Category Archives: Neuroscience

Sex in the brain

You don’t see a lot of commentary about the rather sexual nature of the synaptic functionality of neurons in the brain. But consider the process… you have an extension of the neuron (the axon) which closes in on various receptors on other neurons. It then ejaculates neurotransmitters towards these receptors. It’s clearly a sexual act.

We often refer to the “birth” of an idea. Being that ideas are fundamentally the firings of neural networks, this metaphor makes a lot of sense. You can envision one neuron, perched atop another, pumping away, screaming, “Oh God! Oh God! Yeah, that’s it you dirty little whore! Keep doing it! I’m coming! I’m coming!!! ARRGHHHH!!!” And what is the result of this process? Einstein’s theory of relativity. John Coltrane’s “Giant Steps” progression. My various acid logic articles. All the great ideas have fundamentally libidinous sexual beginnings.

Is all known reality a lie?

In science fiction stories, you often hear mention of the possibility of alternate realities, or the concept that even our reality doesn’t work the way we think it does. H.P. Lovecraft had a big hard on for alternate dimensions where our rules of space and time did not apply.

I’ve never really understood these ideas because it just seems like even if we’re in some way biased because of our sensory organs (maybe the color you see as red is my green, for example) reality still has to follow some basic rules. Space has to have three dimensions (length, width and depth) right?

I’ve been reading an interesting physics book which does start to explain how this might not be so. In essence, we have to really examine the limitations of our senses. Let’s think about vision. How does it work? Well, if I see some red object in the upper left-hand corner of my field of vision, a certain retinal cell programmed to fire at red light fires. Repeat the process for all locations and for the colors red, green and blue, and you basically have the experience we know as sight*. But let’s say we rewired someone’s brain so that instead of seeing red at that point in their field of vision when a red light wave hit their retinal cell, they instead heard a D-flat note at some particular point in the stereo spectrum. This person could conceivably experience visual reality as an aural reality. Is their sound based reality any more or less “real” than our visual reality?

* Sight is, of course, a bit more complicated. Here’s more details.

The point being that our sensory experience of reality — particularly vision — is at best a metaphor for “real” reality. Maybe our sense of three dimensions, for example, or time, is simply such a metaphor. And perhaps other metaphors to understand reality are conceivable (probably requiring completely different sensory organs.)

Does that totally blow your mind?

Jonah Lehrer, self plagiarist

Interesting… Jonah Lehrer, a science writer who writes a lot about the brain and whose work I have commented on in the past, has just been caught recycling his own writing. Apparently he was taking material from old columns he did for the Wall Street Journal and attempting to pass it off as new material in the New Yorker.

On one hand, you always read these stories and wonder how the guy didn’t think he would be caught. As a writer, you want to be read, and as a successful writer you presume people are reading your work which means there’s a strong likelihood someone will notice the similarity in material.

At the same time, I’ve always found it a little hard to get particularly upset about plagiarism. If I do some research and find a particular paragraph about some point, then rewrite it so that it is new material that contains the same gist (by doing things like swapping out a word like “traveling” with “journeying” etc.) have I really accomplished anything meaningful? Shouldn’t I just save myself some time and replicate the paragraph exactly?

Nonetheless, it does seem unfair for someone to be paid for plagiarism. Thus, I think we are right to condemn people who repeat material, even if it’s material they, themselves, authored.

Nonetheless, it does seem unfair for someone to be paid for plagiarism. Thus, I think we are right to condemn people who repeat material, even if it’s material they, themselves, authored.

Reality bites

The discussion I brought up earlier this week about the evolving notions of “cool” has been kicking off some interesting thoughts for me. When I was in my 20s I had a pretty acute sense of what was cool. I knew that a particular subculture — say, punk — thought that these bands were cool, whereas some other subculture — say, metal — thought these bands were cool etc. And I understood that the same rules applied to books and movies etc. I was aware of the constant tension between various subcultures and the mainstream and how that all played out in the arena of cool. And, of course, I had my own notions of what was cool… an individual sense of cool, you might say.

My point here is that I really put a value on these notions of cool. Coolness was a “real” quality of objects and ideas. It actually existed.

