A fantastic new addition to my Elements in Philosophy of Mind series: The Senses by Ann-Sophie Barwich offers a new and refreshing take on an old philosophical topic, grounded firmly in modern neuroscience. And it's open access. Enjoy! https://t.co/upF3d5HEaU
One of the things that once made Twitter invaluable was its real-time news coverage from trusted sources but now your "for you" feed is filled with slop and hours-old information and your "following" feed never reloads which makes the site's utility as a news feed ZERO
Check out this talk by the inimitable Chris Fields:
https://t.co/CaybamXwkk
on Interesting Behavior - physics, cognitive science, what more could you ask for.
I'm not focused on panpsychism (in the sense of the hard problem), so I won't push it - it's pancognitivism that I argue strongly for - but, just for fun, I think there are 2 assumptions in the above that could be loosened. First, are you sure you can imagine minimal variants of consciousness - truly basement-level, enough to make conclusions? No one says electrons should have *complex feelings*. We're asking about the smallest version here. We find it very hard to imagine what it's like to be each other, and it's nearly impossible to do a good job with people who are not neurotypical, tetrachromat humans, bats, or the forthcoming cyborgs (humans with synthetic implants and novel sensory-motor architectures, higher IQs, etc. etc.). I think we should have extreme humility over our ability to visualize what the truly minimal version of it might be, not to mention about whether formal models such as "encode" are good ways to think about this question at all. As for the binding problem, it's only a problem if you assume that all of the intelligences in your body are merged together into your 1 big, top-level mind and they cease to exist. If you don't assume there's only 1 tenant in your body, at one scale, then there are other options where the binding problem isn't as bad. There are still important questions, but it's not the same. More on this maybe next year.
Underrated element of American decline how many Americans are leaving the US. In Portugal there must now be about 150,000 American refugees, many illegaly (on tourist visas) and all telling me they are “escaping” the US
Since the 1940's, we've had a science of minimal systems with goals - cybernetics. It's not anthropocentric because goals are not specific to humans. It is anthropocentric to think that talking about goals is related to humans specifically. I address that here: https://t.co/lex2pO1h39 and many other people have written about this as well.
This is an older post from MIT Press, but there are some really cool open access books on this list! Still so happy to see our book Movement Matters in the top 9 most-downloaded books for 2024! Check out the report and all the free titles here: https://t.co/0j3Wfmh3Gi
And for what’s next, our new volume Embodied Intelligence is coming this June! 🧠✨https://t.co/ZyYxflsWrj
#OpenAccess #ScienceTwitter #Cognition #STEM #Biology #MovementMatters #AcademicTwitter #EmbodiedIntelligence @InferenceActive @diverseintelligence
How can a single cell learn without a brain? We explore this in my new paper with @WallaceUcsf! We discovered that single cells may learn using molecules similar to those that animal brains use to learn, like CaMKII. Cells can also propagate memory states to their progeny! 🧵1/n
Pulitzer-winning writer featuring our flagellar motor work and animation on @QuantaMagazine cover reminds me why open access and outreach matter in science. When we share our work, research reaches millions.
Article: https://t.co/2drTYmA8rW
Paper: https://t.co/m98Df1DuOr