Podcasts about neural

A conversation created from the original review of Thunderbolts* written by Thomas Simpson. A team of reformed supervillains is recruited for covert missions by a secret organization. They navigate internal conflict, moral dilemmas, and external threats while attempting to prove loyalty and effectiveness. The film blends superhero action, intrigue, and ensemble dynamics, exploring redemption, trust, and the blurred line between heroism and villainy in a high-stakes environment.  Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

A conversation created from the original review of Nocturnal, written by Mary Munoz. A mystery thriller about what happens when a detective finds out that a case he is working on resembles a novel while investigating the death of a best-selling author's husband. Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

A conversation based on the moviescramble review of The Return. The source review was written by Mary Munoz for moviescramble.co.uk. After years away from his homeland, a weary king returns to Ithaca only to find his realm overrun by ruthless nobles vying for his throne. His wife holds onto faith while surrounded by mounting pressure, his son struggles with resentment, and the kingdom teeters on collapse. Disguised and uncertain of his own strength, he must confront betrayal, fractured bonds, and the weight of his past before reclaiming the life he left behind. Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

A conversation based on the moviescramble review of Homegrown. The source review was written by Mary Munoz for moviescramble.co.uk. Three Trump supporters from different backgrounds unite to campaign across America in 2020, advocating for his re-election while laying the foundations for what they hope will be a long-lasting political movement. Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

A conversation based on the moviescramble review of Ryan Coogler's Sinners. The source review was written by Mary Munoz for moviescramble.co.uk. 1930s. Brothers "Smoke" and "Stack" Moore return home to Mississippi after working for the Chicago Mafia. They buy a sawmill and a juke joint and use their experience as gangsters to ensure that their businesses flourish. Things appear to be going well, but trouble has just hit town, trouble in supernatural form. Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

In this episode, we review the high-yield topic of⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Neural Tube Defects ⁠⁠from the Neurology section.Follow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Medbullets⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on social media:Facebook: www.facebook.com/medbulletsInstagram: www.instagram.com/medbulletsofficialTwitter: www.twitter.com/medbullets

A conversation based on the moviescramble review of The End. The source review was written by Mary Munoz for moviescramble.co.uk. A post-apocalyptic story about a rich family living in a salt mine converted into a luxurious home. The earth around them has apparently been destroyed, but their son has never seen the outside world. As a young girl appears at the entrance of the bunker, the balance of the family is threatened. Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

A conversation created from an original review written by Mary Munoz on the moviescramble.co.uk website. An 11-year-old boy dreams of becoming a great detective like his TV hero, Kojak. He sets up a private investigation with his best friend, but the disappearance of his older brother sets them off down a dark path. Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

A conversation created from an original review written by Mary Munoz on the moviescramble.co.uk website. "Corpus Christi" is the story of a 20-year-old Daniel who experiences a spiritual transformation in a Youth Detention Center. The crime he committed prevents him from applying to the seminary, and after his release on parole, he is sent to work at a carpenter's workshop. However, Daniel has no intention of giving up his dream, and dressed as a priest, he decides to minister in a small-town parish. Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

A deep dive conversation from the moviescramble.co.uk review by Mary Munoz. "A Real Pain" follows mismatched cousins David (Jesse Eisenberg) and Benji (Kieran Culkin) as they reunite for a tour through Poland to honor their beloved grandmother, but their adventure takes a dark turn when the odd couple's old tensions resurface against the backdrop of their family history Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

A deep dive conversation from the moviescramble.co.uk review by Mary Munoz. 25-year-old Merey lives in Almaty, where she meets Nurlan. He invites her to his friend Bakyt's birthday party in the mountains, and a very long night ensues. Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

A deep dive conversation from the moviescramble.co.uk review by Mary Munoz. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, a communist family discovers a bunker full of money, soon to be worthless. With the help of their neighbors, they embark on a race against time to enter the capitalist world in style. Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

A deep dive conversation from the moviescramble.co.uk review by Mary Munoz. A mysterious, constant tap plagues eight-year-old Peter, tap from inside his bedroom wall - a tapping that his parents insist is all in his imagination. As Peter's fear intensifies, he believes that his parents could be hiding a terrible, dangerous secret and questions their trust. And for a child, what could be more frightening than that? Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

A deep dive conversation from the moviescramble.co.uk review by Mary Munoz. The action of the film takes place in 1943. The title character is a cosmopolitan and incapable of deeper feelings seducer. In Poland, he lost his entire family. Alone - being in the heart of Nazi Germany - he hides his Jewish origins and often eludes death. He works as a waiter in the restaurant of an exclusive hotel and carelessly enjoys all the charms of life surrounded by luxury, beautiful women, and friends from all over Europe. However, when the war begins to take a bloody toll on those closest to him, the intricately built world that surrounds him crumbles like a house of cards. Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

A conversation created from an original review by Mary Munoz on the moviescramble.co.uk website. On the brink of revolution in 1989, Romania, six lives intersect amid protests and personal struggles, leading to the explosive fall of Ceaușescu and the communist regime. Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

What if you could sculpt your brain with sound, the same way repeated stress can sculpt it against you? We run a crossover deep dive from Vibes Lab to unpack “Meditations: Positive Neural Connections” and the bigger claim behind it: audio is not just entertainment, it is a biological input that can train your nervous system toward anxiety or toward regulation. Along the way, we translate the science into plain language, from neuroplasticity (your mind as wet clay) to brainwave entrainment (your brain syncing to a dominant external rhythm), so the ideas feel usable instead of abstract.We also walk through the five guided “doorways” inside the album, releasing May 22, 2026, and available to pre-order now: manifestation, unconditional love, perseverance, grounding, and recovery. That means getting specific about what each track is trying to do, including resonance and cymatics for intention-setting, heart rate variability and coherence for emotional safety, golden ratio pacing for sustainable persistence, and 7.83 Hz grounding through the Schumann resonance to counter modern interference from constant tech noise. For deep rest, we explore theta binaural beats, the vagus nerve, and polyvagal-informed pacing designed to support caregivers and anyone running on fumes.The line we keep coming back to is simple: science is not the magic, it is the permission slip to trust what your body already knows. If your notifications, traffic, and background news are “frequencies” pressing into the clay of your attention every day, what shape are they training in you, and what would you choose instead? Listen now, then subscribe, share this with a friend who needs real recovery, and leave a review with the track you plan to start with.Fund the album here:Meditations: Positive Neural ConnectionsSend us Fan MailSupport the show

