koglist January 2008

koglist@maillist.ttk.hu

8 participants
12 discussions

by Krisztina Biber

Dear All, Please find enclosed Katalin Farkas` abstract for the next faculty work in progress lecture (Tuesday, 5. February, from 4.30 PM in room 412) Best Kriszta ******************************************************************************** Katalin Farkas Can one be immoral in a dream? Dreams in philosophy are usually considered in the theory of knowledge. The classic sceptical Dream Argument goes something like this: since dreams are subjectively indistinguishable from wakeful experiences, the qualitative character of experience doesnt guarantee that I am not dreaming now, and therefore I cannot exclude the possibility that I am not dreaming now. But then I cannot t know anything based on my present experiences. I shall refer to the conception of dreams embodied in this argument as the "usual conception of dreams. The key feature of the usual conception is that dreams are subjectively the same as wakeful experiences. I think the usual conception is wrong, and considering the moral significance of dreams helps to bring this point out. The question of the moral status of dreams is raised for example in the following passage in St. Augustines Confessions: "Obviously thou commandest that I should be continent from the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. Thou commandest me to abstain from fornication, and as for marriage itself, thou hast counseled something better than what thou dost allow. And since thou gavest it, it was done--even before I became a minister of thy sacrament. But there still exist in my memory--of which I have spoken so much--the images of such things as my habits had fixed there. These things rush into my thoughts with no power when I am awake; but in sleep they rush in not only so as to give pleasure, but even to obtain consent and what very closely resembles the deed itself. Indeed, the illusion of the image prevails to such an extent, in both my soul and my flesh, that the illusion persuades me when sleeping to what the reality cannot do when I am awake. Am I not myself at such a time, O Lord my God? And is there so much of a difference between myself awake and myself in the moment when I pass from waking to sleeping, or return from sleeping to waking? Where, then, is the power of reason which resists such suggestions when I am awake--for even if the things themselves be forced upon it I remain unmoved? Does reason cease when the eyes close? Is it put to sleep with the bodily senses? But in that case how does it come to pass that even in slumber we often resist, and with our conscious purposes in mind, continue most chastely in them, and yield no assent to such allurements? Yet there is at least this much difference: that when it happens otherwise in dreams, when we wake up, we return to peace of conscience. And it is by this difference between sleeping and waking that we discover that it was not we who did it, while we still feel sorry that in some way it was done in us." (Book 10, ch. 30): As Augustine notes, one of the most troubling aspect of dreams from a moral point of view is that we seem to consent to all sorts of things in dream that we would never do in waking life. So much so that Augustine even considers - though immediately discards - the possibility that he isnt really himself when dreaming. Of course there is an important difference between wakeful acts and apparent dream acts: that the latter dont really happen. It seems that this leads Augustine to conclude that one shouldnt feel guilty - though one may not help feeling sorry - about things done in a dream. However, some commentators argued that Augustine is in fact committed to some assumptions which entail that one can be immoral in a dream. One of these assumption is the usual conception of dreams. It is also instructive to compare the moral status of acts apparently committed in dreams with the moral status of acts apparently committed in a hypothetical situation of perfect simulation (like the Matrix). It is common to both cases that the act doesnt actually happen; yet I claim that the moral status of the two situations are different. I argue that the usual conception of dreams is mistaken, and dreams are in fact states of diminished responsibility (like being drugged or drunk), which are subjectively very different from waking experiences. Since dreams are such states, I dont think that one can be immoral in a dream.

