
The scientist: Diederik Stapel. A Dutch social psychologist. He wrote a book explaining the context and how one thing led to another until he was caught. Nick Brown translated it into English. Freely available here:
http://nick.brown.free.fr/stapel
Page 101:
I also became increasingly skilled in the use of techniques that could put a healthy-
looking shine on otherwise mediocre results. If I didn’t get the effect I wanted across all the
different measures I’d used or the questions I’d asked, I would use the ones that did show
that effect. If an effect was present in an experiment, but not strongly enough to be tapped
by all of the types of measurements I’d used, I would make it stronger by combining the measures where the effect seemed to be only partly working. ...
Page 102:
After years of balancing on the outer limits, the gray became darker and darker until
it was black, and I fell off the edge into the abyss. I’d been having trouble with my
experiments for some time. Even with my various “gray” methods for “improving” the data,
I wasn’t able to get the results the way I wanted them. I couldn’t resist the temptation to go wanted it so badly. I wanted to belong, to be part of the action, to score. I really, really wanted to be really, really good. I wanted to be published in the best journals
and speak in the largest room at conferences. I wanted people to hang on my every word
as I headed for coffee or lunch after delivering a lecture. I felt very alone.
p103
I was alone in my tastefully furnished office at the University of Groningen. I’d taken
extra care when closing the door, and made my desk extra tidy. Everything had to be neat
and orderly. No mess. I opened the computer file with the data that I had entered and
changed an unexpected 2 into a 4; then, a little further along, I changed a 3 into a 5. It
didn’t feel right. I looked around me, nervously. The data danced in front of my eyes.
When the results are just not quite what you’d so badly hoped for; when you know that that
hope is based on a thorough analysis of the literature; when this is your third experiment
on this topic and the first two worked great; when you know that there are other people
doing similar research elsewhere who are getting good results; then, surely, you’re entitled
to adjust the results just a little?

2024-02-19 23:35:03

If you were to recalibrate, what would you do?
I always suspected I would do something like study those amazing desert ants that navigate via the earth’s magnetic field. But when thinking through the question “How do you want to spend the next 10 years?” more seriously (pretending there are few constraints), that’s not where I actually point myself.
Acknowledging that it’s a tremendously priveleged (and emotional) thought experiment, What would you do with your next 10 years, assuming that thing needs to be useful enough that it’s reasonably supported (and you would continue to get a paycheck)?

2024-01-27 19:51:49

Wow! I just learned the story of an amazing colleage:
https://chasingmycure.com/
I'm a patient with a deadly illness that has nearly killed me five times, and I'm also a physician-scientist racing to discover a cure before my time runs out.
Thanks to a drug that I discovered to treat my disease and began testing on myself, I'm currently in my longest remission ever and was able to have a beautiful daughter (2018) and son (2021) with the love of my life.
I dedicate my life to advancing cures for Castleman disease and many more diseases through Every Cure, spreading our innovative approach to other diseases.

2024-01-24 02:09:21

Worst word (pronunciation)?
My vote: Colonel = “ker-nal”. How does one justify the ghost R to anyone?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/why-colonel-pronounced-r-and-more-questions-our-readers-180953036/

2024-01-03 23:35:51

A brilliant reflection on what first brings curious minded folks to the table and how we evolve and change.
https://helendecruz.substack.com/p/how-i-almost-became-an-evolutionary?r=tfpzm

2023-12-21 10:43:53

Should neuroscientists stay on X or go? Let’s ask a bunch of people who have decided to stay. Voices are missing here.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ejn.16236

2023-12-04 22:49:49

How do you feel about the phrase "virtuous cycle"?
The phrase "bench to bedside" in biomedical research implies that big scientific discoveries (at the bench) are transformed into new clinical treatments. The problem is that the "to" implies a uni-directionality of the sort that is very misleading; it just doesn't happen that way very often. More often, the bench and the beside work reciprocally and iteratively (to arrive at treatments and cures). We need an equally vivid phrase that better captures how it actually works, but what?
One phrase that I've heard a few times over the past year is "virtuous cycle". Like this:
"bidirectional interaction between scientific investigation and clinical practice will continue to play a fundamental role, with models and biomarkers informing prognosis and treatment while being informed by clinical insight, engendering a virtuous cycle."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34236622/
More broadly, I'm looking for vivid ways to embrace reciprocal interactions (A <>B) and replace the oversimplification of domino chains (A>B). Things like "reciprocity" = "yuck".
I sometimes like "virtuous cycle". Merriam-Webster tells me that it's "a chain of events in which one desirable occurrence leads to another which further promotes the first occurrence and so on resulting in a continuous process of improvement." But when I search for it, I see it associated with McKinsey & Co. and Bezos and all sorts. :(.
What associations, if any, do you have with the phrase "virtuous cycle"? Do you know of any alternatives/equivalents?

2023-12-02 15:05:03

Gene ontology & cognitive ontology databases
Fascinated by these two resources.
Gene ontology, https://geneontology.org/
Referenced in over 159,000 papers, the goal of the gene ontology resource is an "up-to-date, comprehensive, computational model of biological systems, from the molecular level to larger pathways, cellular and organism-level systems."
The Cognitive Atlas, https://www.cognitiveatlas.org/
A collaborative knowledge building project that aims to develop a knowledge base (or ontology) that characterizes the state of current thought in cognitive science.
(Ontology refers to how we classify and group things as we explain them, aka: what's close to what).
The fact that these are two databases not one illustrates where we are (in brain/mind research). If only we could unite them!

