VAMOS SER FELIZ HOJE!!!

“13 CONSELHOS PARA A VIDA"

1-Eu não te amo pelo que

tu és, mas pelo que eu

sou quando eu estou

contigo…

2-Ninguém merece as tuas

lágrimas, e

se alguém as merecer

não te fará certamente

chorar.

3-Se alguém não te amar como

tu desejas,

isso não quer dizer que essa

pessoa não te ame com todo o

seu coração.

4-O verdadeiro amigo

é aquele que segura a tua mão

e toca o teu coração.

5-A pior maneira de sentires

a falta de alguém,

é sentares-te a seu lado

e saberes que ele/a nunca estará do teu lado.

6-Nunca deixes de sorrir,

mesmo que estejas triste,

porque tu não sabes quem poderá apaixonar-

se pelo teu sorriso.

7-Talvez, para a generalidade das pessoas,

tu não sejas senão mais um,

mas para certas pessoas

tu és todo o mundo.

08-Não percas tempo

com quem não está

disponível para passar algum

tempo contigo.

09-Talvez Deus queira que tu conheças

muitas pessoas más antes de conheceres a

pessoa boa, a fim de que tu possas ficar grato

quando, enfim, a tiveres encontrado.

10-Não chores

porque alguma coisa terminou,

mas sorri porque ela aconteceu.

11-Haverá sempre alguém que te critica.

Mas continua a manter-te confiante,

prestando atenção àqueles em

quem tu duplamente confias.

12-Torna-te uma pessoa melhor

e assegura-te de que sabes bem quem és tu

próprio, antes de conheceres alguém

e de esperares que ele veja quem tu és..

13-Não corras demasiado; as melhores coisas

chegam quando menos se espera…

DESEJO A VOCÊ UM LINDO DIA...

SEJA FELIZ HOJE.

RECEBI ESTA MENSAGEM DE ALGUÉM MUITO ESPIRITUAL.

VALE A PENA TENTAR SER FELIZ...MESMO QUE TUDO ESTEJA UM TANTO DIFÍCIL NA VIDA.

SABEMOS QUE NEM SEMPRE, AS COISAS SÃO COMO QUEREMOS...

QUANDO NÃO TEMOS DE MEDO DE CAMINHAR, OS CAMINHOS FICAM MAIS

CHEIOS DE LUZ E ESPERANÇA.

BUSQUE A SUA FELICIDADE. NÂO DÊ OPORTUNIDADES, AS TRISTEZAS.

ABRA AS PORTAS SOMENTE PARA AS EMOÇÕES E A FELICIDADE..

VIVA E SEJA FELIZ!

(imagem do Blog da Solonge Maia http://eucaliptosnajanela.blogspot.com/).

VENHA BRINCAR COM A GINCANA NO Blog Coletivo-Uma Interação de Amigos

Puff the Illusionary Dragon

There's a lot of interest in visual illusions at the moment thanks to an excellent article over at Seed, This Picture Is Not Moving.

A while back I wrote about the Hollow Face Illusion in which a hollow (concave) mask of a face appears to be a solid (convex) face and I posted a seriously freaky video featuring Charlie Chaplin. But reader "Jake" just pointed out an even better example of the same illusion, the Paper Dragon.

See the video above. If you like what you see, you can make your own paper dragon by printing out this .pdf here. It only takes 10 minutes, scissors and a bit of sticky tape. I highly recommend it, the effect is astonishing - it really looks as though the dragon's head is moving. You may need to close one eye to get the full experience. (The dragon was designed by ThinkFun).

The dragon, like the Charlie Chaplin mask, is an example of the "depth inversion" effect. Our visual system assumes that objects are convex, rather than concave, especially when those objects are familiar things like faces.

In my opinion the most interesting thing about the phenomena, and indeed with all illusions, is that concious belief cannot override the effect. I know that the dragon's head is concave, I folded it up and stuck it together myself. Yet I still see it as convex. This is strong evidence for the modularity of mind. But that's another story.

Puff the Illusionary Dragon

There's a lot of interest in visual illusions at the moment thanks to an excellent article over at Seed, This Picture Is Not Moving.

A while back I wrote about the Hollow Face Illusion in which a hollow (concave) mask of a face appears to be a solid (convex) face and I posted a seriously freaky video featuring Charlie Chaplin. But reader "Jake" just pointed out an even better example of the same illusion, the Paper Dragon.

See the video above. If you like what you see, you can make your own paper dragon by printing out this .pdf here. It only takes 10 minutes, scissors and a bit of sticky tape. I highly recommend it, the effect is astonishing - it really looks as though the dragon's head is moving. You may need to close one eye to get the full experience. (The dragon was designed by ThinkFun).

The dragon, like the Charlie Chaplin mask, is an example of the "depth inversion" effect. Our visual system assumes that objects are convex, rather than concave, especially when those objects are familiar things like faces.

In my opinion the most interesting thing about the phenomena, and indeed with all illusions, is that concious belief cannot override the effect. I know that the dragon's head is concave, I folded it up and stuck it together myself. Yet I still see it as convex. This is strong evidence for the modularity of mind. But that's another story.

UM POUQUINHO DO PENSAMENTO DE CHICO XAVIER...

