The Garden of Forking Paths by Jorge Luis Borges Collection first edition Original title "El jardín de senderos que se bifurcan" Translator Anthony Boucher Country Argentina Language Spanish Genre(s) Spy fiction, war fiction Published in El Jardín de senderos que se bifurcan (1941)."The Garden of Forking Paths" (original Spanish title: "El jardín de senderos que se bifurcan") is a 1941 short story by Argentine writer and poet Jorge Luis Borges.It is the title story in the collection El jardín de senderos que se bifurcan (1941), which was republished in its entirety in Ficciones (Fictions) in 1944.It was the first of Borges's works to be translated into English by Anthony Boucher when it appeared in Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine in August 1948.Borges's vision of "forking paths" has been cited as inspiration by numerous new media scholars, in particular within the field of hypertext fiction.As the story begins, Doctor Tsun has realized that an MI5 agent called Captain Richard Madden is pursuing him, has entered the apartment of his handler, Viktor Runeberg, and has either captured or killed him.Doctor Tsun is, therefore, determined to be more intelligent than any White spy and to obtain the information Nicolai needs to save the lives of German soldiers.Doctor Tsun suspects that Captain Madden, an Irish Catholic in the employ of the British Empire, is similarly motivated.Narrowly avoiding the pursuing Captain Madden at the railway station, he goes to the house of Doctor Stephen Albert, an eminent Sinologist.As he walks up the road to Doctor Albert's house, Doctor Tsun reflects on his great ancestor, Ts'ui Pên, a learned and famous civil servant who renounced his post as governor of Yunnan Province to undertake two tasks: write a vast and intricate novel and construct an equally-vast and intricate labyrinth "in which all men would lose their way.".Ts'ui Pên was murdered before he could complete his novel, however, and wrote a "contradictory jumble of irresolute drafts" that made no sense to subsequent readers, and the labyrinth was never found.In homage to the story, the TV series FlashForward made an episode entitled "The Garden of Forking Paths".Hap shares his hypothesis, opposed to Leon's, about multiple dimensions citing “a garden of forking paths” used by his subjects.Hap shares his hypothesis, opposed to Leon's, about multiple dimensions citing “a garden of forking paths” used by his subjects. .

The Garden of Forking Paths Summary

He must escape from Captain Richard Madden, the Irishman who has murdered his co-conspirator in espionage, and complete his mission by delivering the location of a secret cache of British weapons to his boss in Germany, whom he refers to as The Chief.He checks the contents of his pockets – revealing a revolver with only one bullet – locates the address of the one person capable of passing on his missive, and runs to catch a train to the suburbs.Dr. Albert tells Tsun the story of his ancestor, Ts'ui Pen, a former governor who abandoned his political position to write a novel and build a labyrinth, or maze.Seeing Captain Madden approach, Yu Tsun expresses his gratitude to Dr. Albert for resolving the mystery of Ts'ui Pen's garden, then shoots him in the back.

.

