Search
1000 results for “open_neuroscience”
-
👋 Hello fellow Open Science enthusiasts!
👀 Check out this new resource:👩💻 DeepSlice is a #python package which aligns histology to the Allen Brain Atlas and Waxholm rat atlas using deep learning.
👨🔬 👩🔬 Developed by Harry Carey, Michael Pegios, Lewis Martin, Chris Saleeba, Anita Turner; Nicholas Everett, Ingvild Bjerke, Maja Puchades, Jan Bjaalie, Simon McMullan
-
We're proud to introduce the INCF Open Neuroscience Award: A data challenge 🧠
The 10,000 USD award is to encourage students & early-stage researchers to engage with resources by neuroscience repositories developed by large-scale brain initiatives.
It will provide repository maintainers with independent assessments of their infrastructures, and will promote data reuse & collaborative science.
Registration: Jul 1 - Oct 20, 2024
Start: Oct 21, 2024
End: Jan 31, 2025Learn more: bit.ly/INCFONA
#neuroscience #neuroinformatics #OpenScience #DataChallenge #prize #NeurosciencePrize #FAIR
-
Spent a month in procrastination to avoid debugging a horribly patched #spikesorting pipeline in MATLAB. Then came to discover @spikeinterface and now I just want to spend my day plotting filtered traces and quality metrics, everything is just so smooth 😍
People in #open neuroscience software are pulling out truly amazing things! -
🎉🧠 INCF at FENS Forum 2024 🧠🎉
If you're in Vienna this week, make sure to check out our sessions!
Here's where & when to find us:
📅 Jun 26, 12:00-13:00
📍 Hall D
🏆 INCF launches the Open Neuroscience Award
INCF Co-director Mathew Abrams to launch the brand new INCF Open Neuroscience Award📅 Jun 27, 14:50-15:30
📍 FENS Axon Alley
📰 INCF TeachingSpace: A resource for education in neuroinformatics
Poster presentation with INCF Co-director Mathew Abrams -
#NeuroMethods question:
Has anyone found a good, reliable, automatized way to deliver small liquid reward amounts for rodent experiments?We’ve been using a pressurized air system with solenoid valves (from McMaster) but they are not very reliable and the quantity delivered fluctuates with time and depends on the actual valve…
We were thinking of testing out the Open Neuroscience / #LaubachLab syringe pump but someone just mentioned they are not that reliable for small volumes (1-10 microliters). Anyone else has feedback on them?
Anyone doing liquid reward delivery for rodent who has found the Valve Graal??
#Neuroscience #BehaviouralNeuroscience -
🎉🧠 INCF at FENS Forum 2024 🧠🎉
We're getting excited for FENS Forum 2024! Will you be there? Pay us a visit. Here's where & when to find us:
📅 Jun 26, 12:00-13:00
📍 Hall D
🏆 INCF launches the Open Neuroscience Award
INCF Co-director Mathew Abrams to launch the brand new INCF Open Neuroscience Award📅 Jun 27, 14:50-15:30
📍 FENS Axon Alley
📰 INCF TeachingSpace: A resource for education in neuroinformatics
This is a poster presentation with INCF Co-director Mathew Abrams -
Heading to Society for #Neuroscience annual meeting
#sfn24 #sfn2024? Presenting #openscience / #opensource projects? Tag us on a toot with your talk/poster/social time and date for a boost! 📢🧠 -
Open-Source Neuroscience Hardware Hack Chat - Join us on Wednesday, February 19 at noon Pacific for the Open-Source Neuroscience Hardware Hack Cha... more: https://hackaday.com/2020/02/18/open-source-neuroscience-hardware-hack-chat/ #hackadaycolumns #neuroscience #thehackchat #opensource #psychology #apparatus #structure #behavior #neuron #rodent #brain #mouse #rat
-
I've compiled all open computational neuroscience resources I can find on the web: https://github.com/asoplata/open-computational-neuroscience-resources Contributions welcome! #neuroscience #compneuro #compneuroscience #academicmastodon
-
The International Brain Laboratory is hiring:
Open positions:
* Neuroscience Community Engineer
* Neuroscience Research Software Engineer / Data Scientisthttps://www.internationalbrainlab.com/opportunities#jobs
Read about the IBL:
https://www.internationalbrainlab.com/faq-1 -
The International Brain Laboratory is hiring:
Open positions:
* Neuroscience Community Engineer
* Neuroscience Research Software Engineer / Data Scientisthttps://www.internationalbrainlab.com/opportunities#jobs
Read about the IBL:
https://www.internationalbrainlab.com/faq-1 -
