More evidence that male and female brains are wired differently

More evidence that male and female brains are wired differently

While measuring brain activity with magnetic resonance imaging during blood pressure trials, UCLA researchers found that men and women had opposite responses in the right front of the insular cortex, a part of the brain integral to the experience of emotions, blood pressure control and self-awareness.

The insular cortex has five main parts called gyri serving different roles. The researchers found that the blood pressure response in the front right gyrus showed an opposite pattern in men and women, with men showing a greater right-sided activation in the area while the women showed a lower response.

“This is such a critical brain area and we hadn’t expected to find such strong differences between men and women’s brains,” said Paul Macey, the study’s lead author. “This region, the front-right insula, is involved with stress and keeping heart rate and blood pressure high. It’s possible the women had already activated this region because of psychological stress, so that when they did the physical test in the study, the brain region could not activate any more. However, it’s also possible that this region is wired differently in men and women.”

“We have always thought that the ‘normal’ pattern was for this right-front insula region to activate more than other areas, during a task that raises blood pressure,” added Macey. “However, since most earlier studies were in men or male animals, it looks like this ‘normal’ response was only in men. The healthy response in women seems to be a lower right-sided activation.”

Source

Postdictive Illusion of Choice (free will doesn’t exist)

Postdictive Illusion of Choice (free will doesn’t exist)

Conclusion

Given what we know about how our brains function, the notion of a postdictive illusion of choice makes sense. Our brains generally construct a narrative of reality in a very active process that involves perceptual attention, filtering, and selection, significant processing that weaves the various sensory streams together with our knowledge, expectations, and internal dialogue, and adding a generous helping of pure confabulation to fill in any missing pieces and make everything internally consistent. We already know that there is a temporal dimension to this construction. It is certainly plausible and consistent with existing evidence that the illusion of choice, even when that choice comes after events, can be part of that constructive process.

It also seems from this and other experiments that the question of whether or not choices are conscious or unconscious is not black or white. They are a combination, depending on events. There are certainly times when we consciously deliberate our choices, even while we may not be entirely aware of all the subconscious influences. Other choices, however, may be more automatic and involve little to no conscious choice.

Regardless of how much a choice is conscious or unconscious, we seem to be wired to have the illusion that our choices are conscious, even to the point of thinking we made a choice before we could have made it.

Source

which perfectly syncs with my idea :

This has far reaching consequences for the premise of ‘free will’. Who has the free will, which consciousness we hold accountable. Or do we just hold the one accountable which can make itself heard even though in reality that consciousness actually hasn’t a clue why his body did what it did and has to concoct an explanation itself.

It also places emotions. Emotions are not ‘our’ emotions but the expression of the state of the other consciousness which for lack of further interaction the neocortex also has to determine via interpretative analysis.

Your thoughts don’t reflect your mind

Your thoughts don’t reflect your mind

The reason we know our own thoughts better than those of others is simply that we have more sensory data to draw on – not only perceptions of our own speech and behaviour, but also our emotional responses, bodily senses (pain, limb position, and so on), and a rich variety of mental imagery, including a steady stream of inner speech. (There is strong evidence that mental images involve the same brain mechanisms as perceptions and are processed like them.) Carruthers calls this the Interpretive Sensory-Access (ISA) theory, and he marshals a huge array of experimental evidence in support of it.

The ISA theory has some startling consequences. One is that (with limited exceptions), we do not have conscious thoughts or make conscious decisions. For, if we did, we would be aware of them directly, not through interpretation. The conscious events we undergo are all sensory states of some kind, and what we take to be conscious thoughts and decisions are really sensory images – in particular, episodes of inner speech. These images might express thoughts, but they need to be interpreted.

Another consequence is that we might be sincerely mistaken about our own beliefs. Return to my question about racial stereotypes. I guess you said you think they are false. But if the ISA theory is correct, you can’t be sure you think that. Studies show that people who sincerely say that racial stereotypes are false often continue to behave as if they are true when not paying attention to what they are doing. Such behaviour is usually said to manifest an implicit bias, which conflicts with the person’s explicit beliefs. But the ISA theory offers a simpler explanation. People think that the stereotypes are true but also that it is not acceptable to admit this and therefore say they are false. Moreover, they say this to themselves too, in inner speech, and mistakenly interpret themselves as believing it. They are hypocrites but not conscious hypocrites. Maybe we all are

Source

which perfectly syncs with my idea :

This has far reaching consequences for the premise of ‘free will’. Who has the free will, which consciousness we hold accountable. Or do we just hold the one accountable which can make itself heard even though in reality that consciousness actually hasn’t a clue why his body did what it did and has to concoct an explanation itself.

It also places emotions. Emotions are not ‘our’ emotions but the expression of the state of the other consciousness which for lack of further interaction the neocortex also has to determine via interpretative analysis.

Genetic Makeup Leading Factor In Why Smarter People Live Longer, racism validated

Genetic Makeup Leading Factor In Why Smarter People Live Longer, racism validated

In other words, racism is a valid way to classify humans. Is not a pleasant fact for those who believe in equality, but that’s how it works. Your genetic makeup is the biggest contributor, and since groups of people share  genetic makeup it stands to reason to qualify them as a seperate group. Not politically correct, but nature has no knowledge of this concept and just goes on being a racist.

