New work w/ Zach Kelso and @madeleinecsnyder.bsky.social
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
Our negative results on classical conditioning in planarian flatworms. This was surprising, given the long history of work (including sensational findings of memory transfer and retention through decapitation).
עוד מוקדם לומר אם ביבי עשה טעות היסטורית כשביקש מטראמפ לא להתערב בזמן ההפגנות באיראן ולהמר על "שאגת הארי" כדרך להסיר את האיום הקיומי ממדינת ישראל.
אבל חייבים כבר להתחיל לדבר על איום קיומי אחר. איום קיומי שיש לו צנטריפוגות של שנאה ותאוות נקם וכורים של ייאוש.
Howard Eichenbaum was a master at writing the closing statements of his papers. He just goes for it and that's so helpful.
Tulving wrote in 2002: "It seems that humans are the only animals that travel mentally in time." He never gives any justifications for this claim, or at least I haven't come across any. It's quite hard to show that animals do this, but around 2002 I don't think anyone was trying that hard either.
🚀 Postdoc Alert! Are you passionate about social learning & cultural evolution? @dominikdeffner.bsky.social & I have a 3-year position with freedom to develop your research and work on cutting-edge multiplayer and immersive experiments. Apply by March 30! hmc-lab.com/SocialLearni... Pls share 🙏
It has been argued that what sets model organisms apart from other experimental 🐋🌱 is their high representational power. In our latest 📃, we argue otherwise: the hallmark of MOs lies in the dimensions of modeling versatility they afford to scientists 👇 link.springer.com/article/10.1... #philsci #HPS
I don't know why this is the thing that got me 7. But it just sounded so insane to me 43.5. Like, if you put random numbers at the end of your sentences, that doesn't convince me of your claims 99.78. It just sounds more far-fetched than it already sounded without the numbers 0.005.
There's a lot of work on how the neocortex is special in implementing computations that subcortical structures are (presumably) not suitable for.
But it seems birds achieve the same outcome with a nuclear organization. So why not the mammalian subcortex as well?
Following recommendations on here I'm listening to More Everything Forever and it is INSANE. So many things in there but I have to ask- can philosophers just put numbers at the end of their sentences now? Supposedly it makes their claims more believable because they came up with special numbers?
Did I miss the statistics course for philosophers? (I would actually take that) Because I'm pretty sure that's not how probability works- just slap on a random number after your claim and now people are supposed to take it more seriously?!