Show Notes3D-printed brain sensors may unlock personalized neural monitoringTy TkacikPenn State websitehttps://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/3d-printed-brain-sensors-may-unlock-personalized-neural-monitoringResearchers use ultrasound to create light inside the bodyStanford University Reporthttps://news.stanford.edu/stories/2026/04/researchers-use-ultrasound-to-create-light-inside-the-bodyNeuralink builds surgical robot to speed up brain implant procedures for patientsMrigakshi DixitInteresting Engineeringhttps://interestingengineering.com/science/neuralink-unveils-surgical-robot-to-automate-bciMIT Laser Breakthrough Lets Scientists Watch Drugs Enter the Brain in Real TimeAdam ZeweSciTechDaily.comhttps://scitechdaily.com/mit-laser-breakthrough-lets-scientists-watch-drugs-enter-the-brain-in-real-time/Helium-3 mining on the lunar surfaceThe European Space Agencyhttps://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Space_for_Earth/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surfaceNo batteries, just body heat: Demonstrating the potential of battery-free sensingLisa LockTechXplore.comhttps://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-batteries-body-potential-battery-free.htmlScientists think a hidden source of clean energy could power Earth for 170,000 years — and they've figured out the 'recipe' to find itSascha PareLiveScience.comhttps://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/geology/scientists-think-a-hidden-source-of-clean-energy-could-power-earth-for-170-000-years-and-theyve-figured-out-the-recipe-to-find-itEvolution Favored Genes Linked to Red Hair – And Vitamin D May Be WhyDavid NieldScienceAlert.comhttps://www.sciencealert.com/evolution-favored-genes-linked-to-red-hair-and-vitamin-d-may-be-why

A conversation created using the original review from the Mary Munoz review, which is published on the moviescramble.co.uk website. Since Iris and Josh met in a supermarket, the two have been inseparable. Now they want to spend the weekend together with Josh's friends at the luxurious lake estate of Sergey. His mistress, Kat, and friends Eli and Patrick will also be there. At first, Iris is unsure, convinced that everyone hates her. After a bumpy start, the six spend a boisterous evening together. But the following morning will change their lives forever Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Apple Podcasts   Spotify   Amazon   YouTube Facebook   x (Twitter)   Bluesky   Instagram  Moviescramble website We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

What if artificial intelligence doesn't replace human intelligence — it amplifies it? And what if the quality of what you bring to AI is exactly what determines what you get back?Welcome to Now I Get It with Dr. Andy. I'm Andrew Winkler, and in this episode I'm taking a deep dive into one of the most consequential technologies of our time: large language models. I break down how these systems are built on surprisingly elegant mathematics, why language itself has a hidden statistical structure that makes AI possible, and what it really means for how we interact with these powerful tools.Tune in as I explore the neural network foundations that underpin modern AI, unpack the "garbage in, garbage out" principle in its most precise form, and reveal why the most important thing you can bring to an AI conversation is your own intelligence and curiosity.In this episode, you will learn:(00:27) Neural networks are built on elegant mathematics(01:15) One nonlinearity unlocks AI's power to model anything(02:47) Models extract signal, not just memorize data(04:30) Language has a hidden statistical structure AI can learn(08:30) AI defaults to average intelligence without strong context(09:03) Smarter input produces smarter AI output(09:45) AI amplifies human intelligence — it doesn't replace itLet's connect!linktr.ee/drprandy Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A conversation created using the original review from the Mary Munoz review, which is published on the moviescramble.co.uk website.In  1984, Michael Larson, an unemployed ice-cream truck driver from Ohio, steps onto the game show "Press Your Luck" harboring a secret: the key to endless amounts of money. But his winning streak gets threatened when the executives in the control room start to uncover his real motivations. Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Enjoy   Find us on iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/moviescramble/id1466571460 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/42wPn0tXvH3GQJ2E3NYDYp?si=TPUrCkecQb-zdEOAaD3cDA Amazon: https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/ed9b87c9-fb70-4307-96a7-d6223a202741/moviescramble Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsR--3Bae_QGM5xiM3fWohA and all podcast providers. Contact us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram @Moviescramble We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

A conversation created using the original review from the Mary Munoz review, which is published on the moviescramble.co.uk website. The Ballad of Wallis Island is a 2025 British comedy-drama film directed by James Griffiths, produced by Rupert Majendie, and written by Tim Key and Tom Basden. It is based on their 2007 short film The One and Only Herb McGwyer Plays Wallis Island. Basden and Carey Mulligan star as a folk duo who reunite to perform for a wealthy fan (Tim Key) on a remote British island. Liked it? let us know! Hated it? No need to share! Enjoy   Find us on iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/moviescramble/id1466571460 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/42wPn0tXvH3GQJ2E3NYDYp?si=TPUrCkecQb-zdEOAaD3cDA Amazon: https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/ed9b87c9-fb70-4307-96a7-d6223a202741/moviescramble Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsR--3Bae_QGM5xiM3fWohA and all podcast providers. Contact us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram @Moviescramble We love you all! (yes, even you at the back)