2023-11-18 13:03:52

I have a wonderful Aunt Linda from Montana who is the superposition of strength and sensitivity. Her wise words often reverberate in my mind.
A recent reverberation: “You get one day to have a pity party and then you have to get over yourself.”
Yes; thank you; I needed that, Aunt Linda! Passing it along for anyone who might benefit too.

2023-11-14 21:22:19

As The Transmitter rolls out, don't hold back those comments!
I just left one thanking Ashley Juavinett for an excellent article on how to teach the Churchland et al (2012) article “Neural population dynamics during reaching".
It's all there: context; rough bits; options. She even provides a Google Colab notebook. Wow!
https://www.thetransmitter.org/systems-neuroscience/how-to-teach-this-paper-neural-population-dynamics-during-reaching-by-churchland-cunningham-et-al-2012-3/

2023-11-02 17:57:10

- reply

@npub13rq…4knd
Such beautiful work! Tremendous congratulations to @npub13rq…4knd and team.
Fascinating:
We identify many instances of dense-core-vesicle-dependent signalling, including on timescales of less than a second, that evoke acute calcium transients—often where no direct wired connection exists but where relevant neuropeptides and receptors are expressed. We propose that, in such cases, extrasynaptically released neuropeptides serve a similar function to that of classical neurotransmitters.
Also happy to see this confirmed:
Finally, our measured signal propagation atlas better predicts the neural dynamics of spontaneous activity than do models based on anatomy.

2023-10-26 20:56:06

Looking for: complex systems that defy model reduction.
The behavior of a complex system is hard to predict from its parts alone because it follows from how the parts interact.
Model reduction is a way to complex system the behavior of a complex system more simply (eg to capture the magnetism of 1g of Fe2O3, you don't have to model all 1022 molecules and their interactions). My sense is that model reduction works really well when you have many repeated copies.
I'm looking for some good (ideally concrete) examples of complex systems that defy model reduction. I anticipate that they will be made of heterogeneous parts.
Thanks in advance!

2023-10-25 14:20:49

- reply

@npub1a7m…j0p9
😢

2023-10-21 23:07:45

Snafu is an acronym
Who knew?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAFU

2023-10-21 11:36:11

Complex systems friends: wikipedia needs your help!
Most individuals I know who work in this area (from ecology to brain research)would not feel well represented by this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_Dynamic_Systems_Theory
Minimally, some cross referencing is in order here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system
#complexity

2023-10-21 01:39:13

- reply

@npub1vfc…0chw
Yes, this is my experience as well. Complicated, right?

2023-10-19 15:14:44

Trying to wrap my head around what makes for a good model (of something complicated):
Following on my enthusiasm for a certain type of explanation of "mood" (summarized in this post: https://neuromatch.social/@NicoleCRust/111262116419902198) I'm trying to wrap my head around my lack of enthusiasm for a different type of explanation of the same thing. I'm not here to dump on anyone's work and I suspect that it's probably largely a matter of taste (and I anticipate the other model will resonate better with some other folks). Really just trying to wrap my head around differences in "explanations" of complicated things in ways that invite conversation.
In explanation 1 (which resonates with me): One big goal of the brain is to find good things (and avoid bad ones) and it does this, in part, via reward-based learning. Here, mood is a running average of unexpected rewards and it is formalized in models of reward based learning to demonstrate how "mood" makes learning more efficient. The gist: mood informs us about how things (like our environment) are changing and motivates us to act accordingly. One thing I appreciate about this approach is that it facilitates the mathematical formalization of slippery things (like mood) into models that can be tested, and those models inform not only what mood is but also what it's good for.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4703769/
In explanation 2 (which I struggle a bit more with): One big goal of the brain is to maintain stability in the face of a changing environment. To do that, it has to make predictions and act to minimize its uncertainty (aka minimize free energy via active inference). In this framework, acute emotions signal uncertainty about the environment and mood is a hyperprior that furnishes a higher-level prediction about the value of lower-level emotional states. The purpose of mood is to convey confidence about the consequences of actions. One thing I struggle with is that after I read those words I don't feel that I have a much better sense of what mood is or what it's for than I did before I read them; it's not that I don't understand this framework at large; it's more that I do not experience an "aha" when I read it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6340107/
What I suspect one difference is: I anticipate that mood is not just about reward-based learning and explanation 1 is really just a slice of what mood is about; in contrast, explanation 2 is more expansive (it's something akin to a theory of everything). But I wonder if this coverage is the same thing that makes explanation 2 a bit too vague for me to appreciate.
Thoughts?

