From goldwurzel from web.de Mon Mar 3 14:44:09 2008 From: goldwurzel from web.de (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Stephan_M=F6hres?=) Date: Mon Mar 3 17:08:32 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] BRAIN SEX Message-ID: <47CC5509.3070808@web.de> Dear m. pritchatt! i stumbeled over your reference list concerning the book 'brain sex' on the web. http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/neur-sci/1997-September/029431.html as i am working on the theme, i would be interested in the whole 17 pages of references, but don't know where to find them. are you able to help me? i would also be grateful for tips on actual books concerning the theme if it is possible. sincerely stephan moehres from germany From caitlin.connors from gmail.com Wed Mar 5 15:54:38 2008 From: caitlin.connors from gmail.com (ensn@lse.ac.uk) Date: Wed Mar 5 18:53:48 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Call for Applications: Interdisciplinary NeuroSchool hosted by the European Neuroscience and Society Network Message-ID: <49599664-b304-4394-ad43-fda08b56166d@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com> First Interdisciplinary NeuroSchool of the European Neuroscience and Society Network EMBL, Monterotondo (Rome) Sept. 28th-Oct. 5th Dear friends and colleagues, We are pleased to invite applications to the first interdisciplinary 'NeuroSchool' of the European Neuroscience and Society Network, a five year programme involving leading neuroscientists and social scientists from eleven European countries in collaborative research and debate. The aim of the school is to foster learning in a interdisciplinary symmetrical environment. It is intended for graduate students and post- doctoral fellows engaged in neuroscience research or in historical or social studies of neuroscience. The topic of this year's NeuroSchool is behavioural genetics. Together, we will critically assess the current methodologies of experimentation in this branch of research and will discuss its implications in the context of contemporary society. Lectures will cover the history of behavioural genetics, the latest scientific evidence in the field, as well as the history and sociology of psychotropic drugs. Tutors and lecturers include Cornelius Gross (EMBL), Klaus-Peter Lesch (University of Wuerzburg), Nikolas Rose (BIOS, London School of Economics) and Ilina Singh (BIOS, LSE). There will be ample opportunities for cross-exchange of data and insights and to think creatively about innovative avenues in the field and fruitful inter-disciplinary collaborations. The course will consist of a balanced mixture of theoretical and hands-on practical modules offered by a small core of senior experts and will be designed to ensure maximum dialogue across disciplines. This will be a rare opportunity to engage in detailed interdisciplinary dialogue and research over an extended period. Participants will also present their own research. We invite applications from highly motivated scholars in biology, neuroscience, sociology, anthropology, psychology and history/ philosophy of science. Applicants will be selected on the basis of their merit, research interests and aspirations and will have all their travel and accommodation expenses covered. Please download and fill out the entry form on our website (below) and send it along with a cover letter, your CV and contact details of two referees (preferably including one research supervisor or mentor) to g.frazzetto@lse.ac.uk. ***Note: Some of the practical modules will involve the demonstration or handling of animals. Individuals who are in principle against the use of animal models in research are advised not to attend. Deadline for submission of applications is May 15th, 2008. Successful candidates will be notified by July 15th at the latest. For more information, please see our website (www.neurosocieties.eu) or write to g.frazzetto@lse.ac.uk. Additional details will be posted to www.neurosocieties.eu/neuroschool.htm as they become available. --- Caitlin Connors Programme Coordinator, European Neuroscience and Society Network London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK www.neurosocieties.eu (UK) +44 020 7107 5289 From gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com Wed Mar 5 16:37:21 2008 From: gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com (Glen M. Sizemore) Date: Wed Mar 5 18:53:54 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The Value of Placebo References: <13stbls364keoaa@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <47cf128f$0$24664$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> I just looked at those data today - the effect looked pretty robust. "John Hasenkam" wrote in message news:13stbls364keoaa@corp.supernews.com... > You Get What You Pay For? Costly Placebo Works Better Than Cheap One > ScienceDaily (Mar. 5, 2008) - A 10-cent pill doesn't kill pain as well as > a $2.50 pill, even when they are identical placebos, according to a > provocative study by Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at Duke > University. .... > > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304173339.htm > > I just looked at those data today - the effect looked pretty robust. From johnh from goawayplease.com Wed Mar 5 21:21:45 2008 From: johnh from goawayplease.com (John Hasenkam) Date: Thu Mar 6 13:21:38 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The Value of Placebo References: <13stbls364keoaa@corp.supernews.com> <47cf128f$0$24664$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> Message-ID: <13sul7vhiejga00@corp.supernews.com> Hey Glen, Thanks for the data check. I've never liked the casual dismissal of the Place Effect nor the willy nilly way in which it is invoked. An old friend of mine suggested that the appellation needs to be in the plural because there are many varieties of placebo and different processes seem to be at play. Another case where the name leads the cognition astray. Would such an effect be noted simply for larger numeric values(eg. more of the active agent in pill X, or a casual remark: we find this pill better but- or AND - its cheaper) or is it money specific? What would happen if this experiment were replicated in cultures where there are different over arching imperatives other than money? Can a person's cognitive performance be enhanced by placebo? Good to see people still researching this area, it has been too much ignored. Thanks, John. "Glen M. Sizemore" wrote in message news:47cf128f$0$24664$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com... >I just looked at those data today - the effect looked pretty robust. > > > "John Hasenkam" wrote in message > news:13stbls364keoaa@corp.supernews.com... >> You Get What You Pay For? Costly Placebo Works Better Than Cheap One >> ScienceDaily (Mar. 5, 2008) - A 10-cent pill doesn't kill pain as well as >> a $2.50 pill, even when they are identical placebos, according to a >> provocative study by Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at Duke >> University. .... >> >> >> >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304173339.htm >> >> > > I just looked at those data today - the effect looked pretty robust. > From replyto_eimc_ifyadare from ozemail.com.au Thu Mar 6 00:52:41 2008 From: replyto_eimc_ifyadare from ozemail.com.au (Entertained by my own EIMC) Date: Thu Mar 6 13:21:45 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The Value of Placebo In-Reply-To: <13sul7vhiejga00@corp.supernews.com> References: <13stbls364keoaa@corp.supernews.com> <47cf128f$0$24664$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> <13sul7vhiejga00@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <47CF86A9.1030000@ozemail.com.au> > Can a person's cognitive performance > be enhanced by placebo? Hi John, Firstly, the kind of actention (or attention but for my recognition of a requirement that what we do, think, and feel be understood on a common concEPTual ground :>) that a placebo pill implies, is, by any reasonable definition, cognitive. Boosts of beneficial beliefs (via pain-controlling/blocking neural mechanisms - hence having relatively health-giving effects) beliefs can surely be had from "precisely put and positive words produced via a "tongue" as much as placebo-pills can be placed on one (tongue) and swallowed (given a properly prepared placebo-promoting attitude). It is only anecdotal, but it makes sense, that by whatever way that a person is made to feel less listless or more alert and to have a positive outlook on life - as opposed made to feel inferior or inadequate - would tend to make them 'underperform' in test of all kinds of intelligence. IOW, it seems reasonable to me that placebos ought to be able to affect the cognitive performance of at least some people - only less so (or not at all) on people that are not easily (or not at all) hypnotizable. Regards, P From john.m.camilleri from um.edu.mt Thu Mar 6 03:30:23 2008 From: john.m.camilleri from um.edu.mt (John Camilleri) Date: Thu Mar 6 13:21:50 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Looking for Palmer Bioscience Message-ID: <200803060830.m268UN6P016880@pawlu.um.edu.mt> Dear sir, I found a message posted by you some time ago about palmer Bio science. Now I am also looking form them as I need to buy some recording paper for our emg's and Eog's. did you have any success. I tried in vain to find their website but without success. Would you be o kind as to pass to me any contact information you have of them? I would like to thank you in advance for your time. Best Regards John Camilleri Laboratory Officer III Biology Department University of Malta E-mail john.m.camilleri@um.edu.mt Direct line : 2340 2777 Departimental office: 2340 2272 Fax: 2134 2488 From john_pezaris from hms.harvard.edu Thu Mar 6 12:40:23 2008 From: john_pezaris from hms.harvard.edu (Pezaris, John) Date: Thu Mar 6 13:21:54 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] AREADNE 2008 Second Call for Abstracts Message-ID: CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT and SECOND CALL FOR ABSTRACTS AREADNE 2008 Research in Encoding and Decoding of Neural Ensembles June 26 - 29, 2008 Nomikos Conference Center Santorini, Greece http://www.areadne.org info@areadne.org **************** NEWS: Abstract deadline extended to 14 MARCH 2008 **************** INTRODUCTION One of the fundamental problems in neuroscience today is to understand how the activation of large populations of neurons give rise to higher order functions of the brain including learning, memory, cognition, perception, action and ultimately conscious awareness. Electrophysiological recordings in behaving animals over the past forty years have revealed considerable information about what the firing patterns of single neurons encode in isolation, but it remains largely a mystery how collections of neurons interact to perform these functions. Recent technological advances have for the first time provided a glimpse into the global functioning of the brain. These technologies include functional magnetic resonance imaging, optical imaging methods including intrinsic, voltage-sensitive dye, and two-photon imaging, high-density electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography, and multi-microelectrode array electrophysiology. These technologies have expanded our knowledge of brain functioning beyond the single neuron level. At the same time, our understanding of how neuronal ensembles carry information has allowed the development of brain-machine interfaces (BMI) to enhance the capabilities of patients with sensory and motor deficits. Knowledge of how neuronal ensembles encode sensory stimuli has made it possible to develop perceptual BMIs for the hearing and visually impaired. Likewise, research in how neuronal ensembles decode motor intentions has resulted in motor BMIs by which people with severe motor disabilities can control external devices. CONFERENCE MISSION First and foremost, this conference is intended to bring scientific leaders from around the world to present their recent findings on the functioning of neuronal ensembles. Second, the meeting will provide an informal yet spectacular setting on Santorini in which attendees can discuss and share ideas outside of the presentations at the conference center. Third, this conference continues our long term project to form a systems neuroscience research institute within Greece to conduct state-of-the-art research, offer meetings and courses, and provide a center for visiting scientists from around the world to interact with Greek researchers and students. FORMAT AND SPEAKERS The conference will span four days, in morning and early evening sessions. Confirmed speakers include experts in the field of multi-neuron experiment and analysis (in alphabetic order): Larry Abbott, John Dani, John Donoghue, Jennifer Groh, Naoum Issa, Nancy Kopell, George Kostopoulos, Gilles Laurent, Nikos Logothetis, Lee Miller, Jason MacLean, Eve Marder, Tony Movshon, Bill Newsome, Catherine Ojakangas, Tatiana Pasternak, Desmond Patterson, Yiota Poirazi, Alex Pouget, Erin Schuman, Thanos Siapas, Krishna Shenoy, Murray Sherman, and Sara Solla. CALL FOR ABSTRACTS We are currently soliciting abstracts for poster presentation. Submissions will be accepted electronically, and must be received by March 14, 2008. Automated email acknowledgment of submission will be provided, and manual verification will be made a few days after submission. Notification of acceptance will be provided by April 3, 2008. Please see our on-line Call for Abstracts at http://areadne.org/call-for-abstracts.html for additional details. ORGANIZING COMMITTEE John Pezaris, Co-Chair Nicho Hatsopoulos, Co-Chair Dora Angelaki Catherine Ojakangas Thanos Siapas Andreas Tolias SPONSORS The AREADNE 2008 Conference is being sponsored by the Center for Integrative Neuroscience and Neuroengineering Research, University of Chicago and Illinois Institute of Technology. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For further information please see the conference web site http://www.areadne.org or send email to info@areadne.org. -- Dr. J. S. Pezaris Massachusetts General Hospital 55 Fruit Street Boston, MA 02114, USA john@areadne.org =20 From hackedyetagain from japan.com Fri Mar 7 11:05:44 2008 From: hackedyetagain from japan.com (ayaz) Date: Fri Mar 7 15:45:54 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: Forcing neural progenitor cells to cycle is insufficient to alter References: Message-ID: <13t2puoau1c064c@corp.supernews.com> Ooops, I must be losing it yet again -- this can't be of much interest to soc.culture.zimbabwe and soc.culture.japan who I stupidly crossposted to. In article , hackedyetagain@japan.com says... > > >this study suggests that controling cell proliferation is insufficient >to prevent differentiation and exit in time. nutrient supply can't be >a factor but perhaps certain growth factors remain elusive? > >http://www.neuraldevelopment.com/content/3/1/4 > >Background >During the development of the nervous system, neural progenitor cells >can either stay in the pool of proliferating undifferentiated cells or >exit the cell cycle and differentiate. Two main factors will determine >the fate of a neural progenitor cell: its position within the >neuroepithelium and the time at which the cell initiates >differentiation. In this paper we investigated the importance of the >timing of cell cycle exit on cell-fate decision by forcing neural >progenitors to cycle and studying the consequences on specification >and differentiation programs. > >Results >As a model, we chose the spinal progenitors of motor neurons (pMNs), >which switch cell-fate from motor neurons to oligodendrocytes with >time. To keep pMNs in the cell cycle, we forced the expression of G1- >phase regulators, the D-type cyclins. We observed that keeping neural >progenitor cells cycling is not sufficient to retain them in the >progenitor domain (ventricular zone); transgenic cells instead migrate >to the differentiating field (mantle zone) regardless of cell cycle >exit. Cycling cells located in the mantle zone do not retain markers >of neural progenitor cells such as Sox2 or Olig2 but upregulate >transcription factors involved in motor neuron specification, >including MNR2 and Islet1/2. These cycling cells also progress through >neuronal differentiation to axonal extension. We also observed mitotic >cells displaying all the features of differentiating motor neurons, >including axonal projection via the ventral root. However, the rapid >decrease observed in the proliferation rate of the transgenic motor >neuron population suggests that they undergo only a limited number of >divisions. Finally, quantification of the incidence of the phenotype >in young and more mature neuroepithelium has allowed us to propose >that once the transcriptional program assigning neural progenitor >cells to a subtype of neurons is set up, transgenic cells progress in >their program of differentiation regardless of cell cycle exit. > >Conclusions >Our findings indicate that maintaining neural progenitor cells in >proliferation is insufficient to prevent differentiation or alter cell- >fate choice. Furthermore, our results indicate that the programs of >neuronal specification and differentiation are controlled >independently of cell cycle exit. > From gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com Fri Mar 7 16:13:13 2008 From: gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com (Glen M. Sizemore) Date: Fri Mar 7 19:21:15 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] The future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence Message-ID: <47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> Below is a link to a very cool paper. Whether the simple network on page 334 is "correct" or not, the flavor of the paper foreshadows, I think, the future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence, all rolled into one. The fields are mutually complimentary and, I think, there is no other way. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1284800&blobtype=pdf From jgkjcasey from yahoo.com.au Fri Mar 7 22:44:33 2008 From: jgkjcasey from yahoo.com.au (casey) Date: Sat Mar 8 16:00:54 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence References: <47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> Message-ID: On Mar 8, 8:13?am, "Glen M. Sizemore" wrote: > Below is a link to a very cool paper. Whether the simple network on page 334 > is "correct" or not, the flavor of the paper foreshadows, I think, the > future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence, all rolled > into one. The fields are mutually complimentary and, I think, there is no > other way. > > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1284800&blobtyp... The other way might be inventing a machine that behaves intelligently just as we invented flying machines without the need for flapping wings or feathers. When I tried to talk about simple networks you dismissed them saying, in essence, you weren't interested as they didn't cover conditioning in all its complexity. Taken from above cool paper. "An artificial neural network need not incorporate all potentially relevant information from neuroscience, only the minimally necessary constraining and enabling features to accommodate the behavioral relations being simulated." "... artificial neural networks are constrained by a subset of the relevant biobehavioral principles, precisely the subset that permits the phenomena of interest to be simulated." It seemed to be about conditioned aversion, the so called Garcia effect, that I have read about in easier to read and less boring style then the "cool paper" you refer to. Maybe you can explain it, in less technical terms than the paper, so that the views and mechanisms of this neural network model might find a wider audience? JC From gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com Sat Mar 8 08:19:18 2008 From: gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com (Glen M. Sizemore) Date: Sat Mar 8 16:00:59 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence References: <47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> Message-ID: <47d29256$0$3076$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> "casey" wrote in message news:c9a82cfa-ef63-4420-96a7-8ef5d9132bfd@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... On Mar 8, 8:13 am, "Glen M. Sizemore" wrote: > Below is a link to a very cool paper. Whether the simple network on page > 334 > is "correct" or not, the flavor of the paper foreshadows, I think, the > future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence, all > rolled > into one. The fields are mutually complimentary and, I think, there is no > other way. > > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1284800&blobtyp... JC: The other way might be inventing a machine that behaves intelligently