18 years, 3 months

European University Association Open Access Recommendations

by Stevan Harnad

[Apologies for Multiple Posting] These recommendations by the EUA Working Group on Open Access were adopted unanimously by the Council of the European University Association on January 25 2008. Many thanks to Professor Bernard Rentier, Rector, University of Liege and founder of EurOpenScholar, who has forwarded them to the American Scientist Open Access Forum for posting, with permission. Below are the highlights of the recommendations, followed by the recommendations in full. The recommendation is that all European Universities should create institutional repositories and should mandate that all research publications must be deposited in them immediately upon publication (and made Open Access as soon as possible thereafter), as already mandated by RCUK, ERC, and NIH, and as recommended by EURAB. EUA also recommends that this self-archiving mandate should be extended to all research results arising from EU research programme/project funding. HIGHLIGHTS: A. Recommendations for University Leadership The basic approach... should be the creation of an institutional repository. These repositories should be established and managed according to current best practices (following recommendations and guidelines from DRIVER and similar projects) complying with the OAI-PMH protocol and allowing inter-operability and future networking for wider usage.... University institutional policies should require that their researchers deposit (self-archive) their scientific publications in their institutional repository upon acceptance for publication. Permissible embargoes should apply only to the date of open access provision and not the date of deposit. Such policies would be in compliance with evolving policies of research funding agencies at the national and European level such as the ERC. B. Recommendations for National Rectors' Conferences All National Rectors' Conferences should work with national research funding agencies and governments in their countries to implement the requirement for self-archiving of research publications in institutional repositories and other appropriate open access repositories according to best practice models of the ERC and existing national research funding agencies operating open access mandates... C. Recommendations for the European University Association EUA should continue to contribute actively to the policy dialogue on Open Access at the European level with a view to a self-archiving mandate for all research results arising from EU research programme/project funding, hence in support of and building upon the ERC position and other international initiatives such as that of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommendations from the European University Association Working Group on Open Access I. WG: Aims and Scope In January 2007 EUA established a 'Working Group on Open Access' for a one year period as a platform of expert opinion to provide both a voice for, and visibility to European universities as stakeholders in the policy debate. Its mission was dual-fold: to raise awareness of the importance of 'open access' issues to the wider university community, both in terms of its impact upon the research process and its financial implications for university libraries, and to develop recommendations for a common strategy for the university sector as key stakeholders in policy development in the field. The decision to set up the Working Group had reflected the general view that the interests of universities were not being heard in the growing policy debate on the issue of the wide implications of rapid development of digital ICT for publishing which tended to be dominated by the commercial interests of the major scientific publishing companies. The Working Group membership drew upon the range of different university perspectives on the concept of 'Open Access' from those of academic researchers, librarians and university management. In the course of its three meetings in 2007 the Working Group gathered expert opinion on open access publishing business models, legal and copyright issues, technical development of national digital repositories and their European networking, and the policies being developed towards open access publishing by funding agencies at the national level and the European Commission. Professor Sijbolt Noorda (Chair of the WG) and members contributed also to several European Conferences held in 2007 including the major conference on 'Scientific Publishing in the Digital Age' held jointly by the European Commission DG Research and DG Information and Media in Brussels in February 2007 in which the university sector were recognised formally as a major 'stakeholder' in the open access policy debate. In reaching its recommendations that are addressed to three audiences - university leaders at the institutional level,Â National Rectors Conferences and the EUA - the Working Group has borne in mind the full spectrum of issues involved; these range from the clear opportunity offered to widen access to the results of research, to the implications of open access publishing for peer review and quality assurance in academic research and the rapidly rising costs of scientific publications for university libraries (through high subscription prices for both electronic and printed journals, including 'bundling' marketing strategies by publishers). II. European and Global Context of the Recommendations The WG recommendations seek to build upon the findings of the 'Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of Scientific Publications Markets in Europe' (European Commission, DG Research, project report, January 2006), and public statements issued by the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB) on