Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Definition of consciousness
Consciousness: the state in which a cognitive system has or processes the knowledge or information that there is a distinction between the object of processing and the system implementing the process.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Defending science or religion with passion?
Here is a rather interesting article in the New York Times today about some debates about the influence of science and religion in society [download pdf]. As there are already many opinions, I do not wish to add "just" another one. Instead, I would like to plead with the scientific community as well as the religious community, if you are reading this. Please be mindful to consider the nature of your arguments, whether they stem from the self, or truly from a consideration of what can be known about the truth. Because what is at stake is not merely just who is right or wrong. What is at stake here, is your life, and the lives of others.
Consider this. If those who reject the idea of God are correct, then there is no God. If there is no God, there is no need to live according to what God says. If so, for some of us, we may find value in other things as our meaning in life (if that were possible without appealing to God). Some of us may feel that we no longer suffer under the guilt of possible judgment under God. Some of us may feel that there is no difference. IF there is no God.
If there is a God, however, then the question becomes, who is this God? And what does that mean for us? Let us assume there is a God, and this God is the Judeo-Christian God (we could pick other examples, but let us just assume this one for argument's sake). If the Judeo-Christian God exists, then, those who reject His existence have much to fear indeed! For He says that those who do not believe, there will be a cost. Some of us may not be willing to pay that cost.
Therefore, I say, consider carefully the nature of your arguments. Lay aside anything that might cloud your thinking and respect your fields of study, do not be a disgrace to it, do not disgrace yourself by failure to consider the possibility of your own lack of knowledge and understanding. Because your opinion, and the facts, are not the only things at stake.
Consider this. If those who reject the idea of God are correct, then there is no God. If there is no God, there is no need to live according to what God says. If so, for some of us, we may find value in other things as our meaning in life (if that were possible without appealing to God). Some of us may feel that we no longer suffer under the guilt of possible judgment under God. Some of us may feel that there is no difference. IF there is no God.
If there is a God, however, then the question becomes, who is this God? And what does that mean for us? Let us assume there is a God, and this God is the Judeo-Christian God (we could pick other examples, but let us just assume this one for argument's sake). If the Judeo-Christian God exists, then, those who reject His existence have much to fear indeed! For He says that those who do not believe, there will be a cost. Some of us may not be willing to pay that cost.
Therefore, I say, consider carefully the nature of your arguments. Lay aside anything that might cloud your thinking and respect your fields of study, do not be a disgrace to it, do not disgrace yourself by failure to consider the possibility of your own lack of knowledge and understanding. Because your opinion, and the facts, are not the only things at stake.
Monday, November 20, 2006
John 1:19-28
"...testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
Or perhaps, "Who do you think you are?". We cannot deny a sense of suspicion on the part of the interrogators. For John the Baptist has been preaching a radical message, as we have observed in other gospels. He has also been baptizing, hence the term the Baptist. Here, John, the author, narrates the events that took place prior to the first recorded public anointing of Jesus for His ministry, being baptized by John. Remember, that as recorded in Matthew, about 30 years ago, there was a huge massacre of infants by Herod, because he was afraid of the threat of the fulfillment of the messianic prophecy. So, we must wonder, perhaps people have been thinking all this while, with much tension, hope, expectancy, and for some, fear, about the big question - WHO? It is therefore no surprise that when people noticed the radical nature of John the Baptist's ministry, they suspected him of being the Messiah. The One whom the Jews have been waiting for. The One whom the Scriptures have foretold since Genesis 3:15 and throughout all the Old Testament. Even now, those who do not receive Jesus as the Messiah (Christ, in Greek), are still awaiting and wondering - WHO will save us?
Note, that John, the author, states that the priests and Levites were sent by the Jews. Recall that John was probably writing this gospel around the time of 70-90AD. And he was writing in the midst of two teachings that needed to be addressed, that were stumbling the Christians at that time (this gospel was probably circulatory to all the churches throughout all the Diaspora, as well as to Israel). The first was the teachings of agnosticism, who basically hold the idea that there is no God. The second teaching related to Christians, whether previously non-Jewish or Jewish, were reverting back to the old Jewish practices, tied to the practices of the Torah, such as circumcision. Thus, when John pinpoints here, that the Jews were one of the first to question John the Baptist, and how throughout the gospel, these interrogators are constantly referred to as being unable to accept the Messiahship of Jesus, we can see that if we were Jewish readers, this touched a sensitive spot. Let us be sensitive to this, therefore, and be open to hear what John, the author, is truly saying about the state of our hearts with respect to the identity of the Messiah. Perhaps, the question is, why do we react the way we do, when we hear that Someone is the Messiah? Do we doubt? Do we fear? Or do we not even care about such things? Or do we receive this information without due testing and consideration? Or do we receive it with joy, and righteous faith?
Nevertheless, it is the priests and Levites, sent by the Pharisees (v24), that ask "who are you?" Such a question! How would we answer if someone were to ask us that? The interested, should at this point look up background information about the Pharisees. Here, it is useful to know that, because of their religious leadership role and position in the Jewish society, it is no surprise that they would be the ones to first jump at outstanding people to test them about their teachings. Perhaps some Pharisees were truly concerned about what these outstanding people were teaching the average Jew. And so, they exercised a paternalistic approach to people such as John, and subsequently Jesus. Testing, questioning, suspecting.
"...I am not the Christ...(not) Elijah...(not) the Prophet..."
Malachi 4:5,6 talks about God sending Elijah, before the dreadful day of the Lord. So, people then probably took this to mean that Elijah (who was taken up into heaven 2Ki 2:11) would come back before the Messiah would come back. This is where the point may have been missed. The people were looking for the Messiah as a sign for deliverance. They may have had wrong ideas about what this deliverance entails. Regardless, they were focusing on the Messiah as a sign, and were deaf and blind to the message and truth of Who the Messiah is, and what He said and was doing. Thus, even if John was Elijah as foretold, is that really that important?
John the Baptist denied association with all these signs that the people were so eagerly attending to much like the way Jesus typically responded to the peoples' request for signs. But gave the answer from Isa 40:3. Which is both specific as well as generic. In a way, we are all voices crying out in this wilderness for people to make straight the way of the Lord. But John the Baptist probably knew this more clearly than anyone else, for to him was revealed that his cousin, Jesus, was indeed the Son of God, the Messiah, the Christ. Where did he gain this knowledge? We are not told. But he expressed explicit knowledge, and declared it in the following verses.