Navigating the garden of forking paths for data exclusions in fear

The reviewers also outlined some important suggestions for strengthening the report, all of which can be addressed in a revision with a reasonable amount of effort by the authors.We have changed the title to “Navigating the garden of forking paths for data exclusions in fear conditioning research”.We grouped subjects based on all the different cutoffs in SCR CS+/CS- discrimination (listed in Appendix 2—table 1, section A in the revised version) as identified from the literature search.They then calculate for each group in this stratification whether or not the individuals show evidence of learning by looking at differential SCRs and fear ratings.From this, they conclude "Fourth, we provided empirical evidence that those classified as 'non-learners' (sometimes referred to as 'outliers') in SCRs based on the identified definitions ironically displayed significant CS+/CS- discrimination.".In the case of differential SCRs, this argument is circular, meaning that the group definitions are dependent upon the outcome measure.In addition, exclusion groups with a lower bound > 0 will by definition show significant differential conditioning using SCRs as an outcome.We have thus removed part A and B of the table (results of the ANOVAs testing for differences in SCR CS+/CS- discrimination between the exclusion groups).Yet, the fact that some or even most of these “exclusion groups” did show significant CS+/CS- discrimination in SCRs is a major problem in our opinion, as these individuals are excluded from analyses as ‘non-learners’ in the literature.We have made this point clearer in the Materials and methods section, the caption to Appendix 2—table 1 and revised the wording of our conclusions.Still, it is relevant to test whether all groups classified as ‘non-learners’ in the literature indeed fail to show evidence of learning, which would be indicated by a lack of significant CS+/CS- discrimination in SCRs in this case.In essence, this is a test to evaluate whether exclusion criteria used in the literature indeed achieve what they purport to do, that is, classify a group of participants that do not show evidence of learning.”.[…] Still, this is an important manipulation check to empirically test whether those classified as ‘non-learners’ in the literature indeed do not show evidence of learning, which would be indicated by comparable SCRs to the CS+ and the CS- (i.e., no significant discrimination).”.Strikingly and more importantly, with the exception of the group formed by defining ‘non-learning’ as a discrimination score of 0 µS (light green), all other exclusion groups, which have been established by defining classified as ‘non-learners’ by the different cutoffs in the literature, showed significantly larger CS+ than CS- SCR amplitudes (i.e., significant CS+/CS- discrimination; raw: all p’s < 0.0009; log, rc: all p’s < 0.0002; see Appendix 2 –Table 1 for details).”.Discussion: “Fourth, we provided empirical evidence that those classified as ‘non-learners’ in the literature (sometimes referred to as ‘outliers’) in SCRs based on the identified definitions ironically displayed significant CS+/CS- discrimination – with the exception of non-learners defined by a cut-off in differential responding of < 0 and = 0 µS.Hence, in addition to the many conceptual problems we raised here, the operationalization of ‘non-learning’ in the field failed the its critical manipulation check, given that those classified as ‘non-learners’ show clear evidence of learning as a group (i.e., CS+/CS- discrimination, see Appendix 2—table 1).”.This still leaves a lot of room for decisions that may result in a biased sample (such as those anxious individuals who also show pretty large responses to the CS-).Box 1, section B: “classification as SCR ‘non-learners’ should be based on differential scores (CS+ vs. CS-) and the number of trials included for this calculation should be clearly justified.Providing a generally valid recommendation regarding the number of trials to be included is difficult, since it critically depends on experimental design choices.”.With respect to the potential impact of startle on the fear learning process, in the revised manuscript, we now refer to our previous publication (Sjouwerman et al., 2016) that addressed this question empirically.I believe reduction in the overall length (perhaps partly through another careful round of editing to avoid any unnecessary redundancy) would strengthen the impact of the manuscript.If not, I wonder if it would be worth speculating about the meaning of a given researcher repeatedly uses the same paradigm with similar samples multiple times while changing the exclusionary criteria with no justification.The reviewers are absolutely correct to note that there is inconsistent use of criteria not only between but also within research groups and that typically no explicit justification for this is provided.Identifying specific individuals or groups for using inconsistent criteria across different publications (and speculating about the underlying reasons) would, in our view, not add anything to the message we want to be heard.7) Given the proliferation of "turn key" systems and rapid adoption of affordable, (e.g., mobile) devices for measuring of psychophysiological signals, many of which have not been sufficiently vetted for their reliability, I believe a slightly greater emphasis (not necessarily much more words but perhaps stronger language)on the potential differences in exclusion of participants based on specific amplifier systems used is warranted.“This being said, we do acknowledge that certain research questions or the use of different recording equipment (robust lab equipment vs. novel mobile devices such as smartwatches) may potentially require distinct data processing pipelines and potentially also exclusion of certain observations (Simmons, Nelson and Simonsohn, 2011; Silberzahn et al., 2018), hence it is not desirable to propose rigid and fixed rules for generic adoption.”.Relatedly, future studies need to empirically address which criteria for SCR transformation and exclusions are more or less sensitive to baseline differences (for an example from startle responding see Bradford et al., 2015; Grillon et al., 2002).”.“Therefore, participants are often (routinely) excluded from analyses if they appear to not have not learned (‘non-learners’) or not have responded been responsive to the experimental stimuli (‘non-responders’) during fear acquisition training”.Legend of Figure 1: “Examples of irrelevant topics included studies that did not use fear conditioning paradigms (see https://osf.io/uxdhk/ for a documentation of excluded publications).”.12) Some spots in the supplementary materials would benefit from just a bit of text to explain the figures, rather than referring back to the main paper (for example Appendix 4—table 2).[…] Still, this is an important manipulation check to empirically test whether those classified as ‘non-learners’ in the literature indeed do not show evidence of learning, which would be indicated by comparable SCRs to the CS+ and the CS- (i.e., no significant discrimination).”.Results: “The definitions differed in i) the stimulus type(s) used to define ‘non-responding’ (CS+ reinforced, CS+ unreinforced, all CS+s, CS-, US), ii) the SCR minimum amplitude criterion to define a responder (varying between 0.01 µS and 0.05 µS, or mere visual inspection), and iii) the percentage of trials for which these criteria have to be met (see Figure 6B and Appendix 1—figure 1) as well as a combination thereof.We inserted cross-references to the relevant figures, tables and the Appendix for every discussion point to facilitate comprehensibility and to act as reminders of the respective finding.Hence, in addition to the many conceptual problems we raised here, the operationalization of ‘non-learning’ in the field failed its critical manipulation check, given that those classified as ‘non-learners’ showed clear evidence of learning (i.e., CS+/CS- discrimination, see Appendix 2—table 1).”.7) In Box 1, General Reporting, under "recommendations for how to proceed" for "minimal response criterion (μS) to define a valid SCR," it would help to have more detail about the means by which an empirical cutoff can be determined.My recommendation would be for the authors to dramatically soften the conclusions in the aforementioned subsection and acknowledge this limitation of their approach in the Discussion section.Alternatively, if the authors had another method for estimating the number of subjects that each cutoff criteria likely misclassifies (e.g. perhaps by using the error variance of the entire sample as a stand-in for single-subject confidence intervals), these data could be used to support the conclusions mentioned above.".With respect to the alternative suggestion of the reviewer, we consider this rather difficult as the ground truth is unknown (what is a meaningful discrimination) and hence it is unclear how to define a misclassification.Note that this is somewhat circular as exclusion groups are defined by different SCR CS+/CS- cutoffs which then are used in an analysis where differential SCRs are the dependent measure.Still, this is an important manipulation check to empirically test whether those classified as a group of ‘non-learners’ in the literature indeed do not show evidence of learning, which would be indicated by comparable SCRs to the CS+ and the CS- (i.e., no significant discrimination).“Fourth, we provided empirical evidence that those classified as a group of ‘non-learners’ in SCRs in the literature (sometimes referred to as ‘outliers’) based on the identified definitions in fact displayed significant CS+/CS- discrimination when applied to our own data.[…] Hence, in addition to the many conceptual problems we raised here, the operationalization of ‘non-learning’ in the field failed its critical manipulation check given that those classified as ‘non-learners’ show clear evidence of learning as a group (i.e., CS+/CS- discrimination, see Appendix 2—table 1).”.