The International Brain Laboratory is hiring:
Open positions:
* Neuroscience Community Engineer
* Neuroscience Research Software Engineer / Data Scientisthttps://www.internationalbrainlab.com/opportunities#jobs
Read about the IBL:
https://www.internationalbrainlab.com/faq-1 -
The International Brain Laboratory is hiring:
Open positions:
* Neuroscience Community Engineer
* Neuroscience Research Software Engineer / Data Scientisthttps://www.internationalbrainlab.com/opportunities#jobs
Read about the IBL:
https://www.internationalbrainlab.com/faq-1 -
The International Brain Laboratory is hiring:
Open positions:
* Neuroscience Community Engineer
* Neuroscience Research Software Engineer / Data Scientisthttps://www.internationalbrainlab.com/opportunities#jobs
Read about the IBL:
https://www.internationalbrainlab.com/faq-1 -
🎉 This just in: INCF is back to Google Season of Docs 🎉
We were a GSoD mentoring organization in 2019 & 2020, identifying & recruiting open-source neuroscience projects needing technical writer support, & we're happy to be back for 2024!
Learn more: https://www.incf.org/blog/incf-planning-serve-mentoring-organization-google-season-docs-2024-gsod
#neuroscience #neuroinformatics #neuroinformagical #OpenScience #OpenNeuro #OpenData #OpenSource #GSoD #GoogleSeasonOfDocs
-
🎉 This just in: INCF is back to Google Season of Docs 🎉
We were a GSoD mentoring organization in 2019 & 2020, identifying & recruiting open-source neuroscience projects needing technical writer support, & we're happy to be back for 2024!
Learn more: https://www.incf.org/blog/incf-planning-serve-mentoring-organization-google-season-docs-2024-gsod
#neuroscience #neuroinformatics #neuroinformagical #OpenScience #OpenNeuro #OpenData #OpenSource #GSoD #GoogleSeasonOfDocs
-
INCF marks 16 consecutive years as a mentoring organization in Google Summer of Code 2026
Since 2011, supported open source neuroscience and mentors worldwide.
Great opportunity for students and developers to make an impact in brain research.
https://incf.org/blog/incf-marks-its-16th-year-anniversary-google-summer-code-mentor-organization
-
No, I will not "let that sink in"!
A quite frankly needlessly detailed diatribe about why a certain phrase is psychologically counterproductive. As in, bloody annoying!
-
No, I will not "let that sink in"!
A quite frankly needlessly detailed diatribe about why a certain phrase is psychologically counterproductive. As in, bloody annoying!
-
No, I will not "let that sink in"!
A quite frankly needlessly detailed diatribe about why a certain phrase is psychologically counterproductive. As in, bloody annoying!
-
No, I will not "let that sink in"!
A quite frankly needlessly detailed diatribe about why a certain phrase is psychologically counterproductive. As in, bloody annoying!
-
No, I will not "let that sink in"!
A quite frankly needlessly detailed diatribe about why a certain phrase is psychologically counterproductive. As in, bloody annoying!
-
This is almost starting a mini series on resilient brains:
"Resilient Brains Adapt to Stress"
-
DATE: May 13, 2026 at 10:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: The human brain processes the passage of time across three distinct stages
URL: https://www.psypost.org/the-human-brain-processes-the-passage-of-time-across-three-distinct-stages/
A recent study mapping the human brain reveals that our perception of time does not happen all at once, but rather unfolds across a series of distinct physical processing stages. As visual information travels from the back of the brain to the front, different groups of neurons handle specific parts of the timing process, ultimately creating our subjective experience of how long an event lasts. These findings were published in the journal PLOS Biology.
For decades, researchers have mapped out a broad network of brain regions that become active when people estimate how much time has passed. Studies involving both animals and humans have shown that certain groups of neurons respond to specific durations of time.
These specialized cells are often arranged in topographic maps across the brain. In these maps, neurons that prefer similar lengths of time are located physically close to one another on the folded outer layer of the brain, known as the cerebral cortex.
