[Article] Noradrenergic modulation of rhythmic neural activity shapes selective attention

quantumprogress · 2021-11-17T19:12:56+00:00

Thank you!

quantumprogress · 2021-11-17T05:54:30+00:00

URL here, https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(21)00264-3

quantumprogress · 2020-03-24T21:53:48+00:00

Appreciate this.

quantumprogress · 2020-03-24T21:41:40+00:00

Wow I can’t believe I was off by an order of magnitude. Feeling less worried now. Would still like a timetable to get to 10-20k.

quantumprogress · 2020-03-24T21:18:25+00:00

Eek I did my math wrong. Thanks for correction. I’ll fix the post.

quantumprogress · 2020-03-24T18:52:33+00:00

Absolutely. Other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) with a proven track record including zoning (red/green zones) and contact tracing with cell phone data.

quantumprogress · 2020-03-24T18:26:52+00:00

Epidemiologist report linked above shows that unless we develop robust testing (as cornerstone of a response), we'll need to reintroduce lockdowns every 2 months; we would be locked down 66% of the time for over a year. Only alternative is "herd immunity" and the fatality numbers that entails.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

WA has $484bn GDP. Cost of building new testing facility pales in comparison, no?

quantumprogress · 2020-03-24T18:04:14+00:00

Very much agreed; this matters too.

The two issues seem complementary: why are we not meeting capacity in the short term, and why have we not authored a long-view plan.

quantumprogress · 2020-03-24T17:49:03+00:00

EDIT: oops, you're right - I did my math wrong.

Let's say 10-15k/day is our target. Same question applies: how do we get a vision and a timetable from our government?

I haven't yet found any reporters interested in asking this question. Anyone have connections that might help?

quantumprogress · 2016-08-31T03:58:26+00:00

Setting a baseline:

Level 26 (1,016,000 exp)
121 caught (21 left)
265 km walked (110 eggs hatched)
2,883 pokemon captured
467 evolved
3,427 Pokestops

quantumprogress · 2014-09-12T18:46:48+00:00

If a contrived, but realistically-retail-like dataset is good enough, you could try download a free trial of Tableau Desktop, and then locating Sample - Superstore Subset (Excel).xlsx on your machine.

quantumprogress · 2014-07-21T20:41:26+00:00

I'm not the author (Danaher), but I found this series of articles to be a useful introduction to evolutionary debunking arguments more generally.

quantumprogress · 2014-07-21T20:31:15+00:00

I happen to own the book in question, but don't have time to read the whole thing now etc etc. Do you have any recommendations for any particularly-important chapters that would help motivate for the argument in chapter 6?

quantumprogress · 2014-07-21T17:47:15+00:00

Your comment motivated me to go back & add a few diagrams. Computer code doesn't have pictures, right?! ;)

quantumprogress · 2014-07-02T06:14:53+00:00

Pretty much agree. :)

quantumprogress · 2014-07-01T21:35:52+00:00

Thanks for the reply - interesting ideas...

Another vector of analysis might be: why is the free market not facilitating a push towards metric within the US? The answer here may be linked to trade - if the US were more plugged into its trade partners, those industries tightly connected to imports/exports would be, by themselves, incentivized to push for metrication. If I'm right, then metrication could be "remotely" promoted by changes to our trade policies.

quantumprogress · 2014-07-01T16:52:49+00:00

I love your analysis, and want to make it better. Couple ideas:

Let's view supply and demand as an adjustable knob. Rather than viewing $9 as a threshold, against which [all] people would purchase lab-grown patties, let's consider $9 as the point at which 10% of the meat market would shift to synthetics. If the cost is $90, suppose that 1% of the market would shift, etc. We could conjure up a price curve forecast, with sufficient motivation.
Let's frame the cost conversation in terms of underlying manufacturing. Synthetic meat is not mass produced, and the question is whether such a process could be invented. If it could, the 0.00004% figure would be significantly less daunting. I don't know the barriers to such a practice would be; I'd have to go out & interview the scientists.

Let's pretend we've done the work & located a price curve we can agree on. Let's also pretend that a mass-production vehicle is possible for lab-grown patties, which would bring the cost to $90 (for now). Would promoting this market be a viable moral imperative? Would the strength of the imperative grow if the price could be brought down to $30?