just as we invented flying machines without the need for flapping wings or feathers. GS: Be my guest. JC: When I tried to talk about simple networks you dismissed them saying, in essence, you weren't interested as they didn't cover conditioning in all its complexity. GS: The difference is that your description had no complexity. You were going on about simulating only the definitional properties of conditioning. When I was playing around with neural nets I did that in the first 3 minutes. Donahoe's group have gotten the network to do many things and now they have simulated revaluation. JC: Taken from above cool paper. "An artificial neural network need not incorporate all potentially relevant information from neuroscience, only the minimally necessary constraining and enabling features to accommodate the behavioral relations being simulated." "... artificial neural networks are constrained by a subset of the relevant biobehavioral principles, precisely the subset that permits the phenomena of interest to be simulated." GS: The key term is "phenomena of interest." Who would be interested in a network that merely simulated the definitional properties of conditioning? Does it show faster reacquisition than acquisition? Blocking? Overshadowing? Sensory preconditioning? Higher-order conditioning? Generalization gradients? Peak shift? Fading? Spontaneous recovery? There are still a lot of things that Donahoe's people haven't shown. I would like to see them take on schedule effects. But, still, they have accomplished a lot. And, of course, they have carried forth the notion that the facts uncovered by behavior analysis are what must be accounted for. They, however, at least in their papers concerning the network, have not made the case that behavioral principles explain all of the complex behavioral phenomena that we see in humans. That's already been done. JC: It seemed to be about conditioned aversion, the so called Garcia effect, that I have read about in easier to read and less boring style then the "cool paper" you refer to. GS: Conditioned taste aversion was used to show that one could weaken an operant response by operations that involve only the reinforcer. CTAs are not an essential part of revaluation - they are merely what was used in an experiment. JC: Maybe you can explain it, in less technical terms than the paper, so that the views and mechanisms of this neural network model might find a wider audience? GS: Seems reasonably straightforward to me. From feedbackdroid from yahoo.com Sat Mar 8 11:38:11 2008 From: feedbackdroid from yahoo.com (feedbackdroid) Date: Sat Mar 8 16:01:04 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence References: <47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> Message-ID: On Mar 7, 8:44?pm, casey wrote: > On Mar 8, 8:13?am, "Glen M. Sizemore" wrote: > > > Below is a link to a very cool paper. Whether the simple network on page 334 > > is "correct" or not, the flavor of the paper foreshadows, I think, the > > future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence, all rolled > > into one. The fields are mutually complimentary and, I think, there is no > > other way. > > >http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1284800&blobtyp... > > The other way might be inventing a machine that behaves > intelligently just as we invented flying machines without > the need for flapping wings or feathers. > > When I tried to talk about simple networks you dismissed > them saying, in essence, you weren't interested as they > didn't cover conditioning in all its complexity. > Unfortunately, current NNs do little more than solve toy problems. In the recent presentation by Hinton, he mentioned it took him 17 years to figure out how to properly make something [boltzmann probabilistic networks] that works significantly faster and better than backprop networks. And what do his marvelous new networks solve? The recognition of the numbers 1 to 9 in various distorted forms. 17 more years down the tubes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyzOUbkUf3M From OmegaZero2003 from yahoo.com Sat Mar 8 12:03:55 2008 From: OmegaZero2003 from yahoo.com (Alpha) Date: Sat Mar 8 16:01:10 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence References: <47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> Message-ID: <47d2bb75$0$26089$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> "Glen M. Sizemore" wrote in message news:47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com... > Below is a link to a very cool paper. Whether the simple network on page > 334 is "correct" or not, the flavor of the paper foreshadows, I think, the > future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence, all > rolled into one. The fields are mutually complimentary and, I think, there > is no other way. Unfortunately, nonthing in that paper tells us how to account for first-person experience, which is the most irrefutable aspect of our existence. Psychology has a chance, AI on its current tracks has no chance, and neither does neuroscience as received; only the addition of an introspective approach (appreciated by some psychologists over a long time span of history) will find out what consciousness is; what the first-person experience is. There is a case to be made that the fields are complementary; introspection would add important data /explanadums those other fields are supposed to be providing analysis and explanation of! > > > > > > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1284800&blobtype=pdf > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com From feedbackdroid from yahoo.com Sat Mar 8 20:07:55 2008 From: feedbackdroid from yahoo.com (feedbackdroid) Date: Sat Mar 8 20:44:01 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence References: <47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> <0542a307-a012-4dff-a0cc-bc5cd53d01d0@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <15d4a12f-a14e-49d9-8a55-1a6e479b0a08@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> On Mar 8, 4:04?pm, casey wrote: > On Mar 9, 3:38?am, feedbackdroid wrote: > > ?... > > > Unfortunately, current NNs do little more than solve toy problems. > > In the recent presentation by Hinton, he mentioned it took him 17 > > years to figure out how to properly make something [boltzmann > > probabilistic networks] that works significantly faster and better > > than backprop networks. And what do his marvelous new networks > > solve? The recognition of the numbers 1 to 9 in various distorted > > forms. 