Channel
@MindBrainLing
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry
312subscribers
-1 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1002861229585 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @MindBrainLing |
| Created | Between 1 June 2025 and 30 September 2025— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 7 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 7 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/MindBrainLing |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 7 Aug 2026, 01:58 | 312 | -1 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 22:17 | 313 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 08:15 | 313 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 12 November 2025 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 27 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (12 November 2025 – 27 July 2026) |
| Views total | 3,537 |
| Reactions total | — |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 6 Aug 2026, 22:17 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
سلام دوستان یه پژوهش آکادمیک رو دارم انجام میدم و برای گردآوری دادهها یه پرسشنامه طراحی شده که ازتون میخوام لطف کنین و بهش پاسخ بدین. به پاسخای همتون نیاز دارم. شما اولین افرادی هستین که این پرسشنامه رو تکمیل میکنین امیدوارم با نتایجش به همراهی شما سهمی در پیشبرد علم داشته باشم. لینک پرسشنامه: https://survey.porsline.ir/s/WPY5g6Vw ممنون از همتون.
🧠 آیا صدایی که توی ذهنت میشنوی... واقعاً خودِ تویی؟ 🎧 در این پادکست کوتاه، با تکیه بر ایدهٔ «درونیسازی» ویگوتسکی و یک مقالهٔ مروری منتشرشده در Trends in Cognitive Sciences، به زبان ساده میشنوید که «گفتار درونی» چیست، چگونه شکل میگیرد و چرا شاید آن صدایی که هر روز در ذهنت میشنوی، آنقدرها هم فقط صدای خودت نباشد!!! 📄 منابع برای مطالعه بیشتر: 🔹 Rethinking inner speech: Internalization, 4E cognition, and phenomen…
🧠 چرا خیلی از افراد، وقتی احساساتی میشوند، ناخودآگاه به زبان مادری برمیگردند؟ تا به حال برایتان پیش آمده وقتی خیلی خوشحال، عصبانی یا دلتنگ هستید، بیاختیار به زبان مادریتان حرف بزنید؟ یا هنگام قربانصدقه رفتن، دعا کردن، ناسزا گفتن یا گفتن «دوستت دارم»، احساس کنید زبان مادری حس متفاوتی دارد؟ آیا مغز واقعاً میان زبان مادری و زبان دوم تفاوتی قائل میشود؟ 🔬 پژوهشها میگویند: برای بسیاری از افراد، بله. پژوهشهای …
کانال مغز معنا: https://t.me/MindBrainLing
🧠 آیا مغز هنگام خواندن، فقط کلمات را میخواند؟ دیروز از شما پرسیدیم: 📖 وقتی کتاب یا داستان میخوانید، بیشتر کدام حالت برایتان پیش میآید؟ بعضیها گفتند صحنهها را در ذهنشان میبینند، و بعضیها گفتند بیشتر فقط معنی جملهها را دنبال میکنند. اما از دید علوم اعصاب، ماجرا از این هم جالبتر است... 🍋 حالا این جمله را بخوانید: «یک لیموترش تازه را تصور کنید؛ آن را از وسط نصف کنید و چند قطره از آبش را روی زبانتان بچکانی…
📖 وقتی کتاب یا داستان میخوانید، بیشتر کدام حالت برایتان پیش میآید؟
The shares total 102%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
🧠 چرا بیشتر آدمها «بووبا» را گرد و «کیکی» را نوکتیز میبینند؟ اگر در نظرسنجی دیروز شرکت کردید، احتمالاً شما هم «بووبا» را به شکل گرد و «کیکی» را به شکل نوکتیز نسبت دادید. جالب اینجاست که این انتخاب فقط یک سلیقهٔ شخصی نیست. پژوهشهای متعدد نشان دادهاند که بیشتر افراد، حتی در زبانها، فرهنگها و نظامهای نوشتاری متفاوت، همین ارتباط را برقرار میکنند. اما چرا؟ 🔬 به نظر میرسد مغز انسان میان ویژگیهای آوایی و ویژگی…
به نظر شما کدام نام به کدام شکل تعلق دارد؟
The shares total 102%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
@MindBrainLing
🧠 به نظر شما ChatGPT و مدلهای زبانیِ مشابه واقعاً «معنی» کلمات را میفهمند؟
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
🧠 آیا ChatGPT واقعاً معنی کلمات را میفهمد؟ وقتی با یک مدل زبانی گفتگو میکنیم، گاهی فراموش میکنیم که با یک ماشین طرف هستیم. مدل میتواند سؤالها را پاسخ دهد، استدلال کند، داستان بنویسد و حتی درباره احساسات صحبت کند. اما آیا این یعنی «فهمیدن»؟ 🔬 در علوم شناختی، پاسخ هنوز قطعی نیست. بسیاری از پژوهشگران میان دو توانایی متفاوت تمایز قائل میشوند: 🔹 تسلط بر الگوهای زبان توانایی تشخیص روابط میان واژهها، جملهها و …
🧠 آیا ChatGPT واقعاً معنی کلمات را میفهمد؟ یا فقط یاد گرفته است کدام کلمات معمولاً کنار هم ظاهر میشوند؟ پاسخ این سؤال آنقدرها هم ساده نیست و هنوز یکی از بحثبرانگیزترین موضوعات علوم شناختی و هوش مصنوعی محسوب میشود. 👇 توضیح در پست بعدی
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @MindBrainLing. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
The 3 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
📖 وقتی کتاب یا داستان میخوانید، بیشتر کدام حالت برایتان پیش میآید؟
The shares total 102%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
به نظر شما کدام نام به کدام شکل تعلق دارد؟
The shares total 102%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
🧠 به نظر شما ChatGPT و مدلهای زبانیِ مشابه واقعاً «معنی» کلمات را میفهمند؟
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none.The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100.Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 12 November 2025 to 27 July 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Citation-graph rank — 668,190 of 1,151,006entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 3 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 7 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“مغزِ معنا” (@MindBrainLing), 312 subscribers as measured 7 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/MindBrainLing.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.