VENHA FAZER PARTE DESSE:Blog Coletivo-Uma Interação de Amigos

AQUI O AMOR ACANTECE: Poetas-Um Vôo Livre

COM CARINHO

PEÇO DESCULPAS POR NÃO ESTAR INDO VISITAR VOCÊ.
MAS, AS COISAS POR AQUI, ESTÃO UM POUCO TUMULTUADAS.
DEIXO ESTE CARINHO PARA VOCÊ.
ASSIM QUE EU PUDER, VOU VISITAR A TODOS.
CADA UM, MORA DENTRO DO MEU CORAÇÃO.
NÃO ESQUEÇO VOCÊ, NENHUM INSTANTE.
MAS INFELIZMENTE,
NÃO ESTÁ DANDOPARA IR VISITA-LOS.

VENHA CONHECER ESSES CANTINHOS:

Poetas-Um Vôo Livre

Sinal de Liberdade-uma expressão de sentimento

Blog Coletivo-Uma Interação de Amigos
Venha participar da gincana. Está sendo muito legal...

Meus Mimos!

fMRI Gets Slap in the Face with a Dead Fish

A reader drew my attention to this gem from Craig Bennett, who blogs at prefrontal.org:

Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem Atlantic Salmon: An argument for multiple comparisons correction

This is a poster presented by Bennett and colleagues at this year's Human Brain Mapping conference. It's about fMRI scanning on a dead fish, specifically a salmon. They put the salmon in an MRI scanner and "the salmon was shown a series of photographs depicting human individuals in social situations. The salmon was asked to determine what emotion the individual in the photo must have been experiencing."

I'd say that this research was justified on comedic grounds alone, but they were also making an important scientific point. The (fish-)bone of contention here is multiple comparisons correction. The "multiple comparisons problem" is simply the fact that if you do a lot of different statistical tests, some of them will, just by chance, give interesting results.

In fMRI, the problem is particularly severe. An MRI scan divides the brain up into cubic units called voxels. There are over 40,000 in a typical scan. Most fMRI analysis treats every voxel independently, and tests to see if each voxel is "activated" by a certain stimulus or task. So that's at least 40,000 separate comparisons going on - potentially many more, depending upon the details of the experiment.

Luckily, during the 1990s, fMRI pioneers developed techniques for dealing with the problem: multiple comparisons correction. The most popular method uses Gaussian Random Field Theory to calculate the probability of falsely "finding" activated areas just by chance, and to keep this acceptably low (details), although there are other alternatives.

But not everyone uses multiple comparisons correction. This is where the fish comes in - Bennett et al show that if you don't use it, you can find "neural activation" even in the tiny brain of dead fish. Of course, with the appropriate correction, you don't. There's nothing original about this, except the colourful nature of the example - but many fMRI publications still report "uncorrected" results (here's just the last one I read).

Bennett concludes that "the vast majority of fMRI studies should be utilizing multiple comparisons correction as standard practice". But he says on his blog that he's encountered some difficulty getting the results published as a paper, because not everyone agrees. Some say that multiple comparisons correction is too conservative, and could lead to genuine activations being overlooked - throwing the baby salmon out with the bathwater, as it were. This is a legitimate point, but as Bennett says, in this case we should report both corrected and uncorrected results, to make it clear to the readers what is going on.

fMRI Gets Slap in the Face with a Dead Fish

A reader drew my attention to this gem from Craig Bennett, who blogs at prefrontal.org:

Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem Atlantic Salmon: An argument for multiple comparisons correction

This is a poster presented by Bennett and colleagues at this year's Human Brain Mapping conference. It's about fMRI scanning on a dead fish, specifically a salmon. They put the salmon in an MRI scanner and "the salmon was shown a series of photographs depicting human individuals in social situations. The salmon was asked to determine what emotion the individual in the photo must have been experiencing."

I'd say that this research was justified on comedic grounds alone, but they were also making an important scientific point. The (fish-)bone of contention here is multiple comparisons correction. The "multiple comparisons problem" is simply the fact that if you do a lot of different statistical tests, some of them will, just by chance, give interesting results.

In fMRI, the problem is particularly severe. An MRI scan divides the brain up into cubic units called voxels. There are over 40,000 in a typical scan. Most fMRI analysis treats every voxel independently, and tests to see if each voxel is "activated" by a certain stimulus or task. So that's at least 40,000 separate comparisons going on - potentially many more, depending upon the details of the experiment.

Luckily, during the 1990s, fMRI pioneers developed techniques for dealing with the problem: multiple comparisons correction. The most popular method uses Gaussian Random Field Theory to calculate the probability of falsely "finding" activated areas just by chance, and to keep this acceptably low (details), although there are other alternatives.

But not everyone uses multiple comparisons correction. This is where the fish comes in - Bennett et al show that if you don't use it, you can find "neural activation" even in the tiny brain of dead fish. Of course, with the appropriate correction, you don't. There's nothing original about this, except the colourful nature of the example - but many fMRI publications still report "uncorrected" results (here's just the last one I read).

Bennett concludes that "the vast majority of fMRI studies should be utilizing multiple comparisons correction as standard practice". But he says on his blog that he's encountered some difficulty getting the results published as a paper, because not everyone agrees. Some say that multiple comparisons correction is too conservative, and could lead to genuine activations being overlooked - throwing the baby salmon out with the bathwater, as it were. This is a legitimate point, but as Bennett says, in this case we should report both corrected and uncorrected results, to make it clear to the readers what is going on.