Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Neural Bottleneck Found That Thwarts Multi-tasking

Friday, January 19th, 2007

Science Daily Many people think they can safely drive while talking on their cell phones. Vanderbilt neuroscientists Paul E. Dux and René Marois have found that when it comes to handling two things at once, your brain, while fast, isn’t that fast.

“Why is it that with our incredibly complex and sophisticated brain, with 100 billion neurons processing information at rates of up to a thousand times a second, we still have such a crippling inability to do two tasks at once?” Marois, associate professor of Psychology, asked. “For example, what is it about our brain that gives us such a hard time at being able to drive and talk on a cell phone simultaneously?”

Researchers have long thought that a central “bottleneck” exists in the brain that prevents us from doing two things at once. Dux and Marois are the first to identify the regions of the brain responsible for this bottleneck, by examining patterns of neural activity over time. Their results were published in the Dec. 21 issue of Neuron.

“In our everyday lives, we seem to complete so many cognitive tasks effortlessly. However, we experience severe limitations when we try to do even two simple tasks at once, such as pressing a button when a visual stimulus appears and saying a word when a sound is presented. This is known as dual-task interference,” Dux, a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Psychology, said. “We were interested in trying to understand these limitations and in finding where in the brain this bottleneck might be taking place.”

More…

Dawkins, Darwinism, Reductionism, Emergent Properties and Causality

Wednesday, January 17th, 2007

A friend of mine sent me an article today to read. It is an excellent article by Richard Dawkins – well worth reading. It is called What Good Is Religion and you will find it here:

If the possible intersection of Dawkins, Darwinism, Reductionism, Emergent Properties and Causality intrigues you, then I encourage you to follow the arrow link, above, now and read Dawkins’ piece. It’s not too long – about four pages worth. Then come back here and press on with the rest of this post because this is a commentary on his article.

————————–

An excellent and interesting read. Dawkins has certainly become a foremost spokesperson for what one might term ‘hard-Darwinism’. His explanation of why religion survives – that it goes along for the ride when nature selects children who automatically believe the wisdom of their elders, makes a lot of sense. Or, in other words – it sounds good. But, let’s be cautious here because there is also a deep truth around that for any given set of facts or observations, there can be many equally plausible sounding explanations.

But, in general, I liked the article. If I had quibbles, they would be two:

At one point, Dawkins quotes Steven Pinker to buttress a point he’s trying to make:

…it only raises the question of why a mind would evolve to find comfort in beliefs it can plainly see are false. A freezing person finds no comfort in believing he is warm; a person face-to-face with a lion is not put at ease by the conviction that it is a rabbit.

This is a bogus example, to me, because it only works so long as you stay within the domain it provides for you. But that domain is unrealistic. Our experiences are made of of both the concrete and the abstract whereas his example involves just concrete observables. And our minds are certainly capable of evolving to find comforts in abstractions which we are unlikely to be able to prove false. The very question of God’s existence is, I believe, not provable one way or the other so it is an abstraction and an unprovable one. Now if people prove fitter, as they complete to survive, because they’ve chosen to embrace this abstraction, then surely the tendency to embrace it will be conserved in their progeny.

My second quibble is that Dawkins seems to be an unrepentant reductionist. In the last 20 years, science has changed from being utterly dominated by reductionist thinking to a having a new and general perception that reductionism and complexity/emergent properties are just two equally valid and alternative ways of looking at the world around us. Whereas one studies how to take it apart, the other looks into how it assembles together.

To wit, when Dawkins goes on about chicken pecking orders, he disparages stable groupings of chickens as good Darwinian subjects because they are a group-level phenomenon. But, isn’t a stable group of chickens, as he describes them, an emergent property and aren’t emergent properties conserved? If the individual tendencies of chickens to respect stronger chickens and to dominate weaker chickens aggregates into an emergent property that we call a Stable Group of Chickens and that stable group yields more eggs and thus contributes more genes to the pool, then why should we discriminate against it? He wants to reduce everything down to Darwinian minimums but emergent properties all up and down the scale of biological complexity are conserved.

Why should this tendency towards a reductionist Darwinism have been conserved in Dawkins’ brain?