17 more years down the tubes. > > So were you impressed by what Donahoe's people have shown as described > in the cool paper that GS recommended? > > In line with my prior comment, 10 simplistic simulated neurons does not a brain make. > > The brain does implement its action in the form of neural networks > so somehow we know at least biological neural networks have the > right stuff. > > I don't know that much about current ANN's and they haven't interested > me much for the reasons you mention above. I have wondered if for any > computational process there is an ANN equivalent. My understanding is > that ANN's do some kind of multivariate statistics? > > My reading of the evolution of biological neural nets is that maybe > random neural nets produced computational abilities and the ones that > enhanced the organisms survival were selected. I imagine the first > networks would have been simple reflexes until intermediate nets could > produce useful things like a central pattern generator that could be > modulated by its inputs from external and internal sources. > > I have sometimes amused myself with the simple problem of character > recognition using GOFAI and have thought about how any implementation > might be translated into a neural network/s. > > JC From jgkjcasey from yahoo.com.au Sat Mar 8 18:04:05 2008 From: jgkjcasey from yahoo.com.au (casey) Date: Sat Mar 8 20:44:07 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence References: <47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> Message-ID: <0542a307-a012-4dff-a0cc-bc5cd53d01d0@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com> On Mar 9, 3:38?am, feedbackdroid wrote: ... > Unfortunately, current NNs do little more than solve toy problems. > In the recent presentation by Hinton, he mentioned it took him 17 > years to figure out how to properly make something [boltzmann > probabilistic networks] that works significantly faster and better > than backprop networks. And what do his marvelous new networks > solve? The recognition of the numbers 1 to 9 in various distorted > forms. 17 more years down the tubes. So were you impressed by what Donahoe's people have shown as described in the cool paper that GS recommended? The brain does implement its action in the form of neural networks so somehow we know at least biological neural networks have the right stuff. I don't know that much about current ANN's and they haven't interested me much for the reasons you mention above. I have wondered if for any computational process there is an ANN equivalent. My understanding is that ANN's do some kind of multivariate statistics? My reading of the evolution of biological neural nets is that maybe random neural nets produced computational abilities and the ones that enhanced the organisms survival were selected. I imagine the first networks would have been simple reflexes until intermediate nets could produce useful things like a central pattern generator that could be modulated by its inputs from external and internal sources. I have sometimes amused myself with the simple problem of character recognition using GOFAI and have thought about how any implementation might be translated into a neural network/s. JC From feedbackdroid from yahoo.com Sun Mar 9 11:42:18 2008 From: feedbackdroid from yahoo.com (feedbackdroid) Date: Sun Mar 9 15:15:09 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence References: <47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> <47d2bb75$0$26089$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> Message-ID: <290aed2b-af2d-43eb-b153-76064e601865@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com> On Mar 8, 11:03?am, "Alpha" wrote: > > Unfortunately, nonthing in that paper tells us how to account for > first-person experience, which is the most irrefutable aspect of our > existence. ?Psychology has a chance, AI on its current tracks has no chance, > and neither does ?neuroscience as received; only the addition of an > introspective approach (appreciated by some psychologists over a long time > span of history) will find out what consciousness is; > Introspection? Good grief, Charlie Brown [to plagiarize a well-known phrase], what possible introspective miracle is going to occur in the future, and that hasn't happened over the past 2400 years or so, to provide some enlightenment on conscious ness and first-person experience? Philosophy will magically solve the problem via some newly-minted word-game? > > what the first-person > experience is. ?There is a case to be made that the fields are > complementary; introspection would add important data /explanadums those > other fields are supposed to be providing analysis and explanation of! > From feedbackdroid from yahoo.com Sun Mar 9 14:09:53 2008 From: feedbackdroid from yahoo.com (feedbackdroid) Date: Sun Mar 9 15:15:19 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence References: <47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> <47d2bb75$0$26089$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> <290aed2b-af2d-43eb-b153-76064e601865@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <47d40ef4$0$26013$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> Message-ID: On Mar 9, 11:12?am, "Alpha" wrote: > "feedbackdroid" wrote in message > > news:290aed2b-af2d-43eb-b153-76064e601865@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 8, 11:03 am, "Alpha" wrote: > > > > > Unfortunately, nonthing in that paper tells us how to account for > > first-person experience, which is the most irrefutable aspect of our > > existence. Psychology has a chance, AI on its current tracks has no > > chance, > > and neither does neuroscience as received; only the addition of an > > introspective approach (appreciated by some psychologists over a long time > > span of history) will find out what consciousness is; > > Introspection? > > Good grief, Charlie Brown [to plagiarize a well-known phrase], what > possible > introspective miracle is going to occur in the future, and that hasn't > happened > over the past 2400 years or so, to provide some enlightenment on > conscious > ness and first-person experience? Philosophy will magically solve the > problem > via some newly-minted word-game? > > No; but a scientific approach to the data ammassed by such introspective > reports can lend insight into what kinds of mechanisms might be responsible > for them, and importantly, what can be ruled out as purported NCCs of such. > Ok, that might be a plan. Use introspection to augment neuroscience measurements. At least it might help plan the next set of neuroscience experiemnts. But 2400 "additional" years of wordgames alone aren't about to solve much, I think. What did introspective philosophy give us? Dualism, and mainly as a result of lack of imagination. They couldn't think of any better way to explain consciousness. And of course, it also gave us the now-dead concept of vitalism. > > > > ? ? what the first-person > > experience is. There is a case to be made that the fields are > > complementary; introspection would add important data /explanadums those > > other fields are supposed to be providing analysis and explanation of! > From hxuelin from gmail.com Sun Mar 9 05:08:34 2008 From: hxuelin from gmail.com (Shirling) Date: Sun Mar 9 15:15:25 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence References: <47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> <47d2bb75$0$26089$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> Message-ID: <73606c61-1aee-4ee7-a9e1-3302c9ca6f55@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com> I think what we have access to first-person experience is the very part that can be commuted via a symbol-based social network, and this part is not even equal to one's introspection. Maybe the brain imaging provides a window into the unconsciousness of first-person experience, and psychological analysis is what can be shared within a social community. However, there is still a small part of our inner life that remains what I know and you don't know. It is of survival value to individual existence since no one want to be predicted as it were exactly by others. > Unfortunately, nonthing in that paper tells us how to account for > first-person experience, which is the most irrefutable aspect of our > existence. ?Psychology has a chance, AI on its current tracks has no chance, > and neither does ?neuroscience as received; only the addition of an > introspective approach (appreciated by some psychologists over a long time > span of history) will find out what consciousness is; what the first-person > experience is. ?There is a case to be made that the fields are > complementary; introspection would add important data /explanadums those > other fields are supposed to be providing analysis and explanation of! > > > > >http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1284800&blobtyp... > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com From OmegaZero2003 from yahoo.com Sun Mar 9 12:12:21 2008 From: OmegaZero2003 from yahoo.com (Alpha) Date: Sun Mar 9 15:15:30 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence References: <47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> <47d2bb75$0$26089$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> <290aed2b-af2d-43eb-b153-76064e601865@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <47d40ef4$0$26013$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> "feedbackdroid" wrote in message news:290aed2b-af2d-43eb-b153-76064e601865@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... On Mar 8, 11:03 am, "Alpha" wrote: > > Unfortunately, nonthing in that paper tells us how to account for > first-person experience, which is the most irrefutable aspect of our > existence. Psychology has a chance, AI on its current tracks has no > chance, > and neither does neuroscience as received; only the addition of an > introspective approach (appreciated by some psychologists over a long time > span of history) will find out what consciousness is; > Introspection? Good grief, Charlie Brown [to plagiarize a well-known phrase], what possible introspective miracle is going to occur in the future, and that hasn't happened over the past 2400 years or so, to provide some enlightenment on conscious ness and first-person experience? Philosophy will magically solve the problem via some newly-minted word-game? No; but a scientific approach to the data ammassed by such introspective reports can lend insight into what kinds of mechanisms might be responsible for them, and importantly, what can be ruled out as purported NCCs of such. > > what the first-person > experience is. There is a case to be made that the fields are > complementary; introspection would add important data /explanadums those > other fields are supposed to be providing analysis and explanation of! > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com From han from cns.nyu.edu Sun Mar 9 15:07:17 2008 From: han from cns.nyu.edu (Han Xu) Date: Sun Mar 9 15:15:36 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] TrkB-Fc and TrkB-IgG Message-ID: Hi Folks, I am recently investigating the role of BDNF on synaptic transmission. According to literature, people generally uses TrkB-Fc or TrkB-IgG to scavenge extracellular BDNF. I am wondering what's the difference between TrkB-Fc and TrkB-IgG. Or are they the same chemical? Are anyone using TrkB-Fc or TrkB-IgG? Many thanks for your reply! Best, Han From jgkjcasey from yahoo.com.au Sun Mar 9 15:29:43 2008 From: jgkjcasey from yahoo.com.au (casey) Date: Sun Mar 9 19:42:34 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence References: <47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> <47d29256$0$3076$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> Message-ID: <7a2b2527-7c66-40e0-aaf5-266b4cdbe7d4@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> On Mar 9, 12:19?am, "Glen M. Sizemore" wrote: > JC: When I tried to talk about simple networks you dismissed > them saying, in essence, you weren't interested as they > didn't cover conditioning in all its complexity. > > > GS: The difference is that your description had no complexity. > You were going on about simulating only the definitional > properties of conditioning. When I was playing around with > neural nets I did that in the first 3 minutes. Donahoe's group > have gotten the network to do many things and now they have > simulated revaluation. And have they gone beyond the definitional properties of revaluation etc? In fact I have played with more complex networks to try and duplicate the behavior of connecting stimuli with other stimuli or actions with outcomes. Certainly my first efforts took more than 3 minutes but than maybe you knew more about ANN's than I did when we first tried to simulate the definitional properties of conditioning. > GS: The key term is "phenomena of interest." Who would > be interested in a network that merely simulated the > definitional properties of conditioning? Does it show > faster reacquisition than acquisition? Blocking? > Overshadowing? Sensory preconditioning? Higher-order > conditioning? Generalization gradients? Peak shift? > Fading? Spontaneous recovery? And are the stimuli complex or just a signal representing a complex stimuli? Are the responses complex or just a signal representing a response? I could extend the modeling to try and get the above behaviors although I suspect they would emerge from an evolved network if they were useful and not just quirks of behavior and not directly relevant to intelligent behavior. As I have mentioned before, the problem in AI is in getting the stimuli in the first place from a complex input. Can I attach an eye and legs to this neural network? It is also about extracting the relevant principles involved in intelligent behavior just as it is about extracting the relevant principles of flight. We don't need to waste time duplicating bio specific behaviors such as feathers and flapping wings or even more complex behaviors you will find in bird flight. > There are still a lot of things that Donahoe's people > haven't shown. I would like to see them take on schedule > effects. But, still, they have accomplished a lot. And, > of course, they have carried forth the notion that the > facts uncovered by behavior analysis are what must be > accounted for. Did they account for anything or just duplicate