If you enjoy this episode, we're sure you will enjoy more content like this on The Occult Rejects.  In fact, we have curated playlists on occult topics like grimoires, esoteric concepts and phenomena, occult history, analyzing true crime and cults with an occult lens, Para politics, and occultism in music. Whether you enjoy consuming your content visually or via audio, we've got you covered - and it will always be provided free of charge.  So, if you enjoy what we do and want to support our work of providing accessible, free content on various platforms, please consider making a donation to the links provided below.  Thank you and enjoy the episode!Links For The Occult Rejectshttps://linktr.ee/theoccultrejectsOccult Research Institutehttps://www.occultresearchinstitute.org/Cash Apphttps://cash.app/$theoccultrejectsVenmo@TheOccultRejectsBuy Me A Coffeebuymeacoffee.com/TheOccultRejectsPatreonhttps://www.patreon.com/TheOccultRejectsFull show-notes bibliographyCore EEG and oscillationsAbubaker, M., & Dankaerts, W. (2021). Working memory and cross-frequency coupling of neuronal oscillations. *Frontiers in Psychology, 12*, 742860.Axmacher, N., Henseler, M. M., Jensen, O., Weinreich, I., Elger, C. E., & Fell, J. (2010). Cross-frequency coupling supports multi-item working memory in the human hippocampus. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107*(7), 3228–3233.Jensen, O., & Mazaheri, A. (2010). Shaping functional architecture by oscillatory alpha activity: Gating by inhibition. *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4*, 186.Rayi, A., et al. (2022). Electroencephalogram. *StatPearls*. StatPearls Publishing.StatPearls / NCBI Bookshelf. (2024). Introduction to electroencephalography (EEG). *NCBI Bookshelf*.Theta, alpha, beta, gamma, and controlCavanagh, J. F., & Shackman, A. J. (2015). Frontal midline theta reflects anxiety and cognitive control: Meta-analytic evidence. *Journal of Physiology-Paris, 109*(1–3), 3–15.Eisma, J., et al. (2021). Frontal midline theta differentiates separate cognitive control strategies while still generalizing the need for cognitive control. *Scientific Reports, 11*, 14641.Jensen, O., Bonnefond, M., & VanRullen, R. (2012). An oscillatory mechanism for prioritizing salient unattended stimuli. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16*(4), 200–206.Lundqvist, M., Herman, P., & Miller, E. K. (2018). Working memory: Delay activity, yes! Persistent activity? Maybe not. *Journal of Neuroscience, 38*(32), 7013–7019.Sleep architecture, spindles, and memoryCaporro, M., Haneef, Z., Yeh, H.-J., Mohamed, F. B., & Levin, H. S. (2012). Functional MRI of sleep spindles and K-complexes. *Clinical Neurophysiology, 123*(2), 303–309.Chen, P., Miao, X., Chen, J., et al. (2023). The devastating effects of sleep deprivation on memory: Lessons from rodent models, aging, and Alzheimer's disease. *Frontiers in Neuroscience, 17*, 1151639.Ng, T., et al. (2025). Bayesian meta-analysis reveals the mechanistic role of slow oscillation-spindle coupling in sleep-dependent memory consolidation. *eLife, 13*, RP101992.Patel, A. K., et al. (2024). Physiology, sleep stages. *StatPearls*. StatPearls Publishing.Páez, A., Gillman, S. O., Dogaheh, S. B., et al. (2025). Sleep spindles and slow oscillations predict cognition and biomarkers of neurodegeneration in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. *Alzheimer's & Dementia, 21*, e14424.Hypnagogia, N1, and dream incubationHorowitz, A. H., Esfahany, S., Boyle, M. R., et al. (2023). Targeted dream incubation at sleep onset increases post-sleep creative performance. *Scientific Reports, 13*, 5055.Lacaux, C., Andrillon, T., Bastoul, D., et al. (2021). Sleep onset is a creative sweet spot. *Science Advances, 7*(50), eabj5866.Meditation, prayer, chanting, and yoga nidraDatta, K., Mallick, H. N., Tripathi, M., Ahuja, G. K., & Deepak, K. K. (2022). Electrophysiological evidence of local sleep during yoga nidra practice in young male volunteers. *Frontiers in Neurology, 13*, 910794.Dobrakowski, P., Błaszkiewicz, M., & Skalski, S. (2020). Changes in the electrical activity of the brain in the alpha and theta bands during prayer and meditation. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17*(24), 9567.Gao, J., Leung, H. K., Wu, B. W. Y., Skouras, S., & Sik, H. H. (2019). The neurophysiological correlates of religious chanting. *Scientific Reports, 9*, 4262.Kaur, C., & Singh, P. (2015). EEG derived neuronal dynamics during meditation: Progress and challenges. *Advances in Preventive Medicine, 2015*, 614723.Lomas, T., Ivtzan, I., & Fu, C. H. Y. (2015). A systematic review of the neurophysiology of mindfulness on EEG oscillations. *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 57*, 401–410.Hypnosis and suggestionJensen, M. P., Adachi, T., & Hakimian, S. (2015). Brain oscillations, hypnosis, and hypnotizability. *American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57*(3), 230–253.Kirenskaya, A. V., Novototsky-Vlasov, V. Y., Chistyakov, A. V., & Zvonikov, V. M. (2011). Waking EEG spectral power and coherence differences between highly hypnotizable and low hypnotizable subjects. *International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 59*(2), 144–164.Mendoza, M. E., & Capafons, A. (2024). Neural correlates of hypnosis: A systematic narrative review. *Frontiers in Psychology, 15*, 1327738.Ritual rhythm, trance, and synchronyHuels, E. R., Kim, H. S., Lee, U., & Mollaahmetoglu, O. M. (2021). Neural correlates of the shamanic state of consciousness. *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15*, 610466.Mogan, R., Fischer, R., & Bulbulia, J. A. (2017). To be in synchrony or not? A meta-analysis of synchrony's effects on behavior, perception, cognition and affect. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72*, 13–20.Tarr, B., Launay, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2016). Silent disco: Dancing in synchrony leads to elevated pain thresholds and social closeness. *Evolution and Human Behavior, 37*(5), 343–349.Entrainment, binaural beats, fatigue, and overloadGoodman, S. P. J., et al. (2025). Approaches to inducing mental fatigue: A systematic review and meta-analysis of (neuro)physiologic indices. *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 170*, 105957.Ingendoh, R. M., Posny, E. S., & Heine, A. (2023). Binaural beats to entrain the brain? A systematic review of the effects of binaural beat stimulation on brain oscillatory activity, and the implications for psychological research and intervention. *PLOS ONE, 18*(5), e0286023.Snipes, S., et al. (2024). Extended wakefulness alters the relationship between EEG theta and alpha bursts and behavioural outcome. *European Journal of Neuroscience, 60*(8), 6268–6284.Xiang, C., et al. (2024). A resting-state EEG dataset for sleep deprivation. *Scientific Data, 11*, 406.Parkinson's disease and pathological betaAsadi, A., et al. (2022). The origin of abnormal beta oscillations in the parkinsonian corticobasal ganglia circuit. *Frontiers in Neuroscience, 16*, 823719.Paulo, D. L., et al. (2023). Corticostriatal beta oscillation changes associated with cognitive function in Parkinson's disease. *NPJ Parkinson's Disease, 9*, 202.Ancient sleep, dreams, and Asclepian healingAskitopoulou, H. (2015). Sleep and dreams: From myth to medicine in ancient Greece. *Journal of Anesthesia History, 1*(3), 70–75.Kapotsis, G., & Steiropoulos, P. (2025). Sleep incubation [enkoimesis] in medical practice at Asclepieia of Ancient Greece — the Ancient Greek sleep medicine. *Sleep Medicine, 130*, 85–89.Pavli, A. (2024). Asclepieia in ancient Greece: pilgrimage and healing. *Journal of Integrative Medicine and Research, 3*(2), 100119.Also want to remind people about the website, if you're into reading we have tons of information by multiple contributors, and we got t-shirts up on the site if you're interested. Fun fact, the art is all based on the eyeball. A

At Marketecture Live, Brad Fox, SVP, Health Media, dentsuX, joins Josh Walsh, Co-Founder & CEO, BranchLab, and Zach Rodgers, Founder, Sensical, to explore how AI and neural networks are reshaping healthcare advertising. From the rise of AI-driven patient behavior to the decline of traditional targeting methods, the conversation dives into privacy-safe audience strategies, evolving patient journeys, and what the future holds for pharma marketers in an AI-first world. Takeaways AI is rapidly changing how patients search for and consume health information Healthcare advertising is shifting away from search, contextual, and retargeting Neural networks enable privacy-safe prediction of patient populations Audience targeting must be rebuilt using AI-driven models Patient journeys are complex and require more nuanced segmentation AI is making both patients and doctors more informed True one-to-one personalization remains limited due to regulation AI platforms may eventually monetize healthcare interactions Chapters 00:00 Introduction to healthcare, AI, and advertising 00:18 Overview of the panel and discussion focus 01:04 AI as a primary tool for health information 01:53 Surge in AI-driven health queries and behavior shift 02:45 Changing role of search and health websites 03:40 Adoption of AI tools by physicians 04:31 Impact of AI on patient and doctor outcomes 06:33 Decline of traditional targeting and need for new strategies 07:40 Future of pharma ad spend in an AI-driven world 08:45 Neural networks and privacy-safe targeting explained 10:31 AI-driven audience targeting and patient lifecycle 12:28 Predictive modeling for healthcare populations 13:03 Importance of understanding patient journeys 15:57 Scaling AI audiences across media channels 17:11 Faster audience creation and activation 18:40 Personalization limits in healthcare marketing 20:12 Future of AI platforms and healthcare ads 22:01 Regulation and the future of pharma advertising Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Welcome to Cyber Sessions - Year 2077A brutal world of corruption and chrome.Megacorps bleed the streets dry while gangs fight for the scraps. Flesh is weak — upgrade your body or lose it forever.Neural jacks, combat implants, glowing optics, and black-market steel — the only way to survive.Dark bass shakes the skyscrapers.Melodic techno cuts through the acid rain.This is the raw, electric sound of the cyberpunk future.