Well, perhaps the problem with run-away reductionism is that it wants to reduce nature’s causality to the kind of causality we humans can understand easily which is basically sequential logic like if A then B. But, nature has no such limits or notions. Its causality flows freely – be it down sequentially logical chains of cause and effect or up through emergent properties and everywhere in between through every form of parallelism or sequentiality. This natural ‘everything is happening at once and affecting most everything else as it does’ way of being, which nature manifests, is extremely difficult for humans to comprehend, describe or quantify so we are constantly coming up with tremendous oversimplifications and then reifying them into pictures of how things work that we feel are good – because we can understand them. Dawkins would like it to be simple – with one explanation to dominate them all. But nature doesn’t care what Dawkins wants and goes where it will. As difficult as it may be, we need explanations that model nature – rather than reflect our shortcomings.

– research thanks to Alan T.

Protection for ‘weirdest’ species

Wednesday, January 17th, 2007

A conservation programme for some of the world’s most bizarre and unusual creatures has been launched by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL).

Species like the bumblebee bat and the pygmy hippopotamus will be protected under the Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered (Edge) project.

The scheme targets animals with unique evolutionary histories that are facing a real risk of extinction.

The ZSL says many of these species are ignored by existing conservation plans.

The Society defines Edge animals as having few close relatives, genetically distinct, and require immediate action to save them from extinction.

More…

Rare Plant From Dinosaur Age

Monday, January 15th, 2007

Science Daily A relic plant that once co-existed with dinosaurs has taken up residence in the University of Wisconsin-Madison botany greenhouses.

Woolemi Pine at UW Madison

Known as the Wollemi Pine, the plant was presumed extinct until a “bushwalker” named David Noble discovered it in an Australian national park in 1994. As part of a worldwide effort to conserve and propagate the tree species – one of the oldest and rarest on earth – botany greenhouse director Mo Fayyaz recently purchased a foot-tall Wollemi pine seedling. A limited number of the plants just became available in the United States through National Geographic.

More…

For Human Eyes Only

Monday, January 15th, 2007

– I find this idea a bit weak because it doesn’t address the fact that many people of oriental extraction have eyes which are quite narrow and thus it is hard to see the whites of their eyes at all. Am I missing something here? Your comments are welcome.

———————————-

COL. WILLIAM PRESCOTT is said to have prepared his troops for a charge from the British Army at the Battle of Bunker Hill by telling his men, “Don’t one of you fire until you see the whites of their eyes.”

If the opposing army had not been British men but rather a horde of charging chimpanzees, the American troops would have been summarily overrun. Why? Because neither chimpanzees nor any of the other 220 species of nonhuman primates have whites of the eyes, at least not that can be easily seen. This means that if their eyes are looking in a direction other than the one in which their heads are pointing, we can easily be fooled about what they are looking at.

Why should humans be so different? And yet we are. We can’t fool anyone. The whites of our eyes are several times larger than those of other primates, which makes it much easier to see where the eyes, as opposed to the head, are pointed. Trying to explain this trait leads us into one of the deepest and most controversial topics in the modern study of human evolution: the evolution of cooperation.

More…

– research thanks to John P.

– This article is from the NY Times and they insist that folks have an ID and a PW in order to read their stuff. You can get these for free just by signing up. However, recently, a friend of mine suggested the website bugmenot.com as an alternative to having to do these annoying sign ups. Check it out. Thx Bruce S. for the tip.

Book Review – Blindsight by Peter Watts

Thursday, January 11th, 2007

This is a book review – of sorts. I’m not going to tell you anything other than that I love this book. And I’m going to give you an excerpt. Read it and make up your own mind….
————————————

You invest so much in it don’t you? It’s what elevates you above the beasts of the field, it’s what makes you special. Homo sapiens, you call yourself. Wise man. Do you even know what it is, this consciousness you cite in your own exaltation? Do you even know what it’s for?

Maybe you think it gives you free will. Maybe you’ve forgotten that sleepwalkers converse, drive vehicles, commit crimes and clean up afterward, unconscious the whole time. Maybe nobody’s told you that even waking souls are only slaves in denial.

