“It is a funny sort of excess, this not-not negativity, this multiplicity of the inbetween (i.e. the negative ‘between-ness’ of the not and its other). A kind of spiralling (or, anyway, dizzing) interiority which regurgitates right outside the limit, and in that wake, constitutes it: neither/nor. Indeed, it is, precisely, a surface, or even a strategy of surfaces.”
The recent release of Susan Greenfield’s new book and the film Lucy, both of which are dependent on tired misconceptions or dubious theories about the brain, suggest one worrying conclusion: we are running out of myths about the brain. So here are some new ones, to keep things ‘mysterious’
One of the best things about being a neuroscientist used to be the aura of mystery around it. It was once so mysterious that some people didn’t even know it was a thing. When I first went to university and people asked what I studied, they thought I was saying I was a “Euroscientist”, which is presumably someone who studies the science of Europe. I’d get weird questions such as “what do you think of Belgium?” and I’d have to admit that, in all honesty, I never think of Belgium. That’s how mysterious neuroscience was, once. Of course, you could say this confusion was due to my dense Welsh accent, or the fact that I only had the confidence to talk to strangers after consuming a fair amount of alcohol, but I prefer to go with the mystery. It’s not like that any more. Neuroscience is “mainstream” now, to the point where the press coverage of it can be studied extensively. When there’s such a thing as Neuromarketing (well, there isn’t actually such a thing, but there’s a whole industry that would claim otherwise), it’s impossible to maintain that neuroscience is “cool” or “edgy”. It’s a bad time for us neurohipsters (which are the same as regular hipsters, except the designer beards are on the frontal lobes rather than the jaw-line). One way that we professional neuroscientists could maintain our superiority was by correcting misconceptions about the brain, but lately even that avenue looks to be closing to us. The recent film Lucy is based on the most classic brain misconception: that we only use 10% of our brain. But it’s had a considerable amount of flack for this already, suggesting that many people are wise to this myth. We also saw the recent release of Susan Greenfield’s new book Mind Change, all about how technology is changing (damaging?) our brains. This is a worryingly evidence-free but very common claim by Greenfield. Depressingly common, as this blog has pointed out many times. But now even the non-neuroscientist reviewers aren’t buying her claims.
Infobesium: The aggregate (data) matter of (unprocessed) information in the modern hyperconnected mind.
Infobesium: A new kind of (emergent?) matter composed mainly of residue data, perceived (read or heard) by a modern hyperconnected mind and unprocessed, therefore remaining untouched by critical thought.
Infobesium: A byproduct of being subjected to a constant stream of infodata that has no possible way of being either accommodated ,digested or spat out for its sheer quantity, memetic attractiveness and perceptual saturation.
Infobesity :The illness resulting from consuming too much information that the current mind cannot process.
Infobesiology :Defines itself as the future possible science of researching, finding and eliminating the causes processes and consequences of too much unprocessed and non digested infodata.
Please suggest usages
Neurons reveal the brain’s learning limit
Carnegie Mellon University, Stanford University, University of Pittsburgh Original Study
Scientists have discovered a fundamental constraint in the brain that may explain why it’s easier to learn a skill that’s related to an ability you already have. For example, a trained pianist can learn a new melody easier than learning how to hit a tennis serve. As reported in Nature, the researchers found for the first time that there are limitations on how adaptable the brain is during learning and that these restrictions are a key determinant for whether a new skill will be easy or difficult to learn. Understanding how the brain’s activity can be “flexed” during learning could eventually be used to develop better treatments for stroke and other brain injuries. Lead author Patrick T. Sadtler, a Ph.D. candidate in the University of Pittsburgh department of bioengineering, compared the study’s findings to cooking. “Suppose you have flour, sugar, baking soda, eggs, salt, and milk. You can combine them to make different items—bread, pancakes, and cookies—but it would be difficult to make hamburger patties with the existing ingredients,” Sadtler says. “We found that the brain works in a similar way during learning. We found that subjects were able to more readily recombine familiar activity patterns in new ways relative to creating entirely novel patterns.” (via Neurons reveal the brain’s learning limit - Futurity)