2023-10-06 13:24:58

- reply

@npub19d9…f02p
Hopfield 1982 and his accompanying historical paper that explains the context: "Now what?". That doesn't exist anymore on his webpage (I've reached out to get that fixed; will email it to you).
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.79.8.2554

2023-10-02 21:05:14

How do we support the Katalin Karikó's?
There's a lot of reasonable outrage today around how Katalin Karikó was treated throughout her career (full disclosure: by my employer, UPenn). Obviously a number of someones made a huge mistake by not recognizing the brilliance and potential of her work - no question there!
What I've been thinking about and I'd love to get some scenius input on: how could we, as an academic community, do better?
Here's one summary of what happened:
https://billypenn.com/2020/12/29/university-pennsylvania-covid-vaccine-mrna-kariko-demoted-biontech-pfizer/
Taking seriously the notion that 1) we want to support the Katalin Karikó's but 2) high-risk, high-reward research takes time, here are a few ideas:
*) Better support to help geniuses communicate (and fund) their ideas.
*) More funding for high-risk, high-reward projects
*) A longer evaluation period for individuals engaged in high-risk/high-reward research
What would you add/change?

2023-09-27 16:02:34

Foxes and hedgehogs in science?
The fox/hedgehog distinction is used to describe 2 different ways people think. The gist goes back to ancient greece and the idea that the hedgehog knows one big thing whereas the fox knows many littler things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox
For scientists, it's sometimes described as how distributed the topics are that you work on (eg mile deep, inch wide versus mile wide, inch deep):
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13437-022-00287-x
A slightly different way to think about it is more along what some call simplifiers vs complexifiers.
When individuals are forecasting elections, pundits (hedgehogs) tend to focus on one big idea and they are less good at forecasting than individuals who take a lot of data in and work to reconcile conflicts (foxes):
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691178288/expert-political-judgment
Similarly, much of this biography about Barbara McClintock can paraphrased with the notion that she was a fox who saw details that would not fit with what the hedgehogs were saying and that led her to some big discoveries about jumping genes:
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780805074581/afeelingfortheorganism10thaniversaryedition
At the same time, hedgehogs play an important role by keeping their eyes on the forest and connecting the dots together.
There is something powerful to the idea that there are two different but complementary ways of thinking that contribute to science. How do you think about it? Which are you?

2023-09-23 16:36:39

- reply

@npub1ary…md4c
You’re right! As I think about it, I realize that when I want to connect the dots for an adjacent field, one of the most effective ways is via broadly accessible science books (like yours & LeDoux’s). Neither textbooks or journal articles typically fill that bill in the same way (with important exceptions).

2023-09-23 16:14:01

- reply

@npub1ary…md4c
Thanks Luiz! Helpful to know it’s not channeling the ethos of someone who thinks a lot about emotion.
I don’t want to make too much of this particular example. It was more a sample of things I stumble upon that makes it hard to read across boundaries (b/c of jargon) and a mediation on the idea: should we be communicating better in perspective articles like this?

2023-09-23 13:13:23

Trying to wrap my head around it.
I'm a brain researcher in a psychology department; arguably what they call a "cognitive neuroscientist with a computational bent." And I love me a good brain metaphor. But this (cognitive science) paragraph and I live on different planets, and I'm trying to wrap my head around why, exactly, that is. Curious to hear your thoughts.
In this kind of metaphorical thinking, psychic states (such as emotions) are local maxima in a multidimensional space, which is not constrained to inner-brain dimensions, but incorporates bodily and perceptual dimensions as well (see Barrett, Ochsner, & Gross, 2007). Local maxima are established through constraint satisfaction processes. That is, in any given situation, some dimensions are fixed at specific values, be they input-related dimensions (seeing a crocodile nearby) or the inner-psychic retrieval of specific thoughts (remembering a horrifying scene from a movie). The network system identifies the best com- promise solution given the constraints.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30654702/
I'm not here to belittle this in any way. But rather curious about all the embedded assumptions that go into my own way of thinking and how they compare with the ones that go into this paragraph. Setting aside the fact that the word "psychic" gives me chills:
*) I also like to think about dimensionality and how cognition is reflected in multi-D spaces (and I'm quite fluent in that).
*) I am, however, curious about a few things. What is an "inner brain dimension?" Something about emotion/affect, I think. And so this paragraph is describing something like how perception, emotion and interoception combine to create our experience.
*) It focuses on the idea that our experience right now (a psychic state) is created by a "constraint satisfaction process" to maximize something. I can appreciate that once the question is posed in this metaphorical way, then one can inquire: what is that process? But that's consciousness, I guess?
*) I'm once again stuck by the jargon that separates us. Again, I'm quite adjacent to this world but not in it. Why aren't we better talking to one another? My 1st year undergrads are really smart. Why aren't we all talking to them (to ensure we can talk to one another)?

2023-09-22 12:30:13

- reply

@npub1rzz…4rlh
Great insights here! Really curious to hear your take at some point on the new book coming out from @npub1zll…lhfq:
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691226231/free-agents
Gist here, I think:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gxpbvE8V0Dg
In many ways, it’s the anti-book if Sapolsky’s.

2023-09-20 11:02:17

A beautiful idea about pregnancy
There's something really beautiful about this idea (that builds on the notion that "we" are not static things; we are ever-changing processes).
How many individuals are present where we see a pregnant individual?
From the perspective of organisms as "things", the answer is 1 or 2 (and society debates a lot about when that line is crossed).
Here I propose a third answer: a pregnant individual is neither two individuals nor one individual but something in between one and two. This is because organisms are better understood as processes than as substances. With a special focus on the Parthood View, I explain why a Process View of pregnancy, according to which a pregnant individual is a bifurcating hypercomplex process, surpasses the substance ontological approaches.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-021-01716-y
H/T to @npub1a7m…j0p9 for pointing me to Anne Sophie Meincke's work:
https://www.annesophiemeincke.com/philosophy

2023-09-20 09:41:18

- reply

@npub1qtk…xqrw @npub1gpe…aa0f @npub12ss…c7zf
How horrible!