That started to change for me after 9/11 and the ensuing Iraq war. Both events kind of brought forth the fact that there was a big chunk of human culture out there — the Muslim/Arab world — that really had no interest in Western notions of cool. I can specifically remember ruminating on the fact that your average Iraqi probably had zero interest in Led Zeppelin. Not just in the music of Led Zeppelin, but in Led Zeppelin as a concept, or contextualization, or icon or whatever. And from there, of course, I had to concede that the same was probably too with many Chinese, Indians, Eskimos and Pakistanis etc. This whole idea of cool I place so much value in was basically ignored by most of humanity. This wasn’t some huge emotional shock for me but there was something a little disturbing and humbling about it.

As time has gone on, and I’ve really gotten into neuroscience and physics, I’ve become even more removed from the world of “cool.” Now I’m acutely aware that our senses give us, at best, a vague representation of the real world. By “real world” I’m not referring to the hit MTV show (which was never cool) but all that stuff out there — atoms, and molecules and laws of gravity and light etc. So ideas of “cool” — while important to the study of human culture — are close to meaningless in “reality.”

As a result, I really think the subcultures people affix themselves to — whether they are subcultures based on a musical style, religion, or political viewpoint — are fundamentally prisons. “Man-made prisons,” as Kramer from Seinfeld would say, that prevent you from seeing reality as it exists. (Of course, as explained in the above paragraph, we can never really see reality as it exists.) Only an elite few, such as myself, can handle the truth of reality. Everyone else is scum.

Hey baby – check out my love molecule

There’s a new book out called “The Moral Molecule”; the book argues that the brain’s release of the neurotransmitter oxytocin is responsible for much of mankind’s “good” behavior (being loving and affectionate, caring for children etc.) Oxytocin is known to be released during sex, after giving birth and after consuming ecstasy (“the love drug.”) Conversely, stress inhibits oxytocin release and we know we tend to be jerks while under pressure.

Interestingly there are people who lack functioning oxytocin receptors. What are they like? This interview with the author gets into that question.

…we found about 95 percent of the thousands of people we tested around the world, as you said, even in the jungles of Papua New Guinea, release oxytocin on stimulus, so it seems to be close to a human universal. The 5 percent who don’t are very interesting. In these individuals, they have an ex ante identifiable oxytocin dysfunction that likely comes from the level of the receptors. So what does that mean in normal English? It means if I replace oxytocin, say pharmacologically, in these people, I’m not going to have much of an effect because the receptors are missing or dysfunctional. So it’s not as simple as that. For example, we studied…so about 1 or 2 percent of these individuals are psychopaths, and most psychopaths are born… psychopaths kind of have a bad genetic draw and seem to lack these receptors, and again we can identify them biologically ex ante. You can [also] create psychopaths. We’ve shown in studies of repeatedly sexually abused women that enough abuse will actually shut down the brain circuit that oxytocin activates—potentiates—and if you do that, you have a sort of acquired psychopathology.

So, whether born or made, a dysfunctional oxytocin system can result in psychopathy. This opens up some interesting moral questions. How can we punish psychopaths for their immoral behavior when they lack a moral toolset to behave well? That’s like punishing retarded children for being stupid.

The whole interview is interesting and I think I’ll eventually read the book. It seems clear that oxytocin is, for all intents and purposes, what we refer to as “love.” As a result, I suggest rewriting the classic Beatles song, “All You Need is Love” as follows.

All you need is oxytocin
All you need is oxytocin
All you need is oxytocin, yeah,
and a functioning oxytocin delivery system!

The augmented humans are here!

A recurring idea in a lot of science fiction is that of society splitting into two distinct groups: 1) advanced, wealthy meta-humans whom can use technology to expand on their existing biological functions and 2) second-class morlock humans who cannot afford such augmentation and live in the sewers, perhaps selling their body parts to the overclass. As time would progress, these differences of class would increase exponentially: augmented humans would get better and better while morlocks would stagnate. My alliance in this fictional scenario of course lies with the superior augmented humans; weak morons (e.g “average” people) should be utilized only as slaves and then disposed of.

But is this idea merely fiction? This quite interesting interview with a neuroscientist about brain-to-computer interactions makes the following point:

Finally, there’s another huge moral issue coming around the horizon, and that is, let’s say we can restore function in the supernatural fashion. Let’s say by placing an implant we could increase your IQ by 20 points. Well, do we as surgeons and clinicians take on potentially risky procedures to give people 20 IQ points, knowing full well that that’s probably something only the wealthy are going to be able to afford and knowing that many people who do not have financial resources are not going to be able to have their IQ improved by 20 points. These are very sticky moral issues that there is no easy solution to.

There actually is an easy solution: Kill the weak and drink their brains in a healthy fruit/protein/brain shake.

Is individuality possible?

