Henry Railo

@hmrail

Cognitive neuroscientist at University of Turku, Finland. Interested in consciousness, blindsight, eye movements, Parkinson’s etc.

Vrijeme pridruživanja: kolovoz 2017.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @hmrail

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @hmrail

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    7. sij

    preprint: unconscious visual discrimination can be predicted from prestimulus EEG. I think this is very interesting because unconscious vision is often assumed to rely on automatic post-stimulus processes.

    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    3. velj

    PhD student, c.2020: Here’s a limited argument I made based on years of specialized research. Hope it’s OK 😕 Philosopher dude, c.1770: Here are some Thoughts I had in the Bath. They constitute Universal & Self-Evident Laws of Nature. FIGHT ME.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Visual experiences in the blind induced by an auditory sensory substitution device Consciousness and Cognition, 2010

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    2. velj

    The physiological effects of noninvasive brain stimulation fundamentally differ across the human cortex | Science Advances

    Poništi
  5. 27. sij

    Great illusion! What Sorcery is This?: Stream Appears To Flow Uphill käyttäjältä

    Poništi
  6. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    23. sij

    We experience a rich visual world. However, experiments often demonstrate that we lack the details. How can we make sense of this puzzle, and if we're so bad at the details, how does vision work as well as it does? A new theory:

    Poništi
  7. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    21. sij

    A novel parametrization of SDT with ratings + a general hierarchical linear regression structure (+R package [handles meta-d']). We argue that this one is correct and brms-cumulative, Morey, Pratte, & Rouder, and HMeta-d' are not (xcpt in special cases).

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    18. sij

    What bothers me most about the debate here is the focus just on panpsy and lack of attention to Russellian theory it’s based on. Panpsy doesn’t explain anything, it’s a claim about ontological category of being. We should focus on the notion of intrinsic/extrinsic.

    Poništi
  9. 18. sij

    Major conclusion: how you measure dream affect determines what you get

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. 18. sij
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    17. sij

    New paper alert!: Is the P300/P3b a neural signature of perceptual awareness? We combined a visual masking paradigm with a no-report paradigm and found that it is not.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    17. sij

    On November 14th 2019, 1200+ neuroscientists petitioned the Society for Neuroscience leadership to address the and our community’s role in responding. We are still looking waiting for a promised response and plan of action from SfN.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    15. sij

    . A bit like Russellian monism, but without intrinsics. (And without panpsychism, although you can believe in that if you will. We'd rather say nothing about the model-transcendent nature of other phenomena than our experiences--that's impossible.)

    Poništi
  14. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    14. sij

    Need to stop arguing about consciousness and get off twitter to finish this paper where I argue about consciousness.

    Poništi
  15. 15. sij

    To make things even, I'll also do this from my perspective: I think it's funny that I believe that consciousness and experiences can be observed, yet I find that observing them is the hardest thing to do in empirical studies

    Poništi
  16. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    15. sij

    1) Our paper on the neural correlates of graded visual perception is out in Consciousness & Cognition! We show, using source-reconstructed MEG, that full compared to partial perception differed in the strength of evoked activity and beta-band oscillations.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 15. sij

    In the article (open-access) we discuss why our view does not entail panpsychism, and how it relates to e.g. Mary and zombies

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 15. sij

    framework we propose entails science can model experiences (including how they feel). This doesn’t mean that the epistemic gap wouldn't exist: of course observed consciousness (what we call CMC) looks different than our own experience (observer)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 15. sij

    Physical phenomena we call experiences are part of the observer. “Non-mental” physical phenomena are observed through experiences; they are “models” inside the observers mind.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 15. sij

    We should start from simple assumptions that do not assume unobservable entities. We show that the epistemic gap can be explained within physicalistic monistic framework. How do we do that?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  21. 15. sij

    All views start from some assumptions. We start from a physicalistic monistic assumption. Peter is starting from the assumption that physical and mental are very different things (and this is understandable, after all the two “appear” very different)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·