Despite knowing where these timing regions are located, researchers have struggled to understand exactly how they work together. It has been unclear how a physical feature like the duration of a flashing light is transformed into an abstract feeling of passing time.
To piece together this puzzle, neuroscientist Valeria Centanino and her colleagues Gianfranco Fortunato and Domenica Bueti at the International School for Advanced Studies in Italy conducted an imaging study. They wanted to track how the properties of time-tracking neurons change as signals move through the brain.
The researchers recruited thirteen healthy volunteers to perform a visual categorization task. First, the participants were trained to memorize a specific reference duration of half a second, which they would use as a mental benchmark.
During the main experiment, the volunteers watched a series of blurry, flickering circles appear on a screen. Each circle stayed on the screen for a random amount of time, ranging between two-tenths of a second and eight-tenths of a second.
After each circle disappeared, the participants pressed a button to indicate whether the shape was visible for a longer or shorter time than their internalized reference. While the volunteers performed this task, the researchers recorded their brain activity using an ultra-high-field functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging is a technology that measures brain activity by detecting changes in blood flow. When a specific area of the brain works harder, it requires more oxygen, and the scanner tracks the oxygen-rich blood rushing to that region.
The scanner used in this study operates at a magnetic field strength of seven Tesla. This is much stronger than standard hospital scanners, allowing the team to capture highly detailed images of the brain surface.
With these detailed images, Centanino and her team modeled the behavior of individual populations of neurons. They looked for unimodal tuning, which happens when a group of brain cells responds most strongly to one specific stimulus and less strongly to anything else.
The researchers found that the way neurons tuned into time changed depending on their location in the brain. They identified three distinct processing stages that form a hierarchy of time perception.
The first stage occurs in the occipital visual areas, located at the back of the head where the brain first processes sight. Here, the neurons acted like simple timers that gathered sensory information from the eyes.
In these visual areas, the brain cells showed a strong preference for the longest durations. Their activity increased steadily the longer the shape stayed on the screen, encoding the physical length of the visual event.
The second stage takes place in the parietal and premotor regions, which sit near the top and middle of the brain. In these areas, the researchers observed a complete topographic map of time.
Neurons in these middle regions were tuned to the entire range of presented durations. Some groups of cells responded only to brief flashes, while others responded only to medium or long appearances.
These specialized cells were neatly organized into clusters based on their preferred durations. This suggests that the parietal and premotor regions are responsible for reading out the specific duration of the visual event, allowing the brain to track exactly how much time just passed.
The final stage happens in the frontal regions of the brain, including the anterior insula and the rostral supplementary motor area. These areas are heavily involved in complex thought, decision making, and self-awareness.
In these frontal areas, the neurons did not represent the full range of time. Instead, they showed a strong preference for the middle of the time range, which was close to the half-second reference duration the participants had memorized.
This central preference represented the boundary that participants used to decide whether a duration was short or long. By tracking the exact time at which participants switched their answers from “shorter” to “longer,” the researchers calculated each person’s unique subjective boundary.
The activity in these frontal regions matched up perfectly with these subjective boundaries. This indicates that the frontal areas take the raw measurement of time and turn it into a personal, abstract categorization.
“Our results show that time perception is not a unitary process, but the outcome of multiple processing stages distributed across the cerebral cortex,” the authors wrote. “Each stage contributes differently, from encoding physical duration to constructing the subjective experience of time.”
To interpret the brain scan data, the research team used a mathematical approach called population receptive field modeling. This technique allowed them to estimate the exact time preference of neurons in tiny sections of the brain.
By mapping these preferences, the team could see exactly which brain folds contained neurons tuned to brief moments and which contained neurons tuned to longer stretches. They also evaluated how these preferences clustered together physically.
In the visual areas at the back of the brain, the physical clustering of time-sensitive cells was relatively weak. However, in the parietal and frontal regions, neurons with the exact same time preferences were grouped tightly together.
This tight grouping implies that organizing time into structured maps becomes more important as the brain moves from simply seeing an event to making a decision about it. The brain physically structures its cells to handle the demands of categorizing information.
Additionally, the researchers noticed a difference between the left and right sides of the brain in the motor areas, which control physical movement. Because the participants used their right hands to press the response buttons, the motor areas in the left hemisphere showed distinct activity patterns.