 

Smarter people tend to live longer than those with less luck in the intelligence department. Now, a new study hints at why: It’s (almost) all about good genes.

About 95 percent of the relationship between intelligence and longevity is explained by genetic influences on both traits, researchers reported July 26 in the International Journal of Epidemiology. The study was somewhat limited in that most of the participants took intelligence tests during middle age, rather than in their youth. By that time, the IQ results might be skewed by the cognitive decline of aging.

Nevertheless, the researchers say, the results suggest that brighter people don’t just live longer because they make healthier choices, or make more money that affords them better health care. Rather, they live longer because their genetic makeup favors both smarts and a long life.

“We found that the small relationship between intelligence and life span was almost all genetic,” said study researcher Rosalind Arden, a research associate at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

 
Source
 

Inceptionism: Going Deeper into Neural Networks

Inceptionism: Going Deeper into Neural Networks

Artificial Neural Networks have spurred remarkable recent progress in image classification and speech recognition. But even though these are very useful tools based on well-known mathematical methods, we actually understand surprisingly little of why certain models work and others don’t.

So let’s take a look at some simple techniques for peeking inside these networks.

We train an artificial neural network by showing it millions of training examples and gradually adjusting the network parameters until it gives the classifications we want.

The network typically consists of 10-30 stacked layers of artificial neurons. Each image is fed into the input layer, which then talks to the next layer, until eventually the “output” layer is reached. The network’s “answer” comes from this final output layer.

One of the challenges of neural networks is understanding what exactly goes on at each layer. We know that after training, each layer progressively extracts higher and higher-level features of the image, until the final layer essentially makes a decision on what the image shows.

For example, the first layer maybe looks for edges or corners. Intermediate layers interpret the basic features to look for overall shapes or components, like a door or a leaf. The final few layers assemble those into complete interpretations—these neurons activate in response to very complex things such as entire buildings or trees.

One way to visualize what goes on is to turn the network upside down and ask it to enhance an input image in such a way as to elicit a particular interpretation. Say you want to know what sort of image would result in “Banana.” Start with an image full of random noise, then gradually tweak the image towards what the neural net considers a banana (see related work in [1], [2], [3], [4]). By itself, that doesn’t work very well, but it does if we impose a prior constraint that the image should have similar statistics to natural images, such as neighboring pixels needing to be correlated.

Google Research

How the anatomical structure of the brain impacts its functional networks?


Today I want to offer an interesting paper by Andreas et al (2013) that sought to determine how the anatomical structure of the brain impacts its functional networks. I think that their interesting findings (see abstract below) may contribute to a better understanding of brain functioning in healthy people and people with neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Enjoy!

How the anatomical structure of the brain impacts its functional networks?.

Feminism Flounders


Dedicated to my muze: @EsthervanFenema

It’s a common misunderstanding that men and women are equal, a myth perpetuated by generations of idealists fed by the declaration of human rights. Lofty as that declaration is, it holds quite a few misconceptions. Next to the misconception that humanity is one big family of entities who strive all for the common good and thereby gain common rights, there is also the misconception about the equality of the male and female of the species.

Biologically, mentally and spiritually they are not equal, they are completely different. They have different bodies, brains, minds, capacities etc. These are biologically predefined. Ages of evolution caused the two genders to be good at some tasks, worse at others but not at the same. Whole neural networks are setup at birth to make that so, environmental feedback only serves to train them.

Along comes feminism. At first for good reason. Women didn’t have the same rights as men, and where treated as second rate humans. Which was a wholly one sided view perpetuated by religious doctrine and completely false. So that got corrected, women got the same rights as men.
Strangely enough nobody thought to attach also the duties which came with privileges leaving the balance somewhat in favor of women. Worse still, to make up for the millennia of female maltreatment even positive discrimination was introduced.

Which left women with a strong feeling of entitlement but overall without the capacity to take part in the acquired rights. Which created a new wave of feminism, the feminism of complaint. Every time women didn’t make the grade this was due to those awful men not giving them their just dues. Fervently the followers of the doctrine of female entitlement battled against the perceived injustice creating a whole new world where us versus them took over.

Men should come down a notch or two so women could more easily take their entitled places. Over the years this resulted in a society where the born with capacities were disconnected from daily life, men had to behave more like women and women started to behave more like men.

The direct result of this are generations of men and women who lost their footing due to the forced roles they had to assume and for which both were not exactly fit. Now none was feeling well in their roles as unisex beings.

Man/women kind should return to what they are good at, instead of desperately trying to deny that nature has reserved different roles for both. Denying your true self can only lead to insecurity, anxiety and various mental issues.

Stop floundering feminists. Start taking yourself seriously as a woman. Accept both genders are unequal, but not thereby more or less worth. Stop bitching about what the world does to you and take control of your own life. Stop trying to level the playing field by forcing men and women into some lowest common denominator, but go and prove yourself by just doing your thing.