😂 How did we get here? Comment en sommes-nous arrivés là ?
Earth Planet
Joined September 2020
- Tweets4.7K
- Following99
- Followers1.2K
- Likes1.1K
Life takes root, even in the harshest conditions.
'Résilience' my first song. The full video is here if it hits you:
youtube.com/watch?v=-oWpWsQF…
AI can increase the number of research proposals without increasing the number of scientific discoveries.
The real challenge is distinguishing the quality of scientific reasoning from the quality of its presentation.
This rise is attributable, in part, to the ease of writing applications with artificial-intelligence tools
go.nature.com/4idpSXy
ADHD: A Psychiatric Invention?
. Nature did not invent ADHD.
. Psychiatry created the classification.
But what is attention actually for?
In nature (e0), attention allows a mammal to identify threats, locate resources, detect environmental changes, and respond to survive.
Attention is not defined by obedience to a task. Its biological function is to select information relevant to the environment.
Before calling attention deficient, shouldn't psychiatry first establish what attention is designed to do?
A diagnostic classification describes behavior. It does not, by itself, explain the biological function behind it.
Before classifying attention as deficient, we must first understand its biological function.
In a natural environment (e0), a mammal continuously receives information through sight, hearing, smell, and touch.
Attention does not process every signal equally. It selects information relevant to the environment: detecting danger, finding food, identifying changes, and guiding survival.
What appears to be inattention in one environment may reflect the prioritization of information in another.
This raises a fundamental scientific question for psychiatry:
Are we measuring a dysfunction of attention, or evaluating attention according to the demands of a particular environment?
The distinction matters. A behavioral classification does not, by itself, explain the biological function behind the behavior.
🎯 What we call "consciousness" may be our interpretation of biological functions shaped by evolution to ensure survival, rather than the origin of those functions.
Wow, muy buen artículo que va en línea de lo que pienso de la conciencia, y es que esta conciencia auto-referenciada, la que nos comunicamos con nosotros mismos es producto de que el contenido de conciencia percibido se "interpreta" como comunicable.
Esta es la hipótesis que propone el neurocientífico Michael Shadlen en un artículo publicado en PNAS en 2026.
El autor distingue entre M-consciousness, nuestro estado de vigilia, y P-consciousness, la experiencia subjetiva de ser conscientes de algo. Su objetivo es explicar cómo surge esta última.
Tradicionalmente, imaginamos que primero percibimos conscientemente algo y después decidimos qué hacer. Shadlen propone que el cerebro ya puede procesar información y tomar decisiones sin conciencia.
Entonces, qué hace entonces que un pensamiento se vuelva consciente?
Según su hipótesis, el cambio ocurre cuando el cerebro organiza esa información para que pueda ser comprendida por otra mente, incluso la nuestra. No necesitamos comunicarla realmente, sino que basta con adoptar la intención de hacerlo.
Así, un objeto deja de representarse únicamente como algo con lo que podemos interactuar y pasa a formar parte de un mundo que otros también pueden comprender...
Es decir, es como que la P-consciousness apareciera cuando se verbaliza un contenido de conciencia
Y esto se me hace interesantiiiiisimo, porque uno de los drives que tienen los niños, y que quizás conservamos de adultos, aunque no de la misma manera, es el drive de comunicación, tenemos que comunicar...
Y si este drive de comunicación fuera el proceso psicológico que crea pensamientos conscientes?
Es decir, aunque estemos solos, el cerebro puede seguir organizando pensamientos como si fueran a comunicarse... lo que me lleva al siguiente pensamiento, y si las redes sociales fueran un habilitador de nuestras ganas de comunicar?
Y si todo este mensaje que estoy escribiendo no fuera más que la interpretación de mi cerebro que esto merece ser comunicado a las masas?!?!?! 😱
Fuente: pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.26…
If electrical connections between neurons can adapt to activity and environmental conditions, then understanding brain function requires studying not only the signals, but also the causal mechanisms that reorganize their transmission.
What if the brain's electrical connections are much smarter than we thought? Electrical synapses are specialized connections that allow brain cells to communicate directly through tiny channels called gap junctions. Unlike chemical synapses, which rely on neurotransmitters to carry messages between neurons, electrical synapses permit rapid communication through the direct flow of electrical current. Alberto Pereda and Adam Miller describe in a new review in Nature Reviews Neuroscience why we may need to rethink what an electrical synapse actually is, and how it works.
Key points:
- Electrical synapses are not simply passive channels connecting neurons. They are dynamic structures capable of changing the strength of communication between brain cells.
- Gap junctions are supported by a complex network of proteins, including connexins, scaffolding proteins and regulatory molecules that control how electrical signals are transmitted.
- Neurotransmitters such as dopamine, synaptic activity and molecular processes can modify electrical coupling, suggesting that electrical synapses may play a much more sophisticated role in brain plasticity and network function than previously appreciated.