a simple relationship between signals representing complex stimuli? > JC: Maybe you can explain it, in less technical terms than the > paper, so that the views and mechanisms of this neural network > model might find a wider audience? > > > GS: Seems reasonably straightforward to me. Yes, but you are not the "wider audience". You are not on a radical behavioral analysis group. JC From OmegaZero2003 from yahoo.com Mon Mar 10 10:00:51 2008 From: OmegaZero2003 from yahoo.com (Alpha) Date: Fri Mar 14 09:51:24 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: The future of psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence References: <47d1afe7$0$3092$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> <47d2bb75$0$26089$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> <290aed2b-af2d-43eb-b153-76064e601865@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <47d40ef4$0$26013$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> Message-ID: <47d541a6$0$15448$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> "feedbackdroid" wrote in message news:d63bb5f2-22f5-439f-ae8b-b778f284223e@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com... On Mar 9, 11:12 am, "Alpha" wrote: > "feedbackdroid" wrote in message > > news:290aed2b-af2d-43eb-b153-76064e601865@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 8, 11:03 am, "Alpha" wrote: > > > > > Unfortunately, nonthing in that paper tells us how to account for > > first-person experience, which is the most irrefutable aspect of our > > existence. Psychology has a chance, AI on its current tracks has no > > chance, > > and neither does neuroscience as received; only the addition of an > > introspective approach (appreciated by some psychologists over a long > > time > > span of history) will find out what consciousness is; > > Introspection? > > Good grief, Charlie Brown [to plagiarize a well-known phrase], what > possible > introspective miracle is going to occur in the future, and that hasn't > happened > over the past 2400 years or so, to provide some enlightenment on > conscious > ness and first-person experience? Philosophy will magically solve the > problem > via some newly-minted word-game? > > No; but a scientific approach to the data ammassed by such introspective > reports can lend insight into what kinds of mechanisms might be > responsible > for them, and importantly, what can be ruled out as purported NCCs of > such. > Ok, that might be a plan. Use introspection to augment neuroscience measurements. At least it might help plan the next set of neuroscience experiemnts. But 2400 "additional" years of wordgames alone aren't about to solve much, I think. What did introspective philosophy give us? Dualism, and mainly as a result of lack of imagination. They couldn't think of any better way to explain consciousness. And of course, it also gave us the now-dead concept of vitalism. Yet all of the introspectionists, from the eastern perennial philosophers to the German idelaists (esp. the more modern thoughts of Franklin Merrill-Wolff), across culture and across the millenia, have their descriptions of consciousness in common. That is data that can be very useful and data that cannot be just eliminated by antiquated notions of materialism based on classical physics. This is a quantum universre and there is *no* admonition from QM laws against qm effects in macro-scale phenomena, including quasi-micro-scale mental/brain processes. As to dualism: there does not have to be a dualist or non-dualist approach; there can be a third way akin to dual-aspect theory etc. And these ways are much more accomodating to mental processes being extant and causal in Universe that the antiquated materialist accounts of Universe (wherein there are really "particles" interacting, when we know there are no such things - particles are time-sliced convenineces of thought only etc.) Remember - so far, identity theory is dead in the warter as there is no empirical data, no explanation, no theory as to how nerons create mental phenomena. And mental phenomenology is what brain is all about!!! So I disagree that they do not have a better way of explaining consciousness. Explanation starts with empirical data and the introspectionists accounts are replete with such data. > > > > what the first-person > > experience is. There is a case to be made that the fields are > > complementary; introspection would add important data /explanadums those > > other fields are supposed to be providing analysis and explanation of! > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com From connelly.bill from gmail.com Sat Mar 15 02:55:31 2008 From: connelly.bill from gmail.com (Bill) Date: Sat Mar 15 19:19:17 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: Brain stem slices? Agar? References: <75666225-b2f7-479f-b4d2-211ba56bf4a9@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com> <0432ca24-83e7-4516-b097-c697462df742@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <47c69eb8$0$567$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> Message-ID: <04119228-c32d-4943-8260-86df56bbf17a@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Not quite so far on the other side of the world as you might think. I'm in New Zealand. Indeed, I'm coming to your fine country in a month of the Australasian Course in Advanced Neuroscience, outside of Brisbane. I still can't figure out what kind of clothes I'll need, reports I hear is that I'll either be savaged by near 40 degree temperatures, dehydrated by drought or drowned by floods. On Feb 29, 7:53 pm, Matthew Kirkcaldie wrote: > In article <47c69eb8$0$567$ed362...@nr2.newsreader.com>, > "Glen M. Sizemore" wrote: > > > Whew! Quick thinking there Matthew! You almost had a law suit on your hands! > > It'd be an interesting court case: "Your honour, I read this advice on a > newsgroup - and thinking it would be of the highest quality, followed it > without question. By the way, we will need to extradite the guy from > Australia." > > But that was the reason I posted the addendum of course - that, and the > desire not to burn innocent people on the other side of the world. > > MK. > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com From connelly.bill from gmail.com Sat Mar 15 02:59:14 2008 From: connelly.bill from gmail.com (Bill) Date: Sat Mar 15 19:19:23 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Brain Slices must loose their Afferents? Message-ID: <3ed23cc9-89bc-43d4-a556-1f43f71e2718@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com> I'm SURE that if you make organotypic brain slices, and incubate them for a couple of days, any synaptic terminals that have been axotomized from their cell bodies will die and become non-functional. I.e. a simple cortical organotypic slice (after a week) will have no functional serotonergic, dopaminergic or noradrenergic fibres projecting from the brain stem? That's got to be the case, right? Does anyone have any citations to support that idea? I've been