.

A Summary and Analysis of Jorge Luis Borges' 'The Garden of

‘The Garden of Forking Paths’, first published in the collection of that name in 1941, is one of the most famous stories by the Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges.Perhaps surprisingly given Borges’ reputation and the difficulties of categorising his work into a particular genre, this story was the runner-up in the Ellery Queen mystery fiction prize in 1948.As he journeys to the man’s home, Yu reflects upon his grandfather, who withdrew from public life in order to write a novel and to construct a labyrinth.Arriving at his destination, the home of Stephen Albert (a scholar of all things Chinese), Yu is surprised to discover that this stranger seems to have been expecting him.He tells Yu that his grandfather, Ts’ui Pen, never managed to finish the novel he planned to write, but when he died he left behind a draft containing all of the various possible plot lines and discarded ideas.Yu ends his narrative by confirming that, because the town of Albert has just been bombed, he knows the Germans got his ‘message’.(Although Borges wrote in Spanish, he was bilingual and knew English very well, so it’s worth reflecting that the Chinese name of his maze-building author, Pen, suggests both a writing implement and a cage or prison for restricting people: not unlike a labyrinth, then, when we go back to classical myth and Daedalus’ construction of the original Labyrinth.Indeed, the idea of Daedalus as a cunning craftsman but also an avatar the writer or novelist is one that James Joyce had already explored when he named the protagonist of his 1916 novel, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Stephen Dedalus.). .

The Garden of Forking Paths

To those of us who study the brain, The Garden of Forking Paths, and indeed all the short stories in Borges’ collection, Ficciones, has seemed a metaphor for the mind.Our patients experience disorders of thought and logical expression, distortions in perception and memory, and in the serial execution of movement or of future plans.A stroke, a progressive dementia, or recurrent headaches redirect a life’s pursuits into various futures, often along unplanned or unexpected pathways.This issue of the Chair’s Report will explore one aspect of this metaphor: how we identify new treatments for the complex diseases of the brain.To identify the causes and to develop new therapies for neurological diseases requires the discovery of paths in the brain that disrupt its normal function.A more complete understanding of diseases of the brain requires taking multiple paths of study at the same time, so that apparent contradictions are approached from many different directions. .

The Garden of Forking Paths by Jorge Luis Borges

Thus, the story's narrator recollects a common procedure for discovering the central point in certain labyrinths is to "always turn to the left.You were never that good at puzzles and you can easily imagine yourself wandering in the labyrinth for hours, maybe days before chancing upon the proper exit.However, if you were given accurate, easy to follow directions such as "always turn to the left," an impossible quagmire immediately becomes an enjoyable short walk."Sounds so cool, even trumping a 'Choose Your Own Adventure' tale where various options are left to the reader on which way the plot can turn.We could then reach a level of realization, in effect, a release, a moksha, where we express with all our heart and mind, with our very being: 'Thou art that' or in Sanskrit: 'Tat tvam asi'?Or would this simply amount to another turn within the Garden of Forking Paths?Argentine author Jorge Luis Borges, 1899-1986. .

T N A T T

Leave a reply

your email address will not be published. required fields are marked *

Name *
Email *
Website