"... the essence of the thing ..."

"To become some other thing, you have to not be that thing in the first place, and, if you are that thing, then it is hard for you to really believe that anyone else can become it, since the essence of the thing is having been it all along."

-from The View from a Bridge by Adam Gopnik in this week's issue of the New Yorker.

Heraclitus, revisited. (Or, sorry I haven't written lately; what's been happening this month?)

I've written recently about Heraclitus, and my goal of taking photos of Bucky that are distinct.

Sometimes, though, like when he stands in the window-light at the top of the stairs and looks into my portrait lens, images from different days can be pretty damn similar:

(19 October 2014)

(27 October 2014)

So, it was nice to get a chance (at bedtime) to snap a shot that is different:

(25 October 2014)

Thanks, Bucky.

(Click on any image for full-screen.)

"...close to music..."

"The true content of a photograph is invisible, for it derives from a play, not with form, but with time. One might argue that photography is as close to music as to painting."

- John Berger, from "Understanding a Photograph" (1968).

Bucky, December 2010. (Click image for full-screen.)

Specializations.

I am a biophysicist who is married to a biochemist.

A biophysicist is someone who knows less about physics than a physicist, and less about biology than a biologist.

A biochemist, on the other hand, is someone who knows everything.

The Bucky Variations*.

Heraclitus said that "Everything changes and ... you cannot step twice into the same stream."

If, however, you take several photographs of the same stream – or dog – they may not look all that different.

But what if you use different lenses?

Here is Bucky standing at the top of the stairs, as seen through three different lenses** (click any image for full-screen):

Fuji X100S***, 5/28/14.

Nikkor 105 mm f/2 "defocus control" lens****, 8/9/14

Lensbaby LM-10*****, 8/12/14.

And there you have it: Three different views of Bucky at the top of the stairs.

I admit that these may not reflect three different ways of being, a la Heraclitus, but instead may depict three different ways of seeing, a la John Berger. But, for most of us, ways of seeing are ways of being. And, as for me, I am grateful to Bucky, who has taught me new ways of being, and of seeing.


__________________________
        *  With footnotes.
     **   And cameras.
   ***   Built-in 23 mm f/2 lens (35 mm equivalent focal length = 35 mm).
 ****  On a full-frame Nikon digital SLR.
***** On an iPhone.

“This is the only reality there is.”

“Everyone has his own reality in which, if one is not too cautious, timid or frightened, one swims. This is the only reality there is.”

-Henry Miller, from Stand Still Like the Hummingbird (1962)

(photos: backyard, July 18th; click image for full-screen)

Brains are different like bikes are different.

The dominant analogy for the brain has tracked the leading technology of the day.

The human brain was like a clockwork, then a hydraulic system, then an electronic circuit, then a digital computer, then a computer network, – until the present day, when, according to Stephen Kosslyn & Wayne Miller, writing in the Wall Street Journal, the brain is like a bicycle:

Our brains are not engaged in some sort of constant cerebral tug of war, with one part seeking dominance over another. (What a poor evolutionary strategy that would have been!) Rather, they can be likened roughly to the parts of a bicycle: the frame, seat, wheels, handlebars, pedals, gears, brakes and chain that work together to provide transportation.

The distinguished scientist and journalist continue:

Although the ... parts of the brain are always used during all of our waking lives, people do not rely on them to an equal degree. To extend the bicycle analogy, not everyone rides a bike the same way. Some may meander, others may race.

To be sure, Kosslyn &  Miller are right: Brains are like bikes.

But Kosslyn &  Miller are wrong, in that brains are not different like bikers are different; brains are different like bikes are different.

The apt bike analogy for inter-individual differences in brain function is not inter-individual differences in how people ride bikes, but rather inter-individual differences in bikes. Road bikes, mountain bikes, cyclocross bikes, touring bikes, BMX bikes, commuters, recumbents, etc. – bikes are different.

Brains are like bikes, and brains are different from one another like bikes are different from one another – not like how cyclists ride differently from one another, okay?

Because otherwise, you're just putting Descartes in the saddle.

"How impressive you find modern pop Bumpology depends in part on whether you believe that there are a lot of people who still think like that."

"In the same way, even the neuro-skeptics seem to agree that modern Bumpology remains an important corrective to radical anti-Bumpology: to the kind of thinking that insists that brains don’t count at all and cultures construct everything; that, given the right circumstances, there could be a human group with six or seven distinct genders, each with its own sexuality; that there is a possible human society in which very old people would be regarded as attractive and nubile eighteen-year-olds not; and still another where adolescent children would be noted for their rigorous desire to finish recently commenced tasks."

-from "Mindless: The New Neuro-Skeptics" by Adam Gopnik in the September 9th issue of the New Yorker.

"Bucky is not like other dogs. But he is like ..." Part III. ("Visually similar images" from Google's "search by image")

(click on an image for full-screen)

Bucky is not like other dogs. But he is like a motorcycle, or Gerald Ford, or Harry Potter... ("Visually similar images" from Google's "search by image")

(click on an image for full-screen)

Magnetic fields: Threat, or menace? [repost]

I have worked with magnets for over thirty years, yet I admit that I'm not sure if magnetic fields are real.

Now, they tell you that the magnetic field is real, real like the river's undertow that pulls you past the eddies beneath the sharp rocks and beats you down, but it's not. Not really. You feel magnetic forces, to be sure, but the magnetic field is not the fundamental truth. The truth is the magnetic vector potential. And this is not just my opinion; this has been known for over sixty years.

