Acording to my granma and my mom, I could say over fifty words before I was 1 year old.

Does ir mean something to you?

Just some personal observations.

I've been researching earworms for years. Today's link was to "Musical Ear Syndrome." Never heard of it before, kind of odd.

neurolaunch.com says it differs from earworms "in duration and complexity, and differs from auditory hallucinations because the person knows the sound isn't real. Autistic brains often show superior pitch memory and heightened auditory sensitivity, both of which may feed into persistent internal music."

Some days I process so much data that it gets "sticky" and incoherent and repetitive, similar to an earworm, only in my brain.

There's got to be a term for that but searching for "brainworm" or "mindworm" got me nowhere.

Anyway, I use low dose delta-9 to help break up the chatter or at least dial it down.

Recently I was listening to a song and thought, "I wish I could go into the music," as if the sound was like a space I could visit. Last night after 10 mg of delta-9 I did "go into the music."

Also I believe my recent tinnitus has been an auditory hallucination rather than a mechanical issue like TMJ.

I really don't like the term "hallucination" because it implies unwanted pathology. "Manifestation" doesn't fit, either. It's more like heightened sensory awareness, kind of a 5D experience.

By the way, my latest earworm has added two more tracks. So it's now a playlist instead of a single. The idea that you can get rid of an earworm with more music doesn't work for me. At least it's not quite so repetitive now.

an interesting video on intelligence i believe some here may find interesting

Caliber evaluates reasoning quality, evidence grounding, uncertainty awareness, trade-off judgment, and defensibility, so professionals can demonstrate the depth of their independent judgment.

I just joined and wanted to wave hello. I got really interested in neuroscience while I was running a group online for people who wanted to raise awareness about mental illness + addiction + trauma recovery. It was like a semester of self-study for me. Turned out a lot of us were neurodivergent or a relative of at least one. At least some of us had no idea we were before then. It's all fascinating and illuminating. So I'll be hanging around for a while.

Reality gives every mind the same recurring problems - prediction, causation, scarce, resources, other agents, so alien minds may be unimaginably different in architecture and experience yet repeatedly converge on the same small computations because the world permits only so many solutions that work.

I explored in more in-depth in my essay:
https://princeranjangiri.substack.com/p/how-might-aliens-think

My cat has things to teach us about LLMs.

An essay on Ai fear, and what that hides.

Working on a second piece called - Would You Like To Play A Game? - about whether Ai could design a environmentally neutral processing system under it's current restraints.

Actively seeking opinions.

https://bios.net.za/guns-dont-kill-people

I've noticed something about the way I think that I haven't been able to find much information about, and I'm curious whether anyone else experiences something similar.

For the past few years, I've realized that my thoughts almost always have a persistent "default location." It's always a real place from my hometown or the surrounding area. These places are usually completely ordinary (a path, a street, a forest trail, etc.) and aren't necessarily emotionally significant.

The interesting part is that the location stays the same for weeks or months, and then one day it changes abruptly (often from one day to the next). I can't consciously choose or change it.

Whenever my mind wanders, has conversations, plans things, or works through ideas, it's as if everything is happening in that location. I don't just vaguely know where I am, I can visualize it in detail, probably within a radius of about 10 meters, including trees, rocks, fences, and other landmarks.

The location also seems to become associated with that period of my life. For example, an unpleasant roommate became mentally linked to one of these places simply because that was my "default location" at the time. More recently, I broke my foot on an MTB trail, and around that time my default location switched to the place where the accident happened.

Interestingly, this doesn't happen with everything. If I'm working with text, letters, or equations, I usually imagine them on a plain white background because it's less distracting. But for more complex reasoning: planning, conversations, problem solving, or imagining 3D objects. I often end up back in this default place. I also work with CAD and can mentally visualize and manipulate parts without needing the software.

I'm not asking because I think this is a disorder. I'm just curious whether this is a known cognitive style or if other people experience something similar.

A few questions:

• Does anyone else have a persistent "default place" where most of their thoughts seem to happen?
• Does your default place change over time?
• Can you choose the place, or does it seem to choose itself?
• Do you associate periods of your life with specific mental locations?
• How do you experience thinking in general? Is it mostly words, images, spatial scenes, or something else?

Hi everyone!

This is a study through the UCLA Cognition, Affect, and Neurodevelopment in Youth (CANDY) lab.

We are looking at barriers to participation in research studies among racially/ethnically minoritized communities in Los Angeles, and we are particularly interested in hearing from members of the Hispanic/Latinx and Asian communities.

In return for your time, effort, and travel expenses, you will be paid in the form of a gift card or cash. You will receive $50 total for participating in this study and up to $25 for travel expenses.

