Apoptotic blues

"It is a storm indeed,
but a storm of murk." - William Styron

My adviser sent me an article (http://nyti.ms/HK1jIQ) about an hour ago. It outlined the history of a field that I am very intimately involved in: depression. While I leave the scientific questions that were triggered, for the development of my dissertation, I will paint a picture here of the cascade of emotions and a train of philosophical questions(that are also structured in a scientific manner) that were provoked.

The basis of the article was that much of the brain is still a mystery. Although great minds are slowly uncovering the layers, we are finding underneath them a plethora of messy details that need to be sorted. Amidst this disarray, lies the phenomenon of depression. What struck me most about this article, was the connection between neuronal growth and the maintenance of a "happy" state. It implied that emotional well-being was buried in the connections between different brain regions.

So then it makes sense why some of your memories are permanent while others still are transient. To relive a memory means to strengthen the connections associated with it. If that memory is associated with an emotional high, you assume a joyful state. However, if that memory is associated with an emotional low, you descend into a sad or depressive state. This led to several questions.

What is the statistical mode of my memories? In other words, which of my memories do I re-live the most? If I assume my theory about strengthening connections is true, then an old childhood memory probably has been relived the most because it had the most chances to be retrieved. Maybe it is the time when I won my first dance competition at age 3. Or maybe the day I dressed up as a frog for my ice-skating show. Or perhaps the time when I got stabbed in the back with a pencil by my sister. Or it must be the incident from National Park in Dubai when I spelled "red" incorrectly. Yes, it must be the last one since I now spell my colors correctly.

In contrast, I could have only re-lived an event that happened yesterday a couple times because of the limits of time. However, is it not true that our recent past is more indicative of our current state than something from decades ago? I instantly feel a sense of pride and nostalgia when someone mentions Cornell or IIT. I can't help but blush when a song comes on and the lyrics include the name of my latest crush. And I am still experiencing a happy high from the chocolate binging I indulged in last night. Perhaps the element of temporal distance (how far is t-event from t-present) should be included with the weight of frequency.

However, this model fails to include another aspect of current state. The brain lives in 3 tenses: the past, the present AND the future. In order to accurately predict the present state, one must also account for future events. Our minds are constantly preparing for the future whether that future is a few hours away (thinking about your next meal) or a few days away (thinking about your upcoming deadline). Sometimes we look forward to these events and on other occasions we just want to get through them. Our attitude towards this future event further determines our current state. I can attest to this personally, because every year, I am in a constant state of joy from Dec 24- Feb 24th and on Jan 24th, my birthday, I experience an exceptional high. For this reason, I will re-label temporal distance and call it a temporal radius to add the effect of future.

For now these parameters will suffice in helping me determine my current state. In a mathematical sense:

C-present = sum(C-past) + sum(C-future)
C(memory) = {frequency*(-1)^n}/t-radius
---- n = 0 for positive memories and 1 for negative memories
---- t-radius = absolute value (t-event - t-present)

However, this leads me into a infinite sum since I have infinite memories. This is because the reality of my brain which includes my thoughts, imaginations, dreams and experiences is much more complex than the reality of my life which only includes facts. So I return to my initial observation: emotional state is an enigma. And to make a conclusion about your current state, all you can do, is ask yourself. How do I feel right now?

I feel like I am crawling through a nebulous tunnel in a dense jungle with no cracks for a ray of sunshine. And to this my old friend Mary said, "Burn a match!"


:)

Reciprocity Theorem

In electromagnetism, reciprocity states that if the current densities (sources) are exchanged, their respective fields can be switched too. In terms of electrostatics, if the voltage source in one branch of the circuit produces a current in the other, the same current will be produced in the first branch if the source is moved to the second. Reciprocity has applications in politics (Canadian free trade with the US) and photography as well. In simple English, source and destination are interchangeable.

This is a mighty, powerful theorem for it simplifies computation, eases understanding and supplements the modeling of many complex systems. But as usual, I wonder if this scientific concept can be translated into real life. Can we exchange sources and destinations without changing certain results?

When it comes to traveling, this is true. The distance from point a to point b is the same as the distance from point b to a. However, can we elevate this concept into something even less objective?

I just watched My sister's Keeper. I am not one to get sensitive during movies, but this one certainly captured my emotions. It's a story about a teenager, Kate, who suffers from cancer. Her younger sister, Anna, has been donating her marrow since birth. During an incredibly crucial moment, she refuses to allow her parents to make any more medical decisions on her behalf. When Kate was three, she was diagnosed with cancer. Since they could not find a marrow match for her, the parents had to conceive another child. This child was Anna. To me, this is a brilliant case of irony. There is ambiguity in who is the source and who is the destination. Is Anna the source since she has been donating her marrow to Kate her entire life? Or is Kate the source as her sickness is the very reason for Anna's existence? The truth is, no matter who the source is, the result is still that of sisterhood. Reciprocity exists.

It is difficult to justify reciprocal relationships in our subjective lives. However, we can analyze this concept for a single instant. At a particular time point and in a certain relationship, there must exist a source (someone who is giving) and a sink (someone who is receiving). At a later time point, the relationship may be reversed. One such example is that of parents and kids. Until a certain age, parents are the care-givers. However, at some point, it becomes the child's responsibility to care for the parents. I suppose reciprocity exists for romantic relationships in an oscillatory fashion.

However, today is a day to discuss the reciprocity between a prankster and his victim. If you are the prankster, make sure you devised an intelligent trick. If you are the victim, have a sense of humor and make sure you reverse your role next time ;). Either way, the result is to have fun.

Happy April Fool's Day!

ps: Add me on Draw something. It's the technological epitome of reciprocity. You can switch off between being the draw-er and the guess-er oh so frequently! ;)