Open Access as well as the current practices of some funding agencies such as UK Research Councils and the newly adopted policy of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States concerning open access mandates for peer-reviewed publications arising from grants. In the European context the most recent significant development has been the ERC announcement on 17th December 2007 of its position on open access, as follows: "The ERC requires that all peer-reviewed publications from ERC-funded research projects be deposited on publication into an appropriate research repository where available, such as PubMedCentral, ArXiv or an institutional repository, and subsequently made Open Access within 6 months of publication." WG recommendations seek also to provide support to European level initiatives promoting institutional repositories, their networking and wider accessibility through the future Confederation of European Repositories being developed by the DRIVER project consortium (funded under the European Commission 7th Research Framework Programme) and other university-led initiatives such as EurOpenScholar and the UNICA network. III. Recommendations The WG recommendations (below) are based upon the following core premises: the university's role and responsibility as guardian of research knowledge as a 'public good'; the results of publicly-funded research should be publicly-available as soon as possible; and quality assurance peer review processes are pre-conditions for scholarly publishing and therefore are essential to be maintained in the digital publishing mode. It is important to emphasise that the scope of the WG recommendations cover as a priority the need for the enhancement of open access to peer-reviewed published research literature only, and not scientific research data, teaching materials etc. Issues of access to research data, its archiving and preservation need further attention from universities, funding agencies and scientific professional bodies, and are subject to several initiatives at the national and European level which are not addressed here (e.g. the Alliance for Permanent Access and European Digital Information Infrastructure). A. Recommendations for University Leadership 1. Universities should develop institutional policies and strategies that foster the availability of their quality controlled research results for the broadest possible range of users, maximising their visibility, accessibility and scientific impact. 2. The basic approach for achieving this should be the creation of an institutional repository. These repositories should be established and managed according to current best practices (following recommendations and guidelines from DRIVER and similar projects) complying with the OAI-PMH protocol and allowing inter-operability and future networking for wider usage. 3. University institutional policies should require that their researchers deposit (self-archive) their scientific publications in their institutional repository upon acceptance for publication. Permissible embargoes should apply only to the date of open access provision and not the date of deposit. Such policies would be in compliance with evolving policies of research funding agencies at the national and European level such as the ERC. 4. University policies should include copyright in the institutional intellectual property rights (IPR) management. It should be the responsibility of the university to inform their faculty researchers about IPR and copyright management in order to ensure the wider sharing and re-use of the digital research content they have produced. This should include a clear policy on ownership and management of copyright covering scholarly publications and define procedures for ensuring that the institution has the right to use the material produced by its staff for further research, educational and instructional purposes. 5. University institutional policies should explore also how own resources could be found for author fees if 'author pays model' of open access publishing prevails in the future in some scientific fields/domains. B. Recommendations for National Rectors' Conferences 1. All National Rectors' Conferences should work with national research funding agencies and governments in their countries to implement the requirement for self-archiving of research publications in institutional repositories and other appropriate open access repositories according to best practice models of the ERC and existing national research funding agencies operating open access mandates. National Rectors' Conferences should encourage government to work within the framework of the Council of the European Union Conclusions on Scientific Information in the Digital Age: Access, Dissemination and Preservation" adopted at the EU Competitiveness Council meeting on 22nd-23rd November 2007. 2. National Rectors' Conferences should attach high priority to raising the awareness of university leadership to the importance of open access policies in terms of enhanced visibility, access and impact of their research results. C. Recommendations for the European University Association 1. EUA should continue to contribute actively to the policy dialogue on Open Access at the European level with a view to a self-archiving mandate for all research results arising from EU research programme/project funding, hence in support of and building upon the ERC position and other international initiatives such as that of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2. EUA should continue to be visible and to rally expertise from Europe's universities on Open Access issues to provide input to European and International events advancing open access to scientific publications, research data and their preservation.