Broadcast from KSQD, Santa Cruz on 5-07-2026: Dr. Dawn debunks the 1971 "220 minus age" maximum heart rate formula, noting a 2025 study found individual predictions were off by up to 20 beats per minute. She recommends the Tanaka equation (208 minus age) times 0.7, but emphasizes tracking improvement trends rather than absolute numbers. ConsumerLab testing found Safe Catch Wild Elite Pure Tuna and Wild Ahi Yellowfin Tuna had no detectable mercury, prompting Dr. Dawn to reconsider eating tuna after years of avoidance due to concerns about mercury bioaccumulation and its effects on nerve microtubules. A meta-analysis of 115 studies involving 55,000 men found limiting ejaculation before IVF leads to increased sperm DNA damage and poorer motility. Clinical trials showed 46% IVF pregnancy rates with less than 48 hours abstinence versus 36% with longer periods. A personalized mRNA vaccine for pancreatic cancer showed striking results: of 16 patients whose tumors were surgically removed, half produced killer T-cells targeting cancer, and seven of those eight remain alive six years later. Pfizer and Valneva's Lyme disease vaccine reduced infection by over 70% in a trial of 9,400 people ages five and up. Nearly half a million Americans contract Lyme annually, and chronic infection can cause nervous system damage and chronic fatigue. Dr. Dawn explores the gray-market peptide ecosystem, where compounds are sold as "research chemicals" with wink-and-nod marketing. A 2018 Belgian study found purity levels ranging from 5% to 99.9%, with some samples containing arsenic, lead, or industrial contaminants. A study of 450 people found that blocking smartphone internet access for two weeks improved sustained attention equivalent to reversing 10 years of age-related cognitive decline, with depression symptom improvements comparable to cognitive behavioral therapy. A multi-country study of 241 unresponsive patients found that 25% showed brain activity indicating consciousness when asked to imagine playing tennis during advanced brain scans. Scientists call this cognitive motor dissociation, and by some estimates tens of thousands of Americans may be misdiagnosed. Chinese researchers grew functional adrenal cortex organoids that responded to pituitary hormones and produced cortisol when transplanted into mice. They also introduced genetic mutations to create organoid models of Cushing's syndrome for drug testing. A Science paper identified the neural pathway connecting psychological stress to eczema flare-ups: sympathetic neurons from the stellate ganglion recruit eosinophils to the skin. Researchers traced the pathway using pseudo-rabies virus injected into skin. Mouse studies showed prenatal stress causes elevated corticosterone in amniotic fluid, which activates fetal mast cells derived from the yolk sac. Offspring develop eczema-like lesions in areas receiving mechanical stimulation, but symptoms resolve around 24 weeks when bone marrow-derived mast cells replace the activated ones. Callers ask about CBN side effects. Dr. Dawn explains cannabinoids prolong anandamide's calming effects by slowing its breakdown, and considers 30-45mg over a night reasonable, but cautions against escalating doses given limited research.

Send us Fan MailFebruary 4, 2024Components of Taste:Flavors:  perinasal and retronasal.  Neural cells in the two olfactory regions.  Identification of aromas.  The role of the amygdala in the Proustian Effect.  Taste buds.  Umami.  The four Aristotelian tastes.  Mixtures of tastes.Texture.  Resistance to bite, size of particles causing grittiness.  How fat makes gelato taste smoother.  Chocolate notes (roasty, fruity, nutty).  Crystallization of cocoa butter:  how it affects the texture of chocolate.  Why does "young chocolate" melt in the mouth but "old chocolate" has a waxy texture?News about PH&F:  sales numbers for  Depa and Pezoan and N'DouciSupport the showWrite to me at  twneuhaus@gmail.comTo learn more, visit  http://www.projecthopeandfairness.org

Good morning! Let's find the still point in the turning world. Today is Day 6 of our 7-Day Cortisol Reset, and we are layering our techniques together to create a "Somatic Symphony." We're moving from individual tools into a state of total, unbreakable balance. In This Episode: The Power of Neural Integration: Why layering breath, mudras, and visualization creates a "Super-Signal" of safety for your brain. The Weaver's Path: Exploring the ancient art of Tantra and the "Middle Way." The Integrated Flow: A full 5-minute guided session that combines every tool we've learned this week. A Little Message for Your Heart "My dear friend, I know what it's like to feel like you're being pulled in a thousand directions at once. I know the weight of being the one everyone looks to for answers. But today, I want to remind you that you don't have to choose between your strength and your peace. You can be a powerful business owner and a grounded soul. You can be a caregiver and a protected sanctuary. You don't have to be 'on' to be effective. In fact, you are at your most brilliant when you are at your most balanced. Today, as you weave these tools together, I want you to feel the relief of coming back into one piece. You are not a collection of 'to-dos'; you are a whole, beautiful, and balanced human being. You've done the work—now, just enjoy the harmony." This is day 6 of a 7-day meditation series, "The 7-Day Cortisol Reset," episodes 3500-3506. THIS WEEK'S CHALLENGE -  THE 20-MINUTE TECH-GAP The Weekly Challenge: Wait exactly 20 minutes after waking up before you touch any digital device. Use that time to breathe, drink your tea, and stay in your "Sovereign Zone." THIS WEEK'S MEDITATION JOURNEY Day 1: VISUALIZATION: CORTISOL RELEASEVisualize roots draining gray "stress energy" into the earth. Day 2: AFFIRMATION:  "I am safe in this moment." Day 3: THE BOX BREATH Inhale 4, Hold 4, Exhale 4, Hold 4. (The Navy SEAL standard for lowering cortisol). Day 4: APANA MUDRA Thumb touches middle and ring fingers. Known as the "Digestion Mudra," it helps the body "process" and eliminate stress. Day 5: THIRD (SOLAR PLEXUS - MANIPURA) CHAKRA   Focusing on the "gut feeling" area where we store stress-tension. Day 6: CORTISOL DETOX FLOW MEDITATION: Combining the week's techniques Day 7: WEEKLY REVIEW MEDITATION: Closure with a review of the week's highs and lows. SHARE YOUR MEDITATION JOURNEY WITH YOUR FELLOW MEDITATORS Let's connect and inspire each other! Please share a little about how meditation has helped you by reaching out to me at Mary@SipandOm.com or better yet -- direct message me on https://www.instagram.com/sip.and.om. We'd love to hear about your meditation ritual! WAYS TO SUPPORT THE DAILY MEDITATION PODCAST SUBSCRIBE so you don't miss a single episode. Consistency is the KEY to a successful meditation ritual. SHARE the podcast with someone who could use a little extra support. I'd be honored if you left me a podcast review. If you do, please email me at Mary@sipandom.com and let me know a little about yourself and how meditation has helped you. I'd love to share your journey to inspire fellow meditators on the podcast! All meditations are created by Mary Meckley and are her original content. Please request permission to use any of Mary's content by sending an email to Mary@sipandom.com. FOR DAILY EXTRA SUPPORT OUTSIDE THE PODCAST Each day's meditation techniques are shared at: sip.and.om Instagram https://www.instagram.com/sip.and.om/ sip and om Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SipandOm/ SIP AND OM MEDITATION APP Looking for a little more support? If you're ready for a more in-depth meditation experience, allow Mary to guide you in daily 30-minute guided meditations on the Sip and Om meditation app. Give it a whirl for 7-days free! Receive access to 3,000+ 30-minute guided meditations customized around a weekly theme to help you manage emotions. Receive a Clarity Journal and a Slow Down Guide customized for each weekly theme. 2-Week's Free Access on iOS https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sip-and-om/id1216664612?platform=iphone&preserveScrollPosition=true#platform/iphone All meditations are created by Mary Meckley and are her original content. Please request permission to use any of Mary's content by sending an email to Mary@sipandom.com.Let go of repetitive negative thoughts. Music composed by Christopher Lloyd Clark licensed by RoyaltyFreeMusic.com, and also by musician Greg Keller.

