#NeuroThursday returns with the first in a sporadic-but-ongoing discussion of the curiosities of handedness. We begin by asking: is handedness genetic or learned?
I have another neuroscience essay up online: this one, Tools and Problems of Human Neuroscience, on the beloved File 770! Click on through to learn about some cutting-edge tools of modern human neuroscience, and how they might (or might not) still be used in a science fictional future.
Bonus: you get to see some pictures of me with electrical equipment strapped to my head!
#NeuroThursday week 4: Stories about Santiago Ramón y Cajal, discoverer of neurons, draftsman, and – no joke – science fiction author.
#NeuroThursday continues with some stories behind the myth that “you only use 10% of your brain!”
Today I present the second installment of #NeuroThursday: why your brain uses twice as much energy as your heart!
I have begun a semi-regular Twitter feature: #NeuroThursday, where I discuss some cool neuroscience-related or -inspired topic for a public audience. The inaugural topic is Neolithic trephination!
(Yes, I know today is Friday. Shhh.)
Please let me know, here or elsewhere, if you have any topics you’d like me to think about. The more ideas/requests I get, the more often I’ll be able to do this. I want to go broadly here: if you have any topic you’d like to hear a neuroscientist’s take on (from brain to behavior to ???), let me know and I’ll consider it!
My nonfiction neuroscience essay, “The Evolved Brain,” is up in the January issue of Clarkesworld!
I’d like to use this space for a bit of bonus content: the eleven links and footnotes I’d originally included. We decided to remove them during the editorial process, but if you want to see the sources for my claims, here they are for posterity:
- Dr. Marcus’ quote about what “No overarching theory of neuroscience could predict” comes from this New York Times editorial.
- For more details on the Information Processing (IP) model, this wikipedia page is a good place to start.
- The quotation “All models are wrong, but some models are useful” is generally attributed to George Box, in this book’s original 1978 edition. The variant “models have no truth value” comes from this 2013 article on Bayesian statistics.
- For “our decisions remain riddled with biases and errors” (and “sloppy and unreliable kludges”), I like to cite this wikipedia article. If you printed out that list of cognitive biases, it would stretch for 10.5 pages.
- “Moral uncertainty induces movement uncertainty” is reviewed in this article. It’s a more general phenomenon about cognitive states influencing action, but the more difficult yes/no judgment questions include ones like “is murder ever justified?” (See the “High-Level Decision Making” section, starting on page 4.)1
- “Conscious memory is an unreliable reconstruction” is a widely-known phenomenon, but there’s a good academic review here, and good wikipedia examples here (including the “see also” links at the bottom).
- The presence of separate systems for vision-for-perception and vision-for-action is a discovery of wikipedia-level magnitude.
- The way optical illusions separate vision-for-perception from vision-for-action was first confirmed here…
- …and here is the specific example of the Ebbinghaus Illusion unaffected by vision-for-action. This is one of my all-time-favorite articles, because its main thrust is about the strange interaction between the two visual subsystems and handedness. But that’s a whole separate article.
- The role of the cerebellum in movement self-prediction has been understood since at least 1998.
- The Affordance Competition Hypothesis is best described in this 2010 review, but sadly not available for free anywhere online. The 2007 original article is available, but much less readable.
- If you want to watch those neurons following the ACH, those data originally come from this 2005 study, though you can find a lovely graphical summary in the article linked in #5, as well as the 2010 article in #11.
Finally, if you haven’t read the essay “The Brain is Not a Computer” (Aeon magazine, May 2016), I recommend it. I agree with its overall direction, and I think it makes a lot of good points, but it fails because it relies on a straw-man misunderstanding of the IP model, tied to the specifics of computer architecture. The internet is full of rebuttals, and largely fair ones. That’s why I wrote “The Evolved Brain” to show not why the IP model is wrong, but instead why it’s unhelpful, if your goal is to understand the human brain and experience.
Let me keep the coals hot here with a quick monthly update…
- More travel. Oh god the travel. But it was fun! I ate 5 thanksgiving dinners! And now I’m back.
- Novel revisions coming along, a little behind schedule, currently hope to be done by the year’s end.
- May be shifting up my convention plans for 2017. Jumping toward the Nebulas, which may mean skipping Capricon. Still aiming for Worldcon but don’t know enough about my summer schedule.
- I wrote and submitted a nonfiction article to a major market! They accepted the concept pitch, but we’ll see about the article itself. “The Evolved Brain” is based on the second half of the talk I gave to the Viable Paradise Reunion in October.
- Attended the Viable Paradise 20th reunion, and gave a neuroscience talk on how to understand the brain. For the countless among you who missed it, fear not: I’m working on adapting my talk into a nonfiction article for various publications!
- Finished up a new short story, “The Hammer’s Prayer.” It’s in the second-draft stage, will need some more thought & revision before it’ll be ready for launch.
- Sold my first reprint, of a short story that didn’t get spread far on its first sale!
- Continuing apace with second-draft revisions of the novel. May not hit my December 1 self-imposed deadline, but I won’t be too far behind it.
- Thus, instead of doing NaNoWriMo, I’m doing NaNoFiReMo. (That’s “Finish Revising.” Or “fire,” as needed.) But no promises since I have multiple end-of-November deadlines.
- Current short story status: 11 submissions circulating, 3 of them shortlisted.
I spent last weekend at the Social & Cultural Issues in Astrobiology 2016 conference at Clemson University, South Carolina. A small academic conference (~30 people) discussing nonscientific issues surrounding astrobiology and space exploration, and an absolutely amazing chance to spend two days thinking through the future among some of the world’s foremost thinkers and researchers on the topic.
If you poke around the website, you can find abstracts on all 26 talks: two one-hour keynotes and 24 half-hour talks on everything from ethics to gene theory. Starting on the 3rd talk1, I livetweeted my notes and comments. For an overview of some of the top concerns and opinions around space travel, take a look through the Storifies below!