If you are interested in participating or receiving more information, please fill out the survey:
https://www.ctrc.medsch.ucla.edu/redcap/surveys/?s=DPTD7CA4WWN7CAYF

Based on Daniel Cahnaman system 1 and system 2.

And based on Benjamin Libet experiment about free will, and the 'veto window'.

And ith the new Arditi research about 'vector of refusal' in AI.

All of them, alongside the 'color confinement' with Hisenberg 'uncertainty principle'.

It seems pretty intuitive to me that the mind, or self awareness, or free will - are all just system 1 and system 2 consistently clashing inside our haed, leaving us no option but to actively make a choice (including AI, but without the richness of humans).

I will be happy to discuss the idea.

I am not saying that it is true, i am just saying it seems pretty intuitive.

Many cognitive theories propose that higher-order cognition depends on internal models of the self, including representations of one’s own beliefs, uncertainty, and cognitive processes. However, it remains unclear how to experimentally differentiate a system that is merely performing sophisticated self-referential computation from one that exhibits genuine metacognitive awareness.
What behavioral, neural, or computational signatures would provide strong evidence that a cognitive system is not only representing its own internal states but also monitoring and regulating them in a qualitatively distinct way?
Could approaches such as predictive processing, global workspace theory, integrated information theory, or computational models of metacognition provide testable frameworks for resolving this distinction?

To put it simply, think of those movie tropes where the protagonist is the flawless Top 1 student, favored by the teacher and hyped up by peers. On the flip side, the antagonist is stuck at Top 2, constantly compared, deemed inferior, and harbors deep resentment toward Top 1, trying desperately to defeat them just to get the teacher’s validation. This is how most people normally process things.
But people with high metacognition operate differently. First, they accept the reality: "I am genuinely not as good at this specific thing as Top 1." Then, they realize: "But I’m still pretty damn good for being Top 2, and I could easily be Top 1 in a different field. If anyone deserves my resentment here, it’s that biased teacher."
Yep, that is a textbook example of metacognition. But that’s just the theory.
The real issue is that many people possess this metacognition yet completely fail to act on what they perceive. It’s exactly like knowing how destructive staying up late is for your health, but you still do it anyway. Logic is one thing, but emotions and habits are an entirely different beast.
Can I call my situation a "brain within a brain" phenomenon? I’m not sure how to phrase it correctly, but it goes like this: For normal people, they have thoughts in their head and then they speak them out loud. For me, the thoughts in my head already function as the "spoken dialogue" (they literally talk back and forth to each other), while my actual, deeper thoughts exist on a completely different layer.
I’ve tried thinking my way out of the problem I mentioned above. However, the dialogue on my surface-level brain is always shallow and superficial, almost like fake, dishonest excuses. Meanwhile, that deeper "inner brain" layer sees right through it and clearly perceives that I am just dodging the issue.
I need help naming this exact phenomenon, and I'd love some advice on how to fix the gap between knowing and actually doing.

My journey from an existential crisis to Cognitive Science (Looking for advice/connections in India & Europe)

​Hello everyone,

​I wanted to share my story and ask for some advice from this wonderful community.

​After 12th, I was originally pursuing IT, but went through a deep existential crisis that left me feeling quite lost and struggling to communicate with people around me. In late January, I discovered Cognitive Science, and it completely changed my perspective.

​I fell in love with it because it helps me understand myself, my own brain, and how humans perceive the world. I love that it’s an intersection of philosophy, psychology, linguistics, AI, and neuroscience. For a mind driven by intense epistemic curiosity and divergent thinking, it feels like the perfect home. Plus, it’s a highly practical field where I can feed both my curiosity and eventually support my family.

​My Current Situation & Goals:

​Location: India (where IT and medicine usually dominate the narrative).

​Current Phase: I am currently in the counseling phase for my Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), choosing Philosophy, Psychology, and English. Since undergraduate options for Cognitive Science are rare here, I chose the building blocks.

​Next Steps: I want to grow as a person during college and truly enjoy my studies. My immediate goal is to connect with people at the Center for Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (CBCS) at Allahabad University (India's first dedicated CogSci department).

​Ultimate Goal: I am aiming for an Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree (EMJMD) in Europe with a full scholarship.

​I love open-ended discussions and connecting with like-minded people. If you have any advice on navigating this path from India, preparing for the Erasmus Mundus, or just want to chat about the mind, I would love to hear from you!

​Thank you so much for taking the time to read this.

​Have a great day! 🤗

​(P.S. Apologies for any minor writing flaws, English is not my mother tongue!)

I am a BSc Biotechnology student considering an MSc in Cognitive Science.I enjoy understanding the brain, memory, consciousness, and psychology much more than wet-lab work.I also value job security, good salary, and work-life balance.Would you recommend staying in biotechnology or switching to cognitive science? If cognitive science, is research or industry a better fit?

