Sakiro Wrote:
Right now i'm very interesting knowing more and being more concious of the effect of stress (anxiety for us) So yesterday i found this documental of neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky about it. What i didn't remember (later i remember that i read here too) is that high anxiety levels can lead to additional fat storage, but specially in the belly ..

Anxiety, inflammation and glucose processing problems go together like the nervous system, immune system and digestive system. The entire body and brain chemistry is changed, because epigenetics are in play.
Just got round to watching these -great work! We can add a bit too -it's since been discovered that serotonin plummets in animals with low self esteem as well as dopamine, so there's lower motivation, lower excitement, and lower comfort & contentment. Four very good reasons to stay optimistic about life  :  )
Best,
AR

Hey guys, a new, short, ted talk about the brain.

The video still don't have subtitles so i get lost in some parts hehe, but 'looks' interesting.

"A map of the brain"

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_jones_a_ … brain.html

[an unconnected message deleted]

Oh yeh  :  )
Buckets of nonsense come through every day, and I can't help but feel it's best not to reproduce the urls, because a lot of folks skim text, pulling out just the links, and assume (without even bothering to read your post) that you support whatever it is they end up at.

There's a big mainstream BS rumor about uncooked food going around recently, and I've been SO tempted to do a myth-busting post on it, but thought I'd do the experiment and see if keeping quiet was a better way not to spread that meme? Result? Nobody here has mentioned it so far...

It's an old old problem -if you see something dodgy, do you warn people to prevent them being duped, or not mention it to avoid attracting them to go there? If you tell people, chances are everybody will go and look and some will get duped anyway.

Someone from the fire service told me that they turn sirens off for the last half mile before reaching a fire so that onlookers don't gather at the site to gawp with their children and breathe in poisonous fumes. Similar tactic.

Sources are always important, and any source that doesn't reference the original science paper (like world science) can be considered a poor source. Good new sites don't turn up very often. Here's one:
http://www.frontiersin.org/human_neuroscience
that avoids journalistic nonsense and you get actual contact details for researchers themselves.

Btw if you feel that the best policy IS warning people of crap, by all means replace the url, I was just having a laugh  :  )  But it's a difficult question at the best of times.
Best,
AR

Hey we are both awake and online at the same time  :  )

I know exactly what you mean. Often articles sent to us are false leads or just plain bollox. Okay, I know we need the practice NOT to get annoyed or frustrated about bollox, but sometimes I wonder how much fecking practice does a guy need??  :  )

I find it best to concentrate on how great it is we have developed ourselves enough to know the difference between BS and information; what an amazing advantage that gives us in learning. That kinda makes you feel better.

Journalism unfortunately attracts some real scumbags and a lot of pretty dumb people.

...As a wise forensics dude* once said, "Shit is never okay, if it ever becomes okay we've stopped being human. The reason YOU feel shit when you have to walk past a screaming baby being ignored or YOU feel cut up inside when lies are spread about ignorantly for money is because YOU have developed into a real human being; because you are sane, emotionally stable and you feel love and empathy and you have intelligence. Focus on that. Developing sanely in these times requires an incredible amount of personal dedication, hard work and skill, so say thankyou to yourself for your beautiful working mind, and turn that anger into defense against the shit, and determination not to get disillusioned and dragged down by it."

...I feel inspired by this term; 'sakiros crap filter' :  ) It could become a piece of virtual software, a little NH program for the mind that jumps on bullshit, and I would like your permission to include it in an article. I won't put it online without your permission, so you can read it first (and maybe join in writing it, if you want to?)
Best,
AR

*Mark Kelly, Criminal Forensic scientist, written in the pub, London UK 1980

You can always begin with anatomy =) it seldom changes you know.. hardware upgrades is a DIY biz for nature ;-)

  here: http://mitworld.mit.edu/series/view/42

  ...check the 4th* lecture (2nd from the top at the right column), there are other gems there also, that might set your next learning goal.

  Also, there are about 15 new online classes from Stanford, starting up on the Spring** (some as early as next month). Most ways to get smarter are not meta-considerations about it, you will find "there is a difference between walking the path and knowing the path". You can workout your fibers there before deciding where to go. You will find me on most, although probably not SPOT me on most ;-)

  If you're really into anatomy, check this one: http://www.anatomy-class.org/ It will start quite far from the brain though =) though a hint: the topic DOES occupy quite a bit of neuronal real state.. can you guess what it is before looking up the answer? Below there, there is a list of the other ones you might be interested. Have fun.

00010111
  MM800

* if you're an "occidental reader" that is, it would be 3rd for a Semitic reader or 2nd for an Asian one. (small print: regions are rounded up by majority for the sake of brevity)
** if you're a "boreal reader" that is, it would be Autumn for an austral one.

hehe, well, maybe I was just lucky with the initial development or maybe introspection was my only strength and got me in that path and ended doing the right stuff from early on, but I dont think "neurohacking" per se, i.e. formally (sound almost as a paradox) doing stuff, is really needed for that, it sure helps but maybe more on a "increased efficiency" way or just a more healthy way, as in not neglecting rear nets for example.. I mean, I never took any pharmaceuticals -- everything is chemicals, specially xanthines -- but I never took a "smart" drug.. yet =) And I do consider myself -- perhaps equivocally granted -- a polymath, from advanced math to art, nonlinear optimization and programming to drawing, 3D modelling and architecture; literature and poetry, music and having a perfect pitch to lifting weights and physiology and nutrition, I'm on it all.. I believe the secret is to never try and swallow more than you can handle, neurohacking can only increase so much and I'm tired of seeing small people eating the double of their sizes that I dont think it has much to do with the size of each bite...

Remember that homunculus little fella?



that shows the proportional area of brain for each part of the body? That was my original intention with the 'hint' =) alluding to how huge the hands are represented on the brain.. the Stanford course will initially deal with the anatomy of the hand (far from the brain =)), and future ones will proceed to neck and head(not as far, but still external), torax, etc... did you check out the video there? How awesome is that virtual dissection table?! He can "slice and dice" the body, remove parts, rotate.. =)

00010111
  MM800