Make a conscious choice. Decide to move your index finger. Too late! The electricity’s already half way down your arm. Your body began to act a full half-second before your conscious self “chose” to, for the self chose nothing; something else set your body in motion, sent an executive summary – almost an afterthought – to the homunculus behinds your eyes. That little man, that arrogant subroutine that thinks of itself as the person, mistakes correlation for causality: It reads the summary and it sees that hand move, and it thinks that one drove the other.

But ‘s not in charge. You’re not in charge. If free will even exists, it doesn’t share living space with the likes of you.

Insight, then. Wisdom. The quest for knowledge, the derivation of theorems, science and technology and all those exclusively Human pursuits that must surely rest on a conscious foundation. Maybe that’s what sentience would be for – if scientific breakthroughs didn’t spring fully formed from the subconscious mind, manifest themselves in dreams, as full-blown insights after a deep night’s sleep. It’s the most basic rule of the stymied researcher: stop thinking about the problem. Do something else. It will come to you if you just stop being conscious of it.

Every concert pianist knows that the surest way to ruin a performance is to be aware of what the fingers are doing. Every dancer and acrobat knows enough to let the mind go, let the body run itself. Every driver of any manual vehicle arrives at destinations with no recollection of the stops and turns and roads traveled in getting there. You are all sleepwalkers, whether climbing creative peaks or slogging through some mundane routine for the thousandth time. You are all sleepwalkers.

Don’t even try to talk about the learning curve. Don’t bother citing the months of deliberate practice that precede the unconscious performance, or the years of study and experiment leading up to the gift-wrapped eureka moment. So what if your lessons are all learned consciously? Do you think that proves there’s no other way? Heuristic software’s been learning from experience for over a hundred years. Machines master chess, cars learn to drive themselves, statistical programs face problems and design the experiments to solve them and you think that the only path to learning leads through sentience? You’re stone Age nomads, eking out some marginal existence on the veldt – denying even the possibility of agriculture, because hunting and gathering was good enough for your parents.

Do you want to know what consciousness is for? Do you want to know the only real purpose it serves? Training wheels. You can’t see both aspects of the Necker cube at once, so it lets you focus on one and dismiss the other. That’s a pretty half-assed way to parse reality. You’re always better off looking at more than one side of anything. Go on, try. Defocus. It’s the next logical step.

Oh, but you can’t. There’s something in the way.

And it’s fighting back.

* * *

Evolution has no foresight. Complex machinery develops its own agendas. Brains – cheat. Feedback loops evolve to promote stable heartbeats and then stumble upon the temptation of rhythm and music. The rush evoked by fractal imagery, the algorithms used for habitat selection, metastasize into art. Thrills that once had to be earned in increments of fitness can now be had from pointless introspection. Aesthetics rise unbidden from a trillion dopamine receptors, and the system moves beyond modeling the organism. It begins to model the very process of modeling. It consumes ever-more computational resources, bogs itself down with endless recursion and irrelevant simulations. Like the parasitic DNA that accretes in every natural genome, it persists and proliferates and produces nothing but itself. Metaprocesses bloom like cancer, and awaken, and call themselves I.

——————————————-

– from Blindsight by Peter Watts

A Curry A Day Keeps The Doctor Away?

Thursday, January 11th, 2007

Science Daily The chemical that gives spicy food its kick could hold the key to the next generation of anti-cancer drugs that will kill tumours with few or no side effects for the patient, say academics at The University of Nottingham.

A study by the scientists, published online in the journal Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, has proven for the first time that the chemical compound capsaicin — which is responsible for the burning sensation when we eat chillies — can kill cells by directly targeting their energy source.

It could mean that patients could control or prevent the onset of cancer by eating a diet rich in capsaicin and that existing products to treat conditions such as psoriasis and muscle strain, which contain the compound and are already approved for medical use, could be adapted to tackle this more serious disease.

More…

Caffeine Cuts Post-workout Pain By Nearly 50 Percent, Study Finds

Wednesday, January 10th, 2007

Science Daily Although it’s too soon to recommend dropping by Starbucks before hitting the gym, a new study suggests that caffeine can help reduce the post-workout soreness that discourages some people from exercising.

