The Blue Brain Project (now The Human Brain Project) was awarded €1 billion by the European Union. President Obama recently committed over $300 million a year for 10 years to a proposed Brain Activity Map (BAM) project modeled after the Human Genome Project. The Decade of the Brain was supposed to last from 1990-1999, according to President George H.W. Bush. Now some scientists question or even object to the new funding. There would seem to be a number of entangled implications —political, intellectual, social, economic, etc. One can think of our life, as the brain, as an complex organization of interconnected systems. So what do you make of these investments and how might they affect our society?
Here’s something else scientific imaging could be used for– a performance-driven music video. Check out this new video, directed by Adam Powell, and featuring the music of Sivu.
A new Scientific American video series called “My Mind’s Eye“, hosted by neuroscientist (and past TBB contributor) Joe LeDoux, features interviews with prominent scientists and philosophers alongside performances by LeDoux’s own brain-themed rock band, The Amygdaloids. The episodes, which feature candid interviews and beautiful imagery, are being produced by Alexis Gambis of Imaginal Disc, and the first in the series is now live:
The first episode features philosopher Ned Block in dialogue with LeDoux about some of the most tantalizing questions in the present-day study of consciousness.
The National Endowment for the Arts has supported creativity and innovation with governmental funding since 1965. Over the last two years, compelled by our Republican Congress, President Obama has cut the NEA’s budget by $21.5 million (12.8%). Earlier this year, however, the President proposed a 5.5% increase to the program in 2013, while Republican nominee Mitt Romney has said that he would eliminate the endowment entirely. During a brief speech in February, the President delivered the following message to recipients of the National Arts and National Humanities Medal: “Equal to the impact you have on each of us every day as individuals is the impact you have on us as a society. And we are told we’re divided as a people, and then suddenly the arts have this power to bring us together and speak to our common condition.” For so many of us, this idea feels true. Perhaps, while reading words, we have experienced what Vladimir Nabokov called “the sob in the spine,” that subtle yet unmistakable awakening. Perhaps we have been struck dead by live music, like what Frank O’Hara describes in his poem “The Day Lady Died,” which remembers a Billie Holliday performance (“everyone and I stopped breathing”). Perhaps we have felt the selfless satisfaction of giving ourselves up to an idea, as in an artistic group or community (like my community). We all know art affects us; but can these effects of art be measured? This is a scientific question, and one that the NEA, “to promote knowledge and understanding about the contributions of the arts,” has set out to answer systematically. The organization revealed its five-year research agenda called “How Art Works,” which seems at the same time eerie and right on point.
Here’s an interesting answer from composer Philip Glass in response to a question about timelessness in a New York Times Magazine Q&A alongside Beck, published today:
What do you both think about timelessness and your work, and how things in your work feel dated or not dated?
GLASS: It all sounds dated. Because I can’t write that music again. I can’t write “Einstein on the Beach” again. I played from it in a concert the other day, and it’s like I never wrote it. My brain’s been rewired. I don’t think I’ve ever said this publicly, but I think that the music we write, it accurately reflects the way our brains work, and our brains are constantly evolving. Our brains are very plastic; they continue to grow.
In this week’s The New Yorker (Oct.1, 2012), a long “reporter-at-large” feature on Mitt Romney (“Transaction Man”) concludes with a botched brain metaphor from a Mormon brother. About Romney’s inability to connect to other people, Clayton Christensen says: “You have to push a neuron across the synapse,” which Romney, in Christensen’s own estimation, cannot do. One would not expect a devout Mormon to understand the functional mechanics of the brain, and the fact that scientific terms appear at all is surprising. But The New Yorker? The magazine decided to give Christensen the last word: “The neuron can’t get across that synapse.” This is not a science piece; there is no duty to educate the reader about anything other than the mind of Mitt Romney. However, one cannot help but lament a lost comedic opportunity. What better way to illustrate the ignorance of a candidate and his worldview than to point out the perfect absurdity of this language? We wonder if the writer and editors were in on the joke.