Like I have started in some of the other groups, this thread is going to be a repository for links, publications, etc, that may not merit their own thread. However, don't forget about the Blurbs & Tidbits thread, where you can crosspost short blog posts and news, as well.
I'm going to start with this report that Doone posted in another group: Brain Waves Module 1: Neuroscience, society and policy, published by The Royal Society. I have also attached the PDF below.
I am also going to include the list of external links from the homepage.
The Brain from Top to Bottom
Brain Science Podcast
Center for Cognitive Neuroscience
Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal
Electromagnetic theories of consciousness
Evolutionary Psychology Journal
Foundations for a Cognitive Biology
The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Mirror Neurons Research
MRC Cognition and Brain Science Unit
Nature | Neuroscience
The Science and Philosophy of Consciousness
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
The Whole Brain Atlas
The Homunculus Fallacy
The homunculus argument is a fallacy arising most commonly in the theory of vision. One may explain (human) vision by noting that light from the outside world forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something (or someone) in the brain looks at these images as if they are images on a movie screen (this theory of vision is sometimes termed the theory of the Cartesian Theater: it is most associated, nowadays, with the psychologist David Marr). The question arises as to the nature of this internal viewer. The assumption here is that there is a 'little man' or 'homunculus' inside the brain 'looking at' the movie.
The reason why this is a fallacy may be understood by asking how the homunculus 'sees' the internal movie. The obvious answer is that there is another homunculus inside the first homunculus's 'head' or 'brain' looking at this 'movie'. But how does this homunculus see the 'outside world'? In order to answer this, we are forced to posit another homunculus inside this other homunculus's head and so forth. In other words, we are in a situation of infinite regress. The problem with the homunculus argument is that it tries to account for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain.
Haven't read, just passing along.
Anterior cingulate cortex: The evolution of an interface between emotion and cognition