and how is your anterior cingulate gyrus today?

(in confluence with your ventromedial prefrontal cortex, naturally)

there is an article in my favourite weekly read (New Scientist for the uninitiated amongst you) all about how we collect relevant information with our senses (did you realise that that was what our senses are for? collecting information? or did you just think they were there for us to enjoy our - sometimes guilty - pleasures?!) how we direct our actions and how the first links the two processes in our brains. . .

evaluating our priorities and making informed choices about how to act

"informed", huh? (oh! how I wish som1 had told me th@ b4. . .)

it also has some interesting stuff about autism - for those who don't know much about it (not for those like CASDOC who are experts already, and for whom this article is probably a load of misinformed tosh)

apparently sometimes we each have a judgement on "a big but rare pay-off (which) is more advantageous than a smaller, more certain one"

that explains a lot, doesn't it (oh! how I wish some1 had told me th@ b4)

if you can purchase the issue from your local newsagents, I'd recommend it - it also explains the illusion of "time" for anyone who understands physics (I don't) (but it just goes to prove the point mel that there are a billion yesterdays, apparently, and will be billions more tomorrow, but only one today) and something about flies liking white spirit. . . it's the issue dated 19 January 2009


(there is no such thing as a free lunch, is there)



an amusing little sub paragraph covers why some people (not me*) find celebrity and celebrity watching/reading interesting: the researcher concludes that if anyone did brain scans on such people, the scans would reveal hyperactivity on a par with those found in drug addicts; he concludes "looking at celebrities should activate reward systems in a really deranged way" which must explain why I like vicus' blog so much (*my only form of celebrity worship) (there has to be one exception to every rule) (dave, I would have included you, but it would only have made you blush)

11 comments:

Mel said...

Ah HA!

If some is good, more IS better!
Eureka and woooohoooooo!!
I've been RIGHT all along!!

*doing happy dance*

:-D

Geeze.....I need to find me one of them there papers so I can show wisepersoninmylife!
(how's that for really, really poor use of the English language? LOL)

Mel said...

*chuckling*
How's that for twisting contents to suit my needs?

;-)

Dave said...

yes.

Dash said...

I think that today's post is a bit beyond me. Will there be an 'idiot's guide' at some point?

Perhaps if you could provide Johnny Ball to explain it....

Saffron said...

'Illusion of Time' sounds fascinating - I love to read about that! Is time nothing more than a human perception of a sequence of events as to say - is time relevant on a greater scale in the universe? Is time linear then?

But as humans - we can only exist in the present moment and therefore life is for living and being happy :)

Rimshot said...

Is this post about buying lotto tickets?

Steg said...

I actually bought a "New Scientist" yesterday for the bit on autism (re: younger daughter) and the "Time" bit, having read and (nearly) understood all of "The Arrow Of Time".

It was, of course, an act of unfounded optimism as the magazine sits sullenly on the coffee table, my not having had time to read it yet. Or not having been able to drag my sorry self away from the perils of the internet for long enough to indulge in "the written word".

ziggi said...

if I could save time in a bottle . . .
la la la la la li laaaa!

There is only today, as I tell Himself when I've overspent!

mig bardsley said...

My understanding of time is based completely on 'October the First is too Late' by Fred Hoyle. Something to do with pigeon holes and whether stuff happens at certain points in time or whether stuff happens all over the time, which rushes past it like a river.
Um, I may have got that wrong - don't blame Fred.

I think I may have to indulge in NS. I used to get a free read at work but that was a very long time ago.

mig bardsley said...

The anterior bit is fine by the way but the posterior suffers some lack of cingularity.
*snigger* (Really must get hold of a read that contains such delightful words).

Malc said...

The time thing has me burying my head under the pillow if I try to think too hard about it. All I know is there never seems to be enough.

I love the fact that New Scientist felt it necessary to point out that the macaques weren't getting any financial reward. Their union can't be very strong.