Nicolai Klemke has always lived at the intersection of science and art. A physicist by day, a rapper finding his place in Berlin's music scene by night. That unique combination of analytical thinking and creative drive is exactly what led him to build neural frames, one of the first AI platforms built specifically for independant musicians who want to bring their music to life visually. Not for marketers. Not for brands. Just for people who make music and want to share it visually. And here's why that matters right now; 84% of Gen Z discovers new music through short-form video. If you're an artist putting music out into the world without a visual component, you're essentially invisible to an entire generation of listeners. Neural frames exists to change that, and in this episode, Nico breaks down exactly how.Nico also touches on something bigger. The idea that AI tools are opening up an entirely new form of artistic expression for people who never considered themselves filmmakers or animators. You just need a song and something you want to say. For a growing number of people, creating AI music videos has become a creative outlet in its own right. A hobby that sits somewhere between music, visual art, and storytelling that flat out didn't exist five years ago.If you're a musician, a creative, or someone who's just been curious about where AI and human expression are actually headed together, then you'll enjoy this episode. Find out more about Nicolai Klemke here.Learn more about neural frames here.Reach out to today's host, Erick Espinosa - erick@sociable.coGet the latest on tech news - https://sociable.co/ Leave an iTunes review  - https://rb.gy/ampk26Follow us on your favourite podcast platform - https://link.chtbl.com/rN3x4ecY

In this episode of the Tim Ahlman Podcast, Tim sits down with Dr. Bruce Hartung—former seminary professor, counselor, and expert in family systems—to unpack one of the biggest challenges facing the Church today: polarization, anxiety in leadership, breakdown of empathy, and the subtle ways spiritual warfare is dividing believers.Drawing from decades of experience in pastoral care and leadership development, Dr. Hartung explains why:- Pastors today feel like they have a “target on their back”- Political identity is reshaping theological conversations- “Neural overload” is exhausting our ability to love people well- And why triangulation (gossip) is quietly destroying church unityThis conversation dives deep into family systems theory, anxious leadership, and the call for Christians to become truly countercultural—not just in belief, but in behavior.If you care about the future of the Church, pastoral health, or navigating conflict with wisdom and love—this episode is essential.Support the showWatch Us On Youtube! Stay up to date by Joining the LCMS Current!(LCMS Current Events Newsletter)https://www.uniteleadership.org/thelcmscurrent

Listen to news of 3D printed brain interfaces, Neural computers, brain-computer-interface speech, AI gets its own computer, and night-time solar power. Hosted and produced by Ian Woolf Support Diffusion by making a contribution Support Diffusion by buying venus flytrap shirts

You've been told to stretch more. You've tried the releases, the routines, the one weird trick. And you're still not as flexible as you want to be. Here's why: flexibility isn't one thing — it's four. And until you understand all of them, you're only ever solving part of the problem.Chapters00:00 — Why flexibility is misunderstood00:33 — The 4 Factors that contribute to flexibility01:47 — Factor 1: Structural factors — your fixed container06:01— Factor 2: Tissue quality — muscle, fascia, tendons and ligaments14:07 — Factor 3: Neural factors — how your nervous system governs range21:24— Factor 4: Lifestyle, age, and training context27:06 — The flexibility matrix — putting it all together28:13 — What this means for your practice and your teachingWHAT YOU'LL LEARN-Why two people can do the same practice for years and have completelydifferent ranges of motion-The difference between flexibility and mobility — and why it matters forhow you train-How your joint architecture sets a ceiling that no amount of stretching can change-Why muscle and fascia respond to training differently — and what each one actually needs-The role your nervous system plays in governing range of motion in real time-Why stress, anxiety, and feeling unsafe in a class literally make you less flexible-How strength training improves flexibility — and why the yoga community gets this wrong-What happens outside the studio that is working for or against your flexibility every single dayWHO THIS IS FOR-Yoga teachers who want a deeper, more honest understanding of how flexibility works-Serious practitioners who have plateaued and want to know why-Anyone who has ever been told they're "just not a flexible person"-Movement educators who want science-backed frameworks they can actually teachABOUT THIS SERIESThis video is part of a deeper curriculum I teach inside my yoga teacher training. If you want the full version of this content — including sequencing protocols, progressive loading strategies, and how to design classes that actually produce lasting change — get more information here: jasonyoga.com/300Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/yogaland. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

These models can partly generalize across species, brain regions and tasks, suggesting that a set of machine-learnable rules govern neural population activity. But will we be able to understand them?

What if understanding the brain required thinking like a mechanical engineer? In this episode of Neurocareers: Doing the Impossible, we explore an emerging field that is reshaping neuroscience—neuromechanics, where forces, stiffness, and material properties become key to understanding the brain and spinal cord.

Today's AI has been designed using insights from how humans learn and think about the world. Are there certain psychological lessons we can glean from these artificial minds to further our understanding of human ones?  Tom Griffiths is a professor of information technology, consciousness, and culture at Princeton University. His books, The Laws of Thought: The Quest for a Mathematical Theory of the Mind and Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions, explore how algorithms and mathematics can be used to understand the human mind, and how it differs from AI.  Tom and Greg discuss the origins of the surprising convergence of psychology and computer science over the last 50 years and delve into the work done by the interdisciplinary minds who made it happen. They also cover how psychology and linguistics impact the current world of machine learning and AI.  *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.* Episode Quotes: How do we build good inductive bias into AI systems? 26:07: How do we build good inductive bias into these systems? And at the moment that is being engineered to some extent by doing things like synthetic pre-training, where you might pre-train on data which is not the human language data but data that you think is quite good data for shaping the kinds of things that your neural network is going to be biased towards. And then there are some other more sophisticated methods for doing that. In my lab, we use a method called metalearning, where you're explicitly creating a neural network that has initial weights, that has some sort of initial associations that it's already formed, that are going to make it easy for that model to be able to learn from small amounts of data. Neural networks vs. human learners 23:00: One of the big differences between even the fancy neural networks that we have today and human learners is that human learners learn language from far less data than our neural network models do. What is a neural network? 18:30: The way I think about neural networks is that they're a tool for thinking about computation in spaces, a way of mapping one space to another based on the information that you've received that allows you to then build up to more and more complex computations. Show Links: Recommended Resources: David Maher John B. Watson  B. F. Skinner Jerome Bruner  John von Neumann Herbert A. Simon  Noam Chomsky Allen Newell Frank Rosenblatt Marvin Minsky “Embers of autoregression show how large language models are shaped by the problem they are trained to solve” - Paper Roger Shepard Jeffrey Elman Been Kim Guest Profile: Faculty Profile at Princeton University Computational Cognitive Science Lab Professional Profile on LinkedIn Guest Work: The Laws of Thought: The Quest for a Mathematical Theory of the Mind  Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You've had that moment.Where your reaction is bigger than the room.Where something small hits… and suddenly you're tight, guarded, defensive - before you've even had time to think.And afterward, you're left wondering: “Where did that come from?”Because it didn't match the situation.But it felt real.Here's what most people don't realize:You're not reacting to what's happening.You're reacting to what your brain has already encoded.Inside this episode, you'll learn how to: Understand why memory is not storage, it's reconstruction  See how the amygdala encodes emotional experiences that still drive you today  Identify the difference between the story and the charge Recognize when your past is hijacking your leadership in real time  Use memory reconsolidation to actually update the emotional patterns — not just manage them  Build new neural reference points that change how you respond under pressure This is where leadership stops being behavioral… …and becomes neurological.Because the goal isn't to control your reactions.It's to remove the charge that creates them.So you can walk into the room you're in - not the one you survived.Your Next Steps:Watch the free masterclass: https://therewiredwoman.com/playbook/Website: https://therewiredwoman.com/Connect on Social: https://www.instagram.com/rewired.woman/Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rewiredglobal-fernanda/Corporations interested in working with Rewired Global: https://rewiredglobal.com/corporates/