John the Baptist's baptism
The word baptism has two related meanings. The first meaning is simply to immerse, or submerge, the second meaning is to wash, or clean. This word is used in the New Testament, but does not seem to occur in the Old Testament. However, we are reminded, when we think of cleansing, of the Old Testament commandments regarding purification rites during temple servies and sacrificial offerings. We are also reminded of submersion in the Red Sea crossing during the Exodus of the Isrealites from Egypt, the crossing of the Jordan river, when the Isrealites entered the promised land. The constant meaning that we obtain from these examples is the idea of being transformed from a previous old, dirty, inferior, unacceptable state, to one that is new, clean, perfected, and accepted. Thus, reading this into this section in John, it seems that the practise of baptism has become formalized as something done by a rabbi or teacher as a ritual representing the change of the baptizee from an old state to the new state, perhaps the state taught or recommended by that particular teacher.
Perhaps, the interrogators were questioning John's authority (see Mt 21:25, Mr 11:30, Lk 20:4) and teaching. What was he teaching the people, since he says he has no authority. And John's reply here was to indicate the baptism he performed was but a faint comparison to the true baptism to be performed by the Christ. So we are to think of our practice in church of earthly baptism with water as well.
Look also at Lk 12:50. Here Jesus talks about His own baptism, His immersion and purification by suffering on the cross. Was He not pure? Why did He need to be purified? Was He not God? How can He be immersed in anything? How can anything contain God? But recall, that Jesus was baptized by John the baptist (next section). And recall, that our sins were laid on Him. And recall, that He had to die on our behalf, the price of our sin, and the ultimate immersion, the ultimate containment from the rest of all creation, is death. Finally, the baptism we practise does not stop in immersion. For it is first immersion, then purification. This speaks of the resurrection to perfect life after the death to sin.
Going back to the Baptist. If we were so totally convinced about the identify of Christ, would we be as bold as John to declare publicly this truth? Reflect on John the Baptist's actions. How he behaved, remember his lifestyle previously mention, remember his message based on his knowledge of Christ. A voice in the wilderness, sometimes a lonely voice, sometimes unheeded, sometimes even ridiculed and mocked and placed under suspicion. Consider the Baptist's faith, in One who, at the time when he knew Him, had not yet died for his sins, but yet, he already had faith. Consider now, we who know Him in the fullness of His intentions and acts and words, our faith. And John, when ask who he was, his answer was always in relation to Christ. He never said I am John, these are my teachings, this is my thinking, that is why I do these things. Instead, it was always simply "I am His".
Or perhaps, "Who do you think you are?". We cannot deny a sense of suspicion on the part of the interrogators. For John the Baptist has been preaching a radical message, as we have observed in other gospels. He has also been baptizing, hence the term the Baptist. Here, John, the author, narrates the events that took place prior to the first recorded public anointing of Jesus for His ministry, being baptized by John. Remember, that as recorded in Matthew, about 30 years ago, there was a huge massacre of infants by Herod, because he was afraid of the threat of the fulfillment of the messianic prophecy. So, we must wonder, perhaps people have been thinking all this while, with much tension, hope, expectancy, and for some, fear, about the big question - WHO? It is therefore no surprise that when people noticed the radical nature of John the Baptist's ministry, they suspected him of being the Messiah. The One whom the Jews have been waiting for. The One whom the Scriptures have foretold since Genesis 3:15 and throughout all the Old Testament. Even now, those who do not receive Jesus as the Messiah (Christ, in Greek), are still awaiting and wondering - WHO will save us?
Note, that John, the author, states that the priests and Levites were sent by the Jews. Recall that John was probably writing this gospel around the time of 70-90AD. And he was writing in the midst of two teachings that needed to be addressed, that were stumbling the Christians at that time (this gospel was probably circulatory to all the churches throughout all the Diaspora, as well as to Israel). The first was the teachings of agnosticism, who basically hold the idea that there is no God. The second teaching related to Christians, whether previously non-Jewish or Jewish, were reverting back to the old Jewish practices, tied to the practices of the Torah, such as circumcision. Thus, when John pinpoints here, that the Jews were one of the first to question John the Baptist, and how throughout the gospel, these interrogators are constantly referred to as being unable to accept the Messiahship of Jesus, we can see that if we were Jewish readers, this touched a sensitive spot. Let us be sensitive to this, therefore, and be open to hear what John, the author, is truly saying about the state of our hearts with respect to the identity of the Messiah. Perhaps, the question is, why do we react the way we do, when we hear that Someone is the Messiah? Do we doubt? Do we fear? Or do we not even care about such things? Or do we receive this information without due testing and consideration? Or do we receive it with joy, and righteous faith?
Nevertheless, it is the priests and Levites, sent by the Pharisees (v24), that ask "who are you?" Such a question! How would we answer if someone were to ask us that? The interested, should at this point look up background information about the Pharisees. Here, it is useful to know that, because of their religious leadership role and position in the Jewish society, it is no surprise that they would be the ones to first jump at outstanding people to test them about their teachings. Perhaps some Pharisees were truly concerned about what these outstanding people were teaching the average Jew. And so, they exercised a paternalistic approach to people such as John, and subsequently Jesus. Testing, questioning, suspecting.
"...I am not the Christ...(not) Elijah...(not) the Prophet..."
Malachi 4:5,6 talks about God sending Elijah, before the dreadful day of the Lord. So, people then probably took this to mean that Elijah (who was taken up into heaven 2Ki 2:11) would come back before the Messiah would come back. This is where the point may have been missed. The people were looking for the Messiah as a sign for deliverance. They may have had wrong ideas about what this deliverance entails. Regardless, they were focusing on the Messiah as a sign, and were deaf and blind to the message and truth of Who the Messiah is, and what He said and was doing. Thus, even if John was Elijah as foretold, is that really that important?
John the Baptist denied association with all these signs that the people were so eagerly attending to much like the way Jesus typically responded to the peoples' request for signs. But gave the answer from Isa 40:3. Which is both specific as well as generic. In a way, we are all voices crying out in this wilderness for people to make straight the way of the Lord. But John the Baptist probably knew this more clearly than anyone else, for to him was revealed that his cousin, Jesus, was indeed the Son of God, the Messiah, the Christ. Where did he gain this knowledge? We are not told. But he expressed explicit knowledge, and declared it in the following verses.
John the Baptist's baptism
The word baptism has two related meanings. The first meaning is simply to immerse, or submerge, the second meaning is to wash, or clean. This word is used in the New Testament, but does not seem to occur in the Old Testament. However, we are reminded, when we think of cleansing, of the Old Testament commandments regarding purification rites during temple servies and sacrificial offerings. We are also reminded of submersion in the Red Sea crossing during the Exodus of the Isrealites from Egypt, the crossing of the Jordan river, when the Isrealites entered the promised land. The constant meaning that we obtain from these examples is the idea of being transformed from a previous old, dirty, inferior, unacceptable state, to one that is new, clean, perfected, and accepted. Thus, reading this into this section in John, it seems that the practise of baptism has become formalized as something done by a rabbi or teacher as a ritual representing the change of the baptizee from an old state to the new state, perhaps the state taught or recommended by that particular teacher.