looking all night and I've got zip. Thanks. From Matthew.Kirkcaldie from removethis.utas.andthis.edu.au Sat Mar 15 17:26:50 2008 From: Matthew.Kirkcaldie from removethis.utas.andthis.edu.au (Matthew Kirkcaldie) Date: Sat Mar 15 19:19:46 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: Brain stem slices? Agar? References: <75666225-b2f7-479f-b4d2-211ba56bf4a9@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com> <0432ca24-83e7-4516-b097-c697462df742@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <47c69eb8$0$567$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com> <04119228-c32d-4943-8260-86df56bbf17a@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: In article <04119228-c32d-4943-8260-86df56bbf17a@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Bill wrote: > Not quite so far on the other side of the world as you might think. > I'm in New Zealand. Indeed, I'm coming to your fine country in a month > of the Australasian Course in Advanced Neuroscience, outside of > Brisbane. I still can't figure out what kind of clothes I'll need, > reports I hear is that I'll either be savaged by near 40 degree > temperatures, dehydrated by drought or drowned by floods. Yeah, all three most likely. Qld has been incredibly wet over the summer. The ACAN is very worthwhile, or at least it has been in previous years. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com From noufalasharaf from gmail.com Tue Mar 18 03:23:07 2008 From: noufalasharaf from gmail.com (noufalasharaf@gmail.com) Date: Tue Mar 18 10:09:26 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] enquiry Message-ID: How can i get a sample EEG for study purpose From anitaknivedha from gmail.com Wed Mar 19 02:32:15 2008 From: anitaknivedha from gmail.com (Anita) Date: Wed Mar 19 11:45:09 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Magnification Factor in MR Images. Message-ID: Hi, I'm working on MR Images of the Human Brain. I'd like to find the Magnification Factor of the MR Images that I have. How do I do that? Is it something I'd have to find out from the Imaging Centre where the Scan was obtained? Thanks! Anita. From k.m.jasmin from brighton.ac.uk Wed Mar 19 07:24:19 2008 From: k.m.jasmin from brighton.ac.uk (Kyle Jasmin) Date: Wed Mar 19 11:45:16 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] 2nd UK Postgraduate Conference in Cognitive Linguistics: 3rd (Final) CFP Message-ID: (apologies for cross-postings) 3rd and FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS 2nd UK POSTGRADUATE Conference in COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS University of Brighton, 8th of August, 2008, Brighton, UK Website: www.languageandcognition.net/pgccl Affiliated with the International Conference on Language and Cognition, running the 4th ? 7th of August, 2008. (www.languageandcognition.n et for details.) The 2nd UK Postgraduate Conference in Cognitive Linguistics provides a forum for postgraduate students working within Cognitive Linguistics, language and cognition, and related areas to share and discuss their individual research, current methodologies and frameworks, and future directions of study. Empirical, theoretical, and methodological abstracts relating to the following topics are welcome: - Language and communication - Language and cognition - Metaphor - Grammar and conceptualisation - Knowledge structure - Applied cognitive linguistics - Cognitive semantics - Related areas of research Keynote speakers Dr Ewa D?browska, University of Sheffield, England, Vice President of the UK Cognitive Linguistics Association, Editor of Cognitive Linguistics journal. Prof Vyvyan Evans, University of Brighton, England, President of the UK Cognitive Linguistics Association. Workshop chair Dr Daniel Casasanto, Stanford University, USA. Editor of Language and Cognition, an interdisciplinary journal of language and cognitive science (2009 launch). Submission of abstracts Submissions are solicited for the three parallel sessions and the poster session. - Abstracts should not exceed 500 words?references are excluded from this count. - Abstracts should clearly indicate a presentation title. - Abstracts should be anonymous for purposes of blind review. - Abstracts should be formatted as Word, RTF or PDF documents. - Abstracts should be submitted electronically to UKPGCCL@gmail.com. - Please include the following information in the body of your email: title and name of author(s) affiliation email address for correspondence presentation title 3-5 keywords preference for presentation or poster session. Please state in the subject line of your email that this is an abstract submission, i.e., ?Abstract Submission: Name(s)? ABSTRACT DEADLINE: 2nd of April, 2008 For full details please consult the conference website: http://www.languageandcognition.net/pgccl Organisers The conference is organised by Kyle Jasmin and Andrea Morgado De Matos. Contact The conference email address is UKPGCCL@gmail.com Web details are available at: www.languageandcognition.net/pgccl From Matthew.Kirkcaldie from removethis.utas.andthis.edu.au Wed Mar 19 15:48:16 2008 From: Matthew.Kirkcaldie from removethis.utas.andthis.edu.au (Matthew Kirkcaldie) Date: Wed Mar 19 17:06:42 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: Magnification Factor in MR Images. References: Message-ID: In article , Anita wrote: > I'm working on MR Images of the Human Brain. I'd like to find the > Magnification Factor of the MR Images that I have. How do I do that? > Is it something I'd have to find out from the Imaging Centre where the > Scan was obtained? Yes you would. Size-per-pixel is a function of the machine itself and the settings. There may be info in the header of the DICOM file. Whether the scale is consistent throughout the volume is also a consideration - they can and do vary. Cheers, MK. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com From anitaknivedha from gmail.com Tue Mar 25 05:07:50 2008 From: anitaknivedha from gmail.com (Anita) Date: Tue Mar 25 11:36:11 2008 Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: Magnification Factor in MR Images. References: Message-ID: <024e5081-0185-4fd9-b626-b22ec5f7d435@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com> On Mar 19, 1:48 pm, Matthew Kirkcaldie wrote: > In article > , > > Anita wrote: > > I'm working on MR Images of the Human Brain. I'd like to find the > > Magnification Factor of the MR Images that I have. How do I do that? > > Is it something I'd have to find out from the Imaging Centre where the > > Scan was obtained? > > Yes you would. Size-per-pixel is a function of the machine itself and > the settings. There may be info in the header of the DICOM file. > > Whether the scale is consistent throughout the volume is also a > consideration - they can and do vary. > > Cheers, MK. > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com Thanks MK. The Header does not contain the information that I require. Will be checking that up with the Scan Centre. Anita.