Support the show to get full episodes, full archive, and join the Discord community. The Transmitter is an online publication that aims to deliver useful information, insights and tools to build bridges across neuroscience and advance research. Visit thetransmitter.org to explore the latest neuroscience news and perspectives, written by journalists and scientists. Read more about our partnership. Check out this story: Neural manifolds: Latest buzzword or pathway to understand the brain? Sign up for Brain Inspired email alerts to be notified every time a new Brain Inspired episode is released. To explore more neuroscience news and perspectives, visit thetransmitter.org. Juan Gallego runs the Neocybernetics Lab at the Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown in Lisbon, Portugal, affiliated with the neuroscience of disease and neuroscience programs, and the centre for restorative neurotechnology. Juan has worked a lot on neural manifolds - the mathematical objects neuroscience is using more and more to describe how big populations of neurons coordinate their activity to do useful things. In fact, he recently gave a short talk that he titled The Manifold Manifesto, because he was asked to be provocative. And he was provocative, suggesting that manifolds are real - as real as chairs and tables are, that they have causal power, and they might be a target of evolution. Of course he talked about his own and others work to support those claims. So today we discuss many of those themes, through the lens of his own and others work, and we talk about what keeps him up at night about the possible limits of using manifolds to connect brain activity with behavior and mental phenomena. He's not just a manifold person, though. Juan is more broadly interested in motor control and how brains do it. We also discuss his work in patients with spinal cord injuries, who don't have enough nerve connections to their muscles to actually move, but have enough nerve connections that some signal gets through. Juan and his colleagues can detect that little bit getting through, and use it to infer what behaviors the patients intend to do, and they can use that information to control actions in a computer simulation. The hope is that this will translate to controlling prosthetics to give spinal cord injury patients their mobility again. Neocybernetics Lab. @juangallego.bsky.social Related papers A neural manifold view of the brain. A neural implementation model of feedback-based motor learning. Conjoint specification of action by neocortex and striatum. Integrating across behaviors and timescales to understand the neural control of movement. Evolutionarily conserved neural dynamics across mice, monkeys, and humans. Read the transcript. 0:00 - Intro 4:37 - Manifolds 14:30 - Strengths and weaknesses 24:32 - Conserved manifolds across animals and species 34:31 - Causality and manifolds 47:29 - Constraints and causes 51:05 - What to measure 58:55 - Complexity and manifolds 1:10:29 - Juan's background 1:14:08 - Prosthetics for spinal cord injuries 1:41:06 - Integrating across behaviors and timescales 1:46:56 - Conjoint specification of action by neocortex and striatum.

Episode 193: Which Neural DSP Device Is Right For You (Nano, Mini, or Quad Cortex)? Welcome to the Chairmen of the Boards Podcast! The ultimate pedalboard podcast with the foremost rig builders in the world: Grant Klassen (Goodwood Audio), Brian Omilion (Omilion Audio), and Mason Marangella (Vertex Effects/The Rig Doctor). We've teamed up to democratize great tone and provide you with our best tricks, tips, resources and hacks so you can build the pedalboard of your dreams! Sponsors The Guitar Sanctuary - https://guitarsanctuary.com Neural DSP - https://neuraldsp.com (use code "chairmen" for 30% off) Best-Tronics - https://btpa.com (use code "dachairs" for 10% off)

Scientific Sense ® by Gill Eapen: Prof Paul Zak is Professor of Economic Sciences, Psychology & Management at Claremont Graduate University. His research has identified the brain processes that support such virtuous behaviors as trustworthiness, generosity, and sacrifice, as well as those whose absence leads to evil, vice, and conflict. He uses these results to increase flourishing by individuals, organizations, and societies. Please subscribe to this channel:https://www.youtube.com/c/ScientificSense?sub_confirmation=1

You've done the work.You've built the experience. You've developed the skills. You know what you're doing.And yet…There's a pattern that keeps showing up.Most leaders are operating from patterns built 10–20 years ago - under completely different conditions, different stakes, different environments.And those patterns?They still have veto power.In this episode, Fernanda breaks down why your leadership ceiling isn't about skill, mindset, or effort - and what's actually happening inside your brain that keeps old patterns running.We're talking about things like:Why self-awareness isn't enough to change behaviorHow early career pressure wires long-term leadership patternsWhy you keep repeating patterns you already understandThe concept of your “internal security council”What actually creates lasting change at a neural levelThis episode will show you how to stop trying to “fix yourself” - and start upgrading the structure you're leading from.What you'll learn in this episode:Why leadership patterns are structural, not psychologicalHow the default mode network keeps old behaviors runningThe real reason insight doesn't create changeWhat memory reconsolidation reveals about rewiring patternsHow to identify your exact pattern triggers with precisionWhy change must happen in the moment - not afterThe 3 principles to start rewiring your leadership patternsResources & References Mentioned:UN Security Council structure: https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/current-membersCouncil on Foreign Relations backgrounder: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/un-security-councilDefault Mode Network (Raichle, 2001): https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.676Memory Reconsolidation (Nader et al., 2000): https://doi.org/10.1038/35021052Nader & Hardt (2009): https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2590Your Next Steps:Watch the free masterclass: https://therewiredwoman.com/playbook/Website: https://therewiredwoman.com/Connect on Social: https://www.instagram.com/rewired.woman/Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rewiredglobal-fernanda/Corporations interested in working with Rewired Global: https://rewiredglobal.com/corporates/