The magnetic field (what you hear about) is written as B; the magnetic vector potential (what you perhaps never heard about before today) is written as A. They are related by:

B = ∇ x A

("The magnetic field is the curl of the magnetic vector potential.")

The truth is revealed by the Aharonov–Bohm effect, in which particle traveling past a long thin solenoid experiences a phase shift, even though the magnetic field is confined to the interior of the solenoid, which the particle never enters! Why does this happen? It happens because the particle sees the magnetic vector potential outside the solenoid. (A cool animation is available.)

So, A (the magnetic vector potential) is what's true and real and actually felt by the particle, while B (the magnetic field) is sort of an emanation, or a mathematical device, that almost always gives you the right answer (except in clever made-up configurations designed to demonstrate the Aharonov–Bohm effect, that is), and is handy. I suppose an attorney might say that while the magnetic field is (usually) a truth, it is not the whole truth.

Perhaps it's like your car's engine, where horsepower is what you read about, but torque is what you feel. The magnetic field is what you read about, but the magnetic vector potential is what you feel.

[Please note: Persons seeking legal advice should consult a member of their state Bar Association; we may in the future discuss an alternative approach to interpreting the Aharonov-Bohm effect, which does not appear to to rob the magnetic field of so much of her charm; post title refers to this.]

[reposted from June, 2010]

Title of the Week!

The article "The dilemmas of the gourmet fly: the molecular and neuronal mechanisms of feeding and nutrient decision making in Drosophila" appears in the journal "Frontiers in Decision Neuroscience."

Title of the Week!

The article, "When Pinocchio's nose does not grow: Belief regarding lie-detectability modulates production of deception," appears in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.

"I used to think I was alone. Well, I ain't alone no more." [Special Kickin' in 2013 Rockin' New Year's Day Repost!]

Tom Morello's song about his guitar is uplifting:

Another succinct alternative to another dualism.

If you liked our succinct alternatives to Cartesian dualism, then you might like this sentence – the text of a slide –  from Prof. Luiz Pessoa's compelling presentation at today's stimulating Maryland Neuroimaging Retreat, hosted by the University of Maryland School of Medicine:

"There are no cognitive or emotional brain regions, per se."

In what sense is it true that, had the past been in some way different, an aspect of the present would be more substantial?

Counterfactual history is a literary genre, not a mode of scientific argument, so it was a (pleasant) surprise to come upon the following in a thoughtful and provocative article entitled "Default positions: how neuroscience's historical legacy has hampered investigation of the resting mind" by F. Callard, J. Smallwood, and D.S. Margulies, which appears in Frontiers in Psychology:

"... a compelling body of literature – largely unknown or disregarded ... – ... documents various methods to investigate the processes characterizing activities pursued during so-called “idle time” ... what we now refer to as self-generated mental activity including daydreaming, fantasy, mind-wandering, and dissociation. It is not difficult to see that if these research domains had flourished ... rather than been neglected, our vocabulary for describing self-generated thought would have been richer; our methods to investigate such thought more creative; and hence our capacities to interpret the psychological meaning of different forms of spontaneous neural activity in different systems, including the mental life and associated neural systems of the [Default Mode Network], more substantial."

"Science."

What little we have ever understood
is like an offering we make beside the sea.
It is pure worship when pursued
as its own end, to find out. Mystery,
the undiminishable silent flood,
stretches on out from where we pray
round the clear altar flame. The god
accepts the sacrifice and turns away.

"Science" by Ursula K. Le Guin, from Finding My Elegy: New and Selected Poems 1960-2010.


h/t: The Writer's Almanac

"To be a successful soldier you must know history."

Today is the 75th anniversary of George S. Patton's anticipation of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

On June 3, 1937, Patton filed a report that foresaw the attack that would take place on December 7, 1941.

A proof of the existence of an intelligent proofreader? [NeuroCooking FlashBack]

Just one sentence was deleted, the last sentence of an appendix-of-sorts at the end of a brief (three-page) article. And that deletion appeared to me to be a proof of the existence of an intelligent (if not loving) proofreader.

A few years ago I was invited to contribute a brief introductory article to a special issue of a magazine. So I did.

The professional society that publishes this magazine (and many journals) requests (insists) that every author supply a brief professional biographical sketch (the usual stuff: training, appointments, research interests), to appear at the end of the article. So I did.

Only, when I got the page proofs back (in PDF form), I found that the final sentence of my biographical sketch was gone!

I didn't mind. I certainly wasn't offended, nor did I think that this editing reflected poorly on the journal or its publisher. Indeed, I took the deletion of the final sentence of my draft biosketch to be a sign of the existence of an intelligent proofreader. As in "hey, someone is really reading this stuff!"

And that sentence? It was:

A son of the Garden State, Dr. Pekar is especially grateful to have worked with so many international scientists, who tend to lack the irrational prejudice against New Jersey so prevalent among his own countrymen.

____
This post first appeared in August, 2009. 

"Finally, SUPEREGO-related neural activity was localized to lateral prefrontal and parietal cortex."

"A Triple Dissociation of Neural Systems Supporting ID, EGO, and SUPEREGO" (because "... Social Neuroscience, Neuroeconomics, and Developmental Social Cognitive Affective Clinical Neuroscience are just not cutting edge enough anymore...") appears in Psyence.