2023-09-20 09:41:00

- reply

@npub1rzz…4rlh
Thanks!

2023-09-20 01:04:45

- reply

@npub1gpe…aa0f @npub12ss…c7zf
Fascinating - thanks!
Exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) was associated with high symptoms of anxiety, with more recent exposures potentially more relevant than more distant exposures

2023-09-19 16:55:38

- reply

@npub1xkw…7jwu
Yes!
@npub1rzz…4rlh @npub17cu…y38u @npub1ary…md4c @npub1l6z…n47m

2023-09-19 16:01:42

- reply

@npub1a7m…j0p9
Thanks! Many references there about the changing aspect of existence.
@npub1rzz…4rlh @npub1xkw…7jwu @npub17cu…y38u @npub1ary…md4c @npub1l6z…n47m

2023-09-19 15:50:29

Neurophilosophers - am I getting this right?
Namely: what psychologists call "processes" are what philosophers would call "things" (not processes)
The philosophical distinction between things versus processes is the idea that these are two different ways of thinking about the world. In the things way of thinking, the world is made up of just that: things – dogs, cats, me, you, this book, that pencil. In contrast, the process way of thinking shifts the emphasis from thinking about things in a static way to acknowledge the reality that everything is always changing. It's the famous idea that you can't step in the same river twice because the river you would step into a second time is a changed river and thus not the same as the one you stepped into before. From a process perspective, the idea of a thing called "a dog" or "a river" or "you" is an abstraction that captures some aspects of reality (the static aspects) but fails to capture some others (the changing ones).
One way in which the "things" way of thinking manifests in brain/mind research is the idea that there are modules that our brains flexibly combine to accomplish complex tasks; things like vision, audition, memory, attention and decision making. While these are often called "processes" by brain/mind researchers, philosophers would point out that in the way that most brain researchers think about them, they are very much "things".
@npub1rzz…4rlh @npub1xkw…7jwu @npub17cu…y38u @npub1ary…md4c @npub1l6z…n47m

2023-09-17 20:11:18

- reply

@npub1xkw…7jwu
Great points on both counts!

2023-09-17 19:54:55

- reply

@npub1xkw…7jwu
Got it! And now that I do (again, sorry to be dense): can you spell out the lesson? My sense is that it’s something like: don’t be afraid to think outside the box; even if you’re wrong, => progress!

2023-09-17 19:47:54

- reply

@npub1xkw…7jwu @npub1gcw…hx0z @npub19g7…0dwd @npub1d6e…vw9g
I love these historical examples! And sorry if I'm being dense here, but in what way was Kepler pseudoscientific? He took Copernicus's idea and Brahe's data and formulated his 3 laws; those equations made predictions about where the planets would be in the future that could be tested (And as you said, those laws triggered some of Newton's ideas about why the planets move as they do).
Is the pseudoscience here the absence of an account of "why the planets do it that way?"
In contrast, IIT appears to be prescientific insofar as most of its predictions cannot be empirically tested at all (as I understand it).

2023-09-17 18:20:21

- reply

@npub1xkw…7jwu @npub1zn5…rsnd
Absolutely saddening and maddening that it's so problematic! But I'm also really thankful that we have the type of ethos in our little corner that we can discuss all this (with genuine intentions to just figure.it.out.).
Given that you found some value in the Hoel piece, I'll have a look (otherwise I wouldn't).

2023-09-17 18:01:35

Elaboration of "leading theory of consciousness is pseudoscience"
from the perspective of one (of 124) author, Hakwan Lau
https://psyarxiv.com/28z3y
(For the 124 author post, see this from yesterday: https://neuromatch.social/@NicoleCRust/111074417017972359)
Among many highlights from Lau's piece:
Defines pseudoscience as
i) a set of important claims with far-reaching implications that are ii) neither currently supported by science nor are they likely to be so in the foreseeable future (perhaps even in principle), and yet they iii) masquerade as being already scientifically tested and established.
Explains why IIT is a problem as:
"Flat earth theory is clearly wrong but we don’t see articles appearing in Science11–13, Nature14, The New York Times15,16, The Economist17, NewScientist18,19, etc, repeatedly, over many years, sometimes by authoritative figures, proclaiming that it is a leading, empirically tested, and well established scientific theory. Therefore, flat earth theory is, in a sense, more ‘harmless’ and less threatening than the rise of IIT and panpsychism in the media."
Explains why IIT is pseudoscience as:
IIT shares many common features with other pseudoscientific ideas: that it is unresponsive to empirical challenges4–7; that it uses an unnecessarily complex and impractical4 language that diverges from mainstream science; that its popularity is mainly driven by the opinions by a few authoritative figures, and populist appeal8,23, rather than consensus within the scientific community or empirical success, etc. It is also notable that proponents of IIT publicly engage with religious leaders on the very topic of panpsychism24 and related metaphysical matters, and openly profess the ‘spiritual dimension’ of their ‘science’, together with controversial figures like Sadhguru25 and the New Age alternative medicine advocate Deepak Chopra26.
Also explains the events leading up to the letter and much more (for that, have a read).
Really curious to hear thoughts!
@npub1xkw…7jwu, @npub1zn5…rsnd +++

2023-09-17 15:05:00

- reply

@npub1flm…n7vn @npub1qe8…4vky @npub19un…gacg
Thanks! I’m not sure I’m getting the subtext though. There’s the idea of canalization & there’s Waddington’s valleys - both ideas/metaphors that researchers have/are finding powerful beyond Waddington’s original proposals. Wrt suitability, are you pleased or displeased with these developments?