You love your kids. You've read the parenting books. You know the strategies. And yet… there are moments when the noise is relentless, the fighting won't stop, and it feels like every single thing is on you. That's when something snaps. In this episode, we're digging into something deeper than “just stress.” Because stress alone doesn't cause the reaction. What actually fuels those yelling moments is the meaning your brain assigns to the chaos — and for so many overwhelmed moms, that meaning is: I'm completely alone in this. We're talking about how that interpretation turns normal kid behavior into a full nervous system emergency — and how to interrupt it before it spirals. If you've ever wondered why you still yell even though you “know better,” this episode will help you understand what's really happening inside your brain — and how to create change that actually lasts. What We Cover in This Episode Why chaos at home can feel like abandonment — even when no one is actually abandoning you How your brain assigns meaning to situations faster than you can consciously catch it The neuroscience behind emotional regulation and neural pathways (and why yelling becomes a habit) Why yelling “works” in the short term — and why that's exactly why it repeats The three practical steps to interrupt the “I'm alone” narrative in the moment How relationship building starts with taking responsibility for only your 50% Why This Matters Mom mental health isn't about becoming perfectly calm all the time. It's about understanding what's happening under the surface so you can respond differently. When your brain interprets chaos as proof that you're alone, it activates survival mode. And in survival mode, you don't access parenting strategies — you access fight-or-flight. But interpretations can be questioned. Neural pathways can be rewired. Emotional regulation is a skill that grows with awareness and practice. You are not broken. You are not failing. Your reactions aren't random. They're patterned — and patterns can change. This episode will help you see how your interpretations shape your stress response and give you parenting strategies that support both relationship building and self-care in the real moments that matter most. Resources Mentioned The Courage to Be Disliked by Ichiro Kishimi The Regulated Mom Experience (priority waitlist link) If this episode resonated with you, take a minute to subscribe and leave a review. It truly helps more overwhelmed moms find the parenting support they need. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this short podcast, I discuss mechanisms and relevant USMLE integrations in relation to the neural tube defects. Easy points on your test if you know the material here. Audio Download

In this short podcast, I discuss mechanisms and relevant USMLE integrations in relation to the neural tube defects. Easy points on your test if you know the material here. Audio Download

In this powerful episode of The Unapologetic Man Podcast, host Mark Sing shares his secret NLP protocol to dismantle the negative beliefs that make you behave badly around women. Your beliefs create your behavior and reality—if you're not pulling girls or getting results, fear-based beliefs like "I'm not enough," "She'll reject me," or "I'm better off alone" are sabotaging you by shaping your actions and attracting more proof they're true. Mark explains the two core emotions (love vs. fear), why these limiting beliefs stick (they self-reinforce, feel protective, and follow easy neural pathways), how they install in childhood, and simple tools to question these negative beliefs and drop them completely.  Key Takeaways: - Beliefs dictate your behavior and results - How negative beliefs kill confidence and make you unattractive to women - Why beliefs persist: survival instinct, unconscious "protection," familiar brain pathways - They form early from parents, media, and suggestibility, often not even yours - Don't believe everything you think; choose empowering beliefs to change your reality Key Timestamps: [00:00:00] – Episode intro [00:00:37] – Beliefs create behavior and reality [00:01:42] – Love vs. fear: the two core emotions [00:04:20] – Why negative beliefs stick around (survival) [00:08:05] – Neural programming [00:09:14] – The first 7 years of life [00:14:29] – Tools to identify and drop limiting beliefs [00:17:42] – Client success story [00:21:18] – Final profound insight: challenges for soul growth [00:24:59] – Hip recovery update and wrap-up [00:27:11] – Episode outro Connect With Mark: Apply for Mark's 3-Month Coaching Program: https://coachmarksing.com/coaching/ Check Out The Perks Program: https://coachmarksing.com/perks/ Email: CoachMarkSing@Gmail.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/coachmarksing/ Grab Mark's Free Program: The Approach Formula - https://www.CoachMarkSing.com/The-Approach-Formula About The Unapologetic Man Podcast The Unapologetic Man Podcast is your resource for mastering dating, attraction, and relationships from a confident, masculine perspective. Hosted by Mark Sing, this podcast gives men the tools and mindset shifts needed to succeed in their dating lives and build lasting, high-value relationships. #DatingAdvice #MensDating #Beliefs #Mindset #NLP #SelfImprovement #Confidence #FemalePsychology #Attraction #Masculinity #LimitingBeliefs #UnapologeticMan