18 years, 3 months

Fw: [ITTK-Szakmai Klub] a google es a wikipedia megsem a baratod?

by George Kampis

Elnezest, de sajnos nem tudom megallni, hogy e kisse off-topik levelet szet ne kuldjem, napi problemankrol szol (aki tanit, tudja). udv kgy ----- Original Message ----- From: "FIDRICH Robert (Fidusz)" <fidusz(a)zpok.hu> To: <klub(a)ittk.hu> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 10:20 PM Subject: [ITTK-Szakmai Klub] a google es a wikipedia megsem a baratod? http://itcafe.hu/hir/google_wikipedia_tiltas.html Büntetés jár a Google és a Wikipedia használatáért Szerző: Dajkó Pál | 2008-01-18 09:53 | Café blog | Forrás: IT café Az „agy fehér kenyerének” tartja egy angol egyetemi oktató a népszerű keresőt és az online lexikont, ezért az elsősök nem használhatják őket. Már többször szóba került nálunk is: úgy tűnik, az oktatásban – legalábbis azokban az országokban, ahol már nem okoz gondot a diákok számára az internet-hozzáférés – mind komolyabb problémát okoz a tanároknak, hogy a világháló bizonyos kitüntetett oldalai számítanak a tanulók első számú információforrásának. Nemrég írtunk arról, hogy egy seattle-i iskolában a helyi könyvtáros gyakorlatilag letiltotta a diákokat a Wikipediáról, s most egy újabb hasonló ügy járta be a sajtót, mivel Tara Brabazon, az angol Brightoni Egyetem Média Tanszékén hasonló korlátozásokat vezetett be az első évfolyamos hallgatók számára. Ám mielőtt cenzúra alkalmazása és vaskalaposság miatt azonnal elítélnénk az egyetemi oktatót, érdemes közelebbről szemügyre venni az érveit, melyekkel alátámasztja azt, hogy egy valóban létező problémát igyekszik a maga módján kezelni. Tara Brabazon a Timesnak adott nyilatkozatában a következőket mondta: „Én ezt a fajta [az internet kritikátlan használatát] oktatási módszert »Google Egyetemnek« hívom. A Google egyszerű válaszokat kínál bonyolult kérdésekre.” Az oktató véleménye szerint a hallgatók nem tudják megkülönböztetni, hogy mikor olvasnak megbízható, alapos, érvényes megállapításokat tartalmazó forrást, s mikor akadnak rá felszínes, megbízhatatlan információkra. Mint szemléletesen megfogalmazta véleményét: a Google olyan, mint a gyorsan laktató kaják, amelyeknek viszont roppant alacsony a tápértéke. Brabazon úgy véli, ahhoz, hogy a diákok „egészségesen és megfelelően” táplálkozzanak szellemileg is, rá kell őket szoktatni és nevelni a kritikus gondolkozásra, meg kell ismertetni őket az internetes tartalmak elemző, értékelő szemléletével, s tűzzel-vassal küzdeni kell a kopipészt ellen. A 18 éve oktató Brabazon véleménye teljesen egybecseng Andrew Keen kritikájával, aki az online amatőrizmusról írott híres könyvében (The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture – Az Amatőr kultusza, avagy hogyan teszi tönkre kultúránkat az internet) igen csak sarkosan fogalmazott: „Napjaink médiája milliárdnyi személyes igazságra tördeli szét a világot, melyek mindegyike egyenlő értékűnek és érdemlegesnek látszik.” A tiltás vajon megoldás-e? Ez így szépen is hangzik, de vajon milyen módon lehet ezt megtenni? Brabazon az „ódivatú” módszerek közül válogat, például – miközben súlyosan bünteti a gólyákat, ha munkájuk alapján kiderül, hogy a Wikipedia vagy a Google segítségével szerezték meg az információkat –, a könyvtárosokkal együttműködve olyan szövegek kivonatait kínálják a hallgatóknak, melyeket „megbízhatónak” ítélnek, illetve a hagyományos könyvtári kutatómunkára biztatják őket. „Azt akarom, hogy a hallgatók üljenek el, és olvassanak. Ez nem ugyanaz, mintha online olvasnak. Azt akarom, hogy tapasztalják meg, milyen a nyomtatott papír, ismerjék épp olyan jól, mint a digitális tartalmakat és a pixeleket. Mindkettő nagyszerű dolog, s én mindkettőt fontosnak tartom, nem pedig vagy az egyiket, vagy a másikat. Nem egyszerű” – nyilatkozta Brabazon egy másik interjújában. Habár ebben a vitában némileg keveredik két akut probléma – a plágium ügye és a kritikátlan anyagfelhasználásé –, biztosan állíthatom, hogy az elkövetkező évek egyik legkomolyabb oktatási problémájává nő majd fel az internethasználat minősége – bizonyos értelemben már ma is az. Hiszen ha valaki részt vett már a magyar felsőoktatásban, akár hallgatóként, akár oktatóként, az már évek óta tapasztalhatja, hogy – s most újra hagyjuk a lustaságból, kényelemszeretetből vagy egyszerű alkalmatlanság miatt elkövetett kopipészttel készült dolgozatok ügyét, erre már sok intézmény reagált, s ennek visszaszorítása valószínűleg adminisztratív megoldást kíván mindössze – az internetet hasznosan és értelmesen használni milyen kevesen tudják. Nagy tömegek pontosan olyan tanácstalanul és értetlenül (rosszabb esetben hamis önbizalommal) állnak az információtömeg előtt, mintha csak könyvtárban lennének, bár ott meg végképp nem boldogulnak. Megoldás(oka)t kell találni, ez nem vitás. Ám az számomra kérdés, hogy vajon az egyetem, főiskola első évében lépni nem túlságosan késő-e már? -- FIDRICH Robert (Fidusz) MTVSZ/FoE Hungary drotlevel/email: fidusz(a)zpok.hu #jabber/gtalk: fidusz(a)jabber.hu _______________________________________________ Klub mailing list Klub(a)ittk.hu https://lists.ittk.hu/mailman/listinfo/klub

18 years, 3 months

Theoretical Philosophy Forum, February

by Laszlo E. Szabo

THEORETICAL PHILOSOPHY FORUM Institute of Philosophy Faculty of Humanities, Eotvos University Room 226 Monday 4:00 PM Muzeum krt. 4/i, Budapest Web site: http://phil.elte.hu/tpf February Program 11 February 4:00 PM Room 226 Gergely Ambrus Philosophy, University of Miskolc A tudat problemaja a logikai empirizmusban (The problem of mind in logical empirism) Abstract: http://phil.elte.hu/tpf/2007-2008/February/#2 18 February 4:00 PM Room 226 Gyorgy Szabo Complex Systems Group Research Institute for Technical Physics and Materials Science, Budapest Mechanisms supporting cooperation in evolutionary Prisoner's Dilemma Abstract: http://phil.elte.hu/tpf/2007-2008/February/#3 25 February 4:00 PM Room 226 Tamas Demeter Institute for Philosophical Research, Budapest Mentalis fikcionalizmus (Mental fictionalism) Abstract: http://phil.elte.hu/tpf/2007-2008/February/#4 ___________________________________ The Forum is open to everyone, including students,visitors, and faculty members from all departments and institutes! Format: 60 minute lecture, 10 minute coffee break, followed by a 30-60 minute discussion. The language of presentation is English or Hungarian. A printable poster is available from here: http://phil.elte.hu/tpf/2007-2008/February/poster.pdf Please feel free to post it in your institution! The organizer of the Forum: Laszlo E. Szabo (leszabo(a)phil.elte.hu) -- L a s z l o E. S z a b o Department of Logic, Institute of Philosophy Faculty of Humanities, Eotvos University, Budapest http://phil.elte.hu/leszabo

18 years, 3 months

PXLab - Ingyenes kísérletvezérlő rendszer

by Krajcsi Attila

Kedves Kollégák, A PXLab egy ingyenes kísérletvezérlő rendszer, ami az oktatásban is kiválóan használható. Gyakorlatokon böngészőből is futtatható. A nyelve elég egyszerű, hogy akár BA képzésben is használható legyen, ha a hallgatóknak saját kísérletet kell összeállítaniuk. A rendszernek egy új magyar nyelvű oldalt indítottunk, magyar nyelvű demó kísérletekkel és leírással. Az oldal megtalálható itt: http://kognit.edpsy.u-szeged.hu/pxlab/ Üdv, Krajcsi Attila

18 years, 3 months

konyv kereses

by BANRETI, Zoltan

Kedves Kollégák, Kérdezem, hogy az alábbi könyv megvan-e valamelyikőtöknek, és ha igen, egy gyors xerox erejéig, 1-2 napig kölcsön tudná-e adni nekem: Smolensky, Paul & Geraldine Legendre (2006) /The Harmonic Mind - From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic Grammar, Volume I: Cognitive Architecture /MIT Press, ISBN-10:0-262-19528-3 ISBN-13:978-0-262-19528-7 Szivélyes üdvözlettel, Bánréti Zoltán MTA Nyelvtudomanyi Intezete Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences H-1068 Budapest Benczúr u. 33 tel: 36-1-351-0413 fax: 36-1-322-9297 email: banreti(a)nytud.hu

18 years, 3 months

invitation to a film screening

by Krisztina Biber

The Philosophy Department cordially invites you to a screening of Wittgenstein Directed by Derek Jarman Monday, 14. January 7:00 P.M. - Auditorium The film is based on the life of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. It is screened as part of the course on Wittgensteins philosophy of language and mind, given this term by the philosophy department (see http://www.ceu.hu/phil/phdcurriculum.htm#wittgenstein ) Kriszta Biber Department Coordinator Philosophy Department Tel: 36-1-327-3806 Fax: 36-1-327-3072 E-mail: biberk(a)ceu.hu

18 years, 4 months

Redish et al/A unified framework for addiction: BBS Call for Commentators

by Behavioral & Brain Sciences

Dear Dr. Qwerty, ================================================================== *** CALL RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS *** ================================================================== Please DO NOT respond to this email. Please note that this is NOT a formal invitation. If you wish to submit a proposal for commentary and/or suggest potential commentators, please go to the Online Commentary Proposal System at the following URL: http://www.bbsonline.org/perl/commentary/commproposal?authordir=Redish-0928… * If you only wish to suggest potential commentators, please ignore prompts to submit a proposal with expertise information. * If you experience technical difficulties, please email bbs(a)bbsonline.org. * Please respond to this Call no later than January 28, 2008 NOTE: Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is an international, interdisciplinary journal providing Open Peer Commentary on important and controversial current research in the biobehavioral and cognitive sciences. Commentators must be BBS Associates, or suggested by a BBS Associate. If you are not a BBS Associate, please follow the instructions linked below: http://www.bbsonline.org/Instructions/associnst.html ================================================================== ** Target Article Information ** ================================================================== To help you decide whether you would be an appropriate commentator for this article, an unedited, uncorrected target article is retrievable at the URL that follows the abstract and keywords below. This unedited draft has been prepared only for potential commentators who wish to nominate themselves for formal commentary invitation. Please DO NOT write a commentary until you receive a formal invitation. If you are invited to submit a commentary, a copyedited, corrected version of this paper will be posted in the invitation letter. The commentary invitation list is compiled by the Editors so as to balance proposals, areas of expertise, and frequency of prior commentaries in BBS. TITLE: A unified framework for addiction: Vulnerabilities in the decision process AUTHORS: A. David Redish, Steve Jensen, Adam Johnson ABSTRACT: The understanding of decision-making systems has come together in recent years to form a unified theory of decision-making in the mammalian brain as arising from multiple, interacting systems (a planning system, a habit system, and a situation-recognition system). This unified decision-making system has multiple potential access points through which it can be driven to make maladaptive choices, particularly choices which entail seeking of certain drugs or behaviors. We identify ten key vulnerabilities in the system: (1) moving away from homeostasis, (2) changing allostatic set points, (3) euphorigenic reward-like signals, (4) overvaluation in the planning system, (5) incorrect search of situation-action-outcome relationships, (6) misclassification of situations, (7) overvaluation in the habit system, (8) a mismatch in the balance of the two decision systems, (9) over-fast discounting processes, and (10) changed learning rates. These vulnerabilities provide a taxonomy of potential problems with decision-making systems. Although each vulnerability can drive an agent to return to the addictive choice, each vulnerability will also produce a characteristic symptomology. Different drugs, different behaviors, and different individuals are likely to access different vulnerabilities. This has implications for an individuals susceptibility to addiction and the transition to addiction, for the potential for relapse, and for the potential for treatment. KEYWORDS: addiction, gambling, decision-making, striatum, hippocampus, frontal cortex, dopamine FULL TEXT: http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Redish-09282006/Referees/ ================================================================== *** CALL RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS *** ================================================================== Please DO NOT respond to this email. Please note that this is NOT a formal invitation. If you wish to submit a proposal for commentary and/or suggest potential commentators, please go to the Online Commentary Proposal System at the following URL: http://www.bbsonline.org/perl/commentary/commproposal?authordir=Redish-0928… * If you only wish to suggest potential commentators, please ignore prompts to submit a proposal with expertise information. * If you experience technical difficulties, please email bbs(a)bbsonline.org. * Please respond to this Call no later than January 28, 2008 NOTE: Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is an international, interdisciplinary journal providing Open Peer Commentary on important and controversial current research in the biobehavioral and cognitive sciences. Commentators must be BBS Associates, or suggested by a BBS Associate. If you are not a BBS Associate, please follow the instructions linked below: http://www.bbsonline.org/Instructions/associnst.html ================================================================== ================================================================== Paul Bloom - Editor Barbara Finlay - Editor Behavioral and Brain Sciences bbs(a)bbsonline.org http://www.bbsonline.org -------------------------------------------------------------------