Perhaps, the interrogators were questioning John's authority (see Mt 21:25, Mr 11:30, Lk 20:4) and teaching. What was he teaching the people, since he says he has no authority. And John's reply here was to indicate the baptism he performed was but a faint comparison to the true baptism to be performed by the Christ. So we are to think of our practice in church of earthly baptism with water as well.
Look also at Lk 12:50. Here Jesus talks about His own baptism, His immersion and purification by suffering on the cross. Was He not pure? Why did He need to be purified? Was He not God? How can He be immersed in anything? How can anything contain God? But recall, that Jesus was baptized by John the baptist (next section). And recall, that our sins were laid on Him. And recall, that He had to die on our behalf, the price of our sin, and the ultimate immersion, the ultimate containment from the rest of all creation, is death. Finally, the baptism we practise does not stop in immersion. For it is first immersion, then purification. This speaks of the resurrection to perfect life after the death to sin.
Going back to the Baptist. If we were so totally convinced about the identify of Christ, would we be as bold as John to declare publicly this truth? Reflect on John the Baptist's actions. How he behaved, remember his lifestyle previously mention, remember his message based on his knowledge of Christ. A voice in the wilderness, sometimes a lonely voice, sometimes unheeded, sometimes even ridiculed and mocked and placed under suspicion. Consider the Baptist's faith, in One who, at the time when he knew Him, had not yet died for his sins, but yet, he already had faith. Consider now, we who know Him in the fullness of His intentions and acts and words, our faith. And John, when ask who he was, his answer was always in relation to Christ. He never said I am John, these are my teachings, this is my thinking, that is why I do these things. Instead, it was always simply "I am His".
Cultural effects on visual processing as a function of age
Evidence shows that Westerners are more object-focused, being more individualistic, whereas East Asians are more context-focused, being more holistic. These differences are probably due to the larger historical cultural developmental influence exerted on individuals throughout their life experiences. Such influences permeate from the larger societal forces down to the everyday inter-relational communications, even to the physical habitational environment as an outward expression of these internal thoughts. With age, therefore, there is greater experience with one's own cultural development. We sought to examine these neural correlates of cultural experience with age.
The same study previously conducted with East Asians was conducted with Westerners. In summary, we found that Westerners showed similar object, background, and binding processing regions. These regions showed reduced expression with age. The most interesting contrast, however, was that Older East Asians did not show typical object processing (as measured using our adaptation paradigm; see subsequent follow-up experiments) while Young East Asians, Young Westerners and Old Westerners all showed object processing in the lateral occipital complex (LOC). This was related to changes in attentional resources with age. Furthermore, the difference was consistent with cultural expectations because the Old Westerners showed preserved object processing engagement, reflecting the more object-focused cultural background.
This study is currently in press in Cognitive, Affective, Behavioral Neuroscience journal. CNS 2006 abstract available for download.
So now, we know that differences in experiences over lifetime lead to differences in engagement of visual processing regions, and these differences are at the neural systems level as well. The next question how these patterns of neural engagement relate to what these people are actually looking at. This is important for understanding what is the actual visual information being attended. This has implications on developmental experience as a top-down modulator of the bottom-up visual information being input into higher cognitive processes. The other aspect is how external experience interacts with biological or cognitive changes related to aging.
What processes are specific to aging only? What processes are specific to long-term experience within the external developmental environment? Can short-term training alleviate processes that decline with age? What are the long-term experiences that lead to beneficial aging neural, cognitive outcomes?
This study had since had a press release [article].
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Oleng Color in Allerton and UIUC
See ah, I press, then he sing"Ahh! Ahh! Ahh!"
That's why the Sun Singer sings
Hands up high high
Butt press ring ring
That's why the Sun Singer sings
Click here for the full movie. And here for the picture album. All the color belly nice. Got gou, oleng, led, gleen, bloun. I see already also my eyes get huay huay. See already also can cry ah. I recommen Allerton park for new visitor to UIUC lah. The uni own it. Used to belong to some rich man son. Then dunno why, he sian already then he sell to the uni. Wah lau, his house is still there. Then the backyard ah, is acherly the whole forest leh! Piang! If your backside garden is a forest ah, I everyday go camping ah. Got a river flowing through some more. Can catch fish jiak sushi lah. Or else, catch deer jiak deer meat on hot plate, season with spring onion and ginger.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
John 1:15-18
"John bore witness...He who come after me is preferred...for He was before me."
This statement is presumably uttered just before Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. John had a rather large following, being a radical teacher prophet, a fresh voice in the Roman colonialized Israel. For 400 years after the remnant returned from being exiled to Babylon and Persia (as narrated in Nehemiah and Ezra), not much is known about what was going on in Israel. During this time, Rome came into power and defeated the previous kingdoms, and Israel came under its power. And just at this time, possibly a very dynamic, radical period of change in terms of politics, economy, culture and religion, John the Baptist cries out this statement pointing towards Jesus Christ. If you were one of the people listening to John's words, you might be puzzled as to what he was talking about. Because he was referring to Jesus, of Nazereth, as being preferred and before him, even though Jesus was younger than John in terms of human age. Radical claims. Either John the Baptist was mad, or else what he was saying was truer than anything else we've ever known. Either way, it is clear that he was very much convinced about what he was saying. And his own ministry, the baptism of repentance, rebuking of Pharisees (seen in Matthew, Mark, and Luke) was centered around this fact.
But the John, the author of this gospel interjects this statement by the Baptist here, because in the context of these verses, the point was to declare that Jesus Christ was the Word that he had been talking about in the previous sentences. Again, the pattern is, the idea of the Word, and that the Word took on flesh as Jesus Christ, through whom came grace and truth. A repetition for emphasis, for connection, for expansions. For not only was the Word full of grace and truth. But we have received from His fullness, the same grace, and the same truth. So as He had these qualities fully in Him, so He imparts it to us through Jesus Christ.
Note the contrast between the law through Moses, and grace and truth through Jesus Christ. Some seek to find truth in the law, some even seek to find grace in it, thinking that the law is good and therefore must reflect some element of grace. That may be in some cases. However, we see here that in fact, the law is placed in juxtaposition with grace and truth. Thus, at most, the law is but a reflection of the reality. If there is any truth in the law, it is because it is merely reflecting the Truth. If there is any hint of grace, it is because it again is merely reflecting the One who is full of grace.
"No one has seen God...He has declared Him"
This statement is a continual theme for John (1 John 4:12-16) and relates to the world not comprehending Him. For God is invisible to us in all His Otherness. However, He is revealed to us in Jesus Christ. If we know Jesus, we know God. So there are two levels of testimony here. The first is the testimony of John the Baptist as to who Jesus was. And the second, greater testimony, is that of Jesus as to who God is.
This statement is presumably uttered just before Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. John had a rather large following, being a radical teacher prophet, a fresh voice in the Roman colonialized Israel. For 400 years after the remnant returned from being exiled to Babylon and Persia (as narrated in Nehemiah and Ezra), not much is known about what was going on in Israel. During this time, Rome came into power and defeated the previous kingdoms, and Israel came under its power. And just at this time, possibly a very dynamic, radical period of change in terms of politics, economy, culture and religion, John the Baptist cries out this statement pointing towards Jesus Christ. If you were one of the people listening to John's words, you might be puzzled as to what he was talking about. Because he was referring to Jesus, of Nazereth, as being preferred and before him, even though Jesus was younger than John in terms of human age. Radical claims. Either John the Baptist was mad, or else what he was saying was truer than anything else we've ever known. Either way, it is clear that he was very much convinced about what he was saying. And his own ministry, the baptism of repentance, rebuking of Pharisees (seen in Matthew, Mark, and Luke) was centered around this fact.
But the John, the author of this gospel interjects this statement by the Baptist here, because in the context of these verses, the point was to declare that Jesus Christ was the Word that he had been talking about in the previous sentences. Again, the pattern is, the idea of the Word, and that the Word took on flesh as Jesus Christ, through whom came grace and truth. A repetition for emphasis, for connection, for expansions. For not only was the Word full of grace and truth. But we have received from His fullness, the same grace, and the same truth. So as He had these qualities fully in Him, so He imparts it to us through Jesus Christ.
Note the contrast between the law through Moses, and grace and truth through Jesus Christ. Some seek to find truth in the law, some even seek to find grace in it, thinking that the law is good and therefore must reflect some element of grace. That may be in some cases. However, we see here that in fact, the law is placed in juxtaposition with grace and truth. Thus, at most, the law is but a reflection of the reality. If there is any truth in the law, it is because it is merely reflecting the Truth. If there is any hint of grace, it is because it again is merely reflecting the One who is full of grace.
"No one has seen God...He has declared Him"
This statement is a continual theme for John (1 John 4:12-16) and relates to the world not comprehending Him. For God is invisible to us in all His Otherness. However, He is revealed to us in Jesus Christ. If we know Jesus, we know God. So there are two levels of testimony here. The first is the testimony of John the Baptist as to who Jesus was. And the second, greater testimony, is that of Jesus as to who God is.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
John 1:14
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory..."
Recall the tabernacle during the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites after their exodus from Egypt. Then, the tabernacle was the vessel for God's glory as He dwelt among the Israelites during their journey. The tabernacle was made from various materials, each having their symbolism as well as purpose. But here, here is no longer symbolism, there is no more analogy. This is the reality of those former shadows (Heb 10:1).
There is in our culture, the idea that flesh is evil, and not good. Yet, the glory of God was beheld in the form of flesh. What is glory? Even more specifically, what is His glory? There is always the idea of brightness, weight, presence. Glory. Some might think it to be about fame or credit, as we are prone to say, "He takes all the glory for himself". But that is but one aspect of the idea of glory. For throughout the old testament, glory seemed to be consistently used to represent the presence of individuals that are great, that have done great things, that are distinct in their otherness compared to us. And glory is mostly used to refer to rulers, like kings and their glory. It is also applied to men and their glory. Their presence, their legacy. It is intimately tied to their being. Where the life within them is so influential, it spills out as glory. And in contradiction to our thoughts about the evil flesh, the flesh of the Word was the vessel for His glory. How wonderful this revelation, this release, that our flesh too then, the same flesh as for the Word, has the possibility to contain or be the medium through which His glory can be known.
"...begotten of the Father..."
The Son of God. The very product of Father. One is not the Father without offspring. He would only be a being. Yet, now we have a revelation. He is the Father. First to the Word, and we will learn later, to us all who believe and have been adopted. This means that in the Word, is the essence of the Father. In the Word, the Father is seen, because His essence is at work. If God has an offspring, a true one, would that offspring not also be God? Although we are created by God, we are not true offsprings. But if one were to stem from God, He would be God as well. Not another one, but the same One. For there cannot be more than one God. By definition, there can be only One God. This is the mystery and must be deeply considered.
"...full of grace and truth."
Grace and truth! Consider the state of interpersonal values and situations that we experience. If we were to arrive at a plain summary, we might find that if there are many problems in these relationships, from the lowest to highest levels, from person-to-person, one-to-many, many-to-many, group-to-group, if there are any problems, they are due to a lack of grace and truth. Because we do not trust others, and they do not trust us, at least not completely. Because we do not show grace to others, nor are they gracious to us, again, at least not completly. But here, John states, that the Word is full of grace and truth. This cannot be repeated enough. If we are searching for truth, because of the various voices that speak in our world, we will find it in the Word. If we are looking for grace, because of the unforgiving, methodical, procedural operations of the world, we will find it in the Word. Again, contrast this to the Law. Law versus Word. The Law of Moses was written on stone, with words. Yet, here is the Word, but instead of the rigid, prescriptive tone seen in the Law, we see life, light, grace and truth. How can this be? Are they inconsistent? No. For, as it is said, all the Law and the Prophets are summed up in one commandment: love your neighbor as yourself (Rom 13:9). But we digress, in a good way.
Consider truth. What is it? It seems that John here is speaking of an absolute truth. A truth, or Truth, that everyone can regard as such. Truth that does not depend on anything. What is this? We are not given anymore detail from this verse, other than that it can be found in the Word. But we know that truth as we use the term means something that is real, that is reliable, that would apply in every situation. The concept of truth by definition would mean that whatever it is, it always is. The minute one thinks that a truth is at one time, but is not at another, it would contradict the strict meaning of truth. Truth should always be. It is as eternal as God is, as previously mentioned. And as such, might we think that then, the only real truth, is the truth of Himself. His being? Stark constrast to the current subjective truth ideas. Is truth an emergent property of collective consciousness? No. Because that would mean it depends on the collective. Is the idea of truth a product of collective consciousness? Maybe. But then who can show that it is not itself a true concept. Yet, think of the Word, and John's claim. The Word was, and is, full of truth. John simply states it with no reference to any collective idea. We must pause and consider this deeply. Is he stating an idea from the collective consciousness simply as one of the partakers? Yet, he had evidence, for all the ideas in John, John saw those ideas fulfilled in the Word. When collective ideas are fulfilled, it is a scary thing...a scary thing to the beholder, the one who realizes the fulfillment, and to those who would realize it because of the testimony of the one who witnesses.
Consider grace. What is it? As we know it, grace speaks of acceptance, approachability, beauty, fluidity. Someone defined grace as getting that which we do not deserve. In our interactions, do we not see the lack of such qualities? We are constantly trying to define ourselves in term of boundaries, personality, distinguishing ourselves from others in a struggle to be known. We are constantly wanting to get what we think we deserve, and not giving others what we think they do not. Yet the Word is full of grace. Is this not the ultimate expression of one's being, to acknowledge the being of others in the fullest possible way, that is, to consider them higher than the self. To serve them. To give to them. To accept them. And in so doing, we express ourselves in relationship to them. For if we only consider ourselves, what do we have to verify our own being with? And that relationship with others, it cannot be one of selfishness and self-obsession, the opposite of grace. For if so, we would annhilate the other, and end up with only ourselves. Which would be an unreasonable state. But of course, grace is more than this negative perspective.
Grace is positive. Just as truth is positive. Just as light is positive. There is creative power, propagation, influence, revelation, release, transformation, growth, and all these are tied to His glory. So there are two things here. Truth. Independent of everything else, having its own being. And grace. The fullest expression of that being in relation to others.
Recall the tabernacle during the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites after their exodus from Egypt. Then, the tabernacle was the vessel for God's glory as He dwelt among the Israelites during their journey. The tabernacle was made from various materials, each having their symbolism as well as purpose. But here, here is no longer symbolism, there is no more analogy. This is the reality of those former shadows (Heb 10:1).
There is in our culture, the idea that flesh is evil, and not good. Yet, the glory of God was beheld in the form of flesh. What is glory? Even more specifically, what is His glory? There is always the idea of brightness, weight, presence. Glory. Some might think it to be about fame or credit, as we are prone to say, "He takes all the glory for himself". But that is but one aspect of the idea of glory. For throughout the old testament, glory seemed to be consistently used to represent the presence of individuals that are great, that have done great things, that are distinct in their otherness compared to us. And glory is mostly used to refer to rulers, like kings and their glory. It is also applied to men and their glory. Their presence, their legacy. It is intimately tied to their being. Where the life within them is so influential, it spills out as glory. And in contradiction to our thoughts about the evil flesh, the flesh of the Word was the vessel for His glory. How wonderful this revelation, this release, that our flesh too then, the same flesh as for the Word, has the possibility to contain or be the medium through which His glory can be known.
"...begotten of the Father..."
The Son of God. The very product of Father. One is not the Father without offspring. He would only be a being. Yet, now we have a revelation. He is the Father. First to the Word, and we will learn later, to us all who believe and have been adopted. This means that in the Word, is the essence of the Father. In the Word, the Father is seen, because His essence is at work. If God has an offspring, a true one, would that offspring not also be God? Although we are created by God, we are not true offsprings. But if one were to stem from God, He would be God as well. Not another one, but the same One. For there cannot be more than one God. By definition, there can be only One God. This is the mystery and must be deeply considered.
"...full of grace and truth."
Grace and truth! Consider the state of interpersonal values and situations that we experience. If we were to arrive at a plain summary, we might find that if there are many problems in these relationships, from the lowest to highest levels, from person-to-person, one-to-many, many-to-many, group-to-group, if there are any problems, they are due to a lack of grace and truth. Because we do not trust others, and they do not trust us, at least not completely. Because we do not show grace to others, nor are they gracious to us, again, at least not completly. But here, John states, that the Word is full of grace and truth. This cannot be repeated enough. If we are searching for truth, because of the various voices that speak in our world, we will find it in the Word. If we are looking for grace, because of the unforgiving, methodical, procedural operations of the world, we will find it in the Word. Again, contrast this to the Law. Law versus Word. The Law of Moses was written on stone, with words. Yet, here is the Word, but instead of the rigid, prescriptive tone seen in the Law, we see life, light, grace and truth. How can this be? Are they inconsistent? No. For, as it is said, all the Law and the Prophets are summed up in one commandment: love your neighbor as yourself (Rom 13:9). But we digress, in a good way.
Consider truth. What is it? It seems that John here is speaking of an absolute truth. A truth, or Truth, that everyone can regard as such. Truth that does not depend on anything. What is this? We are not given anymore detail from this verse, other than that it can be found in the Word. But we know that truth as we use the term means something that is real, that is reliable, that would apply in every situation. The concept of truth by definition would mean that whatever it is, it always is. The minute one thinks that a truth is at one time, but is not at another, it would contradict the strict meaning of truth. Truth should always be. It is as eternal as God is, as previously mentioned. And as such, might we think that then, the only real truth, is the truth of Himself. His being? Stark constrast to the current subjective truth ideas. Is truth an emergent property of collective consciousness? No. Because that would mean it depends on the collective. Is the idea of truth a product of collective consciousness? Maybe. But then who can show that it is not itself a true concept. Yet, think of the Word, and John's claim. The Word was, and is, full of truth. John simply states it with no reference to any collective idea. We must pause and consider this deeply. Is he stating an idea from the collective consciousness simply as one of the partakers? Yet, he had evidence, for all the ideas in John, John saw those ideas fulfilled in the Word. When collective ideas are fulfilled, it is a scary thing...a scary thing to the beholder, the one who realizes the fulfillment, and to those who would realize it because of the testimony of the one who witnesses.
Consider grace. What is it? As we know it, grace speaks of acceptance, approachability, beauty, fluidity. Someone defined grace as getting that which we do not deserve. In our interactions, do we not see the lack of such qualities? We are constantly trying to define ourselves in term of boundaries, personality, distinguishing ourselves from others in a struggle to be known. We are constantly wanting to get what we think we deserve, and not giving others what we think they do not. Yet the Word is full of grace. Is this not the ultimate expression of one's being, to acknowledge the being of others in the fullest possible way, that is, to consider them higher than the self. To serve them. To give to them. To accept them. And in so doing, we express ourselves in relationship to them. For if we only consider ourselves, what do we have to verify our own being with? And that relationship with others, it cannot be one of selfishness and self-obsession, the opposite of grace. For if so, we would annhilate the other, and end up with only ourselves. Which would be an unreasonable state. But of course, grace is more than this negative perspective.
Grace is positive. Just as truth is positive. Just as light is positive. There is creative power, propagation, influence, revelation, release, transformation, growth, and all these are tied to His glory. So there are two things here. Truth. Independent of everything else, having its own being. And grace. The fullest expression of that being in relation to others.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
John 1:6-13
"...a man sent from God...John...witness of the Light...believe."
John the baptist. Strange man. From Matthew 3:1-17, Mark 1:1-11, and Luke 3, we obtain the general description of a man who lived quite unlike the others in his generation. He lived in the wilderness, wore camel's hair with a leather belt, and ate locusts and wild honey. His main message was "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins". This is significant. Consider John the baptist, since he was sent from God as a witness of the Light. How was he a witness? Why was he chosen? Is there even a reason he was chosen or did he grow into that role?
Consider the saying from Isaiah 40:3-5. This is the passage whose context is to speak comfort and deliverance to the people of Israel. There is also the very telling statement "The glory of the Lord shall be revealed". And John is the voice of one crying in the wilderness, "Prepare the way...make straight in the desert". Get ready! How many were unaware? How many did not comprehend the light? But more on this in later passages.
The key points in these verses seem to be about the testimony to some facts or revelations about the Light. The Light gives light to every man, the Light was not known by the world, the Light was not received by His own, those who received the Light by believing in His name, are given the right to become children of God. This is an expansion of the earlier verses. From the original idea that the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness not comprehending, John the author develops the idea of how the Light shines in the darkness.
The Light was in the world. Now, the Maker of the world is in it. Yet He was not recognized, He was not known. This is the tragedy. What has gone wrong that the world does not know its Maker? As a child does not know his or her parents. But John does not stop here, for although the world, His own, did not know Him or receive Him, those who did receive Him received something in return. And here, there is the idea of spiritual birthhood into being a child of God.
Now when we talk of spiritual birth, we refer to something fundamental, something to do with souls. For we are not talking about physical bodily birthing, but divine birthing. We are born of God. For all physical births are reflections of what is happening spiritually. A new soul is born. A new being. A new life. However, that life apart from The Life, and The Light, is sadly, because of our ignorance of Him, our lack of knowledge of Him, our non-reception of Him, that life is still just as good as death. For consider its eternal futility apart from The Light.
Yet, the good news is that if that life were to receive Him, then, there is a spiritual birth as well. One by God's own will. Consider the fundamental, qualitative difference that is now in place between these two lives. Is it a continuum? As in are there "better" lives and "worse" ones? Are not all equal? Good or bad? All die. The only distinction then must be what is eternal. Do you know the Eternal One? And, just as importantly, does the Eternal One know you?
John the baptist. Strange man. From Matthew 3:1-17, Mark 1:1-11, and Luke 3, we obtain the general description of a man who lived quite unlike the others in his generation. He lived in the wilderness, wore camel's hair with a leather belt, and ate locusts and wild honey. His main message was "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins". This is significant. Consider John the baptist, since he was sent from God as a witness of the Light. How was he a witness? Why was he chosen? Is there even a reason he was chosen or did he grow into that role?
Consider the saying from Isaiah 40:3-5. This is the passage whose context is to speak comfort and deliverance to the people of Israel. There is also the very telling statement "The glory of the Lord shall be revealed". And John is the voice of one crying in the wilderness, "Prepare the way...make straight in the desert". Get ready! How many were unaware? How many did not comprehend the light? But more on this in later passages.
The key points in these verses seem to be about the testimony to some facts or revelations about the Light. The Light gives light to every man, the Light was not known by the world, the Light was not received by His own, those who received the Light by believing in His name, are given the right to become children of God. This is an expansion of the earlier verses. From the original idea that the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness not comprehending, John the author develops the idea of how the Light shines in the darkness.
The Light was in the world. Now, the Maker of the world is in it. Yet He was not recognized, He was not known. This is the tragedy. What has gone wrong that the world does not know its Maker? As a child does not know his or her parents. But John does not stop here, for although the world, His own, did not know Him or receive Him, those who did receive Him received something in return. And here, there is the idea of spiritual birthhood into being a child of God.
Now when we talk of spiritual birth, we refer to something fundamental, something to do with souls. For we are not talking about physical bodily birthing, but divine birthing. We are born of God. For all physical births are reflections of what is happening spiritually. A new soul is born. A new being. A new life. However, that life apart from The Life, and The Light, is sadly, because of our ignorance of Him, our lack of knowledge of Him, our non-reception of Him, that life is still just as good as death. For consider its eternal futility apart from The Light.
Yet, the good news is that if that life were to receive Him, then, there is a spiritual birth as well. One by God's own will. Consider the fundamental, qualitative difference that is now in place between these two lives. Is it a continuum? As in are there "better" lives and "worse" ones? Are not all equal? Good or bad? All die. The only distinction then must be what is eternal. Do you know the Eternal One? And, just as importantly, does the Eternal One know you?
Fall Chao and Qiu
So the color all change already. The wind blowing very strong. All the leaf fall down, like raining orange like that. Then when you walk, the floor got dry leaves, you make the shee shee sha sha sound. Very fun. But then a little bit cold lah. Probably around 15C. I like. This one all take while walking along Springfield, Elm, Prairie, White. So you see, all very nice nice like that. But then ah, its means its going to become very the cold lor. Already some qiu botak already. Ah, got poem come out.
Bua Toh
Wind blow blow
Color red red
Orange orange
Yellow yellow
Floor sha sha
Light warm warm
Air cold cold
Leaf bua toh bua toh
Bua Toh
Wind blow blow
Color red red
Orange orange
Yellow yellow
Floor sha sha
Light warm warm
Air cold cold
Leaf bua toh bua toh
Friday, October 27, 2006
Time travel back to CNS 2006
Another time travel back one lah. Sorry ah. Very very busy. But I got put you should xie tian xie di already. This one is for the CNS conference in San Francisco. Very good! Also got chiak hong, but this one even better, can chiak hai also. See the golden gate, the pier 39, or issit 36? Aiyah, same same lah. 30 something lah. Then also, the whole lab got drunk. Yah man. Fun right? Dun worry lah, we know what we doing. Is good one. Here is some movie clip: CNS San Francisco 2006 [movie].
Time travel back to SFN 2005
Acherly hor, this one is last year happen one lah. But now then I put up. Because busy mah. But anyway, we go there for conference lah. And then one day, got some time, me and Lucas go there to chiak hong. Then see here see there lor. Not bad lah. Can see all these famous places. Only cannot see peh chu very clearly (check out my pics for Washington)...good lah...then like that is more safe for them. But ah, I thought I saw a sniper on the roof leh! Wah lau! I felt a little insecure...look carefully on my pics for the peh chu. You can see shadow...maybe ninja...maybe only lah. Also got movie: SFN Washington DC 2005 [movie]
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Tofu Fa Man!
Liao Chor! I make one. Not bad at all...and the fried bee hoon. Bah tor yiao liao! Jia bng!
Here is the recipes (I give recipe no milligram one ah, just go by feeling lah):
Tofu Fa
Ingredients
Soya bean (2 handfuls)
Water (one pot)
Muslin cloth (go get from the fabric auntie, very cheap one, get white color hor, don't fancy fancy, if not your tow huay got color)
Soya bean curd agglutination powder (buy from the bai huo gong si)
Make
Soak the soya beans in the water over night. Go to sleep. Tomorrow then continue.
Wake up already, pour the soya beans and water mixture into a blender, and blend. Blend blend ga li song. Then pour the mix into the muslin cloth. Then squeeze the juice out of the mix in the muslin cloth into a pot. Then boil the pot of juice, get rid of the foam. This is the tow huay jui. Can drink one. Add sugar if you want when you drink.
Then mix the agglutination powder with cold water, one pack of powder put about 1/4 pot of water. Mix until powder all dissolve. Then pour the tow huay jui into the powder water and cover the pot. Let it stand for at least 15 min. Afterward, it become tow huay, or TOFU FA!
Cha Bee Hoon
Ingredients
Tang Hoon (3 packs)
Straw mushroom or shiitake also can (2 handful sliced)
Chilli (as much as you want, whole or chopped up to you, whole better lah)
Cabbage (half head sliced)
Carrot (one big one, sliced)
Egg (2 or 3 beaten)
Meat base (can be pork, chicken slices, or that fake crab stick sliced also can, or don't put meat also can)
Celery (2 or 3 sticks sliced)
Vinegar, rice wine, soya sauce, salt, sesame oil
Make
Boil the tang hoon until soft, then dry and put aside first.
Mix half cup vinegar, half cup rice wine, 1/4 cup soya sauce, a little bit of sesame oil.
Pour some oil into wok and fry some garlice, ginger, shallots (all chopped).
Wait until slightly golden color. Then put the chilli. Stir fry a while.
Then put the cabbage and carrot. Stir fry until the mix shrink a little and softer.
Then put the celery and the meat base if have. Stir fry until meat cooked.
Then put the tang hoon in. Maybe very long and dry, but patient lah. Chop up the tang hoon as you mix it into the stir fry.
Add the egg. Keep mixing. Wait until the egg solidy in small bits in the mix.
Add the vinegar/wine/soya sauce/sesame oil mix. Mix.
Add salt until you like the taste, or don't add also can.
Cha Bee Hoon win oredi.
Gluttons Bay, SG
The new eatery beside the Durian. Not bad lah. A bit the ex, but then good view lor. Also as usual got many people lah. Some more the esplanade there like every night now got something happening. So if you wan go then better be early lor.
Gluttons Bay (movie clip)
The good old kopi loti!
Ah...the good old days. Nothing beats a nong nong de kopi-o. Half boiled eggs and kaya toast. That's all you need to get your day going.
This pic taken before heading for church service one Sunday morning.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Mid-Autumn 2006
Mid-Autumn in Hessel Park, Champaign (movie clip)
Chuang qian ming yue guang
The moon big big.
The air cold cold.
The meat sweet sweet.
The grill hot hot.
The people talk talk.
The tea smell smell.
The time slow slow.
The day gone gone.
Hungry already.
The Chicago Jazz Festival 2006
Chicago Jazz! (movie clip) Very fun. Got music, got beer, got sit on the chao in the windy city. Is good. Some more best! Is FREE! They very crazy one. One time got two jazz organ ah, they play lai play ki. Plus they got showmanship. Not say I say what lah, but they damn good lor. Can go must go. Don't go you lugi.
Aging effects on visual object, background and binding processing
Earlier, we saw different brain regions involved in object, background and binding processing. Now, we see if these regions might be engaged differently in older adults. Older adults typically show poorer episodic memory but relatively preserved item processing that does not require episodic or contextual access. Might this be due to a reduced engagement of binding processes in the MTL of older adults?
We found that not only is MTL reduced, but older adults seemed to not process the entire visual stimuli in the same way as young adults. In particular, older adults seem to process only background components of the pictures while somewhat treating the objects less attentively. Abstract: Age-related changes in object processing and contextual binding revealed using fMR adaptation.
So we know that at least part of the changes in aging might be related to the partial processing of the entire picture rather than the entire central item and context. Next, we turn to consider what are some of the factors that might lead to these changes with age.
We found that not only is MTL reduced, but older adults seemed to not process the entire visual stimuli in the same way as young adults. In particular, older adults seem to process only background components of the pictures while somewhat treating the objects less attentively. Abstract: Age-related changes in object processing and contextual binding revealed using fMR adaptation.
So we know that at least part of the changes in aging might be related to the partial processing of the entire picture rather than the entire central item and context. Next, we turn to consider what are some of the factors that might lead to these changes with age.
Binding information about items and their contexts
So we know frequency has bearing on how the brain works during semantic judgments, encoding, and retrieval. Now, we take a look more specifically at how the brain does the work of binding the item to information about its occurrence for subsequent memory. Previously, we showed that if you had to engage the brain more during encoding, you are more likely to remember the item's occurrence. Now, we are interested in where in the brain this occurrence information or contextual information about the item is processed.
We looked at pictures for this inquiry instead of words because they afforded more relevant ways of manipulating the stimuli, as well as the ability to test these items more easily in other sample groups of people as will become apparent later on.
When looking at pictures of objects in background scenes, we are able to process information about the identity of the object, the content or spatial layout of the background. Furthermore, we form the binding between object and background that relates to information about their co-occurrence. The brain regions involved in these respective processes are the lateral occipital complex (LOC), the parahippocampal place area (PPA), and the medial temporal regions (MTL) that includes a different region of the parahippocampal gyrus and the hippocampus. Abstract: Cortical areas involved in object, background, and object-background processing revealed with functional magnetic resonance adaptation.
Thus, we know that the brain processes the component item information and their contextual binding in seperate regions. These then give us clues about how these different regions might operate differently across people groups that show different memory behavior and/or processing of visual stimuli.
We looked at pictures for this inquiry instead of words because they afforded more relevant ways of manipulating the stimuli, as well as the ability to test these items more easily in other sample groups of people as will become apparent later on.
When looking at pictures of objects in background scenes, we are able to process information about the identity of the object, the content or spatial layout of the background. Furthermore, we form the binding between object and background that relates to information about their co-occurrence. The brain regions involved in these respective processes are the lateral occipital complex (LOC), the parahippocampal place area (PPA), and the medial temporal regions (MTL) that includes a different region of the parahippocampal gyrus and the hippocampus. Abstract: Cortical areas involved in object, background, and object-background processing revealed with functional magnetic resonance adaptation.
Thus, we know that the brain processes the component item information and their contextual binding in seperate regions. These then give us clues about how these different regions might operate differently across people groups that show different memory behavior and/or processing of visual stimuli.
Frequency, memory formation, memory retrieval or access
Once we know that the brain works differently when making semantic judgments about words encountered with different frequencies, we can ask how the brain processes these words so that information about them can be accessed later. So, with regards to frequency, why is it that when asked to recall word lists, we tend to recall more frequent items, whereas when asked to recognize word lists, we do it better for less frequent items. Clearly, something about the previous history of these words of different frequency of encounters has an affect on the way information about a specific encounter of these words is retrieved later.