These motor areas consistently showed a preference for the shortest possible durations. The researchers suspect this was a byproduct of the brain preparing to make a physical movement as soon as the shape appeared, rather than a true measurement of passing time.
Another surprising detail emerged in the supplementary motor area, a part of the brain near the top of the head that helps plan movements. The researchers found a clear split in how the front and back sections of this region handled time.
The back half of the supplementary motor area contained cells tuned to the entire range of durations, reading out the time like a stopwatch. The front half contained the boundary cells that helped categorize the time as short or long.
This split within a single brain region had been seen previously in animal studies. Finding it in humans suggests that this specific area might act as a central hub where actual time and subjective time are integrated.
While this imaging study provides a detailed roadmap of visual time perception, it does have a few limitations. The research focused entirely on the cerebral cortex, which is the brain’s folded outer layer.
The team did not measure activity in deeper brain structures or the cerebellum, which are also known to play roles in processing time. Future studies will need to look at these deeper regions to see how they interact with the cortical maps.
The experiment was also restricted to visual time perception. It remains an open question whether the brain uses this exact same pathway to process the duration of sounds or physical touches.
To fully understand the boundary neurons in the frontal lobe, the researchers suggest conducting experiments that test multiple different reference durations. This would reveal whether the boundary cells physically shift their preferences when the rules of the task change.
Despite these limitations, the research offers a clearer picture of how a simple flash of light turns into a conscious experience of time. It reveals that our sense of time is a collaborative effort, passed along a specialized assembly line inside the head.
The study, “Neuronal populations across the cortex underlie discrete, categorical, and subjective representations of visual durations,” was authored by Valeria Centanino, Gianfranco Fortunato, and Domenica Bueti.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/the-human-brain-processes-the-passage-of-time-across-three-distinct-stages/
-------------------------------------------------
DAILY EMAIL DIGEST: Email [email protected] -- no subject or message needed.
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot
Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com
EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org
READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org
It's primitive... but it works... mostly...
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #TimePerception #BrainTimeProcessing #CorticalTimeMaps #NeuronalTiming #VisualTimeProcessing #PopulationalFieldModeling #PLOSBiology #Neuroscience #TemporalEncoding #BrainHierarchy
-
Annovis Bio launches open-label extension study for buntanetap, exploring long-term Parkinson's treatment potential and neurological disease modification strategies. Innovative research aims to transform patient outcomes. #Parkinsons #Neuroscience
-
Reading the Lattice Without the Legend: Grinberg, Syntergy, and the Argument for Real Entry
A scientist walks out of his office in Mexico City on December 8, 1994, and never walks back in. The man is Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum, forty-eight years old, a UNAM-trained neurophysiologist with a doctorate from New York Medical College, the author of a stack of monographs on consciousness, and the last serious researcher to claim that the human brain could be wired into a holographic substrate of reality he called the Lattice. He had spent years measuring electroencephalographic correlations between separated human subjects. Two months before he vanished, he published a paper in Physics Essays arguing that pairs of subjects, separated inside semisilent Faraday chambers fourteen and a half meters apart, showed brain activity that mirrored stimulation given to only one of them. Then he was gone. The laboratory was found. Several notes were missing. His wife, who had cause to suspect him of an affair and a documented history of violence, became a person of interest and was never charged. Mexican press cycled through the story for years. Mystics and conspiracy theorists folded the disappearance into the theory, as if the man had stepped sideways into his own hypothesis.
I want to take the legend apart and see what is left.
The Lattice, in Grinberg’s framing, refuses the picture of space that physics offers. Space, in Syntergic Theory, behaves as a high-coherence informational matrix. The brain produces what he called a “neuronal field” that interacts with the Lattice the way a film negative interacts with a beam of light, decoding a hologram. Reality, in this picture, gets read off a substrate that already contains every point in space, every moment in time, and every state of consciousness. The brain becomes one of many possible decoders. High coherence, the kind Grinberg believed he saw in expert meditators and in the Mexican curandera he studied for years (Bárbara Guerrero, known as Pachita), allowed certain brains to interact with the Lattice directly. Telepathy followed from that interaction. Remote viewing came next. Materialization, in the most extreme reading of Pachita’s psychic surgery, sat at the far end of the same continuum.
This is a beautiful theory. It is also, as stated, almost entirely unfalsifiable.