18 years, 4 months

Redish et al/A unified framework for addiction: BBS Call for Commentators

by Behavioral & Brain Sciences

================================================================== *** CALL RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS *** ================================================================== Please DO NOT respond to this email. Please note that this is NOT a formal invitation. If you wish to submit a proposal for commentary and/or suggest potential commentators, please go to the Online Commentary Proposal System at the following URL: http://www.bbsonline.org/perl/commentary/commproposal?authordir=Redish-0928… * If you only wish to suggest potential commentators, please ignore prompts to submit a proposal with expertise information. * If you experience technical difficulties, please email bbs(a)bbsonline.org. * Please respond to this Call no later than January 28, 2008 NOTE: Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is an international, interdisciplinary journal providing Open Peer Commentary on important and controversial current research in the biobehavioral and cognitive sciences. Commentators must be BBS Associates, or suggested by a BBS Associate. If you are not a BBS Associate, please follow the instructions linked below: http://www.bbsonline.org/Instructions/associnst.html ================================================================== ** Target Article Information ** ================================================================== To help you decide whether you would be an appropriate commentator for this article, an unedited, uncorrected target article is retrievable at the URL that follows the abstract and keywords below. This unedited draft has been prepared only for potential commentators who wish to nominate themselves for formal commentary invitation. Please DO NOT write a commentary until you receive a formal invitation. If you are invited to submit a commentary, a copyedited, corrected version of this paper will be posted in the invitation letter. The commentary invitation list is compiled by the Editors so as to balance proposals, areas of expertise, and frequency of prior commentaries in BBS. TITLE: A unified framework for addiction: Vulnerabilities in the decision process AUTHORS: A. David Redish, Steve Jensen, Adam Johnson ABSTRACT: The understanding of decision-making systems has come together in recent years to form a unified theory of decision-making in the mammalian brain as arising from multiple, interacting systems (a planning system, a habit system, and a situation-recognition system). This unified decision-making system has multiple potential access points through which it can be driven to make maladaptive choices, particularly choices which entail seeking of certain drugs or behaviors. We identify ten key vulnerabilities in the system: (1) moving away from homeostasis, (2) changing allostatic set points, (3) euphorigenic reward-like signals, (4) overvaluation in the planning system, (5) incorrect search of situation-action-outcome relationships, (6) misclassification of situations, (7) overvaluation in the habit system, (8) a mismatch in the balance of the two decision systems, (9) over-fast discounting processes, and (10) changed learning rates. These vulnerabilities provide a taxonomy of potential problems with decision-making systems. Although each vulnerability can drive an agent to return to the addictive choice, each vulnerability will also produce a characteristic symptomology. Different drugs, different behaviors, and different individuals are likely to access different vulnerabilities. This has implications for an individuals susceptibility to addiction and the transition to addiction, for the potential for relapse, and for the potential for treatment. KEYWORDS: addiction, gambling, decision-making, striatum, hippocampus, frontal cortex, dopamine FULL TEXT: http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Redish-09282006/Referees/ ================================================================== *** CALL RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS *** ================================================================== Please DO NOT respond to this email. Please note that this is NOT a formal invitation. If you wish to submit a proposal for commentary and/or suggest potential commentators, please go to the Online Commentary Proposal System at the following URL: http://www.bbsonline.org/perl/commentary/commproposal?authordir=Redish-0928… * If you only wish to suggest potential commentators, please ignore prompts to submit a proposal with expertise information. * If you experience technical difficulties, please email bbs(a)bbsonline.org. * Please respond to this Call no later than January 28, 2008 NOTE: Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is an international, interdisciplinary journal providing Open Peer Commentary on important and controversial current research in the biobehavioral and cognitive sciences. Commentators must be BBS Associates, or suggested by a BBS Associate. If you are not a BBS Associate, please follow the instructions linked below: http://www.bbsonline.org/Instructions/associnst.html ================================================================== ================================================================== Paul Bloom - Editor Barbara Finlay - Editor Behavioral and Brain Sciences bbs(a)bbsonline.org http://www.bbsonline.org -------------------------------------------------------------------