In a study to be published in the February issue of The Journal of Pain, a team of University of Georgia researchers finds that moderate doses of caffeine, roughly equivalent to two cups of coffee, cut post-workout muscle pain by up to 48 percent in a small sample of volunteers.

Lead author Victor Maridakis, a researcher in the department of kinesiology at the UGA College of Education, said the findings may be particularly relevant to people new to exercise, since they tend to experience the most soreness.

More…

Inattentional Blindness

Sunday, January 7th, 2007

“They called it inattentional blindness, and it had been well-known for a century or more; a tendency for the eye to simply not notice things that evolutionary experience classed as unlikely.”

– from Blindsight by Peter Watts (excellent SciFi)

————————————

And from Wikipedia, this explanation:

————————————

And from an overview of Inattentional Blindness (Cognitive Psychology) by Arien Mack (Department of Psychology, New School for Social Research) & Irvin Rock (Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley):

What is the relationship between attention and perception? How much, if anything, of our visual world do we perceive when we are not attending to it? Are there only some kinds of things we see when we are not attending? If there are, do they fall into particular categories? Do we see them because they have captured our attention or because our perception of them is independent of our attention?

Most people have the impression that they simply see what is there and do so merely by opening their eyes and looking. Of course, we may look more closely at some things than at others, which is what we ordinarily mean by “paying attention,” but it probably seems to many people as if we see nearly everything in our field of view.

However, many have experiences that seem to contradict the belief that, to one degree or another, we perceive everything in view and that our attention merely permits us to see some things in more detail than others. Almost everyone at one time or another has had the experience of looking without seeing and of seeing what is not there. The experience of looking without seeing is most likely to occur during moments of intense concentration or absorption. During these moments, even though our eyes are open and the objects before us are imaged on our retinas, we seem to perceive very little, if anything. For example, most people who drive have experienced these brief moments of not seeing, that is, of “functional blindness,” which produce astonishment and alarm when awareness returns. Similar moments of “sighted blindness” can occur during particularly absorbing conversations or in moments of deep thought. Why do we have these experiences if perceiving only requires opening our eyes?

There is an opposite experience that also raises questions about the relation between perception and attention. When we are intently awaiting something, we often see and hear things that are not there. For example, many people have had the experience of hearing footsteps or seeing someone who is anxiously awaited even though the person is not there, and there are no footsteps. On these occasions, it is as if our intense expectation and riveted attention create or at least distort a perceptual object. Here, instead of not seeing (or hearing) what is there when we are distracted, we are seeing (or hearing) what is not there, or perhaps more accurately, misperceiving what may actually be there, but which we are anxiously awaiting. Both experiences appear to implicate attention in the act of perceiving. This kind of experience was eloquently described by William James.

When waiting for the distant clock to strike, our mind is so filled with its image that at every moment we think we hear the longed-for or dreaded sound. So of an awaited footstep. Every stir in the wood is for the hunter his game; for the fugitive his pursuers. Every bonnet in the street is momentarily taken by the lover to enshroud the head of his idol. (1981, p. 419)

Music of the Hemispheres

Monday, January 1st, 2007

“Listen to this,” Daniel Levitin said. “What is it?” He hit a button on his computer keyboard and out came a half-second clip of music. It was just two notes blasted on a raspy electric guitar, but I could immediately identify it: the opening lick to the Rolling Stones’ “Brown Sugar.”

Then he played another, even shorter snippet: a single chord struck once on piano. Again I could instantly figure out what it was: the first note in Elton John’s live version of “Benny and the Jets.”

Dr. Levitin beamed. “You hear only one note, and you already know who it is,” he said. “So what I want to know is: How we do this? Why are we so good at recognizing music?”

This is not merely some whoa-dude epiphany that a music fan might have while listening to a radio contest. Dr. Levitin has devoted his career to exploring this question. He is a cognitive psychologist who runs the Laboratory for Music Perception, Cognition and Expertise at McGill University in Montreal, perhaps the world’s leading lab in probing why music has such an intense effect on us.

More…

– this is from the NY Times and they insist you have an ID and a password to look at their content. That’s the bad nows. The good news is you can get these for free and you only have to sign up with them once to do so.

– research thx to LA