2023-09-16 18:01:03

- reply

@npub1qe8…4vky
Really appreciated! Especially given that this paper is not an easy read. The breakdown and the description of its relationship to p-factor (including the inclusion of a psyarxiv paper posted just yesterday by @npub19un…gacg ++) is all really interesting and exceedingly helpful!
For anyone wanting more before the click:
The heart of the paper is the notion of “canalization.” The basic idea can be stated quite simply: it refers to how features of the mind, brain, or behavior become less able to change in a non-specific way.
Canalization serves here as a “powerful bridging construct” that connects many different ideas:
Entrenchment of a psychological phenotype
Dynamical attractors in dynamical systems
Minimization of variational “free energy” (i.e., a quantitative, statistical score of surprise or uncertainty)
...

2023-09-16 14:20:54

- reply

@npub1xkw…7jwu
OK, agree - when you say pseudoscience, define it.
This conversation also clarifies for me: why this is pseudoscience 🙂.

2023-09-16 13:59:23

- reply

@npub1xkw…7jwu
To make sure I understand (what I anticipate are very good points), your proposal is something along the lines of:
*) IIT researchers are claiming they have a theory (that's the T).
*) However, until they state what would constitute a falsification of their theory, it's pseudoscience.
Did I get it right?

2023-09-16 13:53:02

- reply

@npub1ju6…yalh
😉

2023-09-16 12:04:32

- reply

@npub1xkw…7jwu
Great conversation! It strikes me that any declaration of pseudoscience is a prediction that an idea cannot be transformed into a testable theory. Can we ever do that in a clean way? I'm not so sure.

2023-09-16 11:44:34

- reply

@npub1xkw…7jwu
Fair points. (I imagine some of this is about word limits). It's clearly a prototheory (not yet a theory). Whether it can ever be a testable theory is debated.
Given how high the stakes are here (the ethics of organoids, AI and coma patients (also eating salad 😉)), how wrong some journalists are getting this, and the fact that the path to this becoming a testable theory is very unclear, I endorse the term pseudoscience in this case.
That said, understanding consciousness is also one of the most challenging problems humanity has ever faced and I support the prototheory's development.
(BTW: I understand that the team will be posting responses to pushback (including this point) in a few days).

2023-09-16 10:44:59

Wow! 124 brain researchers call out what journalists call the "leading theory of consciousness" (integrated information theory, IIT) as pseudoscience.
https://psyarxiv.com/zsr78/
💯: We need testable theories about the brain to move forward. Every theory starts as a proto-theory (and that's fine). But when theories are not even wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
we must acknowledge that.
Especially when the stakes are as high as they are here, with big ethical implications (eg for organoids and coma patients, as the authors describe).

2023-09-14 14:45:16

Stuck? Go daydream!
That's what August Kekulé did when he was trying to figure out molecular structures, including the benzene ring, in the mid-1800s. In one:
Long lines often fitted together more densely; everything in motion, twisting and turning like snakes. But look, what was that? One of the snakes had seized its own tail, and the figure whirled mockingly before my eyes. I awoke as by a stroke of lightning, and this time, too, I spent the rest of the night working out the consequences of the hypothesis.
And that's how the idea of the benzene ring was born.
https://www.nature.com/articles/465036

2023-09-13 11:29:08

- reply

@npub134n…qx6q
The interesting conversations are still very much here, IMO!

2023-09-10 20:59:05

- reply

@npub1ary…md4c @npub1qe8…4vky
I have not. I missed the salon - was it recorded? What love to watch (before I dive into the book).

2023-09-10 20:14:57

- reply

@npub1ary…md4c @npub1qe8…4vky
That's a good point, @npub1ary…md4c! We need to continuously ask ourselves: where have we been and where are we headed and are we stuck?
I think the important route out of the local minimum is indeed pluralism (as many have said). Our colleagues might pursue the same questions as us but via very different approaches and when it comes to "who knows?", we need to respect the importance of that happening.
For instance, several have argued that the intensive focus on amyloid in Alzheimer's at the cost of other possible causes may have been a mistake (that's still TBD).
If we can maintain pluralism, it minimizes the chances of our getting stuck. So we shouldn't all jump on those bandwagons (and our funding agencies need to recognize the value of a distributed portfolio too).

2023-09-10 12:58:59

What’s your take on the “Are mental disorders brain disorders?” debate?
@npub1qe8…4vky and I summarize our positions here:
https://awaisaftab.substack.com/p/advancing-neuroscientific-understanding
Curious to hear your thoughts as well. Is the whole thing largely overblown? (My take). But/and once we set aside the obvious, what interesting questions remain? Top down causation? Insight into what is going wrong? Something else entirely?

2023-09-09 16:26:30

6 thought provoking questions posed to @npub1qe8…4vky (psychiatrist) and myself (brain researcher) and we hit on so much:
The challenge of escaping reductionism. Theories of consciousness. Are mental disorders brain disorders? Why should anyone care about philosophy? Is epistemic iteration is failing? And what bits of brain research are awaiting their Copernican moment?
With nods to @npub17p4…zzd8, @npub1vvs…k2yk, @npub1s4k…j02h, @npub1pe4…rjva, @npub19un…gacg
and so many more.
Read it all here (and let's discuss)!
https://awaisaftab.substack.com/p/advancing-neuroscientific-understanding

2023-09-09 12:46:51

- reply

@npub1cny…mk7m
Great question! Analogous to Box & Draper’s “all models are wrong but some are useful”, that applies to descriptions too. When does the wrongness of a description cross the line into a myth that’s worth busting?
If individuals want to dopamine dress or dopamine detox, I applaud the spirit (even if I don’t agree on the mechanism). Who am I to rain on that party?
My take is that it is my role to 1) spread sense not nonsense (silence across the board is suboptimal; fill the world with good content! 2) do it in a way that is not obnoxious.

2023-09-07 14:20:35

- reply

@npub1xkw…7jwu
Thanks! Additions are always welcome.
I never expected I would become that type of person who loves to dive into these really old books, but I'm that person. Today it was Walter Cannon's 1932 book Wisdom of the Body (where he coined the term "Homeostasis"). The opening paragraph is poetry for us all.
(The internet archive is feeding my new obsession.)
https://neuromatch.social/system/media_attachments/files/111/024/299/226/576/125/original/035a051d7669ec4b.png

2023-09-07 13:51:54

A wow prescient quote from 1865 that will resonate with my anti-reductionist friends
“Physiologist and physicians must never forget that a living being is an organism with its own individuality. Since physicists and chemists cannot take their stand outside the universe, they study bodies and phenomena in themselves and separately, without necessarily having to connect them with nature as whole. But physiologists, finding themselves, on the contrary, outside the animal organism which they see as a whole, must take account of the harmony of the whole, even while trying to get inside, so as to understand the mechanism of its every part. The result is that physicists and chemists can reject all idea of the final causes for the facts that they observe; while physiologists are inclined to acknowledge a harmonious and pre-established unity in an organized body, all of whose partial actions are interdependent and mutually generative. We really must learn, then, that if we break up a living organism by isolating its different parts, it is only for the sake of ease in experimental analysis, and by no means in order to conceive them separately. Indeed, when we wish to ascribe to a physiological quality its value and true significance, we must always refer to this whole, and draw conclusions only to its effects in the whole.”
Stumbled upon via this excellent take about homestasis (and how it's anti-reductionistic)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7076167/pdf/fphys-11-00200.pdf
Claude Bernard, 1865

2023-09-07 12:10:04

- reply

@npub1u2v…4999
Absolutely! And thanks for the article.
The parallel pursuit of treatments at higher levels as we chase cures (and treatments) at lower levels should happen, for sure. I recently had a very insightful conversation with an individual who has a rare degenerative disorder. A component of her patient advocacy is spreading the word to researchers that the pursuit of cures should not happen at the expense of pursuing treatments because treatments can vastly improve quality of life (and cures seem to be decades away).
In my mind, there is no singular right approach here. The notion that we (as a community) pursue multiple approaches in parallel (what some like to call "pluralism" and others like to call a "distributed portfolio") is the only thing that makes any sense. We need to play both the short and long game at the same time.
Of course each of us, as individual scientists, needs to make the decision about what we want to pursue ourselves (what we are most optimistic about and interested in, etc).
In my mind, tackling the degeneracy is probably the only route to cures. Whether this happens in my lifetime or not is very much TBD. What we do know is that we definitely won't make any progress if no one works on it.

2023-09-07 10:36:27

- reply

@npub1u2v…4999
The emerging story for nearly all brain disorders is that the same symptoms follow from a plethora of causes and different individuals with the ‘same’ disorder will require different treatments (precision medicine). I believe that the degeneracy you are talking about here is closely related.
Cystic fibrosis (while not a brain disorder) is one example - it’s always a mutation to one gene, but the drug needed to treat it depends on what the mutation is. Now take that complexity and multiply it for the more typical disorders that aren’t associated with a single gene (but many genes + environmental interactions).
So yes on appreciating the degeneracy and understanding those many biophysical stuffs to one function principles!

2023-09-07 01:37:49

- reply

@npub1u2v…4999
CNNs are great for some things. Epilepsy, Alzheimer’s and depression are probably not on that list. Biophysical models, however, likely will be impactful for those problems.

