The picture is of the Layne Kalbfleisch’s talk–the last scientific talk of Day 2.

We ended the first day of the retreat with a lively discussion about
the definition of “mind”. What’s difficult of course is to approach
something that is so clearly ultimately dependent upon introspection
(we’re really only sure that we ourselves have a mind) with a data-
driven, hypothesis testing approach. I brought up the notion that
practically we need to consider mind operationally: what it will take
to build machines that can pass the Turing Test. Or to be more
specific: what will be inside those machines that will allow them to
manifest mind.

This morning, we are beginning with a talk on the study of Stroke
using brain imaging methodologies and crucially computational
approaches to modeling blood flow non-invasively. This is a very
exciting project that is an on-going collaboration between Inova
Fairfax Hospital and our own Juan Cebral. We’ll go till about noon
today with a series of talks and then go into a session with just the
PI’s to discuss the Krasnow scientific program writ large.

Jim

I’m live blogging from the 3rd Annual Krasnow Scientific Retreat. As with previous years, this is the time during the year when the entire Krasnow scientific family (PI’s, trainees and staff) gather off-site to hear short talks on all of the Institute’s scientific programs. This year the theme is “mind” ( as preparation for our upcoming Decade of the Mind Symposium), but frankly we’re beginning at the level of origin of life work funded by the NSF and over the next two days will be working our way towards higher cognition.

I find this retreat incredibly useful because it not only informs me about each research group’s latest research findings, but also because it enables me to see overall where the actual scientific intersections in the Institute’s overall science portfolio.

But if I find the retreat useful, I think it’s even more useful for our scientific staff because it provides the seed corn for future collaborations.

Jim

Kudos to Jane Wendelin for being named Mason Employee of the Month for January. Jane runs our business operations and we’re all very very proud of her accomplishments.

The gentleman giving her the award is George Mason President Alan G. Merten.

Jim

Some great advice for junior faculty on how to manage in the upwards direction.

Jim

Of course referring to Galileo’s metaphor.

The money quote:

But the image of the book of nature can haunt us today. One reason is that it implies the existence of an ultimate coherent truth – a complete text or “final theory”. While many scientists may believe this, it is ultimately only a belief, and it is far likelier that we will endlessly find more in nature as our concepts and technology continue to evolve. Furthermore, the image suggests that the “text” of the book of nature has a divine origin. The idea that the world was the oeuvre of a superhuman author was the precursor of the idea that it was the engineering project of an intelligent designer. This implication has led some contemporary sociologists of science to succumb to the temptation of characterizing scientists as behaving, and seeking to behave, in a priest-like manner.

The most important lesson to be found in Galileo’s image is the need to keep developing and revising the metaphors with which we speak about science.

Very good point and kudos’s to Robert P. Crease at Stony Brook.

Jim

Must have close to a record: Phoenix to BWI in 3 hrs and 15 min. I guess the pilot must have not had to pay for the gas or there was an incredible tail wind. In any case, the editorial board meeting was very useful. One area that we’re looking at going is into publishing “position papers”. So what’s a position paper you may ask? Well, around the table we had different ideas–and I’ve certainly got my own. One aspect of a position paper is that it points the way to a future research direction and often includes some primary data. Another is that is generally a bit more speculative that the discussion section of a regular research paper. But I’ve certainly got to think about it more.

Here in Arlington, it’s warmer than it was in Phoenix. In fact, walking the dogs this morning, I felt nothing so much as like my native LA’s climate had moved inside the beltway. It’s certainly local warming, if not global.

Jim

I promised late last year to put up a preliminary announcement of our
major event for this semester. Hence…

Over May 21 & 22, 2007, the Institute will host a national “Decade of
the Mind” Symposium. “Decade of the Mind” will launch what is
anticipated to be the starting point of a ten-year research
initiative that will focus on the study of the mind from an
interdisciplinary perspective that includes neuroscience, cognitive
science, computer science, computational social sciences,
computational biology and psychology. Eight speakers (listed below)
have been confirmed to speak over the two-day period. The speakers
will also participate in the finalizing of the “manifesto” document
that will present the future scope and goals for the “Decade of
Mind”. Not insignificantly, the symposium will add to the
celebratory atmosphere at the Institute surrounding the completion of
laboratory expansion wing.

I am proud to announce the extraordinary group of “Decade of the
Mind” symposium guest speakers:
George Bekey (USC)
Floyd Bloom (Neurome, Inc.)
Patricia Churchland (UCSD)
John Holland (UMich)
Nancy Kanwisher (MIT)
Gordon Shepherd (YALE)
Vernon Smith (GMU)
Giulio Tononi (UWisc)

As the program and logistical details for the “Decade of the Mind”
Symposium become finalized, they will be posted on the Institute's
“News and Events” web page.

Jim

From today’s New York Times:

Daniel C. Dennett, a philosopher and cognitive scientist at Tufts University who has written extensively about free will, said that “when we consider whether free will is an illusion or reality, we are looking into an abyss. What seems to confront us is a plunge into nihilism and despair.”

Mark Hallett, a researcher with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said, “Free will does exist, but it’s a perception, not a power or a driving force. People experience free will. They have the sense they are free.

“The more you scrutinize it, the more you realize you don’t have it,” he said.

That is hardly a new thought. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, as Einstein paraphrased it, that “a human can very well do what he wants, but cannot will what he wants.”

Einstein, among others, found that a comforting idea. “This knowledge of the non-freedom of the will protects me from losing my good humor and taking much too seriously myself and my fellow humans as acting and judging individuals,” he said.

Comment: This is I believe an essential question for those of us at the Krasnow Institute trying to wrestle with the bear we call consciousness. Is there some aspect of consciousness that requires free will?

One other question: we clearly all have the ability (or at least most of us as adults) to say “no” to the dopamine reinforcement system of the brain. I think many would view such neurobiologically by understanding the no as an inhibition signal from frontal cortical areas. This raises the question of simply operationalizing free will to the underlying brain science. Perhaps a more tractable approach.

Jim

I’ve linked to a list of recent articles using a whole genome approach to studying diseases. Essentially this is a classic example of the post-Popperian approach to biomedical research–rather than treat the question as a detective story, carefully putting together a series of hypotheses to test a theory, we instead simply “print” out all of the genetic information and see what’s different. Of course is the case of many brain diseases this may obscure the role for the environment in the etiologies…but the advocates of this industrial style of science are gaining a good deal of strength (look at the journals where these article are published).

I do see a tremendous utility in such research from the standpoint of adding new potential therapeutic targets and also giving us clues outside a disease’s conventional dogma.

In the meantime, happy 2007.

Jim

In today’s Sunday NYT: a very interesting portrait of neuroscientist Daniel Levitin (one of several neuroscientists with a real musical background) on his theory of how our brains are wired to enjoy music. Some of it is a bit far fetched, but it’s intriguing nonetheless.

Money quote:

This summer he published “This Is Your Brain on Music” (Dutton), a layperson’s guide to the emerging neuroscience of music. Dr. Levitin is an unusually deft interpreter, full of striking scientific trivia. For example we learn that babies begin life with synesthesia, the trippy confusion that makes people experience sounds as smells or tastes as colors. Or that the cerebellum, a part of the brain that helps govern movement, is also wired to the ears and produces some of our emotional responses to music. His experiments have even suggested that watching a musician perform affects brain chemistry differently from listening to a recording.

This is the last blogpost here for 2006. Happy New Year to all of my readers and we’ll look forward to a productive 2007.

Jim