tolchinsky.bsky.social
Clinical psychologist and researcher investigating anxiety disorders, Acute PTSD, dissociations, OCD, Affective Neuroscience, neuropsychoanalysis, application of nonlinear dynamical systems to psychology
https://montgomerycountypsychologist.com
997 posts
4,040 followers
7,833 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Kindle version will arrive on June 10th
comment in response to
post
ordered a copy
comment in response to
post
impressive!
comment in response to
post
Very interesting, thank you. I wonder if some of this could be species-specific? Caffein paralyzes insects, but we enjoy it. I suppose anthrobots is a step toward seeing if GABA alone or 5HT alone might be carcinogenic (I realize that gene expression in an anthrobot is very different).
comment in response to
post
a combination of some other (not yet discovered) factors has this effect. It sounds controversial if GABA in and of itself has this effect - it's a natural substance that's present in plants even. But the paper is very interesting.
comment in response to
post
fascinating. I meant that if GABA agonist in your lab showed to have mild carcinogenic effects without any other carcinogenic factors present - then this can get to be a back box warning on the meds prescribed that have this effect. I hope that the effect is non-linear and possibly
comment in response to
post
Does that mean that there is a potential that widely used benzodiazepines, barbiturates, Ambien, Gabapentin might possibly have carcinogenic effects?
comment in response to
post
interesting!
comment in response to
post
easy enough :-)
comment in response to
post
is there a list of members of the "the systems neuroscience crowd" somewhere? I'd like to meet more and learn.
comment in response to
post
the future? If we base our conclusions and form alliances in part with having certain forecasts in mind, do we think the system is linear and will just behave from now exactly as we expect it to?
comment in response to
post
they may be using that as negotiation tactics and have a long-term plan that is quite different from what they declare. The conclusions we make are based on public announcements in the media - and even these are diverse.
Do we really know the intensions and long-term strategies, let alone
comment in response to
post
in country A who think differently. If each of these aggregates "US" "EU" "China" are treated as a complex system with transience, emergence, dynamics, then the picture may emerge to be more complex, for example, a country A may play a complex game with B and C and while appearing "respectful"
comment in response to
post
Is it worthwhile to separate public declarations from each of these countries and what the leadership is actually trying to do and what multiple groups of people in each country want? I find it difficult to talk about "Country A respecting Country B." this seems to discount millions of people
comment in response to
post
So not the puff itself, but the reaction to it is rich. I have myopia and experienced not just ear puffs, but also a full LASIK - major emotional reactions happen in response.
comment in response to
post
this prediction error activates multiple systems - FEAR (there is a threat), and then, likely RAGE - as a need to remove the obstacle.
comment in response to
post
nothing is on my way, nothing is an obstacle on my need to feel safe. An air puff is a deviation from the bottom of the attractor basic. It is a prediction error with high enough precision (in FEP terms) from a prediction - my eyes are not disturbed and can function safely.
comment in response to
post
An air puff may trigger frustration, which in Panksepp's nomenclature is a low-key activation of the RAGE system. This is not controversial, we just have to look at the entire system and not just the puff. Computationally, the settling point of the attractor of this system is contentment:
comment in response to
post
which seems to be something else, not a full emotional cascade in terms of either Damasio or Panksepp for example. "brief" is consistent with Ekman's view however.
comment in response to
post
I agree, Nancy. In the field of "basic" emotions there is no consensus. I observe at least 3 major camps - Ekman/Tomkins/Darwin vs. Panksepp/Solms vs. Barrett/LeDoux. Damasio's work is separate. And yes, this puff in the eye focuses on brief sensory experience and reaction to it,
comment in response to
post
#genes
#proteins
comment in response to
post
From:
Ball, Philip. How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology (p. 82., 108). (Function). Kindle Edition.
@wiringthebrain.bsky.social is here and an expert, perhaps I or Bernardo can be corrected. I am not genocentric, but I don't think "DNA is a protein factory" is doing it justice
comment in response to
post
I can't summarize the entire chapter 3 and 4 of the book, but essentially, the genome produces not only messenger RNAs (mRNAs) that code for proteins but also a vast array of non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs).
comment in response to
post
summary:
Genes—or more generally, functional sections of DNA— are not simply instructions for making proteins. Rather, some of them determine what kinds of proteins cells, tissues and organs can make. Some do other things: RNA-related things that don’t directly involve proteins at all.
comment in response to
post
"We had the wrong story about genes. Crick’s definition of a gene as a part of DNA that encodes a protein structure is no longer adequate, for reasons that will become more clear in the next two chapters."
comment in response to
post
Is DNA a protein factory? Or is this statement is an incomplete story that possibly leads the audience in a certain direction?
Here is a citation from another source from Philip Ball's book "How Life Works:"
comment in response to
post
#memory
#narrative
#philosophy
comment in response to
post
What exactly is "holistic" about bioelectric memory in a cell collective? Bioelectric memory in CNS is not any less or any more holistic, in fact they share some mechanisms.
Narrative Fallacy
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/embr...
comment in response to
post
to fit into the framework which they are embedded it. That is an example of narrative fallacy - connecting the dots prematurely and without sufficient evidence - here between idealism and specific experiments with flat worms.
comment in response to
post
My impression is that various kinds of colleagues, Lacanian psychoanalysts and Jungian ones, computer scientists, philosophers may treat Levin's work as a projection screen and interpret his and his team's specific experimental results
comment in response to
post
Finally, planaria are quite different from humans in many respects, transferring results from a flatworm to human is unwarranted.
comment in response to
post
which are encoded in the CNS but differently and have different properties. And then IN ADDITION to that, we also have memories at the level of skin cells, etc. Not INSEAD of the CNS memories.
comment in response to
post
Levin's work clarifies what they are - bioelectric memory in a cell collective. Levin's work DOES NOT support or prove that CNS memories don't exist. Further, we know well of different kinds of memories - in humans we know of episodic, semantic, procedural, etc -
comment in response to
post
From where I sit, this interpretation is incorrect by being overly generalized. A correct interpretation would be that this particular memory in this planarian was not encoded in CNS, which means that other kinds/forms of memory exist.
comment in response to
post
Bernardo's interpretation, verbatim citation: "Whatever memories are, they are not encoded in the nervous system."
comment in response to
post
I think Michael would agree with my understanding.
Bernardo describes an experiment where a planarian which had some memories of navigating maze and was subsequently dissected, and then the lower (beheaded) part regenerated a new head and retained the memories of the maze.
comment in response to
post
Paper by Chris Fields and @drmichaellevin.bsky.social about things and processes being not a useful dichotomous division
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39874620/
#quantum
#things
#process
#processalgebra
#physics
#biology
#Buddhism
comment in response to
post
William Sulis's paper where Whitehead's Process Theory is used to create a contextual theory of quantum mechanics (allowing to preserve locality and realism, but making realism contextual)
www.frontiersin.org/journals/phy...
comment in response to
post
Some of the concepts are not too vague, in papers they are all defined. "Locality Assumption: No influence or interaction can travel faster than light." pretty clear, I think. Meaning - fields, forces, particles do not travel faster than the speed of light.