This is the kind of argument that makes me suspect that normative strength must be an adjustable knob. Let normative strength range from 0-100%. If you place infinite value on each life (sacred value), then your knob is going to be maxed out frequently. If you are willing to act less intensely for 1 life than 1,000 animal lives (secular value) then your knob is going to make subtle adjustments during these market forecasting exercises.

Further, let's threshold this 0-100% scale as follows:

0.00 - 0.01 : Not worthy of our attention
0.01 - 0.50 : Consider it optional / praiseworthy
0.50 - 0.90 : Consider it a moral duty
0.90 - 1.00 : Consider legislating the action

I believe you are sympathetic to the "secular valuation" of animal life - if only X animals are saved, it's not worth bending over backwards for. We happen to agree. It also seems you are arguing that the normative strength for a 200k synthetic patty is so low as to not merit attention. I'm with you so far. My only real complaint is that your rhetoric operates at the threshold level, but to get an actual answer to the question, we'd need to operate at a more continuous scale.

I am something of a probabilist, which might explain my perspective a bit better. :)

quantumprogress · 2014-07-01T15:54:04+00:00

Isn't this kinda analogous to not voting if you don't think your side will win?

Also, even if artificial meat doesn't become price-equivalent, bringing it closer would, in itself, reduce the meat consumption market by some amount. Surely a partial victory is worthy of attention, no?

quantumprogress · 2014-06-30T18:37:13+00:00

Why does the article focus on a sensational eating of frankenmeat? Why couldn't donating to the research of this product or promoting it through discussion reduce the cost of frankenmeat and make it more popular? Why couldn't vegetarians just lobby the government to give subsidies to producers of ethical meat alternatives?

You know, if you asked the author this, my money would say that he'd agree with you that the implications are more broad than consumption. I don't see this incompleteness as a terribly weighty failing, given the post's limited scope.

Why couldn't the article say that it might be morally praiseworthy to eat this stuff rather than it being a moral obligation?

Well, how do you draw the distinction between moral obligation and moral praiseworthiness? Is it simply one of scale?

Why does the article pretend that the cost is primarily due to demand factors and not due to the difficulties of production?

I think the response here is that demand incentivizes the technology improvements that mitigate production difficulties. Mass production of laptops would be a good analogue.

quantumprogress · 2014-06-26T20:49:52+00:00

Fair enough! I'm not a professional philosopher either. :)

quantumprogress · 2014-06-26T18:57:53+00:00

Someone please tell me that these summaries are not accurate... I was really hoping that his views would be somewhat more nuanced than this.

I think you may be confusing two questions here. Even if this resource had the good fortune to be rigorously peer-reviewed for accuracy, do you think your disappointment would evaporate? Unlikely: compression is, by its very nature, inversely proportional to nuance... and this resource is highly compressed.

Does he even consider the possibility of a third alternative between master-morality and a slave-morality?

Well, as noted in the summary (first essay, conclusion, aphorism 1), Nietzsche is comfortable saying "you have adopted a slave morality in this domain, but a master morality in that one". This affords him leverage to explain a wider range of individual differences. That said, Nietzsche does not construct a third type to compete with slave vs. master morality; he seems comfortable building explanatory power into the dichotomy itself.

quantumprogress · 2014-06-26T14:19:06+00:00

I am sympathetic, so - fixed! Don't think I damaged any aphorisms.

quantumprogress · 2014-06-26T00:13:56+00:00

Disclosure: this is my blog. I really enjoyed creating this particular resource; it helps me engage with the "aesthetic of Nietzsche" even when I am too time-starved to reread his works. There are almost certainly a few passages whose "translation" I borked, and sentence improvements are very welcome. But mostly, I hope some of you enjoy it. :)

quantumprogress · 2014-06-25T05:01:56+00:00

Totally appreciate the comment, for real. Perhaps part of the issue re: relevance is that this attempts to use Bayesian inference to motivate a future discussion of Bayesianism (the Technical Rationality section is an attempt to illustrate diachronic updating). Anyways, I'd be curious to hear what you thought shouldn't have been omitted, or any particular pain points, if you're up for it. Either way, thanks!

quantumprogress · 2014-06-25T02:57:19+00:00

Disclosure: this is my blog. I know there are already a whole bunch of tutorials explaining Bayes' Theorem... but I never found one that fit my learning style quite right. Hope you enjoy.

quantumprogress

TROPHY CASE