2023-09-05 12:06:52

On jargon - is it useful?
Is it necessary and useful for scientists to say "mnemonic" to refer to "memory" and "affect" to talk about "emotion"?
In other words, given that everyone understand emotion and mood and no one really understands what "affect" is until you are really deep into things, why is the term affect useful and important at all? And should we reserve it for deep dives (as opposed to public facing websites and such)? And does anyone call themselves an "emotion researcher?" or a "mood researcher?"
@npub1ary…md4c @npub1vvs…k2yk

2023-09-03 21:07:17

- reply

@npub10r7…rvc9
#neurobuzz
@npub1ary…md4c @npub1nt0…stjf @npub1fr4…q2gy @npub1d0p…un09 @npub1apg…f07c @npub1crv…vnx3 @npub1zll…lhfq

2023-09-03 20:34:47

- reply

@npub10r7…rvc9
Really fascinating question. I’d love to have a classification system for the types of things often thought of as machines.
As I ponder it, I wonder about the machine-vs-not distinction - what are you thinking there? You imply that hurricanes are not machines. But there are important parallels between those and machine-like things (say brains and other complex systems). So I’m curious to hear a bit more: why might the machine cs not distinction be interesting/important/special?
@npub12ld…d8ag @npub1d0p…un09 @npub1crv…vnx3 @npub1zll…lhfq @npub1apg…f07c @npub1ary…md4c @npub1fr4…q2gy @npub1nt0…stjf

2023-09-01 22:29:06

- reply

@npub1m7h…sn57
Egads!

2023-09-01 21:17:56

- reply

@npub1u2v…4999
Absolutely! We need to put that up there with ‘foundational/basic research is important’
BTW: John Hardy was one of the founders of the amyloid hypothesis. Have you read what he’s promoting recently? I think you’ll like it (it’s all about nonlinear dynamical systems). How to move forward with those ideas is exactly the type of conversation the community should be having, I think.
https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(23)00303-3

2023-09-01 20:06:13

- reply

@npub1u2v…4999
I'm not sure either. But I'm finding the new trend of consensus papers quite compelling - the ones in which a diverse and large swath of researchers explicitly write down what they see as the path forward for their field and why, in broad strokes.
Two great examples:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-023-00705-w
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34112980/
It's important that researchers aren't limited to doing just the prescribed program to move forward. But thoughtful contemplation about where to head and how to get there is beneficial, I think.
And if we agree on that, the question becomes: how do we incentivize (optional) participation in that type of contemplation? That's a tractable thing to accomplish (through foundation grants, etc).

2023-09-01 19:47:38

- reply

@npub1tar…x57t @npub1u2v…4999
Apt and vivid description.

2023-09-01 19:40:33

- reply

@npub1tar…x57t @npub1u2v…4999
I always appreciate your provocative takes, @npub1tar…x57t. This is precisely the type of conversation we need to be having more of!
In other words, what are we trying to achieve here? And what types of knowledge do we suspect we need to help us achieve it? Taking your example, let's say we learn that cell type R in brain area S is connected to cell type X in brain area Y, and that if you twiddle with R or X, you disrupt behavior Z (and we do so for a lot of sets of {R,S,X,Y,Z}. Is that what we are really after when we say that we want to "understand the brain"? What would we do with that knowledge? What type of thing are we assuming that the brain is "like" for that type of knowledge to be interesting/important/relevant?

2023-09-01 19:17:59

- reply

@npub1u2v…4999
These are great points. My sense is that there are three ways we might think about how to make this better.
The first way focuses on how to better reward individuals for their substantial individual contributions and we focus on what "substantial" really means. The difficulty I see with this is that it feeds into the genius narrative, which I find problematic: let's inspire genius individuals to make science happen. I really don't believe that science happens this way - progress happens much more via the collective than via individuals (and failing to acknowledge that strikes me as misguided).
The second way focuses on the idea that scientists operate more like a flock, where individuals move forward somewhat independently but also together (and the direction we head is continually revised and revisited). I believe that this is really how science works and I don't think we talk enough about how to make such a system move forward effectively. Yes, we need to reward individuals for their independent movements. But we also need much more thought about collective progress - and I think we've been paying much too little attention to this (and herein lies the problem).
The third way is the perspective taken by philosophers like Michael Strevens, who argue that while scientists know how to make science work, they really can't explain how it works (nor can historians or philosophers).
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/665795/the-knowledge-machine-by-michael-strevens/
In this case, attempts to optimize progress for something that no one understands would be pretty misguided. Insofar as it's been working, don't mess with it; it will sort itself out eventually.

2023-09-01 16:20:51

- reply

@npub15l4…tw3q
nope.

2023-09-01 16:20:10

- reply

@npub15hl…wcm2
❤️. Better late than never. But also a good lesson for us all. Thank you for elevating the message.

2023-09-01 15:32:55

- reply

If this resonates with you, maybe fast-forward?
People with panic disorder wait an average of ten years before discussing their symptoms with a doctor, psychologist, or other professional (including an acupuncturist or “spiritual advisor”). Those with social phobia delay sixteen years; those with generalized anxiety disorder, nine years. With specific phobia, the wait is twenty years.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/240941/on-edge-by-andrea-petersen/

2023-09-01 15:08:42

Excellent description of why pinpointing the causes of mental disorders (like anxiety) is so complex
From a nonfiction science book. I wish more scientific papers had this level of lucidity. Author: Andrea Petersen, reflecting on the causes of her own anxiety
In doing this research, I have realized that my temperament is probably not the root of my anxiety disorders. It is doubtful that I’ll ever find a single smoking gun, although genes most likely play a part. Mental illness isn’t like tuberculosis, which is always caused by one particular bacterium. Anxiety disorders almost certainly have multiple causes—from genetics to childhood trauma to how your parents interact with you. And for any given person, the mix of these factors will be as singular as a fingerprint.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/240941/on-edge-by-andrea-petersen/
(This is a great book from that wonderful genre of where personal memoir meets science).

