Профиль

Thanks. Yes. It must be a biorxiv problem. Please try again in a bit.

It's also consistent with this theory. Miller, E.K., Brincat, S.L., and Roy, J.E. (2026) Analog Cognition and Consciousness. Journal of Neuroscience, in press, osf.io/preprints/ps...

Want to know more about alpha/beta and top-down control? Analog Cognition and Consciousness. Journal of Neuroscience, in press, osf.io/preprints/ps... Oscillatory control of cortical space as a computational dimension. doi.org/10.1016/j.cu... Working Memory 2.0 doi.org/10.1016/j.ne...

Connections are important, to be sure. But they are less than half the story. Figuring out function by using connections is just kind of like looking at a paper map to see where traffic is flowing.

How about a baseball metaphor, "utility players" They play different positions at different times. But they can't play ball on their own.

The latter is how I read it. And Fusi is spot on correct.

Old paradigms never really go away.

Cool work

"Researchers can now build multi-scale brain circuits through an intuitive point-and-click interface, placing neurons, neural assemblies, and brain regions within their anatomical context, specifying receptor-level biology, running simulations, and analyzing results."

There is barely a distinction between "hard problem" and insoluble, especially when it is contrasted against the so-called "easy" problem of consciousness.

Thanks. But some do insist on the gap. That's the so-called hard problem.

We treat our experience as special, but brains operate on the same underlying principles. When we understand the mechanisms of consciousness, the "explanatory gap" will disappear. Insisting on a gap sounds like a defensive stance from someone with little to say about science.

It's a non-problem. We treat our experience as special, but brains operate on the same underlying principles. When we understand the mechanisms of consciousness, the "explanatory gap" will disappear. Insisting on a gap sounds like a defensive stance from someone with little to say about science.

My lecture was sponsored by the Institute for Contemporary Art New York. icany.org/events/tempo...

David Chalmers benefitted.

I’ve never bought the “zombie” human thought experiment (physically identical to us but without inner experience). Just because we can imagine something doesn’t make it possible. We can imagine plenty of impossible things.

The brain ia organized around dimensionality reduction and data compression. But analog comp is far more efficient than digital at a fundamental level. www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Categorization is ‘baked’ into the brain - Nature Reviews NeuroscienceCategorization, the grouping of objects, living organisms, actions or events into equivalence clusters, is fundamental to adaptive behaviour. In this Perspective, Barrett and Miller discuss evidence t...www.nature.com

We should also keep in mind that we're vastly under-sampling the brain. And some differences could be due to just sampling error. Not seeing the same effects in another animal doesn't mean they didn't exist in the other.

What Mark said

If there is a task, look for differences in behavior/strategy that can explain the differences in neurophysiology. More times than not you find one. And then that bug turns into a feature.