What if consciousness isn't just in your brain, but in every cell of the universe? In this episode of Mayim Bialik's Breakdown, Dr. Marjorie Woollacott—renowned neuroscientist and leading researcher on consciousness and spiritual experience—shares her personal journey of spiritual awakening. She describes a transformative guided meditation where she felt an electric current flow from her head to her heart, accompanied by an overwhelming sense of love unlike anything she'd ever experienced. Dr. Woollacott dives into the science, the mysticism, and the practical wisdom behind spiritual transformation, including: - Why it's vital to integrate spiritual experiences into daily life and how she finally merged her academic & spiritual paths after keeping them separate for so long - Neural features in the brain that limit access to extrasensory perception, and why some people are born with “their senses wide open” - Why you don't need a scientific explanation to fully embrace the positive transformation of a spiritual awakening - Practical tips to quiet your mind & deepen meditation, even if you've struggled in the past - How connection matters more than ever in challenging global times - Who is more likely to have psi abilities, and how Near Death Experiences can unlock hidden potential - How some people can go beyond space & time if they believe it's possible - Why placebo works & how to balance self-agency with surrendering to the universe - Her belief that consciousness exists differently in dreams & alternate states, and how collective consciousness can create real-world change - The incredible story of a doctor's out-of-body experience during hypnotic regression in an NDE, and what it teaches us about the mind and soul - Scientific argument for why telekinesis could be possible - Importance of finding purpose, noticing synchronicities, and staying “open” to life's hidden signals - Power of prayer & Reiki, and why establishing energetic boundaries between healer & patient is essential Whether you're curious about spiritual awakening, consciousness, extrasensory perception, near death experiences, or the science behind mysticism, this conversation will expand your mind, open your heart, and challenge what you thought was possible. Prepare to explore the frontier where science meets the soul, and discover how your own awareness could be far greater than you ever imagined! Dr Marjorie Woollacott's Books: Spiritual Awakenings: Scientists and Academics Describe Their Experiences: ⁠https://spiritual-awakenings.net/⁠ The Playful Universe: Synchronicity and the Nature of Consciousness: ⁠https://marjoriewoollacott.com/books/the-playful-universe-2/⁠ On the Banks of the River Styx: New Perspectives on Terminal Lucidity and Other Near-Death Phenomena: ⁠https://a.co/d/0N8w9ZE⁠ Follow us on Substack for Exclusive Bonus Content: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bialikbreakdown.substack.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠BialikBreakdown.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube.com/mayimbialik⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What if consciousness isn't just in your brain, but in every cell of the universe? In this episode of Mayim Bialik's Breakdown, Dr. Marjorie Woollacott—renowned neuroscientist and leading researcher on consciousness and spiritual experience—shares her personal journey of spiritual awakening. She describes a transformative guided meditation where she felt an electric current flow from her head to her heart, accompanied by an overwhelming sense of love unlike anything she'd ever experienced. Dr. Woollacott dives into the science, the mysticism, and the practical wisdom behind spiritual transformation, including: - Why it's vital to integrate spiritual experiences into daily life and how she finally merged her academic & spiritual paths after keeping them separate for so long - Neural features in the brain that limit access to extrasensory perception, and why some people are born with “their senses wide open” - Why you don't need a scientific explanation to fully embrace the positive transformation of a spiritual awakening - Practical tips to quiet your mind & deepen meditation, even if you've struggled in the past - How connection matters more than ever in challenging global times - Who is more likely to have psi abilities, and how Near Death Experiences can unlock hidden potential - How some people can go beyond space & time if they believe it's possible - Why placebo works & how to balance self-agency with surrendering to the universe - Her belief that consciousness exists differently in dreams & alternate states, and how collective consciousness can create real-world change - The incredible story of a doctor's out-of-body experience during hypnotic regression in an NDE, and what it teaches us about the mind and soul - Scientific argument for why telekinesis could be possible - Importance of finding purpose, noticing synchronicities, and staying “open” to life's hidden signals - Power of prayer & Reiki, and why establishing energetic boundaries between healer & patient is essential Whether you're curious about spiritual awakening, consciousness, extrasensory perception, near death experiences, or the science behind mysticism, this conversation will expand your mind, open your heart, and challenge what you thought was possible. Prepare to explore the frontier where science meets the soul, and discover how your own awareness could be far greater than you ever imagined! Dr Marjorie Woollacott's Books: Spiritual Awakenings: Scientists and Academics Describe Their Experiences: ⁠https://spiritual-awakenings.net/⁠ The Playful Universe: Synchronicity and the Nature of Consciousness: ⁠https://marjoriewoollacott.com/books/the-playful-universe-2/⁠ On the Banks of the River Styx: New Perspectives on Terminal Lucidity and Other Near-Death Phenomena: ⁠https://a.co/d/0N8w9ZE⁠ Follow us on Substack for Exclusive Bonus Content: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bialikbreakdown.substack.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠BialikBreakdown.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube.com/mayimbialik⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What if consciousness isn't just in your brain, but in every cell of the universe? In this episode of Mayim Bialik's Breakdown, Dr. Marjorie Woollacott—renowned neuroscientist and leading researcher on consciousness and spiritual experience—shares her personal journey of spiritual awakening. She describes a transformative guided meditation where she felt an electric current flow from her head to her heart, accompanied by an overwhelming sense of love unlike anything she'd ever experienced. Dr. Woollacott dives into the science, the mysticism, and the practical wisdom behind spiritual transformation, including: - Why it's vital to integrate spiritual experiences into daily life and how she finally merged her academic & spiritual paths after keeping them separate for so long - Neural features in the brain that limit access to extrasensory perception, and why some people are born with “their senses wide open” - Why you don't need a scientific explanation to fully embrace the positive transformation of a spiritual awakening - Practical tips to quiet your mind & deepen meditation, even if you've struggled in the past - How connection matters more than ever in challenging global times - Who is more likely to have psi abilities, and how Near Death Experiences can unlock hidden potential - How some people can go beyond space & time if they believe it's possible - Why placebo works & how to balance self-agency with surrendering to the universe - Her belief that consciousness exists differently in dreams & alternate states, and how collective consciousness can create real-world change - The incredible story of a doctor's out-of-body experience during hypnotic regression in an NDE, and what it teaches us about the mind and soul - Scientific argument for why telekinesis could be possible - Importance of finding purpose, noticing synchronicities, and staying “open” to life's hidden signals - Power of prayer & Reiki, and why establishing energetic boundaries between healer & patient is essential Whether you're curious about spiritual awakening, consciousness, extrasensory perception, near death experiences, or the science behind mysticism, this conversation will expand your mind, open your heart, and challenge what you thought was possible. Prepare to explore the frontier where science meets the soul, and discover how your own awareness could be far greater than you ever imagined! Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code MAYIM at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/mayim Slow the growth of greys and get 15% off by using code BREAKER at https://www.Arey.com Make a change this spring with a scientific approach to clean air. Visit http://rabbitair.com/ or call their 24/7 consultants today. Dr Marjorie Woollacott's Books: Spiritual Awakenings: Scientists and Academics Describe Their Experiences: https://spiritual-awakenings.net/ The Playful Universe: Synchronicity and the Nature of Consciousness: https://marjoriewoollacott.com/books/the-playful-universe-2/ On the Banks of the River Styx: New Perspectives on Terminal Lucidity and Other Near-Death Phenomena: https://a.co/d/0N8w9ZE Follow us on Substack for Exclusive Bonus Content: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bialikbreakdown.substack.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠BialikBreakdown.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube.com/mayimbialik⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What if consciousness isn't just in your brain, but in every cell of the universe? In this episode of Mayim Bialik's Breakdown, Dr. Marjorie Woollacott—renowned neuroscientist and leading researcher on consciousness and spiritual experience—shares her personal journey of spiritual awakening. She describes a transformative guided meditation where she felt an electric current flow from her head to her heart, accompanied by an overwhelming sense of love unlike anything she'd ever experienced. Dr. Woollacott dives into the science, the mysticism, and the practical wisdom behind spiritual transformation, including: - Why it's vital to integrate spiritual experiences into daily life and how she finally merged her academic & spiritual paths after keeping them separate for so long - Neural features in the brain that limit access to extrasensory perception, and why some people are born with “their senses wide open” - Why you don't need a scientific explanation to fully embrace the positive transformation of a spiritual awakening - Practical tips to quiet your mind & deepen meditation, even if you've struggled in the past - How connection matters more than ever in challenging global times - Who is more likely to have psi abilities, and how Near Death Experiences can unlock hidden potential - How some people can go beyond space & time if they believe it's possible - Why placebo works & how to balance self-agency with surrendering to the universe - Her belief that consciousness exists differently in dreams & alternate states, and how collective consciousness can create real-world change - The incredible story of a doctor's out-of-body experience during hypnotic regression in an NDE, and what it teaches us about the mind and soul - Scientific argument for why telekinesis could be possible - Importance of finding purpose, noticing synchronicities, and staying “open” to life's hidden signals - Power of prayer & Reiki, and why establishing energetic boundaries between healer & patient is essential Whether you're curious about spiritual awakening, consciousness, extrasensory perception, near death experiences, or the science behind mysticism, this conversation will expand your mind, open your heart, and challenge what you thought was possible. Prepare to explore the frontier where science meets the soul, and discover how your own awareness could be far greater than you ever imagined! Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code MAYIM at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/mayim Slow the growth of greys and get 15% off by using code BREAKER at https://www.Arey.com Make a change this spring with a scientific approach to clean air. Visit http://rabbitair.com/ or call their 24/7 consultants today. Dr Marjorie Woollacott's Books: Spiritual Awakenings: Scientists and Academics Describe Their Experiences: https://spiritual-awakenings.net/ The Playful Universe: Synchronicity and the Nature of Consciousness: https://marjoriewoollacott.com/books/the-playful-universe-2/ On the Banks of the River Styx: New Perspectives on Terminal Lucidity and Other Near-Death Phenomena: https://a.co/d/0N8w9ZE Follow us on Substack for Exclusive Bonus Content: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bialikbreakdown.substack.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠BialikBreakdown.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube.com/mayimbialik⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices