Jonah for John

Jonah for John | Music Codes

Yet another recording from Jack Gallup's basement. Dear John, a song composed and sung by Jonah Dean Miller, as a tribute to John Lennon.

Jack Gallup's composition of a traditional Indian song - Gualparia

Jack Gallup's recording-Gualparia | Music Codes


A traditional song of the township of Gualparia as rendered by Kobita Barua, with music by Jack Gallup of ISU.

Dreams

Yeah, I saw Inception. Brilliant movie, no doubt; the only problem was the dreams did not really feel like dreams. They felt too rational, and too well organized - not the surreal kinda ones we get. But still, it kicked ass. But really, how much do our dreams contribute to thoughts? Dreams are basically the subconscious manifesting itself into a semiconscious state. I have thought of them more as a TV show - where our thoughts form the show, a jumbled variety that is edited and directed by the conscious brain. I find them fascinating. BTW, isn't it a weird feeling thinking about thoughts? and even dreams? It's a out-of-mind-watching-the-mind kind of thing. Anyway, research so far hasn't found the reason we dream, or what role dreams play in memory. We have hypotheses though. I think we need to understand sleep and memory formation to better understand dreams. Why do we sleep? It is quite sad that we still can't answer even this question. The mind is shrouded in so much mystery, you gotta love neuroscience! 

There seem to be conflicting opinions regarding why we actually sleep. One camp goes to say that sleep has a vital restorative function in the body. The opposite camp says that sleep is just a way of conserving energy, when there is no physiological need to stay awake. Though the first view appears reasonable, they really don't have much in terms of supporting facts except behavior in humans. As far as humans go, we know that if we were to go sleepless a few days, we do not function well, to put it mildly. There are plenty of movies to vouch for that- think the machinist (Personally, I have never stayed awake for more than 48 hours- I just need my sleep. But I have heard people say they go sleepless for up to a week. If I went sleepless on one night, the next day I feel a kind of lightness in being but a strange weight in my brain that seems to crush in-happens for a few minutes. wonder if anyone else feels that way. What happens in reality sometimes feels dreamy and disconnected; and while I do doze off, I go into extremely dreamy sleep. anyway... moving on...) But is that the status quo, for all other animals too? Do we really need sleep so much, or is it just that we have become so used to it?

It apparently is quite tough to study sleep in animals. Apart from the obvious reason that you can't ask them if they had nightmares the previous night when they wander in grouchy at your doorstep demanding food, electrophysiological recordings of activity are not really indicative of actual sleep occurring. It is believed that whales and dolphins don't really sleep. They go into a unihemispheric sleep, where they doze off one brain half at a time. However, even during this "sleep", they keep moving and can respond to stimuli. But unlike other mammals, they do not require both hemispheres of the brain to carry out metabolic functions either- one is sufficient, and therefore, it is possible that there is a reduction in metabolic activity when one side sleeps... for a detailed argument saying sleep is necessary, see this open source article: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060216&annotationId=info:doi/10.1371/annotation/47c75a12-8a0b-491d-89f9-383f70a0eed7 (I came to this after reading this article http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-do-we-sleep.html)

If you look in the comments of the PLoS paper, there is an interesting hypothesis that says evolutionarily, sleep was primary and activity was secondary. Over time, activity has increased, and sleep decreased.

So, going back, there is a hypothesis that as we sleep, long term memories get formed. One of the functions of sleep is probably in the consolidation of thoughts and experiences into memories. Dreams are probably by-products of this process. There is an article going along these lines which discusses these in relation to cortisol, a stress hormone. http://learnmem.cshlp.org/content/11/6/671.full

The authors in conclusion write this interesting piece: 

"In addition to telling us something about the contributions hippocampal and neocortical circuits make to episodic memory, to the consolidation of episodic and semantic memory, and to the content of dreams, our proposal suggests some intriguing possibilities about creativity and the generation of novel thoughts. One stage of consolidation likely involves the integration of information with pre-existing knowledge and the linking of distant but related concepts. We dream when we become aware of these activated traces, which are often fragmented images and sounds coupled with motor activity. Similar to memories created under stress, these fragments are immediately subjected to a process of narrative smoothing, and the result is typically a story that is often confabulatory, quite bizarre, but possibly also creative.

Although it is true that accurate recall is adaptive in many cases, there may nonetheless be a positive side to a process that produces fragmentation—both during wake and during sleep. All new ideas are based upon previously stored information. These fragments, or pieces and patches of knowledge, are bound into representations that we use to recall information about personal experience and to help us understand and act in the world. When these bonds are weakened, this information can be recombined, either in dreams or misremembered episodes—perhaps resulting in a process leading us down unusual paths to creative insights and new ideas."  Payne and Nadel, 2004. Sleep, dreams, and memory consolidation: The role of the stress hormone cortisol.

Pretty neat, I think.

So now, coming back to Inception, it’s time for spoilers.

I think there is a flaw in the story. Entering a person’s dream and using it as a vehicle to the subconscious to plant a thought sounds cool, but I don’t think it’s plausible. One, the person is still dreaming, and it doesn’t really fit into actual thought process. How do you account for a thought that is generated within a dream? Does it ever happen? However, they do agree in the movie that a brand new idea is not manufactured. It is built on previous thoughts; after all, it’s our interpretation of these thoughts that adds the uniqueness.  Two, the fact that he doesn’t have to remember this when he wakes up. Given, it is going to be tough to forget a dream like THAT, but how many dreams do we actually remember? Atleast I don’t remember much, and I do know people who recite stories from dreams… anyway, it’s a movie I would definitely watch again and figure out the loopholes.

wordless

Imagine a bright sunny day in a sunflower field. Warm skin, fluffy clouds, and cornflower sky.
Do you see?
Now, see the two people running in the midst of the flowers. You have to know, these people are special. They do not know speech, words, sound... nothing. They don't need that. Thoughts and emotions flow between them. How do you think that will be, without words? Can you imagine that?
In that sunflower field, one person smells the wetness of the earth, feels it in his heel and sees the green stalk rise from brownliness. The other, feels the gentle breeze stir her heart, bringing with it sweet unearthly fragrance. They see each other, and instantly... God, can you imagine?
What joy, and what sorrow we would feel. For, isn't every thought and emotion, at its core a silent uttering? And, when we communicate from this fundamental plane, won't it be the simplest, and most honest? How pure, and how crystal clear.
And some day, we will realize this soul of silence. When silence becomes being. When our first point of contact with another being is from the silence, and not from the senses. When your senses feed your silence, and by choice, the river of silence between you and everything else.
You become being, and nothingness.
You are free.

And till then... there's English :)

-inspired largely by this post of pure beauty: http://misadventuresofaplainjane.blogspot.com/2010/04/may-you-find-your-river-ajeet-dada.html

Sita sings the blues

This looks awesome, yet to watch completely. via Nick's blog http://kasparen.tumblr.com/

Sita sings the blues...

Identity

From some of my previous posts, it might be apparent that I seek a common denominator; one that can define, and unite us as humans. A common identity. In that sense, I think this continues on the previous post.
I believe that the institutions of our fathers give us a ground on which to build on, but not to follow without thought. Religion, nationality, community, language, regions... there are plenty of things that we find identity with. These are concepts that can induce tremendous passion and provide its followers with purpose. They provide crucial structure for the development of the individual within the community. They have, in fact, shaped the way civilization has developed to this point.


However, over the past few years, advances in technology particularly with regard to communication, have been instrumental in changing our lives, our communities, and with those, our perceptions of identity. This has enabled people at different corners of the globe to interact instantly. This, coupled with easier travel, has erased many a boundary, wherever that existed. Traditional definitions of closed communities are rapidly being overthrown to bring in concepts of larger, global communities, a 'global village'. National boundaries are of no concern. Trade has become global, ideas flow with no regard to location, race, color... In this melting pot of cultures, concepts that were once considered the basis for one's existence suddenly lose value.
Take language, for example. Though there are millions of languages all over the world, with growing communities, there is an urgency for a common language, and a common platform for communication. In this situation, a person's mother tongue, something that has been a source of 'identity', is now being more or less replaced with another language, purely for functional reasons. Future generations might choose to take up the new functional language as their mother tongues, and with passing time, the initial language can not only lose significance, but can also fade away with disuse.
I am not going to argue the merits and demerits of this; that would be a whole post by itself. But it serves to illustrate how such concepts change over time, or rather, how our identity with these concepts change. Further, it is inevitable over generations. Therefore, as we go stripping down to our cores, the only identity we share with this global community is our humanity.
How do we express, or share this identity? Simply by accepting one another, accepting we are the same regardless of where we come from or what we are.
It also arises that once we accept this humanity as our identity, everything else becomes secondary. Identity will necessarily have to be singular. Therefore, concepts that we hold dear will have to be re-evaluated.


What do I mean by identifying with humanity? It is accepting that our further evolution lies not just in individual advancement but in the advancement of the global community. It is accepting that contributing to this community transcends national, religious, or communal interests. I think it was best put by Asimov in his Zeroth law of robotics, a law that preceded protecting an individual human being, which was the First law: A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. Just imagine the possibilities of such a community. Instead of warring over land, we fight against poverty, disease... improve the lot of mankind. To cope with our population explosion, we should be putting all our energies into actually exploring outer space, to find alternatives to Earth, to push our boundaries, to advance. The alternative is surely degeneration as our resources deplete.


The ideas are all there. We know where the truth lies. Are we ready to accept it? Will we put aside our differences for our common humanity? Religion had/has the ability to induce passion and fervor. It bought people together, to rally under a banner. Would we feel the same way about our humanity? Is this just an idealistic dream, totally free from practicality? I don't think so. It makes the most practical sense. But how do we bring people to realize it? What is that common denominator? A visionary leader to show us the way, is that what we need? Or, is there something apart from our humanity, something else that can appeal to everyone on earth and give a basis for our unity? I have more questions than answers. 
Maybe we do need a global catastrophe to actually help us realize it.

Lovin'

There floats a lot of stuff about love... vague definitions, about it being unquantifiable, unmeasurable, and not comprehensible to rationality. Many say it is a 'feeling'. A feeling of deep attachment to something/someone, the withdrawal of which causes pain. Since it is a feeling, it also has the ability to arouse tremendous emotion, which is also confused with the definition of love itself... if the emotions associated with love are removed, would love make any sense at all to many people? So, what is the perception of love in those of us, with the 'emotional capacity of a teaspoon'?
I think love is something that stems from an initial selfish need that then evolves to accommodate moments of selflessness. There's a book by Stephen Covey, where he compares the 'love' in any situation to a bank balance. You put something in, you take something out. You sometimes go on overdraft, but for the account to stay active, you got to put back in, to reach a healthy bottomline. It makes sense. After all, no one wants to be giving all the time. No person is selfless all the time, not even a mother. So here, love is about understanding, accepting differences, and showing willingness to work toward a common goal.  Why do we do it? Because we benefit from it, it gives us happiness. It does not involve emotions, feelings, or intimacy... things that we normally associate with love. And this love, is applicable to a global sense. I can love humanity. I can love you. I can probably even love loud neighbors. There's a friend who says that true love is when you can actually 'love' a person who has harmed you... how do you love a person who has raped your sister, or put a gun to your head? It seems a tall order, but in this definition, it is probably possible. However, my love doesn't mean I condone the person's actions, but I accept his weaknesses, his inherent humanity. He will be punished, but does not become an object for hate. So hate, I assume, has to be the utter opposite; an unwillingess to accept/understand someone. So there, to all you unbelievers, I've stripped love of all its glamor, gloss, and it still makes sense. The emotions that we experience are normally a product of our interactions, our intimacy, and not a product of love. The expression of love, or the lack of it, induces all emotion. Feelings for a person is not equal to love. But the intimacy, the emotions, the testosterone, the oestrogen, and the feelings, all of 'em mix with the underlying love and create the colorful, beautiful, and totally imperfect 'love' that we share with 'that one person' :) Gotta love biology for that!
So, there you go kids, now you know what to look for! All you girls that sit starry-eyed, dreaming for that perfect 'Darcy' and boys who walk about looking for love in the prettiest pair of legs, you know what you gotta do :) And for the ones moaning, crying and wasting over 'lost love', get a life!

Edit 12/26/2010: An npr article that shares the same view, albeit written much better
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/12/25/132291375/what-is-love#more