My take: This review resonates w/ me because it challenges a fundamental assumption about how the brain communicates. For decades, we have frequently thought about electrical synapses as relatively simple connections and chemical synapses as the more adaptable and sophisticated partners. That distinction may be misleading. Electrical synapses can change, adapt and interact w/ chemical signaling systems. As someone who spends much of my time thinking about Parkinson's disease, dopamine and deep brain stimulation (DBS), I find this particularly fascinating. We frequently focus on which brain circuits are firing abnormally and how stimulation can alter their activity. However, could we also be missing an important part of the story by not paying enough attention to how neurons are electrically connected and how those connections change? This is a basic neuroscience review, not evidence that manipulating electrical synapses will improve DBS outcomes, however it opens important questions for future research.
Here are 5 points that resonated w/ me:
1- Electrical synapses are not fixed electrical wires. Their strength can change depending on brain activity and the molecular environment.
2- Dopamine may influence more than chemical signaling. It can also regulate electrical communication between neurons, a fascinating concept when thinking about Parkinson's disease.
3- The proteins surrounding gap junctions may be just as important as the channels themselves. The machinery supporting a connection can influence how that connection functions.
4- Electrical and chemical synapses do not operate in isolation. Their interactions may help explain how brain circuits adapt, synchronize and process information.
5- Could understanding electrical synapse plasticity eventually help us develop smarter neuromodulation approaches, including more personalized DBS? We do not yet know, however this is an exciting direction worth exploring.
nature.com/articles/s41583-0…
Changing 'Statistical' to 'Scientific' does not resolve the fundamental distinction between classifying human behavior and identifying its biological causes.
If 50 years of neuroscience have not changed psychiatric diagnosis, perhaps the fundamental question is not how we classify human behavior, but whether we have identified what actually causes it.
Psychiatry would be better off if we stuck with DSM-III because each change leads to massive overdiagnosis.
When we finished DSM-IV, I
was proud we had made so few changes- but those we did make (in Autism, ADHD, Bipolar) all led to harmful fads.
DSM-5 was a disaster of dumb changes & there's absolutely no excuse for a DSM-6.
🎯💯Stupid Intelligence: The Winner!
400 votes. 121,200 views. One interesting result.
62.8% chose "Stupid Intelligence" over "Superintelligence."
But perhaps the real question is not what we call AI.
We can put any label we want on a tool. A name does not define its nature, capabilities, or limitations.
What matters is what the tool actually does, how it works, and what humans can accomplish with it.
This poll does not establish what AI is, but it raises a useful question about how we perceive it.
Before asking whether AI is superintelligent, shouldn't we first understand what kind of tool we have created?
Can artificial intelligence recognize symbols without understanding the relationships that give them meaning?
In 2025, I developed the Inaccessible Imagination Test (TII) to investigate this question.
The test confronts AI systems with a symbolic environment combining geometry, mathematics, spatial orientation and abstract relationships.
Six AI systems were evaluated across three configurations: the original image, a vertical structured model and a horizontal structured model.
The highest overall score was 68.7/100, achieved by Claude 3.7 Sonnet. These are the results reported in my original study.
But identifying individual elements is not the same as constructing a coherent interpretation of their relationships.
My central hypothesis is that human imagination emerges from lived experience, perception and the ability to construct meaning beyond immediate observations.
The TII examines this distinction without reducing intelligence to computational performance.
A machine can identify the elements of an environment. But does that demonstrate that it understands the environment itself?
Olivier Evan, 2025
#ArtificialIntelligence #HumanCognition #TII
Et si le problème du TDAH n'était pas seulement le cerveau, mais aussi l'environnement dans lequel on lui demande de fonctionner ?
Qu'en pensez-vous ?
Nous sommes des moutons ?
Sans aucun intérêt pour le grand public !
Une nouvelle contribution pour financer les dégâts des émeutes.
Les commerces et les collectivités disposent déjà de contrats d'assurance. L'État, lui, assure directement une partie de ses propres risques.
Alors pourquoi créer un fonds supplémentaire ?
Et surtout, une fois les dégâts réparés, que devient l'argent collecté ?
La loi prévoit un fonds pour les émeutes futures, mais aucune date automatique de suppression de cette contribution.
Une question simple : si les émeutes diminuent, les prélèvements diminueront-ils aussi ?
Et qui paiera réellement la facture : les assureurs ou leurs clients ?
OpenAI en danger et les autres IA ! Je vous explique...
OpenAI affirme avoir réfuté l'hypothèse du temps exponentiel, une hypothèse majeure de l'informatique théorique.
Mais une question fondamentale mérite d'être posée : où est le réel dans cette hypothèse ?
Les mathématiques sont un langage qui permet notamment de représenter le réel. Les variables et les constantes font partie de cet alphabet.
Or, dans l'hypothèse du temps exponentiel, le « temps » désigne une complexité de calcul, pas directement le temps physique.