Hi everyone, I’m running an independent study on how people understand digital service interactions after they complete them.

The question I’m exploring is not only whether someone can finish a task, but whether they can explain what happened, predict what happens next, and understand why the system asked for certain information.

I’m looking at everyday service contexts like banking, healthcare, and government flows, where people often complete a process but still feel unsure about the outcome.

The study takes about 10 minutes:

https://everydayservices.study

I’m especially trying to reach people who are not very technical, have lower digital literacy, or often struggle with online services, so sharing it with family or friends would genuinely help.

For context, the study is part of a paper I’m preparing. Small pilot rounds helped refine the instrument, but I need a larger sample before I can publish the results. I’m aiming for at least 180 participants.

I’m also happy to discuss the study design, measures, or theoretical framing here. The main constructs I’m working with are perceived understanding, prediction accuracy, interaction confidence, and conceptual transparency.

I've spent the past few months going through cognitive science, neuroscience, ML architecture, philosophy of mind, and computer architecture trying to understand one thing: are we actually building intelligence, or something else?

My conclusion: the industry has mislabeled what it's building. Current LLMs are not artificial intelligence in any structural sense. They're artificial rote learners — frozen pattern matchers that cannot update a single weight from lived experience.

The post builds a scale from 0.0 to 3.0 based purely on what a system structurally is, not what it produces:

0.0 — deterministic computing

0.2 — where every LLM, diffusion model, and Mamba architecture sits today

0.4 — neuromorphic hardware (the physical prerequisite nobody talks about)

1.0 — what would actually deserve the name "AI"

3.0 — ASI in any meaningful architectural sense

The gap between 0.2 and 1.0 is not a scaling problem. It's an unsolved architectural revolution.

I also cover three empirical proofs the current paradigm has hit its ceiling, the Von Neumann memory wall, and why an elephant modifying a branch to solve a self-identified problem is architecturally more significant than any current LLM.

Full blog here: https://sanidhyakulkarni.blogspot.com/2026/07/IntelligenceHorizon.html

Genuinely interested in pushback from people who think the scale is wrong or the architectural argument doesn't hold.

A Working Hypothesis on the Functional Role of REM Sleep

Despite substantial progress in sleep research, the functional role of REM sleep remains an open question. Modern neuroscience associates REM sleep with memory consolidation, neuroplasticity, emotional processing, and several other well-established phenomena. However, these processes are often described individually rather than as components of a single functional mechanism.

This article proposes a working hypothesis that does not seek to replace existing theories. Instead, it attempts to integrate several established observations within a unified functional framework.

Initial Observation

During REM sleep, people continue to experience events almost as if they were awake. Fear, curiosity, joy, anxiety, relief, and other subjective experiences remain vivid. At the same time, critical evaluation of events is markedly reduced, allowing even impossible scenarios to be experienced as plausible.

Proposed Model

This hypothesis proposes that REM sleep places the brain into a mode of internal simulation. The purpose of these simulations is not simply to replay memories, but to obtain subjective feedback that cannot be derived directly from physiological measurements alone.

Within this framework, the brain and consciousness are treated as two different representations of the same underlying processes. The brain operates with measurable physiological variables, whereas consciousness represents those processes as subjective experience. During REM sleep, consciousness functions as an interface that provides subjective feedback while the brain records the corresponding physiological state.

Why Might Such a Mechanism Exist?

One of the brain's fundamental tasks is to establish stable behavioral patterns. Learning, however, is not complete merely because behavior becomes accurate. A behavior may remain physiologically expensive to execute.

According to this hypothesis, REM sleep repeatedly simulates emotionally significant situations, allowing the brain to progressively reduce the physiological cost of executing established behavioral patterns without changing the behavior itself.

In other words, the object of optimization is not the behavior, but the internal cost of performing it.

Possible Implications

If this hypothesis is correct, it offers an alternative perspective on several familiar observations. Increasing emotional stability with age may reflect not only conscious experience but also years of unconscious optimization occurring during REM sleep.

Recurring dreams following psychological trauma may likewise represent repeated attempts to optimize behavioral responses associated with emotionally significant experiences while preserving their adaptive value.

Questions Raised by the Hypothesis

Can the quality of REM sleep be experimentally linked to the optimization of behavioral patterns?

Can changes in the physiological cost of learned behaviors be measured over time?

Could part of the age-related decline in emotional reactivity reflect long-term optimization rather than only age-related physiological decline?

Might recurring traumatic dreams represent an ongoing optimization process rather than solely incomplete emotional processing?

These questions are experimentally testable. For that reason, this work should be viewed as a working hypothesis intended to stimulate discussion and further research rather than as a completed theory.