18 years, 4 months

Julian Jaynes Conference--Call for Papers (fwd)

by Stevan Harnad

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:54:32 -0400 From: Scott Greer <sgreer--UPEI.CA> Subject: Julian Jaynes Conference--Call for Papers { SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1}Please Post! Papers dealing with the history of consciousness and philosophy of mind are welcome! A Call for Papers... The BIENNIAL Julian Jaynes Conference on Consciousness www.upei.ca/~sgreer/jaynesconference08 August 7-9, 2008 UPEI keynote address by Dr. Stevan Harnad UQAM Dr. Stevan Harnad is a Hungarian-born cognitive scientist. He did his undergraduate work at McGill University and his graduate work at Princeton University, where he studied with Julian Jaynes. He is currently Canada Research Chair in Cognitive Science at Université du Québec Montréal (UQAM) and Professor of Cognitive Science at the University of Southampton. He is also an External Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. His research is on categorization, communication, cognition, and consciousness. Dr. Harnad was the founder and editor (1978-2003) of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, a journal published by Cambridge University Press, Psycoloquy, an electronic journal sponsored by the American Psychological Association, and CogPrints, an electronic preprint archive in the cognitive sciences hosted by University of Southampton. He was also the founder and moderator of the American Scientist Open Access Forum (since 1998) This conference was created as part of the Julian Jaynes Memorial Endowment at the University of Prince Edward Island. This fund was established to create a lasting tribute to the late Princeton professor and author, and long-time PEI resident, and to fulfill his legacy to support and encourage the study of consciousness. In keeping with the inter- and transdisciplinary spirit of Jaynes, papers addressing consciousness from any number of disciplines and perspectives are welcomed; these would include: psychology, philosophy, history of science, neuroscience, phenomenology, cognitive science, computer science, feminist studies, sociology, and anthropology. All submissions should be 500-750 word abstracts. Symposia of 3-5 papers are welcome. Deadline for abstracts is April 1. Email submissions are accepted. All questions and submissions should be directed to: Scott Greer, Ph.D. Jaynes Conference Coordinator Department of Psychology UPEI Charlottetown, PEI, Canada C1A 4P3 email: { HYPERLINK "mailto:sgreer--upei.ca" }sgreer--upei.ca phone: (902) 566-0690 fax: (902) 628-4359 yours, Scott -------- Scott Greer, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Psychology University of Prince Edward Island 550 University Ave. Charlottetown, PEI C1A 4P3 phone: (902) 566-0690 fax: (902) 628-4359 e-mail: sgreer--upei.ca website:http://www.upei.ca/~sgreer/

18 years, 4 months

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

koglist January 2008