First, we can look at what the brain does differently for words of high and low frequency that leads to different memory access. In sum, the brain seems to be more active during semantic judgments for words that are later recognized. Furthermore, these words that are more active tend to be the low frequency words. Perhaps, because we have to work harder at making semantic distinctions for such words, we end up enhancing their recent representation. This makes it easier for them to be retrieved later for recogntion. Abstract: Word frequency and subsequent memory effects studied using event-related fMRI.
Next, we look at how the brain handles these words during recognition itself. Perhaps during this stage, other processes additively or interactively affect the resulting recognition response. The mechanism might operate in this manner: the top-down criteria is made active (words that appeared at a particular point in time), probe words are encountered and identified, information for these words are matched to the active set, a decision is made about the recognition memory for the word. In sum, word frequency of the test words seen during encoding did not affect brain activity differentially, however, word frequency of new words not seen at encoding did make a difference to brain activity. That is, high frequency novel words activated the parietal region more than low frequency words when subjects recognized them as such. Abstract: Recognition memory for studied words is determined by cortical activation differences at encoding but not during retrieval.
So once we encode the word recently, the word frequency does not matter anymore, at least to the recognition judgment. What matters in the recognition is trace of recency or specific time information associated with the probe word. This, presumably, is not dependent on the frequency history of the word. However, if the word is not encountered before, word frequency seems to make a difference in the parietal area, an area that is involved in attention modulation and visualization. Perhaps, the higher activity for high frequency words in this case marks the more connected representation of high frequency words compared to low frequency words. Sort of an automatic engagement of the relatively wider spread of activation for high frequency words.
First, we can look at what the brain does differently for words of high and low frequency that leads to different memory access. In sum, the brain seems to be more active during semantic judgments for words that are later recognized. Furthermore, these words that are more active tend to be the low frequency words. Perhaps, because we have to work harder at making semantic distinctions for such words, we end up enhancing their recent representation. This makes it easier for them to be retrieved later for recogntion. Abstract: Word frequency and subsequent memory effects studied using event-related fMRI.
Next, we look at how the brain handles these words during recognition itself. Perhaps during this stage, other processes additively or interactively affect the resulting recognition response. The mechanism might operate in this manner: the top-down criteria is made active (words that appeared at a particular point in time), probe words are encountered and identified, information for these words are matched to the active set, a decision is made about the recognition memory for the word. In sum, word frequency of the test words seen during encoding did not affect brain activity differentially, however, word frequency of new words not seen at encoding did make a difference to brain activity. That is, high frequency novel words activated the parietal region more than low frequency words when subjects recognized them as such. Abstract: Recognition memory for studied words is determined by cortical activation differences at encoding but not during retrieval.
So once we encode the word recently, the word frequency does not matter anymore, at least to the recognition judgment. What matters in the recognition is trace of recency or specific time information associated with the probe word. This, presumably, is not dependent on the frequency history of the word. However, if the word is not encountered before, word frequency seems to make a difference in the parietal area, an area that is involved in attention modulation and visualization. Perhaps, the higher activity for high frequency words in this case marks the more connected representation of high frequency words compared to low frequency words. Sort of an automatic engagement of the relatively wider spread of activation for high frequency words.
Word Frequency and brain activity
One of the basic forms of information that our brains are sensitive to, is the number of times we encounter an external event. This is most easily seen in examples of learning. Such as, the more we practice doing something, it becomes easier, we get faster at doing it, and even more accurate. Another example is that the more we encounter a specific information about an item or concept, we know a little more about it, maybe in a different way, maybe in a clearer way. Prior knowledge is updated.
The brain probably represents this frequency information in terms of changes in individual neuronal activity and inter-neuronal connectivity. In terms of internal neuronal changes, neurons may form more synapses that facilitate the generation of an action potential. There might also be reductions in synapses, leading to inhibitory type responses or de-potentiation. In terms of inter-neuronal connectivity, neurons may form more synapses with other neurons, axons may travel along certain paths in order to reach target brain regions, neuronal branching becomes more dense, or even less dense depending on the nature of the stimulation and connection. In all these cases, frequency of encountering stimuli, represented as frequency of individual neurons and networks of neurons being stimulated, leads to changes in neuronal structure and activity.
We start with an evaluation of how frequency of encountering words changes the way our brains respond when trying to access semantic information about those words. By semantic information, we typically refer to all associative information (neuronal connections) that are involved when we make an inclusion/exclusion categorizing judgment. In theory, we make these judgments by first evoking a set of semantic restrictions that define the target categories and keep this set active. We then identify the words, retrieve connections of these words, then match these retrieved connections to the active restriction set. This can proceed in a top-down/bottom-up competition type mechanism whereby bottom-up perceptual information about the word representation (lexical features, semantic associative strength and density) have to be resolved with the top-down imperative to match or not match the active semantic set relevant to the task.
In sum, the brain has to work harder for words encountered less frequently during such semantic judgments. Abstract: Frequency of concrete words modulates prefrontal activation during semantic judgments.
Perhaps, while low frequency should have fewer connections than high frequency words, since they have not had that much opportunity to form these connections due to the sparsity of their occurrence, the brain compensates their lack of obvious semantic associations by engaging more neuronal processing (particularly in the frontal regions). This may mark the recurrent search or matching effort to decide the category for the probe word.
The brain probably represents this frequency information in terms of changes in individual neuronal activity and inter-neuronal connectivity. In terms of internal neuronal changes, neurons may form more synapses that facilitate the generation of an action potential. There might also be reductions in synapses, leading to inhibitory type responses or de-potentiation. In terms of inter-neuronal connectivity, neurons may form more synapses with other neurons, axons may travel along certain paths in order to reach target brain regions, neuronal branching becomes more dense, or even less dense depending on the nature of the stimulation and connection. In all these cases, frequency of encountering stimuli, represented as frequency of individual neurons and networks of neurons being stimulated, leads to changes in neuronal structure and activity.
We start with an evaluation of how frequency of encountering words changes the way our brains respond when trying to access semantic information about those words. By semantic information, we typically refer to all associative information (neuronal connections) that are involved when we make an inclusion/exclusion categorizing judgment. In theory, we make these judgments by first evoking a set of semantic restrictions that define the target categories and keep this set active. We then identify the words, retrieve connections of these words, then match these retrieved connections to the active restriction set. This can proceed in a top-down/bottom-up competition type mechanism whereby bottom-up perceptual information about the word representation (lexical features, semantic associative strength and density) have to be resolved with the top-down imperative to match or not match the active semantic set relevant to the task.
In sum, the brain has to work harder for words encountered less frequently during such semantic judgments. Abstract: Frequency of concrete words modulates prefrontal activation during semantic judgments.
Perhaps, while low frequency should have fewer connections than high frequency words, since they have not had that much opportunity to form these connections due to the sparsity of their occurrence, the brain compensates their lack of obvious semantic associations by engaging more neuronal processing (particularly in the frontal regions). This may mark the recurrent search or matching effort to decide the category for the probe word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)