reid-lab.org
Canadian 🇨🇦 Assistant Professor at Tilburg University 🇳🇱, interested in the neuroscience of decision making, aging, and Alzheimer's disease. Also a dad 🤓
More at https://www.reid-lab.org
125 posts
827 followers
835 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
Humans, amiright?
comment in response to
post
Haven't read a good Pratchett in a while, this inspired me to do so 🫡
comment in response to
post
Totally. We do a "free will debate" for a first year cog neuro class, and it's funny because I've never really considered it a useful or interesting question.
Yes, we have free will. No, it's not absolute.
comment in response to
post
Nice study! Thanks for sharing 😊
comment in response to
post
I'm usually with you on your controversial takes, but this one will take some elaboration 😅
comment in response to
post
Spiraling waves are common in cortex.
doi.org/10.1371/jour...
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
comment in response to
post
True, but that's a practical limitation of measurement rather than a theoretical negation of "readout" as a useful term for what neurons are doing, no?
But it does raise issues with Blake's definition above. This is a general issue with causal inference/discovery in the brain...
comment in response to
post
Really interesting. Still not sure why "read out" is problematic? I "peek" at my lecture notes so I can read them (out). I direct my peeking using saccades and the act is goal-directed (e.g., reducing uncertainty about their content), but certainly "reading out" is necessary for this to occur?
comment in response to
post
3/5) The real mechanism for credibility in science is simply the test of time:
Can someone reproduce the results?
Do others build on the findings?
Real rigour in science comes from waiting to see whether a result holds and leads to new results.
Period - that's it. It's not peer review.
comment in response to
post
www.tilburguniversity.edu/current/news...
comment in response to
post
Yes, you missed Tilburg, so five actually.