2023-08-29 16:54:47

Provocative
As a young psychologist, this chills me to my bones. Apparently is possible to reach the stratosphere of scientific achievement, to publish over and over again in “high impact” journals, to rack up tens of thousands of citations, and for none of it to matter. Every marker of success, the things that are supposed to tell you that you're on the right track, that you're making a real contribution to science—they might mean nothing.
(I agree: time to rethink that any one of us is how this works).
I’m so sorry for psychology’s loss, whatever it is
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/im-so-sorry-for-psychologys-loss

2023-08-26 20:56:58

- reply

@npub1khx…geyg
Hear hear!

2023-08-19 09:10:05

The moving story of Carol Jennings, APP and Alzheimer's
In all my years as a brain researcher, I didn't think to sit down and learn the stories of individuals afflicted with brain dysfunction until I sat down to write a book. Learning their stories has been one of the most impactful parts of this experience.
Among them: Carol Jennings. In an era in which the causes of Alzheimer's were not thought to be genetic, Carol's father and four of his siblings were all diagnosed with the disease at the ages 54-58. She started writing letters to Alzheimer's researchers wondering if her family could contribute to some type of study. One of those letters was written to John Hardy and it set off a chain of events that changed the course of Alzheimer's research for the next 30 years.
"Dear Sir, I was very interested to read of your research in the Alzheimer’s Disease Society News and think my family could be of use ... please contact me at the above address if you think we could be of help." April, 1986.
That letter led to the discovery of a single point mutation in the gene APP that leads to the protein beta-amyloid. It was a key step toward Hardy and others launching the amyloid cascade hypothesis, which in turn led to the new Alzheimer's drugs. (While their effectiveness thus far is questionable, they are a necessary step).
Carol spent the next 30 years as a patient advocate. She refused to be tested for the gene herself absent a cure. Tragically, she was diagnosed with the disease in 2012.
Here's more about Carol and her devoted husband and caregiver, Stewart.
https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/blog/honouring-couple-dementia-their-contributions-research
(Watch the movie. Have tissues ready).

2023-08-17 20:32:19

- reply

@npub1ul2…3g8e
Sad but true.

2023-08-17 18:02:05

- reply

@npub1ul2…3g8e
Imagine what we all could do if we redirected all those cycles that we're wasting on things like "our" suitcase and "our" clothes ...

2023-08-17 17:06:19

Inspiration for my anarchist friends here on the furry elephant. A profile of John Hardy, first to pinpoint an amyloid mutation in a family with Alzheimer's. Quite the character.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm1004-1009

2023-08-17 15:16:14

- reply

@npub1p06…mvty
Very happy to support. I encourage others to as well. No one should be financially impacted for reporting academic fraud. The integrity of science depends on our ability to challenge on another.

2023-08-12 12:12:18

- reply

@npub14qw…5ndf
RIP Sliman.

2023-08-11 19:21:51

- reply

@npub1flm…n7vn
My take on this is that experiments are exceedingly hard and good data is very difficult to collect. If I said something on social media (or a talk or over lunch) that triggered someone to connect some dots and do a useful experiment, great! I can’t wait to hear about it and applaud your hard work. (You certainly don’t need to mention my name as part of that process).
I do hold a higher bar for archived theoretical work. If the idea came from a nontrivial, fleshed out theoretical piece of work, we should definitely cite.

2023-08-10 13:21:56

- reply

Big diversity of opinions on this one ⬆️!!

2023-08-10 09:52:49

Citations to social media posts?
I've seen this happen a few times in academic talks as well as peer-reviewed publications: someone quotes and cites a post from a social media (like a post here).
Under what conditions do you think this is appropriate? I'm not so sure it's a great idea.
The thoughts I post here are somewhere between "musing things through" and things I'd write in an archival publication. I don't want to have to hold them to the same bar that I hold for archivable/publishable words (if I did, I'd stop musing). I'm dismayed to think that my musings might be used in a publication to make some point.
But I can also see when it might be relevant/important.
My take is that we should hold words on social media to the same bar as traditional "personal communication" where we seek permission from the author to use the quotes (definitely in publications; ideally in formal talks as well).
Any disagreements?

2023-08-09 20:13:44

- reply

@npub19u6…hvnh @npub15sw…x855 @npub1t64…u4j0 @npub1zll…lhfq
All efforts appreciated! This strikes me as one of the really BIG unanswered question of our times.

2023-08-09 20:12:24

- reply

@npub17ye…jeh5
Really exciting work! Kudos all around.

2023-08-09 19:47:08

- reply

@npub19u6…hvnh @npub15sw…x855 @npub1t64…u4j0 @npub1zll…lhfq
I'm aware but haven't read it yet. I'm really curious to understand whether/how it maps to this argument from an interventionist account of what "cause" means:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34074354/
If anyone has thoughts there, I'd love to hear them!

2023-08-09 19:23:45

- reply

@npub15sw…x855 @npub1t64…u4j0
Exactly! Wouldn't that open some floodgates?
Not that everyone is listening to those "physical laws". For instance, @npub1zll…lhfq is challenging that assertion: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29961596/
I'm also compelled by this "other" way of thinking about top down causation:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34074354/
I'm really curious to hear how everyone is sifting through it all.