Thought Pangaea

In order to reboot the economy, we need to learn from the game of Monopoly. Everyone starts with the same amount of money and as the game goes on, people can use their wit and luck to progress.

You might think this thought crossed my mind while reading a finance article or a book on Economics (or while playing Monopoly). However, this thought really entered my unusual brain while I was analyzing the power in the beta-band of my subject's EEG data. Let me you walk through my intricate and strange thought process.

1. EEG Analysis
2. Thinking about a conversation that distracted me during lunch
3. History of how China got its name
4. How these distractions can postpone my graduation (Thanks Yan!)
5. If the recession persists, will I have to move to China?
6. What is the solution to this problem?
8. Monopoly!

This bizarre process, which only took about 100msec, led me to another question. What is the significance of of our brain's digression? Wouldn't we be more efficient if we could compartmentalize our thoughts? Our productivity would increase; our emotions would be less obstructive and overall, we would be much happier. Then why are we evolutionary programmed to think within this mess?

Despite of what the textbooks illustrate, there are no defined boundaries for brain regions. Every brain is unique. In addition, the brain is an organ of both complex anatomy and even more labyrinthine function. Each crevice has its individual purpose and yet it blends in with the whole. Unlike computers, we cannot choose which programs to shut down and which ones to run. They are all running simultaneously without regard to the RAM available. Even past events are saved comprehensively. A distinct smell or an unusual color are capable of provoking the most profound memories.

While this enables us to appreciate the potential of the human brain, isn't it in some ways throwing us off-course? Do I really need to think about summers in India and consequently, sweet mangoes, whenever it rains? Must I let my mind wander among the memories of an old friend at the whiff of AXE? Is there a purpose to thinking about Monopoly while analyzing EEG data?

I view this phenomenon as a Pangaea of thoughts: one in which there are no boundaries to where your mind can wander.  Once upon a time, our world also used to be boundary-free. I am not going to dwell on the influence of plate tectonics on the development of culture and society. However, I will comment on the significance of digression.

"Perhaps imagination is only intelligence having fun." Scialabba is right. If Steve jobs did not let his imagination take over, we would not have the treasure that is Pixar. If Salinger had not digressed, my favorite book wouldn't have been The Catcher in the Rye. Chocolate chip cookies are a result of Wakefield's creative cooking. And the implantable cardiac pacemaker is a product of a wrong sized resistor that was inserted in a recording device by Greatbatch. To his surprise, the circuit began pulsing, just like the human heart.

Our brain's ability to digress is a symbol of freedom and a sign of potential. So, the next time I space out in lab, I will consider it a blessing. Who knows, while indulged in signal processing, I could come up with a way to achieve world peace!

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!"


:)

Pseudo Reality

"Among other things, you'll find that you're not the first person who was ever confused and frightened and even sickened by human behavior. You're by no means alone on that score, you'll be excited and stimulated to know. Many, many men have been just as troubled morally and spiritually as you are right now. Happily, some of them kept records of their troubles. You'll learn from them - if you want to. Just as someday, if you have something to offer, someone will learn something from you. It's a beautiful reciprocal arrangement. And it isn't education. It's history. It's poetry." ~J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye

Human behavior has always fascinated me, but recently, I've had the opportunity of analyzing it with a novel perspective. Being a biomedical engineer comes with its perks, and one of them is the ability to break apart every aspect of human and represent it in terms of models and equations. While this ability has advanced us greatly in the field of technology and medicine, it brings me back to a very commonly asked question. Who are we?

None of the proposed mechanisms have been able to holistically represent the human. Even when taken apart into components of mind and body, not one definition justifies the numerous theories and observations that account for what we call human behavior.

However, this is not an attempt to analyze human behavior, but instead it is an effort to take a characteristic displayed by the majority and discuss its pros and cons. As represented by the urge to converge to a solution, ironically, one distinct human characteristic is the need to categorize. This is quite obvious in both history and science. We built societies, religions, and generalized equations to group similar subjects(people, phenomena, animals, etc). One may argue that this innate need is actually to develop an organized view of the world and function more efficiently in that model.

First of all, like any model, our personal human model of the world is also not honest. It is biased, tainted, and sometimes just absurd. Secondly, categories establish differences and in order to attain efficiency, these differences need to contribute to the easier accomplishment of something. But often, these differences aren't a medium for ease. They are instead obstacles that provide for worthless basis on which to separate ourselves. They are products of fear and insecurity. This brings me to my third point, that categories don't make us efficient, but they make us comfortable. They accommodate for our vulnerability.

So maybe they do have a functional role in our evolution, but is this need to group still necessary? Or better yet, would the human race be better off without self-proclaimed differences?

I recall an incident that occurred when I was just a naive freshmen, thrown into the world of engineering. As I aimlessly struggled with the post-processing of some very noisy data, my mentor intervened. "Adjust the cutoff frequency to eliminate your garbage data, leaving you with a clean signal." I wonder if we are modulating our cutoff frequencies in order to conveniently alienate certain groups. I also speculate whether the threshold could be lowered enough to include everyone in the entire human race as one giant group. Simplify each being's existence. Alternatively, the threshold could be set so high, that the group reduces to one person and each person becomes a group. The quality of individuality is what we refer to as "unique."

So, I leave you with some questions. Should we abandon this urge to group and find a belonging within that group? Is the nature of characterization hindering human progress? While we know that the recognition of differences may be the root cause of many evil conflicts, will embracing those differences make room for peace? Or will that in turn just seed a new way for human evil to emerge? How can society value conformity, but also uniqueness? Paradoxically, how can a person who claims to be unique(a quality highly prized by the community) conform to society's expectations of being unique?

I certainly hope you all will be rather creative and individualistic in your answers and conform to my high expectations! :)