I mentioned recently the interesting case of several schoolgirls in a small town who have developed Tourette’s like facial and body tics. The behavior is presumed to be psychogenic – the girls are “giving” each other the disease in a process of empathy gone awry – a extreme version of our Zelig-like tendency to match the vocal inflections and body gestures of people we want to like us. Our old friends the mirror neurons – neurons that fire both when you perform an action and when you watch others perform the same action – are presumed to be involved.

In “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat” Oliver Sacks reports observing a woman on the streets of New York who had (presumably) Tourette’s. She fell into a fit of imitating the numerous passerbys around her. He describes the scene…

I have seen countless mimes and mimics, clowns and antics, but nothing touched the horrible wonder I now beheld: this virtually instantaneous, automatic and convulsive mirroring of every face and figure… The woman not only took on, and took in, the features of countless people, she took them off. Every mirroring was also a parody, a mocking, an exaggeration of salient gestures and expressions – a consequence of the violent acceleration and distortion of all her motions. Thus a slow smile, monstrously accelerated, would become a violent, milliseconds-long grimace; an ample gesture, accelerated, would become a farcical convulsive movement.

This sounds like mirror neurons gone insane – forcing the gestures and expressions observed by the eye onto the brain (and from there to the face and body.) Sacks notes that it resulted in a feedback loop – people passing her became angry at her imitation and soon her face was mimicking their anger.

Now, a while back I was contemplating the world on ants. How can they construct their vast underground cities when each individual ant has only meager intelligence? They seem to be able to coordinate their efforts (even with no language as we understand the term) for the good of the colony. If individual ants can act as parts of a greater whole – gears and levers in an orgnic machine – an interesting question pops up related humans. I phrased it as…

Are we — individual humans — nodes in a vast cosmic intelligence, a super advanced ant colony? Are we merely parts of a machine whose complexity is so vast and overwhelming that we can’t begin to comprehend it?

I’m not sure this intelligence really would need to be cosmic, but, do we, as social beings, have our minds subtly acted upon by our fellows? Is the behavior of this Tourette’s woman or the behaviors of these psychogenic schoolgirls merely an extreme version of something we all do? If so, what does that say for autonomy? It becomes clear that the only way to live as an individual is to avoid all your fellow humans and their mind controlling influences. If one approaches, perhaps saying something like, “Hey Wil, I’ve got that PowerPoint presentation you were asking about,” we should whip out our ninja sword and cleanly remove their head from their shoulders.

I said CLEANLY!

Sacks on self

I’ve mentioned the concept that maladies of the body – pain and perhaps gastrointestinal and heart issues – have an emotional component e.g. people who suffer these problems are not emotionally “balanced.” To put it another way, “who you are” can have an affect on your physical state. This is a point of view that seems to be gaining traction but only in very recent times. And yet, I just stumbled across this in Oliver Sack’s 1985 book “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.”

The patient’s essential being is very relevant in the higher reaches of neurology, and in psychology; for here the patient’s personhood is essentially involved, and the study of disease and identity cannot be disjoined. Such disorders, and their depiction and study, indeed entail a new discipline, which we may call the ‘neurology of identity’, for it deals with the neural foundations of the self, the age old problem of mind and brain. It is possible that there must, of necessity, be a gulf, a gulf of category, between the psychical and the physical; but studies and stories pertaining simultaneously and inseparably to both – and it is these which especially fascinate me, and which (on the whole) I present here – may nonetheless serve to bring them nearer, to bring us to the very intersection of mechanism and life, to the relation of physiological processes to biography.

To be clear, I presume Sacks is not talking about emotional sources of physical pain or dysfunction but rather neurological issues that attack the very fabric of a person’s “self.” (Say, having complete memory loss.) But he does argue for a connection between “mind” and body, between physiological processes and biography (e.g. “who you are.”) This seems to be a view very ahead of its time.

The right balance

Lately I’ve been paying attention to how different foods and substances that I ingest (caffeine, booze etc.) affect my concentration. I find, for instance, that when my blood sugar’s low (say, right before lunch) it’s hard to concentrate and absorb information. The first couple cups of coffee are great for focussing but too many has the opposite affect. I think a lot of the learning process is related to finding the right chemical balance for your metabolism.

It would be interesting to find out whether successful, learned people have a balance of chemicals in the brain and body that allows them to stay focused for long periods. If that turned out to be true, normal people could develop similar abilities by sticking a straw into the heads of successful people and drinking their brains.

Who knew getting smart could taste so good!?