The temptation, when you encounter writing like this, is to either swallow it whole or dismiss it whole. Both responses are lazy. The work has a testable core and a metaphysical shell, and the two need to be separated before anything useful can be said about either.
The testable core is the transferred potential experiment. Two people interact for twenty minutes. They are placed in electromagnetically shielded rooms separated by a distance that rules out ordinary signaling. Only one subject of each pair is stimulated by one hundred light flashes. An EEG records evoked potentials in the stimulated subject. A second EEG records the unstimulated subject. Grinberg and his coauthors, including the theoretical physicist Amit Goswami, claimed that when the stimulated subject showed distinct evoked potentials, the nonstimulated subject showed “transferred potentials” similar to those evoked in the stimulated subject. They titled the 1994 paper “The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain,” and they proposed that the brain has a macroscopic quantum component capable of nonlocal correlation across distance.
If the effect were real and robust, it would rank among the most important findings in the history of neuroscience. So what does the replication record show?
Leanna Standish and colleagues at Bastyr University and the University of Washington repeated the design in 2003 and 2004, recording simultaneous EEGs from pairs of subjects placed in sound-attenuated rooms separated by ten meters, later extending the work to fMRI. They reported small correlations in some pairs, statistically above chance, broadly consistent with Grinberg’s direction. A 2018 re-analysis by groups at IULM in Milan and the University of Padova, applying machine-learning classifiers to two pooled datasets covering forty-five pairs, found classification accuracies of 50.74 percent on the first dataset and 51.17 percent, 50.45 percent, and 51.91 percent across stimulation conditions on the second. The honest reading of those numbers is that there is, at best, a faint signal above noise, on the order of one to two percent above chance, and that the signal does not hold up under stricter analytical methods. The “one in four pairs” claim from the original paper is the kind of effect size that thins out when sample sizes grow and protocols tighten. The result might be noise. It might be small and real. The data, after thirty years, cannot tell us which.
The Lattice does not announce itself in clean experimental data. What announces itself is a smear of weakly positive results, sensitive to method, sample, and the personal coherence of the experimenters and subjects. A smear of that kind, in any other branch of biology, would be treated as a candidate artifact rather than a candidate discovery.
So where are the weak spots in Grinberg’s argument? I count five.
The first concerns decoherence. Quantum entanglement is fragile. It survives at extremely low temperatures, in highly isolated systems, in laboratories where engineers work for years to prevent contact with the surrounding environment. The human brain operates at 310 Kelvin, immersed in saltwater, packed with thermal vibration and electrochemical traffic. The mainstream physical objection to any macroscopic quantum brain is that entangled states cannot last long enough at body temperature to do anything cognitively useful. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have proposed microtubules inside neurons as a possible shelter for such states, and that proposal has critics of its own. Grinberg borrowed the language of EPR correlation without supplying a physical mechanism that addresses decoherence at all.
Venue makes a second weakness. Physics Essays publishes heterodox work. It is peer-reviewed, but it is not Physical Review Letters. Goswami, the coauthor who supplied the quantum framework, is a theoretical physicist whose later career was spent largely outside academic physics, writing for general audiences on consciousness. David Bohm, whose Wholeness and the Implicate Order Grinberg cited as foundational, was taken seriously by working physicists in a way that Goswami’s idealist consciousness work has not been. None of this disqualifies Grinberg’s results. It does qualify the weight one should give them before independent replication settles the question.
Pachita is a third problem. Grinberg believed he was watching a high-coherence shaman manipulate the Lattice when he observed the curandera apparently materializing tissue and performing organ transplants without anesthesia. The skeptical literature on psychic surgery is well developed, going back to James Randi’s documentation of Filipino practitioners in the 1970s and 1980s. The techniques are reproducible by stage magicians using animal tissue concealed in the hand. I do not claim that Pachita was fraudulent. I claim that Grinberg’s failure to engage with that literature on his own observations was a methodological gap large enough to fall through.
A fourth weakness sits in the unfalsifiability of the Lattice itself. The transferred potential is testable. The claim that space is a holographic informational matrix decoded by the brain is, as currently stated, not testable in any sharp way. The interpretation can absorb any outcome by adjusting what counts as coherence. A theory closed to refutation has crossed out of science and into philosophy, where Bohm’s implicate order belongs and where Grinberg’s Syntergic Theory should be argued.