Depuis des décennies, des chercheurs consacrent du temps, de l'énergie et des ressources à explorer les limites de cette représentation abstraite.
Et si le véritable danger pour OpenAI était de confondre la puissance du raisonnement mathématique avec la compréhension du réel ?
Une démonstration peut être parfaitement cohérente dans son système formel sans décrire une loi de la nature.
La recherche mathématique possède sa propre valeur. Mais lorsqu'on invoque ses conséquences physiques, il faut identifier les contraintes réelles auxquelles elle correspond.
Avant de demander à une intelligence artificielle de résoudre un problème, ne faudrait-il pas commencer par examiner l'origine et la pertinence du problème lui-même ?
Le TDAH au pilori une seconde fois par un psychiatre !
Peter C. Gøtzsche (@PGtzsche1), médecin, chercheur et cofondateur de la Collaboration Cochrane, publie une nouvelle critique majeure du diagnostic de TDAH.
Son argument central est simple : un diagnostic qui regroupe des comportements ne constitue pas, à lui seul, une explication de leurs causes.
Il souligne notamment l'absence de biomarqueur diagnostique spécifique, l'influence de l'âge relatif à l'école et les interrogations sur les traitements médicamenteux.
Ses conclusions radicales, qui contestent l'existence même du TDAH comme trouble neurodéveloppemental, ne font pas consensus.
Mais elles soulèvent une question scientifique fondamentale :
Nommer un comportement suffit-il à expliquer pourquoi il existe ?
Article du 27 octobre 2026 :
madinamerica.com/2026/10/adh…
I forgot the link to my article that demolishes the unicorn in the psychiatic (be)wilderness that is called ADHD: bit.ly/4iJ0j0C. A Channel 4 documentary, and particularly the reactions to is, revealed that ADHD is a bluff. The emperor is naked. You cannot “have” ADHD, ADHD cannot “cause” or “explain” anything, it is just a name for certain behaviours many of us have, it is not a “neurodevelopmental disorder,” and the latest fad where people say, “I am neurodiverse!”, is bullshit because neurodiversity only means that we are all different, unless we are identical twins.
Le TDAH au pilori : un médecin et chercheur remet en question le diagnostic
Peter C. Gøtzsche aka @PGtzsche1 n'est pas un observateur extérieur à la médecine.
Médecin, chercheur danois et cofondateur de la Collaboration Cochrane, il est connu pour ses travaux critiques sur les traitements psychiatriques.
Aujourd'hui, il remet radicalement en question le TDAH, qu'il considère comme une classification de comportements plutôt que comme une explication de leurs causes.
Lorsqu'un professionnel de cette expérience formule une critique aussi fondamentale, une question mérite d'être examinée :
Que savons-nous réellement des causes des comportements que nous classons comme troubles ?
A Channel 4 documentary, and particularly the reactions to is, revealed that ADHD is a bluff. The emperor is naked. You cannot “have” ADHD, ADHD cannot “cause” or “explain” anything, it is just a name for certain behaviours many of us have, it is not a “neurodevelopmental disorder,” and the latest fad where people say, “I am neurodiverse!”, is bullshit because neurodiversity only means that we are all different, unless we are identical twins.
The brain does not play chess. It geometrizes the game.
A chessboard is not merely 64 squares and 32 pieces. It is an environment in which every movement changes the relationships between positions.
The human brain does more than identify pieces. It organizes spatial relationships, recognizes patterns, anticipates consequences and constructs possible future positions.
A player can even play blindfolded, without seeing the board. The physical chessboard disappears, but its spatial representation remains accessible through memory.
This illustrates a fundamental property of human cognition: the ability to construct and manipulate representations of reality without directly perceiving them.
In my 2025 book, "The Inaccessible Imagination Test" (TII), I explore this distinction between algorithmic computation and human cognitive construction.
The deeper question is not how many moves a system can calculate.
It is how experience, memory and perception allow the human brain to construct a meaningful representation of an environment.
What exactly are we measuring when we compare human intelligence with machine performance?
A chess player does not need to see the board to understand the position.
Why?
Because the brain has constructed a spatial representation of the game through experience and memory.
Each move changes the geometry of possible actions, threats and constraints.
The essential question is not how many moves can be calculated, but how the brain constructs the environment in which those moves become meaningful.
Calculating possibilities and understanding an environment are not the same cognitive process.
This distinction matters when comparing human intelligence with AI.
WARNING: A result produced by AI is not automatically a scientifically validated discovery.
🎯 À ce rythme, l'IA va nous rendre plus cons que la moyenne !!
Des chercheurs développent un nez électronique pour transmettre des odeurs par Internet.
Demain, un abonnement pour sentir ? Une recharge pour respirer ?
Tu veux une odeur ? Va aux toilettes et pète un coup.
C'est gratuit, naturel et sans IA.
Scentronic: An artificial intelligence–assisted olfactory interface for remote odor sharing and transmission. Science Advances (2026). doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aee92…
