Unsocial brain…

Advertisements

Columbia scientists have identified a brain region that helps tell an animal when to attack an intruder and when to accept it into its home. This brain area, called CA2, is part of the hippocampus, a larger brain structure known to be critical for our memory of people, places, things and events.

CA2 was already known to specialize in social memory, the ability to remember encounters with others. Surprisingly, today’s findings reveal that a single brain region can control both higher-order cognition, like social memory, and an innate, instinctual behavior like social aggression. And because CA2 dysfunction has been implicated in psychiatric diseases, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, these results provide further support that altered CA2 function may contribute to abnormal social behaviors associated with such illnesses. (1)

I know you.

Thus, I kill you.

I love you.

Thus, I die for you.

I don’t care.

So at the end, we both die.

Why does always someone have to die in this scenario, as StarLord eloquently asked once upon a time? Well, the answer is simple. Because the moment you start looking into someone else you start questioning yourself. The moment you look into yourself, you start having doubt about you. At the end, the moment you (thought you) walked out of that cave, you started doubting its existence.

But the cave is there.

It is real.

And no, you don’t walk out of it.

You entered right into it…

Hey Plato!

Nice to know you.

You are dead…

Understanding morality.

Advertisements
Photo by stein egil liland from Pexels

Moral judgment is a tricky subject. For example, most people would agree that lying is immoral. However, most people would also agree that lying to Nazis about the location of Jewish families would be moral. New research sheds light on how people decide whether behavior is moral or immoral. The findings could serve as a framework for informing the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies.

Scientists proposed a model of moral judgment, called the Agent Deed Consequence (ADC) model – and now we have the first experimental results that offer a strong empirical corroboration of the ADC model in both mundane and dramatic realistic situations. The ADC model posits that people take three things into account when making a moral judgment: the Agent, which is the character or intent of the person who is doing something; the Deed, or what is being done; and the Consequence, or the outcome that resulted from the deed.

“This approach allows us to explain not only the variability in the moral status of lying, but also the flip side: that telling the truth can be immoral if it is done maliciously and causes harm,” Dubljević says.  (1)

Difficult to see the morality behind an action.

Because we always tend to see the tree and not the forest.

What is here now will someday no longer be.

What is today important will soon be insignificant.

What is now ridiculous will soon be essential.

What is true will eventually not be at all.

A dirty man talking to God.

People laughing at him.

Asking him for the truth.

Requesting him to abide by the facts.

But they do not know the facts.

He does not answer.

For He doesn’t need to.

There is no agent.

Nor deed.

Nor consequence.

For the truth is not something to reach.

But a veil we need to break through.

Look at that immoral man.

He is the One defining morality…

Essential for life…

Advertisements
Photo by Octopus soul from Pexels

How did life arise on Earth? Researchers have found among the first and perhaps only hard evidence that simple protein catalysts – essential for cells, the building blocks of life, to function – may have existed when life began. (1)

We seek what was the essential ingredients for life.

But what is essential?

Could life be without any of its essential ingredients present?

Could any of those ingredients be essential without the existence of life?

Search for the truth.

And you will only keep stumbling on yourself…

The truth. NOT as 1+1=2… [Pythagoras, Hippasus, Silence]

Advertisements

Physicists avoid highly mathematical work despite being trained in advanced mathematics, new research suggests.

The study, published in the New Journal of Physics, shows that physicists pay less attention to theories that are crammed with mathematical details. This suggests there are real and widespread barriers to communicating mathematical work, and that this is not because of poor training in mathematical skills, or because there is a social stigma about doing well in mathematics.

Dr. Tim Fawcett and Dr. Andrew Higginson, from the University of Exeter, found, using statistical analysis of the number of citations to 2000 articles in a leading physics journal, that articles are less likely to be referenced by other physicists if they have lots of mathematical equations on each page. (1)

Mathematics is a far too accurate tool to depict the truth.

The truth is elusive.

The truth is subjective.

The truth is mystical.

Look beyond 1+1=2…

Look beyond the equations…

The meaning of what you want to say, cannot be said with numbers. The essence of what you want to express, cannot be expressed with words. First of all we need to understand. How we express what we understand comes afterwards and is a matter of choice.

Back in the days of Pythagoras, members of an elite cast discovered that not everything can be expressed as numbers. They decided to keep the secret safe. They even murdered in order to accomplish that. They succeeded. For too many years people believed in numbers. For so long, people believed in the ability to articulate the “truth” with words and mathematical expressions.

We live in the days of quantum mechanics and consciousness research dead ends though. We are now starting to believe that perhaps not everything can be said.

Pythagoras was right about silence.

It is not just a matter of keeping secrets. It never was.

Is IS the tool which reveals truths!

Only if you stand long enough and listen to it…

Listen…

Hippasus’ silence is deafening…

The new. The old. Selecting. Living true.

Advertisements

As contributors to businesses, sports teams, or governments, most of us take part in some sort of group problem solving. But what is the best way to collaborate on a difficult problem like developing a budget or designing a new product?

Past research on collective problem solving has come to conflicting conclusions. Some studies have found that people collaborate best when they can communicate with all other group members, emailing or meeting to exchange ideas continuously. Other studies have found that working in smaller subgroups is better, with each member communicating closely with a few neighbors.

Striking the right balance between exploration (searching for new ideas) and exploitation (taking an idea and running with it) requires matching a particular group’s social learning style with the right type of network, the study finds.

They discovered that network structure determines the success of the strategies, and vice versa. (1)

Searching for the new.

Staying loyal to what is true.

But what is true is always true.

It always was.

You seek the new and yet you know there is no such thing.

You want to stay loyal and yet every moment is something new.

Walk down the path you see in front.

You know you have passed before.

The flowers grow.

Listen to that river.

You know that river.

Every time…