The fifth weakness is the disappearance, which has worked as an evidentiary force-multiplier in the opposite direction the mystics imagine. Because the man vanished, the work is treated as forbidden knowledge. Because the work is treated as forbidden, it is shielded from the ordinary correction processes of science. The romance of the vanishing has done more damage to the theory than any single critic ever could.
That is the harsh audit. Here is what survives it.
What survives is a serious twentieth-century researcher who took indigenous practitioners seriously when most of his peers would not, who designed and ran controlled experiments on a phenomenon his discipline refused to study, who published in peer-reviewed venues with a theoretical physicist as coauthor, and whose specific empirical claim of brain-to-brain correlation across electromagnetic shielding has been independently tested by university laboratories in the United States and Europe with weakly positive but unconvincing results. The Lattice as cosmology fails the audit, while the transferred potential as a research program clears it.
Which brings me to the question worth taking seriously. What would real entry into the Lattice look like, if Grinberg’s empirical claim deserves another hearing?
Entry would begin by separating Syntergic cosmology from transferred-potential empiricism, permanently. The cosmology is interesting as a philosophical proposition and belongs in the philosophy of mind, alongside Bohm, Whitehead, and the slow-burning literature on panpsychism. The empiricism is interesting as a falsifiable claim and demands the methodological rigor the original work lacked. That means preregistered protocols, pair samples in the hundreds rather than the dozens, blinded analysis, machine-learning classifiers reported with confidence intervals, datasets shared openly, and a pre-committed null hypothesis the field will accept if the signal fails to clear it. The work has been creeping in that direction for twenty years, slowly, in the parapsychology literature and in a small set of medical schools. It needs to migrate into mainstream cognitive neuroscience or it will live on the margins forever.
Mechanism comes next. Holographic metaphors are not mechanisms. A specific physical proposal must explain how two brains separated by fifteen meters of air and steel could correlate at all. Decoherence is the wall. Until someone proposes a mechanism that survives a hostile physics seminar, the empirical results, even if they hold up, will be read as artifact rather than discovery. Penrose and Hameroff at least attempted a mechanism. Grinberg never did, and the field has not done it for him in the thirty years since.
Last, we would have to give up the romance of the vanishing. Grinberg probably did not step into his own theory. The most likely reading of the available evidence is that he died in late 1994, in circumstances Mexican authorities never resolved, with attention focused on his immediate domestic situation. The investigation failed. The case remains open. As long as his disappearance functions as evidence for his theory, we are doing magical thinking under the cover of physics. A theory has to survive on its experimental record, not on the mystery of its author’s death.
Is any of this real, or possible? The transferred potential, in its weak form, might be real. The Lattice, as Grinberg drew it, is most likely not real in the literal physical sense he intended. What is real is the underlying scandal that consciousness studies were starved of funding and respectability for most of the twentieth century, that a serious researcher who tried to bring rigor to the question was treated as fringe in his own lifetime, that he disappeared before he could finish his work, and that the field has only now begun to catch up to the questions he was asking.
If we want to enter the Lattice, the entry point is methodological, not mystical. We pick up where he left off. The testable parts get tested. Cosmology stands as a working metaphor that may, or may not, be redeemed by data. Above all, we resist the temptation to make the man’s death do the work that his experiments could not finish.
That is the only honest way to read him now.
#argument #entry #grinberg #hypothesis #integration #lattice #legend #philosophy #reality #remoteViewing #science #surgery #syntergy #theory -
Secrets of Human Intelligence Unlocked
Summary: In a massive collaborative effort, researchers have released EVApeCognition, the largest and most comprehensive open-access dataset of…
#NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #Science #brainresearch #cognition #EVApeCognition #evolution #evolutionaryneuroscience #humanintelligence #Intelligence #neuobiology #Neuroscience #UniversityofStirling
https://www.newsbeep.com/us/598894/ -
Secrets of Human Intelligence Unlocked
Summary: In a massive collaborative effort, researchers have released EVApeCognition, the largest and most comprehensive open-access dataset of…
#NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #Science #brainresearch #cognition #EVApeCognition #evolution #evolutionaryneuroscience #humanintelligence #Intelligence #neuobiology #Neuroscience #UniversityofStirling
https://www.newsbeep.com/us/598894/ -
Why your brain has to work harder in an open-plan office than private offices: study
-
Why your brain has to work harder in an open-plan office than private offices: study